States Meeting Transcript - 19/07/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 19th JULY 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION...........................................................4

1. Composition of the States: referendum (P.86/2007) .....................................4

The Bailiff :....................................................................................4 Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:............................................................4 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ......................................................................4 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour : ..........................................................4 Senator J.L. Perchard:..........................................................................4 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.........................................................................5 The Bailiff :....................................................................................5 Senator J.L. Perchard:..........................................................................5 Senator L. Norman: ............................................................................5 The Bailiff :....................................................................................5 Senator J.L. Perchard:..........................................................................6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ......................................................................6 The Bailiff :....................................................................................6 Senator J.L. Perchard:..........................................................................7 Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:...............................................................7 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:..............................................................9 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.........................................................................9 Senator S. Syvret:..............................................................................9 The Bailiff :....................................................................................9 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ......................................................................9 The Bailiff :....................................................................................9 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................10 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................10 The Bailiff :...................................................................................10

2. Composition and Election of the States Assembly: election dates for Connétable s (P.54/2007)...............................................................................11

The Bailiff :...................................................................................11 The Connétable of St. Peter:..................................................................11 Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:.........................................................12 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement:........................................................12 Miss. S.C. Nicolle Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:.............................................12 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:......................................................13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour : .....................................................13 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..........................................................14 The Bailiff :...................................................................................14 Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :........................................................14 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................14 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:.........................................................15 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................16 Senator L. Norman: ..........................................................................16 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................17 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................18 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:.....................................................19 Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ................................................................19 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:............................................................19 Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary:........................................................19 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................20 The Bailiff :...................................................................................20 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................20 The Solicitor General:........................................................................21 Deputy K.C. Lewis :..........................................................................21 The Solicitor General:........................................................................21 The Bailiff :...................................................................................21 Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade:.............................................................21 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:.....................................................22

Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................23 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................23 Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:............................................................24 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:..............................................................24 Senator F.H. Walker (Chief Minister):........................................................25 Deputy P.N. Troy : ............................................................................26 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................26 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ..............................................................26 The Bailiff :...................................................................................26 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ................................................................26 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................27 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ..................................................27 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:................................................................27 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................28 The Connétable of St. Peter:..................................................................28 The Bailiff :...................................................................................30

3. La Carrière redevelopment and rock face stabilisation works (P.78/2007)............31

The Bailiff :...................................................................................31 Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................32 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................32 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:..............................................................32 Senator T.J. Le Main: ........................................................................32 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.....................................................................32 Senator J.A. Hilton: ..........................................................................33

4. Draft Financial Services Amendment of Law (Jersey Regulations) 2000 (P.79/2007).33 The Bailiff :...................................................................................33

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................33 5. Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.88/2007)..34

The Bailiff :...................................................................................34 Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................34 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................35

[Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................35 The Bailiff :...................................................................................35

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS....................................................35 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................35 The Bailiff :...................................................................................35 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................35 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................36 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan: ..........................................................................37 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................37 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................37 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................37 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................38 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................38 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................39 Deputy P.N. Troy : ............................................................................39 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................39 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................40 Connétable P.F. Ozouf of St. Saviour : ........................................................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................40

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................40

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION

1. Composition of the States: referendum (P.86/2007)

The Bailiff :

May I first of all say, although I think Members have already expressed their views, how delighted we are to see the Connétable of St. Saviour take his seat on the last occasion before his retirement. We salute his courage and his fortitude and I know that I speak for all Members without exception when I say that he will carry from the Chamber the affection and the very best wishes of us all. I know that if the Connétable should wish to address the Assembly during his last meeting he will be at liberty to do so from his seat. Now we come then to the proposition - or we return to the proposition of Senator Perchard --

The Bailiff :

I had the opportunity of discussing with the Greffier before the meeting resumed the provisions of paragraph (e) of the proposition and I think that Members ought to be aware and Senator Perchard, the proposer of the motion, perhaps might like to consider this in due course while perhaps other Members are speaking. It does seem to me that paragraph (e) of the proposition is difficult to reconcile with the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s. If the Assembly agrees that all 48 Members of the States should be elected on a single election day and for a common term of 4 years, it seems to me difficult then to debate the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s.

Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter :

On that matter, would it be permissible perhaps to withdraw that part (a)(ii) of the proposition? In doing so it would retain the thrust of the proposition and all that would be required for it to fall in line with whatever decision would be made as to the future position allied to Deputies and Senators whereby then they would either remain as they are in 3 years or they would indeed increase to 4 years.

The Bailiff :

It does seem to me realistically that Members have a choice between approving the proposition of Senator Perchard which agrees that these different options should be put to the public in a referendum and approving the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s which provides very specific changes in terms of the 12 Parish Connétable s. It does not seem to me that Members can have it both ways and I just need to draw that to Members' attention before any voting takes place on the proposition of Senator Perchard.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

May I raise a point of order, Sir? Just for clarity because I believe there might have been some Members out of Chamber at the time, but during my speech yesterday I pointed out that there was a discrepancy in also section (f), Sir, and the Greffier did announce that it had been withdrawn.

The Bailiff :

Yes, paragraph (f) as I understand it, has been withdrawn by Senator Perchard.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

It does seem, Sir, if we are going to be logically consistent that in that case perhaps (a)(ii) should be rejected as well. Because (a)(ii) was part of the previous P.75 and a referendum was being asked under (c) for (a)(i) and (ii).

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Can we be clear as to (a)(ii) appears on both the proposition of mine and the proposition lodged by the Comité des Connétable s, can we be clear as to which we are talking about?

The Bailiff :

I see, yes. I assume that Deputy Duhamel is talking about paragraph (a)(ii) of this proposition under debate. Is that correct?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

It did appear in the previous P.75 as well, so if we are going to be consistent in declaring through the Chair, Sir, that one part is out of order, then indeed perhaps the other part should be as well.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I think the view of the Greffier, having reminded me of the discussion we had some weeks ago, the view that I took when the proposition of Senator Perchard was approved was that there was a distinction between approving some of these propositions, for example (a)(i), (a)(ii) and even (a)(iv) and then putting those issues to the public by way of a referendum. I think one could say that the Assembly has rejected more than one of these different paragraphs in the decisions that have been taken over the previous days. But what is now under consideration is whether, notwithstanding that, all these options should now be put to the public in the form of a referendum. What I am saying to the Assembly this morning is that I find it difficult to reconcile the proposition of Senator Perchard in certain respects with the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s and if Members are attracted to the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s, then I think they need to consider that in the context of this proposition of Senator Perchard. I do not think Members can have it both ways. Is this a point of order?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes, Sir, it is. You have explained that you find it difficult to reconcile the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s with paragraph (e) of my proposition?

