States Meeting Transcript - 04/02/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 4th FEBRUARY 2009

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................4

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Role of the unelected members of the States: review (P.5/2009 Amd. (2))..............4

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................4
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................4
3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:....................................................4
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................5
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................6
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:........................................................6
7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.....................................................7
8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7
9. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..................................................7
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:........................................................8
11. Senator S. Syvret:........................................................................8
12. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): .............................................................................9
13. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., of St. Martin : ................................................11

2. Role of the unelected members of the States: review (P.5/2009 (Amd))................15

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................15
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................16
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................16
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................17
5. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................17
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................18
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................18
8. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:.....................................................20
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................20
10. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................20

3. Role of the unelected members of the States: review (P.5/2009) .......................22

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................22
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................22
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................23
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................23
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................25
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................25
7. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................26
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................28

9. Deputy A.K.F. Green, M.B.E., of St. Helier:............................................30
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................30
11. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................31
12. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................31
13. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................31
14. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................32
15. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................32
16. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................33
17. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................33
18. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
19. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................34
20. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................35
21. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................36
22. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................36
23. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................36

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

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

4. Woolworths Employees: payment of statutory notice periods (P.9/2009)..............42

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................45
3. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................47
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................47
5. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................48
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................48
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49
8. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................50
9. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................51
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................52
11. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................52
12. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................53
13. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................53
14. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................54
15. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................54
16. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................55
17. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................55
18. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................57
19. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................58

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................59

20. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................59
21. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................60
22. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................60
23. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................61
24. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................61
25. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................62
26. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................62

27. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................62
28. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley: .............................................................63
29. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................63

30. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................63
31. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................64
32. The Solicitor General:..................................................................65
33. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................65
34. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................66
35. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................68

5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................68

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................68 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................69
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................69 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................69
3. The Deputy Bailiff :.....................................................................69
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................69
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................70
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................70 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................70 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................71

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

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

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Just for completeness, to put on the record those comments that were presented late yesterday, there were 2 comments relating to the Energy from Waste Facility, P.8/2009, in the name of the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. There was also a comment in relation to Woolworth Employees, P.9/2009, in the name of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Role of the unelected members of the States: review (P.5/2009 Amd. (2))

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

It is, indeed, a narrow point. Here we are, 9 years of government reform and we have half done it. Many would argue we have half botched it, but the rest remains to be done. Here we are with a simple and straightforward proposal to work on the top level, the non-voting members in the States, and already we are told: "Hang on, we cannot do that. We cannot take a look at the role of the Lieutenant Governor; we cannot take a look at the role of the Dean. Let us merely deal with the 2, admittedly, most contentious areas, the role of the Bailiff and the role of the Attorney General, because we cannot afford it again." That is very straightforward and many people have been saying: "Because we cannot afford it." But let us have a look at the principle behind it. What do we do? Do we examine the role of the Bailiff and then we examine the role of the Attorney General and then stop? Is there no contentious issue around the role of the Dean? I believe there is. To stop there would be absurd. Of course we certainly have to look at those 3 and then we are told: "Oh, no, but there is absolutely nothing contentious about the Lieutenant Governor's rôle". That surely is to stay. Do not even lift that lid. Do not have the argument. Do not investigate any alternatives. But the Lieutenant Governor's role is, indeed, a contentious one and does, in fact, need to  be examined  along with the all the others.   I urge  Members  today to consider this amendment to limit the scope of what we are about to do after 9 years, to examine all of the roles, because that is the appropriate thing to do. If we are going to do this let us do it properly. The public out there expect us to do it properly and they expect us to get on with it. We have been too long dilly-dallying, shilly-shallying. We should get on with it and we should do it properly and reject this amendment to only half do it.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

There were 2 comments made yesterday which I would like to address regarding the amendment and the proposition itself. One was to do with the Chief Minister mentioning that reviewing the role was rather wide, but the point of the proposition is it is asking the Council of Ministers, after consultation with the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), to come back. If we look at (b)(ii), the terms of reference of the panel, therefore, if we are just looking at the role of those individuals within this Chamber, then that can be addressed in the terms of reference. So, it does not have to be so wide. Secondly, in terms of cost, it was slightly alluded to yesterday, although we have not had the debate on things like the incinerator. When we are looking at the scheme of things and the waste of money elsewhere, the sort of money that we are looking at to look at the reform of this government is nothing. In fact, they have lost that already and euro exchange rate was the first 2 tranches to cover the cost of it. So, I would suggest to Members that it is a red herring to talk about cost in the way that they are.

3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

Just looking at this proposition, going back to the period of time when we were going around the parishes at the end of last year campaigning, this item did not come up once at all and the public at the moment seem relatively content with the performance of the House in the way it is constituted at the moment. Certainly, I think right now to consider spending upwards of £500,000 on doing what some would consider a navel-gazing exercise, particularly when you have people like we have in the gallery this morning who have an interest far closer to their hearts. I think Deputy Judy Martin's comments which were recorded yesterday saying there is never a good time, I personally do not believe that this is a good time for this House to continue navel-gazing and spending monies which are probably better spent elsewhere in these difficult times. [Approbation] Therefore, I will not be supporting this proposition.

