States Meeting Transcript - 21/11/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 21st NOVEMBER 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Criminal Justice Policy (P.118/2007) - continued ........................................3

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:........................................................3
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ..........................................................3
3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ...........................................................6
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................8
5. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:....................................................8
6. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................10
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................11
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................12
9. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................15
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................15
11. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................16
12. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................17
13. Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:......................................19
14. Connétable M.K. Jackson :..............................................................21
15. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................21
16. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................22
17. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................23 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................24 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................29 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................32

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................32

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................32

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................32
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................33
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................33
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
5. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................33
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................34
7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................34
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson :..............................................................34
9. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................35
10. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................35
11. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................35

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumed..................................................................35

3. Goods and Services Tax: Zero-Rating for Foodstuffs, Books, Newspapers and Magazines (P.169/2007)..................................................................36

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................36 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................36 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................36 Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................37

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................38

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................39 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................39 PUBLIC BUSINESS - continued................................................................39

Goods and Services Tax: Zero-Rating for Foodstuffs, Books, Newspapers and Magazines

(P.169/2007) - continued.................................................................39

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................39
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................40
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................41
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................42
5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................42
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................43
7. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:..............................................44
8. Deputy G.P Southern :..................................................................44
9. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................45
10. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................46
11. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................47
12. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................47
13. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................48
14. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................49
15. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................49
16. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................50
17. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................50 The Bailiff :...................................................................................51

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................52

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................56
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................63
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................63
4. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................66
5. Senator L Norman: .....................................................................66
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................68
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................69
8. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................70

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................71 The Bailiff :...................................................................................71

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................71

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Criminal Justice Policy (P.118/2007) - continued

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

There are no matters from the chair so the debate resumes on the criminal justice policy. There were 3 Members waiting to speak yesterday. Deputy Gorst , do you still wish to speak?

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

I think I should first say I was surprised to hear yesterday that we do not have a paid police force. However, I am delighted that it has been confirmed that it is possible the States' Police do not want paying so there is a change. I have 3 short points to make about this criminal justice policy. The first one is regarding pillar 9 - rehabilitation, where I read what I believe is one of the most alarming statistics I have ever read on page 88 where at 12.2 it says: "One in 3 British men has a standard list conviction by the age of 30." It goes on to say: "The standard list excludes the majority of public disorder and drunkenness offences as well as all but the most serious motoring offences." I believe that this single statistic alone is a warning bell and one that this policy listens to. I hope that this policy will ensure that such a statistic can never be applied to Jersey. Secondly, looking at pillar 4 - joint working: I welcome this but believe that the Minister will need to ensure that various parts of her own department work together and I am not sure, having heard some of the answers to questions yesterday, that that is a task which is yet accomplished and it is something that I believe the department will need to work on. Perhaps the Minister might outline her action plan to encourage joint working within her own department. Thirdly, I welcome very much pillar 5 - early intervention, on page 49 and 50. I am particularly pleased to note the consideration that various risks and protective factors have been given. These factors have been broken down into (1) child factors; (2) family factors; (3) school context; (4) life events; and (5) community and cultural factors. Paragraph 8.6 on page 50 states that the risk factors have been proven to increase the risk of offending. Conversely, it states: "Protective factors are factors which tend to protect against developing offending behaviour or are co-related with non-offending." It seems to me that these factors and the breakdown of the factors appear to be robust commonsense and I welcome them. I do, however, consider that the Minister's action plan under this particular pillar is a little bit light. While the section covers child factors, to an extent family factors and the school context, there appears to be little consideration of life events and community and cultural factors. I hope that the Minister will, in due course, strengthen these 2 factors. I believe that citizens should be encouraged to engage in community participation. With rights come also responsibilities. It is such

community participation that can help and encourage to build responsible members of society. Finally, Sir, I welcome this policy and offer the Minister and her department my support.

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

This was one of the first documents that I read as a new Member to the States. When I was asked to become Assistant Minister for Home Affairs it was put in front of me and I thought: "Oh dear, here we go; here is the bureaucracy of the States of Jersey." Then I began to read it and have to say it is one of the most interesting documents that I have read in the last 2 years. It is well written. It is concise. It has been prepared using many, many officer hours and indeed, of course, the passion and dedication of Senator Kinnard. But I must commend the officers that have been involved, particularly the Chief Officer of Home Affairs who has spent many hours both in the office and out of the office preparing this document, researching it and presenting it to you today in a manner which I think is easy to understand, easy to digest and hopefully easy to vote on. However I do understand that there are some concerns for some Members about a few points. But I would not want to get distracted too much into the detail. But I think Members must remember that this is a policy document, it is not legislation. Any new legislation or amendments to legislation of course will come to this House for your approval and indeed as it should. But I would like to pick up on a

few points that speakers have mentioned because they are items that I have been closely involved with over the last couple of years, have some knowledge of, and I would like to dispel some of the myths and almost legends that seem to have come out from Members in the last few days. One in particular is a subject which is really a very minor part of this document, and I would not like us to get sidetracked by it, and that is the matter of speed cameras. Now as a new Deputy in a rural Parish, one of the first calls I got from a constituent was: "People are driving too fast down my road." Now I am sure many other Deputies in the Parishes have had the same phone call and indeed the Constables perhaps even more so. It is interesting when you speak to the Honorary Police about this, as I have done on many occasions, when we have introduced perhaps new speeding regulations or had a speed check at the request of the residents of that particular road, guess what? One of the first people we stop in that check is the very person who has put the phone call in to complain about the speeding. It is so often those who complain about the traffic and speeding that are the perpetrators. That is because we are all drivers; we have a low speed limit in Jersey anyway and it is very easy to break it. It is also very easy to shout about it and it is a very emotive issue. When we do surveys to the public through the police, one of the biggest things they bring up is not violence and disorder, it is speeding. It is something that is close to people's hearts. Fortunately we do not have too many road accidents here, but one is too many, particularly if a child perhaps is hurt or, even worse, killed. So it is important to our electorate and it is something that we ought to do something about and we are doing. The Honorary Police are very supportive of this, we have technology in place already but the problem is the only way you are going to solve it is to change behaviour. Now Deputy Fox mentioned France in his speech. They have changed behaviour in France by becoming extremely hot in recent years on both drink driving and speeding. The numbers of serious road accidents in France has almost halved because of a zero-tolerance regime. They have changed behaviour and one of the things they did was use technology. The Deputy mentioned fixed speed cameras and, yes, they are notified before you get to them and sure, you slow down. But the majority of people who have been stopped for speeding offences in France in recent times, and some of you here may even have done, perhaps you are not going to miss it, but from mobile cameras using technology. If you have a foreign plate they will pull you across and, on the spot, fine you. If you are a French resident they will send you a fixed penalty notice in the post. The reason for that is the equipment that the Deputy referred to can generate so many tickets in an hour that it is impossible for the Parish Hall s to process it. Bear in mind any speeding fines generated from that system go to the Parish. The Parish can then choose to do what they wish with that money. But, as I am sure the Attorney General will tell you, this is not a revenue-generating exercise and neither should it be. In some places in the U.K. (United Kingdom) that accusation has been made and perhaps quite rightly, but it is not for our Parishes. But our Parishes, when they generate those funds, can then put that money into traffic enforcement, road improvements, safety improvements on the roads, it they choose to do so. But the equipment we are talking about here - the Lastech equipment - can generate up to 60-70 penalties in half an hour. Now if that is in one Parish and that one Parish Hall has got to deal with all of those fines in one evening, that is a big burden on the Parish and they cannot deal with it, they cannot cope with it. But, believe me, if you do stop that many people in an hour, just imagine how many you can do in a week. It is a huge number. What message that sends out to the public is that you, as the Honorary Police, the Connétable s, the States Jersey Police have a zero-tolerance on speeding in certain parts of our Island. That changes behaviour and very quickly you will see those speeding fines and accusations drop, as indeed it happened in France. That is why technology is important, but it can only be done effectively if you have fixed penalty notices. That is a choice that the Connétable s and the Honorary Police have. It is not going to happen without consultation and they have already had a meeting with the Attorney General and the Comité des Chefs, the Centeniers - and some of the Constables it has been discussed with as well. They understand the issue. If you want to change behaviour you can use this system to do it, but what you cannot do is process in the Parish Hall Enquiry system all of those offences. It would need to be a fixed penalty notice. One of the suggestions was, though, that for second offences - of which of course there will be many more - if