The Bailiff : Yes.

Senator J.L. Perchard: Would you explain as to why?

The Bailiff :

If the Assembly adopts your proposition, Senator, including paragraph (e), they will be agreeing that these options and the proposition that all 48 Members of the States should be elected on a single election day for a common term of office for 4 years should be put to the public. What the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s asks the Assembly to agree is that the Connétable s should be elected for a period of 4 years and, if the Assembly has approved the proposition, that this should be put to the public, but there is no point in putting that matter to the public as the States will already have approved it. But I am sorry and the Greffier points out that there is a further conflict which is the reference to a single election day and the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s which talks about a day which is neither the election day for Senators nor the election day for Deputies.

Senator L. Norman:

I do not want to prolong this, but I just wonder if perhaps we are not being just a little bit pedantic. In fact paragraph (e) has got nothing to do with the referendum. What Senator Perchard is asking for is a referendum only on paragraph (a). Paragraph (e) is simply that this should happen if we have a single election day and there is also another fault in there of course, Sir, because it talks about 48 Members where, in fact, we do have 53.

The Bailiff :

I appreciate that, Senator, but these are propositions which the Assembly is being asked to approve and is then being asked to go on to debate something which is inconsistent. I do not think the Assembly can do that. The Assembly can certainly approve the proposition of Senator Perchard, but I think then the proposition of the Comité des Connétable s must be withdrawn.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

May I make another point of order, Sir? The purpose of paragraph (e) in my proposition is exactly to do what it says, it is to create a single election day. I do not agree that the Constables should be elected on a different day to that of the House. I purposely want a single election day, a General Election and so I am prepared to run with this, Sir, and test the mood of the House.

The Bailiff :

That  is  perfectly  proper,  Senator.   I  am  just  pointing  out  that  if  the  Assembly  adopts  this proposition,  then  I  do  not  think  it  can  go  on  to  debate  the  proposition  of  the  Comité des Connétable s.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I test the mood of the House, Sir? Could we put a proposition that the States move to the next item, please? I think this has become so entangled and flawed that it is not now a workable solution.

The Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Very well, the proposition of Deputy Le Claire is that the Assembly moves to consideration of the next item on the Order Paper and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

POUR: 13

Connétable of Trinity Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. John Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy A. Breckon (S) Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H) Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy A.J.D. Maclean (H) Deputy of St. Mary

CONTRE: 29 ABSTAIN: 0 Senator S. Syvret

Senator L. Norman

Senator T.A. Le Sueur

Senator P.F. Routier

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Senator T.J. Le Main

Senator B.E. Shenton

Senator F.E. Cohen

Senator J.L. Perchard

Connétable of St. Saviour

Connétable of St. Mary

Connétable of St. Peter

Connétable of St. Clement

Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

Deputy P.N. Troy (B)

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)

Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy J.A. Martin (H)

Deputy G.P. Southern (H)

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H)

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L)

Deputy S. Pitman (H)

Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)

Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)

The Bailiff :

The debate continues on the proposition of Senator Perchard. Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon Senator Perchard to reply.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I suspected this might be the case overnight, Sir, when we were in full swing yesterday with Deputy Le Claire finishing us off literally. Sir, Senator Norman in his speech yesterday said that he would have  hoped that the States  would have provided  a more  positive  lead with greater  clarity of direction with a referendum proposal. He expressed some disappointment that we were not more positive yesterday. But quite rightly and very importantly he said that this proposition maintains some momentum for reforming the make up of this Assembly and that he would support it. I thank the Senator for his promise of support. The Deputy of St. Mary was obviously very disappointed that PPC's (Privileges and Procedures Committee) super constituency proposal did not find favour with the House. Her speech really reflected her disappointment. She pointed out that the States, if they were to approve my proposition today, would be asking 2 of the very same questions that we rejected yesterday. I say to the Deputy that my proposition includes her favoured PPC super constituency option and that being the case, she really now should support this proposition as it gives those people she represents the chance to agree with her --

Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

May I just clarify, if the Senator will give way, I was not expressing my disappointment, Sir, with the outcome of the previous vote, merely that the Senator was persisting with the putting of this motion.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Further example of the Deputy 's disappointment, Sir. So, the point is that she should really support this proposition now as it gives those that she represents the chance to agree with her and should they do so in significant numbers this House would be compelled to take heed of the public's opinion on her particular favourite proposal for reform. Even though, I have to say, that I very much doubt the general public would favour PPC's super constituency proposal as I expect they would not wish to play the game of chance; a game of Russian Roulette with our precious parochial system. Deputy Troy was extraordinarily disappointed with the outcome of yesterday's debate. He was so extraordinarily disappointed he kept on telling us he was extraordinarily disappointed. Unfortunately his contribution was extraordinarily disappointing. Senator Ozouf thought that he may be inclined to offer his support but wanted a status quo option. I think, Sir, it would be appropriate for me to address this matter now as many other Members expressed the similar view that the proposition was incomplete without a status quo option. The Referendum (Jersey) Law states that the States can, by Act, fix the date and text of a question or questions to be asked in a referendum. A proposition to set the details of a referendum would be brought by PPC if this proposition is adopted. I assume the PPC would  not amend the text of the questions in my proposition or indeed they would not include a status quo option. But I am advised that any Member can propose an amendment to the PPC proposition for the text of a referendum to include a status quo option. Indeed, I give notice to this Assembly, Sir, that I would do just that. Deputy de Faye said that we are elected to govern and make decisions and that is exactly what we should do. He made jokes about asking people to colour in maps indicating where they preferred their parking place. In fact in his address he made very many humorous references to what he called the namby-pamby' idea of asking those we represent for their opinion. Well, I could not disagree more. The States have repeatedly displayed their inability to make any progress on this subject. So, I say to Members why not use the option available to us; the option of a referendum? As I said in my opening speech, I do not see this as a sign of weakness; on the contrary, engaging with the public we represent is a sign of real strength. Engaging with those we represent is a positive and good thing. Deputy Fox could not see how reform could be advanced by holding a referendum. I say to Deputy Fox that if we do not hold this referendum for reform, reform is dead in the water and probably will not surface for many years. Deputy Southern made a grumpy and grizzly contribution when he said something about his valuable time being wasted. I say pot, kettle, black. Senator Syvret, like me, was confused by the Deputy of St. Mary's speech, he spoke of the overwhelming preference of many outside this House to maintain the Island-wide mandate and he challenged the Deputy of St. Mary to justify her and the Privileges and Procedures Committee's position on this matter. The good Senator's wealth of knowledge on the subject of referenda confirms my view that a referendum does not have to be a single question issue. He gave an example of Switzerland where quite complicated issues are put to referenda. I, like Senator Syvret, have every confidence in the Jersey's public ability to make choices of this type. The Senator was disappointed that the proposition did not include a transferable vote proposal. I understand why he is disappointed; he made a very good case for it. The good news is that it is not too late to do so. I remind the Senator and the House that the detail of any referendum has to be agreed by this House. Deputy Hill and Deputy Huet wanted a status quo option in my referendum; I believe I have covered that. Deputy Baudains said he had to abandon his Rolls Royce amendment for what he called this rusty old bike of a proposition. "But it is a vehicle ", he said: " and we have still got transport." He said that he would support this proposition as it maintains at least some momentum. I thank him for that. He was of the opinion that option 3 could not work. Option 3 is as written here: "An Assembly comprised of 12 Senators elected on an Island-wide basis and 36 Deputies elected on a Parish or constituency basis." The Deputy claims option 3 would not work. I cannot agree with him. It well may not find favour in a referendum, but option 3 would work as some Members, despite having the same 4-year term as their parochially elected colleagues would definitely wish to seek an Island-wide mandate. You are looking at one of them. Deputy Power agreed that the proposition maintained a momentum for reform and indicated that he would be supporting it, and I thank him for that. Deputy Le Claire's contribution to the debate was interesting. I think perhaps he spoke for a little longer than necessary and I do extend my deepest sympathy to the person who will be preparing the Hansard of his speech. He took Members through the proposition line by line in great detail. He at times was very critical of my proposition.

There were periods during his speech when the good Deputy gave me a real beating. Yes, it was painful; a real thrashing from the big Deputy with his feather duster. I have to say that I am still wincing in pain. He did however make a valid and important point about the workload of PPC and, that, in his opinion, there is far more important work for them to deal with than organising a referendum. I have little to say on this matter other than to refer the Deputy to the end of my report where I cover the matter of financial and manpower implications connected with this proposition, and I can assure the Assembly that I did communicate with the officers of the States' Greffe before submitting my report and proposition, and they are satisfied that there will be no significant financial and manpower implications attached to this proposition. However, part (b) of the proposition will undoubtedly require extra work for the States' Greffe, as there will be some urgency for PPC to produce proposals regarding the precise boundaries and size of the proposed 6 large electoral districts along with separate proposals on the distribution of 36 and 48 Deputy seats to ensure an allocation across the seats of the 12 Parishes is as equitable as possible, and this needs to be done and made publicly available at least 2 months before any referendum is held. But it is critically important that before a referendum is held those out there understand what a super constituency is; who their Parish will be linking up with; how many Deputies will they have on a Parish basis or a constituency basis. So, this work will need to be done, and if we are to have a referendum as soon as practicably possible, I warn Members that this will have to be done before then. Deputy Le Claire's feather duster nearly gave me another bruise when he spoke critically about the lack of consultation by the Constables with their parishioners. I am not sure where the good Deputy has been, but I believe the Parishes, PPC, MORI and other surveys have over the many years now consulted and consulted and consulted. I say to Members what better way to

gauge the public view on an issue than to ask them by the means of a referendum; a suitably prepared referendum, the text of which Members will have to approve. A referendum offering meaningful, workable alternatives aimed at giving people a voice and reconnecting them with their Government. This must provide an opportunity that we should seize; it is a great opportunity for this House to engage the public. I am certain that we will be seen and judged to have failed in our effort to engage the people we represent unless we provide provision for a meaningful participation by them in a referendum. Here in my proposition I propose genuine options; options other than the only black option; proposals that provide the electorate with choice. I say to Members please do not disrupt the reform process now. I respectfully ask that they support my proposition so that some ground at least can be covered today. Another step for reform will be taken by Members when they push their pour' button. On the other hand, the Members that choose to push their contre' button, and that word happens to be directly below the pour', will be derailing the train, and this train will have no hope of getting back on track for a very long time. I make the proposition, I do accept that part (f) will fall, because the States already, yesterday, rejected paragraph (f) and I accept that that part will fall. I make the proposition and ask Members for their appel.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Point of order? Can I not ask the Senator to reconsider withdrawing part (e), because if he is serious about wanting to get the opinions of the public it will mean that under your ruling it will not work, and therefore I believe he is being disingenuous if he does not withdraw it?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Could I put forward an alternative, perhaps, and ask the Senator to consider taking part (e) separately, which would allow the discussions to take place on P.54 should that part be --

Senator S. Syvret:

Does this not make the debate somewhat confusing given that we have had a now quite lengthy debate on this proposition on the basis of the 4 proposals within it?

The Bailiff :

I must say that I interpreted paragraph (e) as being all of one with the preceding paragraphs, and the Assembly is being asked in effect to say that one of these options is an option which ought to be favoured, and that is why paragraph (e) follows on from that to ask Members to agree that all 48 Members should be elected on a single general election day, and, I think, for my part I agree with Senator Syvret that this is one of a whole; the Members having debated the proposition as a whole must vote on it either for or against.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

May I make a different point of order? It is very interesting because your ruling may sway my vote in favour. Senator Perchard pointed out that under the referendum law another amendment can be brought at that time when the PPC brings its proposition. Is it possible to do that because this actual proposition and the preceding proposition asked the States to make a decision on holding a referendum on a certain amount of options and it just seems crazy that if the States are going to have a debate on an option and then on 4 options that there will be then another debate on maybe another 12 options when it comes time to set the referendum. Is that possible to be amended at that time, and could you give a ruling please?

