States Meeting Transcript - 05/11/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 5th NOVEMBER 2009

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

1. Committee of Inquiry into the Management of the Health and Social Services Department (P.145/2009) (re-issue) - resumption........................................4

1. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:..........................................................4
2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................4
3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................5
4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:....................................................5
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................5
6. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................6

2. Referendum: Position of the Connétable s in the States (P.146/2009)..................11

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................11

2. Referendum: Position of the Connétable s in the States (P.146/2009) - Amendment (P.146/2009 Amd.).......................................................................17

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................17
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................18
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................19
4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................20
5. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................20

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................21
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................22
8. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................22
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................23
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................24
11. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................25
    12. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..........................................................26
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................26
13. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................27

3. Referendum: position of the Connétable s in the States (P.146/2009): second amendment (P.146/2009 Amd. (2))......................................................29

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................29
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................30
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................30
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................32
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................32
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................32
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35

9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................36
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................36
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................37
12. Deputy A.K.F. Green St. Helier : ....................................................37
13. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................38

4. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................39

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................39
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................39
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
5. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................41 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................41 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General Designate:...................................41 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................41 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................42 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................42
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................43
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................43
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................44 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................44

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................44

5. Referendum: Position of the Connétable s in the States (P.146/2009) - resumption....44

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................45
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................46
3. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................46
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................46
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................48
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................48
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................49
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................50
9. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................52
10. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................53
11. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................53
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................54
13. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................55
14. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................55
15. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................58
16. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................58
17. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................60
18. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................61
19. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................61

3. Draft Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.86/2009) - Regulations 2 to 4 .........................................................67

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................67

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................68

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................68

2. Draft Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.86/2009) - Regulations 5 ..............................................................68

3.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................68

3. Draft Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.86/2009): amendment Part 1 (P.86/2009 Amd.)......................................69

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................69
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................69
3. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................69
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................69
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................70
6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................70

4. Draft Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.86/2009): second amendment (P.86/2009 Amd. (2)).................................71

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................71 The Attorney General Designate:.............................................................73
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................75
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................75
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................76

5. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................76
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................77
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................80
8. Connétable J.LeS. Gallichan of Trinity :................................................80
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80 The Attorney General Designate:.............................................................83
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................83

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................84

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Committee of Inquiry into the Management of the Health and Social Services Department (P.145/2009) (re-issue) - resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. We now must return to the Committee of Inquiry into the management of the Health and Social Services Department. Does any other Member wish to speak during the debate?

1. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

I heard yesterday former Ministers for Health and Social Services and other Members saying that this proposition was all about the spurious allegations made by Senator Syvret; that this proposition was all about him and there was no evidence to back these allegations. I think it is very sad and grossly unprofessional of Members when they put their distaste for a colleague before the protection and justice of people who are possibly abused by trusted employees of the States of Jersey. I ask Members, have any of you been abused? Have any of your children been abused? I think the answer is no because we are all lucky. If the answer was yes I know that Members would be doing everything that they could do to get justice and, to me, this is one of the main reasons why this inquiry is being called for. The Scrutiny Panel have done their work, they have listened to people who were taken into care by the States, they have taken the advice of professionals and have recommended further investigation; that is their role. What they recommend will not be covered, as I understand, by the review from the Scott ish organisation that has been mentioned, it will go back years by addressing people who have been in the system and I think it important to say that we have to deal with the past if we are to find solutions for the future.

2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I was not going to speak on this as so much has already been said but yesterday when I listened to the Constable of St. Lawrence speaking, I had a flashback to something that we worked on together in our time as Deputies on Scrutiny. When the Constable talked about being in a revolving door, I remembered our work on the Early Years Review when we wrote a section called Ending the Spiral. We had found that, in seeking to find a way to solve the inequalities and inequities of the provision of early years care, the Education Department had embarked upon endless rounds of consultation and review but had never come to terms with the real issues. So many times they had seemed to be within spitting distance of achieving their aims but each time they had spiralled off again and then resorted to more consultation. Our report urged the Minister to stop consulting and to take action. He did and now we have a situation where all our children can access a quality pre- school provision. The situation is very similar here: so far we have seen an external chair appointed to the J.C.P.C (Jersey Child Protection Committee), external scrutiny of serious case incidents, external inspection processes and an improved complaints process. We have reviewed and reviewed and now the time has come to act and decisively. The Minister is ready to act and has the funding in place; in fact, the Minister is rearing to go. She wants to develop a Children's Service which is inclusive of parents' organisations, of schools, of head teachers' comments, of G.P.s (General Practitioners), of health and children's professionals, et cetera. The Minister wants to end the spiral and to move forward. I urge Members to help her; we cannot allow the spiral just to go in reverse with yet more reviews, we must stop it dead and we must move forward in a new direction, straight towards a better service for all our children, vulnerable and otherwise. To those Members who have claimed they have evidence of bad practice but are not prepared to give the details to the Minister, I say this: how on earth do they believe that withholding evidence can be in the interests of anyone and especially of our children? How can the Minister act without evidence? More specifically, look to the Children's Law; if anyone, and surely especially if anyone in a position of responsibility such as a States Member, has evidence they have a duty to act on it immediately. There should be - there will be - no hiding place for those who jeopardise the wellbeing of our children, we must not play political games with the safety of our children.