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

That speech really was more aligned to whether or not one supports the proposition rather than speaking or addressing the amendment which is before us. It could be argued later that the review will be expensive. It could be argued later that the review is unnecessary. It could be argued later that this has not been brought up many times by the electorate while people trudge around the parishes. I do not know how out of touch Members are if they think that the electorate are speaking to them about what they feel, because 90 per cent of the electorate do not want to talk to politicians period, about anything. The reality is that Members are out of touch, and unless we have comprehensive reviews of the system of government in Jersey we will continue to be out of touch. At the moment there are issues regarding the Lieutenant Governor's role, the appointment of a British Military Lieutenant Governor and the appointment of an Anglican Dean for the States of Jersey. One small example would be when St. Thomas' Church, who currently have congregations of Portuguese, Polish and mixed nationalities in excess of 3,000 a week, have to beg and scrape to renovate their church and plead with the parish to get a £40,000 loan because they are not the actual dedicated church or the state church, and here we have the Dean's church, or the States church, receiving millions of taxpayers' money with a handful of the congregation in the church every week. Is the Dean representative of the vast majority of the Island's religious attendees? Does his moral guidance extend from his religion through to all people in Jersey? Are these questions necessary to us? Can they be satisfied? Unless we have a review they will not be satisfied. The functions of the Dean and the functions of the Lieutenant Governor are well understood and, as a past member of the P.P.C., I can attest to Members that we were furnished with a full comprehensive report of the activities and the issues of the Dean. So, that work has already been done. If one wants to look at cutting costs that section is not necessarily going to add any burden of cost. But for some unknown reason to have a review, which one can argue, one can support or not support, and then pull out 2 key players in that review is bizarre. The only feeling I get is it is because it is tending to be: "Well, let us try and knobble the review in the beginning by getting these 2 out." What a bizarre set of circumstances we would have if the review came back and said: "Remove the Bailiff , remove the Deputy Bailiff , remove the Attorney General, leave the Lieutenant Governor in place and leave the Dean in place because we have decided not to review their positions." How bizarre would that be? We are rid of the Bailiff ; we are rid of the Deputy Bailiff ; we have a British Military Lieutenant Governor sitting next to the Greffier of the States perhaps

and the Dean still in the States. The Lieutenant Governor and the Dean are both eloquent and hard- working and very nice individuals. I personally like them both, but it is not about whether or not we like these individuals, and 9 times out of 10 we are going to because these sorts of appointments are made to capable individuals, affable people. It is not about the individual. It is about whether or not we have a fully functioning democracy in Jersey. How can one argue that a fully functioning democracy is being represented when we are not willing to do a review, or we are but with one hand over one eye? So, I will be supporting the review and I will not be supporting the removal of 2 key components of that review. There is a cost to maintaining Government House on a yearly basis. There is a cost to the taxpayer, through the Parish of St. Helier, to maintaining the Dean in his current role, through the Parish of St. Helier and into the States. There are ongoing costs in having the appointed church being supported by the States of Jersey. How do the taxpayers feel? How do the Roman Catholic taxpayers feel of St. Helier when they cannot get £40,000 to maintain St. Thomas' church and they watch £4 million of taxpayers' money go to maintain a church that has a handful of the congregation? These are all intertwined and interlinked with the appointments and the representatives of the States. Because if you pull them out of the equation, other individuals from among our community could fill the role of the Lieutenant Governor. If we are going to have moral guidance, is it right in this day and age that we appoint a particular religion to give us that moral guidance because that particular religion happens to be hundreds of years old? That moral guidance and that political direction and that Christian direction may suit me, and largely the advice and the contributions that the Dean has made do suit my way of thinking, but they do not necessarily suit the entire population's way of thinking. Therefore, we need to review it because if the review comes back and says: "Right, we are bustling, we keep them in", then fair enough, we keep them in. That is fine. All well and good and we can stand strongly up in front of people and say: "We have reviewed it, came back; we are keeping them in." If we pull them at this stage it is going to look all fixed. It is going to look fixed: "Get these 2 out; we will get the Bailiff out next." How ridiculous would it be? We approve this amendment and we go on to have a review, if we go on to have a review. Throughout the review the questions will be: "Do you want to see the Bailiff removed?" "Well, I am not sure. Who is going to be left?" "Well, you will have Deputies", "Yes", "Constables", "Yes" Senators", "Yes, okay", "The Dean", "Oh, hang on." The Dean can still speak but the Bailiff cannot.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

This is a point of clarification because I have spoken already. I would like to hear from P.P.C., because I fear this debate is going in the wrong direction. It could well be that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet but from different angles. Is P.P.C. saying that we do not need a review because we are agreed that the role of the Dean and the Lieutenant Governor are obsolete because we recognise that they are controversial and so that we will bring individual propositions before and in respect of the review? Is that what we are saying?

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Chairman, I am sure, will deal with that in her summing up.

