States Meeting Transcript - 09/09/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................3

1. Composition and election of the States: revised structure (P.72/2009) - second amendment (P.72/2009 Amd.(2)) - resumption..........................................3

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................3
2. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:....................................................5
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...............................................................5
4. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................6
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7
6. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................9
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................10
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................12
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................15
10. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................16
11. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................17
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................23
13. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................26
14. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................34

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................37 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................37 PUBLIC BUSINESS - Resumption..............................................................37

The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................37

15. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................38
16. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................38
17. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................39

2. Composition and election of the States: revised structure (P.72/2009) – amendment (P.72/2009 Amd.)........................................................................42

2.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................42

1. The Deputy ofSt.Mary:................................................................43
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................44
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................45
4. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................45
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45

3. Composition and election of the States: revised structure (P.72/2009) (continued) ...46

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................46
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................50
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................50
4. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................52
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................53

6. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................54
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................55
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................56
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................57
10. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................58
11. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................58
12. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................59
13. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
14. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................62
15. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................63
16. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................63
17. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................63
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................64
19. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................65
20. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................65

4. Composition and election of the States: revised structure - suspend Standing Order 89(a)......................................................................................68

4.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................69
2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................69
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................70

5. Composition and election of the States: revised structure (P.72/2009) (continued) ...72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................73 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................73

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................74

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Composition and election of the States: revised structure (P.72/2009) - second amendment (P.72/2009 Amd.(2)) - resumption

The Bailiff :

We return to the debate upon the second amendment, that is the amendment of the Connétable of St. Clement .

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

The Constables are often, I think, unfairly accused of voting en bloc. I do my best in a small way to dispel that myth. However, I am not going to do so today. We can probably rely on the Constable of St. Clement to do that. I have to say that I think other groups in the States can be accused of voting en bloc, just as much as the Constables. But that is by the by. One of the most curious statements - it is one I agree with - but one of the most curious statements to be found in the Constable of St. Clement's report is the third paragraph, where he says: "It is vital that the relationship between the Parishes and the States remains intact because Parishes are very heart, the very basis of our cultural, social and political life and without the link it will surely wither and die." Absolutely agreed. I would contend, however, that if the Constable of St. Clement 's amendment is approved, that is exactly the opposite of what will result. Admittedly, when I joined the Committee of Constables, perhaps a bit like him, a bit of a young Turk - young, anyway - younger, and I certainly was signed up, to start with, with the Clothier principle of all Constables seeking election as Deputies. However, I think it was the experience of being in the Committee of Constables that has taught me over the last 8 years that you simply cannot have 2 grades of Constable. A Constable who is in the States and has access to Ministers, access to the ability to put Back-Benchers' bills, access to question time, and a Constable who stays in the Parish Hall or Town Hall ; you cannot have 2 kinds of Constable. You have to have all 12 for the Committee of Constables to operate effectively, each with equal voting rights, regardless of how many constituents they have, the ability, not always, but most of the time, to reach a consensus over the matters that they discuss. I have always found it curious, the issue of being in the States ex officio or by virtue of one's office and wondered what the difference is, having fought 2 contested elections on a manifesto which has included the ability, particularly important for the urban Parishes and I suppose no more so than for St. Helier, to fight the corner of your Parish in the States when it comes to it. States Members, I think, need also to consider their future ability to question the Parish authorities. We saw a good example of it only yesterday when we had a question put to the Chairman of the Comité about Parish Assemblies. Responses came in co-ordinated by the Secretary of the Comité so that all Members have in their possession information about how that particular point works. How will it work when only, say, 6 of the Constables are in the States? What happens if the other 6 simply say to the Secretary: "Well, I am sorry. I am not going to supply that information to the States Members." They may simply refuse to do. More importantly, the issue of local taxation, which, as we all know, in Jersey is down to the Parishes and the parishioners who every year inspect the Parishes' accounts and vote yes or no to the budget that the Constable puts forward, now, most importantly, the Island-wide rate collected on behalf of the States by each Parish and set by the Comité as a body of 12 remits in excess of £9 million to the Treasury. How is that link, how is that relationship in terms of local taxation going to work if you only have 4 of the 12 Constables in the Chamber? I do not know how many of the Guernsey Constables are also Deputies. I know the Constable of St. Peter Port is because I met with her earlier this year. But I do not think many of them are. Certainly, if you want to look at a system where the Constable, the Parish link with Government has been almost completely eroded, with due deference to my colleague in St. Peter Port, then go and look at Guernsey. I think also we need to have a slightly longer view than Clothier has had. Clothier made some very disparaging remarks about Constables. It talked about them rising up from the ranks of the honorary system. I sometimes wish I had. But maybe I have

got that to look forward to afterwards. I think what Clothier forgot was that the Senators were an invention of the 20th century. The Deputies were an invention of the 19th century. The Constables go back to the very mists of time. Looking at the benches, you might well think that is still the case today. I think if Clothier had received evidence not just from people alive today but from Balleine's Biographical Dictionary, then he and the Clothier Panel would have come to a very different conclusion about the role of the Constable. At the risk of turning this into a history lesson, I want to just give a couple of examples from the Biographical Dictionary of 2 Constables, who, I submit, to have not had in the States would have weakened the Assembly. The first is Constable Philippe Baudains, whose bust Members will have been in Parade Gardens, erroneously saying that he was Constable for 15 years because he retired through illness and then got better and came back with a vengeance, serving, I think, a total of 21 years. To quote from Balleine: "During all this period he was the most active Member of the States. He introduced more than 100 Bills, dealing with such varied subjects as potato diggers, pilotage, pawnbroking, sale of meat, storage of gunpowder, eau de Cologne duties, lotteries, electric light, limited liability companies, swimming pools, cab fares and cruelty to animals, his most important triumph being the introduction of voting by ballot. This gentleman, as well as doing that, of course, personally dealt with a lot of offenders, thousands of offenders, in fact, and personally dealt with welfare claimants in St. Helier. So I submit that this person deserved his place in the States. Perhaps more controversially was another Constable; Godfray. Sorry, not Godfray. I am getting them a bit muddled up. I am not going to give a second history lesson because I get them muddled up - Le Sueur and Godfray. But I think the point is made that the Constables, certainly in the Victorian period, did a great deal of work in the States as States Members. In my submission, it would be entirely wrong not to look at the role of the Constable in history, looking back. Now, the Constable of St. Clement would have us believe that the Parishes are simply teeming with potential Constables who are deterred from

