States Meeting Transcript - 03/12/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................5

1. Young Offenders: naming by the media (P.148/2009) - amendment - resumption .....5

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:....................................................................5

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................9
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................11
3. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................15
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................16
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................18
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................19
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................20 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................21
8. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................21
9. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:.....................................................22
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................22
11. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................23

2. Young Offenders: naming by the media (P.148/2009) - resumption...................27

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................27 The Attorney General:........................................................................28
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................29
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................30
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................30
5. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................31
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
7. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................34
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................35
9. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................37
10. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................37 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................38
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................39 The Connètable of St. Mary:..................................................................39 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................40 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................41 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................41 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:......................................................................41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................42

PUBLIC BUSINESS -resumption...............................................................42

12. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................42
13. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................45
14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................46 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................49

2. Planning and Building By-laws: provision of disabled toilets/changing rooms (P.158/2009)..............................................................................50

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................51

2. Planning and Building By-laws: provision of disabled toilets/changing rooms (P.168/2009) – amendment (P.168/2009 (Amd.))........................................52

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................52
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................52
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................52

4. Deputy A.T. Dupre:....................................................................53
5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................53
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................53
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................53
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................54

9. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................54
10. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................54

3. Planning and Building By-laws: provision of disabled toilets/changing rooms (P.168/2009) - as amended...............................................................55

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................55
2. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................55
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................55

3. Provision of States Members' lunches at certain meetings and car parking (P.171/2009)..............................................................................56

3.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................57

4. H1N1 Influenza Pandemic Funding: expenditure approval (P.174/2009) .............57

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................58

2. H1N1 Influenza Pandemic Funding: expenditure approval (P.174/2009) – amendment (P.174/2009 (Amd.)) .....................................................................59

1. Senator B.E. Shenton (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):........................59
2. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................60
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................61
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................61
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................62

6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................62
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................63
8. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................63
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................63
10. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................64
11. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................64
12. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................64
13. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................65
14. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................65
15. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................66

16. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................66

3. H1N1 Influenza Pandemic Funding: expenditure approval (P.174/2009) - as amended ...........................................................................................69

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................69
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson;.................................................................70
3. Deputy E.J. Noel: ......................................................................70
4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................71
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................71
6. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................72
7. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................72
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................72

5. Draft Companies (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.177/2009)........76

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................76

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................78
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................78
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................78 Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................79

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................79
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................80

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................80
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................80

6. Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited: report of Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority on outsourcing (P.195/2009) .................................................81

6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................82

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................84
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................86
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................87
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................87
5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................87

6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................88
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................88
8. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................90
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................90

7. Review of the Roles of the Bailiff , Attorney General and Solicitor General: appointment of Chairman and Members of the Review Panel (P.196/2009 (Re-issue)) ...........................................................................................92

7.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister):.........................................93

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................93
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................93
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................93
4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................93

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................94

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................95 The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .............95

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................95

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the debate resumes. Deputy Gorst ?

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Sorry, I do try to be positive on these occasions but I am feeling a little bit pessimistic. I wonder if I could inquire of the chairman of Privileges and Procedures if she could give some thought to what might happen should we not finish business by the end of the day, as I know Members do have appointments tomorrow and we will need to rearrange them if we are going to run beyond the end of today.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It was my understanding the chairman had given some indication of a 4-day sitting but perhaps she will ..

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

Yes, that is correct but if I might just have perhaps another hour to review what is happening; there have been some withdrawals in the meantime, and I will come back to the House.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

If I could just say to the House on that note, if it helps I am prepared to put off the BlackBerries debate until January as I have the quorum debate anyway.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, thank you. Perhaps if other Members who have propositions wish to contact the chairman informally during the sitting, it may help her in her deliberations.

1. Young Offenders: naming by the media (P.148/2009) - amendment - resumption The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, now we resume the debate on the proposition of Deputy Trevor Pitman relating to young offenders and the Assembly will recall that we are currently considering the amendment to that proposition by Senator Shenton. Deputy Trevor Pitman, you were on the Bailiff 's list to speak on the amendment yesterday, if you wish to.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Who says youth crime is not a problem? Overnight my big desk has been stolen. [Laughter] Or was it just to intimidate me and tell me my place? Sorry, my voice is a bit croaky, I have not had much sleep. Where did we get to yesterday? I have to say that after the speeches I heard - and I apologise for my own long speech but I think the House would accept that it was necessary. It is a big issue, a very big issue. I think I have to begin by paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill's: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few" speech because I am afraid that after listening to Deputies Le Hérissier, Reed, Noel and bits of Deputies Le Claire's and Martin's words, I just have to say never has so much tosh been spoken by so many.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I do not think we would like "tosh" in here, please.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I do not think it is a rude word, it is in the dictionary, but I will always accept your instruction.

There are lots of words in the dictionary that we would not use in this place.  [Laughter] [Approbation]

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

"Commonsense" is clearly one of those. Start with a chuckle. I am sorry, but some of what I have heard does make me very angry because I really care passionately about this area. Everyone should have and give an opinion but I think it gets dangerous when people whose words clearly reveal that they know very little about a subject start to pretend that they are experts. While I cannot help but agree with most of what Senator Shenton said, the reason I am not supporting age of 16 is because of the absolutely crucial fact that to do so would mean that a full 4 years' worth of turning young people away from possible offending, or from potential worse offending, would be lost and it is as simple as that and I will come back to it, of course. I do not think the Senator should have been criticised for it being emotive because it is an emotive issue, linking this proposition as the Senator has done to 16, but the Senator has drawn our attention to the right to vote. Well, in many ways it makes a lot of sense but I think the malaise that it puts us in is we are still not clear what is an adult; what is a child? I come to Deputy Reed because I find it very, very worrying that a Minister for Education, Sport and Culture does not seem to be able to recognise the difference between a child and a young person. Even in the U.K. (United Kingdom) you become a young person at 14. Let us move to Deputy Le Hérissier first because I believe he has to shoot-off somewhere and, I am afraid, a friend of mine or not, I find some of what he said in response to me quite insulting. He has the cheek to refer to the Martin Luther King quote about hard thinking and accused me of taking easy solutions. Well I am afraid that the Deputy really should leave some barbs alone because as we all know very well a hard decision for Deputy Le Hérissier is on most occasions what colour to paint the fence and then from there whether he should get up and sit on it while it is still wet. Indeed, more and more we hear talk of how little people understand the issue. The Deputy talked about the Kathy Bull Report and the work that was involved. If he only really knew what went on he would know that professional workers such as myself were denied the opportunity to talk to Dr. Bull and if we had been allowed there might have been a more informed report. There was a lot that was very good in it but all the time again, who do we talk to? We talk to managers; we do not talk to people at the sharp end. I think Deputy Le Hérissier - because he is a really, really clever person, a very good politician in many ways - should familiarise himself with some areas before he makes those comments. I say we tend to talk to managers and perhaps Deputy Reed thinks that those people are front-line staff while Deputy Fox often refers to them as "sergeants" but I am afraid they are not at the sharp end. The Deputy also spins us the fallacy that my proposition and Senator Shenton's amendment are claiming to be all of the solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you accept my proposition or Senator Shenton's amendment, it is just another tool at our disposal. I have not heard the Senator say he was bringing all the answers. I think it was Deputy S. Pitman, or it might have been the Constable of St. Saviour as well, that talked about the need for punitive and restorative and, I am sorry, but the other Members who have spoken have not recognised that at all. I think the Constable of St. Saviour did say - and I sometimes criticise the Constables because I think they do take the easy option by voting with the Ministers

