States Meeting Transcript - 16/01/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 16th JANUARY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................5

1. Draft Companies (Amendment No.9) (Jersey) law 200- (P.174/2007)...................5

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):.......................5

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.......................................................6
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................6
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................6 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................7

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................8

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :.........................................................8
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................8
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:................................................................8
4. Senator F.H. Walker :....................................................................8
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................9
6. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:................................................9
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................9 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................11 Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................11

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................11

2. Employment Tribunal: appointment of members (P.180/2007)........................12

Deputy G.P Southern :........................................................................12 Deputy P.N. Troy : ............................................................................13 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:.........................................................13

1. Deputy P.N. Troy (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur):................13
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................14

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................14
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................14
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................14 The Deputy Bailiff ............................................................................15 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................15
4. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................15
5. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................16
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................16
7. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................16
8. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................17
9. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................17
10. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................18
11. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:............................................18
12. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................18

13. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................18 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................18
14. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................19

[Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................20

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................20 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................21 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.....................................................................21 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................21 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................21

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................21
2. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................22
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................22
4. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................22 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................22 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................23

2.4 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................24

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................24
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................24
3. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................25
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................25
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................25
6. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................25

7. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................26
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................26

9. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................26
10. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................27
11. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................27
12. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................27 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................28

3. Draft Income Support (Special Payments) (Cold Weather Payments) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.181/2007)...........................................................29

1. Deputy P.N. Troy (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur):................29

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................30
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................31
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................31
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................32
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................32
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
7. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................34
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................34
9. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................35
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:......................................................35
11. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................35
12. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter : .................................................35
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................36
14. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................36
15. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................37
16. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................37 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................39 Deputy A. Breckon (Chairman of the Health, SocialSecurity and Housing Scrutiny Panel):..40

2. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................40

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................40
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................40
4. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................41 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................41

4. Draft Income Support (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.182/2007) ........41

1. Deputy P.N. Troy (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur):................42

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................43
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................43
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................44
4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................44
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................44
6. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................44 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................45 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................45 Deputy A. Breckon (Chairman of the Health, SocialSecurity and Housing Scrutiny Panel):..46

2. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................47

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................47
2. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................47 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................47

5. The Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 5) Law 200- (P.183/2007)................47

5.1 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................47

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................49
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................49 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................51
3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................52 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................52 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................53 Senator L. Norman: ..........................................................................53
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................53
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................54
6. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................55
7. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................55
8. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................57
9. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................58
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................58
11. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................60
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................61
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................62
14. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................63
15. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................63
16. Senator W. Kinnard:.................................................................65
17. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................67
18. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................69

19. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................70
20. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................72
21. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................73
22. Deputy S.C Ferguson of St. Brelade:................................................75
23. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................75 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................76

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................76 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................76 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................77 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................78

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................78

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Companies (Amendment No.9) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.174/2007)

The Deputy Bailiff :

The next matter of business for the Assembly is the Draft Companies (Amendment No.9) (Jersey) Law - Projet 174 - lodged by the Minister for Economic Development. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Companies (Amendment No.9) (Jersey) Law: a Law to amend further the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991. The States, subject to the satisfaction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

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

Good morning to you, Sir. I hope that Members are suitably refreshed after a night of, no doubt, studying the mercifully much shorter legal change to the company law. The law change that is before Members has, however, been lengthened by the need for a number of temporary articles from the Regulations. I am going to try and be as simple as I can in explaining it but, effectively, there are a number of iterative changes that have been made in the law which are a requirement of the Regulations. So, in fact, the law change, itself, is rather longer because of the changes that were approved last night; basically giving different powers the law needs to be changed to give various different powers. I am not going to explain the matters which have already been discussed and passed in the Regulations. I will simply draw to Members' attention, in the best way that I can, those changes that are before Members now. I have thought overnight, Sir, about the need to brief Members on company law amendments. I have spoken to some of my officials and I can assure Members that next time we bring a company law amendment as complex, not only will we do a

briefing but I will also organise a suitable arrangement for the Scrutiny Panel. But I can assure Members, again, of the exhaustive amounts of work that have been done by my own officials, but also from an industry working party that has spent many hours of careful deliberation over these important changes to the company law. There are some significant changes in this amendment, mainly a Jersey company to make a distribution out of any capital account provided that directors make a statement in relation to company solvency. There has been an enormous change in the way that corporate thinking has been in other jurisdictions, in the U.K. and Australia and other places. It made significant changes to the arrangements for companies and their abilities to deal with the capital funding arrangements. Most importantly, they have requirements for solvency statements in order to protect creditors in situations where there could be an abuse at the expense of creditors. Also, the amendment before Members simplifies the ability of certain types of companies to reduce their capital accounts, again with the focus on creditor protection, focusing on solvency statements instead of outmoded concepts of capital accounting as a means of protecting creditors. Finally, there are a number of other significant changes to increase the flexibility of Jersey companies. For example, allowing a public company to include the abbreviation of "Plc" in its name, both in the upper case and lower case. There are also a number of changes in relation to the notice periods for meetings and other company arrangements. Taken together with the Regulations, this company law this will mean that there is a further reason and a further encouragement for the use of Jersey companies. Jersey companies are used for incredibly complex transactions and it is important that the provisions available within our company law allow for those transactions to be carried out. We are in a competitive marketplace. What I can say is that there has been significant modernisation of company law, both in the U.K. and elsewhere and frankly what we need to do in Jersey is, as Deputy Gorst rightly said yesterday, we need to ensure that our company law is up-to-date in order to be able to compete in that marketplace but always with a requirement to protect creditors. These proposals have been consulted on with the industry. There was, in fact, a paper produced on 30th April 2006 which was given wide consultation; the draft legislation has been considered, as I say, by the steering group industry and importantly, by the Commission; and, of course, by the Attorney General. The industry is extremely supportive of these arrangements. As is, I have support from the commission and I make the preamble to the Law, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the Law? Yes, Deputy Breckon?