careers in this Chamber by the prospect of attending the States. Sometimes one can have sympathy with that view. But I have seen no evidence of this. In fact, many Parishes struggle to fill their parochial honorary roles such as road inspectors, roads committee, Honorary Police and so on. I think the best interests of parishioners can hardly be served if we say that they are going to be able to elect somebody who is either unable or unwilling to represent the Parish in the States. Last night I was at the Honorary Police meeting in St. Helier and I asked the Honorary Police there what their view was, having had, I must say, very few representations and support of the Constable of St. Clement's amendment. "Now, they would say that, would they not?" I suppose is going to be the reply from some. But certainly none of the Honorary Police that I spoke to last night supported the idea that the Constables should be removed from the States. Why should one not ask them: "Are these not the people who give up their time to serve their Parish, who know perhaps better than other commentators on the Parish system exactly what is involved?" So I found that a useful bit of consultation and I wonder really how many Members have been inundated with requests to remove the Constables from the States. Now, I want to go back, finally, to the point that the Constables have been here since, I suppose, the Middle Ages. They are the only one of the 3 États de Jersey still left in the States. I believe that we cannot have a system where we only have some of them here because I do not believe that we will achieve the consensus, that we will achieve the balanced and coherent representation of the Parishes in the States Chamber. I think to make the kind of changes the States have made in the past with their constitution and, again, if one looks back through history, these changes have been made incrementally. They have not been made in a sweeping way. So I think that while one understands the frustrations sometimes that people fill the Constables and the States until a case is made that they must be removed, it is really quite premature for the Constable of St. Clement to be bringing this amendment and I would urge him to spend a few more years on the Committee of Constables and see whether his views do not mellow

with time.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Could I ask for a point of clarification from the speaker? Just I apologise if I am wrong but I do believe the Constable of St. Helier spoke for my amendment. I am not sure which way he voted in the end. But it just seemed a bit inconsistent with what he has just said. So perhaps he could clarify that.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I supported the reduction of the number of Deputies.

2. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

I do not really know where to start but I think I will start with the speech of Deputy Maçon yesterday where he inferred that the Constables were the administrators of the Parish and should remain in the administration of the Parish. Now, I think basically there is the old saying of: "The Constable is the father of the Parish." I think being the father infers that there is family and I certainly do not feel myself to be the father of the photocopiers or the P.C.s (personal computers). No, I think that Deputy Maçon should perhaps ask his Constable whether he could sit in the Constable's office for half a day or so and see the actual involvement of the Constables with the people of the Parish because it is all people and it is the family of the Parish that the Constable is father of. Now, the Constable of St. Clement seeks to create a Constable second class. I should say, first of all, that the Constables are responsible for administration and the Constables do issue driving licences, firearms licences, alcohol licences, choses publiques and Sunday trading permits, apart from being responsible for the Parish rates on the Island-wide rate. Now, the second class of Constable that the Constable of St. Clement seeks to create is going to be an extreme handicap because there are issues with these administrative responsibilities. The issues, for instance, might be such as a future hypothetical Constables Committee meeting where there are a few non-States Member Constables talking to the States Member Constables, saying: "Well, what is happening about the new firearms  law? What is going to happen about the new Sunday trading  law?" Everything is going to be passed down by second hand. The Constables' place in the States is basically to make sure that these new bits of legislation work. Now, it is so really unpractical to even consider a second class of Constable. The Constable of St. Clement says that there are people in his Parish who would like to be Constables but would not wish to sit in the States. Now, there may be. But do you think that the voters of St. Clement are going to let them away with that? No, they will not. They will not accept a second class of Constable being Constable to their Parish. It

is as simple as that. I think you might gather that I am not going to be supporting this proposition.

3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am going to be unusually conservative, with a very small "c" in this series of debates. I am going to set out my approach towards all of the debate, so I hope that Members will listen very carefully because I may only state it once. I am going to vote against all changes except for the 4-year term for all. The reasons why I am going to vote against all the changes other than that is because I am pro a number of things. Firstly, I am pro community life. If you see things appearing in business plans or other things which refer to "community life", you may guess that I may have had something to do with that because I am very pro community life. We do not live as individuals separate from others. Community life is very important indeed. I see the Parish system as being an important part of community life in this Island. That means that I am pro any system which supports the Parish system and the support links with the Parish system. For this reason it is important that the Connétable s remain in the States. If the Connétable s are not in the States, then those links will be weakened further. I do not want to go down the road which Guernsey has taken, which has repeatedly weakened the links with the Parishes, with the consequential results to that. I do not accept the idea that some Connétable s could be in the States and some not, without damage to the system. The Connétable of St. Helier has eloquently explained various reasons for that. But I have other reasons. If a Connétable is not in the States, then who will represent the Parish view to the States? A tension will inevitably grow up and be set up between those representing the Parish as Deputies and the Connétable , who is not present to fight in his own corner. Secondly, my

