States Meeting Transcript - 10/06/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 10th JUNE 2008

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICAL RESPONSIBILITY ...........................7

1. Statement by the Chief Minister concerning the establishment of a Jersey Enterprise Board. .....................................................................................7

1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur):............................7

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................7
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier......................................................7
3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................7
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ................................................................8
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................8 1.1.6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................8

1.1.7 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................8

QUESTIONS......................................................................................9

2. Urgent Oral Questions....................................................................9

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding a Price waterhouseCoopers report on the Waterfront development..........................................................9 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):...............................................9 2.1.1. Deputy G.P. Southern :...................................................................9
   2. Deputy G.P. Southern :...................................................................9
   3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................10
   4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................10
   5. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................10

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................10
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................11
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................11 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................11 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C. H.M. Attorney General:............................................12 2.1.9. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................12

10. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................12
    11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................12

2. Deputy G.P. Southern ..................................................................12 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):..............................................12

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................13
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................13
3. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................13
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................13
5. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................14
6. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................14
7. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................14

8. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................15
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................15

3. Deputy G.P. Southern ..................................................................15 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):..............................................15

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................16
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................16
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................16

PERSONAL STATEMENT.....................................................................17

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................17

3.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................17

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumed..................................................................17

4. Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.65/2008)............17

1. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Vice Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee - rapporteur)..............................................................................17

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................18
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................18
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................18
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................19
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................19
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................19
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................20
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................20 The Bailiff :...................................................................................20 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel)..........21

2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................21 The Bailiff :...................................................................................21
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................22
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................22
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................23
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................23
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................23
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................24
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................24
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................24 The Bailiff :...................................................................................25

4. The Deputy ofSt.Mary:................................................................25

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................26
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................27
3. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................27
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................27
5. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................27
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................27
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................27
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................28
9. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................28
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................28
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................29 The Bailiff :...................................................................................32

5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................32
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34
2. The Attorney General:..................................................................35
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................36 Deputy G.W.J de Faye:.......................................................................36 The Attorney General:........................................................................36

4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................37
5. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................37
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................38
7. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................39 The AttorneyGeneral:........................................................................39
8. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................40
9. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................40
10. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................40
11. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................41
12. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................41
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................44

7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................44 The Bailiff :...................................................................................44

8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................44 The Bailiff :...................................................................................44
9. The Deputy ofSt.Mary:................................................................44

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
2. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................45
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................45 The Bailiff :...................................................................................45

10. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................45 The Bailiff :...................................................................................45

11. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................46 Senator L. Norman: ..........................................................................46

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................46

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................46

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................46
2. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................47
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................47
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................47
5. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier : ......................................................47
6. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................48
7. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................48
8. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................48
9. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................49
10. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: .........................................................49
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:.................................................49
12. Deputy G.C.L Baudains:...........................................................49
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................50
14. Deputy P.N. Troy : .................................................................50

15. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:............................................................50
16. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................51
17. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ........................................51
18. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................51 The Bailiff :...................................................................................52

12. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53

4.12.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................53 The Bailiff :...................................................................................53

13. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53 The Bailiff :...................................................................................53
14. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53 The Bailiff :...................................................................................53
15. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53

1. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................55
2. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................55
3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................55
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................56
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................56
6. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................57
7. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................58 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................58
8. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................59
9. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................59
10. Connétable J.Le S. Gallichan of Trinity :...........................................59
11. Deputy P.N. Troy : .................................................................60
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................60
13. Deputy K.C. Lewis :................................................................61
14. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................61
15. Senator M.E. Vibert :...............................................................63
16. Deputy J.A. Hilton:................................................................63
17. Deputy J.B. Fox:...................................................................65 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................65 The Attorney General:........................................................................65
18. Senator S. Syvret:..................................................................66
19. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..............................................................67
20. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................68 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................70 The Attorney General:........................................................................70 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................71

16. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................72 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................72
17. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................72 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................72
18. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................72

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................72
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................72
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................73

19. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................74

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................74
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................74 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74

20. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................74

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74

21. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................75 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................75
22. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................75 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................75
23. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................75 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................75
24. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................75 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................75
25. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................75

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................75
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................76 The Attorney General:........................................................................76 Deputy P.N. Troy : ............................................................................76 The Attorney General:........................................................................76
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................77 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77

26. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................77 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77
27. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................77

1. The Deputy of St. Martin ............................................................78
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................78
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................78 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................78

28. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................79

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................79
2. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................79
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................79
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................79
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................80 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................80 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................80 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................80 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................80 Senator F.E. Cohen:..........................................................................80 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................80 The Deputy of St. Peter:......................................................................80

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................81

5. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....81

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................81
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................81
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................81
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................82
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................82 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................82
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................82 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................83

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................83

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. Statement by the Chief Minister concerning the establishment of a JerseyEnterprise Board.

1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur):

States Members will recall that the report and proposition entitled Jersey Enterprise Board Limited: proposed establishment was due to be debated by the States Assembly on 17th June 2008. The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has effectively completed its work and the panel's draft report has been circulated to relevant parties, including the Chief Minister. Although the Chief Executive has subsequently liaised with Deputy Egré of St. Peter regarding this proposition and the panel's report, it has not been possible to arrange a formal meeting at which the Chief Minister and other Ministers could discuss the panel's provisional findings with the panel in the time available prior to 17th June. The Council of Ministers has agreed that there would be merit in holding further discussions with the Scrutiny Panel with a view to developing a refined proposal that could be both well understood and supported. The Council has therefore agreed that the report and proposition entitled Jersey Enterprise Board Limited: proposed establishment should be withdrawn. In the meantime, the Council of Ministers will be proceeding with the proposal to establish a Regeneration Task Force whose remit will be to co-ordinate and regenerate the town and urban areas. Accordingly, a report will shortly be considered by the Council of Ministers in order for it to bring the Regeneration Task Force into being. It is understood that the Scrutiny Panel's report will be published during the week commencing 9th June.