[Interruption] .. I am not saying I am right, but I often think that. Maybe I am wrong. [Interruption] Okay, I will agree to differ. But I think the Constable of St. Saviour took a very commonsense approach when he said he had reservations about what he was thinking about but he was going to support the amendment because he realised that something had to be done. I think that is a situation where we should all be. We might have reservations but something has to be done. I think the Constable there was saying that he has the backbone to stand up and take those decisions that obviously as a Constable of a Parish he needs to do. I am sorry if I credit him with other words he did not say; it must have been just Deputy Pitman. Deputy Martin and Deputy Noel talked about early interventions and our need to support this approach and it is something I fully endorse.

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

I have not spoken yet.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

You did; you stood up and asked questions. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Deputy , through the Chair.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Sorry, the Deputy did stand up. Sorry, perhaps I am very tired, but I seem to recall the Deputy asking whether people would be able to talk immixed to the amendment and the proposition. Maybe I am mistaken; if so I apologise.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

That was a point of order asked of the Bailiff , yes. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Thank you. But we get back to early interventions and it is something I totally support. But we cannot keep having this throwing-up of what we are doing and what we are committed to when we are not doing it in many areas. I was obviously at the sharp end when Deputy Martin and others were on an Education Committee that did nothing to support early intervention at a time when we lost a third of professional youth workers through stress-related illness because they simply were not supported. Many were working twice the hours they were contracted for. We lost a third. That is a fact. What kind of support for early intervention was that at a time when people like my former colleagues were working, trying to do intervention work and restorative work with young people, working with up to 80 young people at a time and maybe with just one volunteer? Yet, the committee under the following Minister would not even put it into law to state quite clearly to protect those workers how many young people per worker could be on premises. It was left and hung entirely on the professionals, so if something had happened it would have been them who carried the can. That is no commitment to early intervention. So it really makes me angry when I hear this. We all say we believe in early intervention but I am afraid the reality is we are not doing it nearly enough. Deputy Noel, well I loved his speech only I must tell the listening public it was not his speech, he just read out the comments attributed to his Minister.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Well, Deputy , it was his speech, he read it out. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Well, sorry, but the Minister told me it was her speech, so we cannot have it both ways, Sir, can we?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): It was the speech that he gave that we heard. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

But in a way that makes it worse because the Deputy , and I respect everyone's right to their views, but he just repeated aspects - justifications - for why we should not support the proposition or the amendment of Senator Shenton even though I had already completely demonstrated that much of what was in there was complete and utter fallacy. The third parties' example is really the best one. The Deputy just repeated it. Now if he even talks to Senator Le Marquand later, the Senator will tell him about some of the realities of that situation and how young people are impacted upon when their mother, father, older brother, uncle, et cetera, is charged, convicted and then named to do with

serious crimes. But that gets back to my concern about people talking when they do not know the area that they are talking about. All of us have areas, normally one or 2, which we are quite strong on because that is our career background, our life experience. We will probably have a few more that we can talk about because we are really interested and we read up and we try and learn. Then if we are wise, we will have other areas which we do not know much at all so we really should just sit down and let the other people who are more experienced in that area talk. I do that with a lot of health issues because it is not my field. I would not challenge Deputy Noel on accountancy. [Interruption] [Laughter] I do not know who said that but .. and I could understand that because it is one accountant with another. Now, Deputy Reed, half the corporate parent. I listened to what the Deputy said and if I had to encapsulate my feelings when I listen to him - and I hope he takes this in humour - my thoughts were that this is what you get when you appoint a farmer to be Minister for Education, Sport and Culture instead of a professional educator. I am sorry, it comes back to that area of knowledge again.

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

As someone who opposed Deputy Reed at the time, can I object to that? Can I make the point, Deputy Pitman is talking about the fact that there are certain people and only they have access to "the truth". In the criminal justice system there are people totally opposed to each other on this issue, so-called professionals.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am glad the Deputy has finally recognised that so I am quite happy to accept that. Deputy Reed talks of children and I guess that he is entitled to that view, though I have to really challenge where he is coming from on that area. You are not a child at 12, you are certainly not one at 16. If you are, then many of our laws are completely nonsensical. But the thing that really made me angry about Deputy Reed's speech - and again, we are not close friends; we might have a few barbs at each other but I think we respect each other generally - were his comments about experience. Now children, he said, needed to gain experience. Well, I am sorry, but in these serious crimes we are talking about, how much experience are you allowed to gain with a James Bulger-type case? How many children, toddlers, and babies really, 2 year-olds, are you allowed to batter with bricks, stones, iron bars and then drape across a railway track to try and disguise your crime? Now that is a terrible instance as we all know and we all hope it never happens in Jersey but how many visiting foreign students are you allowed to nearly kick an eye out of someone's head before you face ownership of what you have done and you face accountability of what you have done? I know Deputy Reed will get to speak on the main proposition, so I hope he answers that because I had phone calls about that issue last night. There comes a time when you have to face up to what you have done. We all do in life and for serious crimes like this Senator Shenton disagrees on the age. I know part of his thinking was it was better to get something through than nothing, but whether we agree on 12, 14 or 16, there comes an age when you have to be accountable. You cannot be given the chance to gain experience when it is other people's lives you are ruining. I hope you try and answer that question because I do not think there is an answer. Finally, what I wanted to say with Deputy Reed was he talked too about early intervention. I hope you will correct me if I am wrong but he seemed to be giving the impression that everything is rosy in the garden: we are doing this; we are doing that; we are moving to this. Now from my experience in Scrutiny recently, early intervention is an area where we are failing big time and I am going to have to give an example of that. I believe that we have an excellent education system in most ways. Our teachers are generally absolutely superb and I really applaud them for the job they do. But as we have seen in Scrutiny, early intervention, young people - and we have seen it time and time again already - with autistic syndrome, Asperger's, being failed, being suspended from school and effectively abandoned, not just for a week or 2. If the Deputy wants to challenge me, I will really be pleased because the other members of the panel here can back me up on this. Abandoned, some of these cases have gone on for years; parents who are not failing parents, desperately good, hardworking