support of the Parish system also extends to keeping the links between Deputies and their Parishes. This is a strength of Senator Norman's proposal and a weakness of P.P.C's (Privileges and Procedures Committee) proposal, which creates what I might describe in some cases as amorphous knots of Parishes put together willy nilly, among others, of course, 5 country Parishes, each of which have a very definite individual identity, and St. Martin's with St. Saviour's. I really cannot understand that one. Anyway, there are also problems, of course, other problems, but I will not go on in relation to that. Thirdly, I support the maintenance of an Island-wide mandate. I believe that there is popular support for that and for good reasons. Senators are generally freed from the responsibility of constituency issues. Many of the Members of this House are going to pick me to death, but these are excellent constituency Members who do a great deal of work for the individual Parishes or areas. I do not have to take on that responsibility. I am freed in order to play the role of Minister. But others who are Senators and who are not Ministers are free to play another important role, which is the role of raising and pursuing major issues which have Island-wide importance from outside of the Council of Ministers. Ideally, the majority of Ministers should come from the ranks of the Senators, having an Island-wide mandate. That, of course, requires people of the right calibre to stand, the electorate to back them and this House to recognise their potential. Now, in a moment I am going to ask the Members of this House to consider my own case. Many of you may, of course, feel that my being Home Affairs Minister is a big mistake. I hope not. [Approbation] I thank certain Members for their approbation. But if you think about it, would it have been possible for somebody who had not been in the political ranks to have come straight in as a Minister if I had not gone through the ordeal of standing on an Island-wide basis and being affirmed on that basis? Similarly, the same thing happened to my colleague to my right, Senator Cohen, who went through the same route. It seems to me an important way of testing people's popularity and therefore potentially their suitability for ministerial office, although, of course, not all who are popular are suitable for ministerial office. Ministers should not, in my opinion, be put in the position which makes them at risk of being held to ransom by making decisions which are in the best interests of the Island but are not popular at their local level. Furthermore, Ministers should not be put at risk of being penalised for the fact that their local constituency feels that they are ignoring them because they have spent themselves and all their energies on Island-wide issues and have not had time to play the role of local representative. During the hustings I also suggested that there was another potential bonus of keeping an Island-wide mandate if coupled together with a 4-year term for all. I accept that this is an imperfect proposal but nevertheless I think it has some value. That is this: that for the first time we could see the serious candidates for the role of Chief Minister facing off against each other on an Island-wide basis. Now, that would at least give to the Members of the States who make the ultimate decision in relation to that role, an opportunity to see that the person had been tested, and, indeed, they had been tested against each other, to a degree. It is an imperfect system but nevertheless I believe that some value. So, logically I am against the amendment of the Connétable of St. Clement because it removes the Connétable and I am in favour of the

Connétable s staying in, and because it removes the Island-wide mandate.

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

A lot of what I was going to say has been said very eloquently by the Connétable of St. Helier and the previous speaker, Senator Le Marquand. Yesterday Deputy Maçon made the point that we represent individuals, and he is right. Last night when I was at the Parish Hall I found myself dealing with a tragic case. I will not go into details. But that person came to me as a parishioner needing that help of the Constable. We are for the whole Parish and that is part of the job. I will be talking to the Minister concerned later in the day. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I have a much better chance of resolving the problem by being a States Member, and that applies to a lot of the problems that we get as Connétable s. You know the position entails work for the Parish, and States work. It is a lot of work but you know that when you stand and either you are prepared to do it or you are not. Under the system proposed by my good friend and neighbour, the Constable of St. Clement, and I suspect he will still be eating my sweets whichever way the vote goes, it is all right for a Deputy to have 2 jobs. He can look after his constituents and be a Minister and run his department. But it is not all right for a Constable because we have to run the Parish and we therefore will not be able to look after our constituents. Most of the Connétable s have business backgrounds or management backgrounds and they are perfectly capable of doing 2 jobs. It is not impossible. This amendment, I am afraid, is nonsense. We then have the problem of having to be elected twice: extra cost and disruption for the Parish and cost to the candidate. This will drive people away from being candidates. It will not encourage them to stand. As has already been said, we will end up with 2 classes. It is not going to work. The parishioners are not stupid. They are perfectly capable of deciding if a candidate is capable of doing the whole job, which includes being in the States. As I say, we will lose good candidates. We will not gain them. In the 12 Parishes, 9 of them have the same constituencies for both Connétable and Deputy . So you will have to stand twice. In the other 3, the Constables are elected by the whole Parish and arguably have a greater mandate and should be in the States. You will be asked to represent things and represent people who want the Parish represented as a whole, not just by district. In the past we have tried to raise voter turnout in a number of ways. We have tried more publicity, we have tried longer polling hours, we have lowered the voting age, and it has not worked. Yes, if we can have one election day, that might help. We then ruin the effect of this by forcing electors to turn up twice if their Constable is going to be in the States. They will feel that they are wasting their time. It is guaranteed to increase apathy. In the last election the highest polls were where there was an election for Constable. Again, what we are looking at now is guaranteed to reduce turnout. This will do damage to the Parish system and that is the very system that our parishioners say they want us to keep.

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

Well, after those last few speeches, I do not really know where to start. I am on P.P.C. and it was a sort of struggle to get where we are and I think at the end of the day we were all pragmatic and said the research had been done and this is what the people that replied wanted, and this may be some way of going to get some reform because, like many others, I have been here since Clothier. The biggest mistake, and everyone will admit it now, is bringing ministerial government in before we reformed the States itself because there is no appetite now and where is the power and who is backing the power? I am very sorry, I do agree with Deputy Le Hérissier there. People are fed up. But not the same people that attend Parish Hall Assemblies. We talk to different constituents, obviously. They are fed up with the system. They are fed up with what does look like a block vote, a block vote that normally also always favours what the Ministers are proposing. It may be just my perception but I think the Deputy of St. Martin has done total research on this and that is where we are. This second-class Constable business: I read the report of the Constable of St. Clement and he says that we should have 49 Deputies in the States. Now, the Parishes will keep a Constable. That is the job. I think when Deputy Maçon was speaking yesterday about the administration, he was not talking about computers to the Constable of St. Martin. He was talking about the very responsibility the Constable has and many times has to put before States in dealing with their Parish. That is what they do. They do it. Many of them may be not here in a few days' time because they are at the branchage. They have to be there. I fully understand that. That is a Parish commitment that a Constable makes. As a mother and father of the House, that is the job. The administration, the licensing, in charge of the Honorary Police - totally respect that. That does not mean and I think the Constable of St. Helier - and we very rarely disagree - put it into words when he said: "We cannot even go back to when the Constables were elected to the States." That says it all to me. They have not kept up with the pace of change that is in the community. Why is it impossible in an Island this large to not have 12 Parishes where the Constable administrates to his Parish? Let us get the jobs completely separate. If he wants to be a States Member he stands as a Deputy - totally different job. Not doing 2 jobs. It is clear in this proposition it is a totally different job and I respect the difference. To say that just because the Committee of Constables, some may be Deputies would not work, I am told that when the Committee of Constables meet they do not