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

I was listening outside yesterday and I was taken aback to find that we have 3 Ministers for Health and Social Services who requested from their predecessor, who is now off-Island, information on this very subject and all 3 Ministers have not received anything whatsoever from their predecessor. To me, I think that is a terrible, terrible thing given the allegations we have heard time and time again in this Chamber. If that former Minister knows something it is for him to pass that information on and make sure something can happen. That being the case - and I still do not know which way I am going to vote on this at the moment because I believe there might be one or 2 other speakers - I believe the Minister needs the support that is going on at the moment because, unless we can draw a line in the sand under this, we will see this continue for another 2 or 3 years at least and still may not get to the answers, given that the former Minister I was talking about has not forwarded this information. It is an indictment on us all that we have to help our young people and people who are in trouble, not hold information back. I am thinking now - and I am just looking at my piece of paper - about the Verita inquiry and all that has happened within that particular sphere and people are still suspended. I hope that everyone can vote here with their conscience today because, at the end of the day, we have to move forward and allow the Minister to get on with the work in the Ministry. In the short time I have been back in the House, I have now seen 2 Ministers for Health and Social Services and I do not want to see a third.

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

I was not going to speak but I think just as we appear to be approaching the end of the debate I think, from my point of view, now is the time not to procrastinate, not to be reactive but to be proactive. I know the Minister for Health and Social Services has been working very, very hard within the management structures within the hospital. I have spoken to her, I have spoken with other Ministers; there is a lot of good work going forward, we need to give her the support and her Assistant Ministers the support to bring forward the changes which are absolutely vital for the residents of Jersey. Only a few short weeks ago we voted extra money to help her with this work and we are now potentially voting some of that money back to be diverted to other things. I think this House needs to get behind the Minister. Let us look forward; we have seen the past, we must learn our lessons from the past and shape the future on the back of those lessons. I will not be supporting the proposition.

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

I have been waiting until virtually last hoping that we were going to move forward but we clearly are going through a stage where we are looking back and I just wanted to say that during the period that I was head of Community Policing and the subsequent years that I was an Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, we have been through masses of reviews, masses of changes running through committees and then subsequently Ministries and parents and guidance, et cetera. This has gone on far too long, absolutely far too long. I still have Kathy Bull reports in thick volumes in my office at home and the kindred inquiries that have been going on surrounding that and we seem to be going round in circles and circles. These circles have got to stop. If there is evidence out there that people know nobody is going to be able to resolve the problems unless those people come forward and give that information. If we stand here to report today and have not received that information then I am afraid I am very sceptical that an inquiry such as has been requested is going to be successful. We should have had already that information and we should be given not the detail but the circumstances around it to convince this Assembly that there is a need to invest in such an inquiry. I am sorry, I have not been given sufficient sureties and safeguards to be able to support such a proposition and therefore I will not be supporting it, but I hope and I pray that the people who have this knowledge will move forward and talk to people: talk to the Minister,

talk to the Assistant Ministers, talk to anybody that they trust in order to move this forward and find a resolution for the benefit of all our children but also to all the people that are involved in trying to make this Island and its population a better place to live.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If no other Member wishes to speak, I will call on Senator Breckon to reply.

6. Senator A. Breckon:

First of all, what I would like to ask Members to do before I just run over what was said yesterday and this morning is set personality aside. This is not about personalities; it is about some very, very real issues. First of all, I would like to ask Members to apply their minds to a complaints procedure. People have said: "Somebody should have said" this, that and the other, okay. If I want to complain about education - kids going to a school - the people who I would make the complaint to are mainly the people who made the decision and, with previous Ministers for Health and Social Services, 3, now 4 of them, take 5 if you want, we do not have a robust complaints procedure. Many people still come to me to complain: "What do I do?" and we had this with elderly care, Members will remember, where if people have an elderly relative in care, who do they complain to without any affect on their relative? People are really worried about complaining and that is a fault across the public sector and it exists here. It is something we must address. Clothier said it; the disciples of Clothier, where are you with a complaints procedure in the public sector? It has not arrived, I am afraid. That is something that Members should bear in mind if ordinary members of the public and even as Members have demonstrated, where do we go to with a complaint? Not something that is on the back of an envelope but something that you have sat with, with somebody that is very personal and very difficult for them and then you say: "What can I do?" and sometimes, I am afraid to say, the answer is: "Not very much." I am not very proud to say that but that is the situation we have got so I would ask Members to bear that in mind. When we come to employees, I will give another example: about a year ago, a member of staff that works in a part of the public sector came to me about bullying and intimidation. I want Members to be aware of this from the latest whistle-blowing policy and what it says is: "Disclosure to outside agencies. The employee should only make a disclosure to an outside agency after internal procedures have been exhausted. Provided that the internal procedures have been followed, employees making a disclosure should feel able to do so without fear of disciplinary action or other sanctions being taken against them."

Turn that the other way, so supposing they came to me or anybody else, Citizens Advice or J.A.C.S. (Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Services) then would that be seen as undermining the disciplinary procedures? That is the background where anybody who might have some evidence or information that wants to tell somebody else is in, and I am not sure that that is human rights compliant or others might argue that it is. But that is States of Jersey - what is it called - whistle- blowing, but they have got a fancy name for it: "Policy on Reporting Serious Concerns (Whistle- blowing Policy)" and this is the latest one. I would say that is not robust. People must not be able to fire allegations about this, that and the other without substance but they must, if there is an issue, feel that there is a degree of comfort where they themselves will not be exposed, and I can tell you it would not be a very good career move for anybody if you are reporting your superior to your superior; how does that work, then? The other thing, we have produced a report, so there is a paper there. What that does not show, and this debate has showed to an extent, is the emotion of this subject. I have done reviews, I have been involved with things for years, but these things you are going in where it hurts. We went to Greenfields, there were some girls in there at the time, they should have been playing with a skipping rope, they should not have been locked up; that is where we were, we were in La Moye, we were in La Preference, Heathfield. The Youth Action Team, when I went there on the Thursday, the guy said to me: "I have got a problem, I have got 6 young girls in court tomorrow, I do not know what is going to happen. Where do they go? If they are detained, we have not got room, if there are bails, remands, what exactly are we going to do?" That is the people at the sharp end that we are talking about so it is not about a few bob or about that, it