you generate that many tickets it will not go to the Magistrates Court but will be dealt with by the Parish Hall . That is an amendment we could make. So the Parish Hall Enquiry process and the Parish Hall involvement would be maintained and I think that is important. What we do not want to do is clog the Magistrates Court up with lots of second offences for what might be very minor infractions. But if you want to change behaviour that is exactly what you will have to do. But the Magistrates Court I do not think should deal with that, the Parish Hall should. So I do not want to hear shouts of: "This is going to compromise the Parish Hall Enquiry system", I do not believe it would. But that is the discussion that is going on at the moment which will carry on. But I would not want Members to discount technology as one way to solve a simple problem we have in Jersey; the speeding in certain parts of the Island, which we cannot possibly police in quite the way the public would like us to, either with honorary officers or States of Jersey police. But we can do it with technology and it has been proven in many other countries in the world that you can change behaviour by using that technology. We have that technology already; we do not need to start putting fixed cameras, hidden cameras, to catch people. It is not about catching people out; it is about changing behaviour. We already have the technology, we already have the equipment and States of Jersey Police to do this; all we need to do is agree a policy with the Parishes to move it forward which, as I say, discussions are going on at the moment. The other item I would like to cover is Deputy Hilton's mention of the Licensing Unit. She is quite right, it is in some people's minds under resourced. But what I would like to point out to Members is that that particular Unit is going around and checking specifically details of people's licences and ensuring the licence holders are fulfilling their obligation that is laid out in their licence. What they are not doing is going around policing serious disorder and so on, on those premises. I can tell you that all of the night shift in particular are doing that, especially the Licensing Unit. What the Licensing Unit is doing is checking the detail to make sure that if there has been a disturbance on those premises that has been dealt with by another patrol the licensing unit goes in and finds out why and finds a solution. That is what the specialist unit does; it is not there to police the night-to-night unfortunate problems we have with the night-time economy at the moment. What we are doing with that particular issue is looking at the licensing law, as Members will be aware, together with Economic Development, same with St. Helier and in particular the Constable of St. Helier, we are reviewing that law at the moment. That will go a long way to resolving some of these licensing issues which are basically fuelled by over-consumption of alcohol. That is stating the obvious perhaps, but the problem is that people are drinking at home because the price of alcohol is now higher. An unintended

consequence of losing the happy hour is that people drink more before they go out at night. Consequently they then drink even more when they get out, they move from premises to premises at different hours that the different licences are open to and eventually become our problem and the Council's problem when they fall out on the street at 3.00 a.m. It is a complex issue; it is not going to be fixed overnight but with the co-operation of the Constable of St. Helier, the Honorary Police, the Licensing Unit and all of the patrol units that are out each night, we can go a long way to resolving this. Indeed we have looked at issues in other places, such as the Isle of Man; similar issues where by putting in particular policies in a very short period they have reduced that public disorder by over 30 per cent. That is something we are looking at, at the moment, and comparing and will be bringing forward proposals to amend the licensing law which will resolve the issue. The Licensing Unit, I would therefore suggest, is not under resourced, but of course it would be lovely to have more policemen on the street. But what Members must also understand is the 230 officers we have: it is a small police force. We have to staff a number of units which in the U.K. would be done by a Headquarters Unit. We have a Firearms Squad, we have a Drugs Squad, we have a Forensics Department, we have a Scenes of Crime Department. All of these things would be done by a bigger unit at headquarters somewhere else in the country. We cannot do that in Jersey, we need to react straight away and if it was a very serious incident we will sometimes wait 24 hours or more for specialist help from the U.K. So we have to have a lot of officers multi-skilled, many of whom are doing tasks such as a Firearms Unit's task, for example, at no extra pay, but it is good professional development for them to have those skills and they are prepared to be flexible. As a

consequence we can run a 24/7 operation covering many of the things that a U.K. force would only be done from a headquarters outfit, we can cover with our small force in Jersey. Unfortunately the consequence of that is that, yes, perhaps there are not as many "bobbies on the street", as people would like to describe, on the streets of Jersey. But in order to achieve that, as the Chief Officer perhaps said publicly recently, that would take a number of more officers and there is a stark choice there; that costs money, that means more tax. So the public have a choice. What we try and do is maximise that resource and by changing the shift pattern, by getting officers that are currently doing specialised work doing extra shifts and going out on busy weekends, we are managing to police St. Helier as well as we possibly can. But of course, you can always do more. But with help from the honorary service, I think we achieve an awful lot. With change to the licensing law I think we can achieve even more with the resources that we currently have. So, Sir, I would simply like to obviously commend this policy. I think it is a fine document that is worthy of reading. If Members have not had a chance to read it fully, I would thoroughly recommend they do. I know a lot of you - and me included - in the past have read executive summaries. This is a particularly good executive summary, but I would urge you to read the rest of the document. It is one of the best policy documents I have seen laid before the States of Jersey. I am not saying this because it is my department, it was the first one that I read as a new Member and I have to say it is well worth the read even after the debate because it will bring up a number of issues that will be discussed in this House in the future. It is well worthwhile digesting it because I think it is a worthy document for further reading. But on that note, Sir, I would like to commend the policy document and I do hope that Members will vote for it, as indeed I will.