The Bailiff :

The States are sovereign; they can change their minds at any time they wish to change their mind. What the Assembly is being asked to do at the moment, Deputy , is to approve if there should be a referendum on 4 different questions and that is all that the Assembly is being asked to approve. Now, that does not mean to say that the Assembly cannot at some future stage revisit that decision or amend it.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Will it require a rescindment or can we just bring an amendment during the --

The Bailiff :

I do not think I can give a ruling on that, Deputy , until I see what it is that Members would want to do to vary the decision which they are being asked to make today.

Senator S. Syvret:

Could I just propose that we move to the vote, please?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Can I just say something on the point that you made about paragraph (e)? I do not want to speak on the detail of it - the direction you have given to the States - I just want to confirm my position. I included paragraph (e) because I do believe that this is an integral part of the proposition that a general election day for all elected Members of the States is what is required, and I maintain that it should stay so.

The Bailiff :

Well, that was my ruling, Senator, so I think that is the basis on which the States are going to vote. So, I invite the Greffier to open the voting, which is for or against the proposition, omitting of course paragraph (f).

2. Composition  and  Election  of  the  States  Assembly:  election  dates  for   Connétable s (P.54/2007)

The Bailiff :

We now come to Project 54. The composition and election of the States Assembly: Election dates for Connétable s, and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion, (a) to agree the 12 Parish Connétable s should all be elected on a single election day, (i) for a term of office of 4 years, (ii) with the first such elections to take place in the autumn of 2008, (iii) on a day that neither an election day for Senators nor Deputies under the States of Jersey Law 2005, (b) to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for approval the necessary legislation to give effect to the proposal including appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure that all 12 Connétable s can be elected on a single election day by December 2008 at the latest.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

I would stress that in the absence of our Chairman, I have been asked to act as rapporteur for this proposition. I think the first question we should ask, and I do not think it needs any deliberation to come up with the answer; are we any the wiser or better informed having spent the last 2 days debating the composition of the Assembly? The proposition that we present today deals with the elements of our Assembly, which have been advocated by many Members indeed, and the general public, and comes in a very uncomplicated form and very clear in its aims. The principle, you will see, the 12 Connétable s being elected on a single day, which is in keeping with a considerable number and a very high number of people's opinions and views, and indeed from within this House. It would for once and for all dispel the myth that Connétable s get in by default, they get in through back doors and it is almost an illegal entry into the States. Well, clearly that would be seen that everyone is in the same shop window at the same time and it is open to anyone to face a challenge if that is so requested. The term of office is in keeping with the majority wishes, and I think that is a very important element to it. The timing, we believe, should be to hold a Constables' election to coincide with the 2008 elections. Now, I realise that we are dangerously close to flirting with an impossibility on time, bearing in mind that there is a lot of decisions have to be made behind the scenes in regulations and the like, and it is perhaps a shame that it has taken this time, but I think you have to consider that our original proposition was tabled some considerable time in the New Year. Our proposed election day, from the considerable experience which has been gained throughout the Island in both the current Senatorial and Deputies elections system we feel is clearly beneficial to hold that election on that one day. While there has been a long drawn out series of debates during the past session, and indeed before that, we will clearly be seen as making a more positive decision at least on the areas contained within the proposition. There will be a clear directive, 4 years elected the same day, and if you stop and consider for a moment, that has been advocated over  and over  again  by  Member after  Member. The Comité considered at length reverting to a 3-year term, but on the basis that the greater majority of Members of this House have decided their preference, we decided to go for our 4-year term in keeping with that. In order to demonstrate to the electorate at large that we do mean business, we do mean to be serious in our aim to strive towards this all-Island date of election. I merely ask the Assembly that you show your intention and indeed determination to move forward, albeit a very small part, a very small element of the considerable changes which have been under discussion in the all too recent past. It is, I believe, and the belief of the Comité that it is a relatively simplistic option, one that undoubtedly will gain considerable merit and indeed go a long way to restore a certain amount of, I would like to think, hope and faith within the electorate of our Island, because their nerves must be at a very frayed and shattered end I fear after what they have heard in the last couple of days. I fully accept and realise that there are areas within the proposition, namely what I have referred to with the autumn time of 2008, as being perhaps extremely tight and difficult to come up with. But I think if we are not prepared to even show a small measure of alteration or amendment to the election process, where the Connétable s are concerned, on a small matter like this, well quite frankly we are all wasting our time in the future because there is no way that the composition of this House, or indeed I fear for possibly beyond it, will make any changes at all. I believe they are founded for the right reasons and they are founded for the benefits all around, and indeed the encouragement of everybody that would be affected by them. The position relating to terms of office, one has to remember where Connétable s are concerned they vary throughout the year, and this year there are no fewer than 5 Connétable s which have come up for re-election, albeit their position of term has expired, and that will be the case, it does not matter when we arrange this election, it is impossible to draw a complete orderly line after 3-year term as it currently stands. This position was appreciated by the Comité and they recognised that somebody or some of our number had to make a reasoned and sensible compromise and be prepared to relinquish their seat in order to get everything on one orderly line. They, I am pleased to say, have acceded that this would be the way forward and I am sure that that will be of great benefit to many in turn, and when you consider at the moment we have a Senatorial election, you do not elect your Senators on different days, you do not elect your Deputies as a total body on different days, they are all done and elected on the same day. It is no different with the Connétable s, and I do not believe there is need to waste the Assembly's time any more and I so propose the proposition 54.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

I am very, very keen on reform. I believe that every Member of this House is keen on reform. This Constables' proposition will help to indicate to the electorate that we are serious. It has been put to me "The residents of St. Helier, do they care who is the Constable of St. Martin?" and the answer they say is: "Of course they do not." But I what I say to this House is that collectively where you have 12 Constables elected collectively on one day then it does impinge upon the situation of the electorate of this Island in general. It is an important situation, it is a fairly painless situation, it does not impinge upon the Island-wide mandate, it does not seek to declare how many Deputies there should be, it is a stepping stone indicating the intent, not only of the Constables, but of the House to make reform, and I would ask every Member to think carefully about this and give the Constables your support. It is also to the benefit of this House and for the benefit of the electorate of this Island.

Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement :

To ensure that we have an orderly debate and that we are able to debate the 2 options that we have here, could I ask the Solicitor General whether in her opinion paragraph (b) is Human Rights compatible?

