States Meeting Transcript - 21/07/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 21st JULY 2010

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................4

1. Statement by the Minister for Economic Development regarding the West Show......4

1.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):....................4

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................4
2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................4
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................4

4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:....................................................5

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................5

2. Draft Taxation Relief (Arrangements with the United Kingdom) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.83/2010)................................................................................5

2.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):............................................5

1. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................5
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ................................................................6
3. The Deputy of St. John:..................................................................6
4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................6

3. Human Rights Law: statements of compatibility (P.84/2010)...........................6

3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:................................................................7

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................9
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................10
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................11
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12
5. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................13
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................14
7. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................16 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................16 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq QC., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................17 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................18 The Attorney General:........................................................................18
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................18

9. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................20
10. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................20
11. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................21
12. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................21 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:........................................................................23 The Attorney General:........................................................................23
13. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................24
14. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................26

15. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................26
16. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................27

4. Foreign Taxes and Freight Costs in Price s of Goods Sold in Jersey (P.89/2010)......29

4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................29

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................32
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................34
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................35
4. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................36
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36
6. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................38

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................41

7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................41
8. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................43
9. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................44
10. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................44
11. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................45 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:.....................................................47
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................47
13. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................48
14. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................48 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................50 The Attorney General:........................................................................50

5. Central Market Sub-Post Office facility: social and economic study of closure (P.90/2010)...............................................................................54

5.1 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................54

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................57
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................58
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................59
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................60
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................61
6. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................62
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................63
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................65
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
10. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................66
11. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................68
12. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................68
13. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................69
14. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................69 Senator F.E. Cohen:..........................................................................72 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................72

6. Draft Community Provisions (Mortality in Oysters) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.94/2010)...............................................................................73

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur): .........................................................................................73

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................74
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................74

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................75
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................75 The Deputy of St. John (Chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel):............................75

2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................75

7. Jersey Arts Trust: appointment of Chairman (P.95/2010).............................77

7.1 Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture - rapporteur):.............................................................................77

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................77
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................77
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................78
4. Deputy A.T. Dupre:....................................................................78 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................78

8. Comprehensive Spending Review: savings proposals – impact on employment of public sector staff (P.91/2010)...........................................................79

8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................82
2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................84
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................85
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................86
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................87
6. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................87
7. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................88
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................89
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................89
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................90

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................92

9. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......92

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................92

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

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Just before the Assembly resumes Public Business, the Bailiff was given notice yesterday within the due time that the Minister for Economic Development wished to make an official statement. This may be a convenient time to do that, Minister.

1. Statement by the Minister for Economic Development regarding the West Show

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

I would like to invite Members to join me in congratulating all those involved in the organising of last week's very successful West Show. The show committee, under the chairmanship of Constable Vibert , should be justifiably proud of the success of the event. A very special thank you must go to all the volunteers who gave their valuable time and without whom such events quite simply would not be possible. The West Show has grown into one of Jersey's premier rural events showcasing local agriculture, environmental issues and the countryside, as well as being an entertaining day out for the whole family. The 15,000 plus visitors to last week's show enjoyed great weather with a varied array of stands and entertainment, including a whole section on genuine Jersey produce, which can only enhance awareness of local businesses. The West Show has become a regular feature of the events calendar and I look forward to it going from strength to strength in the future, with the continued support of the community and a number of very generous sponsors. [Approbation]

Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I would just like to thank the Minister for his compliments. Thank you, Sir.

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

So will the Minister be promoting an East Show? [Laughter]

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Of course a very good question that comes from the Deputy , and I am sure opportunities for shows of this nature in other areas will always be considered if indeed the local community can get behind them, which I am sure is quite possible as demonstrated by the great, fine West Show we have just seen.

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

Did the Connétable get all the necessary permits that were required? [Laughter]

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I would have thought so. Having seen the smile on the Connétable 's face, he was clearly very happy and understandably so. It was a fine show, well attended, good weather, and I have to say I enjoyed it myself when I attended.