3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

Before I begin I think I would like to clarify one situation or position with you, Sir. When we come to vote, will we be voting for (a) and (b) of the proposition, or will they be en bloc, so to speak?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It will be ultimately a matter for the Minister to decide. I think all the paragraph and sub- paragraphs do hang separately, so if she wishes to take separate votes that would be her decision, if you wish to indicate that, Minister?

Senator W. Kinnard:

I imagine the Deputy will probably want to vote against part (b) of the proposition at least, so I am happy to take them in parts if Members want that. I am relaxed about it, Sir.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

It clarifies one situation but the problem I have with the particular document when one looks at the proposition on page 3 of criminal justice policy is that I do support most of it in principle. I do not think anyone can vote against the principle. However, the difficulty we are going to have is when we come to debate what the principles are, because the devil will definitely be in the detail. The dilemma I have this morning is that I want most of this in here, I do support the principle; however, there are a number of issues in it which, if I do vote for the policy in principle, it means that I am supporting what is in there in total and I do not. This is where we do often have problem in the States where we are asked to agree to something en bloc in principle, then afterwards they say: "Oh, yes, but in the States last year you voted for it" and I am in a position today where I say: "Yes, I do vote for the principle", but there are a number of issues I do not want to vote for. I will point them out; I am more than pleased to see parole and I certainly believe that we should not have to wait this long for the parole system to be introduced because I believe it could have been brought in as a stand-alone proposition, and indeed would have eased a lot of the problems we have at the prison at the moment and made life a lot easier. I would hope this will be one of the main areas that will be sped-up to ensure that the parole system does come through earlier rather than at a later date. One of the issues I have there will be the make up of the panel. Deputy Hilton is not here but

she also was concerned about do we do things here a la U.K. system or a la Jersey system. Again, the devil will be in the detail as to when we see the legislation that we will have to vote for. Also, it is the role of the Jurat, whether someone who was part of the judicial process - that close to it- should be part of deciding whether someone should have parole or not. That again, will come in the detail when we get around to debating it. The other issue, of course, is the joint working. For all sorts of reasons obviously Members did not agree with what I was proposing yesterday, but I cannot really be supporting something which I feel very strongly against and I felt the House yesterday lost the opportunity of making sure that there was going to be greater involvement with the oversight of what we are agreeing. By making it so narrow I think we are denying a lot of people the opportunity of being more involved in seeing the oversight of this particular policy. Of course, how can I vote for that? Also, rehabilitation. The sooner we sort out the problem of.. again this is one of the things we do have when we do pass a law, but we now have a spin-off, and that is the problem of when someone makes an application for a job and they are asked if they have a criminal record, and I can understand an employer wanting to know that. But if someone's time is spent through the Rehabilitation of Offenders Law, and the type of job they are going for has no connection with the type of offence they have been charged for and the time is spent, should they be obliged to show that on the application form? It is a great problem because if you do not show it and then suddenly the boss finds out and does not give you the job.. he is not going to give you a job because you have, in a sense, tried to hide something yet, on the other hand, if the person does disclose the details he might not get the job simply because he has a criminal record. It is a dilemma which is a problem for both the employer and the employee. Again, I would ask for assurance from the Minister that she will address that problem sooner than later and certainly the earlier the better. The other issue is the issue of the Police Authority. I would have thought there would be a lot more support from those who have strong honorary connections and yesterday we had it at full blast. I would hope that the Connétable s will certainly be pushing to ensure that the Police Authority does encompass both the Honorary and the States Police because at the moment what is being proposed is that it will be just the States Police. It may well be tailored for Jersey because it comes from some part of, I think, Gibraltar. But really, it is not really what the States voted for. The States voted for and agreed in 1999 that we would have a Police Authority which encompassed both the Honorary and the States Police. We may have to take a ruling somewhere along the line but can we go forward and debate something which has not been rescinded? If, in fact, we voted to have a Police Authority encompassing both, can we then come forward with a law that only encompasses one? Maybe we should have a look at that and see whether that particular 1999 proposition should be rescinded. The great thing about the Police Authority is that it would

have an over-arching view of policing in the Island. It will involve all 13 police forces, because we have 13 at the moment, and each police force is doing their own thing. One thing that will come from the Police Authority will be the need for each police force - and I say each police force meaning each Parish - to come forward with a plan which they think will be the best way of dealing with the needs of the community they serve. It will not be: "We have a thing in this Parish where we want to ensure that speeding motorists are punished" or some other form. It will be a joint approach and, more importantly, we will get back to basic policing. Deputy Fox mentioned something about it yesterday and while I might not agree with him about his motor bikes I would certainly agree that prevention is one of the key aspects of a good community. It all starts with crime prevention; if we can prevent crime the majority of this becomes superfluous. A lot of this is dealing with those who have committed crime rather than dealing with those who are looking to prevent crime. I cannot really be supporting some of the parts in here but if I vote yes, it means I am supporting it; if I vote no it means I am not supporting the principle. I think the dilemma some of us may well find ourselves in is we are voting for something we do not necessarily agree with but by voting against it, it means we are throwing out everything on the policy. It may well be I have got to vote contre simply because there is too much in here which I cannot agree with, yet there are things in it .. but I would ask the Connétable s through the Comité des Connétable s, to press and make sure that the Honorary Police are part of the Police Authority. If we do not do it now it may be years before you could be included.

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I would ask the Minister to respond to the following areas that I have that I would like clarification on. The first one, if I draw the Minister's attention, is the pillar 6 enforcement on page 69, paragraph 9.47, the second paragraph down. It is dealing with the interaction between the States of Jersey and the U.K. I will read just the first 3 lines on paragraph 9.47: "The situation with regard to the U.K. is somewhat different. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs prioritise the detection of class A drugs but on a completely different scale. The relatively small amount of drugs that come to the Channel Islands is not a priority for them and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs." Herein lies, in my view, a problem. My question is that if a drugs importer or a drugs trafficker imports drugs into the Island of Jersey that drugs trafficker has to depart from a port or airport, either Weymouth, Poole, Portsmouth or, in certain cases, St. Malo, and departing airports such as Manchester, Gatwick, Birmingham, Bristol and so on. My question to the Minister is on page 87 of the action plan relating to pillar 3 - I ask Members to look at that briefly. Has she the power to repatriate those drugs importers who are arrested at the port of St. Helier or the airport at Jersey and does she have within her authority the power to sentence that trafficker to one or 2 years of custodial sentencing in Jersey without remission, and the rest to be sentenced in the form of a ban on re-entering Jersey for the undischarged portion of that sentence and that that drugs trafficker be deported to the departing port or airport from which they arrived? Can I ask the Minister to clarify why that cannot happen? If resources can be saved at the prison, personally I would like to see more resources allocated to Customs and Immigration in this area. So that is my first query. My second query is related to pillar 9, rehabilitation and what appear to be 2 contradictory statements. I will ask the Minister to refer to page 100 in the boxed section - Policy Statement - where it refers to the Probation and After-Care Service and I may be allowed to read, if Members will bear with me. I am reading half-way down the first paragraph on pillar 9, Policy Statement: "The service is experienced at helping offenders to gain access to accommodation and employment opportunities as well as services more directly related to their offending. There are a range of services available to ex-offenders but without professional assistance they are not always able to access them." This is the sentence I want to bring to Members attention: "It is therefore disappointing that few