The Bailiff :

Had you given notice to the Solicitor General that you were going to ask this question, Connétable ?

The Connétable of St. Clement : I am afraid not, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Well, I wonder if the Solicitor General might be allowed perhaps a few moments to reflect.

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

I take it that the question is directed to the fact that this would curtail some of the periods, is that the thinking? Well, there are 2 possible Human Rights articles which could be engaged. The first is Article 1 of protocol 1, which is the right to respect for property. If one regards the office as being a form of property of the office holder, because the office is remunerated and it is therefore arguably property in the hands of the office holder. The other article is Article 3 of the protocol, which requires the holding of elections which will allow the electorate to express their view, and the argument there would be that the electorate, when the relevant Constable was elected, chose to elect him for a certain period. If I can take the second of those first, I do not think that that one is a serious problem because the electorate would then get the same choice offered them, and could exercise their choice again. So, that really it is the one which requires the holding of the elections in such a way that the terms of office are terminated. It really depends on the fine detail of the legislation. One possibility would be that provision would be made for compensation by those whose office were terminated, and another would be to introduce a staggered -- by sort of staggering it to finally get to the point where all the terms are running at the same period, and that is as each Constable's term of office came to its natural end to provide for a shorter term for that particular Constable so that eventually they were all brought to the same starting point. So, it is not impossible to achieve it, but it does depend upon the detail of the legislation. I should perhaps add that if the intention is to achieve it for 2008 there would be a very tight timescale on the legislation.

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

I, like my Connétable , have some concerns about the Human Rights compliance of this proposition and I have no doubt the rapporteur will, or the proposer will, clarify in his summing up. I was under the impression that this proposition relied on the fact that any Connétable being re-elected or any new Connétable in the near future would voluntarily agree to a shorter term of office, but those who may not, I believe would be able to challenge this position. Furthermore, there is no way I can support this proposition because it really, I think, adds a degree of confusion that we certainly do not need. The term of 4 years for a Connétable does not exactly square with the 3-year cycle of this House. So, we would have a situation where on the first year, assuming it went ahead, most people would be elected at the same time. The Connétable would be elected near enough at the same time as the Deputies and Senators. But then of course the following year they would be a year out of sync, and then the year after that similarly. I thought the whole idea of bringing all the Connétable s to a single election day for the Connétable s was that this House would be enabled when it was seeking election to office of Ministers and Scrutiny members and that that all the Connétable s would be available at one time, they would not be on a rolling election. But of course this makes it worse than the present situation because there would be a complete change, or possibly a complete change of the Connétable s a year into the 3-year term of the States, and then again a year before the end of the 3-year term of the States. It is absolutely confusing. I mean I am looking at, as I say, a 3-year cycle that certainly does not connect with a 4-year cycle, it rather reminds me of yesterday's rusty cycle. There is no way I can support this, in fact I believe we should in fact move on to the next item.

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

It is perhaps a supreme irony that the people leading the charge on reform are the people who have been accused wholesale of having inhibited that reform, so that is a supreme irony and I do have to give them credit for that. Obviously there was an anticipation that we would make a decision on reform, which was an over-anticipation and the decision was obviously that we would take, everything else having failed, we would try and rescue the notion of a general election, and I am still not convinced on yesterday's arguments that it is the impossibility that some people are portraying it as. We would rescue that notion and we would rescue the notion of a 4-year term. The good thing as opposed to the quite sensible objections that the Deputy may have outlined, the good thing is it forces the rest of us to look at 4 years. Yes, it will be a mess quite frankly, but it forces the rest of us to do it, and quite frankly I am feeling so perverse, so confused and so

absolutely angry about what has happened in our total move to immobilism on this issue that I think that cannot be a bad thing. I would say force the issue. So, I congratulate the Constables for leading the charge, I hope it happens, we look total fools, but quite frankly it may induce some change. Not a terribly good situation but let it move forward.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I have a point of order, I think; following on the words of the Solicitor General, I just wondered if anyone had given thought -- she said it was very difficult to have this achieved by 2008, has anyone in the Greffe given thoughts to the possibility that it might not be possible by 2008? PPC reforms were staggered to coincide with 2011, which was do-able. Is this do-able?

The Bailiff :

Well, I think that is a matter for the rapporteur when he replies. One assumes that the Connétable would not have brought the proposition unless they were satisfied that it could be achieved.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Can I advise that I have just sent through to the Greffier a request to lodge an item, which requests that the term of Deputies are also implemented to the term of 4 years in the autumn of 2008, and I would ask if that can be lodged today.

The Bailiff :

The Greffier reminds me that there is a paragraph in the report of the Privileges and Procedures Committee which covers this point, Deputy , and thank you Deputy .

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Sorry, but can I ask that it be lodged officially.

The Bailiff :

Well, I have not seen it yet.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

It is with the Greffier in front of you. I thought I saw you just looking at it, so you did see it.

The Bailiff :

A very neat try, Deputy , but I am afraid I need just a little bit more time to study it.

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

I feel that in order to counter suggestions that perhaps you are heading for another blocked vote from this side of things, I can tell you that there was some disagreement on this, and I would like to suggest to the rapporteur when we eventually get to voting on this that the vote is split and that the problem we seem to be having is the timing on this, and where as I agree with the 4 year term, and I agree that it should be a separate day from Senators' and Deputies' elections, it is obviously going to be difficult for us to sort this out by 2008, and I would suggest that there will be objections from the Deputies' benches about Constables being elected for a 4-year term when they do not have that privilege. I know that Deputy Troy has now come up with a last minute, last gasp hope but I am not terribly optimistic about that. So, what I should like to say is that if we take item (a)(ii) and the total of item (b) separately, if I could advise the Members if they voted pour for (a)(i) and pour for (a)(iii) and that if we left (a)(ii) and (b) that those are left in abeyance until such time as we come to a conclusion with the Deputies. So, in fact let us pass (a)(i), (a)(iii) and (b) and just leave the others, or vote them out.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I was flashing for the point of order, but I will speak, because this really is playing while the Lusitania sinks. We have sunk reform and to give further credibility to the position of the Constables at this time by extending their term of office beyond that which applies to Deputies is just, in my mind, absolutely absurd. To further have the cake and eat it, the Constables repeatedly tell us how important the parochial system is and it is a Parish election and that is the representation, that is what they are here for, and how important that is, and yet for some reason, which is not explained I do not think anywhere in the report, we want simultaneous elections. The question was rightly asked, I think, by the Deputy of St. Martin: "Do the electors of St. Brelade care that the election takes place simultaneously with their election of the Constable of St. Martin or the Constable of Trinity ?" The answer is: "No." It is a supreme indifference to them. It is a parochial affair, Constables are elected, I believe, first and foremost to lead the Parish (and also to sit in State ex-officio) and that is what they are elected for. Absolutely certain. It is no good repeating time and time again: "Yes, but when people go to the polling booths they know that they will be sitting in the States." Yes, but their prime aim is to get the right person in to lead the Parish. Absolutely stone dead certain. That is why people vote for the Constable, because they are aware that Deputies also represent them and their sole function is to represent them in the States. So, it is clear to me this covering up; this is giving additional credence to the Constables, which takes away, which somehow separates them from their parochial role and says they are more important than they would like to think, I am sure they are more important, they want an Island-wide simultaneous election for their position and not for others. I cannot see how this is going to raise enough votes to get through because I do not believe it is worthwhile in itself and I believe it is, as I say, playing the music while the Lusitania sinks. It is the edge of any reform and it is completely meaningless.