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

Not to take away from the appropriate praise of such a wonderful event, I would just like to ask the Minister why it is today that he is congratulating him and he did not do it at the beginning of business, and will he be congratulating the Fish Festival tomorrow?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think if appropriate and if Members are prepared I am more than happy to congratulate many of the fine events we have around the Island. I think we are extremely lucky to have as many good events as we do and have such a tremendous involvement with the community in many of these events which frankly would not be possible without the volunteers that put so much work into them. His earlier question about this particular statement, I had intended to make it on Tuesday, we were just trying to clarify one or 2 points before so doing to make sure that we were accurate before the statement was made.

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

I would just like to add to the Minister's thanks and to expand to the staff of T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) who assisted quite significantly in developing the road traffic plan through St. Peter, avoiding many, many delays, and also the Honorary Police of the 4 western Parishes that spent 2 whole days out there controlling that traffic plan. [Approbation]

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. Draft Taxation Relief (Arrangements with the United Kingdom) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.83/2010)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We now return to Public Business and come now to the Double Taxation Relief (Arrangement with the United Kingdom) (Jersey) Act. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Double Taxation Relief (Arrangement with the United Kingdom) (Jersey) Act. The States, in pursuance of Article 111 of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961, have made the following Act.

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

Members may recall that last year as part of the series of Taxation Information Exchange Agreements, we concluded one with the United Kingdom and one of the notable features of that T.I.E.A. (Tax Information Exchange Agreement) was an intention to change the arrangements regarding the taxation of pensions. What this Act before us today does is to put in legislation the principles that we agreed at that time, which is effectively that people receiving a pension in one jurisdiction would only repay tax in one jurisdiction and not in both. This is a vast improvement for a number of people and it will benefit not just residents who have previously been suffering taxation twice, but in particular it would also improve the revenue that the Island gets in respect of taxation of pensioners in the Island. So those are the principles act and I propose its adoption.

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

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

I think I ought to declare an interest, I do receive a pension from the U.K. (United Kingdom).

1. Senator A. Breckon:

If I could just ask the Chief Minister, in there it says that this amendment provides, among other things, that: "Pensions and other similar remuneration paid to an individual who is resident in one of the territories shall be taxable only in that territory." I, with a number of other Members, have had letters from people who work for Flybe and I wonder if we are signing this what it is worth if that can go ahead. It is of concern to people if they are, for all intents and purposes, local residents and then because of the nature of the business means spending some time in the U.K. on that business and for no other purpose, how they can be taxed. I wonder if the Chief Minister could expand on that.

Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

I need to declare that my wife receives a small pension from the U.K. Does that require me to leave?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): No.

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I would like to declare that I receive a pension too, albeit small.

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

A welcome move, obviously, but I just wanted to ask, as this is an arrangement with the United Kingdom, which is a member state of the European Union, at what stage does the Minister think it would be appropriate to arrange these things en bloc with the European Union? Can he also

indicate when he replies, because I would be quite interested to know, what other member states does this sort of agreement exist within?

3. The Deputy of St. John :

Earlier in the week I put questions to the Minister re Flybe and staff having to pay tax in the United Kingdom. How will this affect them?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): I call on the Chief Minister to reply.

4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

In response to Senator Breckon, the words "pensions and similar" would refer to other means of obtaining a pension, such as an annuity. It does not apply to ordinary remuneration. But for that, in response to Senator Breckon and the Deputy of St. John, I would remind them that the double taxation relief arrangement remains in place with the U.K. and that there are alleviating measures. It is not as good as the situation for pensions and, as I said to the Deputy of St. John earlier in the week, it is something we can continue to negotiate with them, but at this stage they have got the existence of the double taxation arrangement which is the best we can rely on at this stage. In respect of Deputy Le Claire, the arrangements for double taxation treaties are very much in their infancy and we have only signed at the moment one, we are looking to sign others, but at this stage the E.U. (European Union) have been reluctant to sign them with us and instead have resorted to the use of T.I.E.A.s.   As we demonstrate our ability to  be global players,  there  is a greater willingness to sign more D.T.A.s (Double Taxation Agreements) and I am hoping that will be done to a greater extent in the future. It is unlikely to be done en bloc, it will need to be done country by country, but the objective remains there. So at this stage, yes, we are continuing to go through with the E.U. countries and indeed our side of the E.U. as well. I hope that deals with the questions raised and I maintain the Act.