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

I am not very good with pop music and songs, but I am aware of a song that says you do not know what you have got until it has gone. I think that particular line is absolutely pertinent to the debate that we had yesterday and the debate that we are having this morning. We have heard, and I have heard, many speeches from what sounds to me people who have already made their mind up and I am starting to suspect that the request for a review is either a red herring or people are looking for a rubber stamping of their already arrived at opinion. We have heard one speaker in his opinion feel that the States wastes money and has wasted money on other projects, and I was not sure what the rationale was for saying: "Okay, well, we will waste some more on this particular project" but there we are, it is a matter of opinion. In light of the fact that some Members, I believe, have already made their mind up, I am this morning going to nail my colours to the mast quite firmly. I see no conflict at all with the role of the Lieutenant Governor and the Dean. I am absolutely 100 per cent behind the position of the Crown and the established church in this community. This is our history. We should not just turf it out, turn it aside; it is the bedrock upon which this society and this community was built. I am, and I recognise that I am, an incomer; I have married into a Jersey family. Perhaps that puts me in a position of wanting to support and fight for the traditions of this Island in a way that some people who have been here for generations perhaps do not. I come from a society where I recognise that its traditions have been laid aside in the name of progress, and yet I think if you speak to many within that society they fail now to see the progress and they are asking themselves why they have made such hasty moves. I recognise, however, that there are concerns and there are legitimate issues to be addressed regarding the role of the Bailiff and the Crown officers in this Assembly and obviously we will be discussing that when we come to the main debate, but I am firmly behind this amendment and I ask that Members will consider it seriously

before they reject it. There is in my mind no need to remove, or even review, the role of the Lieutenant Governor or the Dean which equates to the role of the Crown and the established church within this Island.

7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I would like to try and make a couple of comments on what Deputy Le Claire said, and I will start by taking a leaf out of Senator Shenton's book and saying my good friend Deputy Le Claire pointed out that there was a cost to government and I have to say that I entirely agree with him. There is a cost to government and it is something that this Assembly needs to take hold of and understand. I think that when it comes to the cost of government this Assembly needs to look at what it has in its hand to spend and then needs to prioritise what it wants to spend it on. I think that if Members were really serious about wanting to control government spending they would do just that and they would look at this and say: "Yes, it is a nice thing to do, but it is not an essential thing to do." I think that the public have for a long time said they would like to see changes in the House, and I agree that changes are probably necessary, but at this moment in time, where we are today, with the pressures on spending today, I do not believe that this is the moment to be doing this.

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

I would like to say a few words because I am on P.P.C. We did bring this amendment and for one minute I would not have supported this amendment, and I am swaying now whether to because of the speech from Deputy Gorst and then all the foot stamping and the Council of Ministers agree that the review is welcome. Now, why is it welcome? Are we doing anything in this House that is not done in any other parliament? Yes, we are. We have all these different Members unelected, many allowed to speak and influence debate in this Chamber. Now, when Deputy Pitman brought her amendment to remove the Bailiff the main  speeches were: "We  must have  a thoroughly researched review of his role and alternatives" and this is what this is proposing. The amendment, as I say, is taking 2 people out. Now, round the committee this was to focus on where we think we have the problem now, but certainly behind that, the next stage is definitely to look at the Dean and the Lieutenant Governor. Whatever you might think that this is where our connection with the Crown is, it might well be right, but that was my thinking on P.P.C.  Also, Deputy Gorst says full support, he is proud of what we do. Again, I am sure lots of people in this room are proud of the way we think we do things, but the rest of the world, on one stage we want to be the rest of the world, a parliament and a government to be taken seriously, but on the other hand: "No, well, this is quaint old Jersey and we have done it this way since Canon times made the law and we had the church connection and we are going to do it this way." Well, I am sorry, I think a review .. and as it has been mentioned, the terms of reference have to be drawn up, the amounts of money, and it can be kept focused and it can be kept short. I think we decide as a parliament in this Island to look at who sits in this House before somebody outside, as they did in Sark, tells them: "You are not doing it right and this is not going to be continued. Sort yourself out or we will sort it out for you." It may be that people do not believe that this can happen. We do not want to get to that stage.  So, seriously consider, because I may support the amendment but never under the speeches that I am listening to. These roles are not happy chappy and here to stay. As far as I am concerned, there is a review to be had and it is either all in one or it is piecemeal. That is the decision and it will come

back.

9. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

In his opening remarks this morning Deputy Southern was suggesting that some Members were trying to claim that this is something we cannot do, this review. Of course it is something we can do. The real question is; is it something that we should do? If we should, should we do it now? I am going to support the amendment because I think it makes a not terribly good proposition, and I suggest a very untimely proposition, quite a bit better. I was quite interested to note that really the most important role that the Deputy of St. Martin asked us to review is that of His Excellency, and

