States Meeting Transcript - 21/01/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 21 JANUARY 2009

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

1. Woolworths employees: redundancy payments (P.2/2009) – amendment (P.2/2009 Amd.) - continued.........................................................................4

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................4
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................4
3. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:..........................................................6
4. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:......................................................6
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................7
6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...............................................................9
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................10
8. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................10
9. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................11
10. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................12
11. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................14
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................14 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..........................................................16 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................17 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................17 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................18

2. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Federal Republic of Germany and the States of Jersey (P.171/2008)..............................................................................19

2.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................20

3. Draft Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations (P.172/2008).......................................................20

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................21 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................22
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................22

4. Draft Protection of Children (Restriction on Supply of Goods) (Jersey) Law (P.175/2008)..............................................................................22

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................22

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................23
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................23
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................23
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................23
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................23

6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................24

7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................24 The Deputy of St. Mary (Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................................24

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................24
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................25

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................25
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................25

5. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations (P.176/2008) ...............................25

5.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................26

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................26
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................26
3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................27
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................27
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................28
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................28
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................29
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................29 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................31

6. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.177/2008) ..........................31

6.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................31 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................31 Senator P.F. Routier:..........................................................................32 Deputy K.C. Lewis :..........................................................................32 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................32

7. Planning Applications Panel: appointment of members (P.183/2008).................32

7.1 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................33

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................33
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................33
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................33
5. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................33

8. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: appointment of non-States Commissioner (P.3/2009)................................................................................34

8.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (Chairman, Overseas Aid Commission):..............................34

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................34
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................34
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................35

9. Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioners (P.4/2009)..35 [Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................35
10. Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police: review of procedure regarding suspension (P.182/2008)..............................................................................36

[Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................36 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................36

PUBLIC BUSINESS - continued................................................................36

[Debate continued in camera].................................................................36

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................37

11. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedure Committee):........37

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................38
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................38
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................38

5. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................39
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................39 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................39

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................39

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Woolworths employees: redundancy payments (P.2/2009) – amendment (P.2/2009 Amd.) - continued

The Deputy Bailiff :

We return then to the debate on the amendment of Senator Breckon for projet 2 and I have seen ..

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

May I be excused, I have declared an interest.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I see next Deputy Higgins.

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

I will be supporting this proposition for a number of reasons. First of all, I believe that the Ministers have been negligent in the past for not having brought this vital piece of important legislation into existence before now. I also believe that it is one of a number of pieces of legislation that protects ordinary men and women in this Island that the States have failed to bring in over the years. Secondly, I am supporting it because I also agree with Deputy Green in that the Chief Minister is being inconsistent with regard to his argument regarding the open-ended nature of this fund. His political guarantee for depositors is open-ended and could result, if called upon, on the use of the entire Stabilisation Fund and Strategic Reserve and the States borrowing money to cover the unlimited deposits that are covered by his political guarantee. Why is it that we are prepared to safeguard a millionaire's millions and not the relatively small sums of money that are likely to be paid out [Approbation] if this proposition is passed for the Woolworths' employees who have been badly let down, not only by their former employer - the administrator - but also the States. As regard to the question of the precedent, I do not mind if we are setting a precedent for other workers in the same position if the event arises before the scheme the Chief Minister says that he wants to introduce is brought in because this will ensure that the States, or I should say Ministers, are not tardy and bring it in in the fastest possible way. We should also bear in mind that if the Chief Minister does bring in his proposition it is going to be at least the middle of this year by the time it goes to the Privy Council and gets through all its stages and is registered in the Royal Court. Also, following the Attorney General's advice yesterday, it confirms the view that the States can stand in the position of the Woolworths' workers, so it is not as if they are getting double the money. If the States are paying this money out they will sign away their rights under the principle of subrogation and the States will stand in their place and be able to recover, if there is money to be recovered, from the administrator. I also feel that we are being inconsistent in the sense that the States itself will pay out possibly sums of £200,000-odd to senior officers in the States when they are being eased out of the States but they are not going to consider giving an equal

sum to 95 workers in the Island.

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

The Chief Minister said yesterday that we would be setting a dangerous precedent if the Island paid out now to Woolworths' employees and that it would set a trend for what might happen in the future. He also said or inferred that other administrators might jump on the bandwagon and take advantage of the States. My view is slightly different. My view is that the States Assembly has to learn a lesson from this debacle with Deloittes. I take a dim view when former staff are used to wrap-up a business, they are misled, they are lied to and almost used as pawns, and I take a very dim view of Deloittes' tactics in the way they have behaved. [Approbation] While the States does not have a redundancy law at the moment - and it is on the books as Deputy Gorst has said - the real villains are Deloittes. If we have learnt anything from this sorry saga it is this; the States must now have an interdepartmental rapid response team from all those departments of the States that

have to pick up the pieces caused by incidents like this. I put it like this, the mass might and power, which we acknowledge and which we pay for as States Members and as taxpayers, the mass power of Law Officers, Treasury, Economic Development, Home Affairs and Social Security must get together after this, prepare a contingency plan so that the next time this happens - and believe you me there will be a next time - the combined departments are ready to swing into action, stop this mad administration of a winding-up and get involved as a co-ordinated force. Deputy Southern said yesterday that he struggled with the word "administrator", well let us make this simple then. Let us just talk about Deloittes because they are the firm that has caused this. Deloittes have disrespected their employees both in the way they did not serve adequate notice ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think, Deputy , it is right to refer to them as the administrators. They are individuals who are the administrators.

Deputy S. Power:

The administrators are Deloittes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The administrators are 3 named individuals.