is about people already doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances and sometimes they may have a problem they want to share with somebody else; where do they go? In the past they have had nowhere to go, I can tell you that quite honestly and that is what some of this is about. The other thing that is important, and I do not think any Member has mentioned it, and if you read a lot of these reports, the children's reports, what they say is: "Put the children at the centre." What you do not do is create an institution of bureaucracy and say: "This is for the children" what you say is: "These are the children, what are their needs; how do we cope with that?" and nobody mentioned that at all. With some of the contributions from Members there is a mix-up here about what Williamson is; no one man, no one person, no report is going to cure everything and that is a mistake if anybody thinks it will. There are areas that I touched on yesterday where our experts said of Williamson: "The limitation is most surprising and also most explicit in the Williamson report. The author was specifically asked to look at child abuse and the procedures and policies surrounding it. Despite this, the report contains almost no discussion on field social work, child protection registers, child protection conferences, serious case reviews, the role of doctors, Accident and Emergency Department or health visitors, in responding to abuse or the adequacy or otherwise of services for the under 5s, e.g. child minding, day care or family children centres. All of these issues would be covered in a full treatment of what appeared to be Mr. Williamson's brief." Everybody said "Williamson." Another thing that was said by the Minister for Health and Social Services: "We have agreed the funding for Williamson." No, we have not; what happened was Deputy Le Claire brought forward a proposition where money was agreed from what would have been the funding proposal from the Minister for Treasury and Resources to meet the situation we had with family X. We have not agreed the funding for Williamson. I had a conversation with the Minister for Treasury and Resources because, again, the sub-panel were compromised; we were doing a review on something that the States were going to debate so I phoned her and said: "Yes, well, that is very nice, that is a nice review but we have agreed this" so the agreement was that if we identified areas in this report that needed funding then we would come back and visit it again through the Ministers, or through another debate, and that is something the we have not yet had so we are not there yet. The other thing that was touched on, and it was mentioned yesterday - this was an extract - some discussion again about something that was contained in Deputy Le Claire's

report, P.62: "A serious case review has now been instituted in response to allegations of multi- agency failures by the States of Jersey" and then something that Deputy Hilton pointed out yesterday, well, the other one had not started. So the question is who is responsible for driving a serious case review? Is it the people who have been managing the case, how does anybody else get to know about it and I do not know the answers to this. That is the role of the Jersey Child Protection Committee. The question is - and I do not know the answers because we did not have time to go that far - how many serious case reviews have they done since they were set up in 1996? I do not know, but if matters are before the courts because there is concern about care, custody of children and other things, then should not somebody have done some serious case reviews? How many have been done? I do not know. That is one of the areas where the sub-panel in the time and resource available was not able to get in that detail. How were those cases managed? We do not know, and they could have been managed well; difficult situations could have been dealt with with different agencies, with Education with Health, social workers, agencies; I do not know. I do not know the answer and that is why the sub-panel believed and the panel believed that we must go into this or somebody must go into this in more detail to put forward a framework that was robust and when things did go wrong we were honest enough to say: "Well, let us look at this, yes, well perhaps we could have done better." Let us hope that we can do this and move on together; this is not a personal agenda or a personality agenda, it is about process and it is about process that will serve children and this is what it is about. I said in my foreword to the report: "I hope the content of this report will play a vital part in determining the future role and development of policies, services and support for families and children. It is, however, part of an ongoing process and not the end of it. Nothing I have heard, yesterday afternoon and this morning, suggests to me that we have got a clean end to the thing, we have got things hanging about. The sub-panel discovered

reports that we did not know existed about various things, about Children's Mental Health Services, for example. We found out things as you went along. Somebody mentioned something and, as States Members, I would suggest to you there are reports in existence that we do not even know about. Maybe we should, maybe we should not, but I know this was something that former Deputy Troy said: "If somebody gets a report then it should be listed, where it is, if it is available, how much it costs" et cetera. Everybody I think has made a valuable contribution and it is, believe you me, an emotive subject. You can do reviews, but when you go in here, I tell you this hurts because it leaves you with feelings. When you come out of La Moye, it is no holiday camp up there. There are young fellows locked in there. We spent some time talking to the youngsters. We did the same at Greenfields. This is what it is about. It is about turning these situations round and I am sure we are all in agreement about doing that. It is how we do it, and I believe we need to look back a bit. I thought when the Deputy of St. Ouen was speaking yesterday and he was talking about "we must not look back" a number of Members said that the first thing you have got to do, if you change direction, look in the mirror; mirror, signal, manoeuvre, anybody that has learned to drive you look back before you go anywhere. I would ask Members to bear that in mind as well. What it says in the proposition is "to look at actions and effectiveness" and I would ask Members to bear in mind what I have just said about serious case reviews and actions and effectiveness. Did it happen? When did it happen? Did it happen at all? I do not know. What we are asking is that somebody looks at that in more detail. There are 10 to 12 years of minutes of the Child Protection Committee. There are various sub-groups. Somebody could do that. A number of Members have mentioned cost. I will just put this to the House, what is the cost of suspension of employees within the Health Department? Who is monitoring that and who tells us regularly? Is that out of control? Would money not be better spent focusing on that, sort out the issues? Get people, who are entitled to, back to work and perhaps we will have some money to spend on this. For me money is not the issue. Senator Le Marquand mentioned the corporate parent. We found evidence to say that the corporate parent was not working. It did not meet. You had an executive body set up underneath it. You had the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Health and Social Services, and the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. The former Minister for Health and Social Services attended one meeting in 3 and half to 4 years, one meeting. The former Minister for Education, Sport and Culture took the chair when it was not his duty to and the officers underneath that were striving to do things without any political thrust. When Senator Perchard got involved his attendance was regular. He did move things on, some was probably as Assistant Minister and some then as Minister but it was evident that he was saying: "Well, what is going on here?" and he made connections with the Child Protection Committee and there is evidence of a lot of excellent work that he did in a short time. I will say this about Senator Perchard, he came to the sub-panel when he was in the process of resigning. It was in that sort of period but he did come and he was truthful and honest in the views he gave. Regarding the Williamson recommendations, there is obviously a lot of good work there and we would be foolish to ignore it but again, as I have said, it is about moving things on. There is a lot of excellent work and obviously there is experience there that we must not ignore. Something that other Members have referred to - and again I do not want to go into details of any particular circumstances - but obviously there are some very, very emotive issues there. I want to stress, and I did say it earlier, we have staff dealing with some very difficult situations and what we did try and do is trace this through. What happens if a youngster turns up at school this morning and there are some problems with their appearance or with bruising or whether they are upset about something, how is that dealt with? How is that traced through the system? In the main there was some communication because the people involved know each other and know who is doing what. Thankfully we did not find too many failures although there were some times where there were perhaps some misunderstandings about where the overlaps were or where they were not. In the main, what I said yesterday and it is worth repeating because this was evident, I wish to put on the record the care, compassion and professionalism I have witnessed which is demonstrated to me that much good work is going on supporting families and children within a