discuss States voting, they do not discuss propositions. I am told they discuss things that go across all Parishes. Well, I hope next on the agenda is the police in the Parishes because I want more police from all the Island honoraries in St. Helier and I will be bringing a proposition. I would just like to make a comment, and he is sadly not in the House, of what Senator Le Marquand has just said. He is not going to support anything but the 4-year term. Well, will that not go down lovely outside? He has already said this week that he has dropped a lot of money to take this job - £1,000 is neither here nor there - "But I am going to vote for another year for everyone in the States. Guarantee your job for 4 years. But no other changes." So out of touch with the people that I talk to. Obviously different people the Constable of Trinity speaks to because the Constable of Trinity tells me: everyone he speaks to in his Parish Hall - and obviously meets he knows a lot of people in his Parish, a very small Parish, and the people above [Members: Oh!] .. a lovely Parish, if you can afford to live in it, obviously. [Laughter]  Yes, lovely Parish if you can afford to live in it. Senator Le Marquand goes on to make up another reason why he will support 4 years, but he will also support the Island-wide mandate staying. Of course people will stand for the Island-wide mandate because possibly then that would give him a better chance to be a Minister. It is not written in any proposition we are going to see. It is not written in the proposition of P.P.C. It is not written in Deputy Le Fondré's proposition. It is just something that Senator Le Marquand thinks may entice someone to stay as a Senator and do a 4-year term. Again, he is not even in most people's world in this room because why would you? Why would you go to the expense of an Island-wide for a 4-year term unless it would be linked to a Minister? So we need another proposition somewhere. So I have to discount his view of where we are. So, I could not vote for that. If nothing else goes through I cannot vote for a 4-year term because, again, it would be seen as: "Oh, well, we do not know about us. We do not know if we have got a job next year. But you have just voted job security. My job is now 3 years. All right, it may mean a few Senators dropping a couple of years but I still believe that if you can do a quick U-turn from G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) from the election platform last year to say: "Oh, well, no, I will definitely stand down so I can do a 4-year term," I need to see that one as well because I very much doubt it. We can all hear the excuses. I think I have really said what I want to say. To me it is 2 completely separate jobs. I am not saying none of the Constables could do both the jobs. They are different jobs. But we are mixing this up. They will be elected as a Deputy in the States. That will be, to me, their first role. If they fit in, they take the oath of office. If they want to be a Constable in the Parish, the Parish system will be strengthened and it will be their first job. That is what they will do. So I really cannot see the problem. I know the Constables may think I am being anti-Constable but it is about everybody being equal. I do know one Constable is a Minister and I do not whether his Parish is suffering or the parishioners think they are suffering because I know, by being an Assistant Minister how hard the Deputy of Trinity works as a Minister and I cannot see how the Constable could do that job, the hours that they put in. We know it is a very stressful department at the moment. But there are hours that are put in. Then there is the States work on top. The

Ministry is the States work.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

On a point of clarification, Sir, I would just like to point out that I have a very good Assistant Minister. [Laughter]

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I think that says it all. I mean, really, the Minister telling me and there are a few of them that have come to light in the emails today that, you know, it is delegated to your Assistant Minister and let us go and do a bit of whatever. Obviously the Constable is doing Parish work. Other Ministers, I would like to know what work they are doing, if they are all delegated to their assistants. But what I am saying no, I think the Constable said it all there. He delegates most of his ministerial work. [Members: Oh!] I am sorry. Did anybody not hear that? Sorry, yes, he has a very good Assistant Minister that obviously he helps him out when he has to be on Parish duties. So, the

more we go around, we can see that the Constables are going to have a block vote. I am glad you called me, Sir, to speak now because I know there is another 8 to go and it will be the first time they have all spoken and I would just like to say I really believe that we are going to go nowhere. I will go with this. I am on P.P.C. We do have a free vote. It does not mean I think the compromise will be the P.P.C's proposition and only realistic way for change. If this does not happen, I have said to the chairman of P.P.C: "It is not for us to do any more work. It is down to the States." We will be exactly where we are in 3 years and you can go to your parishioners and ask your constituents for a vote, the problem being we will be in exactly the same position where many people and they are elected by 10 people signing their nomination paper. To me, that is not representative of the Island and there are many people out there who do not like it and I am certainly also one of those people.

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

In my 40 years within the honorary system in one capacity or another, when I first joined, the Chef de Police would sit in the States in the absence of the Connétable and that was removed in the late 70s, unfortunately, because that link, when we had somebody who was ill, a Connétable .. fortunately it does not happen these days but at that time a Connétable could have been off for a considerable period of time. That link remained within the Chamber, that you had a member of the municipality, in that case, the Chef de Police, who could be up to speed or get up to speed on exactly what was going on in the States. If you take Members or Connétable s out of that link now, I think the Island would become a lesser place. As the Connétable of St. Helier mentioned Guernsey recently, yesterday on the radio I heard the Chief Minister of Guernsey referring to the poor state of government that they have over there at the moment and that if things do not change within the next months they will have to call for another view. They did away with their Connétable s in the House and had this system proposed where you can become a Deputy and a Connétable . There are one or 2 and it was referred to earlier who are Deputies and Connétable s. But they are few and far between. The system obviously does not work as well as it should and I would not want to see any more erosion of the honorary system that we have in the Island, although nowadays the Connétable s are paid but every other office is not. I would not like to see a 2-tier system of Connétable s, because, as has been said, you would have problems in communications of those non-Members who are not in the House. When I first joined the States in 1994 I came in and I was not sure whether or not the Connétable s should be in the House. But I can assure Members, within 6 months I saw the common sense approach that came out of the Connétable s' benches and a lot of the hotheads that we have when we are all new in the House; we had all got a lot of new ideas, they brought the common sense to bear in any vote. Yes, they may have voted at time en bloc. That was very, very rare. But I think in general the vote, in fact, would have been 40 to 10 or 40 to 13. So the law of averages: the common sense came into play anyway. But we used to chuckle occasionally when the 12 votes went in one direction. I would hate to think that would stop because they are wise people. They do know what goes on within their Parishes. I understand where Connétable Norman is coming from in his proposition. But I still think it would create problems by having a 2-tier system. Within that, and if I can just wander slightly into the main proposition, which I have got real concerns about: the wards. I have a worry that like in the 6 Parishes that would be put into the ward that covers St. John's, for instance, and St. Ouen's and St. Mary's and Trinity and St. Lawrence, 6 of those Deputies, in fact, 5 of them are covering those areas at the moment. We have 2 Ministers, we have 2 Assistant Ministers, we have one chairman of a panel and one other Member. Now, all of those Members, including the one other Member,