prisoners take up the offer of assistance from the Probation and After-Care Service post-release." Bear this in mind when I draw Members attention then to page 95, paragraph 12.36 where the last sentence appears to contradict what I  have just referred to on page 100 where it says:  "The indications are that staffing levels are adequate at present given the high take-up of voluntary contact upon release." Could the Minister clarify what appears to me to be a contradiction?

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

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs and her department on what I think is a very comprehensive, well presented and, in fact, interesting report. I am sure a lot of hard work has gone into it and I think that shows. I have a few brief observations and comments to make and I can assure Members that as I have written them on a piece of card the size of a postage stamp they are relatively brief. For those Members who have the document in front of them, I would be grateful if they would turn to page 65. I think as we talk about statistics it is import to understand them and to also not necessarily be led-by-the-nose by statistics. Nevertheless, on page 65 are 2 very interesting charts. The first chart says: "How much of a problem is the following in your neighbourhood?" and then it lists a number of types of incidents from noisy neighbours to speeding, rubbish and litter, vandalism and people dealing drugs. What is noticeable from that particular chart is that it is mainly occupied by graphics displaying: "Do not know", "It is not a problem" and "It is a minor problem" taking up virtually the entire space. What is interesting - if Members look at the chart immediately below which says: "How much of a problem do you think the following are in Jersey?" and it relates exactly the same issues - is all of a sudden the chart goes

completely the other way around and almost all of the chart is taken up by the items I mentioned - noisy neighbours, young people hanging around, drunks, rowdiness, speeding, vandalism. All of a sudden, in terms of perception of what is going on in Jersey, everything becomes a major problem or a minor problem and there are very few people saying: "It is not a problem" or "I do not know." I think that page 65 in many ways tells it all because an enormous amount of what we are talking about is about perception. People believe there are big issues out there but when you ask them about what is going on in their own neighbourhood and around their own home, they are living reasonably quiet and unbothered lives. I think we should, as an Assembly, take note of that particular statistical result because it really would be a great mistake to start founding our policies on the back of perception. One of the most popular policies, and it deals precisely with perception, is having more police on the beat. Why? It is because you can see your policeman at the end of your street - it is reassuring. I want Jersey to have a small and efficient police force. I do not want to see Jersey become an Island with a policeman on every street. That would have to be the reality because if you do not have a policeman on every street then what is going on, on the other street? Perception is extremely important to recognise in how we modify our approaches to policing policy and, for that matter, criminal legislation. Let us just consider the beat policeman. I read some years ago a very interesting analysis of crime by an economist. The economist came up with some rather surprising statistics and I have passed this information on to the Minister for Home Affairs. I know she found it interesting but we do have a divergence of view on perhaps its value. Nevertheless, this economist looked at 3 issues in terms of how they tackle crime: more police on the beat, tougher sentencing and putting people into prison for longer. The intriguing result his particular research showed was that putting people into prison for longer was 14 times more effective than having more police on the beat in terms of a cost benefit analysis. I think that is a very interesting statistic, particularly as I would say there is a theme within our criminal justice

policy of what I would describe as a social sciences approach. I think that is entirely valid - rehabilitation is the right way to go as I welcome the opportunities for people who are serving sentences to be tagged and get a chance to get back into the swing of everyday life. That all seems to be entirely reasonable, but I do think that we need to keep a close eye on whether these policies will work over time and we also need to bear in mind that we remain with a difficulty in accommodating people at the prison. It is not big enough; the facilities are not there. One of the features of why putting people in prison for longer was deemed to be a success by the economist was quite simply that if you had a, let us say, fully equipped prison you had your clients on hand for a longer period of time to ensure they were going through the right rehabilitative processes, that education was being offered where needed and so on. We should not necessarily believe that everything we see in this document is the only approach. There are other ways of tackling crime and I am sure that the Minister will monitor things as we go forward. Like so many of my colleagues, I cannot resist taking up the subject of speeding. I was most intrigued to listen to the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs going over the various issues of speed cameras, mobile enforcement units, and the ability of high technology to issue numerous tickets at enormous speed. I do need to take the Assistant Minister up though on one comment he made. I think I understand why he made it but it did take me aback when he said of course it is not about catching people out. I do need to remind the Assistant Minister that criminal investigation work and policing in general is about catching people out so that is precisely what it does and that is what it is all about. I do accept that he probably did not precisely mean what he said. [Laughter] It is about catching people out; that is why it works.

The Deputy of St. John :

I am talking about changing behaviour and yes, if that means catching people out to change the behaviour, absolutely.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

As I said, I am sure that what I heard was not precisely what the Deputy meant. It is about, of course - and I think this is one of the benefits of this document - a holistic approach; it is about crime and the causes of crime. Unfortunately, because of various circumstances, and some other Members I think have spotted this, a lot of this document tends to deal with people after they have been caught and what we do with them then. I hope this will be the outcome of the holistic approach, and there are certainly signs of it within the document itself and the policies being laid out, that we take the nip-it-in-the-bud approach, we take the prevention approach, we catch those people before the rebellious youth become the criminal folks. It is an absolutely critical area of how we approach things and Members will know that it is only recently that I have had some difficulties with young people on the school bus service. It is extremely important - and I am grateful to the Minister for Education - that we all work together to try and tackle these things upfront because it is regrettable that we have young people among us who have no regard for other people's property and no regard for how they behave in front of adults and the elderly. That is something that, frankly, if we cannot tackle it in the schools these people will develop those particular traits as they grow older; disregard for other people's property and a disregard for how they behave in front of other people as adults when they are, frankly, probably more dangerous. I think it is extremely important that, if I can put it another way, rather than relax on the basis that we have just voted for a criminal justice policy and everything is going to be fine, we must keep our eye on the ball. That does not just go for the Home Affairs Department, States Members and other departments as a whole; it goes for the community, and if there is one thing that I have noticed over successive generations it is an increasing tendency to not want to have anything to do with the problem. I have to say, perhaps taking my own risks not seriously enough, that I tend to get involved and it was only the other year when the football competitions were on that there was someone trying to remove all the flags from a particular pub and were walking out the door with a Union Jack and a couple of other trophies and I accosted them. It was me versus 3 but I think sometimes you need to stand up for principle and I said: "What do you think you are doing?" and these rather inebriated gentlemen informed me that these were their flags, which just goes to show how your views can be distorted after a little imbibement. I made it quite clear that these were not their flags, they were the property of the pub owner, and I removed them physically from the grasp of these particular gentlemen. Maybe I was at risk but I have to say it sorted the problem and I then ordered them out of the pub and told them they were barred. I had absolutely no authority to do that but it seems to have done the trick. [Laughter] That is a small tale but it does underline that you can have an effect as an individual and, indeed, if I had been in any difficulty there was, as it happens on that particular weekend night, a policeman standing at the end of the road who I went to