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

I just ask the Minister to note, he said that certain notice periods of 14 days are required, and towards the middle of last year I had reason to take up a case with the Jersey Financial Services Commission because it is a case of how this was notified. Some elderly residents had an interest in certain financial matters and this was advertised, and it said the details are available on a website to which they did not have any access or any knowledge about. I would ask the Minister to note that, Sir, there is a degree of transparency if people are being given 14 days notice how that is given and it is given, hopefully, in a way that they would have access to it. If they do have some issue with that then they have a chance to make some representation depending on what these transactions are. But I do realise, Sir, that it is a question as well of what is reasonable for a company to do and I think that is the keyword; what is reasonable. I would ask the Minister if he could perhaps note that and maybe even respond. Thank you, Sir.

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

Just a point of clarification since we are all on a fast learning curve for reasons that were rightly outlined yesterday. When the remote disaster recovery proposal was put forward - although it was very elegantly put forward - I was totally confused about the mixed message. Was it a way of promoting more business or was it a way of providing greater security and greater protections for people who might be involved in this particular area, and there was this continual dual and, indeed, mixed message. What I would like to know, Sir, from the Minister, who is pushing these amendments other than him, personally, at the moment, obviously? Who is pushing them and is the intent to create more business and, if so, what kind of business?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Minister to reply.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

In relation to the comments by Deputy Breckon, he makes a point at which he asked me to note and I note the issue of notice periods. Of course, nothing in these arrangements changes the requirements of companies to carry out their affairs in a proper way of what we are asking or infringing the minority interests of shareholders, et cetera. What the articles will go on to do is simply reduce the requirement of giving notice for a meeting, for a special resolution or any other meeting, from 21 to 14 days. But, of course, he rightly says that that notice must be given. But 21 days, when dealing with important changes within a company, is a long period of time and the world is an increasingly fast-moving one and 14 days is, effectively, the standard which other jurisdictions have incorporated for notice periods for special resolutions, et cetera. But I note the comments and I will certainly take up the comments that he makes, Sir, with the Commission. In relation to Deputy Le Hérrisier, I think his question was about the disaster recovery arrangements that we passed yesterday and I am happy to have him in to the department to have a discussion about those disaster recovery issues. He asks who is the promoter of changes for legislation. I would say that the world of commercial company law legislation has changed quite dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years. When I, a long time ago, did my accounting exams the world of company structure - the U.K. company law - looked dramatically different from that of which I studied 10 to 15 years ago. That indicates a wholesale change in the way in which companies have gone about

putting in place protection for creditors. The whole sea change of the introduction of no par-value companies, of doing away with the restrictions on what you can do with share capital. All those have been done away with in some other jurisdictions and Jersey, as I have attempted to explain, has to compete in a global marketplace and Jersey companies Members will be aware that I cannot remember how many companies that we have on our company registry - it is something in the order of 50,000 to 60,000 I think - I will correct that if that is wrong - 50,000 to 60,000 active companies and it is important that our company law is up-to-date with current world-wide thinking. So, the promoters of the company law are from a variety of different sources. From Economic Development I am wanting to ensure that our company law is up-to-date, fit for purpose, in order to continue to drive business, to serve the interests of existing companies that are already here and existing fund structures, and all the rest of it, but also to drive new business for Jersey. I am announcing this morning that for the first time we are going to be visiting India - looking at opportunities for India - India and China being super powers of the future. Opportunities for Jersey there, opportunities for the funds industry, for the banking industry; a whole range of opportunities. It is important that we compete. Deputy Gorst highlighted something yesterday which was important. We could be criticised in this Assembly of not bringing our company law up-to-date in the manner in which we should have done, and what we are trying to do is bring forward changes to our company law to bring it, not at the cutting edge of company law arrangements, as is often the case, but just bringing up to global standards. So, the drivers are both ourselves in meeting our targets of economic growth but also the industry. The Commission has requirements. Many of these changes and certainly the amendment that we are going to be going on to discuss is, in fact, an amendment which is sponsored by the Commission, requirements or audit requirements of I.O.S.C.O. (International Organisation of Securities Commission) standards, all the rest of it. So, there is a whole variety of different areas but I understand Members are wanting to understand some of the drivers of this. I will do better in explaining some of those drivers and further changes

so I make the preamble.