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

I wonder if the Deputy Chief Minister might be able to indicate at this stage whether or not he is able to tell us what the actual makeup of this Regeneration Task Force will be. Will it be exclusively politicians or will it be made up of non-politicians, or will it be an N.G.O. (non- governmental organisation) sort of stand-off type arrangement?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

My answer makes clear the report is still to be considered by the Council of Ministers and it will be after they have considered this that we will ascertain the nature of the composition of that task force. I suggest that there may well be non States Members involved in it to some degree but how that would be remains to be seen, and will be discussed obviously by the House in due course.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier

I would like to ask the Deputy Chief Minister whether he considers that the establishment of a regeneration task force is not consequential on agreement to J.E.B. (Jersey Enterprise Board) and whether it is appropriate that he goes ahead with forming the Regeneration Task Force.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I believe that the regeneration of St. Helier is a final activity and irrespective of whether Jersey Enterprise Board comes into existence or not a regeneration task force will be necessary. So I do not think the 2 are connected at all.

3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

Could the Deputy Chief Minister just confirm that after the report regarding the Regeneration Task Force is considered by the Council of Ministers a proposition will be brought to this Assembly for consideration?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I believe it would be appropriate for such a task force to be brought to the Assembly for consideration, but at this stage it seems premature to speculate on what that might contain.

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I apologise, this has been a bit back to front in asking what was happening with the regeneration board and then coming back to what is happening with the formal proposal, because I should have asked that first. I did not have a chance to because I was looking at this statement and trying to understand what has occurred. Could I ask the Deputy Chief Minister what has arisen that has required this proposition to be withdrawn today rather that put back in the order of business?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think the reality, Sir, is that this proposition was lodged at the end of last year. It will very shortly fall out of time and I do not believe that we could deal with the situation adequately in the time period available. On that basis there seems to be little alternative but to withdraw this proposition.

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

I wonder if the Deputy Chief Minister would reaffirm whether my amendment which was agreed by the Council of Ministers would be included the revised proposition, if it comes back to the States, or whether it is something I need to resubmit?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

At this stage, Sir, I have no idea what the revised proposition might contain so I have no idea whether the Deputy 's amendment would be appropriate or not. But I think having made the point in his amendment and accepted by the Council of Ministers, he can take comfort in the fact that we would be aware of his requirements and build that into our proposition. He might not need to make an amendment at all.

1.1.6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Could the Deputy Chief Minister confirm, in this statement he says: "Accordingly a report will shortly be considered by the Council of Ministers in order for it to bring in the Regeneration Task Force." Could he tell us who the authors of this report are? Are they W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) or J.E.B or is it a ministry? Which is this report they are considering? Who is the author please?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The report will be produced by officers of the Chief Minister's Department.

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

Would the Deputy Chief Minister confirm that essentially his statement confirms that J.E.B. is dead in the water and that we have to look at totally new alternatives?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The proposition is dead in the water; that does not mean that the notion of an Enterprise Board is dead in the water. That remains for further discussion.

The Bailiff :

No other questions for the Deputy Chief Minister, we come back to I and Questions. In accordance with Standing Order 15 I have approved the following urgent oral questions that Deputy Southern wishes to put to the Deputy Chief Minister, in the absence of the Chief Minister.

Deputy G.P. Southern

If the man who knows the answers thinks that is logical, that is all right.

QUESTIONS

2. Urgent Oral Questions

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding a Price waterhouseCoopers report on the Waterfront development

1. Were the Chief Minister and the 3 States Directors of the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited aware of the results contained in section 2.2 ofthe Price waterhouseCoopers report, "Harcourt Developments Limited Financial Capacity Assessment", and if so when did they become aware, and if they were not aware, why not?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):

The Financial Capacity Assessment on Harcourt Developments Limited was commissioned by Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited as part of its continuing due diligence exercise in relation to the proposed development of the Esplanade Quarter. Harcourt had previously been selected as preferred developer of Esplanade Square. W.E.B. then entered into heads of terms for the development of the Esplanade Quarter with Harcourt in July 2007. These heads of terms provide, among other things, for the delivery by Harcourt of financial guarantees issued to W.E.B. by an acceptable bank or insurance company in the aggregate sum of £95 million. The financial guarantees will set out an obligation by the bank or insurance company to make payments to W.E.B. in the event that Harcourt fails to complete the road works or fails to make planned payments. The Directors of the Waterfront Enterprise Board, including the 3 States Directors, would have been aware of the results of the Financial Capacity Assessment report in October last year. This was a confidential internal report and I do not believe that the Chief Minister would have been made aware of the content. The report was intended as a confidential report to the board of W.E.B. and there is a clear disclaimer from the author of the report, Price waterhouseCoopers, on the front cover. Accordingly, the reports did not receive wide circulation and were simply one of several papers to assist the board in its decision making. The Deputy selectively quotes one section of the report. I suggest that Members should do as the board did, and take the report as a whole setting this paragraph into context. Although this report is part of a package of information regarding the capacity of Harcourt to undertake the Waterfront development, the board of W.E.B. regard the provision of copper-bottomed bank guarantees as far more important, indeed of paramount importance, in the financial protection provided to W.E.B. and to the public of Jersey. For that reason the developers are required to have guarantees in place, and while these are referred to in the report they will be updated once the contractual arrangements to get underway and before signing any leases. I can give Members the absolute reassurance that no contract will be signed with Harcourt or, indeed, anybody else until those up-to-date guarantees in the sum of £95 million

are in place and have been thoroughly and independently verified. 2.1.1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

In referring to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister says that the report was for internal consumption only. Can he indicate when the Chief Minister became aware of the contents of this report, if at all?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I believe, Sir, that the likelihood is that the Chief Minister became aware of it, as most of us did, last week.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

When last week because we did debate last week. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I cannot speak for him, Sir, but I do not believe he was aware of the contents of the report until after the conclusion of the debate last week.

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

As a contingent liability, will the States, and thereby the public, be required to indemnify the developer and the underwriting of this deal with the banks in the event that it is unable to commit to its obligations?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Although I do not fully understand the question, Sir, I believe the answer is no.