yet his report is almost totally silent about the role of the Governor. It was Deputy Higgins who suggested that we need only review the Governor's role in this Chamber. Well, we could do that but that really would be a total waste of time and money because all of us know exactly what the Governor's role is in this Chamber: he turns up regularly, he speaks once on the first occasion that he attends and then he speaks once at the very last sitting that he attends, just like one or 2 elected Members. [Laughter] That is the end of the story as far as his role in this Chamber is concerned. Why do we want to set up a review into that? But of course, that is not really what the Deputy of St. Martin and others want. They want a review into his wider role, his full role, and once we do that, that puts everything in the frame. Everything is up for grabs and I have just noted a few things: our Constitution for one, our relationship with the United Kingdom, our relationship with the Crown, our consular representation throughout the world, our defence situation and policy, our customs and immigration services, our foreign representation, and the list, I am sure, goes on and on. A review into all of that and all of the implications of that will not come cheap and, quite honestly, we have much more important things to spend the taxpayers' money on in these difficult times. The Dean? Perhaps not as complex as the Lieutenant Governor, but we know what the Dean does in this Chamber. He reads prayers. From time to time he gives us advice. Some of us might not like the advice. Sometimes I do not like the advice he gives and sometimes I do, that is what politics is all about, but he gives us his advice and that should be welcomed and from time to time he offers individual Members comfort in times of individual stress. That is what he does in this Chamber. Outside of this Chamber, just in case anybody does not know, he is a priest and he does what other priests do as well. Do we really want to spend money on reviewing what a priest does and the chap who reads the prayers and gives us comfort does? What an absolute waste of money. Now, we are told that there are people outside concerned about the role of the unelected members in this Chamber. That is absolutely true. Some people do have concerns, but in my own experience, which I am sure must be most Members' experience, the public are more concerned about the role of the elected Members in this Chamber. [Approbation] If we are going to have another review, as we did 10 years ago, that is much more important and much more fundamental to the wellbeing of this Island than these unelected members, and particularly the 2 we are talking about at the moment. The amendment is about the Dean and the Governor. People are talking about representation, about general elections and so on. Why can we not concentrate on the things that really matter to the people instead of these things which do matter but not to the same extent

and which are really peripheral? I am certainly going to support the amendment.

10. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

Just briefly, being aware of the current economic climate, if we accept this proposition, could it be for a lesser cost or perhaps a fixed price? This is taxpayers' money. Could we build upon the work already done by Clothier? Would the Deputy of St. Martin please answer this in his summing up?

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

This will be summed up by the Chairman of P.P.C. for this particular debate.

11. Senator S. Syvret:

I do love these kinds of debates. After 18 years witnessing and listening to the kind of arguments that we have had this morning becomes ever more fascinating in a deeply ironic kind of manner. We have heard the usual diversionary nonsense about costs and how we need not bother looking at these issues because they do not really matter in comparison with the economic issues, for example, that the Island faces, as though the 2 areas of activity and study were somehow mutually exclusive. Of course they are not. Of course our prime concerns must be with the overall welfare of the community, peoples' jobs and the economy. We can have that concern and still undertake this comprehensive review of these kinds of issues. I will not especially address the issue of the Dean. As I was driving in I listened to the debate and I heard the speech of Deputy Le Claire and I think he made the case concerning the Dean extremely well. We are a multi-denominational, multi-faith society now and the concept that merely one representative of one denomination has an official seat in this Assembly would appear to me to be certainly unsustainable, but nevertheless, even if Members ultimately agree or disagree with that view, what possible objection .. or let me rephrase that, what possible credible objection could there possibly be to examining the subject and taking a review of it? There is no credible objection. Senator Norman I was most fascinated by. He said: "We all know what the Governor's role is." Actually, no, we do not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The role of the Governor, who he communicates with, who the friends in the corridors of power in Whitehall are, if I get the quote right, who he speaks to, what influence he brings to bear on the United Kingdom authorities in respect of what takes place in this Island, what communications he has concerning individual Members of this Assembly; we do not know anything about that. It is a role utterly mired in obscurity and historical lack of codification. So, to argue that we all know what the situation is and we need not do anything about it is patently absurd. On the contrary, there are plainly a number of problems with the role of the Military Lieutenant Governor, as Senator Le Claire referred to him. It may well be that the general overall public good and welfare of this Island would be far better represented, better protected, better safeguarded, by a straightforward civilian representative of Her Majesty in the Island. Moreover, one who was sent to take up the job perhaps with rather different terms of reference and codes of guidance than the current position carries with it, if indeed any. For example, not becoming immediately and persistently ingratiated with the powers that be in the Island from the instant you arrive to take up the post to the instant you leave and instead, in fact, have a greater engagement with the grass roots community in a meaningful sense. So, we just do not know anything ..

Senator P.F. Routier:

May I just ask the Senator to withdraw that? The Governors have a great grass roots connection with the public. They are for ever going around meeting people.