The Deputy Bailiff :

All those in favour of adopting the principles of the Law, kindly show? Those against? The principles are adopted. Minister, you have an amendment which comes in at Article 17. How do you wish to proceed until then?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I just simply propose the amendment briefly and then take the articles as amended? That is exactly what I would do, so I propose the amendment to just explain that?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, very well but I think the Greffier must read them in.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 14 - Article 17. For Article 17, substitute the following Article - "17. Article 104 amended. In Article 104 of the principle Law - (a) for paragraph (2) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs - (2) The accounts must be prepared in accordance with any generally accepted accounting principles. (2)(A) The accounts of a company must specify the generally accepted accounting principles that have been adopted in their preparation. (2)(B) The accounts of a company that is required by Article 109(1) to appoint an auditor must show a true and fair view of, or be presented fairly in all material respects so as to show - (a) the company's profit or loss for the period covered by the accounts; and (b) the state of its affairs at the end of the period, and must otherwise comply with any other requirements of this Law.'; (b) in paragraph (4)(b) for the words subject in the case of a private company to paragraph (5)' there are substituted the words subject to paragraph (5)'.". Page 14 - After Article 20 insert the following Article - "21. Article 110 amended. In Article 110 of the principle Law for paragraph (3) there shall be substituted the

following paragraph - (3) The report must state whether, in the opinion of the auditor, the accounts - (a) have been properly prepared in accordance with this Law; and (b) give a true and fair view or, alternatively, are presented fairly in all material respects.'.", and renumber the subsequent Articles. Page 20, Article 32 - For paragraph (2) substitute the following paragraphs - "(2) Except as provided by paragraph (3), this Law shall come into force 7 days after it is registered. (3) Articles 17 to 22 of this Law shall come into force on such day or days as the States may by Act appoint.".

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am grateful for the Deputy Greffier for reading the amendment. Sir, this amendment to the Bill was not originally  included in the original  proposition. It deals with the audit and accounts requirements of the Law. They were not included when I lodged the original Law because there was no agreement between the industry and the Commission as to whether the proposals contained in the amendment were in accordance with the I.O.S.C.O. principles. There was debate between the parties, and an agreement has been reached, but these changes are very important for the requirement for Jersey to be tested by the I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) assessment later on this year. These now have been accepted by the parties and the Commission and are an important part in this case to Deputy Le Hérissier as far as the I.M.F. vote changes are made. Sir, I move the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the Amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Amendment?

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Could I just ask why the Minister wants to differentiate as to when part of the Law comes in within 7 days and the part is appointed at some later date? Thank you, Sir.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

It is a general point that the Minister's invited me to by mentioning the I.M.F. There is a view abroad in the Island that people go to I.M.F. meetings or read I.M.F. documents and when they are told to jump, they not only jump, they go into the stratosphere and the whole bureaucratic apparatus is brought in. While the Chief Minister, who is now regulating charities to a great extent, may be nodding his head there is this view abroad and I wonder if the Minister for Economic Development could say what degree of discretion exists? Is he able to apply I.M.F. words of advice - or directives or however they are brought to him - is he able to apply them with a light touch and with a degree of discretion or are we going hammer and tongs and bringing in big country solutions for small states situations?

3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Yes, I wonder if the Minister could just comment on something for me under Article 17(a)(2). It refers to: "must be prepared in accordance with any generally accepted accounting principles." This does seem sort of rather loose and woolly to me. I wonder if the Minister might be able to explain in more detail why that is felt necessary?

4. Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, Sir. I would just like to respond to Deputy Le Hérissier's comments about the I.M.F. He said there is a feeling abroad that when the I.M.F. say jump, it is not a question of do we jump, it is a question of how high. Well, he could not be more wrong. What is happening with the I.M.F. is that it is important in Jersey's best interests - and that is all that we are interested in at this juncture - vitally important that we do get a good report from the I.M.F. for the sake of our future economic plan. If we do not get a good report then we are losing competitive edge, we are losing international respect; both of which would have serious potential consequences for our economy. So, what is happening in relation to the I.M.F. is purely in Jersey's best interests. It is not a question of kowtowing to I.M.F. or anyone else. It is a question of protecting Jersey and I think that is a point that needs to be emphasised very strongly.

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

Yes, Sir, if I may also make a point in relation to the I.M.F. It seems to me that the I.M.F. inspected us some time ago and it seems that this company law, along with others, seems to be being adopted almost at the last minute before the I.M.F. come again. Many recommendations were made many years ago about what should be done. It seems at the moment we appear to be in a rush to put things into place to gain time for the next inspection. To what extent is that true? To what extent should we have phased these in over the past few years and should we not have been working on them earlier rather than last minute, which is what it appears?

6. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence :

Just in response to Deputy Southern 's comments, my understanding is that the I.M.F. carry out reviews around the world and update their requirements as they go along. They find new reasons to have controls, et cetera, so one is never quite sure what the final position is going to be until nearer the time of an inspection. That is my understanding of the situation.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I will call upon the Minister to reply.