variety of sometimes very difficult and emotive situations. That is where we are. It is not all bad. It is not a blank sheet of paper. Not everything needs changing. We do not need to throw everything out and start again but we need to move on. What the sub-panel felt was in order to move on we needed to clear this particular air and get somebody afresh to look at it: is it cost, is it time, and there are a lot of emotions there. Let us really understand that, but then that is a way of dealing with it. I put it to Members, what was the sub-panel to do? If some of these things are brought to your attention and there are issues then if we ignore them and there is a very serious incident then you could rightly come back to me and say: "Well, hang on, I have an inkling there is something going on here" and you said nothing, you left it, you left it dormant and now something has happened. Why did you not do something? That is the position I am asking Members to put themselves in today because it is my responsibility when I have done this, but now what I am doing, through the sub-panel, through the panel, I am sharing it with you. I am sharing it with other Members. If you do not think that we should do that I do not have a problem but I have done my duty. What I do not want to do and never want to do is tell you I told you so. I do not want to go there. Let us move on. I do not have a problem with personalities with Ministers, Assistant Ministers, whatever, because that is not what it is about. People said there have been issues of personality. I got lambasted on some website or something. I am not bothered about that. I did not even look at it, somebody else told me that. I did not even look at it. It is not about personality. It is not about me. It is not about any of us. It is about a service that we need to provide for vulnerable people. I think it was the Constable of St. Lawrence said yesterday: "What is a vulnerable child?" This was a question that was asked of us and professionals .. there was some discussion around that because it is not an exact definition but if a child's grandmother dies then that child can be vulnerable for a period. We are all vulnerable, ourselves as well, at certain times because of certain things but obviously, from a child's point of view, it is not acceptable for them to go through their childhood in a vulnerable situation. The other thing that we did on the sub-panel we got some statistics - we have not included them because sometimes they can confuse - on how many children were on the Child Register, how do they come and go, but perhaps that is something that somebody should look at in more detail. Because, as I have demonstrated by a bereavement, there are times when children can be vulnerable and then through family support, school support and friends' support they can be helped through the difficult periods, but that is the sort of areas where we were going. That is why, in some of these areas, we felt somebody should have another look just to see that if there are issues then they are done properly. There is no textbook proper way because it is a matter of professional judgment and we rely on those professionals, in those situations, to do that. I am fully supporting them. This is not a wrecking motion designed to cause any disruption or confidence or whatever but it is something that the sub-panel and panel felt needed to be brought before this House and we said that in our recommendations, within 3 months and we are about there. Senator Le Main mentioned yesterday about inquiry after inquiry; this is not an inquiry for inquiry's sake. It is an inquiry that we believe is necessary for some of the reasons that I have touched on. The other thing is, okay, if we had a session here where we had to go in camera because some Member or whatever wanted to reveal something, then that is evidence

that somebody should be investigating because there is a need to. With the panel we had the broad- brush approach in all of these areas. What we did not have, in the 16 to 18 weeks, was the time to get into the detail and investigate individual cases. We were not resourced to do that and if there had been an issue .. the same happened with Mr. Williamson's inquiry, if anything was brought to his attention that would have been life threatening or somebody was in imminent danger then we would have, obviously, reported that. Obviously this is an emotive area but it would be the same if you were doing an inquiry into housing. If you found a block of flats where people were occupying them illegally you would say to the Minister for Housing: "You had better have a look around there because there is a problem" and I know that is a less emotive area but, at the same time, anybody doing an investigation would do that but we were not at that level where somebody said to us: "Jimmy Jones was not treated properly because this, that and the other happened to him." Although individual cases were emerging we said: "Well, hang on. You need to use the agencies." Deputy Green will be aware of one and there are a number of other Members who are dealing with