parents, articulate and intelligent parents who have been asking for help, seeing their children not getting early intervention. Not getting early intervention, just being failed because the teachers - and it is no fault of their own, because they are not being supported - cannot cope with the children whose behaviour .. it is not because they are bad kids, it is not because they are deliberately misbehaving, they are symptoms of an unfortunate condition that they have and they are being punished, they have been abandoned. It is a huge failing, we have the evidence, and if Deputy Reed wants to challenge me on that, good, because I have been, and the panel have been, horrified. Yet, he talks of early intervention as if we are all doing it. I am afraid the Deputy has only been the Minister for a year, so I do not hold him to blame for all of this but I do not think he realises some of the areas and the failings in his department and I think he needs to act on that. One young person we talked about at Scrutiny, the parents are really worried that he is going to end up the subject of what we are talking about today: incredibly violent. It is not because he is a bad kid - not because he is a bad kid - it is because he has been let down year after year after year and now the parents are at their wits' end. The Deputy knows I have already arranged meetings for him with some parents; I think I will have to do several others. So before he talks about early interventions and this lovely "everything is rosy in the garden", please face reality and that is what this is about. That is what Senator Shenton is saying; that is what I am saying: let us face reality. It is a difficult decision, it is not the easy option as Deputy Le Hérissier would say. Doing nothing is the easy option and that, I am afraid, is what we cannot do. I am not supporting Senator Shenton's amendment but I have explained the reasons for that. I still applaud him for bringing it. I wish someone had brought 14, we would have had a wider debate. If we support 16, we will lose that aspect. I am sorry, but some people do not understand that, the deterrent value, and that chance to turn people away and work with people on the restorative side. I will leave it there. Thank you.

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

As a youngster I was a bit of a Jack-the-lad, in court for motoring offences and even losing my licence on a couple of occasions. I even was a bit of a tearaway in other ways. I even had a sticker in my car denouncing the Magistrate and suggesting he should resign. [Members: Oh!] By the time 1969 came, I was busy helping the late Stan Le Breton and Phil Mourant to stand for the States as Deputies and I was obviously starting to feel certain responsibilities. They asked if I would allow my name to go forward as a member of the Honorary Police in St. Helier. I said: "With a record like mine it is not going to happen." They said: "Go to the interview with the Connétable and the Chef de Police and several other Centeniers in St. Helier and see." So next thing I know I am being sworn in at the Royal Court and I remember at that time that the States of Jersey Police had only been formed some 14 years previously and were a very young force with only some 72 to 75 members within that force. The Island had a major problem with the Beast of Jersey Inquiry and the riots of Snow Hill and the like. Within a short time I was co-opted to work alongside Corporal Turner who later became the Deputy Police Chief of States of Jersey Police on C.I.D. (Criminal Investigation Department) and spent many, many hundreds of hours with him calling on people's homes and interviewing and taking statements within the Beast of Jersey Inquiry. But by late 1972 I was put forward as a Centenier and had to deal with all sorts of incidents in the very early days. In fact, I can recall then a young spritely guy, who sits across the Chamber from me now, driving a milk float and upturning it in a back road in the Parish of St. Helier. His excuse was that, of course, a bee had got into the cab. [Interruption] [Laughter] Another occasion I can recall another Member of the Chamber - looking at me with a yellow tie on - having to stop him on Victoria Avenue for some other minor offence [Members: Oh!] that being, if he does not mind I will name him, Paul Routier at the time, now Senator Routier. I think at that time when I stopped him he did not have a shirt on or something, it was some minor offence. [Laughter] But anyway moving on from there, the more serious side of things really came to light pretty soon in my early career as a Centenier and that was the amount, the sheer number, of young people who were being taken to the Juvenile Court. Being in my mid-20s and not long from being in a similar position to a lot of these young people I remembered it well and I thought: "This cannot

happen in my tenure and I am going to do something about it." I saw the late John Morris who was the Chef de Police and I said: "We have to do something." So I had a word with the Probation Service and there was a Mrs. Copley-May who was a probation officer at the time and I said: "Can we work together to try and resolve the problem of these youngsters going to court?" because once a youngster had been to court they have a police record for life and that meant that they could not emigrate, they could not go to America, there was a whole host of places that would prevent them. What we did, we put in place a trial period where we put people on voluntary probation and this went on for approximately 12 months and then it was adopted across the Island as a way of dealing with young people, preventing them having to go to court and getting police records and, in fact, that is still operating today. It has been complimented by Kathy Bull, the Howard League for Penal Reform and many others in recent years when they have done reviews into ways of dealing with young people. The Centeniers - Parish Hall Inquiries - are a very good way of dealing with young people and putting them on voluntary probation but this has to go along obviously with the willingness of the family, the parents and the youngster to make it work, and this is working. I respect Deputy Pitman and the work he has done with children over many years and he has a background of some of that work having been done off-Island, and I think some of the youngsters off-Island have a far bigger problem than ours. I am not saying we do not have the problem here but the people he has seen over his life probably have come from a slightly different background. A lot of the perceived problems that have come about I would put down to political correctness over recent years whereby we are not seeing - we are not seeing - the discipline being permitted in the homes because of political correctness. People are frightened that they will have a finger pointed at them if they slap their child and the like or put other disciplinary measures in place. Therefore, a child has found that he can turn around to his parents and point a finger and say: "I will complain to the police or to the Social Services about the way you are treating me." We have gone from one extreme to the other. Fifty years ago, 40 years ago when I first became involved, the discipline was quite severe, today there is not any discipline. We need a middle road and that middle road needs to be found. I believe a lot can be still done within the system we have without having to name and shame, because I am aware that the courts - the Juvenile Court - if they so wish, if you have an offender who continually offends, the Centenier could ask the Juvenile Panel to name the accused, whether the panel would wish to go down that road it would be up to the panel. But I am sure those laws are in place, if I recall, and I would hate to think that going down the road of naming and shaming so many of the youngsters who you will give a worldwide police record to .. because the media today in fact are not just the people we see in the gallery and printed on a newspaper which is held on-Island, today that newspaper is put on the internet. If I may just

digress slightly ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Well not too far.