speak to after the gentlemen left and pointed out: "Those 3 over there going up the road in the other direction are looking for trouble so keep an eye on them." But, regrettably, so many people now.. and it may stem from the "no, do not have a go; leave it to us" syndrome. That is fine but I think it is a shame, particularly now that we have technology at our disposal. Most people have mobile phones; you can take photographs of situations. I think we should, as a small community, be encouraging community action to get a grip of some of these situations. I know that the Home Affairs Minister will say: "Well, that is a little controversial and perhaps fraught with some element of danger." Nevertheless, I think it is a great shame that over the years.. I can remember as a young man cycling my bike home at night, rather out of order, no lights and local dads chased me down the road shouting: "Where are your lights?" I pedalled like mad; I did not want to get caught; I did not want to get hauled up in front of the Centenier to explain my actions. That is what used to happen. Nowadays, I do not think that would occur. I think people would simply ignore the situation, and I think this is one area where we have to engage with the community and say we rely on the community to spot things early and to be the eyes that the police force do not have. I am sure that the Minister will put me completely clear on how she is tackling that particular line. In all other respects I congratulate her on what I think is an excellent document.

6. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

What I was going to say has already been said and I do not think I will waste people's time by repeating it.

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

I would just start by saying that like my neighbour, the Deputy of St. Martin, I agree with practically all that is in this document. Having said that, I agree with the principles but I do have concerns about some of the details - not many - and assuming I do support this proposition, I would not like it to be read that I have, in fact, given my name to all that may follow as a result. Secondly, if I could just deal with one or 2 concerns that I have in the action plan. I think it was yesterday that Senator Mike Vibert made what I thought were quite interesting comments in relation to speed cameras - that has been mentioned and I will not go into a great deal of detail. I am slightly concerned. While I endorse all that the Senator did say yesterday on that matter - I thought it was most helpful - I am concerned about the wording that we have in this document where it talks about cost effectiveness. I believe this is completely the wrong perspective to be taking. Surely what we should be doing is looking at accident reduction or accident prevention. Whether a camera generates sufficient funds or whether it reduces accidents are 2 completely different things and it does occur to me that the wording in the document has the wrong focus. Also, while looking at action plan 7 I have some concern about the asset recovery aspect as it applies to working with other jurisdictions, a matter which I did elaborate on a few days ago in a separate debate. Moving back to action plan 5 - intervention at an early stage - there seems to me to be, having read through that, a lack of focus perhaps on crime prevention which is basically what we should be doing. The document - I recall it being raised by other Members - has a lot to do with what happens after a crime has been committed. Perhaps we are not focusing sufficiently on prevention, preventing crime in the first place, which is after all the primary duty of a policeman. In that regard it does occur to me that it is quite an issue, certainly in St. Clement and St. Helier. Are we, in fact, creating by default crime when we are developing? It does seem to me that more emphasis should be put on designing-out crime at an earlier stage. There should be more debate with the Housing Department and Housing Minister to make sure that what we are building is not going to cause social problems in the future. So often we see with modern houses the fact that you have a house which is not a home. It is a bathroom, it is a bedroom, it is a lounge. Where do the children go when they are older? They do not want to sit with mum and dad watching the same television so

they go out. The reason they go is

Senator T.J. Le Main:

On a point of order, could I just remind the Deputy that all developments in St. Clement will involve the 2 Parish Deputies and the Constable - all developments taking place - and he knows that very well.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I am aware of these things. I am saying what has happened in the past and that there is a lack of focus, in my view, in this document on that matter. There should be more focus. For example, the Minister for Housing has just alluded to St. Clement . I can recall a situation with regard to Hodge II, where comments were made by the States of Jersey Police with regard to designing-out crime but those comments were essentially ignored. I think more emphasis, more working together, should take place between the Home Affairs Department and the Housing Department to make sure that these things do not occur. That is basically all I have to say. A few concerns there that perhaps more focus on the matters I have highlighted would be helpful. In fact, I would be grateful if the Minister could, in her summing-up, perhaps satisfy my concerns about that design that I have just been talking about. I am not sure that when we do design housing estates we have sufficient amenity space. I was having a chat with a planning officer recently and said: "Well, if we keep putting houses in people's gardens then the house that is currently there no longer has anywhere for the children to play and neither is there space for the children to play from the new house. The children have to play in the road." The planning officer said to me: "What is wrong with that?" I think there is an awful lot wrong with that and we need to be looking at that.