people's concerns in different areas where there have been childcare issues. From the sub-panel's and panel's point of view this is where we could not go. We were not conducting a historic abuse inquiry. We were not looking into the past. We were trying to collate information and evidence to do the review and these were issues that would come to our attention as part of that. Yes, Senator Syvret said things. He said things about me. He said things about the case and we did ask and offer him to come to a hearing. We had other people who came and, as I say, I met over 100 people but that is not the issue. The other thing is if I or anybody else is going to make allegations the people involved must get the opportunity to respond because at the moment they do not and they say: "Yes, we are dealing with this. Did you know this, that and the other?" because sometimes if somebody tells you a story they do not tell you all of it, they tell you the bit they want you to know. From our point of view that is really where we are. What did we do? We could not leave it and, as they say, we are where we are. We are here today so what I am saying is, what I and the sub-panel became aware of, and the panel became aware of, we agreed that this should come to this House for this debate for some of the reasons that I have touched on. I think that covers most of what Members have said, not specifically but in general terms. There was something else that was mentioned as well about inquiries and they talked about it with Verita, with doing this, that and the other, a very thorough examination. Can I remind Members the scope of the Verita inquiry has only been extended because it came back to this House to do so. In the realm of the Health Department it was not going to be extended. It came back because of pressure from this House. The other thing in the proposition talks about actions and effectiveness. This is not the witch-hunt about any individual. Nobody has been named by title or by area or by anything else. What it is, it is to re-examine afresh some of these issues that are around this, and other Members have touched on, about effectiveness, for example. I can tell you - and Senator Le Marquand touched on it yesterday and the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture is fully aware - the corporate parent did not work. It did not work, so effectiveness that is a no-brainer. We can do that and, as I have said earlier, Senator Perchard was instrumental in pushing some of this on. The other thing that the panel have agreed to do is to recommend an adviser and to recommend to come back to this House, what we say is to bring forward for approval by the States each of the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry. Again, Members would have another opportunity to add to, to question, to subtract, whatever it may be and we also suggest we would identify an appropriately qualified individual or organisation be invited to undertake the investigation and bring forward, for approval by the States, the names of the proposed chairman and members. I can tell you and Members are well aware, from a Scrutiny point of view, the review we did, the vulnerable children's review, we had 2 advisers and I think the cost was about £17,000 or £18,000 but having said that that was achieved because the Members themselves - Deputy Pitman, Deputy Le Hérissier and Deputy Southern - we got our jackets off and we did some of the graft. I am not saying that would happen with these people but, at the same time, we are conscious of costs. If the House does ask us to do this we will seek advisers, not just on ability but also if people are charging fancy money and whatever else. The other thing that we have done with the Scrutiny process - and I can tell Members it is very effective - we would ask people, who were perhaps on a shortlist, to provide a 2 or 3 page brief on how they would tackle it. There are 2 aspects to that, you get to know the person, if they are up for it - we would give them, obviously, some background documents to look at - but you also can get some information for nothing. As they would say: "I would look at this, I would do that, I would tackle that, that is not a priority" and very many qualified individuals would do that and get involved. Although some big numbers have been involved the idea would be to set the terms of reference, to put in a timescale and look at the number of suitably qualified people who could do this in a caring and sympathetic manner. That is what we are looking for, and as I say the problem I had, I had brought to this House to share with Members. Whether you want to do that is

up to you. I maintain the proposition, Sir, and I ask for the appel. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the vote is, therefore, for or against the proposition of the Scrutiny Panel and the Greffier will open the voting.

2. Referendum: Position of the Connétable s in the States (P.146/2009) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, we come now to the proposition relating to the referendum in the name of Deputy Tadier , P.146. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion: (a) to agree that a referendum in accordance with the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 should be held as soon as practicable to seek the views of the electorate on the position of the Connétable s as Members of the States and that the text of the question should be: "Do you think that the 12 Parish Connétable s should have an automatic seat in the States Assembly by virtue of their office? Yes or No." (b) To request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to take the necessary steps to implement the referendum.

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I would ask Members not to be put off by the introduction of the podium here. It is purely for my comfort and it does not necessarily signal a very lengthy speech from my part. Indeed, I will try to keep it as concise and as comprehensive as possible. First of all I want to draw attention to the fact that today we are not here to debate the role of the Connétable s or the Constables. If you will

excuse me I will use the English phrase Constables just for consistency as we will also be speaking in English for the rest of the debate, I believe. We are not here to discuss the role of the Constables, per se, today. We know that there are arguments, and passionately held arguments, on both sides as to whether Constables should be in the States but really today we are simply focusing on the idea of a referendum and, in particular, the idea of a referendum to decide, as far as my proposition goes, whether it is a valid question to ask the public, whether the role of the Constables should continue to be an ex officio, that is to say an automatic seat when they get elected to the role of Constable in their Parish. Obviously there is a valid case to touch on and whether it is a right, whether it is a strong argument and whether there are arguments to be had for a referendum but, as such, I will certainly be sticking to the question in hand and I would hope that other Members would also do the same. The question really then is is there an argument to be had? Is this a valid question for a referendum? I believe it is and I believe this on a couple of different grounds. Why? Well, firstly we know that referendums or referenda - you can say either, I will be saying referendums today - can be used but normally are used for constitutional issues such as, for example, if we wanted to seek independence, other countries have done that but it is also to do with any kind of constitutional issues. Indeed it can be used for other matters but generally it is an issue of constitution which this is so it does fall into that category. Also, is it a valid question to ask the public? Is there a hunger out there? Is this a live issue? I believe it is because we have seen at every election time the argument of whether the Constables should be in the States is one of the first ones to rear its head. It does tend to polarise people and I would say with good reasons because there are strong arguments for and against. We also know that there is a historical precedent and a parallel, not for the referendum as such but for the removal of certain roles which may be seen as historic and traditional. We know that in 1948 there was constitutional reform and there was a valid debate to be had and at that time the Jurats and Rectors were removed, I believe, on a standing vote in this Assembly and that was when the office of Dean was introduced. I believe this is a valid subject for a referendum. It is a constitutional matter but there is another reason as well that we should be seeking the opinion of the public, perhaps 2 reasons. First, because we have shown ourselves incapable of making any real decisions when it comes to electoral and constitutional reform in the States. Indeed we have passed one small measure, that of unifying the election days so that Senators, Deputies and Constables, from now on, will all be elected on the