are highly active. I think we would have real problems under any new system. I can imagine myself going to see constituents at Bel Royal at 8.00 a.m. in the morning, Rozel at 9.00 a.m., Grève de Lecq at 11.00 a.m. and Five-Mile Road at 12.00 p.m., and, not knowing these people at least within the current system I know my Parish; I can get around it if need be on a pushbike - probably not today with my back but most days - and you get to know your people and get the feel of what they require. But the requirements of, shall we say, Bel Royal, when you are a Deputy , are totally different to the requirements of Vinchelez in St. Ouen or Rozel or Sion. The requirements are totally different. So, yes, if you want to go for an Island-wide mandate as has been explained by Senator Le Marquand, you gear yourself up to do an Island-wide mandate. But to do a ward, of which something like 25 square miles, in my case it would be, which is over 50 per cent of the Island, would be in the hands of your half a dozen Deputies. I think that is of concern. I am not one for change on this particular amendment and I will not be supporting the main proposition because of the way it has been pulled together. Secondly, I was told several months ago when I brought my amendment to the House, that the House was fed up well, not in quite those words

but they were fed up with government reform. The Island had had enough. The States had had enough. Yet within 3 months I see the P.P.C. Committee doing exactly that, when, in fact, they told me: "Do not come back for 18 months." They do it within 3 months. So, really, coming with a government reform within such a short period time after bringing my amendment, my report and proposition to the House, and I see the Constable nodding her head then shaking her head sorry. That is what she told me: "Wait 18 months before bringing anything back to the House." I am not giving way. I have concerns that P.P.C, bringing such a weak report and proposition together, knowing full well that it is going be thrown out, I would be minded just to put a knife across the report and proposition when the time comes and move on to the next item because I think the P.P.C. will be lucky to get 15 votes out of that particular report and proposition. But I think I have said sufficient, so I will sit down.

Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

Can I just raise a point of clarification? During the Deputy 's speech he stated that the Constables are paid. That is quite right. The Constables are paid for their States work. They are not paid separately and in addition for their Parishes' work.

7. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I have to say I really appreciate the last few speeches because when I started yesterday on my amendment all I asked was that we would try and be constructive and if we found flaws in various things then let us at least criticise them and recognise them for what they are: moves to try and improve the system. I thought we went that way yesterday. We have certainly gone that way today. I might not agree with everything the Constable of St. Helier said or the Constables of St. Saviour or St. Martin, but I respect their views and I think that is the way it should be. I mention that because the last 2 instances yesterday, I have to say, with the Constable of St. Mary and Grouville , I felt that disappeared. I really think: "Yes, we saw a bit of fear coming in." I have to say what came across is: "Yes, vested interests." Well, the Constable has had his say so I think I will have mine. The Constable of Grouville seemed to get very excited and he seemed to think this was a J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance) proposition. Well, I can tell you that the Constable of St. Clement, good bloke as he is, if he was a beer, he would not even be J.D.A. light'. But he has brought this in good faith. So I am not quite sure where the link is for the Constable of Grouville . But there we go. He likes to have a pop at anyone who is not of the right, I think. But it was really the Constable of St. Mary in some of the things, and we are all entitled to our views. I really wish I was a gambling man but I was not brought up that way because I would have gone down to Honest Nev, and if I had put all my savings, which is not much, on no change going through, I could probably retire, I think, by the end of the week. But the speeches today have been really good because the Constables and, I have to say, it is nice to hear more of the Constables because you must admit you do not often hear from all of them some of them. But I really just want to take up a few issues with the Constable of St. Mary. I think it has been a real danger that a lot of people have sort of strayed into the main debate today, so I do not really want to do that. But the Constable of St. Mary seemed to imply about Deputies that we did not really play a Parish role. Well, I think the Parish, really, at the bottom is nothing but people. I can say that my involvement with people who come about problems about their road or their heating or other issues of their housing or social problems, I am happy that that input and portfolio that I have easily matches the

Constable of St. Mary, very easily. The Constable also had a little dig about the Constables - justification, it seemed to be, that had a vested interest because they live in the Parish. Well, I tell you, Jersey is roughly 9 by 5. I lived in St. Helier for many years. I moved and when I did because, let us be honest, if you wanted to get on the property ladder and move up, because successive governments have failed miserably to ensure realistic housing prices for people, I had to move then for that reason. So it is very strange how these things sometimes get mentioned because she made reference to me, as the Deputy would understand. I remember for many years Senator Le Main being a representative of St. Helier No. 2, very strange, because at the time and I think he still lives in my uncle's former house down at Maupertuis Lane at St. Clement. I do not think that him having an interest in those people that he was elected to serve. It is funny how it is mentioned sometimes, that vested interest about service. I think mine, again, goes back a lot longer than the Constable of St. Mary's. I can measure the people I have helped in the community - and it is not about brownie points - not in 10s, 20s, but in 4 figures. It is about a commitment. There are many people who do not live in their district. But I would not question their commitment, whether I agree with their politics or not. This is the kind of red herring that we seem to always get. We are talking about weakening the Parish system. Well, I do not think the Constable of St. Clement's proposition does that. If a proposition does it, then it is P.P.C's with a super constituency. You can make statistics, as we all know, mean whatever you want. We have heard about Guernsey. Well, it is a funny thing, is it not, that Guernsey's voter turnout has gone up. So what is more important: the Parish link or democracy? I am not saying Guernsey is perfect, even as a half-donkey. But it is a fact. Their voter turnout has gone up. So, clearly, whatever their thoughts for their government, the people are more engaged. Has it been the death knell for the Parish system? Well, not from what I know of Guernsey, it has not. There are going to be flaws in all these systems. We all know that. I think we are putting thoughts in the Constable of St. Clement 's plan that are not there. Why brand him a maverick, as was said yesterday. He has put this forward in good faith. I think most of us - well, perhaps not - agree that there needs to be a reduction in Members. One of the reasons I did it was because, quite frankly, there are between 6 and 10 people in this House who do absolutely nothing. All very clear. They play no full role in the Executive, play no full role on Scrutiny. Quite frankly, that makes me sick. I tell you, many of the public who I speak to, that makes them really angry. If only the media were brave enough to highlight those peoples. I am not talking about sitting on a little sub-panel now and again to look good. I fully accept that one or 2 people who are not on Scrutiny or Executive, they do contribute a lot. But some people, I do not know what they do. It seems all they want to do is get their name in the paper. That is not what