4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

I refer to the statement issued by Harcourt, and in paragraph 2 it states that Harcourt own 100 per cent of the subsidiaries doing the work on the Waterfront. However, in paragraph 3 certain parties are claiming a partial interest in the share capital of these companies. Now what happens if these parties are successful, does that mean that the share capital of these companies changes so that in fact Harcourt are not then in control, and what do we do about checking out the people who are allegedly looking for a piece of the action on this deal? That is the first part, Sir. Can I just go on to a second part there? I note that the guarantees from the banks extend to £95 million, which is the amount due to the States of Jersey; will there be any guarantees on completion of the project, i.e. that the banks are satisfied there is enough money there to complete the project, not just to buy the land in?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

It is not really for me to comment on the statement made by Harcourt Developments, but if the company were to change its shareholding structure that does not necessarily change the contractual arrangements. The important thing is that we are dealing with .. the States has to deal with a contractor of repute and if we are not satisfied that Harcourt is a contractor of repute then we would not contract with them. As to the extent of the guarantees and the time period, the contract is by no means finalised yet and at this stage those are matters for negotiation. But the intention is that there would be a limited period for development and if the contractor failed to deliver within the required timescale then the guarantees could be brought into place. But, as I say, at this stage, Sir, that is speculation until the contract is nearer a drafting stage. Whether it be with Harcourt or anybody else.

5. The Connétable of Grouville :

Surely, Sir, Harcourt are only a contractor of repute while they have reputable members on the board. These may be changed if the partial shareholding is moved.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

That is, at this stage, speculation. I have no indication of whether the claim referred to in Harcourt's comments is justified, will be settled, but I repeat, that if Harcourt is not at the time of contracting held to be a company of repute then we would not conclude the arrangements with them.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

In the light of the statement the Deputy Chief Minister has just made that the Chief Minister was unaware of the content of this report until after the debate; can the Deputy Chief Minister justify ..

The Bailiff :

That is not what the Deputy Chief Minister said. The Deputy Chief Minister said that to the best of his knowledge, that he could not answer for the Chief Minister, that was his belief.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

That he believes that .. thank you, Sir. That his belief is that he was unaware of the content of this report; can he justify then the statement made by the Chief Minister which says: "The ruler has been run over Harcourt thoroughly and they have come up A1 every time" with the statement that Harcourt scored 1.4 on a test of ability to do the job - 1.4 out of 5 - and the words of the result in the table were "fail". Is that A1 every time and is that statement justified?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think it is difficult for me to speak for the Chief Minister and his interpretation of a report that he has not seen, but I suggest that the Deputy refers to my answer when I said that he quoted selectively one section of the report. Taking the report as a whole the board came to a view, and that view, I think, was communicated to the Chief Minister.

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Deputy Chief Minister confirm, following on from that reply, that the interpretation placed upon the findings of the report by the States Directors who spoke were correct interpretations?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The Board of Directors of W.E.B. came to a conclusion which, in the light of the report, I believe was a reasonable conclusion.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Were they correct, not reasonable? Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not know, Sir, if I can justify correctness or incorrectness because I do not see an absolute yardstick. One makes a judgment on these matters. This was, I believe, a reasonable judgment, made in light of full information provided by an independent person.

8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I asked a question of the Deputy Chief Minister who said that he did not understand the question and yet responded "no".

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Maybe I was a little bit short there, Sir, because I do not believe that the States has any contingent liability in this respect. Nor do I believe that it has any obligation to indemnify the developer; were that to be the case then there is not much point having the bank guarantees in the first place.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I seek clarification please, Sir, from Her Majesty's Attorney General on this issue? Although it is a part of the consideration it is the end of the thesis that this is not going to be completed okay. Is it practice, could I ask Her Majesty's Attorney General, for the States to indemnify in land that is its own anyway, it is going to revert to the public in 150 years' time, any such negotiations, leases, contracts, et cetera; is it not practice that the States indemnifies these sorts of deals? Is it therefore not practice that the public ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I make it clear that it is not open for you to question the Attorney General, but you are asking for clarification from the A.G. (Attorney General) of the Deputy Chief Minister's response?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

It has arisen out of the fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has not answered my question satisfactorily in my view, Sir.

Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C. H.M. Attorney General:

I apologise, Sir, that I am not sure I am able to give a very convincing response to that question. It seems to me that there is .. what underlies it is a question of the commercial realities that affect particular transactions which the States do from time to time, and there is a very wide variety of such transactions. I am not sure I can help the Assembly much more than that.

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

In the Deputy Chief Minister's answer to Deputy Southern , Sir, is the Deputy Chief Minister implying that W.E.B. through its directors or its Chief Executive chose to withhold this report from the States until after the decision had been reached?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, I do not believe there is any intention to withhold the report from Members. This was an internal report to the directors of W.E.B. which was not felt to be relevant at this stage, and I emphasise "at this stage" to the proposition. The report simply was one part of a large number of pieces of information that the board considered in deciding whether Harcourt was suitable to be maintained as preferred developer but was not relevant specifically to this debate. The fact that it has chosen to be released subsequently is a matter for the person concerned.

2.1.10. Senator P.F. Routier:

Does the Deputy Chief Minister accept that the questioner could have been even more selective and chosen a section which would indicate that it was appropriate to proceed with the transaction but to monitor it carefully, and does the Deputy Chief Minister agree that the questioner is missing the point and the priority to the States is that a bank or insurance company are prepared to guarantee the position of the States?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, Sir, I believe I made it clear that one should never quote selectively from the report but looked at it as a whole, and as Senator Routier, who is one of the Directors of the Waterfront Enterprise Board, clearly indicates, the board did look at the report as a whole and came to the conclusions with which .. I agree with his conclusions.

2.1.11 Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does the Deputy Chief Minister consider that it would have been wiser to have released this report in its entirety before we had done the debate in the interests of having informed proper debates?

The Bailiff :

Deputy , if you want to put that question shall we move on to (b)?