Senator S. Syvret:

I am withdrawing not one word of what I have said. I am sorry, but I do not regard a variety of charitable cosmetic glad-handing as proper engagement with the grass roots of this community. A proper representative, in my view, of the interests and the reputation of the Crown in this Island would, in fact, be listening to people's complaints, taking them seriously, ensuring such things as the proper rule of law was effective, the proper administration of justice was working, that what passes for the administration of justice in Jersey, in fact, did meet rudimentary well-established British jurisprudence, unlike at the present time. Those are the kind of real engagements that we ought to be looking for, but we just do not see them. So, there can be no question other than that these posts both need reviewing and it is absolutely counter to the public good not to review them. A further point which has been made by other people is that it is difficult to see this amendment as anything other than a wrecking amendment. It is designed to basically sabotage the overall thrust of the review. I will perhaps confine some of my remarks to the debate when we return to the substantive debate after the debate on the substantial proposition, but for the time being just let me finish by saying this: were I being mischievous I would vote for this amendment and against the substantive proposition and I will perhaps explain why later.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I turn to the Chairman to reply.

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

I would firstly like to thank all Members who have spoken on this amendment, but I think there are several recurring themes and so I will address these rather than address individual Members' contributions directly. Firstly, I would like to address one thing that the Deputy of St. Martin said, and that is that he found it strange that P.P.C. did not meet with him prior to lodging this amendment. In fact, I contacted the Deputy on the day following the P.P.C.'s first meeting at which the proposition was discussed and advised him that P.P.C. was minded to make the amendment. At that time I inquired whether the Deputy would be prepared to defer the debate on the proposition for one sitting in order to allow him to meet with P.P.C. to discuss the matter. He declined to meet the Committee, advising me, as he was perfectly entitled to do, that he did not wish to entertain any such amendment. Several Members spoke of the potential cost of the review and certainly I said that P.P.C. considered it significant; £750,000, which is the smallest estimate I have seen, is surely significant by anybody's standards. I did not at any time, however, question the quantum of cost. Many others might have done so, but I did not. I said that what was essential was to ensure value for money. Of course, although the Deputy of St. Martin said that the review could pay for itself in a few short years simply by the fact that the future speaker would receive less remuneration than the Bailiff currently does, he does not make any assessment of the ongoing annual costs or other changes that could arise from other possible recommendations. We could well find the cost of this review is just the beginning, but we simply do not know that because the remit is so wide and varied, but the actual cost is not the factor behind this amendment. The key issue surely is what do we want to achieve by this review? Do we want to deal with issues that have been raised in the past concerning the unelected members of the States? Do we want to address these? I believe we do. Can we identify which of the unelected members have been the focus of the issues? Certainly we can. Should we target our resources at finding a resolution to these matters as a priority over other possible issues? I think that would be wise. Do we need to take note of the current economic climate and weigh up the potential gains from different levels of review against competing resource demands elsewhere, adjusting our viewpoint accordingly? I think Islanders expect and deserve that we will. What will the findings of the review be? Well, of course, at this stage before the terms of reference are defined we cannot hope to even guess at that but one things is certain; no matter what the review findings are it will be up to this Assembly to implement them or not. Time and time again I hear talk of cherry picking. Well, the only way not

to have to pick cherries is to stop planting cherry trees. Reviews can produce all sorts of results but if the terms of the review are not tightly refined, if the terms of reference are too broad, then we run the risk that the findings of the review will be refined instead on the floor of the Assembly when ultimately the recommendations are debated. That is just more cherry picking. Several Members on both sides of the argument have correctly pointed out that the terms of the proposition go beyond the roles of the Members in question within the Assembly, and I thank the Connétable of St. Clement for his contribution which was particularly noteworthy. As I noted in my speech, the role of Lieutenant Governor is complex and far-ranging and a review could encompass major constitutional issues; in fact it would. To coin a phrase, should we just cherry pick which areas of his role to review? Do we really need to be reviewing the nomination procedure for the Honours List, for example? Would that give us value for money, or would it just dilute the review? Deputy Le Claire did nothing in his speech if he did not illustrate the enormity of the reviews of the Lieutenant Governor and of the Dean and he opened up the whole question of the position of the church and the Crown in the Assembly. I think that just shows how difficult the review would be to be carried out effectively and well if those areas were initially included, and I also thank the contribution of Deputy Gorst for that. At least one Member mentioned the need for a once and for all review. On that we agree, but we apparently do not agree on how to ensure that that is what we achieve. I said that the review needed to be meaningful, and how is that achievable? We must have confidence in those charged to carry it out, which means we need experts in the relevant field. The review process must be transparent and public and the recommendations must be unambiguous and well presented. The consequences of accepting, or not accepting, the recommendations must be clearly set out and communicated to the public. Each of these things will either be costly or complex and most will be both. Set the terms of the review too widely and we will lose focus. We will risk achieving nothing. In short, we risk failure and that is what the public will not be able to accept. Deputy Trevor Pitman said that he had also considered an amendment to limit the terms of the review but had decided against it in the end. He asked the question: "How long has this gone on for?" Well, I can agree with him that it has gone on for too long, but I would challenge him to examine why the previous reviews have failed to gain broad support. I would contend that they tried to encompass too much at one time and I would say that incremental change can often succeed where more radical measures do not. Other speakers questioned why a review was necessary, or why it could not be done in-house. The simple fact is that unless the roles of the Bailiff and the Law Officers are examined in depth and independently, questions surrounding those roles will continue to be asked and propositions will continue to be brought. During recent debates Members said they could not deal with such weighty issues without the backing of a review, and it appears that unless one is undertaken we will just continue to skirt around the issues. This all comes back to needing any review to be meaningful in order that it can take us out of this impasse. I would just say again that several speakers who spoke today did mention overriding factors of the cost. It was said that P.P.C. were saying that we cannot do this because we cannot afford it. I would remind Members that that was not in any way the thrust of the amendment and it certainly was not the thrust of my proposing speech. The public expect us to do it and get on with it, I was told. Certainly they do, but they do not expect a review for the sake of a review. They expect a review that will produce a result that will produce a change. That is the ultimate goal of any review. I must just touch on the contribution from Senator Syvret. He again illustrated adequately, and in fact very well, the role of the Lieutenant Governor as being a very complex matter. However, I will distance myself entirely from the remarks he made concerning, for example, the "constant glad- handing". I can be assured that many organisations in this Island are extremely grateful for the valid, the ongoing, the entirely meaningful contribution that the Lieutenant Governor's backing of their organisation gives them. [Approbation] To sum up in a nutshell, this Assembly is being asked to commit a large resource in order to produce a review that almost every speaker agrees is necessary, at least in part. I believe that we have a duty to ensure that such a review has a realistic chance of achieving positive results and of providing recommendations that can gain the support of Members of this Assembly and of Islanders generally and bring about the change that so many say they want to see. I further believe that the key to achieving this is to limit the scope of the review and I urge Members to support this amendment, either selectively or in total as they feel able, and I