government is about.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

If the Deputy would just give way. Is he referring to the Constables as among those who do not contribute to the States workings?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am not attacking the Constables per se. I am mentioning there are a lot of people in this House and I am happy to clarify that. There are Constables who play a very full role. Yes, the Constable of St. Clement I have got my own Constable plays a major role in Island life and all power to him. I do not agree with everything he says or does. I agree with a lot. But let us not look for flaws in this plan that are not there. We have heard some really warped reasoning. Senator Le Marquand, I have got a lot of respect for Senator Le Marquand, but he made a big spiel about the Island-wide mandate, which I support and wish it could happen to all of us if we could find a system that worked that way. But he talked about putting yourself forward to see if you could pass that popularity test to see if you were suitable for a top job. Then in the next breath he said: "Well, of course, not all people are suitable." Well, who decides that? The public, who have given their support for the people in here: 53 Members? What we really need is a direct vote for the Chief Minister. That is what the public do want. I will tell you: Deputy Tadier mentioned in the meeting

at Fort Regent the other day: I think 12 of us went. I do not think I saw any Constables there. But then they were not the only ones. I tell you: what did the public say? They were angry at us, the J.D.A, Deputy Tadier , Deputy Wimberley. They said: "We want these people out. They have been there for years and do not listen." What are we going to go again today? We are not going to listen. We are going to follow vested interest. The Constable of St. Clement's amendment is not perfect. But it does protect that Parish link. Put in the Constable of my Parish, who really tried to set up obstacles. That is what we do so often in the States. We look for obstacles instead of ways that we could get round things and make them better. We look for reasons not to do things. Deputy Martin has already touched on it. It was a huge mistake after Clothier. I honestly do not think any reform will ever happen, ever. I do think in that, we are failing. I said I found value in all propositions to some degree. I have to say the worst, but I will not go into that in length, is the P.P.C's. I think that will weaken the Parish system. If ever a flawed programme had been thought up which could be argued to be a vested interest, then that is it. I think that would be very unlikely to get passed. I think we are probably going to spend 2 days to achieve nothing. All I would say to Members is do not listen to the horror stories. It has not brought the destruction of Guernsey, much as some people here might like it. Removal of the Constables will not bring the end of civilisation either. Yes, listen to some of the speeches we have had today from some of the Constables. You might not have agreed with them but at least those views have been expressed genuinely. Do not follow the Constable of St. Mary and Grouville into the valley of the dinosaurs, into the grazing of the garden of hearing nothing, seeing nothing. I will not say "doing nothing" because I know some of them do. This amendment is worth supporting. It will not destroy the Island. I think it is probably the best that is on offer. But super constituencies, I can live with that because the J.D.A. will absolutely flourish; we are now. Thank you.

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

A new year, a new States Assembly, a new Bailiff , a retiring Chief Usher and some new ushers and possibly maybe because some new ushers are present that they have expected the throng of the public to attend, we have got spare chairs in the balcony for this debate today. New thinking. We have been here many times before but I think one of the most predicable things heading into this debate was the expectation that the message and it is important to be on the message if you are in the States and you want to get ahead the message is: let us kill this, let us bury it and let us get on with doing what we want to do. The vast majority of the public are dissatisfied with the democracy in the Island. They do not really give 2 hoots about what we call ourselves or what we do with ourselves. I would just like to touch upon what I am doing, just very briefly, because I am one of the Members who is possibly doing less than others, and why am I doing it? I sit on the Planning Applications Panel, I try as hard as I can to bring private members' bills that I think are generally in the best interests of the public, I put myself forward for I would like to address this to Deputy Trevor Pitman so he can remember next time he is putting the speech across of his about what Members do - I did put myself forwards for Health Minister. I did not get many votes that day. [Laughter]  I think I got my own, yes. I cannot be sure of that but It was a secret vote so I am not allowed to [Laughter] I also put myself forward for the Head of Overseas Aid as well, so I did put myself forward and I did put myself forwards for the head of Scrutiny for the Health and Social Services Department. I was unsuccessful in getting any of those positions. I have served on Shadow Scrutiny, I have served on the Environment Scrutiny Panel, I have served on I think 7 or 8 committees, 2 special committees and I have been a Senator, I have been a Deputy and I am back as a Deputy . I have had a pretty good taste about what the public wants in terms of electoral reform and I have had a pretty good sounding in relation to what the public wants and I have been around

The Bailiff :

One moment, Deputy , I am advised we are not a quorate .. I think we are all right now. We are at the bare minimum of 27 now.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