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

I really am rather sorry to see how many Members seem to be rather emotionally overwrought this morning. There seems to be sort of quite an emotional feeling going on here; a sense of anger and disappointment. Well, the way to fix that frankly is to come forward with some reforms that are inspirational to the majority of Members in this Assembly, as well as the public, and not ones that look frankly hopeless. I welcome this proposition from the Comité des Connétable s, I believe strongly, as I believe many Islanders do, that the role of the Connétable either as the father or occasionally mother of the Parish, intimately linked with our unique honorary tradition, is in fact the backbone of the parochial system, and if you do not understand that you do not understand Jersey. So, I congratulate the Comité des Connétable s as a group on frankly demonstrating what I think is an appropriate method of approaching reform of our constitution; taking it in small steps on a logical and sound basis. Now, there is little for us to concern ourselves with here, but obviously one of the difficulties is the suggestion of a 4-year term. I do not agree with Deputy Baudains' interestingly mathematical point about whether 4 years fits into the cycle of our 3-year terms of office. If Members would just like to extend their minds a little in the numerical sphere, if you look at the fact that our Senators are elected on 6-year periods of office, it is not too far to stretch to say that we could well be considered to have a 12-year cycle into which 3 divides neatly, as does 4. So, as I have said on a number of occasions lately it really does depend on how you look at things. It is perfectly feasible to suggest that there is a cycle. Four years, well, it is one more than 3 years, it does fit interestingly into the middle of the Privileges and Procedures' MORI tested pie chart, and I think if you want to look at it objectively it gives a clear sense of distinction to the office of Connétable . That you are not a Senator on a 6-year term of office, or a Deputy on a 3-year term, you are separate and distinct serving a 4-year term of office, and I believe that awarding, if that is the appropriate way to put it, a 4-year term of appointment to Connétable s, gives an enhancement to the rôle, a sense of distinction, and indeed if I may be so bold to use a slightly more modern phrase for such an archaic rôle; a sense of value-added. Indeed I think that there is a reasonable likelihood to suppose that Connétable s serving a 4-year office might draw more candidates to the rôle, and far from seeing the uncontested elections as being one of the criticisms that has been tagged to the rôle of Connétable , I do not see why 4-year terms of office might indeed attract more candidates and we will see what we want to see; a more healthy approach to elections of the Connétable rôle. So, I look at this in, I have to say, a very positive way. Nevertheless there is a corollary and it is possible that such a difference might raise the question of whether Parishes or the States should pay for the Connétable s' salaries, one or the other, or whether the Parishes should pay a contribution. That though is a matter for another debate on another day. I have to say I do wish the Connétable s luck with the bureaucratic and administrative difficulties that this particular proposition may create. I hope that if all else fails they can possibly mutually get together and decide on a joint resignation date, because it is feasible and practical for them to come to this type of arrangement without needing any legislation at all, just all resign on the same day and that will have exactly the same effect as most of this proposition is all about, but I simply feel that these proposals will, I think, rejuvenate the rôle of Connétable , give a higher level of respect, I think it is something that the Island wish to see, and if there is any time where we should be giving support to the Connétable s who have endured, I think, an excessive level of criticism in recent years, well, today is the day.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I would like to speak with 2 hats on here. Firstly, to reinforce the comments of PPC in this regard. PPC was extremely concerned about the 4-year term of office being included, especially of course now that that would be included in isolation of other reforms. As is quite clearly noted in our report we consider that the integration of Members, availability for integration into the new government at each successive new House to be extremely important for the continuity of the House, especially now that it functions in much smaller groups than previously under the Committee system. The loss of one Member from a small panel makes an extreme difference, and PPC are at pains to point out that we were under the impression that the Constables would be lodging an amendment to change that 4-year term to a 3-year term, which amendment unfortunately was not made. I am extremely supportive of the Constables all being elected on one day, but I personally also have this problem with the 4-year term. In isolation it makes a third tier in the system. Despite the common denominator there is a danger that we will be further out of sync. You could say that I was optimistic on Tuesday, dismayed on Wednesday, and despairing on Thursday. We seem to be going from bad to worse. But what has really made me despair is Deputy Le Hérissier's comment that we should do this enforced change. Forcing change to 4 years for another term, you know, can we really do a change on the hoof like this in something so important? Should we not be considering things fully at the outcome? We have a duty to make sure that our House functions in the most efficient and the most competent manner at all times. It is our duty to the Island to ensure that the legislative Assembly is working at its optimum. The fact that Deputy Troy has also said that he will lodge a 4-year term for Deputies; well that still leaves the Senators out of sync. We have tried everything to bring things together. I just wonder whether we should not be considering this in a more cohesive fashion, and if it could not happen yesterday after all that debate, why should we assume to think that we can force the change through now just by changing one section and hoping that everything else will follow? It does not really seem to give this the gravity that it deserves. So, just to make sure that my feelings are known, I believe

that this is a fantastic opportunity for the Constables, and that they should be elected all on one day. I think it will rejuvenate, despite what Deputy Southern says about one Parish not caring about what happens in another, the fact that all Parishes together have an election, I think, will rejuvenate this and will mean more contested elections, and will be ultimately strengthening for the Parish and Constables, but I do have very serous concerns about this 4-year term. I think that now is not the time. I think that we have to move forward in a cohesive and pre-planned way, and not keep trying to jig things to make them work.