2. Deputy G.P. Southern

2. Why did theychoose not to reveal this important information to Members in advance ofthe debate on the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan, P.60/2008?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):

The proposition which Members debated, proposition P.60, was a proposition in 2 parts. The first part dealt with the endorsement of the intention of the Minister for Planning and Environment to

adopt the Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter as an agreed development framework for the Esplanade Quarter. This part of the report is independent of who ultimately develops the scheme. Part (2) of the proposition deals with the land transfers necessary to allow W.E.B. to contract with a developer to undertake the scheme. It did not specifically refer to any one particular developer although Harcourt had been identified already as the preferred developer. For that reason, and in order to provide Members with a summary of the financial terms of the proposed development of the Esplanade Quarter, the provisions of Appendix D were included in the report and proposition

for information. But Members were not asked to approve the entering into of a development agreement with Harcourt. It was, and is, considered that the key financial security is, or will be, the provision of independent financial guarantees by a bank or insurance company.

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:

As all presentations to States Members as developer with architecture have so far been Harcourt, after we have agreed the principle in 2 parts, was there then a provision to go out to tender to other developers. Was this the intention of the Council of Ministers?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, Sir, as I indicated, Harcourt have been for 12 months now the preferred developer and, as preferred developer, they have expended considerable sums in working up the proposition which would enable them to provide this sort of activity and cost out how much it would be worthwhile. So, I do not think that at this stage there would be any reason to go out to tender when the board has already indicated that Harcourt is the preferred developer. If in further negotiations it is found that Harcourt are unsuitable as developers then it may well be that the board at that stage would go out to tender. But that is speculation of the future. At the moment Harcourt remains the preferred developer subject to being able to deliver appropriate satisfaction to the board and to the Chief Minister.

2. Deputy J.A. Martin:

So 12 months ago, before Harcourt were the preferred developer, we went out to tender to all other developers and interested parties. Can the Deputy Chief Minister please confirm that?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I believe, Sir, that probably in 2006 discussions were held to going out to tender, as a result of which a number of potential developers were identified, narrowed down to a very small shortlist out of which Harcourt became the preferred developer. But that activity was carried out by the Waterfront Enterprise Board as part of their duties, and I think they came to a conclusion which, on the face of all the information provided to them, was a reasonable one.

3. The Connétable of St. Peter :

Given the major project that we were considering, did no-one on the Council of Ministers, when it came before them, feel that they ought to establish and find out a lot and more greater detail that clearly had been done and the background that had been carried out by the Council of Ministers? Because I think it is a case, Sir, we have been badly let down by the Council of Ministers.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, Sir, I have to make it clear that the process in this having identified a developer is to then bring the plan to the States, as the Council of Ministers did last week. Once the Masterplan is agreed then one goes into detailed negotiations with the developer. That will require up-to-date due diligence being carried out on that preferred developer. If that due diligence is not to our requirements then the contract would not proceed. But one does not do due diligence at an earlier stage prior to knowing what the plan is and then having to repeat it subsequently nearer to the event. At the time that the board chose Harcourt as its preferred developer they had all the information that they required, including letters of comfort from the banks to enable them to go forward as a preliminary stage that Harcourt should be the preferred developer.

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

This issue of due diligence is an interesting one and the terminology "up-to-date due diligence" is specifically interesting. When Scrutiny examined the proposals for the moving of the tourism buildings we conducted a Scrutiny review with the then chairman, Mr. Margason and I put it to Mr. Margason at the time that as a report had surfaced in the local media about certain directors associated with this company, Harcourt, were W.E.B. satisfied with the due diligence in this company? His response was: "Yes, the due diligence had occurred and it was fine, everything was okay. All the boxes has been ticked." That is a matter of record. Could the Deputy Chief Minister then explain to us what aspect of the up-to-date due diligence is he referring to? Is he referring to the money or is he referring to the company or is he referring to the directors?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Having ascertained that Harcourt was competent to carry out this development negotiations continued with them as a preferred developer. The detailed due diligence on any contract will be done at the stage that the contract is in the process of finalisation. One does the most up-to-date due diligence one can do, and I apologise if the Deputy is confused about the words "up-to-date". What I am saying is that due diligence carried out a year or 2 ago would not be suitable as a current verification of the ability of any contractor to do this work. Hence, having determined that Harcourt are likely to be the contractor, when we come to the final detailed negotiations on the contract we will do due diligence at that time.

5. Senator F.E. Cohen:

Would the Deputy Chief Minister please confirm that Harcourt was selected as the preferred developer for Esplanade Square long before I began the process of crafting the new Masterplan? [Laughter]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The Senator has a better memory than I have. I said 2006 or so, it was clearly earlier than that but I am happy to be corrected by the Senator.

6. The Connétable of Grouville :

Would the Minister not agree that the proposed investigation by Carey Olsen into the Nevada situation would simply be an attempt to try to prejudge the court case that is already going on there, and if it turns out to be vexatious, in fact, loading the onus onto people who perhaps have absolutely no way at all of knowing what the possible outcome of that case will be?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

At the moment Carey Olsen are investigating the nature of litigation, or supposed litigation, because I believe that this did raise concern in Members' minds. I cannot, at this stage, judge what the outcome of that investigation will be but certainly no lawyer would be in a position to prejudge or second guess the outcome of that litigation. I think what Members and W.E.B. need to know is whether that litigation is germane to the appointment of Harcourt as developers, and if anything came out of that investigation which suggested that they might not be, the States should be fully informed of that.

7. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

If I can come back to question (b) and the question you are asked in there about revealing this important information, and I would like to ask the Deputy Chief Minister if he agrees that access to emails between all Ministers on the Waterfront, on W.E.B., on Esplanade Square are made publicly available and that will prove what they knew and when?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not think that Ministers or States Members discuss things exclusively by email, and while that may give some indication of some people's thinking it would not, by any means, produce a complete picture. I cannot see any point in going down that sort of level of activity unless the Deputy is after a witch hunt. I think it is far more important that we concentrate our efforts on seeing whether Harcourt is, indeed, a suitable developer for the waterfront scheme.

8. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Is the Deputy Chief Minister aware of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel's report 2008 review of the proposed Waterfront development, Esplanade Square, Les Jardins de la Mer and Route de la Liberation's conclusion, which is one paragraph, Sir, and it says: "From my examination of the process as described herein I am satisfied that the arrangements with the preferred developer have been carried out professionally and with regard to obtaining value for money within the confines of the Hopkins proposals. There are of course wide-ranging demands placed upon this scheme both social and economic, and the proposals have to satisfy many criteria. Given its complexity and subject to the necessary safeguards built in I can see no reason why the scheme should not proceed in this manner." Is the Deputy Chief Minister aware of the conclusion in the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel's report?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, Sir, I am grateful to the Senator for reminding me [Laughter] of the content of that report which does indeed show that all the activities to date have justified the action that the board of W.E.B. and the Council of Ministers have taken. Clearly that report in February - it goes up to February - up to that date everything had been done in accordance with what would be expected. All I am saying now is we will continue along the same lines, using the same policies, before finally signing a contract with the preferred developer.

9. Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may remind the Minister, this is not about a wish, this is about accountability, and does he consider that in the interests of an open and informed debate it would have been better to have released the full contents of the PwC report, including the reservations expressed in 2.2, along with the overall glowing recommendation as recorded by our Director, Senator Perchard: "We decided to do a second due diligence and we got PwC to do that. Their report of Harcourt was a glowing one. They recommended them as suitable." I see nothing in appendix D that recommends them as suitable. It simply goes through a set of facts. The Members could not necessarily have the skills to interpret appendix D, would it not have been better to have had the full report so that we could have an informed debate?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I believe that Members are quite capable of interpreting appendix D which was written in clear language and was put into the report for information. It was there as an adjunct to the main proposition which was to approve the Waterfront Masterplan and to arrange a land swap. So I do not believe it would be necessary to add anything further to appendix D by way of clarification, it is perfectly clear.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern

3. Having failed to release this data earlier why, when pressure was applied over information relating tothe financial deal, was it not revealedduringthedebatesothatMembers could consider it properly before coming to a vote?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):

I believe we probably dealt with that question in the last half hour; but the Chief Minister provided information about the guarantees that are required in order to secure the financial standing of the deal. That is the key issue that was necessary to consider. However, W.E.B. have agreed that they will undertake another due diligence report into Harcourt's financial standing. This will be shared with the Chief Minister and Treasury Minister and I hereby undertake to provide a report on the financial standing, and the nature and security of the independent financial guarantees to all States Members before any legally binding development agreement is signed. This will allow all of us to be satisfied with the security of the deal and to ensure that the public interests are properly safeguarded.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thank the Deputy Chief Minister for that commitment but I wish to return to the conduct of the debate on P.60 and ask him again whether he considers that the conduct of the Chief Minister and our representatives on the W.E.B. board on that day was appropriate in order to have a fully informed proper debate on that decision?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, Sir, I do believe it was proper and I do remind the Deputy just what the proposition said, and the words of the proposition, I think, are quite important in this, the proposition on part (b) was to do with the land arrangements, not to do with the appointment of a developer.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Deputy Chief Minister confirm that this episode illustrated that the role of the States Members on W.E.B. was working perfectly well and, indeed, it was an excellent example of how it was working. Would he confirm that in his view that is the case?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I have confidence in the entire board of the Waterfront Enterprise Board, States Members and non States Members. They are doing a sterling job in helping to provide us with a Waterfront which I believe all of us in due course can be proud.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

When States Members and this report does just presume that we cannot get the 100 per cent guarantee we are looking for, could the Deputy Chief Minister inform the House how long it will take us to get back to this position with a new developer?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, I am not in a position at this stage, Sir, to give any indication of that. Clearly the preferred developers have put a lot of time and effort into this and if they were to be unsuitable as developers then any new developer coming in would have quite a lot of learning and catch up to do, and I cannot at this stage say whether that would take them days, weeks or months. So it would be foolish for me to put any timescale on that activity simply to say that there would be a further delay.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Point of clarification, Sir, if I may. The Minister referred to a new examination of the financial situation and a report back, he did not say when, could he do so?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I said in my reply, Sir, that I undertook to provide that report before the legally binding development agreement is signed, so I cannot say how long it will take to produce that legally binding development agreement. All I can say is that even if the development agreement was available, unless the financial standing had been ascertained the development agreement could not be signed and would not be signed.

The Bailiff .

This matter is not on the Supplementary order paper but I have given leave to Senator Perchard to make a short personal statement.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

I would like to apologise to Deputy Baudains and to the House for making statements which were unintentionally misleading during the debate on the Esplanade Quarter last week with regards to legal actions taking place in Nevada. I made those statements in good faith as I thought the information I had in my possession was correct at the time I addressed the Assembly. Since it transpired that this information was out of date and therefore incorrect. I would like to apologise unreservedly.

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

If I might thank the Senator for those comments and presume, if I may, suggest that perhaps the Members of the Assembly as well. Could I ask him ..

The Bailiff :

No, you cannot ask him anything because Standing Orders do not permit questions on a Personal Statement, Deputy .

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Thank you for your advice, Sir, I shall ask him privately. [Laughter]

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumed

4. Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.65/2008) The Bailiff :

Now we come back to outstanding Public Business, and the first item on the order paper is the Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law, projet 65, in the name of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200-: a law to amend further the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002. The States subject to the sanction or Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council have adopted the following law.

Connétable D.F. Grey of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee)

I ask that the Vice Chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), the Deputy of St. Mary, act as rapporteur, Sir.

1. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Vice Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee

- rapporteur)

I am pleased to be able to present this proposition today as it represents the combination of collaborative work between the Privileges and Procedures Committee, the Comité des Connétable s and the Parishes, the Jurats and the Judicial Greffe. After much initial independent work by these interested parties, a working party was set up under my chairmanship late last year in order to bring together all the observations, comments and conclusions into the comprehensive package of amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, which you see before you now. The aim of the projet is to refine and extend the principal law to ensure that everyone eligible to participate in the electoral process is empowered to do so in a secure and confidential environment. It further aims to ensure that associated administrative processes are free from ambiguity, robust and fully workable. The working party began by addressing certain administrative problems which had come to light since the introduction of the 2002 law. Now that 2 full electoral cycles had been completed it was clear that there were some issues that were not simply teething troubles which

should be worked around but which should be addressed by legislation to ensure common treatment in all elections. It was also recognised that this was a chance to address several previous unforeseen situations that had simply not been catered for by the original law. There is also now the opportunity to consider certain policy questions and to change the law or not in the light of today's debate. In addition, it has also been necessary to accommodate recent decisions of this House. This has meant that there is a tight timescale for this debate but the committee is still hopeful that with the assistance of the Attorney General there is a reasonable chance that Royal Assent can be gained in time for any agreed changes to be made in time for the coming elections. The matters to be dealt with are quite self-contained within the relevant Articles and can be decided on in separate votes by this House. They range from fundamental changes such as the establishment of a true rolling register to relatively minor but important changes, such as moving the responsibility for the design of ballot boxes from the Minister for Home Affairs to the Comité des Connétable s. I will deal with each of these issues in detail when proposing the Articles and so for now, Sir, I propose the principles of the law.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] The principles are before the Assembly for debate.