It is good to see the Constables are making up the vast majority so if we get rid of them what are we going to do? [Approbation]  You see and that is the point really that it is about what we do in here and what we do out there rather than what we choose to call ourselves and what we choose to be doing in government. The problem I feel is we have had a complete change and a new system has been introduced in the form of ministerial government. Many of the past analysis and many of the past arguments in terms of what the public wanted went out of the window when we decided to cherry pick Clothier. That is the one thing that Clothier said not to do, if you are going to do anything, do not cherry pick; either do it all or not do anything. I preferred the latter because I did not agree with Clothier. It was interesting because at the time I was phoned by a couple of Deputies who were quite rampant about the support they had for Clothier, which quickly went out the window when they became Senators. The overall message from the public, and I do not believe it has faded, was that they wanted an all Island-wide mandate. The overall message from the public and I do not believe it has faded, was they wanted the Constables in the States of Jersey, and I do not believe that has faded. The other important message that they said they wanted was a reduction in the number of States Members. We have not looked at reducing Deputies and possibly in the future that might be an option, but the public want large electoral districts, i.e. Island-wide and Parish-wide where they can have an effective say in who represents them, and in a shorter period of time as possible if they are unhappy with what they have done or if they have broken their promises, have the opportunity to find somebody else to take over. I applaud the work the Constables do in the community. In fact, if you think about Jersey there is a lot of the community that springs from the Parishes. Now some people may not like that. Well, they will have to live within it because that is Jersey and they will have to live around it and they are entitled to but they are not entitled to destroy it and I think that sometimes we rush forwards with these reforms because somebody has been brought in to hold a review that will introduce something that will have a political thrust behind it that will deliver political aims and objectives and trash our traditions behind it. Clothier was brought in on the back of local government reform in the United Kingdom; it is pretty much exactly a carbon copy of the local government reforms in the U.K. (United Kingdom). It is pretty much what happened in Guernsey. I have seen the European Union maps that are issued from London where the Channel Islands are the same colour as the West Coast of England and branched in with that is a local council and the plans of the European Union. The European Union is an ever growing, continually growing body that moves towards being a super state. It has all over power pretty much within the grander scheme of things and it is having an effect and a greater effect on us every single day. There are now calls for evidence in the United Kingdom about what represents good governance. At the same time, we have Mr. Straw conducting his review. We have a number of reviews that continually come around from the O.E. C.D . (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the European Union and the Financial Action Taskforce that put us on our toes and keep us on our toes. In fact, we pretty much do not seem to be doing anything else but standing on parade. Standing on parade is good for one thing but it certainly does not make you effective. It just makes you look good on a sunny day and pathetic on a rainy one. There are issues with the Constables; I will just touch upon them very briefly because this is what I hear and I would like to let Members know that I share this view. The Constables are still responsible for the Honorary Police. I think that has got to stop. I think somehow some form of mechanism has to come in to remove the role that is associated with the Constable in the minds of the public with the Honorary Police. If the Constable is unable to fill the ranks of the Honorary Police, they can be taken to the court and fined by Her Majesty's Attorney General. Her Majesty's Attorney General gives advice to the Council of Ministers and will not share that with those outside the Executive and most recently [Interruption] I beg your pardon, I am being corrected. Her Majesty's Attorney General does not fine the Parish, it is the court. Her Majesty's Attorney General is just a prosecution for the court. There is a difference and it is a real difference, whether or not it is admitted, towards Her Majesty's Attorney General from the Constables' benches. It also happens to be a seat at the Council of Ministers for the head or his

replacement or replacements of the Constables. We currently have very many different tiers of access to information and responsibility and the ability to go out there and get re-elected or even want to go out there and get re-elected, to ask and to tell the public what you want to do when you have extremely marginal chances of doing that in the current political make-up of this Island, because the current political make up of this Island which is Right-wing flourishes in a police state. It flourishes in a state where politicians, Constables, Senators and Deputies, who have files upon them collated by the police, it flourishes in a police state where those political representatives in the Parishes are associated with being responsible for the Honorary Police. That is what gripes a lot of people in the public. It annoys them. It makes them angry and they do not like it. That has got nothing to do with the Battle of Flowers. It has got nothing to do with the welfare system, and let us go on to the welfare system. When we talk about constituents contacting Members, I recently had a member of the Polish community contact me who had a varicose vein operation go wrong. He has only been in the Island for 4 years. He cannot get any welfare because he has not been in the Island long enough. He cannot return home to get the support which he needs because he is going to sue the States for the botched operation and he does not know which way to turn. So he is stuck in Jersey with an ever-increasingly difficult task in front of him and he does not know where to go. Now the Constable could take him and plead for the Minister, which I have asked for and applauded on many times when Senator Routier introduced it, that exemption where the Minister can make the decision to decide upon himself and Social Security that he wants to do something, he can do it. It should also be involved with other aspects of Social Security Law, but that ability to make a difference and that ability to say: "Right, okay, I am authorised by the States to make my