Senator L. Norman:

I commend the speech of the Deputy of St. Mary and I share very much her views. I too would like to support this proposition. At the moment I do not think I can, but perhaps I could yet be convinced. The Constables, as we all know, play a full and meaningful part in this Assembly, they are indeed an integral part of this Assembly. It is right that they all be elected on the same day. But as an integral part of this Assembly they should all be elected on the same day, more or less at the same time as the rest of the Assembly. A sort of general election period, which would be slightly extended if that happened. But, if this gets approved, that general election period with all Members being integral, will only happen once every 12 years, and quite honestly that just does not make any sense. The current system is not good. I mean a Constable will disappear at any time during the 3-year cycle and a new one will appear, and this will happen up to 12 times during that 3-year cycle. That is not good. That is not good for the administration of the States, it is not good for the administration of the Ministries, it is not good for the administration of the Committees, and it is not good for the administration of the Panels. But will this change improve it? As Deputy Baudains said, it is quite possible instead of having one disappearing every few months and a new one coming in, you could have 6 or more disappearing all at the same time, creating yet more problems for the administration of the Panels, Committees and so on. This is all down to the 4-year term. If it was a 3-year term, you know, I would be cheering and have no problems supporting it, but it is the 4-year term which is really causing me the problem. It does not improve things. It improves the election process once in every 12 years, but that is not a good enough reason for me to support it. It will make the Constables, you know, there is this view that they are separate and different, this will reinforce the view that somehow Constables are separate and different, even superior and it may create even more questions over their validity, which we are trying to change. As I say, I see the Constables under our present constitution as integral and equal, and therefore should be treated as integral and equal and change to a 4-year term, yes, when every other Member of the States changes to a 4-year term if they are integral to the States. My heart says this is good, but my brain tells me it is not right to do this in isolation. Either it is everybody on a 4-year term or

nobody.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, I really do not know what to say about this one. The story of the tortoise and the hare, while we have all been running around trying to get reform, referenda, everything, here we have a proposition from the Constables, and we even have an amendment from one of the Constables, we cannot do it by 2008 but let us go for a 4-year term and everyone elected on a single day. I will start with (a) and to agree that 12 Constables should be elected on a single election day, fine. Anything after that, we have Deputy Le Hérissier saying: "They are leading the charge", well, under (a)(iii) they certainly are not leading any charge for a single election day because they want to be elected on a single election day, any other day that any other States Member is elected. So, that is no leading the charge. Does it not take the biscuit, that when we are asked to go to referendum on either Senator Perchard's or PPC; on Senator Perchard's we had no Constable support at all, and on P.75 we had the Constable of St. Clement obviously who is also the President of PPC, and we had the Constable of St. Helier. No other support to put any reforms to the public. I would like to ask any of the Constables, have any of the Constables even had a Parish Assembly to ask if their parishioners want them in for 4 years? Do they think that they can just say: "Well, I do not really like 3 years, we want to be elected on the same day"? I am sure all our parishioners would prefer that. We are going to be elected on 4 years. I am taking that as nobody has nodded to me, none of them has held one single Parish Assembly. The Constable of St. Brelade says he has. The actual question that they would prefer their Constable in for 4 years, I do not think so. So, we had the reverse speech from Deputy de Faye: "This is great." Because he knows best, I mean he knows, I mean he does not want to ask the people because he, again, voted against both referendums. Anything in the Parish system will die and the Constables are this and the Constables are that. I have no problem that the Constables are sitting in the States. They are now protecting themselves with any other reform that we want to bring because their election day will not be on our day, we have just heard that we could have a possible different vote, and it will not take place in 2008. It will stop any sort of reform that anybody else wants, and I really cannot agree that they

are leading the way. I mean I do agree, I mean I think a single election day, and if it goes through for 4 years, especially in all the country parishes, it would be a very good opportunity for the Deputy of that Parish to stand against the Constable, great, and I think that will be great, and I hope that will happen, because why not, that will be 4 years instead of 3. I am sorry, it is about consistency, and it is not what Deputies have been saying and the public have been saying: "We do not want 3 years, we would prefer 4." All the new Deputies that are in here now are about saying to me: "My God, it is election year next year, Deputy Martin", or "Judy." "Yes", I say: "Yes, it does go around quick and then the extra year would see you probably achieve a lot more that you have put on your manifesto", but we have not got that. We have not asked the public if they want that. By approving this we are definitely not giving the public a single election day. So, I am sorry, Sir, this hare is not going to be overrun by 12 tortoises because they have been running around behind us and we have been told -- no, sorry, we were told by the Constables' Committee, the Constable of St. Ouen, this would be amended to 3 years and a single election day, and even then I would have difficulty in approving (a)(iii) because it does not allow them to be elected on the same day as everybody else, but not 4 years. I am not having the wool pulled over my eyes, and I hope everybody else does not.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is always a pleasure to follow Deputy Martin. I think that there seems to be common agreement on the fact that we all support, or at least most Members support a single election day, but with some exceptions of, I think, the Connétable of Grouville , we probably support, with maybe a couple of other exceptions, the fact that we should move to a single election day in 2008. What appears to be the issue here is a 4-year term. I think a 4-year term has some merit. Deputy Troy 's proposal of extending the Deputorial seats for a 4-year term will certainly ensure that there is reform associated with a reorganisation of Deputorial boundaries, I think this proposition has legs. It will mean that we have dealt with reform in parts, we have dealt with the Constables, we have dealt with the Deputies, and that remains the issue of the Senators to resolve, which I think would sort itself out over time. But if Members are not persuaded by the issue of this evolutionary change, and I certainly voted against all of the changes of the composition of the States because it has been revolution, not evolution. I can see merit in evolution. Can I ask whether or not there is potential to take part, (a)(i) of the proposition separately? Would it not be the case that if we voted against that, or if Members were given the opportunity of voting against (a)(i) that it would revert effectively to the status quo, which would be the status quo of 3 years.