therefore ask for separate votes on parts 1 and 2. I move the amendment and I ask for the appel.

13. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., of St. Martin :

Can I seek a clarification from the Chairman of P.P.C.? I do not dispute the fact that the Chairman did ask me if I would put the debate back, but I sought clarification from her at the time what amendment, in addition to the amendment she was going to put forward, but the Chairman could not say what further amendment. So, that is the reason why. I would ask the Chairman if she would clarify that, that the Chairman did not know what additional amendment she was going to put to this amendment because she said she had not enough time to speak to the rest of her panel.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Thank you, Deputy . Would you clarify briefly, please?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Yes, Madame, I am very happy to do that. I contacted the Deputy and asked him to attend P.P.C. to discuss the amendment.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

The Chairman did not. [Members: Oh!]

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think the Members should proceed directly to a vote on this matter. The first vote that Members are going to look at is paragraph 1, the deletion of the Lieutenant Governor. Any Member who is not in their ..

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

On a point of order, Madame, given there has been a contradiction by Deputy Hill of St. Martin on what has been stated, can we have that cleared up before we vote, please?

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

There is a disagreement, is there not, that the Deputy of St. Martin believes he was awaiting information and the  Chairman of the Privileges  and Procedures  Committee believes that that information was never sought? Are you prepared to withdraw your allegation that you had sought further information from the Chairman?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

No, Madame, I was never asked. I made that clear in my opening speech. The Chief Minister will know that I wrote to him asking if I could meet to discuss my comments and I was refused.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Madame, I can only say again what I said before. I telephoned the Deputy of St. Martin. I advised him out of courtesy, as I think it is only fair to do, of the nature of the amendment the Committee had mooted to bring at the meeting. I asked him if he wished to defer the meeting to come and discuss the matter with us, we would be very happy for him to do that, and he declined to do so. That was his perfect right. I respect that decision, but there is no doubt in my mind the invitation to attend the Committee was extended and declined.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I do not think this matter is going to be resolved here because we have the word of one Member against another. Let us proceed to the vote, please. The vote that the Members are looking at now, if you vote "pour" that means you do not wish to include the Lieutenant Governor in the review. I ask the Greffier to open the poll.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sorry, Madame, so you are splitting the vote?

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

There are 2 parts. You are first looking at Lieutenant Governor.

Deputy J.A. Martin: All right. Thank you.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

As we reset the system we will move forward to the second vote. A vote "pour" in this case will mean that the Dean will not be included in the review.

2. Role of the unelected members of the States: review (P.5/2009 (Amd))

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Assembly moves to the other amendment. This is an amendment to paragraph (b) in the name of Deputy Trevor Pitman of St. Helier, and I invite Deputy Pitman to propose the amendment. I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment first of all.

The Assistant Greffier of the States:

In paragraph (b)(ii), after the words "subsequent report and recommendations" insert the words "which publication date shall be no later than one year after the appointment of the Chairman and members of the panel."