Deputy S. Power:

Okay, Sir, I will have to correct this. The administrators - we know who they are - disrespected their employees both in the way they did not serve adequate notice; they did not pay the minimum statutory entitled holiday pay; and essentially they misled their employees right up to the day the firm closed in Jersey and Guernsey. To my knowledge this administrator has not carried out due process in the way this administration was carried out. It may very well be that the administrators who are Neville Kahn, Nick Dargan and are Dan Butters have sent staff down from London to .. The Deputy Bailiff :

I said to refer to them as the administrators, please do that.

Deputy S. Power:

Have sent down their staff to the Islands to carry out this administration and it remains to be seen if our Law Officers regard this as an acceptable method of winding-up the company without due regard to Jersey's legal process. I would go so far as to say that the administrators have brought the Island into disrepute in the national media and I, for one, deeply resent that. I sent a note to my colleague Deputy Le Claire on 6th January last, and I will read a very short extract from that. It is from Accountancy Age, which is a magazine I do not normally leaf through when I have time to be in the library, indeed when I see Accountancy Age alongside magazines such as Simply Knitting or Car Management I pass them by. [Laughter] However, Accountancy Age did have an article on the administrator where they estimated that the fee income throughout the British Isles for the administrator would be about £22,000 an hour. The administrator is one of the big 4 in the British Isles with partners charging £600 per hour for senior managers, £400 for line managers and about £130 an hour for staff. There are 170 staff involved in this administration. So the administrator are using their former staff in Jersey as pawns and this is odious in the extreme. The staff have endured stress, tension, anxiety because of the job losses, and some of them who are in flats above the former store have to worry about relocation, and in that respect the Housing Department has prepared a contingency plan. Some of the tenants called me twice that the power had been cut off by the administrator and I had to contact the Fire Service and Social Security to rectify that problem. They did so and they pointed out some other problems in the building that the agents have now had to fix. So I would suggest to States Members that when the administrators come knocking on the door of E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) in the future for Regulation of Undertakings, or indeed come knocking on the door of Housing for an other (j) or whatever, I hope that this company and this firm is red-flagged. I remind Members that we live in a very small

community, and I hope that the mass might of the States take this administrator on head first. I am assured by Deputy Gorst , and I am assured by the Attorney General and the Chief Minister, that there will be a result for former Woolworths' staff. So this Assembly has 2 options this morning. Pick up the tab now, as Deputy Southern and Senator Breckon would want, and pay the amounts due to Woolworths' staff and claim it back at some future date through the courts from the administrator or, tackle the administrator now and force them to pay what is due to former Woolworths' staff using the Jersey judicial process. I have to say that whatever happens with this vote today Woolworths' staff will get some protection from this Assembly and from the judicial process in Jersey and they will not be left wanting the way they have been left by the administrator. So I will say to the Assembly this morning that I will put my trust in Deputy Gorst , our Social Security Minister, the Law Officers and the Chief Minister and I will support the latter option. I ask Woolworths' staff to bear with us and allow the mass might of the States to tackle the administrator and see that justice is done. [Approbation]

3. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

I would like to just begin this speech with a few facts. Firstly, there are around 45 full-time staff who have been put out of work and as currently I have been told by the workers only 6 staff have found work since they were informally told that they would be made redundant at the end of December and 3 of these staff are assistant managers. I do know one member of staff who has applied for 8 jobs and has been unsuccessful, and if we consider that some of these people have been working for Woolworths for over 30 years, their skills and their knowledge come from that and they will have difficulty in finding work in other sectors because they do not have the experience. Also I would like to correct the words of Senator Maclean, when he said on Talkback that 8 ex-Woolworths' staff were going to be employed with the Sandpiper Group, that is incorrect. None of them have been employed as yet. The Chief Minister said yesterday that if we go ahead and give the ex-Woolworths' workers compensation that this would be paid by the public by taxpayers. Let us not forget that these ex-Woolworths' staff have until now been paying tax themselves and I ask this House would the Jersey public support these funds being asked by the proposers to compensate ex-Woolworths' workers when this Government has time and time again failed to protect its workers who are made redundant through the law. Further, when the public see the continued wasted millions spent by the States on, for example, the Communications Unit, sales of States property and land and an unnecessarily huge incinerator .. I would also like to comment on what the Minister for Social Security said yesterday, that if we had passed the redundancy laws relevant last September it is probable that not all would be in place now. Well, this is no excuse for the States to take no responsibility. We are, in part, responsible for the situation these ex- Woolworths' staff now find themselves. Yesterday I watched the swearing-in of President Barack Obama. The message in facing great economic challenge he said: "Yes, we can." What a stark contrast to the other message from our Chief Minister: "Yes, we could but we cannot be bothered."

4. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement :

First of all I would like to say how saddened I am at the way that Woolworths have treated their loyal staff - it is a shop we have all used and loved and grown up with - also the callous manner that the administrators so disastrously handled the whole redundancy procedure. However, we must stop and look at King Street and Queen Street where 99 per cent of the shops are owned by U.K. (United Kingdom) companies. There are of course a few exceptions, mainly Voisins and, of course, our Jersey institution, Hamons, which will sadly be closing too. Many people have already been made redundant; for example, 10 members of a building firm last week, and we cannot set a precedent, which this most certainly will become, as I am sure that many more shops and businesses will close. I would also like to pay tribute to the Minister for Social Security who has achieved more in the last month he has been in office than has been accomplished in the last 9 years.