own decision in certain cases." That is extremely important and fortunately if somebody like that comes to a Deputy or comes to a Constable or comes to a Senator, we can then go to the Minister who happens to be a Deputy and thank God we can get help for that individual but he certainly does not have to go to the Constables anymore. The Constable's role in that regard has been removed, diminished. I am hearing no the Constables can go I will ask the question because the Constables are having a private debate with me here as I am standing, can they I will ask the Constables through the Chair, Sir, maybe one of the Constables could clarify for me, can the Constables issue money on a welfare basis to an individual if they approach the Parish? They can? What is the budget from that, where does it come from? Emergency ..I stand corrected. They have an emergency fund; that is good news. A charitable fund so they can go to the Constable who now has a charitable fund. They could also go to charities. Let us just recap what I was saying. The parishioners of Jersey do not like the way that the Right-wing element of Jersey's political spectrum has utilised the ministerial system and the association with the Constables through the deference to the establishment to formulate governments and move it in a direction that suits their political agenda. That is what it is about. That is what they are dissatisfied with. They are not dissatisfied with Deputies, they are not dissatisfied with Constables and they are not dissatisfied with Senators. I constantly had when I was a Senator, people saying to me: "Are you still a Centenier?" "No, a Senator." It did not make any difference to them. People still have no idea, no inkling, and we are starting to improve it through the schools, what the political system is about in Jersey. What we do know is I am good for a laugh and, you know, a criticism of long speeches and long size. What we do know though is that reality that I have just spoken about, the political make up and the way that this States structure is assembled within a ministerial system, it favours the political elite and it is favouring them in the vast view of the majority of Islanders to their detriment in many cases. I also, like Deputy Martin of St. Helier, will not vote for a 4-year term if none of this goes through because I was at that meeting at Fort Regent when I listened to the teachers and I listened to the nurses and I listened to the ambulance staff and I listened to the fire fighters, fire fighters who risked their lives on a daily basis, saying they were ashamed to work for the States of Jersey. How bad is that? I listened to the civil service and I listened to what they said and they all said the same thing, we froze their pay which was a pay cut effectively. We told them they could not enter negotiations with any opportunity to discuss pay while we put £1,000 into our own pockets. Senator Le Main is asking me who I am donating my £1,000 to. I am donating my £1,000 to the Jersey Association of Charities. I spoke to the Jersey Association of Charities' chairman yesterday; we are arranging for that to happen. He has already been pledged it. I have already told him there are no conditions on it and I have really said if other States Members who already have not given that sort of money to charity privately, they may wish to do the same sort of thing. That is up to them. Voting turnout in Guernsey has increased because there has been political reform. One thing they did  say though is they did  not  like the fact that the all Island-wide mandate disappeared. The Senators bring a valuable role and an important role to the legitimacy of our self- governance in this Island. For any proposition to come forward today and get rid of Constables and Senators and put it before the public, is putting personal agendas before the Island in my view. The Constables need to remain in the States. The Island-wide mandate if it is going to go needs to be considered in tandem with whether or not some of the Deputies ranks need to be reduced because the public want a reduction in States Members; a reduction in these sorts of debates and that just about says it all. I do not want to sit down before I have just quickly gone over my notes to make sure I have not missed something because that was not an easy speech to deliver among people that I respect but I am trying to put across the political reality. In my view, and in many people's views in the Island, it is not worth bothering to vote most of the time because most of the time the States of Jersey does not listen because unfortunately unless you are in the political elite and the Island's elite, it is only serving the vast majority of those people's causes. The vast majority of ordinary people are unable to get their foot on the property ladder while buy-to-let runs rampant. We have increasing electricity prices, increasing water prices, increasing everything prices. The pay freezes on public sector staff who are not even allowed to negotiate that issue and a States Assembly that is not only about to kill off any real political reform but most likely, and that is the message, kill everything else, give ourselves 4 years more. I certainly will not supporting 4 years more if nothing has changed today.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Sir, can I seek your clarification or possibly P.P.C.'s on the last speech on an element of it? The Bailiff :

What is your question then?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I really enjoyed Deputy Le Claire's speech but he made reference to some of the posts he applied for. I just wondered is there hidden anywhere in Standing Orders any little clause that says you have to be loved to apply for a role in Scrutiny because I am not aware of it but

The Bailiff :

I am sorry that was not to seek clarification. If Members want to seek clarification I expect it to be a genuine point of clarification, not a comment.

9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

In reference to Deputy Le Claire's comments about the public complaining that the States do not listen, there is a balancing act there. Do you follow every whim and wind of opinion, or do you do what is best for the Island and the population as a whole and not just one section of the community? I leave you to think about that; that is fairly philosophical. As regards the Constable of St. Helier, interestingly St. Brelade's have just started a geriatric division of Constable's officers - I am sorry the Constable is not here - to do Honorary Police work during the day and I am sure the St. Helier Honorary Police would welcome his addition to the ranks when he gives up his Connétable . Deputy Martin disagrees with the current format of ministerial government. I hear siren voices saying let us follow the Guernsey mode. Well, I recommend that everyone reads the Welsh Audit Board report on Guernsey. There are very serious concerns about the state of corporate governance in Guernsey and I wonder if the high turnout might well be connected to that. The Deputy also mentioned block votes. Well, if you look at the voting in the House, it is not just the more conservative elements who vote together. There is a block vote of about 14 or so on the Deputies benches. I would also suggest that the Deputy spends time on patrol with a Parish such as St. Brelade to get a feel for what the Honorary Police do before trying to rearrange their jobs for them. Deputy Le Claire talked at length about the meeting of the union on Monday. I was there too but I sat at the back so I could talk to people. The Deputy of St. Mary has talked about the good of the Island. I think it is more important to take into account what the voters think. I mean let me tell you what my voters have been saying to me, very much along the lines of Deputy Le Hérissier: "For goodness sake, stop contemplating your navels and get on with the more important business of dealing with the economy and the probable structural deficit." I would have said in the words of the inimitable Guy De Faye: "This really feels as if we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." I apologise if I fall over into the main debate, but the proposals that have all been put before us are not cheap. We are operating with a pay freeze and we are proposing to spend money unnecessarily. My problem is that each of the options has an aspect that my constituents like but has aspects they hate. As the Dean would say, it is like the Curate's egg, good in parts. Let us consider some of the options: large constituencies. Others who have said and it is a feeling in the Island that if we want to kill the Parish system, go for large constituencies. When the overall tendency and wishes of people generally, not just in this Island, are for more localisation and less centralisation, pushing power out to the districts, we are centralising. People are demanding the local connections. Remove the Connétable : I could not tell you what my constituents are saying, it is quite unprintable. All elections on one day: easy, cheap and agreeable to everyone. I would add one rider: make it a weekend so we can all vote easily. Obviously, like Senator Le Marquand, I support the all-Island  mandate. It certainly frees me to pursue the improvement of financial management among other things. In fact, what my voters said when I stood was: "Well, you have served your apprenticeship, you know, go on for the promotion." The Senatorial elections get a 50 per cent turnout, but the Deputies elections have a significantly lower turnout; yes, we all know that.   I wondered whether  it was the  fact  that the public think  Senators  are  more  important [Laughter] and then I returned to reality and realised it was probably the result of a great deal more media hype and publicity for the Senatorials. If the Constables are elected on the same day as the Connétable of St. Mary says, then this also increases turnout I seem to have lost a note, I am sorry about that. So really, you know, it boils down to let us put it all in one day. [Laughter] As