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Having warned me about my language and the mention of political underpants yesterday, I am going to bite my lip.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Do not repeat those words, please. Thank you.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I will not. Where to begin? I do not feel I have to speak for long because, certainly in light of the vote we have just had, I think the case is just reinforced for the deadline that I am suggesting. What I would like to read out is the quote from the brief report: "Men and women cling passionately to old traditions and display intense reluctance to modifying customary modes of behaviour. As innovators at all times have found to their cost, the dead weight of conservatism, largely a lazy and cowardly distaste for the strenuous and painful activity of real thinking, has undoubtedly retarded human progress." I think it is a very apt quote. I am going to refine my comments just to the issue of the deadline and save the rest for the debate. Why a 12-month deadline? Well, as Deputy Le Hérissier really put in a nutshell yesterday, so much of the evidence is there: Clothier, Deputy Pitman's dual role proposition, very helpful, informative comments and information relating to Sark, even a similar proposition by former Senator Ted Vibert . Especially after the vote we have just had, to make out that this is unmanageable is, quite frankly, a red herring. What we are really being asked to do is a scrutiny review. Let us not fool people with talk of experts. I can look around this Chamber, and although it is not full, just as an example of the experts available I can look at Deputy Le Hérissier, I can look at Senator Syvret, I can swivel and look at the Deputy of St. Martin. There is a huge amount of expertise just within this Chamber. To convince ourselves that it is going to be difficult to do this review, or needs any longer than a year, is quite frankly without any credibility whatsoever. We talk about funding being a problem. Of course nobody wants to waste the taxpayers' money, but I think things of great significance and importance come at a cost. If you do not have a deadline, of course costs do spiral. Let us just consider the figures relating to the Energy from Waste Strategy. Huge, huge, sprawling amounts which certainly are not the fault of the current Minister. Twelve months is not only entirely possible; as every one of us in this room could not deny, a deadline does focus the mind when you have to get a job done. Yesterday I quoted our own font of wisdom in Deputy Martin and I think her words are even more relevant. The truth is that for some in this Assembly, and past Assemblies, it seems it is never the right time for change. Worse than that, it is never even the right time to consider change. I just wish instead of referring to tradition Members would be, in my view - and it is just my thoughts - a bit more

upfront and say: "We just do not want change. We like it the way it is." What is tradition? It was tradition not so very long ago to hang and burn witches. Would any of us suggest that that is still a good idea worth retaining? [Interruption]  I have another little quote which I found: "Just because something is tradition does not make it right." Now, everybody seems to be saying the same thing: "Yes, we know there are flaws in it. We know things need to be looked at", but again, it is never the right time to do it, ever. If we accept this amendment and have a 12-month term maximum for review the advantages that gives us are huge, to my mind. For one thing, whatever comes out of it .. and it might be that the conclusion is that everything is hunky dory. Quite frankly, I think I will throw myself off the pier if that came out, but [Interruption]  Is that that I should throw myself off the pier? I do not know; that is irrelevant. We do need to review; everyone is saying it. Let us for once just grasp the bull by the horns and do it. The funding, again I say it, nobody wants to waste taxpayers' money but this is of huge importance. We just seem to have a very haphazard grip on what is important in spending money. Very shortly the Deputy of St. Mary will be offering this House a great opportunity to save millions of pounds with his proposition on the rescindment of the incinerator. Also to protect our health and environment, but that is another matter.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I do not like to interrupt you but your proposition is about a time limit on the review.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I think I am going there within the time limit. To sum it up, there is so much evidence already there. We have the expertise to do it and the funding, quite frankly, is not a huge stumbling block some people would make. I suggest it is entirely doable to stick to this 12-month review. It is essentially a scrutiny review. We have just taken the decision to cut down the work even more so; really that should take the wind out of some people's sails, I would suggest. So, I would just move the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is that seconded? [Seconded]

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

I think basically it is a no-brainer. I think this can be done in 12 months. I will address in the bigger debate the whole issue of finance. It has been a total red herring, as the proposer has just mentioned. It can be done and I ask people to reflect on the painful, torturous process of government reform. Basically, the issue is not with a report; you can produce the most elegant of reports, you can get the most eminent of experts. I would ask people to contrast what happened in Jersey and Guernsey. Jersey I thought did a good thing - it did not work - when it brought experts from the U.K. (United Kingdom) and married them, so to speak, to local experts to give the thing local credibility. Guernsey did it entirely as a local affair headed up by a local lawyer and it reached a totally different conclusion, one that a lot of people here wished for: a strengthened committee system with a patina of a council of government on top of it. So, as far as I was aware, that was done locally, it was done quickly and, oddly, a totally different conclusion was reached essentially on the same evidence. The big issue is the politics of this Chamber. It is not the elegance of the report.  [Approbation] We could have Abraham Lincoln writing the Jersey Constitution, we could have the founders of the American Constitution, we could have the progenitors of the French Revolution writing the Jersey Constitution and it would count for nothing when it hit the buffers of the politics of this institution. Thank you. [Approbation]

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes, I was going to use the word "no-brainer" so I will not repeat it, but this is obvious and we should do it more often. We should put a timing, a timed target, on everything that comes through this House because without it, it is meaningless. There are 2 advantages to this: one is that there is a definite end to it but, not only that, the "T" for timed in "smart" almost automatically affects the other initials in "SMART target": achievable and realistic. It will also help trim the scope of the review, as we have been told before. It is very important to make sure it is doable, achievable; it is limited because in a year how far can you go down a track? At very worst, settling on a year's target means that you produce a report in the year if necessary. It says: "We have not looked at this bit and this bit, they may need further examination, but we can come this far. These are our conclusions so far." So whatever happens, I do not believe there is any disadvantage in saying: "Report within the year and let us see where we are." I think that is achievable; that is doable. I do not think we need that much debate on it. This should be fairly straightforward.