5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

I think it is fair to say that we have listened to some very impassioned speeches both today and yesterday, and just before I really start, I would just like to comment to any new Members and also many of the people observing us today who may not have seen how the debates operate in this Assembly, but irrespective of where our personal sympathies lie what we decide today does have a consequence and that is why it is going on so long. To an extent - and it is a bit of a cliché - but you could say that good government requires us to consider the outcome of those actions of, for example, supporting the proposition today and the fact it will set precedents. It does not matter what people say, it will set a precedent. I have to say I totally agree with the earlier comments of Senator Breckon yesterday as to the place Woolworths has occupied in our lives and in this community. There is a but: I do also have to endorse the comments of the Minister for Social Security and I will not be supporting the proposition. Now, I do have some additional information to share with Members that may inform their decision on the proposition, I would also like to clarify my position on this matter first. Do not misunderstand me, I am very deeply angry at the plight of the employers of Woolworths. I consider them to have been treated extremely shabbily, particularly by a professional firm which up until now had a good reputation locally, and I also appreciate that sympathy and regret is not what is wanted when you have just been made redundant. To me this is the nub of the whole matter. The different parties in this debate are trying to achieve the same end, basically fair treatment to the former employers of Woolworths to get them the money that is due to them. This debate is about the way we do that. I also have to qualify my speech slightly that what I am about to say is based upon my understanding of the legal position, and that obviously my understanding of the legal position may be at variance between my understanding and the actuality of that position, but to date I am not aware of any differences. So I emphasise the caveat that whatever the case I find the treatment of Woolworths' staff to be unacceptable. I find it unacceptable that a professional firm could apparently wilfully break our Employment Law. While criticism has been made of a lack of redundancy provision in Jersey there has not really been recognition that there is meant to be a financial cushion built into the system by way of statutory periods of notice. That was meant to offer some protection under Jersey law to employees. Now, I am unclear as to the process under which supposedly one of the most profitable stores in the entire business can be carefully run down over a period of weeks, its loyal employees used to liquidate and realise every asset in that store, including the very shelves upon which their goods were stored, and then to leave the local employees with nothing as well as some quite large local debts. We are a separate jurisdiction, we have our laws and they have apparently been ignored. So why can I not support the proposition? Well, I think, and to an extent it has been made a number of times already, but I have to endorse the comments of the Citizens Advice Bureau that was made, I think, last week and those publicly made by other individuals. We cannot give a preference to anybody. We cannot as a Government give a preference to any one group of employees over any other group of employees given the same laws being in place at the time of our decision. It is unfair - it may not seem like that - but it is unfair and it sets an unaffordable precedent. What is the difference between these employees and those who were made redundant just before Christmas or earlier in the year, or those who may yet be to come? Until the redundancy fund is in place we will be committing ourselves to unknown levels of expenditure which may not be recoverable. No one at this stage can state with any certainty what is going to be the outcome of that side of the process and whether any monies could be recoverable or not. That is the problem with this proposition in terms of where we are in timing on the process. It is very well-intentioned. I am going to say it is not entirely thought through, it is a bit a knee-jerk reaction understandably to what is a very serious matter, I think we all agree on that. Not only that - and this is what does get to me - if we adopt this proposition today we will be bailing out the seemingly illegal acts of professional administrators. [Approbation] We will be using taxpayers' money to endorse non-compliance of our laws and I endorse the comments made by the Chief Minister and the reference to bullying tactics being employed. Now, if that is the legal position I regret it. In my view, it is unacceptable and that needs to be dealt with. It should be demonstrated that there can be

consequences for this type of action and that irrespective of the pure legal position we do not deal with matters in a shabby manner. Now according to the Olympic website the goal of the Olympic movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world and it refers to the Olympic spirit which requires: "Mutual understanding of a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play, seeking to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal, fundamental, ethical principles." The relevance of this last comment, and I understand a number of people look at me slightly quizzically, is that included in Senator Breckon's amendment are the letters from the professional firm of administrators which note that they are the professional services provider to the Olympic and Paralympic Games underneath the logo of London 2012. How do those values that are espoused by this organisation, and which evidently this firm seek to emulate, equate to the list read out by the Minister for Social Security yesterday, and I make no apologies for repeating some of it. How does respect for the individual equate to providing little information to employees locally, to leaving them to initially believe that they would receive everything due to them, to giving them information relevant to U.K. practice, not Jersey practice? How does fair play equate to not providing redundancy notices until the last day of employment? How is mutual understanding and, I reiterate, respect for the individual reached when the employees are informed of their redundancy through impersonal letters which are neither addressed nor even distributed to those individuals but apparently been left in a box to be picked up by staff, and let us not forget the failure to meet their obligations under local employment law. There are all sorts of descriptions that spring to mind but the juxtaposition of that logo on this letter just smacks of hypocrisy of the worst order and that to me is putting it mildly. The Deputy of St. Mary made a comment about whether we support each other when times are hard but to use this case, it is not whether we support each other as a community, it is how we give that support and it is not as simple as people would like us to believe. Deputy Martin stated that we are the ones with the legal muscle compared to a group of individuals and I would go further and say that there may be other mechanisms open to us as a Government. Now, the information I would like to confirm with Members is as follows, just in case people missed it yesterday. Firstly, the Minister for Social Security has offered to fund legal advice to the employees on this matter. He did not want to go into the detail of this because of the genuine fear that can happen when matters get politicised, that political capital is made from the situation to the detriment of the individuals and no one wins out of that apart from possibly some of the politicians. Equally, if one is in negotiations on a matter one does not reveal all the cards that can be played and to clarify, discussions have commenced with the local representatives of the administrators, that is my understanding and that is what the Minister was referring to. Promises cannot be made nor details given because as with life nothing is certain at this stage, but I wholeheartedly support the actions of the Minister on this and it is

unfortunate that the debate is occurring now when we do not have clarity over the position. Discussions have begun and if this proposition is approved today I think it could damage the chances of achieving a local solution. I think we need to send a very strong message to the people who have put us in this position as to our anger at their lack of respect for our laws and there is a demand that this be rectified without delay, that we will not tolerate abuse of our laws in this way. If not, the consequences need to be spelt out to those involved and to people who might have similar ideas in future. If we approve this today, in my view we basically send a message to the administrators and to future such cases that Jersey is a soft touch, that Government will bail them out and people will ignore our employment laws. I am therefore in quite a difficult position. I do not support this proposition because of the circumstances I have outlined but in my view it would assist Members as to what is the result of the outcome of these discussions. Therefore, I am going to vote against this amendment and this proposition and I am urging Members to do likewise. In so doing I would like to insist that further discussions and negotiations do take place with the administrators to achieve an alternative solution. Now, given the problem of timing, I would like just to raise the query as to whether there might be some procedural method we can use to deal with this matter. I will plant that as a seed for Members to consider during the debate.