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

Just to make a change, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Privileges and Procedures Committee on what I think is a very well thought out set of changes. I say that with some level of bias, Sir, because as Vice President of the former Legislation Committee I did a report on public elections. I am not sure if it made any contribution to the current proposition but I am very pleased to see that some of the recommendations from that report are clearly echoed in this proposition and I think it provides a very useful step forward in terms of how we run our public elections, particularly in respect of the rolling registers aspect. I think there has been a level of confusion among the voting public and certainly we have been rather swamped with reminders to sending forms to the Parish Hall , it is all extra expense one way and another and we can probably do with that level of saving, and also make it easier for Islanders to be assured that they are registered to vote. I think it was disconcerting for many, many voters to suddenly realise that if they did not keep up with the pace they would suddenly find themselves crossed off the voting register, and I know that many, many local people felt that there were various mechanisms that could have ensured other ways of making sure they stayed on the register, after all they were saying: "We voted once, we have not moved, we are still living here, we are still Jersey residents, what has changed?" So, I think that we are looking at some very useful reforms here and I commend the Committee for their efforts.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I will rise to my feet just to speak briefly on the overall principles behind the law. While I admire much of what it contains, it certainly seems to be steps in the right direction, I have my concerns about Article 8, removal of name from the register, I am not sure that the Committee have produced what they intended, a true rolling register. It seems to me there are some difficulties there, and Members will note that in my amendments I spend a lot of time discussing Article 13, and I do

advise Members to read my amendment report on Article 13. Article 13, I have serious and fundamental objections to and I will, at the appropriate time, be encouraging Members to reject this particular amendment.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I, like Deputy de Faye and, to an extent, Deputy Southern , support the principle. Just 2 points, Sir. The point has been raised previously, why - for not all of these - but why when one is making minor administrative changes does it have to be brought before the States? I have been told previously this is to do with the importance of electoral law and it has to be entrenched into primary law, but it does make for a very rigid system, which requires a lot of energy to change it. The

second thing is, Sir, although it is not covered in these Articles, it is a point I have been hammering on to no effect, it should be added, for several years, is the quality of the advertisements. We have got yet another one, a totally turgid advertisement for the Procureur de St. Clement in the press at the moment, which is absolutely meaningless to the public. It is a total mass of gobbledegook and there have been all sorts of attempts to improve the level of advertising to make it more relevant to the public, and we are spending hundreds of pounds every time on totally useless advertising. Is there any way we can deal with that?

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I wonder, could I ask the rapporteur to attempt to explain or maybe she has an exact explanation - if I draw the rapporteur's attention to page 8, the tables on page 8 and on page 9 which are the 2002 election results and the 2005 election results - how there appears to be a large spike in the number of papers sent out in St. Helier No. 2 and the difference between the number of papers sent out in St. Helier No. 2 and the number of papers returned, and the same thing appears to be happening at St. Martin . It appears that St. Martin had nearly 300 sent out and just under 200 returned; St. Helier No. 2 in 2002 had 159 sent out and 100 returned, and if I draw the rapporteur's attention to page 9 on the 2005 election results it appears that St. Helier No. 2 had 186 sent out with 96 returned, and while there is no analysis of St. Martin for 2005 she might have an idea of how many papers were [Interruption] .. I know that, but I would wonder if perhaps she might comment on that.

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I welcome too many of the provisions that have been brought forward by P.P.C. I particularly welcome the debate that we are going to have in relation to postal voting. It is absolutely essential that there is absolute integrity in the poll and there have been, as will be no doubt discussed later on in the debate  [Approbation]  some reference to the integrity of polls elsewhere in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to postal voting. There are serious issues which must be discussed in this Assembly on this important issue. It is some years since I have been involved, regrettably, in voter registration campaigns. We have previously discussed in this Assembly the importance of turnout in elections, not being a simple turnout in relation to the number of people on the roll but a calculation of the potential number of eligible people. That is the international statistic which must be compared in order to get legitimacy of elections. It is disappointing, despite the work that some of us, including myself, did a number of years ago on registration, that registration still appears to be a real issue. There have been provisions put in place in order to improve that. For example, to provide reminders for households that have not, for example, returned a form. P.P.C. appear to be taking the right decision but it is a simple decision to allow a rolling register. I note, Sir, that the Constable of St. Helier, who is not in the Assembly today, I think he is to be congratulated in appointing an electoral officer to work hard with his Parish in order to ensure that people are encouraged to get on the voter register. It is not simply, Sir, a simple issue of reminding people by letters. In other places there are statutory provisions that local authorities must go round and physically visit places and houses that do not have registered voters. That is a real issue. May I ask the Vice Chairman of P.P.C. to explain to the Assembly whether or not she has considered, with her committee, such measures to be put forward in Jersey. I realise that there are issues that some people will say: "Oh, it is simply a fact that people need to be not lazy and respond to their forms" but people need to be encouraged. People have busy lives, voter registration might not, at the point that voter registration is dealt with, might not be the most interesting thing that people want to do. They subsequently realise there is a problem. Does she also commend the Constable of St. Helier on the initiative he has taken and would she consider any further encouragement by P.P.C. in respect of encouraging people by physical visits of where there are no voters in householders to get on the role. That, I say, in the context of being completely

disconnected from candidates doing it.