The Deputy of St. John :

No, no, I will not but I have to say what happens with the internet. Three years, 4 years ago myself and the Constable of the day gave a reference to a person that was in court and the person we had known for some 40, 50 years, this person had been done for a sexual assault and we gave a character reference, this particular person had been a police officer. So you could only give a reference of what you knew of the person. Within 48 hours, myself and the Connétable - because this had been recorded in the newspaper that we had given a reference - were getting phone calls and threats from across the world as far as New Zealand because we had given somebody who had assaulted - his daughter in this case - a reference. Nobody knew, the reference was not read out in court, just that we had given somebody a reference. Now, we were getting threats and in the end I had to speak to the police about it - this went on for 6 weeks, 2 months - and it was terrible. So therefore if a young person today has their name put on a newspaper, it is not kept within Island, that goes worldwide. Now those young people, in 10, 20, 30 years' time, as we see now - I see 2 upright citizens sitting in the Chamber here as Senators of the Island - we all may have some little thing in the closet that you do not really want spoken about, but at the end of the day, we do not .. and I am not giving way [Interruption] [Laughter] At the end of the day we do not want to see our young people in 20, 30 years' time who have gone through this barrier of having been a bit of a Jack-the-lad in their youth, shall we say, wanting to take their own children or grandchildren to Disney World in America, finding that because of something that happened in Jersey 30 years before will be prevented from getting a visa to take their own children or go along with their grandchildren to Disney World in the U.S.A. (United States of America). That is the last thing we want to put in place. So by naming and shaming I think we have to be very, very careful how this would be done. I cannot go along with this because I think there are too many pitfalls. We have the Education and we have Health and we have Home Affairs and I think we need to leave them to carry out all their own investigations and see what can be brought forward. I do respect Deputy Pitman because I know how passionate he feels about this but we need a way of bringing something forward, not in this case firstly in the Chamber, something that should be tried as I did back in the 1970s to resolve a serious problem between the Juvenile Court and the authorities, with Probation and others, to see if we cannot make something work. I think both the proposer of the amendment and Deputy Pitman should really be talking to the Probation Service and the Minister for Home Affairs and see if something other than putting a law in place cannot happen as I did back in the 1970s. That needs reviewing obviously because we are getting all these youngsters coming to the fore, but I believe something needs to happen in between that does not need the force of this Chamber to make it happen. I think jaw, jaw and more jaw will work far better if you can get around the table and put something in place for a year or so as an experiment to see if we cannot help these young people, keep them out of the courts wherever possible. I think I have said sufficient but I hope that the proposers of the main proposition and the amendment would give that

some serious thought. Thank you.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I ask for a point of clarification from the speaker? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, briefly.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, of course. It is just that he referred to Jack-the-lad and I think I know what he meant but would he just make it clear that he is not referring to people who have committed murder and rape as Jack-the-lad? I think people listening to that might get the wrong impression of what he said.

The Deputy of St. John :

Absolutely, I do not endorse the murder and the rape and the like to be dealt with in this way. That is totally different and that would be for the Juvenile Court to decide whether or not to name the young people. I do not believe it should be for us here to be making that decision; it should be for the Juvenile Court after having received all the facts of the case. Thank you.

2. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Always a pleasure to follow the Deputy of St. John especially when he is speaking very well and a lot of commonsense, I would say. So what did we have yesterday, just going back to the amendment? Senator Shenton is basically basing his argument on: "Well, they have the vote now, they are accountable, they should be named at 16." He then read out some horrid accounts of something that had happened in Jersey, as did Deputy Pitman. I do not think some of the crimes he read out were in Jersey but they had happened and I have no doubt that they may well happen again. But the Deputy , and obviously the Senator, argues that naming kids will be a deterrent to this. He mentioned he could not produce evidence but it is what the public wanted and he, the Deputy , lived in the real word and the rest of us were of the "do nothing brigade" and he has made