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

May I seek a point of clarification please? Unfortunately I did not hear the Minister for Social Security yesterday say that he was prepared to offer the employees legal support and I would just like to  know under which other  previous occurrence that was offered by the Social Security Department or whether or not this is a new precedent that he is setting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think it is a matter for the Minister whether he wishes to refer to that.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

I am not sure what the Deputy is asking me. I did try and make it as plain as I could yesterday. But I did not want to get drawn to this place for fear of making political capital, but my officers have offered to provide or fund some legal advice for the employees of Woolworths. I really do not want to have to be drawn into saying anything else at all on that matter.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

It was a simple question I asked.

The Deputy Bailiff : He has answered ..

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

On what previous occasion has he ever done that was the question?

The Deputy Bailiff :

It is not material to the debate today, Deputy .

6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I had not intended to speak in this debate because I have considerable sympathy with the employees of Woolworths and considerable distaste in relation to the behaviour of the administrators in this matter. I was not intending to speak, I was going to vote against the proposition and the amendment but did not particularly want to influence people so that they could make their own decisions. But there is an issue of which I became aware yesterday which I do need to bring to the attention of the House because there is a fundamental issue in relation to the way in which the sums under the amendment and under the proposition have been calculated. These matters are on the assumption that the employees, if they were to be put in the same position as if they were covered under U.K. legislation, particularly under U.K. legislation in relation to redundancy, that seems to be the aim. That seems to be the intention of both the proposition and the amendment, but in fact the way in which they have been calculated is not on that basis at all. The way on which they have been calculated, particularly if the amendment has been calculated, is upon the basis of U.K. redundancy payments plus Jersey periods of notice. That simply is not an accurate way of calculating this because if they were to be put in the same position as if they were covered by U.K. legislation, what they would be entitled to would be U.K. redundancy plus U.K. notice, whatever that may be. I am under the impression, and I may be wrong about this, that historically Jersey took the view that rather than going for the redundancy package it would go for longer periods of notice. I also do not know what is the interplay under U.K. legislation of a situation where there is notice and also redundancy. I spoke this morning to Deputy Gorst in relation to this and he does not know the answer. It seems to me that even those who are minded to vote in favour on matters of principle in relation to the amendment should not do so until we know whether we are comparing like with like. That is a fundamental problem and we may need to adjourn the debate in order to find the necessary information. That is the basis shown to me and there are other reasons why I am against the proposition to the amendment but I am not going to go through those because I am simply intervening to point out there is a calculation problem and an arithmetical problem which cannot be resolved without us knowing what the interplay would be under U.K. legislation of the combination.

7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I think we all agree that something must be done but I think we need to look at this dispassionately in the light of our duty of care towards the whole population of taxpayers in the Island as well as this particular part of the population. I think the most important thing is, getting it right down to nitty-gritty, is what is going to be the best approach to extract money from the administrators. This is what the debate is about. It seems to me that whether or not we pass this proposition then the Social Security Minister will be taking up the cudgels, one way or the other. So, the end result is that Deputy Gorst will be fighting the good fight.  I think the important factor is whether we give him a better chance to succeed if we pass this proposition. I am reminded of the words, I think it was Ernie Bevin, who said: "Do not let me go naked into the conference chamber." It is my judgment that if we pass this we deprive the Minister for Social Security of an important weapon in his armoury. This proposition and the amendment, well-meaning as they are, undermine the strategic position of the Minister and should be rejected.