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

I support this proposition and I congratulate Privileges and Procedures on bringing this forward today. I very much hope that the provisions will be in, in fact, in time for the coming elections. One thing that I think is excellent is the concept in establishing a rolling register.

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

I too would like to congratulate the Deputy of St. Mary and her colleagues on an excellent bit of work. There has clearly been a lot of work and they have identified a number of anomalies that needed to be sorted out, and I thank them for that.  I think they have done an excellent job. I only have concern with one Article and it is not so much about the proposed change, it is more the signal it sends out, and it is Article 9. We have been talking a little bit this morning about encouraging people to vote and it is about the changing of the times of the polls and going from 8.00 a.m. to 10 a.m. I do appreciate that a number of Connétable s have said that they do not have that many voters coming at that time, but it is a relatively new thing. It is something that changed not that long ago, and I would suggest that it is given more time because it sends out the wrong signal if you are going to shorten the voting day to the public that want accessibility, particularly working people. I do know at St. John , in particular, a number of working parents that have voted early and then gone to work after dropping children at school and so on. So, I do think it should be maintained and that is the only Article I think that I have any objection to. I would also like to ask the rapporteur as to whether anything has been done concerning looking at other methods of voting using technology rather than just sticking to the old proven methods of voting. Other countries around the world are looking at this, are we going to? Also, is there going to be any follow up on the lowering of the age to 16 for voting? In other words, what is happening from the Education Department's perspective and so on, in encouraging those people that now have the right to vote to use it?

The Bailiff :

I call upon the rapporteur to reply.

8. The Deputy of St. Mary :

For one  lovely  moment  there,  Sir,  I thought I was going to  get nothing but  congratulations, unfortunately I do have a bit of work to do. Firstly, Deputy de Faye, yes I would like to confirm that the working party did look at all the proceedings, reports and work that had been done and, as the Deputy rightly says, Sir, a lot of earlier recommendations were taken on board. Deputy Power and the Deputy of St. John raised specific questions regarding certain Articles, Articles 13 and Article 9 respectively, and they will be fully dealt with, I think, during the time when I speak to those Articles. With their leave I would like to reserve my comments until then. Deputy Southern and Senator Ozouf also made particular reference to Article 13, and I look forward to a strong debate on that Article and I think we are going to be able to debate it very fully. Deputy Le Hérissier has, as he mentioned before, the rigidity of the way we come back to address what he calls minor tweaks in the law. Apart from the fact that of course at the moment, by the way it is set up, we are obliged to bring these back for debate. I think it is quite simply the importance of the robustness of an electoral law which means that we must continue to debate these things fully in the House. I take his point with regard to the advertisements, but there is unfortunately a turgid form because there is a turgid amount of information that must be got out. I agree that perhaps that could be looked at again. I thank Deputy Scott Warr en for her comments and would just like to say that as regard to the .. there was another point made by Senator Ozouf . I do commend the Constable of St. Helier most strongly for the work he is doing with the electoral register. I think possibly that is something that we could analyse in future and see exactly what results have happened there. At the moment the committee has not discussed the possibility of making an official visit to all addresses where there is no one registered. Over time, of course, with the rolling register we should get fewer and fewer households that do not have any representatives and perhaps at that time it would be something that could be looked at. For the moment, Sir, I move the principles.

The Bailiff :

I put the principles of the Bill. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against. The principles are adopted. Now Mr. Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, do you wish to scrutinise?

Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel) No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. I call upon the rapporteur to move Article 1.

2. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Article 1 is simply a definition of the principal law, meaning the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, and I propose Article 1.

The Bailiff :

Article 1 is proposed and seconded?  [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put Article 1, those Members in favour of adopting it kindly show. Against. The Article is adopted. Now we come to the first of the amendments by Deputy Southern and I ask the Greffier to read amendment 1.

The Greffier of the States:

1. Page 17 new Article. After Article 1 insert the following Article. 2. Article 5 amended. In Article 5(1)(c) of the principal law: (a) in clause (i) for the words "2 years" there shall be substituted the words "18 months"; (b) in clause (ii) for the words "5 years" there shall be substituted the words "3 years".

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Members will be aware of my long standing commitment to attempting to reduce the length of time required before members of our society can participate in our electoral business and take a full part in doing so. We recently heard calls from the president of Madeira for greater, again, involvement of the Portuguese community, some 8,000 strong, in our democracy and democratic processes. Equally, we now have perhaps a Polish community which is 4,000 to 5,000 strong; again which I believe should be given the maximum encouragement to participate in what is their chosen home. This therefore follows on from a series of amendments that I have made over the past 12 months for initially to reduce the qualification time to zero, and Members decided they certainly did not want to go that far; and then to one year in January of this year, again Members chose to reject that move; and this one, again, comes further towards the status quo, and I am now proposing 18 months as the fundamental base point, 18 months permanent residence before people can involve themselves in our electoral system. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments around reducing that period of time. I merely remind people that this is one way to welcome those minorities into our community and say: "You are fully welcome to participate in our society." It is an inclusive move which has been encouraged by numerous senior members of our society in speeches, certainly over the past 2 years. This is a way in which we can significantly mark, yes, we do want minorities our society and we are prepared to be as inclusive as we possible can. The reality, I believe, is that perhaps not very much difference will be made because we only have elections, by in large, every 3 years. So the likelihood is that most people will have been here for the required period during that interval. Two years or 18 months may not make a great deal of difference but gives a significant marker that says: "We do wish and we are bending over backwards to be as inclusive as we possible can." I see no dangers, absolutely no dangers, in accepting this amendment, 18 months, 2 years; 18 months is, I believe a move in the right direction and I

encourage Members to support this amendment. The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