The Bailiff :

I am afraid not, Senator, I think that paragraph (a) must be voted upon as a whole, because if one picks out any part of paragraph (a) none of it is a freestanding matter upon which Members can vote. In fact reinforced in that view by the report of the PPC, which contains an exchange between the Constable of St. Ouen and the Deputy Bailiff , where the Deputy Bailiff made it clear that that was tantamount to an amendment and the amendment would have to be lodged 2 weeks before the debate to make it 3 years rather 4.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I thank you for your ruling, Sir. It does however still be the case that one can vote in favour of this proposition and then move an amendment when Privileges and Procedures Committee come back with the underlying legislation. On that basis I think we have got the signal, for once, that we are going to make a decision and move forward. It is entirely up to this Assembly to then deal with the issue of the 3 or 4 year term later on because legislation would come forward, and I would ask Members, those Members who agree with me, that we do agree on a single election day, there is a debate to be had about the 4 year and the 3 year term. We can vote in favour of this proposition, it is not final, it is not binding, it will come back, Privileges and Procedures Committee will need to bring a proposal for the detail of it and a Member can move a 3-year term and we can then resolve the issue once and for all then. I see no good reason why we should not agree the fundamental principles of this and have a debate about the 3 or 4-year term later on. Just to throw this thing out will, I think, send the message out that we are really not going to do any sort of reform in the composition of the States. There is a legitimate debate to be had about evolutionary change on the Connétable s and the Deputies. So, accepting your ruling, Sir, and with fingers crossed underneath my desk, if I may say, I will vote in favour of the overall proposition, and if nobody else is willing to bring forward an amendment, I am sure I would not be the only one, but we can have that debate about the 3 or 4 year term later on, and I would urge Members to take that pragmatic approach in solving this issue.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

The issue of varied dates of election for Connétable s probably stretch us back for 500 years, and I am sure that if anyone wished to conduct the research to this, the facts will be verified. I consider it important that the House aims to achieve the goal of a single election date, and the contributions from Members today will assist in this in that despite the success or failure of this particular projet with its own particular detail we must align what has become an acronymism. It does nothing to enhance tradition and can only serve to encourage voters to turn out, enhance the office of Connétable , and of course gain the respect of members of the public who question this Assembly's ability to make practical decisions. This projet is more a matter of dates realignment than reform and I would urge Members to support it.

Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

It is very short, I would just like if somebody on the summing up could tell me why we have the Connétable of St. Ouen : "It is the intention of the Constables to amend it." The Deputy Bailiff : "To change 4 years to 3 years." The Connétable of St. Ouen: "Yes, Sir." Why was it not done? It is the only question I would like to make.

Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

I have come across several people in the past who, when I have said: "Did you vote in a Constables' election?" have replied: "I did not know there was an election for Constable at the moment." So, I think an Island-wide Constables election would create the media interest; it would encourage many, many more people to go out and vote. I would like clarification if I may, I may have missed something earlier from the Solicitor General, as to when this would be possible. It is my understanding that all the sitting Constables, I am not sure if that was without exception, have agreed to stand down on a given date and possibly stand for re-election, and any new potential Constable standing for election would be on the understanding that it would be possibly for one year. I am not sure if the legislation will be in place for that in time. The other problem that comes to mind is the Constable seems to run the election for both Senators' and Deputies' elections along with the Jurats, so if the Constable is on the same day as everybody else I could see major problems arising there. But I do not have any problem with this, and in light of the fact that Deputy Troy has proposed an amendment to raise the term of office of Deputy to 4 years I think this is going to muddy the waters for the time being, so that is an argument for another day. But I will be supporting this proposition.

Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary :

Well, well, well. The House always says: "Let us have leadership. Let us move forward. Let us have new innovative ideas." Constables have come forward with leadership, new ideas; let us go for a 4-year term, everybody wants a 4-year term. We have heard the MORI poll, the whole Assembly was  looking forward to a 4-year term. What happens? Over the last few weeks, certainly the last few days everybody has gone back into the old routine. No new ideas. No new innovative ideas. Let us stay as boringly as we are. Now, when the Constables come forward and they say: "Come on, let us have an election day all for ourselves. We will have a 4-year term."

"Well, no, you cannot have that. That is too innovative." In fact, what has happened now, about a quarter of an hour later we have had the Deputies now become very, very jealous: "What is going on here? The Constables are wanting 4 years. We cannot have that." What is going on? We get damned if we do and damned if we do not. I find this very, very strange. Very strange. Luckily we have got a young innovative Minister on our side who says: "Yes, let us go forward. I am all for the Constables. Let us have change, let us have direction." He is the Minister who says: "Let us get the buses out into the Parishes. Let us try and get them into St. Helier and move about a bit." This is what we want for goodness sake. We as Constables, and lots of us, and I do say: "Us", because I am included, we have even said, we have just heard Deputy Lewis saying: "Is the legislation going to allow for this?" You cannot have legislation, it has to mean that the Constables and many of us have got to shorten our term. We have agreed to that; to shorten the term. Some of the Constables are only going to be there for a year and have said: "Well, let us take another chance and let us move forward. I will go for election again in a year's time." What is going on? We have suddenly got all this despair that we have had in the House. We are trying to move forward and now we are getting knocked down with a sledgehammer to say: "No, you cannot do that. You cannot have that." We have Senator Norman saying about stability. We will upset the whole stability of everything. What more can you have with stability to know that every 4 years the Constable is going to be voted in, all the Constables, attractive that. We want the Constables to have the elections. This will create the stability. It is said that the Constables are the ones that possibly, and I must be careful I do not slap myself on the back and break my arm in the process, but they bring stability to the House. The Constables bring stability. So, therefore you will have the rolling voting, the rolling election, you will have stability there that all the Constables will be there for 4 years. So, at least there will be that stability that will be going on. I cannot see what the big problem is. I really do not. You can have it moving forward. There is no problem about any of that at all as far as I can see. I think that this is the way forward. Let us show that we have got a bit of leadership, a little bit of authority. Let us have all your backing, please. You are all parishioners, you vote in all your Constables, and yet one minute you are saying: "I support my Constable. Yes, we will go and make sure he gets voted." Now you are saying: "No, we are not going to vote for the Constable for every 4 years. I do not like that process. It is not an agreement that I feel that should be the way forward." Short, sharp and sweet, stability of the Constables, let