8. Senator S. Syvret:

We are dealing I think, if I have read the reports correctly, with a total of 84 staff. Under Deputy Southern 's proposal this would amount to the States laying our hands on £139,500 and under Senator Breckon's amendment the sum would be £289,500. I think we need to reflect on those sums and put them into some kind of perspective. There are very senior incompetent civil servants who rather than be sacked have been given sums of that nature as pay-offs to go off into the sunset and keep their mouth shut. Here we have 84 ordinary people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves treated in an utterly obnoxious manner. We agreed to the spending when we approved the Business Plan and the Budget, of a sum I think that is now in excess of £300,000 for the Chief Minister's Spin-Doctor's Department, and that supposedly is justifiable even though a great deal of the time and effort is quite improperly, in my view, focused on internal Jersey politics rather than promoting the Island outside. But £300,000 on spin-doctors but we cannot look after some people who have fallen on very difficult times. I listened with great interest to the speech of Deputy Power and it seemed to me to be a rather typical Deputy Power speech which was his I want to have my cake and eat it' speech. He wants to be on the side of the workers saying all the popular things, pressing all the right buttons, making all the right noises, trying to ingratiate himself but is not going to support the propositions. We have heard some similar speeches from others. But Deputy Power did say something interesting; he reminded us of the full might, as he put it, of the States. The Courts, the Law Officers' Department, this Assembly, its Members .. okay, that may not be an asset, I grant you, but nevertheless the full might of the States is there ready and able to fight this battle to recover this money. I suggest that is likely to be a much more effective, more rapid, more intimidatory means of bringing the administrators to book and placing the burden on the employees themselves. Some have spoken of establishing precedents and how we cannot possibly do that. We establish precedents all the time, and the precedent we are establishing here is, after all, a political precedent. Hypothetically another firm could go broke and others could bring propositions to this Assembly seeking similar settlements. Members would not be bound or obliged to agree with those and perhaps would not, if the companies concerned had not so manifestly broken the law and behaved in such a reprehensible manner. But, on the one hand we are told we cannot establish a precedent, yet on the other we hear from the Minister for Social Security that he has agreed - his officers have agreed - that his department will fund the legal representation for the employees. Now, what is that if not a precedent? A very dramatic precedent in fact I would suggest. Very dramatic indeed with possibly quite some serious long term implications. I am not saying it is necessarily a bad precedent but it is certainly a far more serious precedent than the paying of £139,000 or even £289,000. Frankly, if we are going to employ lawyers to fight a long and tedious battle it could cost us £289,500 just to pay the lawyers. Meanwhile, the ex-staff continue to suffer. I say let us support the propositions today, let us use the full might of the States, co-ordinate it and bring it to bear army fashion against the administrators, whoever deserves such attention, and let us recover the money from there. Some people have spoken of responsibility towards taxpayers' money. I do not see these payments as being money that we would be giving out and then never recovering. This is a temporary measure and I see the States using its full might - all aspects of it - to recover these funds and, indeed, if the legislation which has been spoken of to establish a proper provision for these things in the future are put in place, indeed perhaps recover some of it from those arrangements when the laws are brought forward so that repayment could have been made. This is not simply the expenditure of States money and it is gone, this is a kind of a loan we are going to take in the future and we will recover from other methods. But I want to finish with this observation. The States of Jersey are to blame for this mess. We are to blame. We have not paid sufficient attention to proper employee protection over the years and decades. What protection we do have is poor and we have even seen the utter shambles of that slight statutory protection that exists being circumvented and thoroughly disregarded and ignored by the directors of the company before it went into administration. So the States has a moral obligation here. We, as we look at the public gallery, contemplate the results of our failures, of this Assembly's failures over the years. I say let us help our fellow Islanders and let us fight the battle to recover the funds from those from whom they should be recovered and I can certainly say that I am going to play my part in that, hopefully some time later this week, because I am going to go to the police and make a formal criminal complaint of fraudulent trading against the directors of Woolworths because of their failure to keep the cash reserves necessary to meet their minimum statutory obligations. We, the States of Jersey, can fight this battle and so we should. Let us help these people and instead target our fire on those who deserve it.

9. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

It goes without saying that all of us believe that the employees of Woolworths have been treated extremely shabbily. They have been treated unfairly and they have been treated, it would appear, not even in accordance with the law - or at least the spirit of the law - and quite rightly we want to put those wrongs right. The question is, is this the correct way to do it, this proposition and this amendment. Making an  ex gratia payment, which is basically what it would be, based on a statutory scheme from another jurisdiction does not really sit very well with me, and I do not think would sit very well with any of us. We have enormous powers in this Assembly but with those powers we should temper those powers with responsibility because one or 2 Members have said we are not worried about precedent. Of course we should worry about precedent. Perhaps not so much about what is going to happen in the short term future regarding unemployment - those who were unfortunate to lose their jobs during these difficult times - but we also need to think about those who have lost their jobs and not just in recent times, perhaps over the last 30 or 40 years and who did not receive what they would have done had they lived and worked in another jurisdiction such as the United Kingdom, as undoubtedly claims will come in from many of those people over the last few decades, they will come in thick and fast, and quite understandably and quite rightly. I have got no doubt at all that if we do make this payment on the basis of the proposition today the legal profession will make sure that those claims do come in. So what do we do? I may be naïve but it does seem to me that there is a simple solution and it has been mentioned during this debate. I say what we should do is pay the employees of Woolworths from States fund what they are due under Jersey law. In some cases that will amount to up to 4 months pay. In exchange for that the employees assign the debt that they are due under the law to the States and our might - a couple of people have used the phrase - will be used to persuade the administrators to meet their obligations, and I would have thought that one claim against the administrators rather than 90-odd will have much greater impact to get them to meet their obligation. I see that way everybody wins. The employees get exactly what is rightly due to them. We, the States, will do what is right by the employees and can hold our heads up high and the administrators will be pursued vigorously for a legal claim. I suspect we cannot pursue administrators for ex gratia payment that we choose to make. If the proposition is, even as amended, adopted nothing in the end of the day may be paid by the administrators.

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

A point of clarification. Is this a second amendment because it sounds like a second alternative? It has not been proposed by either the proposer or the amender so is this a second amendment? I know you cannot do it, that is why I am asking.

Senator L. Norman:

I am trying to explain why the proposition is faulty and there is a better way, and how we can do that, I would have thought, that if the Chief Minister or the Minister for Treasury and Resources or even the Minister for Social Security - someone speaking for the Council of Ministers - would say now that they will do this, they will ensure that the employees receive the money that is due to them on the understanding that the debt is then assigned to the States, and then the States can then pursue the administrators. If one of the Ministers will say this, and guarantee to do this, then surely Senator Breckon and Deputy Southern should be satisfied. The employees will get what is due to them, the States will have done what is right. Surely that is a win-win situation.