quotes from a great man like Martin Luther King. I really do hope the Deputy is not putting himself in the same company. [Interruption] Well, he might even be Sir Winston Churchill today; we can go where we want with the Deputy because after listening to his second speech, I am still none the wiser where he is coming from. Let me clear up some confusion. In the media this morning it was quoted that the Deputy had produced evidence in naming in Australia and it had proved to be a deterrent. No, the Deputy did not. If there had been a trial carried out in Australia in any part over a certain amount of years and the Deputy could produce that evidence, the Deputy would have done. Had youth crime gone up or had it gone down? He was misquoted in the media; I am not misquoting the Deputy , I would make that clear before he puts his light on, but I need to get that cleared up in case anybody caught that. He has not proven his case, he admits that himself. What I did yesterday, and the Deputy quoted it, I put on the front page of a paper, chaired by Professor June Thoburn and it is for the Centre of Excellence and Outcomes and it was done on behalf of the Department of Children, Schools and Families in the U.K. and this is up-to-date. It is October 2009 and you can all see the parts I have underlined: "Children not to be stigmatised. Gaining the co-operation of complex families requires services to be dependable and professional. This includes providing assistance that is educative, supportive and timely from the start." If I had printed down this, you would have seen this has been compiled from 83 expert reports that have been done over the last 4 or 5 years. I will quote some of them: Identifying Common Elements of Evidence-based Psychological Treatments for Children's Disruptive Behaviour, Intervention with Neglect and Families. These are from the U.S.A.; some are from Sweden: Engaging with Clients in Child Protection Work, Promoting Children's Rights through the use of Relationships and there are a couple on youth justice. I cannot quite find them but they are there. These are all experts in their fields who have done a lot of research and I have gone into some of these on the net, and people who had the paper yesterday could have done the same and looked. Not one of them have used naming at any age as a deterrent because none of them can find out that it will work. Also, after the Scrutiny Report on vulnerable children I was given an excellent paper by Senator Breckon called: Looked After Children and this was from the House of Commons, again, Children, Schools and Families Committee. It tells us that children who are looked after for some reason or other - because they are already at a very vulnerable state in their life - are more likely to come into contact with the youth justice system. The Deputy also tells us we do not understand restorative justice; we had this debate on Sunday. Now restorative justice is getting the victim and the perpetrator together with the families in an environment where they can talk and they can understand. The perpetrator can understand exactly what they have done to the victim. It is never naming. If they want to go out and tell each other who they were talking to, that is entirely up to them. It is not naming in the paper; it is not naming on the worldwide web. Everyone must remember this: it is not today, like Deputy Pitman says, while everyone who knows you; it is not everyone who knows you. It would be 5 minutes, uploaded on to the web and it can go anywhere in the world and it will follow you everywhere in the world for the rest of your life. Unlike Deputy Pitman, I would like to thank the Deputy of St. Ouen, Deputy Le Hérissier and Deputy Fox. I thought they all made excellent points yesterday and they all asked: "What would naming achieve? Has anybody proven it?" Like them, I do not believe 12 or 16 year-olds or anywhere in between will be helped with youth crime. I do believe it would make all the people that work with the kids - kids, young people, children, whatever you believe they are - want to look at some of them. It does come home when they are sitting very cold up in Greenfields in a cell on their own; they look more like children to me then. But it will make the people who work with them, their jobs much harder. What I really would like to ask people to remember, sometimes the kids that we are dealing with in Children's Services, Probation or other services who work with the youth justice system, even youth workers, it is either because they had no one; they had no parents, or the parents or the guardians just cannot cope with them. They are then into Children's Services. This brings me to the point Deputy Pitman makes about Billy in his proposition: "Billy's mum was ashamed to tell anyone about Billy's offending." Well how does that work with the kids who have no one? There is no one to shock. All they have is the dependence on the care workers who are working with them and will

work and work and work with them again, whether they re-offend, whether they are a little Jack- the-lad if that is a better word for it, but they are the ones who are working with them and you will make their job a lot harder. Naming at 16: I say 16 is just as bad, if not worse. Dedicated people working with troubled children or kids are just maybe getting there and then they might make a mistake. Or another mistake, I am not saying it may be the first one. Where do people who are working with them go from there? What will the kids say: "Oh look, I would just give up. You know how it is in Jersey, your name was in the paper, you are no good. You are no good. You are not worth bothering with" and that is the message we are sending out to our kids. Many were firstly let down by the parents and sometimes, yes, by the system and we all know we have to improve. At 16 they are care leavers in Jersey. Senator Breckon and Deputy Pitman sat on the Vulnerable Children's  Scrutiny Report and we  know we are not  doing enough.   We are not supporting these vulnerable kids. Some are ending up living in hostels on their own. Totally wrong. Deputy Hilton has pointed this out; we know we have a big job of work to do: Home Affairs, Education and Children's Services and with the support of all the experts in the House. We know we have a problem but naming kids at 16 when they are sitting there, they have done something wrong, no it does not work with me, I am sorry. I must just comment here on Deputy S. Pitman and I am sure I am not misquoting her. She said yesterday, talking against the amendment of 16, that: "Even if they are vulnerable kids they must be punished" in the context of their name being put in the paper or on the web. Now, so is it a deterrent or a punishment? What surprises me most is that both the Deputies Pitman have worked closely with the kids I have just mentioned. Many of the kids, victims themselves from the day they were born, born into homes of extreme violence, excessive drinking and nowadays parents who have drug problems. In the past I would say both Deputies have worked very hard and closely with these families. I cannot believe deep down they believe in this proposition because they have absolutely done a U-turn in 12 months because I cannot see .. Deputy Pitman mentioned it was not on anybody's manifesto. Well it certainly was not on his that this is what he was going to bring forward as an ex-youth worker but there we are. He has not convinced me and if you listened to both his speeches - and he has had 2 very long speeches - he has produced not one shred of evidence. Deputy Shona Pitman knows this to be true as well and I would like her to defend what she said yesterday: "Even vulnerable children need punishing." She can read it on Hansard. I wrote it down as she said it. She may not have meant it that way but that is what the Deputy said. Deputy Pitman mentioned yesterday, not once, but many, many times, that naming was "popular" with the public so he had to do something about it. Do the public want to make the situation worse? Do they want to stigmatise kids even further so they become so disengaged with authority that we make the system work? Of course the public want it. They see the story of the hoody, they hear the terrible crime from Senator Shenton, and they want to know who these people are. Will that stop them doing it? No, I do not think so. They all want to know until it is one of their kids or one of their grandchildren or their close relatives and then no way do they want their names in the paper: "Little Johnny never did it, it is all because he got into bad company." [Laughter] How many times have we heard it: "It is not their fault"? But, no, we are going to name them. In Jersey we are going to take a step forward, no evidence worldwide except some old report the Deputy had to dig up after Sunday when I told him he had no evidence, from Australia. Was it before the Aborigines or after? I do not know. [Laughter] Just to return to Deputy Le Hérissier yesterday, in the past he may have been criticised for, in his words, "the mini prisons" but I think we have a new corporate parent, we are looking at this. I am banging on all the time, and so is Social Services, we need trained foster carers, professional, the reputed carers who will take on these 11, 12 to 16 year-olds in their own home; be paid for it. I am telling

you this  is a job that needs one-to-one. There may be a case for a halfway secure system. Heathfields and La Preference are not doing it. They are big old homes. We know we have a problem. Naming these kids does not do it, I am very sorry. Very sorry. Now, just to get on to, briefly, the mention of the Rights of the Child. Now in June the Deputy himself did not think it was such a flawed document. He and Deputy Pitman and the Constable of St. Saviour all signed up for it. Yesterday the Deputy Pitman did misquote the Constable of St. Saviour because I listened to

what he said. He did not agree with either but he would have to go for 16 just in case - and this is my words, not his - if this unthought-through, stupid proposition of naming at 12 went through. Well please do not be seduced into doing this. Sorry, I will give way.