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

I realise sometimes I ramble; I will try not to. I do hope though that the Minister for Home Affairs will perhaps take some notes and maybe get back to me as an individual rather than me speaking at length to not much attention and feeling inevitably throughout the process that I have agreed to a policy and not really had any addresses to some of the suggestions that I have made. This is a very interesting proposition today because of the fact that it is quite heady. I do agree that it is very well written and it is very well presented, and it is to be congratulated in coming forward in the way it has. It is interesting because I think it asks us to do some very specific things after it has presented us with a holistic approach to crime safety and general good management of the community. The proposition is worded, in particular, to agree the action plan within the different pillars that have been identified. Many Members have spoken about different issues that they are concerned about naturally in their Parishes but I think it is important to recognise that we are only agreeing the wording of the proposition, which is to agree the action plan as set out in the document. The action plan, in respect of some of the pillars, is quite specific and quite small. I think the only criticism I have of the criminal justice policy is perhaps that it has taken a long time for the parole elements and the rehabilitation of offender elements to come to the Assembly, but then that could possibly be levelled at any States high level strategy or set of States policies. I know when I was trying to develop the alcohol policy and also the tobacco policy for the Health Department it did not happen as quickly as I would have wished. When it was completed - and specifically the smoking strategy - the smoking strategy sat on the shelf ready to go for about a year and a half. That was an introduction to the way that the States works. Sometimes things are ready to go but they are not politically acceptable, or perhaps it is not the right timing for something, or perhaps we do not have something else in place; perhaps there are not any laws there that we require to introduce them. We have seen that with the European Convention of Human Rights where we would have liked to have introduced it earlier but there were some issues there. I can understand that and, therefore, I do not really make too much of a criticism there. I think there has been enough criticism of the terribly difficult job that the Home Affairs Minister and her Assistant Minister have had to endure. People can criticise them but I think that the work, specifically in the prison and the rehabilitation of offenders and all of those issues, has been extremely difficult. I know the passion and concern that the Senator brings to her work and I have seen it in my time in the States, the commitment and the attention and the dedication. I know it is not something that she has just dismissed. That is the criticism. I will try to be constructive now, and it may not be of interest to other Members. That is unfortunate but I hope that the Senator will take note and maybe get back to me. Pillar one and pillar 3, criminal justice and looking after and taking care of victims. I do not know if Members will recall but recently I brought up the issue of the compensation that was paid to a gentleman under the Criminal Compensation Scheme who had received a violent attack upon him in a pub and had ended up being severely affected by this decision was levelled at the scheme because of the fact that the States had set a ceiling of something like £100,000 and this man's potential for life had been dramatically impacted, and has now been put in a position whereby that is his lot and that is just too bad because the States had agreed that at the time and that is just too bad for him. I think if we are going to embrace the notions of pillars of criminal justice and looking after the victims then we need to redress compensations that are handed out to people such as that, in particular, when at that period of time we had set a level, whereby today if it came as a stand-alone Member's proposition to issue a level of compensation, I do not think there would be one single Member in the States today that would not agree with giving this gentleman more money for the type of injuries that were inflicted upon him because his criminal justice does not stop and his being looked after, looking after victims, does not end on the day that we adjudicate his amount of money. His life is going to go on. His life is probably going to become more challenging and I am concerned that we are not going to address that. I would hope the Minister could get back to me privately or

publicly and see whether or not these 2 pillars - 2 of the major pillars of these 9, criminal justice and looking after victims - whether or not the justice of looking after this victim is going to be sorted out in the long term or whether or not she could do it in the summing-up, because I have mentioned this before. I think the area that I could possibly offer some contribution and we have all got ideas, have we not; then again, some are workable and some are just non-starters. But I do not think it should stop us from putting them forward. I had a lot more enthusiasm when I first came to the States. I have learnt to temper it somewhat. I have learnt to lower my expectations in most areas and eliminate them in some, but I still believe in putting forward ideas because I think that that is something I can contribute. In pillar 4, in the joint working pillar of this policy, I would like to just cover a couple of issues. Parish wardens in St. Helier. The Constable of St. Helier has introduced 2 Parish Ward ens. They work from the hours of 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. at night. They work policing the parks and policing the streets, ticketing cars and reporting behaviour in conjunction with the Honorary Police and the States of Jersey Police. It is a new initiative to St. Helier and it is one that I think has made, and will make, the greatest difference to how people have a perception of their quality of life. I admire the identification of the statistics that Deputy de Faye had pointed out and it is all about perceptions and he pointed out that a lot of this has got to do with how the public feel, and if they feel safe and if they do not feel threatened, then maybe they will report and maybe they will become a little bit more involved and maybe they will put themselves forward for honorary service. But if there is a perception out there that they are going to get mugged and kicked to death by 17 youngsters as they cross the park from the hospital back to their house, then they are not going to get involved. They are going to lock themselves in at 5.00 p.m. This is where I get to a specific suggestion, which I have mentioned many times before. I do not know how long or if, in the past, the States of Jersey Police always used to patrol the entire Island in their police cars. I do not ever recall seeing them as much as I have seen recently. I have seen them responding to issues, but just patrolling is something I feel that is a new factor and I am not certain on that. The States of Jersey Police Force - the uniformed service - has one dedicated community officer for St. Helier and recently, in communication with the Home Affairs Department, who have been extremely helpful with the Constable and myself going to the problem areas, we have been able to get them to come along after hours to support residents in addressing the issues - involving the Honorary Police as well - to identify hot spots and try to address their concerns. Our involvement with Deputy Martin and the Constable and the residents, in some areas, is proving to be effective and in other areas, it has raised levels of awareness. In this particular issue that I have mentioned before, and I mention again, I am making a specific request. If you have only got a few uniformed police officers on shift this week, next week, and in the next month coming to Christmas, could you place a couple of them please outside Woolworths because - not that there is anything going on outside Woolworths - but a high level of presence in the public eye has a calming effect, and a constant presence, and it may or may not be accepted, I appreciate this. It is just an idea, I have mentioned it before. When I was a kid there was always a policeman outside Woolworths and whenever anything went wrong or a member of the public got lost or had a question, we used to take them to Woolworths and there would be a police officer standing there and they would sort it out: "Oh, we have lost our Mum", "We have lost our Dad", "We have lost our money", "We have lost a phone", "We cannot find our hotel." "Come with me. I will take you to the police officer" and you would walk them through town and boom, there would be a police officer outside Woolworths or Burtons - giving them equal advertising. So, I think that that level of presence is far more effective in being at the heart of the town where - if there is going to be a problem, you have got many more people for there to be a problem for - there is going to be an instant solution and there will also be a high level of awareness to the fact that there is an

uniformed police officer standing there. Deputy Fox mentioned it yesterday, and this is an ex- police officer, that it is rare that he sees a uniformed police officer. Quite a criticism from somebody that had worked in the States of Jersey Police for that length of time. I do not believe it was a criticism of the force. It was a positive critique, perhaps. So, that is a specific request. Here is a daft idea: it may not fly at all but the Constables will have a good laugh with me probably now and probably more so in the coffee room about it. In the Battle of Britain you used to have the big wing of fighter pilots that were stationed and ready to address the threat in large numbers, and at the time that they were formed there was a lot of criticism as to the wisdom of doing this because they were not introduced for quite some time in relation to the Battle of Britain, but when they were introduced they had a dramatic effect when they came into play. I think Douglas Bader and the rest of them were involved in all of that, but it was a huge number of fighter pilots responding to a threat. The Honorary Police, I believe, throughout the Island are not normally encouraged, because I did ask this question about St. Helier No. 1 district who need more Honorary Police. I think we have got few, if any, so we really do need some, considering the numbers of people. I believe they are encouraged not to police their districts. I spoke to Mitch Couriard about this and he said that we do not really want people coming forward to police their own districts. It is not a good thing. So, why can we not look in the future, under this joint working pillar, at perhaps Honorary Police Officers and I know they do already in relation to events such as car clubs and rallies, and I know they are overstretched with Parish Hall Inquiries and things, but at night there are very, very few Honorary Police available for St. Helier. I am just wondering if the Constables themselves could speak because they are the heads of their departments there, if they could speak with their police forces and see what is the chance of us being available for the Parish of St. Helier at night where most of our people in Jersey are? A non-flyer probably, but I would put it that if there are people willing to serve Jersey, they should not just be willing to serve Jersey in their own particular Parish. They should be willing to serve Jersey in an honorary perspective where the heat is and, at the moment, having spoken to the Chief of Police yesterday or the day before, there is a real issue with alcohol-related violence in St. Helier and, although numbers of recruits are coming through and good recruits are coming through, they are going on to the streets with the bare minimum level of experience to face up to those issues. They certainly could do with as much assistance as possible. The introduction of Parish Ward ens to take over the ticketing and policing of parks perhaps could be picked up by other Parishes that have large policing duties, freeing-up Honorary Police Officers that may be more capable of managing issues that could free-up some of the front line States of