10. Senator P.F. Routier:

When I first heard of the likelihood of Woolworths closing I was obviously very concerned that the staff should be supported in whatever way we possibly could, so I was pleased that the Social Security Department were able to immediately make contact with the staff to offer what support was possible. The Minister yesterday explained the extent of the support that has been given and offered but I have to say I still find it unbelievable that the administrators could be so appallingly blatant in not observing our existing employment laws. They are not observing the notice periods which they should have given. They are not observing the amounts of money that should be paid in compensation for notice period, and it should be recognised that our notice periods and our legislation is better than the U.K.'s legislation. In fact, while we chastise ourselves for not having a redundancy law in place I cannot see any evidence from the current actions of the administrators that they would have taken any notice of that either. We know that the staff have been badly treated and badly let down by the administrators who have little or no regard for our existing laws. I understand from the Minister for Social Security, and we have heard again today, that offers of assistance with legal opportunities have been offered to the employees and this has not been taken up. I think that is a pity and I hope that we are not going to let the administrators get away with it. My distaste for the way in which the administrators have treated the employees of Woolworths will certainly colour my judgment when it comes to dealing with any matters relating to that organisation that may come before me in the future. I am amazed that the local office team have not made an announcement before today that they are going to fulfil the terms of the existing notice period employment legislation. I just cannot believe it. They know this debate is going on. I would have anticipated that they would have come forward and said that they were going to meet the local legislation. They are putting the States Members through a debate which is unnecessary. They should come forward and say that they are going to pay that. They have a moral obligation to do that, they have a legal obligation to do that [Approbation] and especially when you consider that the local store is one of the most profitable in the group. I heard a whisper, I do not know if it right or wrong, but the store made over £1 million profit last year. It is disgraceful that it is going to be siphoned-off elsewhere and the local people are not being supported. Of course there are the assets of the property which we know of, and hopefully we will be able to use that as a lever to get what is required for the employees. Dare I even say that perhaps the administrators themselves could even consider eating into their fees. They might even consider a bit of sympathy for the Woolworths' staff. They are making out of this, the administrators. Why do they not consider being sympathetic to the staff who are being let down? We cannot let the administrators off the hook. I think the best way we can support the ex-employees of Woolworths is to maintain our offer

of support to them with legal support, to ensure also that those who are in most financial need who are able to claim income support are protected, and I know that will happen, and of course continue with all the practical help in regaining employment. As I said earlier, the lack of the section of employment legislation which does relate to redundancy would appear to have been of little consequence in this case to the employees because the administrators have not taken any notice of the remainder of our laws by giving no notice and not paying the notice periods. I think you probably would expect me to comment on why the law is not yet available, the redundancy law. Others have already commented but I would just like to add that when we started out on the trail on implementing all the various parts of employment legislation that it was the committees, and there was Senator Le Sueur 's committee, and I was a member of that committee, and it was the intention to promote the redundancy legislation in an earlier phase. But the States in their wisdom decided that was not going to be the case which I was disappointed about, and it was the Industry Committee at the time that put forward that the employment relations matters should be put in an earlier phase, which came in before the redundancy legislation, and I was disappointed about that. But that was what the States decided. Of course, I am sure Members will recall that the Employment Relations Law was a long drawn-out process because of the lengthy negotiations with the unions. Unfortunately that all took time. I certainly wanted the redundancy law to be in place sooner. So I am pleased the Minister has decided to separate the T.U.P.E. (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) legislation now but I would only comment that only a couple of years ago there was a call for T.U.P.E. legislation to be brought in before redundancy legislation because there was some likely takeovers of businesses to be going on in the Island. They are both vitally important so I urge a bit of caution on not delaying the T.U.P.E. legislation. I make these observations really just to put the record straight but, as I said, in this particular case, I do not really believe that it would have made any difference whether we had the redundancy legislation in place because of the attitude of the administrators. When I consider the public comments that I have received, the main concern is about the precedent. I have spoken to people who have been made redundant in recent times who think it would be totally unfair to make this precedent for this particular group of people and also they made the comments: "What about the people coming along before redundancy legislation is in place?" I think the letter to the editor by the leader of the C.A.B. (Citizens Advice Bureau) made some very relevant points and identified the clear difficulties of the crossover of the U.K. legislation and the Jersey legislation, which was highlighted by Senator Le Marquand, and I believe that it would be wrong, and he made the point very clearly that bailing out the administrators was not a thing to be doing. So, the administrators have ignored the existing law and I do hope that they are listening to this debate. The timing of this debate is unfortunate because the employees are due to be paid their final pay in a couple of days time. I would suggest to Members that we should reject the amendment and the proposition but in doing so I think we should call upon the administrators to do the right thing. I call on the administrators to write personal letters to each of the employees giving them formal notice and apologising for the distress they have caused. I call on the administrators to pay in full the notice period. I call on the administrators to pay any holiday pay that is due. I call on the administrators to match the terms of the Woolworths company. If the administrators do the right thing even now, at this late stage, they may regain the reputation that they had within the Island because it is at an all time low at the present time. I suggest to Members that this amendment and proposition should be rejected and we should all focus attention on ensuring that the administrators, when they are

paying the wages in a couple of days' time, that they do meet their legal obligations.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Could I just ask for a point of clarification? The Senator talked about setting the record straight but as I understand it the real reason the law was never brought in was because many, perhaps shall I say right-wing Members gave more importance to preventing trade unions from representing ordinary working people.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , that is not a point of clarification.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Could I bring a point of clarification as well from the Minister for Social Security?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is it a genuine point of clarification?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, it is genuine. During the debate a number of people have talked about legal advice, legal support, and so on, there is a difference between legal advice and legal representation. Would the Minister for Social Security explain what the nature of it is? Is he saying his department will represent the workers and incur all the legal costs in that or are they just giving them advice?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

I was not speaking, so I am not sure if it is a clarification on what the previous speaker was saying. At this stage - and I have tried to be extremely careful in what I have said - what my department has offered is legal advice at this preliminary stage.

11. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Together with the rest of the House, I have the greatest sympathy for the workers at Woolworths. It is a little piece of Jersey that has gone. For any of the parents sitting around here who have had teenage children doing their Saturday jobs in there, it was a very welcome place to go to for us and for the first learning curves of trade and commerce for them. However, I was visited by a parishioner last week who was working for a U.K. company over here in exactly the same circumstances as the Woolworths' employees were. He was fired without notice. He was just told they were closing down. He was a very tenacious character and he went off and he went to the industrial tribunal in Southampton. I do not know if the word "sued" is the correct one, but he certainly went for the company and he went for the British Government on the basis that he was due redundancy pay. He was turned down, and I understand this was one of the actual classic cases which set the precedents for further cases that came up and, in fact, for this situation that we have now. He came to me and said: "Surely, if this goes through the States, I will be entitled to go back again, will I not, and go to the States for money?" I have to say that if this goes through today, I would quite happily represent him and take his case up because that would be the case. We are talking precedents here and we are talking about creating a precedent which will go back for goodness knows how long. I listened to the Constable of St. Clement this morning when he came up and spoke, and I could not see anything wrong whatsoever in what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that we do pay them out and we pay them out exactly what they are due under Jersey law and then we go for the liquidators. I think it is a very sensible way of going. I think that at this stage we still have time for Senator Breckon and for Deputy Southern to withdraw their propositions and let us go ahead on the basis of a new proposition which would take care of the workers, make sure they got all their money, and then we sort it out with the liquidators ourselves.

12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I want to add my own words of sadness to the fact that Woolworths has gone. Somebody said that I was a regular client of Woolworths, going in to buy sweets. That is absolutely right. Woolworths was an incredibly well run shop in Jersey, perhaps unlike the United Kingdom. I would also say to Members that my great-grandmother bought the tobacconist shop outside of Woolworths on the basis that Woolworths was a place that was never likely to fail. I am sure that many of the staff of Woolworths thought that that was going to be the case, that Woolworths would have never failed. I am sure that we must give all the Woolworths' staff every support and encouragement because they have had an unexpected event and they certainly do not deserve to be put in the position of having

problems as a result of failing management in the U.K. We must, of course, first of all ensure that those staff who have found themselves without work have every possible assistance and support in getting back into the workplace. What I will say is that from my position as previously Minister for Economic Development I would be very surprised if those well-trained, excellent staff at Woolworths cannot find - with help and with assistance and encouragement - work back in the workplace. I am sure that we must do everything that we can and everything that needs to be done to make sure that the most important thing happens: that the staff get back into productive, well paid, secure work. The issue of the redundancy payments is difficult. I think that many Members of this Assembly believe that we must make plans to assist or have the Woolworths staff assisted. The difficulty is, as Senator Le Marquand has said, that the calculations both within the amendment that we are discussing and the underlying amendment are deficient. We do not know the exact calculations of an entitlement that is along the lines of what they would be entitled to in the United Kingdom. In addition, as the Constable of St. Clement has said, there is, I think, a view that Members want to know what the entitlement should be in Jersey, under Jersey law, for the extended periods of notice, the holiday pay and other areas. I think that it is quite clear that Members do not have sufficient information in order to make a decision on the actual facts of what we should be paying in terms of some sort of redundancy pay. It seems to me clear that Members need and deserve more information. There are new issues which have emerged during the course of this debate. I think that the Minister for Social Security is absolutely correct to have been careful in what he is saying to Members. He does not want to put the fact that he has made offers of legal assistance to the Woolworths' staff as almost being a factor that that offer could be treated as a pawn in a political debate. That would be quite wrong. He is being very careful about that, but the reality is that he has said that he and his department have offered assistance to the staff in terms of getting legal representation and, indeed, we may need to go further. It may be appropriate to go further in terms of representing those staff. I am seeking some guidance from the chair. It seems to

me that the proposition that we have before us is deficient in terms of the financial information. There has been new information arising out of this debate which means I have come to the conclusion that either we reject the proposition because it is deficient or perhaps that we need to adjourn the discussion, move on to the next item or have a reference back, so that we can then ask Social Security to go back and conduct the work with the employees to ensure appropriate representation, we can be advised of the full information under Jersey law in relation to the entitlement of the employees, and that that process can continue before we go back and effectively write a blank cheque. I am willing to commit the resources necessary with the Minister for Social Security in order to carry out that work in order that we may first of all ensure that the employees exhaust all the available actions and possibilities that now, it appears, they have an option to redress during the local situation. I want to be guided by you, Sir, about what perhaps the best way of dealing with this is: perhaps either the movers of the proposition Senator Breckon, may wish to invite the Assembly to defer consideration; if they were not willing to do that, maybe we can have a reference back.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , thank you very much. The chair will consider this on its own. Senator, the purpose of a reference back is to obtain further information. It is not at all clear to me what further information you are seeking. The proposition of Deputy Southern proposes redundancy payments as per the U.K. standard. The amendment of Senator Breckon proposes redundancy payments plus a figure which he calculates as being the Jersey minimum notice period. Those are the 2 alternatives before the States. It is free to the States to accept or reject them, but it is not clear to me what further information you are seeking.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

As Senator Le Marquand has stated, there is some doubt on the accuracy of these figures in terms of the way that they have been compiled. There are other factors within these figures. I understand that those redundancy payments can be offset against individual circumstances of people getting back in work. I think that we need to be absolutely clear that we are dealing with an accurate figure in terms of those figures before we make a decision on either of these amounts. There has been some doubt cast upon these figures.