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

We are back again debating something which I think we should have agreed to previously. I think it is important to remind Members of the House that prior to 1994, I think it was, or 1995 at the very latest, the general rule was that the law was that if anyone came to the Island and they were a British subject there was no waiting period at all. So it did not matter how soon you came over providing you were a British subject. However, if you were a non British subject you could not vote at all. It did not matter how long you were here you could not vote and it was seen to be unfair for that system to continue. By way of a sort of compromise it was agreed that because in those days we did  not have I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment Scheme), one did  not pay income tax probably for 2 years, it was deemed that 2 years might be the reasonable period for anyone, whether they came from the U.K. (United Kingdom) a British subject, or were a foreigner. They would all have to wait 2 years. That is how the law has been ever since it was passed, say, 1993, 1994 or 1995 at the very latest. Quite clearly we have moved on from there. We are trying to encourage more and more people to participate in what is going on in the Island and, in particular, voting. More importantly, I think, people now start paying income tax almost from the time they are here and they start working. So the old argument about "they had to be here for 2 years before they were paying tax" goes out the window. So I would like us to think that we have moved forward. I personally would not have thought there was need for a waiting period at all. I would rather we went back to the old days where as long as you were paying your tax irrespective of whether you were a British subject or not you could vote. However, that is not before us today. What we have today is reducing the time, the waiting time, to 18 months and I think it is perfectly reasonable. One issue I would like to raise though, it was in January when we debated this particular issue, I do remember the Deputy of St. Mary - and she has a smile because she knows I am going to remind her - that she did say that they were addressing this issue when they were giving consideration to this particular document. I have looked at the committee minutes and there is no mention at all really of looking at the reduction. I am being reminded I am wrong. I stand corrected, but I was looking to see where, in fact, why the reason was that this was not reduced. Under item 8 it says: "The Committee agreed that requirement for a person who has been resident in the Island for 6 months up to the date of application and a total of 5 years previously shall not be removed." But that is slightly different from what we have in front of us here. What I am asking for Members is to support the amendment by Deputy Southern . It is one small step but I think it is a very, very

important step - 18 months is much better than 2 years.

2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I do not agree with that view. I think one of the interesting features of those who have come to live in the Island from elsewhere is, generally speaking, the politeness and deference with which they treat the local culture. There is a respect that they have come from somewhere else and they wish to join us, to work with us, to live with us, but it has always struck me how the many nationalities, French, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, have really made a point of recognising our local culture. As Members will know, it is the gradual erosion of our local culture that I think is probably one of the more serious issues of our time. If we were speaking in a regional parliament in Brittany or Normandy or perhaps Italy, a county council perhaps somehow discussing this issue in the United Kingdom, I would have no qualms whatsoever about saying there should be no waiting time to vote at all because the systems and the way the systems operate are, generally speaking, almost universal and homogenous throughout the entire European Union, where people used to political parties have determined for many years themselves as either young people growing up to be voters, or as voters, that they are  likely to be Conservative or right wing, they will have links with the Christian Socialists or the Liberal Democrats, and they have systems that they know and understand and democratic systems that they know and understand. But coming to Jersey, that has all changed. We have a unique political system here and we have a unique political culture which is almost

entirely dependent  on the  independent political representative. I do believe that under those extremely unique circumstances we do need to take a slightly different view of just when people should be accorded a vote. I am pleased to see that Deputy Southern is slowly, month by month, inching his way towards the Privileges and Procedures Committee position, and I would imagine that now we have got down to the difference between 18 months and 2 years, this may be the last proposition he brings on this particular topic. But I believe that the current position is the right one, it seems to me that it is right that a 2 year time period for continuous residence is appropriate and similarly, and let us remember that it applies to British subjects as well, and in many respects the major danger of cultural erosion comes from that very direction. Similarly, I am entirely happy that for people popping in and out of the Island, there seems to be little wrong in my view with a 5 year total period. I would urge the House that this is one of those occasions where what is in place is right and should stay in place.

3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

I support this amendment for a reduction from 2 years to 18 months residency before a person is allowed to vote. Newcomers to our Island will still face a period of taxation without representation and I see this as a positive and inclusive way forward.

4. Deputy J.A. Martin:

It is always very interesting to listen to Deputy de Faye. Every time we have spoken on this argument his arguments against change. He said if it was a local council or somewhere else he probably would not have a problem. In his last debate he said: "Let us look at anywhere else in the world, they do not let anyone who has just come in vote." This amendment is not now anyone who comes in to vote, we are just asking it go down to 18 months. The Deputy of St. Martin made the point that we do now have I.T.I.S., people also pay social security and now, of course, the one that everyone cannot avoid, G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax). I think it is reasonable. I voted for the immediate inclusion of people to vote; that one was voted against. I voted for the year; that one was voted against. I will be voting for the 18 months. We want people to be involved in our society. We tell them they cannot vote for 2 years. It is our laws. Most people, as I said in, I think, a speech I made a couple of debates ago on this subject, that this is not the first thing they look for. But I think under our law and looking to keep people inclusive we need to give them a chance, and I think this is reasonable. We are just trying to ask for less than 2 years. Again, this has not been addressed obviously by Privileges and Procedures because this is exactly the same time, it has always been in the principal law. If that is what they want, that is what they are sticking to. This amendment asks us to change. Really, Sir, I have not got anything else to add but I think for 6 months we really do not want to obviously keep the debate too long and everyone will have their opinion, but I am just telling you that I think that we should drop it to 18 months.

5. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Firstly, if I just very briefly advise the House that indeed the Privileges and Procedures Committee did look at length at making some change here. We were particularly focusing on removing the 6 month re-registration requirement, but there were difficulties involved in that and we were unable to resolve them in time, which is the reason it is not in the draft legislation you see before you. Moving on now, I would just like to discuss what Deputy Southern said when he said he was wanting to make sure that we included our minority populations. Absolutely, I agree, that needs to be done but my question to him would be: the majority of those minority population, the majority of Madeiran originating community, for example, and now a great deal of the Polish one, have been here already more than 2 years but are not participating. I just wonder how much greater involvement of those communities will be achieved by this. Really, I think the issue of inclusion lies somewhere else and needs to be tackled in a different way. Personally I think the current situation as regards the 2 year qualification, at least, is the correct one and this small change is really a tinkering change. I believe that we have a relatively brief time requirement for registration.

Most other jurisdictions, where there is a shorter time requirement, do have a citizenship qualification. Ultimately this is going to be a political decision, but if the issue merits amendment then surely it merits a comprehensive examination and perhaps a more fundamental change, and I will not be supporting this amendment.