Jersey Police in town to address these critical areas. It may be a daft idea, but at least it is an idea. The other thing I would just like to say is that I am a bit frustrated by the implementation of solutions to problems in Jersey. The other evening - Monday evening - there was a meeting in Rouge Boullion to suggest ways of tackling crime, and one of them was to extend the opening hours of pubs and clubs. This is really infuriating when 7 years ago I was leading the Alcohol Strategy for the Health Department and we had identified that within the Crime and Drug Safety Strategy - another strategy - as one of the key areas that we needed to look at; extending the opening hours, cutting-off the supply of alcohol and extending the opening hours to serve soft drinks only so people could leave in a staggered way - staggered in some cases - access the taxis as they are able to rather than queuing-up or not finding any, and also extending, which has been picked up by the Economic Development Minister, the hours of licensing for access to food for people when they have had a few drinks as well. Those things have been there, they have been gathering dust. As I said, the Tobacco Strategy was gathering dust for one and a half years. The Alcohol Strategy has been gathering dust for 7 years and that is why we are in the mess we are in. There is enough strategy around. It is the action plan that is low on the ground and it is thin on the ground and that is what we are debating today. We have got a very weighty criminal justice policy in front of us. All we are being asked to do is to address and approve the action plans in relation to these pillars. So, we will all be talking about it, as I have done for a long time, and we are talking about a very small amount of actions that need to, in effect, take place. The last thing I would like to say - because I have taken a long enough time - is I believe that the most important part of this entire document is on page 47, and I think that there is something that needs to go into it that is not in it at the moment. On page 47 on bullet point 2, it is to establish a forum for criminal justice policy and planning involving the Executive, the judiciary and the prosecution. So, in the long term, we are going to be looking at what we are doing in these areas. I think there is an omission or 2 and I think that the element that is missing is the public partnership such as the Honorary Police

involvement in that forum and other non-government organisations in the public and maybe the Minister could tell me why those groups were not considered in this forum and what her ideas are in relation to this forum because I think that that forum's work in the future is going to be critical.

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

I congratulate the Minister and her Chief Officer and her department on this very thorough criminal justice policy. I very much support the ongoing work of the Safer St. Helier Group and their Building a Safer Society strategy. I would, Sir, just like to focus on 2 things: the prison and resources. I welcome the new skills facilities, the education that is going to take place in the prison and the fact that rehabilitation for prisoners is going to be at last given due emphasis. Now, the additional resources for this area should pay off in the medium to long term, I believe, with a significant cut in the re-offending rate. I very much hope that sufficient resources will be made available, Sir, in the future to enable all the excellent initiatives in this policy report to be fully realised in the years ahead. Thank you, Sir.

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

Just to say and to contradict my Constable, I will just repeat a few things if I could be given that latitude. I think it is an excellent report. We did have in part a bad-tempered couple of debates yesterday and I think it may have taken away from the fact that it is an excellent report in many respects. It is holistic, it does move towards giving an emphasis to the victims which criminal justice systems have been very poor at doing and it also, I think, with some reservations, is tailored to work in a small community. I think it has tried to emphasise those aspects, although I do think the Minister has copped-out on a couple of issues, particularly the prison visiting group for example. I do not think she has faced up to what will inevitably be a conflict not too far down the road. I also would enjoin the Honorary Police. I have asked one or 2 of them, you know: "What is it you do not like about the Police Authority?" and there is this real fear they are going to be sucked into yet another bureaucracy and so forth, and all I would say is, of course, the danger of not being there at the beginning is it will become this fearsome bureaucracy perhaps and you should be in there, I would have thought, would be my word, Sir, in order to try and deal with it. Otherwise, it may well run away with itself and you may find yourself the recipient, albeit by default, of other people's policy initiatives if you cannot influence them at the beginning, and that is why I would say we should move on that, Sir. Just a few words on the prison issue. Quite rightly and people like Senator Perchard have raised this issue - and Deputy Scott Warr en - but I would not be over- optimistic about bringing down those reconviction rates. They are high in most western countries. Britain happens to have some of the highest and there are various approaches. You can take the American approach which is working, and I thought that was what Deputy de Faye was referring to. The American approach is simply to go where you have got repeat offenders and Britain has adopted a version of this now. You go for the 3-strikes-and-out approach and your prisons are totally clogged with people on very, very long sentences and the cost benefit of that, Sir, is not that they are able, as Deputy de Faye said, to enjoy all these programmes that are offered to them. That is not really the point. The point is they are taken off the streets for long periods and, therefore, they cannot re-offend. That is the stated purpose of the American penal policy at the moment and we could go for that obviously, but it is a mighty expensive policy and it raises all sorts of questions. So, do not, Sir, expect reconviction rates to tumble. They are not going to tumble. They certainly will come down. I would much prefer, Sir, that community sanctions work as much as possible and you also have to remember, Sir, if community sanctions do start working you are likely to get an even tougher population in terms of the kind of population you get in your prison and that will make it a harder population to work with. So, as I said, Sir, although rehabilitation programmes are long overdue, and they will play an excellent role, do not expect them to be a panacea and to see those numbers tumbling. In any case, Sir, there was a very famous prison reformer in the 1930s, Sir Lionel Fox. He said: "How can you train people for conditions of freedom in conditions of captivity?" You will always have that tension between the deterrent effect