7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Dealing with the issues concerning the I.M.F. assessment, I completely endorse the comments of the Chief Minister. The whole range of legislative changes that this Assembly has considered - and there are still some to come concerning the I.M.F. assessment - is a joint working responsibility between the Chief Minister, the Treasury Minister, Home Affairs and myself, dealing with a number of different issues. I would have thought that Deputy Southern , with respect, Sir, would have been aware that, indeed, this is not a case of simply bringing legislation requirements for the I.M.F. at the last minute. Indeed, as my Assistant Minister said, he is absolutely correct in saying that local standards, and certainly the requirements for anti-money laundering provisions, the counteracting of terrorism, et cetera, is a changing world. Indeed, some of the changes that this Assembly has made in terms of law in the last few months have only been adopting the standards that have been put in place very, very recently; almost in the matter of last week when we started the process of preparing for the I.M.F. some of those standards were not even put in place. So, perhaps there would be some of the more minor issues that have been taking their time through the legislative programme. I, as other Ministers, have to argue for law-drafting time in the law drafting available. There is a huge burden of bringing in place effectively an enormous amount of international legislation on, effectively, a very small jurisdiction of Jersey and some of that does take time. But I think that Jersey's record is good and I would say to Deputy Le Hérissier about kowtowing to international standards, the economic growth that we are seeing in Jersey, the higher levels of economic growth that we are seeing in Jersey compared to other places yes it is and I saw Mr. Body commenting in the paper yesterday that politicians in this Assembly should take no credit for any of this because it would happen anyway - I think that is what he said. I am sorry if that is not what he said - but some people will say that. In fact, what is the case is that it is important that we, as an Assembly, put Jersey in the position in order to seize the opportunities where global markets are in an upward turn. There is no point in effectively sitting on our laurels and not working and investing and changing law and putting in place new structures and investing, and simply believing the business is going to come. I am looking forward to comparing the economic results of Jersey versus some of our near neighbours and seeing how much better we are

performing. I think that the standard of regulation that we are setting-up in Jersey, the fact that we will be getting, I hope, a good mark and a good standard from the I.M.F. will drive more business. I certainly know and am part of an incredibly healthy debate within the industry - within the Commission - of exactly where that balance of accepting international standards would be. That debate is alive and well. I was part of it just before Christmas with a meeting between the Commission and the industry where these issues in detail were being discussed and which, of course, we then need to consider. So, I will not say any more about that. I think we have the balance right and I think this Assembly, and I am pleased that this Assembly is supporting the Council of Ministers in the requirements of putting in place up-to-date legislation in preparation of the I.M.F. visit. In relation to the particular provisions and the questions, there were 2 from the Deputy of Grouville and Deputy Baudains. I will deal with Deputy Baudains first. The issue of a true and fair view. The true and fair view issue is that there were accepted accounting standards within the United Kingdom. There are also generally accepted accounting standards in the U.S. and what this is doing is this is putting in place an ability for Jersey companies to have their accounts signing-off on either of those G.A.A.P. (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) compliance. I think there was a doubt, I am advised, about whether or not Jersey companies could sign-off against U.S. G.A.A.P. and there are some differences. This deals with this issue and it is also appropriate Jersey companies - I am advised that it is 33,000 active companies - will be carrying out activities all over the world and will have audit requirements of different jurisdictions. I would hope that that would satisfy Deputy Baudains. In relation to the Deputy of Grouville 's question about why there are different bring into force days of the different arrangements, I am afraid that this is really quite complicated. The reason is that it is not known whether this amendment will have received Privy Council approval in time for some of the different provisions and I am proposing a different bringing into force because of the requirement of bringing some of the Regulations into force and the company law amendments in place to ensure that this I.M.F. related issue is in place, I hope, for the assessment of the I.M.F. I have probably not done a very good job of explaining the different reasons of why there are different arrangements but there are different provisions and iterative arrangements between the Regulations and the Law which are probably going to come into force at different times. Of course, the Regulations are adopted immediately. The Law requires Privy Council approval and that is one of the reasons why there are

some arrangements in the Law which are different. Sir, I move the 2 principles to the preamble.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I do not think my question was answered, although I do thank the Minister for that excellent exposition. What I would ask, Sir, when a requirement arrives from the I.M.F. or a person in his jurisdiction brings a requirement forward, what discretion does he have in the way in which that requirement is dealt with? Does it have to be hard legislation? Does it have to be something that provides an onerous administrative burden for the industry or, indeed, for charities? What discretion does he have in dealing with that requirement?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Well, of course, it is not a world where the Minister is simply attended upon by an I.M.F. official or anything like that, concerning these issues. There are a number of individuals. There is the I.M.F. group which is chaired by the Chief Executive of the States, which has a number of the different regulatory bodies including the Attorney General, members of the Commission, members of the Chief Minister's Department, Economic Development who are basically going through these individual requirements. The detail of which, each I.M.F. requirement, and a judgement will be sought. Sometimes one can only deal with the requirement of an I.M.F. statement or an I.O.S.C.O. principle by changing the Law. Otherwise it is simply not effective. A code of practice will not be good enough. Each requirement is debated, discussed at great length by senior officials within the Island, advice is taken and then advice is given to Ministers. Of course, it is then up to Ministers to ask and to test their officials on the recommendation and that is what goes on each time that a change is made. Of course, a balance is struck between the efficiency and the regulatory burden of an individual change, and there is a regulatory burden with changes to the requirement and the trade-off is needed to be made. We understand the regulatory burden of changes that are made but we also understand the importance of economic activity and the reputation of the States of Jersey if a standard was not put in place for Jersey. I just assure the Deputy that a huge amount of work is done by very senior officials on each and every requirement, including this one, concerning the I.M.F. So I move the principles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

All those in favour of adopting the amendment, kindly show? Those against? The amendment is adopted. Deputy Southern , I should ask you whether you wish to have this piece of legislation referred to the Panel?

Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel): No thank you, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. Now, how do you wish to take the articles, en bloc?

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

En bloc, Sir. If I may, I will just simply draw Members I will not draw Members' attention to, as I say, the individual matters that relate to the Regulations. I think there were simply 5 issues that I would draw Members' attention to. I draw Members' attention to Article 5 which is designed to enable a public limited company to end its name public limited company, plc or PLC or any combination of upper or lower case that is preferred. This is to avoid any technical offence being committed by the use of the wrong case. Plc has not been permitted until now in the use of Jersey companies' names. In Article 8, this relates to the power to redeem shares. Currently, the Law imposes restrictions on the source of capital from which redemptions in respect of par-value and no par-value can be made. As I tried to explain before, the world is changing in terms of what you can do or the restrictions on capital and these are changes that are bringing Jersey companies up-to- date. The third thing I would draw to Members' attention is Article 14 which allows members of private companies to dispense, by agreement, with the requirement for an Annual General Meeting to be held. The amendment, by omitting the word "private" alters the provision so that it will apply to all companies, public or private, that this provision aims to increase the flexibility of companies to operate where all shareholders agree and that no Annual General Meeting is required and thus is designed to save costs in the administration of the company. Likewise, Articles 15 and 16 propose to reduce from 21 to 14 days the period of which notice shall be given of a meeting for a special resolution or any other meeting to be held. Again, the aim is to reduce costs and simplify the Law so the companies can operate more flexibly and efficiently, saving costs, but I note the comments that Deputy Breckon made in the preamble. The last thing that I draw Members' attention to is the new Article 17 and Article 21, as contained in the amendment. This gives more flexibility to companies to prepare accounts in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles. As I explained to Deputy Baudains, it gives the ability to sign-off accounts prepared under either U.K. or U.S. G.A.A.P. in the event that auditors are appointed. Perhaps finally, Sir, Article 21 relates to the qualification or appointment as auditors. The current Law requires that in order for a partnership to be eligible for appointment as an auditor, all partners must hold the relevant qualification, or at least 75 per cent of the partners and voting rights must have relevant qualifications. This is seen as being too restrictive in the modern world where auditors may qualify for work in global partnership in a number of jurisdictions and this amendment seeks to reduce the percentage to 50 per cent of qualification. Again, I can assure Members that this is in line with reforms in company law in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and, basically, it is explained by the fact that there is an increasing global marketplace in audit practises around the world. Sir, I will attempt to answer any other questions that Members may have but those are certainly the important

provisions that I would draw to Members' attention. So, I move the Articles. The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak on any of Articles 1 to 33? No? Very well, all those in favour of adopting Articles 1 to 33, kindly show? Those against? The articles are adopted. Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? All those in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading, kindly show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in Third Reading.

2. Employment Tribunal: appointment of members (P.180/2007)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We come next to Employment Tribunal: appointment of members - Projet 180 - lodged by the Minister for Social Security and I will ask the Deputy Greffier to read the citation.

Deputy G.P Southern :

May I ask a point of order? It has come to my notice that there are objections to one of the nominees, which are coming from a shareholder in the process, and I wish to speak in a negative sense about one of the candidates. I wondered whether it was appropriate to go into camera so that I may be as open as I can be in criticising an individual who is not in the House?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, it is up to the Members of the Assembly. You are entitled to move if you wish.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I think I would feel more comfortable being totally open if we were in camera.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Would it be right, I must submit, for Members, not to do that at this stage. In other words, to have the proposition explained in public so that it can be heard and then if you, yourself, wish before you speak to move that the Assembly go into camera, then it will be a matter for the Assembly?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

If that is the appropriate way forward that is how I put it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The more that can be in public on any view the better.

Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

The Minister is out of the Island on personal business so

The Deputy Bailiff :

One moment, Deputy . I think we had better read the proposition first.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Can I comment on what the Deputy has said, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff : Yes.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

As the Assistant Minister for Social Security I wondered if the Deputy 's comments are going to be of a personal nature regarding the individual or just regarding their capacity to perform because I wonder if there truly is a need as to whether we need to go into camera?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The comments I have to make are, obviously, not personal and they are not directed from me. They are, however, critical of the capacity of this person to do the job and I think I would feel freer and more able to speak freely if we were in camera when I spoke.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, as I say, I think that is a matter to be discussed when you make your case, if you wish to, Deputy , to move into camera. But

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

On a point of order, Sir, if the Deputy is referring to any one individual out of a number, I think it would be not helpful, as it were, if we stopped the proceedings with the spotlight focused on one individual. It seems to me that we - and realise this may run against the grain of open and transparent government - that unless we throw the blanket over everybody involved then, inevitably, someone will be highlighted.

The Deputy Bailiff :

My understanding was that once Deputy Southern wishes to speak he will ask if the Assembly wishes to go into camera. He need not mention the particular one that he complains of at that stage and so those listening will not know which of the 4

Deputy G.P. Southern :

If it helps the Deputy , I intend to speak first, so the proposal will come and I will try and speak first and I will ask if we can go into camera to ease the things I have to say.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

I would say, in the light of that process, that does seem to be the fair way forward.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion to appoint, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunal (Jersey) Regulations 200- and on the recommendation of the Jersey Appointments Commission, the following persons as members of the Jersey Employment Tribunal for a period of 5 years: Mrs. Anne McPhee, Mr. Mark Thérin, Mr. Michael Baudains, Mr. Michael McCarthy.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, Deputy Troy , I understand you are acting as rapporteur, as Assistant Minister, in this matter?