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

I do not think I used quite that description. I just said I  [Laughter] had difficulty with the proposition.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

It was my description. I was using poetic licence. I said that was [Laughter] my description. That was my description of the main proposition. Now, we have heard: "Oh we are just signing a piece of paper like Rhodesia, China and India" I think Senator Shenton said. Are we? Are we? Do we believe that we are anywhere near these countries and if we did, would we be sitting here naming and shaming? They are still cutting off hands for stealing an apple. [Interruption] Yes, and the Deputy says they have signed up to it but I do think in the west we have a bit more that we do not sign and we would not be allowed to sign up. We have had the word from the Attorney General. We either decide that this is where we want to aim to, we know we have to change laws and we know we have to do better, a lot better. But this out of the blue naming children, naming young people, whatever you want to call them, the most vulnerable in our society .. because they do not do it for devilment. Some just do it because they are out there. They have been let down by Education, they have been let down by Children's Services, they are just out and about and they have nothing better to do. So what do we do? We give up, we name them and then we say: "You are on your own and for the rest of your life you might have done this." Let me just point out - and I do not know when we do come to the amendment - the Deputy has widened this down to robbery. This is a robbery of a can of coke out of the local supermarket. This is where it goes down to and he knows, he does know, how far this goes: very, very, as I say, popular. I just have to return to Senator Shenton and his trying to strengthen his argument yesterday by telling us - and this is another great man, the great Gordon Brown - saying he was thinking of naming kids in the media. Well at the moment what will the great Prime Minister not give? Last week it was free residential care for the elderly, pay rises to the lower paid. They would not be Labour voters, would they, and this morning - only this morning - paying grandparents to look after their grandchildren: all money coming from the great Gordon Brown, the man who is on the sinking ship. Well what would he not promise? Well I am not going to jump on his bandwagon. If anybody in here is foolish enough to think because Gordon Brown says it, it is coming and it must be right, the only thing that is certain about Gordon Brown is he is going [Laughter] and he will be going. I really, really have not a lot more to say. I think I have said enough on the 16 debate. We do not have it right; that is the only way I will agree with Deputy S. Pitman. Senator Shenton: no. Sixteen? Why 16? He has not made the case, as I have said. We, in Jersey, statutorily look after children up to 16, we care for them up to 21 but if you do something wrong you are going to be named in the paper and we are going to give up on you for ever. It does not work and, again, I do not even believe the Senator believes it works. We have the Deputy and the Senator who cannot even agree at which age they are responsible but one is supposedly more expert than the other. I do not know: one worked with children and one has children. Does that make either of them an expert? I do not think so. I rest my case. The case has not been made for 16 or 12 and I do have much more faith in my fellow States Members. I really hope the Constable of St. Saviour changes his mind. This age of 12 will not get through so do not vote for 16 just to stop the naming of a 12 year-old. It does not work, throw it out, both of them, that is where they should be: in the bin. No research, no evidence and

go down the same way as Gordon Brown will be very shortly. Thank you. [Approbation] Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I politely ask to be able to correct something which the Deputy has wrongly stated that I said as a point of order?

Well, briefly, yes, as a point of clarification. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I said, and it is written down here, that this arose from my own professional and personal experience over many years working with young people in the community, both here and in the city of Leicester, and indeed from a large number of contacts expressing concern since I have been a politician. I did not say because it is "popular" and I find that really unfortunate coming from Deputy Martin, it shows the lax argument.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

He can read Hansard back. If he mentioned "the public want it" once yesterday, I lost count after 12. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Let us not get into an argument. [Laughter] Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

A point of clarification as well with the Deputy . What I did say yesterday is that no matter how much a vulnerable background a young person has had, if they have committed a serious crime they have to, at some point, take responsibility for their actions.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you for that clarification. The Deputy of St. Mary.

3. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

I will be brief because I will stick to the amendment. [Laughter] In passing, firstly, I appreciate the previous speaker's - Deputy Martin - insistence on evidence, and I hope that Members who loudly cheered this will take it to heart in all future debates that evidence is quite important and without it we are swimming in the dark. Now to go to back - it was a long time ago - to Senator Shenton's proposal of this amendment, it was a fine speech for a distorted version of the original proposal. I think it derailed the whole debate on the amendment because ever since most Members have been talking about the original proposition and have been talking about whether it is the right thing to name and shame, whether there is evidence and whether it is a thing worth doing. Now I think that that is properly addressed when we debate the main proposal. The only change that the proposer of the amendment is saying is not 12; 16. That is what we are discussing with this amendment. I think the chair of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) if she was here - but hopefully she will have a look at it in Hansard - will take to heart that here is a case in point about the review of the efficiency of States business. The amendment is about 12 or 16. It is not about the entire principle, it is just should the principles apply to go up to 16 or whether they should apply to 12. I will have a look at that question on its own. Now in the report of Senator Shenton on page 4, the core of his argument in fact: "However I believe that the age of 12 is too young because you need the maturity to know the difference between right and wrong." Now that is what we are talking about. If we believe that in these serious cases, and we are not talking about a little bit of shoplifting, we are not talking about Jack-the-lad, we are not talking about turning round road signs or cycle route signs - which seems to be a popular sport in St. Mary, or it was - or even tormenting an animal. Young children, even very young children, experiment with cruelty, they experiment with boundaries, and this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about serious crime and I think it is unfortunate that the proposer added robbery because that is a pretty vague term and he should have perhaps qualified that. But we know the intention: the intention is murder, manslaughter, rape, serious crime. So the question is if a 13 year-old commits murder, as we have been hearing, battering people, et cetera, if a 13 year-old does that sort of behaviour, do they know

that that is wrong? That is the only question with this amendment. If we say that a 13 year-old who batters somebody to death or knocks an old woman down, kicks them and then steals their handbag, whatever, really serious stuff, if we say that a 13 year-old knows perfectly well that that is wrong, then we vote against the amendment. If we think: "No, no, no, a 13 year-old who batters somebody or kills somebody or 15 year-olds [I think it was 15 year-olds] do a group attack on a foreign student at 15" if we think that they knew that was wrong, then we vote against the amendment and we stick with the original 12. Now I will carry on with what the Senator said in his report because it was better than his speech, I must say, in my opinion: "I know of many cases whereby youth have committed crime out of sheer stupidity or naivety rather than through malicious intent. In some instances they have fallen victim to peer pressure and not really understood what they were doing or the implications of it." That is the point, is it not? They did not understand what they were doing, peer pressure, stupidity and naivety. Now if you believe that then you can go along with 16 and not with 12 but if you think, as I have said, that in the case of serious crime a 13 year-old or a 15 year-old does not know that it is right or wrong, then you vote with the amendment and that is all there is to it. When we come to the main debate and may have more to say about the general principle as Deputy Martin, for instance, and many others have commented on that, but at the moment we are talking about 12 or 16 and would this not have been shorter if we had all stuck to that?

4. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

I am pleased that we are getting back to the issues rather than insulting people that have a different view. Whether or not the Deputy should have brought this proposition is questionable but I think the one positive thing it has done is has us thinking about the problem of youth crime and there is a problem with youth crime. I did 7 years in the Youth Court, I would not ever claim to be an expert, but there is a problem and I think the Deputy 's proposition P.201 regarding the formation of a working party has considerable merit because we need to get to the problem. But the problem is today we are dealing with the symptoms; not the problem. I will get to 16 in a minute. If accepted this proposition would give the courts no more power than they have today. They already have the power to name, not at 16, but any time they think is appropriate, if they think it is in the public interest. They are the only people that can judge whether it is in the public interest, so they have that power already. So, is it right that we force the courts to name young people at 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, whatever age you like? Sixteen seems to be the popular view with some people and at first thought might seem to be the right age. After all, a young person can legally leave school, have sex, get married with permission and even vote for us. However, we are not talking about these behaviours, are we? We are not talking about behaviours that are legal, we are talking about behaviours that are antisocial that are often harmful to society and to themselves and are illegal. It is not the legal behaviours we are talking about at all. Therefore, any actions we take as an Assembly, any actions we take as the corporate parent - and I will talk about that in a minute - must be evidence-based, must be outcome-based and must be measurable and, above all, must bring about a permanent change in that young person's behaviour. We have had a lot of rhetoric and a lot of clichés but so far we have had very little evidence that this would achieve a change in behaviour. Where is the evidence? It is not there; it does not exist. I hope I quote Deputy Pitman correctly, I think he said yesterday: "The Assembly needs to be looking like we are doing something and that in not adopting this proposition we would be woolly, namby-pamby people." I think that is what he said. But naming and shaming does not help. It does not bring about that desired change in behaviour and that is what it is all about. It is like giving a pregnant teenager advice on contraception. It is all too late; earlier education and thus prevention is much better. We were told that we must listen to the Deputy because he knows what he is talking about. He is a professional youth worker, and I do respect the Deputy , but I have spoken to many youth workers over the last several weeks and again last night, and not the managers, the youth workers, the volunteers on the front line. Without exception - without exception - they are horrified and ask: "Where is the evidence that supports this?" Some Members might recall the excellent - and I have the file here if

anyone wants to have a look at it - the Dynamics of Disadvantage conference organised by Health and Social Services in January this year with its strapline: "The 3 Ds - drink, drugs and deprivation - investing in children pays dividends." Investing in children pays dividends. At that conference we were presented with evidence of effective strategies, strategies that bring about desired change in behaviour, strategies that support from birth in vulnerable families, strategies that are timely and do not wait until it has all gone wrong and name them as this proposition does. I spoke at length after the conference with the head of the Violence Reduction Unit for Scotland and the experienced detective chief superintendent, 34 years' experience in numerous roles. I am going to pick a couple of those roles out to show this guy knows what he is talking about. He is a Scott ish Commissioner for Children and Young People's Advisory Group, a member of the World Health Organisation on violence prevention, a member of the Criminal Justice Research Advice Group and lead officer for the Scott ish Strategic Tasking and Co-ordinating Group, and the list goes on. This man was awarded the Queen's Police Medal in 2007 in recognition of his work in working with young people and preventing youth crime. The gist of his message? I could keep you busy for hours but intervene as early as possible, and that is the message that fits clearly with all the local advice and is evidence-based. We heard about how some of our services are wanting and we do have a lot of work to do. I think the Deputy talked about young people with autistic spectrum that might get into trouble. Does naming them help to solve their problem? It does not. If Members want evidence that this proposition and amendment is doomed to failure, I would like to share with Members a discussion I had with one young person. If you would allow me I would like to read this because I would not like to accidentally identify the young person. This young person is well known to the court and has a record that would horrify all of the Members. They are lucky, lucky in as much as they have the support of a loving family. The young person is trying very hard to change and is making progress. As Deputy Noel said yesterday, he and I met with this young person and their family and our discussions were wide-ranging and confidential but at the end of the meeting we discussed naming and shaming. This is the bit that finally - if I needed convincing - convinced me. This young person said, and I quote with their permission: "Please do not label us. Our peers, both those that are known to the authorities and those that are not known to the authorities, those that are never in trouble, our peers will put us under pressure to live up to the label that you give us." This is a young person struggling to get their life back on line and naming them would not help. She said: "It would make matters worse and harder, harder for us to change."

There is no doubt that we can do better in preventing youth crime. As I have already said, we need to tackle the problem, not the symptom. We need to intervene much earlier and I, for one, would welcome a working party that looks at this. The until now - and I have to say this - totally ineffective corporate parent - ineffective because until recently it had not even met for years - needs to start doing the work on effective strategies which they are working on. I know this is being led by the Minister for Home Affairs. We have Williamson and another raft of initiatives and it is time for action and it is time for evidence-based action. We owe it to the community and, above all, we owe it to the young people. Last night I had the privilege of attending the Prince's Trust presentation along with my Ministerial colleagues from E.S.C. (Education, Sport and Culture) and the Chief Minister. This presentation was made by 40 young people on the Prince's Trust course at the end of their 3-month course. Many of those youngsters, although not all, had troubled backgrounds, very troubled backgrounds. They had a general lack of confidence in themselves. Educationally, their skills varied from a degree holder to a young man that could not read. The change in these young people over the 3 months was amazing. We were proud to be with them. Many of them had gained employment in that 3 months, they were delightful, they were motivated and they were proud but, most importantly, they were proud of themselves for the first time. That is evidence-based action. I, like Deputy Martin, urge the Constable of St. Saviour not to vote for the 16, getting back to what we are really talking about at the moment, because I think it sends out the wrong message. Let us have the courage of our convictions and vote no to this. Before I finally close - and I think everybody would probably join with me on this - youth crime is a real problem but it is a problem of a few. It must be tackled, and we must tackle it soon, but in the context of Jersey most of the young people I work with are decent, hardworking and delightful members of society and I am proud to be with them.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I know that the speaker will not have done it deliberately but could I ask him to correct what he referred to me because I did not advocate naming young people with Asperger's. I was pointing out they were being failed by lack of early intervention.