of prison and the rehabilitation. I have been involved in thousands, hundreds of arguments when I worked in these systems. Staff are always torn apart by this particular argument. The other issue, Sir, is, of course, as you get a tougher population in the prison, or a different population if the other sanctions come into play, you will also have a profile in the prison which will often require moving off the Island in order to take part in much more intensive programmes elsewhere and of course that has a counter-effect. The counter-effect is, of course, for some of them - not for all our prisoners because some of them obviously, a significant proportion, are not on Island, but for some of them, Sir, of course - you are removing them from their community so you are creating other issues when you are trying to deal with what appear to be the presenting issues. The other issue, Sir, where I think some Members have raised some very good points about it is all dealing with convicted people or the appearance of crime. It is this whole issue we all know, Sir, in our hearts - and those who have struggled with the whole issue of families, dysfunctional families and parenting and so forth - that if you could intervene almost at the moment of birth, you might have a chance. There are some experiments in Britain. I was reading about one in Dundee in Scotland, for example, where they literally swamped certain families with social workers and it was social workers, Deputy de Faye, I would say, Sir, not social science. It was the social worker approach, I think, he was questioning where you swamp families with social workers from an very early age and all sorts of support literally down to people living within the home for periods and that is a.. but, of course, you have got to think of it in terms of the costs that will be saved down the road because imprisonment, I am afraid, much as I would like to say rehabilitation is going to work, other than the containment side of prison, which assuming you can contain people, is the only certain effect of imprisonment it is a fairly dodgy proposition sometimes in turning people around. Two separate points. Deputy de Faye made a point. He was quite right about perception. I think what he failed to draw out, Sir, was that a lot of the perception centres around street disorder and I think people have got a legitimate point. A lot of people now will not go into St. Helier on Friday and Saturday nights, as we know. A Constable has highlighted this point recently and that is their fear, and they

will not go into the town and, quite bluntly, they are probably quite accurate in their perception. They do not want to be involved in the street disorder, and the other issue, Sir, about have-a-go - which is what Deputy de Faye apparently did when he met these over patriotic football fans. I am afraid, Sir, most people see street disorder or see street confrontations as having a violent edge to them and I am afraid, rightly or wrongly, they perceive you do not engage with these situations; that the better approach is to call the police and to withdraw yourself from the situation. It is very sad. We would like it to be the approach which is followed more easily, I would have thought, in our rural Parishes where you have relationships with people and you can somehow deal with the issue perhaps through relating to them rather than getting involved in a potential physical disorder. I think, quite frankly, I am afraid it is great rollicking advice but it is misguided advice and I do not think these days people want to get involved in that, but very hearty congratulations to the Minister for an excellent policy.

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

Just very briefly, may I join my congratulations with those of other Members to the Minister? It is a treat to get a policy that is integrated and joined-up and that one can believe is deliverable because you begin to see it already. It was a great joy to be in the prison recently when the old chapel was brought back from being an overflow dining hall into being a chapel and to see a properly staffed and financed chaplaincy team, not only doing the spiritual work in the prison but engaging with the whole rehabilitation programme in work that is tremendously valued, so I congratulate her on that. Can I join the debate about perception because, of course, if you have a wrong perception, if there are older folks in flats who are too scared to walk to the British Legion in the evening to engage in bingo or whatever, you can show them statistics and graphs for the next 5 years, their perception that it is not safe to walk the streets, no matter how statistically erroneous is their reality, because if it keeps them in their flat, it is not just an academic perception. It is what is real life to them and, therefore, it seems to me that if the reality is different then we have a huge education job to do, not just with our young but with our older folks to demonstrate that we are not giving St. Helier over to the thugs. We are wanting the town to belong to ordinary, decent and right living people. The second thing I want to say is a story from the missionary doctors of Africa in the 1950s where they told this story to encourage people to deal with things quickly. The village adopted a leopard cub because it was cute and cuddly. The leopard cub grew and eventually mauled a child to death and the doctor's prescription was this: "Little leopards become big leopards and big leopards kill." It is why Deputy de Faye and it is why Senator Vibert are absolutely right when they say that we are not going to allow vandalism on buses. It is simply because it teaches people that if they can get away with that, then a year or 2 down the track, they will get away with something worse and a year or 2 down the track from that, they will be guests of Her Majesty at La Moye. You stop it young because then you have a chance at stopping the little leopard becoming a big leopard. If I may put it very simply, I applaud this policy because it seems to me to be going back to standards of right and wrong where we want the States of Jersey and the community to be lining up unequivocally on the side of the right and not on the side of the wrong. There are, of course, lots of causes of crime. Of course there are, but I grew up in a poor area of south London. I grew up in a single parent family because my mother had been widowed. I do not remember ever thinking that poverty or deprivation was an excuse for crime and we need to provide the society support for those who find themselves in circumstances of deprivation. Of course we need the amenity spaces that Deputy Baudains referred to and the youth work that Deputy Pitman so often and eloquently champions. Of course we need all of those things but we do need to build a society where we have clear standards where right is right and wrong is wrong and we applaud the one and we condemn the other.

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

It is a pleasure follow in my almost immediate neighbour, the Dean. I would like to say to start with that I think it is unfair to criticise this policy for not providing what some Members have thought it should. This is not a strategic plan debate after all and in the early part of the policy, it refers to the fact that this is a key component of part of the strategic plan but it is not really, I think, fair to say: "Well, where is the issues about housing?" One Deputy raised, I think, where are the issues about planning and so on. This is about dealing with a minority of people who make life very difficult sometimes for the majority of people in Jersey. It is about the kind of interventions that need to be made, albeit early, but that have to be made to deliver that commonsense; that there are right standards that the Dean has just referred to, and I think we need to emphasise that. It is very easy when we are focusing on this minority who can make life so difficult and, of course, it is not just in St. Helier. Other Parishes also suffer from it, albeit that most of the problems are felt in the Parish that I represent. The majority of people in Jersey, let us face it, are law-abiding citizens. They have busy lives making a living. Many of them do masses of sport. Their social lives are interesting. They attend church, they have cultural activities. Most of us get on with our lives and we are very happy to live in Jersey but, from time to time - and I will give an incident in a minute that has happened in my personal life - something happens that impinges on that and we realise that there is this minority of people in Jersey who really can make an enormous difference, and really it is very easy for us to start focusing on that minority problem. The example I will give is that for many years, and I have lived in town for more than a dozen years now, I have poo pooed people who say to me that it is not safe to walk around town at night. I walk everywhere. I long ago abandoned my bicycle, just for those who think I am still upon it, and I walk everywhere because I find it much the best form of exercise and a good way to keep in touch with what is going on in the town, and I have never had any problems myself. But, in the last year, a close member of my family has been assaulted just outside in the Royal Square, and a homophobic attack as well so that makes it, for me, even more serious. That certainly brought it home to me that there is a real problem and it is not good enough to say that people are wrong when they say the town is dangerous and they are frightened to go out. People have, I think, a very reasonable fear that it may only be very rare and the statistics prove this is a rare incident, but the fact is it happens and