Senator A. Breckon:

I did intend to cover this - a number of Members have mentioned this - but I do have a sheet that was produced which has every employee on and their length of service. I have also got information, but because of issues of data protection and other things, obviously it is not in the public domain. I think I can make the case in summing-up to cover that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That would be a matter for Members to consider at that stage, but it is still not clear to me, Senator, what is the further information you are seeking. It is very imprecise, what you are asking for. If there is going to be a reference back, there has to be a clear request for specific further information. I am not sure I can allow Senator Le Marquand to have a second speech.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

While Senator Breckon makes representations that the figures are accurate and complete, it does not appear to me from what I have heard from the discussions and from the observations made by Senator Le Marquand that these figures are absolutely robust and have been independently assessed. We are being asked, effectively, to make a determination on the allocation of taxpayers' money on the basis of a representation by Senator Breckon on which there is some doubt which has been cast. Therefore, I would certainly like those figures to be checked by the appropriate authorities, whether that be Social Security or J.A.C.S. (Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Services) or whatever, in order that we are absolutely clear that we are dealing with accurate information before we make any determination. Quite apart from that - and that is why I was seeking your guidance about the best way to proceed - my sense is that Members also, in parallel to understanding what the accurate figures are, want to have seen the other avenues of redress - being the pursuance of the administrator through the Jersey law - to be also being progressed before we make a decision.

The Deputy Bailiff :

What was put by the Connétable of St. Clement, which I was not sure whether you were going to speak to, was, of course, the idea that the Council of Ministers should consider whether, where there was a claim under Jersey law - namely to notice periods - the Council would be willing to consider help to enable the employees to exercise their rights. That, of course, would exclude redundancy where there are no legal rights.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Indeed, and that is exactly something that the Constable of St. Clement has suggested that we calculate the full amount of entitlement under Jersey law and that we make some sort of arrangement whereby we pay that potentially with some certainty on the fact that we are going to be able to redress it. This shows that there is a huge amount of information that Members need to make before making a determination that they are going to simply write a cheque either to the extent that Senator Breckon says or Deputy Southern . Members are not equipped with the full information that they need to make a full decision.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

If I may, I am not clear whether this reference back refers to the amendment alone or to my proposition as well. I am not clear because normally a reference back is to the Minister bringing a proposition. A reference back to Back-Benchers, is that what is proposed? It seems to me that this is just a procedural motion to get this debate abandoned after some 6 hours, which seems to me wasting States time.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am sorry, I think I have allowed enough on this. I am not going to agree to a reference back. This is an amendment. It is not clear to me this further information will relate simply to the amendment and so I am not going to allow it.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Therefore, I will test the mood of the Assembly. Could you please confirm that a move on to the next item would mean that we would not determine the matter; rather it would be held in abeyance, which would allow the proposers of the amendment to bring it back and table it back at some future time when it would be my hope that the Assembly is furnished with the latest information in relation to the pursuance of the administrators with the full assistance of the Minister for Social Security and, in addition, to the workings of the entitlement of Jersey law which could deal with the Constable of St. Clement. I think that is the only reasonable way that we could do it and so if procedurally a reference back is not possible in your ruling, then I move that we move on to the next item on that basis.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Before the Senator does that, it does seem to me that seems to be somewhat of a big hammer to crack a nut. I think the sides on this argument are pretty close together. We all want to achieve what is right and fair to the former employees of Woolworths. [Interruption] It does seem to me that we are so close that it would be quite possible in a short period of time for the proposer of the substantive proposition and the amendment, the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Social Security, to get together to find an equitable way forward. If the proposer of the proposition and the amendment would agree to defer this debate from where we are for 2 weeks to the next sitting, we could get an agreement. What we all want to achieve very quickly is a proper and decent settlement for the employees of Woolworths, and that seems to be a sensible way forward.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is, of course, a matter entirely for the proposer and the amender. At the moment, what I have before me is a proposition to move to the next business. Are you formally proposing that, Senator?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would formally propose that, but before doing so ask if either Senator Breckon or Deputy Southern would be willing to heed the advice of the Constable of St. Clement . If they will not, then I think that that is the only sensible way forward.

The Deputy Bailiff : Deputy , are you willing to?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am not prepared to do that at this stage, no.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, in which case ..

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I seek a point of clarification from the Minister for Treasury and Resources? The information that was furnished by the Woolworths' staff was shared among Deputy Southern , Senator Breckon, myself and Senator Maclean, made available to the Council of Ministers through Senator Maclean; all of the information, all of the records, all of the names, all of the detail. What is it exactly that the Senator or the Treasury was not able to understand about that?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator, are you proposing a move to the next item?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : Yes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] [Interruption] There is no debate, that is absolutely right, but I think as a seconder he is entitled to say briefly why.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

It will be brief. I have a lot of sympathy with the proposal of the Constable of St. Clement, and while I was minded to endorse it immediately, I do not like making decisions sur les champs.. I would endorse the view that this could be done within a very short delay and that procedurally the way to do that would be to move on to the next item and to commit to coming back at an early date with that proposal. For that reason, I would second the proposal of Senator Ozouf .

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. The proposal to move to the next item is proposed and seconded. I cannot say that it is an abuse of procedure or an infringement of the rights of a minority; therefore, it is in order. There is a no dwbate upon it. The appel is called for; therefore, the matter is pour or contre moving to the next item of business. The Greffier will open the voting.

Senator A. Breckon:

Procedurally, can I ask now, because that was with an amendment and with a proposition before that, who would be reporting back to whom? Because I do not have an army of officers to produce anything and I have some confidential information and it is about as clear as mud from that decision what I am supposed to do now. I wonder if you could give me some guidance.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Certainly, Deputy . It was not, of course, a reference back because I disallowed that. It was a proposition to move to the next item. Therefore, that means simply that debate stops and the matter can be brought back at any stage. My understanding - but that would be entirely for others - is that the intention of the proposer was to allow time to see whether the Connétable of St. Clement's remedy, for example, could be dealt with. It can be brought back at any stage and the matter can then continue.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Surely the next item is the proposition itself?

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, the item being debated is the proposition and the amendment.