1. Deputy P.N. Troy (Assistant Minister for Social Security - rapporteur):

Yes, Sir. Sir, I propose the appointment of the 4 new members of the Jersey Employment Tribunal, as has been said: Mrs. Anne McPhee, Mr. Mark Thérin, Mr. Michael Baudains and Mr. Michael McCarthy. The Employment Tribunal (Jersey) Regulations 2005 were amended in 2007 to increase the number of side members who may be appointed to the Employment Tribunal. This allows the appointment of 2 additional employee representatives and 2 additional employer representatives. In forming a tribunal, 2 side members - one from each side - are selected to form a

3-person panel with the chairman or deputy chairman. The recruitment process was undertaken by the Employment Tribunal with the assistance of the Jersey Appointments Commission and following short-listing structured interviews were held by a panel consisting of the tribunal chairman, deputy chairman and an independent representative of the Appointments Commission. So, we are satisfied, Sir, that these proposed 4 members are suitable for appointment. The Regulations provide that the members of the tribunal may hold office for 2 terms, each not exceeding 5 years and it is proposed that each of the following new members is offered an initial term of 5 years. I would ask Members to approve the appointments and I make the proposition, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded].

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes, Sir, I wish to criticise one of the appointments and, therefore, in order that I may speak as openly as I can I ask that the House would go into camera for the duration of my speech, at least, if people want to respond to it as well. I think this is a serious issue. I would just feel freer, more able to speak openly if we were in camera.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You propose to go into camera? Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on whether we should go into camera?

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

Very briefly, Sir, I think that in this instance it is appropriate that given Deputy Southern 's desire to speak about one individual and covering all 4 it is probably wise this morning that we do go into camera but I would stand and take the opportunity, if I might, to request P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) to inform us as to what they are doing in regard to these issues. We did have a debate earlier last year about the appointment of W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) and during that debate there was going to be a whole raft of work done by P.P.C. in this area, which we have not heard anything about, in regards to appointments in camera and the issue about whether or not we are appointing people with the ability for the public to hear or not. I can see the President of P.P.C. shaking his head as if he does not recall or has not done any of the work, so now is a timely moment for me to remind him that if he would like to review the transcripts it was quite clear at the time that was something they were going to bring back.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Partly building on Deputy Le Claire's view, I am very ambivalent about this. I thought we, as an organisation, Sir, have always been embarrassed by these debates. We have never thought a 53- person recruitment and appointments panel was the way to handle personnel issues just as it does not handle government reform and I am very embarrassed, Sir. People have been put through what appears to have been a very professional appointments process, and while I do not doubt for a moment that Deputy Southern may have some very valid points to raise about an individual, it really raises some very serious points about our belief in the validity of the process that has allegedly taken place. I really feel for these people. They have been put through this. Hopefully it was professional, it was thorough and then all of a sudden information has apparently come forward which may well undermine this process. While I do not wish to see personal details discussed, we have worked through this before as an Assembly, we tried to avoid becoming a 53- person appointment panel and I will not vote for this, I am afraid, on principle.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am sure you do not want a detailed debate on whether or not we are going into camera but I completely agree with the comments made by Deputy Le Hérissier. We have set up this Assembly has appointed a Jersey Appointments Commission

The Deputy Bailiff

Senator, sorry to interrupt for a moment. I nearly interrupted Deputy Le Hérissier. We are, at the moment, only deciding whether to go into camera. I feel that the points that the Deputy made are perhaps more appropriate than whether one should ever vote against this sort of proposition where it has been through an appointment by the Commission. We are limited at the moment of whether to go into camera. Deputy Southern is entitled to make such observations as he wishes about the candidates, whether the Assembly agrees with him or not, for the reasons given by Deputy Le Hérissier, is up to them. He is entitled to make the comments and so we are really only concerned with whether, if he wishes to make those comments, they should be in camera or not.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would make the argument that if we go into camera we are, effectively, becoming a recruitment tribunal and a recruitment commission. That is what we are going to be doing and we are going to be effectively doing the job of the Appointments Commission. That is why I do not think it is right or appropriate for us to, effectively, set aside the process that has been done by the Appointments Commission. If the Deputy does not agree with the process - with the Jersey Appointments Commission, their procedures and their individuals - then he should bring a proposition to say that he does not like it. But to turn this Assembly into a Jersey Appointment [Interruption] no, exactly, he wants to turn this Assembly by going into camera, into an Appointments Commission and that is not the job of this Assembly and for that reason I would respectfully suggest that we put the stricture on this Assembly that we do not become an Appointments Tribunal in private. What should be possibly be able to be said of an individual there is a restriction on the public listening to this that is an appropriate one and the public will think that what is being said behind closed doors that could not be said in open session, and I am completely against this Assembly being turned into an Appointments Commission and would urge Members to vote against going into camera.