same day. As I have mentioned in the past we should not pat ourselves on the back too much. There are still issues to be resolved such as the nomination days, which I know the election working group will be looking at because that is the ultimate problem, of course, when people should be nominated, to make sure people cannot stand for more than one office but that really does not deal with the underlying problem of representation and what is the best way to represent the public of the Island. We have categorically and repeatedly shown ourselves to be incapable of reform and we are constantly accused of navel-gazing by the public, and indeed by ourselves, and that is probably a valid accusation. Really, the referendum is to say: "Take the decision out of our hands." We admit that this is something which we cannot take ourselves because by nature there are people in the Assembly who hold different views. There are indeed people who stand to either benefit or potentially not to benefit and it is not really a decision for us to make. The other reason of course, as I have said in my proposition, and I will read from it because it is easier: "States Members are never ceasing to tell us what it is that the people' want. This was particularly apparent in the recent debates that we have had on States reform. Not only is this very presumptuous, it is usually completely unverifiable. Depending on whom you talk to - or rather who talks to us - the opinion will differ." This is quite normal. I am not trying to blame. We have all stood here and said: "So and so was talking to me the other day and they said the Council of Ministers are wonderful" and that they cannot do anything wrong but those type of people do not tend to talk to me. We are a little bit like magnets, [Laughter] in one sense because the type of person who may talk to the Constable of St. Mary, for example, in the Parish of St. Mary at the locally-run and owner-run corner shop, may not be the same person that talks to me at the Checkers or Spar, which is not family-run, in St. Brelade. That is quite normal and that is quite healthy. The

point is we really need to take a clear sounding from the public on this very difficult issue. Some Members will say: "Ah, but this has already been dealt with." We have had MORI polls in the past in 2005. We asked substantive questions. We asked lots of different questions in different areas. One of the questions, of course, was about the role of the Constable and it was said, I think at that time, from memory it was 54 per cent that were in favour or broadly in favour of the automatic role of the Constable continuing in the States. Again, although it is slightly in favour it is not overwhelming but, nonetheless, some Members are loathe to remind other Members that, in fact a year later, there was another poll taken and the support for Constables had decreased to 46 per cent. I do not say this again to have the argument today as to whether this position should continue or not, it is simply to say that public opinion does change with time. I am in no better position than anyone else to know, or should think that I can know, what the public - and we can treat them as a homogenous mass - actually wants. A referendum will do this. It will give a clear choice, a yes and no and then we can act accordingly if we see fit. I will not touch too much on the issue of whether the referendum will be binding or not. That will come in a moment with an amendment. Nonetheless, I would say that either way, whether it is binding or not, it is still a valid exercise to carry out because on the one hand we know that non-binding referendums are useful because they act as a tool for measuring public opinion and of course if it is binding then also that would give it meaning. What are the other advantages of having a referendum in general? I think we probably would all agree that it is good for democracy. It gets people involved in debates at grassroots democracy. It gets them asking questions in this particular case. It will get members of the public to ask questions: "Well, what is it that a Constable does?" If the other amendments are adopted: "What is it that a Senator and a Deputy does?" but more specifically: "What is it that my Deputy does? What is it that my Constable does? Is he or is she doing a good job? Is my Deputy doing a good job in representing me? What is the difference between the Constable and the Deputy ? If I have got a parking issue in St. Brelade do I go to the Constable, do I go to the Deputy ? If I go to the Deputy can the Deputy do anything without going to the Constable?" All these kinds of issues which I think the public are completely lost with. Indeed, I do not think I even really know, at that level, who does what, so certainly I think the public would welcome this opportunity for informed debate and of course a referendum does organically provide the opportunity for a yes and a no debate on both sides. I know that we have had that in the past. We have already had a referendum, perhaps on a different issue, and it was tied to an election. That is true but we know that a referendum can work already. What we have not had is a single-standing and a free-standing referendum. I think this, again, is a positive because there may be an occasion in the future where we need to organise a referendum on another constitutional issue. We may need to do that outside of election time and we may need to do this with a relative urgency. Therefore, it would be a good practice run, if you like, for that. The other issue which I have mentioned in my proposition in the report is that really this is to .. first of all it is a question of efficiency. It is to save both time and money. I know that in these kinds of debates, as we have seen in the last debate, that the money is always the reason not to do something. We heard earlier on in the week that the States traditionally

have had a bad habit of finding excuses not to do something. We have heard it from the Constables themselves and I certainly agreed with them when I voted earlier on in the week to do with Sunday Trading, Boxing Day, Christmas Day and all these things. I would hope today that Members can unify, that we will not be divided and that we will find a reason to do something, that we can be a can-do government, not just on the issues that suit us but really on the issues that are important to the public as well. Really, this referendum I believe, certainly for my part, will put the issue to bed once and for all. Certainly, if we do not have a referendum and we reject this, this issue is just going to keep on rearing its head over and over again; constitutional reform, States reform, the role of the Constables will come back probably every 6 months maybe by different Members. You could have a referendum coming back every 6 months and 3 months later you will have a proposition to remove the Constables, to remove the Senators, to remove 6 Senators and this may happen. I certainly do not want that and I do not think any Member wants that. Really, what this will do .. and although it is not binding, certainly for my part, I am a democratic and I say that in