4. The Deputy of St. Martin :

If Members would look to the proposition and look at (b)(ii) it was asked to come back to a terms of reference and a proposed target date for the start of the review and the publication of a panel's subsequent report and recommendation. It was in my thoughts that 12 months would have been long enough. I did not be prescriptive simply because I felt that would be a decision maybe for the panel when it came back when it was appointed. However, I would have thought 12 months would have been sufficient. Anyway, now we are only doing a part review 12 months should be quite sufficient. I am one of the few Members I suppose - not a few Members; there are few more now - who have some experience of scrutiny and if anyone knows anything about scrutiny one will know that you always scope what you are going to do beforehand. Dare I say we have it now almost down to a fine art. We know what we want to do, we then look at our terms of reference and we look at our timescale and we look at our cost and we know that we try to work within that timescale. We know and, in fact, we have the Connétable of St. Mary and the Connétable of St. Lawrence and Deputy Pitman who know full well that your best laid plains can sometimes go awry because the unexpected comes along, and we have to work within that and if we have to overrun, we have to overrun. I think that is generally accepted, but I think it is important that if you want to run anything, you want to be businesslike, you want to be efficient, you want to be timely, so you ought to get yourself geared up to giving yourself a period of time to work within. I think it is fair to say that 12 months really would be quite sufficient, particularly now we are only doing a part review. Clothier took almost 2 years and it was almost like a licence to continue until they were ready. It became very, very costly. Again, if we had a timely, efficient, well-run, businesslike review - again I would support what Deputy Le Hérissier says - we do not have to go out too far to get expertise. Even if the cost of one so-called expert was imported from outside the Island, that would be as much. As I say, we have 400,000 red herrings floating around this morning and I do not think we need to add some more. Certainly, I think there is a lot of merit in what Deputy

Pitman has before us and I would ask Members to give their support.

5. Senator S. Syvret:

How long would such a review take? Well, let us run a little experiment. I will tell the Assembly what I will do: I will do the review for you now. Consider the roles of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. They have 3 overlapping and often conflicting roles at the moment. They are advisers, legally, to this Assembly in which frequently certainly political elements enter their speeches

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Where is this going, Senator? We are looking at the time limit

Senator S. Syvret:

This is looking at the timescale because Members are going to be arguing that it cannot be done in 12 months and I am just going to show how simple the issues are. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General are advisers to the Executive. Now, that will often put them in a conflict between giving impartial advice to this Assembly and advice to the Executive. We have already seen a great degree of conflict between the questions of legal advice to the Executive and to Scrutiny and perhaps most fundamentally they are Directors of Public Prosecutions. They are effectively the Crown Prosecution Service in Jersey. Now, how

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I beg your pardon, how does this relate to the time limit? This is what we are talking about.

Senator S. Syvret:

I am illustrating the simplicity of the issues; that is how it relates to the time limit. Directors of Public Prosecutions, there was very clear guidance given to the Directors of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service website about the objectivity and impartiality required to be observed, yet we have a situation here where on the one hand you have an Attorney General who is giving day-to-day legal advice to the Council of Ministers on issues such as what to say and not to say in order to avoid possible compensation claims for abuse survivors, and the next day determining and deciding upon where the prosecution should take place. Therefore, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as presently structured are manifestly completely incapable of properly fulfilling their 3 roles. Those are the obvious conclusions, the evidence is out there, it is well established, the jurisprudence is there so, there you go, that is the role of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General reviewed - done and sorted. Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff : again, the very substantial, very substantial, bodies of jurisprudence which I have researched about the need for the impartiality and the objectivity and the appearance of objectivity in all judicial processes is absolutely clear, consistent and overwhelming. It is not remotely credible for us in the 21st century to have this overlap between legislature and the judiciary. We need a completely independent judiciary that is fire-walled from all executive and legislative functions so that it can meet, as it does not at the present, the test of meeting the appearance of objectivity. It has to do that, not only on the basis of British case law but also on the basis of European Convention on Human Rights case law in principle. We have to change. The current position is wholly unsustainable; simply absurdly so. There you go, that is both posts reviewed - done, sorted in a few minutes. So, if Members are seriously saying we cannot have a review of these issues within a timeframe of 12 months then I think, as a previous speaker argued, we cannot be just taking them seriously. That would essentially be, in truth, a political objection to the review rather than a practical, meaningful one.

6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

That last speech appeared to be based entirely on the premise that some Members would argue that this review could not be done within 12 months. I have heard nobody in this Chamber or outside suggest that to me. Certainly, from the Council of Ministers' point of view, I have no doubt that it can be done within 12 months. I would agree with Deputy Southern this is not a subject we need to discuss at any great length. I have heard nothing to the contrary from anybody and so I will leave it at that and urge everyone to support the amendment.

7. Deputy M. Tadier :

Hang on a minute before we make any rash decisions. I will remind you who is bringing this proposition: it is Trevor Pitman from the Jersey Democratic Alliance and I would speak

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Deputy , I think you will find it is Deputy Pitman.