4. Deputy A. Breckon:

I wonder if I may seek your guidance from the Chair. The proposition has been read and names have been named and however we debate or discuss this, at the end there would be some vote and I would assume by the proposition it would be a collective vote so we could not say we vote for him or her. We would either have to accept the 4 people or reject the 4 if we have had some sort of discussion on that, Sir. So I would, in the circumstances, ask if perhaps the Assistant Minister, in the absence of the Minister, would consider delaying this matter while discussions take place because I am not aware of anything but I think it is a messy way to proceed. So, I wonder if you could tell us how we may vote at the end of this?

The Deputy Bailiff :

It seems to me it is a matter for the Assistant Minister as to whether he, at the end of the debate, invites a vote en bloc or whether he says that he wishes to have a vote on each, individually. Yes, Minister?

Deputy P.N. Troy :

I am not inclined to withdraw at the moment, Sir, and I did earlier try to obtain from the Deputy where his objections lie because I do not believe they lie on the fact that, from what I understand, from discussions that he maybe has had with the

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Troy , just a minute. My query was, perhaps, directed towards whether you would, at the end - assuming there is a vote - wish to take it en bloc, so they stand or fall together or whether you wish to seek votes individually so that, if you wish, you can have 3 appointed and one either appointed or not appointed depending on the vote.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

I think it would be better en bloc, Sir. They have been through a rigorous selection process, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is your decision, so that is what you would wish to do. We do not want to go too long on this but

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

With the greatest respect, Sir, I have to say I think both Deputy Le Hérissier and Senator Ozouf have completely missed the point about why we should or should not go into camera. It has nothing to do with the validity or not of the appointments process. If that is a procedure that needs to be reviewed it should be reviewed but not now. The fact of the matter is that a number of names have arrived in front of this Assembly in order to be approved or not. This is not a rubber-stamping process. Members are entitled to pass comments and whatever view they have to take on the names that have been put forward to Members. If the situation was otherwise we would not be in this discussion in the first place and the appointments would be made in an entirely separate mechanism. The fact is that names are before the House to be discussed and I believe it is only fair, if people's credentials are to be called into question in any way whatsoever, that may or may not cast some light upon them, it is entirely appropriate that we make all those comments in camera. I am sorry if there is some feeling that the vast swathe of listeners to this session are somehow going to be up in arms about this. I do not believe that to be the case at all. Assuming that there are any listeners - and there may be one or 2 - I believe that any right-minded Islander would fully understand that it is an entirely appropriate mechanism to discuss people without exposing them to any level of public oversight as to whether they are good, bad or indifferent whatsoever. It is an absolutely proper way to approach and, similarly, in order that no individual could be picked out of the numbers of names put forward to us we should deal with the whole process in camera and not single out any one name or another. It seems to me this is an entirely fair and proper way to go about things. It is nothing to do with transparency of government because there will be an end result which will be entirely open for everyone to see. It is about being able to talk openly about the appointees that are put before us without causing embarrassment to anyone. It is an unbelievably simple move to make and we should make it.

6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I entirely agree with the last speaker, Sir, and I also agree that Deputy Le Hérissier and the Senator were mistaken in their views because we are, in fact, here as Deputy de Faye has just said, in order to come to a decision. It is our duty to come to the best possible decision. We should not, as he has said, be rubber-stamping this. It is our duty, if there are problems with any of the candidates, to debate that. I think Members seem to have got themselves into a position where they are concerned about the reputation of this Assembly simply because there are some mischief-makers outside of this Assembly who would suggest that by going into camera we are doing some sort of backroom deal and that is entirely unsatisfactory. Of course not. The whole purpose of going into camera is an entirely responsible one. It is to protect the integrity of any of these particular individuals. Now, if the public suggest that we should discuss the personal or private details of any of these people in public I am sorry I have to disagree with them. That is not the way forward. This is entirely appropriate that if there are any comments which might have an adverse effect on any of these individuals then they should be made privately so they do not in anyway disadvantage the people concerned. I can see no other way of doing this job properly than to go into camera.

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

Nobody should be nasty or unkind about people if you can possibly help it. But the Commission Board, which is a very good board because I have been with them, they cannot know everything about everyone. It is an impossibility, and it is only by something coming to this Assembly that something is known about people that is not known in general, but that does not mean to say that they have to make that public. I think we are old enough and wise enough to say, that should be in private. It could have been something from many years ago that is long gone but just makes that person unsuitable for that particular post. But it does not mean to say that we should hold that person's washing up in public for other people and I believe it should be in camera, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. Deputy Fox, do you have something new to add to this debate as to whether we should go into camera?

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

Well, Sir, I am entitled to speak and I do not like what I am hearing at the moment. It would appear that the Deputy has not spoken to Social Security on what

Deputy G.P. Southern :

May I, Sir? I have, I requested the Minister yesterday to withdraw this for reconsideration so that I did not have to make a public statement, or a private statement, about one of the candidates. I made my views clear and the facts clear about the case and ask them to withdraw yesterday.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Yes, Sir, but as far as I understand the Deputy 's objection is more related to someone's job function rather than their skills to perform the job.