the proposition. I have said: "We are all democrats. We live in a democracy." It is right then that we should let the public decide rather than speculate on what their views may be. Later on I go and say that this referendum will give us a clear answer and before we waste more States time and public money on the subject we will have a clear decision. I, for one, will be happy to stick by that. If the public comes back and 80 per cent, 60 per cent are in favour of the role of the Constable being maintained that is fine, I am happy to live with that but I want certainty. I want to know if that really is the decision. As I have said, I will stick by that decision. Similarly, if there is a 60 or 70 per cent swing the other way then I will be moving for the relevant proposition to follow that up. The point is here is put up or shut up and that is really what I am doing. I know that Members do not like it, the new Members of a different persuasion, coming up and always criticising all the time. I am simply saying that once the referendum is taken I will be happy to change my views, or at least keep them silent if that is what the public wants, and I would hope that is what everyone in here would be willing to do. Really, I am asking for a gesture of goodwill in that respect. The obvious criticism that I will be open to on this is why only the role of the Constables and not the role of the Senators or even the Deputies? That is a valid question to ask but I would say that the position of Senator, and indeed Deputy , does not seem to polarise public opinion in the way that the role of the Constables does. There are reasons for this. There are reasons for it because the Senators and the Deputies are not policemen. I do not have a warrant card. I do not run the elections in my Parish and one of the ironies is, of course .. this is not a criticism. I am just trying to say whether there is a valid argument or not to have this debate. The Constables themselves are the ones who run the election, ironically, under the Referendum Law. It will be the Constables who have to run the referendum on whether or not .. it is true, I can read from the Referendum. Let me read from the Referendum. I have got the Referendum Law handy. Okay, let us read from the Referendum Law, shall we? Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002, Part 3, Article 8: "The Greffier of the States must ensure that an appropriate number of ballot papers for the referendum are delivered to the Connétable s for voting in the polling stations." It then goes on to say: "Each Connétable must make available the appointed person at each polling station in an electoral district in the Constable's Parish, an appropriate number of ballot papers. Of course the ballot papers are delivered to the Constables. The Constables then give the ballot papers to the Jurats but the

Constables, essentially .." I am just reading from the .. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

Sir, if I can maybe clarify the position for the Deputy if he is prepared to stand down, the ballot papers are delivered to the Jurats, not to the Connétable s. The Connétable never has the ballot papers.

Deputy M. Tadier :

If the Constable of Grouville wants to make a point of order then stand and make a point of order. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Would you withdraw your comment that the ballot papers only are sent to the Constables, they are not?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Constable, the Deputy has read, I understand, from the Referendum Law which may be different from the Public Elections Law ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think the trouble here is that the Constables obviously do not understand what the Referendum Law is. I am simply reading .. in fact, so let me re-iterate, it says: "Each Connétable must make available to the appointed person at each polling station in an electoral district in the Constable's Parish." It is the Constable which makes available these papers. Whether or not they have touched them or not is irrelevant. This is what it says in the law. I believe that the Constable will have an

opportunity to make a speech. I am simply reading it from the law but let us get back to the point because I think it has already descended into some kind of defensiveness. I am simply making a point that there is a valid reason. I do not have to address Senator Shenton and say that he is responsible for organising an election or he is implicit in any kind of election because there is not that kind of controversy with the role of the Senator. I am simply pointing out that, rightly or wrongly, there is a controversial issue surrounding the role of the Constables. They are policemen. They have warrant cards. This is what the argument is. The argument on the other side is that the role of the Constable is traditional. The Constable understands the Parish, that they know their

parishioners, that they can look after the welfare of their parishioners. Until recently they used to administer benefits. There is an argument on one side. There is an argument on the other side. What I am simply trying to say is that this is a good subject for a referendum and I think this altercation that we have been having, on the one side, is evidence of that fact. With regard to the amendments obviously I will reserve my right to speak on those and also to vote with my conscience but I do not have, in principle, any problem with these amendments. I think it is quite sensible that if we are going to ask the Island about the role of the Constables, why not also include the Senators? No one has come up with an inclusion of the Deputies. My colleague over here, Deputy Jeune , has also come up with an amendment. We should ask the public whether they want to reduce the number of States Members and we should have it as a binding referendum with a 50 per cent level. I have no problem with these amendments. I think it is more sensible to have several questions on the ballot paper and those will be argued later. There are precedents for that, the multiple referendums being held at the same time. Let us come back to this idea of costs. I am sure that really no one has a problem with referendums,  per se, that we all think that in an appropriate context they are fine. I am quite certain, and I was very surprised to hear during a P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) meeting that objections were being raised about the amount of cost. They are saying: "This is going to cost a lot more than the States [I think it is] £15,000 to £20,000." This is an old tactic, even though I have only been in the States a short while, it is a very old tactic to challenge the sum of money. I did not pull this out of thin air. This was provided to me. It was an informed amount which I was given by the Greffier because that is the cost that it takes to run a Senatorial election. There have been whisperings that in fact a referendum is going to cost more. I am not completely sure why. I think we will hear the arguments because apparently the goodwill of the people who organise elections apparently cannot be relied on to organise a referendum and that we may have to start paying people or people have to take time off

work. I really do not know what the arguments are. All that I know is that in Jersey people are .. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Sorry, Deputy . The States are not quorate. I must ask to cease temporarily and ask Members to be summoned from the anterooms. I call again for Members to be summoned. Very well, Deputy , you may continue.

Deputy M. Tadier :

To their credit it is not the Constables who are responsible. I know that 10 of them are sitting here today at the moment. Really, the idea of costs I think will become a red herring. We know that in Jersey there are people who are willing to turn out and they do very good work, be it at election time and all through the year at Parish level. I think that is indeed one of the benefits of the Parish system, it does act as a hub. We know that really people do give up their time freely and I do not think that there is any reason that this needs to be more expensive than the estimate that has been given. I will just re-emphasise because I do not need to keep Members much longer but I think that there are good reasons to have a referendum. This is exactly the type of question you can have for a referendum. It is a polarising issue. It will heal the rift in the States. I believe this needs to be done now and, as I have said, I will certainly be willing to support and back the result of any referendum on this matter. We need to be a candid government, we heard that yesterday and I will really leave it there because I understand that Members are getting tired after 2 long days of debate.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy , just before I call the amendments there was an altercation across the Chamber in relation to a document you were reading. You did inform the Assembly you were reading from the Referendum Law. I do have it in front of me and I cannot see the provision you were reading. Can you just clarify what it was you were reading? Was it the Act of the Central European Time you were perhaps reading, not the Law itself?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes, it is that one. I do not know if that makes a difference, Sir. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It was an example that it could be done but it would not be necessarily in that way in every case so I think there was a bit of misunderstanding.