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

Yes, I probably put the wrong emphasis on that and I apologise.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Discretion does stay with the courts under the amendment and the proposition.

5. Senator J.L. Perchard:

I do not know if there is much more one can say after that speech but I can congratulate him on an excellent speech and I think he hit all the nails on the head at the same time in rebutting the amendment and the substantive proposition. I do not know if there is a lot more to say but I have a couple of little pieces which I will add. Deputy Pitman and Senator Shenton gave examples of heinous crimes undertaken by persons under the age of 18. Terrible, terrible crimes: violent assaults; murder even. They both said: "It is time that these young people took responsibility for their actions." Nobody would deny that. Nobody would deny that these violent, heinous crimes, those perpetrators must be held accountable. Nobody is suggesting they should not but the problem is how do you hold them accountable? At the moment the age of majority in Jersey and the U.K. is 18. That is the age the law chronologically recognises a person is changing to an adult, where they become completely responsible for their own actions and their parents or guardians are no longer held in any way accountable for the actions of this. Eighteen: it is a moment in time. The age of licence is slightly different, it is the age of which a law permits a person to do something, for example, marrying or voting, the age of licence is 16. Driving is 17. If Deputy Pitman and Senator Shenton feel that the age of majority is too high and a young person should be held accountable at 17, well perhaps that is a different argument. We all know that young people grow up quicker now than perhaps they did and they are more mature and perhaps the age of majority is not right, but we cannot - we cannot while the age of majority is at 18 - have a law that says they are legally accountable at 18 but they are accountable at another age. Well, what is it? The law is amiss. The law is amiss, we know that. It is confused, but by naming somebody who has committed a crime does not work, even if they are 18. When somebody is 18, 19, 20 and they are named, suddenly does all the crime stop? I have not noticed that. Of course it does not. So the evidence suggests that by naming somebody at 18, 19 or 20 it does not work. The U.N. (United Nations) Convention on the Rights of the Child has been perhaps unfortunately devalued by both the Senator and the Deputy as not important. It is important. We must sign up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The fact .. [Interruption] It is unfortunate that I think we only have 2 Ministers in the Chamber. On such an important subject I would have thought we could have had a

couple more. They are the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture and the Chief Minister. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

As well as the Minister for Transport and Technical Services .

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I beg your pardon, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is something that the Howard League for Penal Reform said we should sign up to; it is something that Andrew Williamson who has been reviewing our Children's Services said we need to sign up to, it is something the States said that we should sign up to. We should sign up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The fact that we have some problem children has nothing to do with the fact that we should sign up to the Convention. We need to deal with these problem children. If it is an intermediate school or an intermediate - not Greenfields - but not mainstream education, somewhere a bit like we have up at the Alternative Curriculum, but we need to beef-up that principle, we need something, where excluded children, problem children, can be worked with and assisted to turn their lives around. It is not by putting their names all over the press that we will be helping them. They need discipline and boundaries, I think we all agree with that, but naming them, what is it, appeasement to the mob? What is it? I do not understand, really, quite frankly. There is no doubt if Senator Shenton wants to be guided by public opinion, let him go and ask 100 people if they would like to bring back capital punishment. It has been mentioned and I want to reiterate, Article 73 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 currently permits the court to name young offenders. I have just checked with the Attorney General that my interpretation of Article 73 is correct. It currently permits the court to name young offenders if it is in the public interest and in the interest of that young person. There is no need for this legislative change. The case has not been made. I think I support Deputy Pitman's call for a committee to really look forward at how we can improve the opportunities for young offenders to turn their lives around and to correct them so that they do not become adult offenders and a problem for themselves and society. We need to focus on how we can turn around the lives of these difficult people. Deputy Green touched on the 3 Ds day that we had where it was concluded we needed to break the cycle of deprivation and its re-offending families. It is families that we know are already in the system that continually re-offend. We need to work closer, we need to work more sensitively and to try and give these young people a chance. It is not by naming them that we will change their habits. We need to and we must and it is not just a Jersey problem, it is a massive problem in the U.K. We need to invest in our young people. The nucleus of a family that would normally support a difficult child is perhaps not as influential over that child as they once were and so there is a role for government now, unfortunately. But there is and we must recognise that we must take on this challenge and we must do it quite quickly. I look to the corporate parent,

who are, I hope, continuing to address this, now to come forward and to not just be elitist of others. Use the skills of Deputy Pitman and the passion of people like myself and let us come forward with a children's plan as the Deputy of St. Ouen said yesterday. But it recognises that times are changing and children do not have the support perhaps that the family used to give them and the States will need, for whatever reason, to pick up where the family once supported them. I think I am starting to drivel.

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

I shall try my best to stick with the amendment which talks about 16 and not the main proposition which talks about the age of 12. However, that is rather difficult to do because my starting point is that either step would be a retrograde step and is wrong. So, I repeat the warning given by Deputy Martin, do not be tempted by what appears to be a compromise position: let us lower the age to 16 rather than 12. It is a tactic I have used myself as a group in the past. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. But people tend to go for the middle position or the less extreme position in order to satisfy a particular feeling. I want to talk about that feeling. Now, Senator Perchard talked about are we appeasing the mob. No, I do not think we are in debating this issue. But the feeling that motivates people out there, people in this Chamber, often is very simple. It says: "We have a problem. We must do something." That is very close to: "Let us do anything," because the problem is such that we feel we must act. I believe that feeling, while appropriate in many cases to do something or anything, in this case it is not. I can appreciate that feelings run strong out there. Feelings ran very strong in Senator Shenton's speech and indeed in Deputy Pitman's speech that we must do something. However, the compromise position is not, for once, to act now. There is a proposition coming up that says: "Sit down. Let us, in a mature way, reflect on what we can do and what we ought to be doing to address this issue." In that sense, I believe that Deputy Pitman has succeeded in what he set out to do in bringing this proposition, the main proposition, because in my conversations with him I said: "I cannot understand why you are bringing this proposition. I do not