The Deputy Bailiff :

One moment, please, one moment. We cannot have all Members speaking

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

On a point of order, Sir, we are drifting well away from the debate and we are in danger of introducing items that will identify individuals.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

What I was going to ask was, as a point of clarification, is it not better to see if this can be put back for it to be discussed and sorted and, if appropriate, come back with revised names or whatever the outcome is? Is that possible, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, at the moment we are discussing the proposition of Deputy Southern as to whether to go to camera

Deputy J.B. Fox:

So that makes a difference as to what the decision might be?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, the rapporteur has said that he does not wish to withdraw it at the moment so the matter rests there.

Deputy J.B. Fox: Right, thank you, Sir.

9. Senator L. Norman:

I know some Members, Sir, are getting frustrated at the length of this particular part of the debate but nevertheless I do think it is quite important, an important matter of principle that we are being asked to decide upon. As I recall, the last time that we voluntarily went into camera for such a proposition as this was the appointment of the Chairman of the Waterfront Enterprise Board. Now we all know, subsequent to that decision and going into camera, that that decision was  both unnecessary and inappropriate, and more than that it caused more suspicion, more anger and more distrust than had we had the debate in public as indicated we should have done. So, I think, Sir, that we should learn from our mistakes in going  into camera far too easily and to reject the proposition of Deputy Southern and to have this debate transparently and in public, as it ought to be.

10. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just one brief point to add to that, Sir. I think Deputy Southern has had nearly 8 weeks to comment on this proposal. This list of names was lodged on 23rd November 2007. I believe he is politicising this appointment and I think the House should firmly reject he has been lobbied, he has been got at and the House should firmly reject this suggestion to go into camera so that he can expound some of his mates' views on one of the candidates. [Interruption] No. If he has something to say publicly about a person he has had 2 months to say it.

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

I do believe that Deputy Southern would not ask to go into camera if he felt it was all right and okay for the public of Jersey - Jersey is a small place, everybody knows everybody - to speak in public. Politically, it does not do him credit to ask to go into camera if it is not necessary. We are in this position where we are supposed to ratify these names and either we have the flexibility to hear what other candidates want to tell us, whether abbreviated in public or fully discussed in camera. Obviously, maybe, this is not the way to appoint members to tribunals. This appointment system may need - does need - political procedures to overhaul it but while we have this system we have to decide do we trust that Deputy Southern would speak publicly if he felt able to and do we give him the benefit of the doubt and let him say what he wants to say in private? Thank you.

12. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

I am ambivalent about this but, at the same time, I would like to be assured by Deputy Southern that what he has got to tell us has not already been considered by the employers and the tribunal. In other words, I would like an assurance from him that we are going to be told something new, if we are going to go into camera? Thank you.

13. Senator S. Syvret:

I am just speaking briefly in response to the comments by Senator Perchard. Firstly, this Assembly is the Island's debating chamber, it is our legislature so it is here that decisions get made and Members listen to the debate and express their view, not in e-mails or whatever 8 weeks earlier. Members are entitled to raise issues of concern to them during the debate and I am pleased to see that Senator Perchard now does not like Members standing in the Assembly to speak on behalf of his mates. What a pity he did not remember that at the time of the debate on the rezoning of the fish farm [Laughter] land in Grouville , which was being brought forward by his best friend.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator, can we keep ourselves to this topic?

Senator S. Syvret:

I too, as the Constable of Grouville , I am ambivalent about this matter, but what I would need in order to vote against going into camera is an assurance from the Chair - and this may be a point of order - that Deputy Southern , if it is in public, can speak frankly about his concerns without it breaching Standing Orders or him being silenced by the Chair.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, if it is any assistance, yes, the general rule of course is that people should not be named unnecessarily, but here the names are already the central part of the proposition and the Deputy is free to say what he wishes. Of course, Members as far as possible, must exercise restraint when talking about those who cannot answer back in this Assembly. But he is free to say as he wishes.

Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter :

Can we please go to the vote because I believe that we have had enough comment one way or another and we are not doing ourselves any credit in continuing to discuss it?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, if no other Member wishes to speak, I will ask Deputy Southern if he wishes to reply?

14. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Thank you. Just briefly, my request  is not because I  have things to say about one of these individuals that is personal in nature and may cause offence in any way. It is merely my powers of rhetoric and my powers of oratory that I might stray in public and say something I did not mean to. So, it is easier for me to speak accurately [Interruption]. Will the Member just listen for a minute? Members have already made offensive remarks today. I wish he would let me respond. In fact if the House wishes, of course I will speak in public and I do not believe I will say anything particularly untoward. In answer to the Constable of Grouville , I believe the information I have has not been put to the Appointments Panel and therefore is fresh information which has a material effect, I think, on the decision.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Well, a point of order, Sir. Just for clarification, did the Deputy say that he is quite happy to speak publicly, but he is concerned that he may be inaccurate, but he implied that it is okay to be inaccurate in camera?

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, he did not imply anything of the sort, Senator.  Now, do you wish an appel, Deputy , or a standing version? Very well, the appel is called for as to whether to move into camera, for or against and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, so I would ask the Usher to clear the galleries please.

[Debate proceeded in camera]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, for the benefit of the media, we have just returned. The matter before the Assembly is a proposition by Deputy Southern to refer back the proposition by the Minister for Social Security. So, that is now the matter upon which we are to vote. So, it is pour or contre the reference back, The Greffier will now open the voting.