Deputy M. Tadier :

The point I am making, and I was not trying to bring the Constables into disrepute, but I am saying, by very nature, the elections are organised at the Parish Hall and I am sure that they organise it with complete propriety but that they are there and present when they are being organised.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Thank you, Deputy .

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Sir, as a point of clarification, could I just ask the proposer is there a difference between an election and a referendum, for organisational purposes? Does he understand the difference?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do have an opportunity to sum-up.

Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

Sir, may I ask for what I think is a point of clarification .. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is it from the Deputy or from ..?

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

From the Deputy , Sir because he referred, during his speech, to an election working group, his words were: "We (the House) are incapable of deciding upon reform" and then referred to the election working group. Sir, I have no knowledge of an election working group. I do not know if other Members have knowledge of it and I think perhaps it would be helpful for a few words on ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes, Sir. There is an election working group. I mean I slipped that in almost as an aside and perhaps I should not have but recently, and we met for the first time last week, it is chaired by Deputy Egré. It is a sub-committee of P.P.C. and we ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

As you reminded me last week, Deputy , on a point of order, it is the Deputy of St. Peter and not something else.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sorry, correct, correct. It is very confusing with all these titles, is it not? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well you did ask me, on a point of order, Deputy , you asked for other Members to get it right. Deputy M. Tadier :

I agree and I always appreciate that, direction from the Chair. It is chaired by the Deputy of St. Peter, the Constable of St. Saviour and I am also on the panel. It has been set up to look at the whole area, the whole gambit of how elections are run. Hopefully that will enlighten the Constable of St. Lawrence and other Members.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I thank the Deputy , Sir, as I had never heard of the group.

2. Referendum: Position of the Connétable s in the States (P.146/2009) - Amendment (P.146/2009 Amd.)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well now, there are 2 amendments to the proposition, the first in the name of the Deputy of St. Martin. I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

On page 2, paragraph (a): After the words "the position of the Connétable s" insert the words "and Senators" and for the word "question" substitute the word "questions" and after the existing question insert a second question as follows: "Do you think that the position of Senator with its Island-wide mandate should be maintained, yes or no."

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

I just felt really that while I very much support it, what Deputy Tadier was proposing, I felt if we were going to go to the trouble of asking the public what they want we will just extend it to the Senators as well. No doubt Deputy Jeune will speak on her amendment but again I welcome hers because I think it would make sense, if we are going to go to the trouble of asking what do we think about the Connétable s, we just will ask about what they think about the Senators and we just will ask what Deputy Jeune is asking, whether we should seek a reduced number of Members. I think it makes sense if we are going to be getting some idea. Could I remind Members that this is not the first time we have had this debate. In fact the House, I think, ought to be grateful to the man who is now the Connétable of St.  Clement and that was the  former  Senator  Norman who  lodged a proposition, P.1/2005, that forward-thinking Senator and a Connétable now. The debate was on the 2nd February 2005 so we are almost 5 years on. Certainly I have been very much to the fore of looking for reform and one of the reasons we have always had this business, the impasse, is that we have always spoken from what the public say they want. Yet, if we think about it, we have never asked the public what they think about it. In fact, after Clothier was published 10 years ago there were moves for a referendum then and funnily enough I opposed it because I felt really that States Members should be making that decision because I thought that was what we were elected for. I know that I brought a number of propositions and amendments to propositions, as indeed I know Deputy Le Hérissier, another one, and we have been very much to the fore. Every time someone comes forward it is defeated simply because we are told: "Ah, this is not what the public want" but the only way we are going to find out what the public want is by asking them. My amendment really is to include, with a referendum, that of asking what the public want about Senators. I would like to remind Members how that vote went last time because it gets interesting that we should have an intervention from the Connétable of Grouville because 5 years ago we had a reference back from a Member who is no longer here today and we also had a successful appeal from the Connétable of Grouville for the question to be put. The debate was shortened because the House agreed that we had had enough to discuss it. In actual fact I do not think this needs a lengthy debate because, quite

clearly, I think we should not really oppose what is being proposed simply because it makes sense. There were 46 Members who voted last time, 7 were absent and of those absent there were 3 Connétable s absent, 2 Senators and 2 Deputies and I should say, at the moment, 5 are no longer Members, 19 Members voted pour, 8 have gone, 26 voted contre. Interestingly, 16 have gone therefore we have 11 remaining. Quite interesting. Of the 10 Senators present 3 voted pour. Interestingly, all 3 remain. Of the 7 Senators who voted contre only 2 remain, Senator Le Sueur and Senator Syvret, who I do not think will be here today. Only one of the 9 Connétable s present that day voted pour. We can now include 2 because Senator Norman voted pour when he was a Senator but only one Constable voted pour, and I hope he is going to be here, and that is the Connétable of St. Helier. Of the 9 Connétable s present 8 voted contre, only 2 remain, the Constable of Grouville and the Constable of Trinity . Perhaps we may be able to get them to change their minds this time. Therefore, only 3 Senators and one Connétable of the 19 present voted for, so I ask quietly what was wrong? I think the Constable of St. Ouen wants to ask something.