[9:45]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Those Members in favour of adopting it? Against? The Act is adopted.

3. Human Rights Law: statements of compatibility (P.84/2010)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come now to the Human Rights Law: statements of compatibility and I will ask the Greffier to read to the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to agree that Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 should be amended to require Ministers to state what articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, if any, are affected in relation to the legislation being brought forward and the reasons why the Minister considers that the proposed legislation is or is not compatible with the convention rights, and (b) to request the Chief Minister to bring forward the necessary amendment to Article 16 to give effect to the proposal.

3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin :

The proposition we are debating should, in normal circumstances, have no difficulty being approved because it makes sense, however, that is the problem. Because it makes sense it may well run into difficulties, but I would hope not. In the year 2000 the States, after great fanfare, agreed or gave in principle approval to this Jersey Human Rights Law, but it did not come into force until December 2006. Now, despite all the fine words of how important it would be to the lives of everyone in Jersey and, in particular, to our reputation outside the Island, in my opinion the law has not been taken seriously and in fact there is no official committee either on the Executive or on the Scrutiny side with any oversight for human rights. Yet, Jersey considers itself to be an international player in the financial world. Yet, again, nothing has been done to rectify that omission. Two years ago I tried to establish a body for oversight in human rights law and I shall not be trying again, not at present, simply because I do not think States Members really want to take it seriously enough. But what I am attempting today I believe is one small step in the right direction. When seeking approval 2 years ago I asked Members to approve a committee for oversight, whether that was on Scrutiny or indeed Executive. But, again, it was also tied-in with my amendment to Article 16 which we have today, but unfortunately I did not receive sufficient support for the panel for oversight, therefore, the second part of my proposition fell away. Again, I am going try again today because all I am asking for is to amend the law to allow Ministers that when they have their statement of compatibility to show what the law really says, why is it human rights compliant and what articles are compliant. It is quite simple. It is unfortunate that Deputy Noel, who is sitting in front of me, has 3 times had the problem. It is unfortunate because the only 3 laws that have come of recent time have been involving ones in which Deputy Noel has had to come forward, and I have asked him the question each time .. no, the Deputy is putting his fingers up, just 2, not to be rude to me. [Laughter] But I will remind him there was a third and that was a little while ago and that was the Data Protection Law which indeed was deferred that day on the day of the debate after I did ask, and Deputy Noel, I gather, did take on a Scrutiny issue. So I can possibly say 3 occasions. Now, I have always believed that the House, on all sides, should know why a proposed law is human right compliant. Indeed, if it is deemed to be so important for Ministers to state that a particular law that is human right compliant then it makes sense for us to know why. How can you question something if you are not given the information? One, of course, assumes that Members of Scrutiny themselves should be requiring that information. Now, at present one assumes that when Ministers are given that relevant information they should be able to include that already on their proposition and one wonders why. Therefore, indeed I think we had it yesterday when the Minister for Treasury and Resources got up to defend the rapporteur. What I am saying is that if there is the information supposed to be there, why it cannot be given to us. It

must be there already so why the difficulty in not including it on the proposition, it makes sense. Indeed, if Members or the Ministers are telling the truth it should be there already so I do not see the problem. Two years ago when I tried to get this proposition through the States I did attend Westminster to discuss human rights issues there with the chairman and members of the joint select committee on human rights, and I was told there was increasing pressure from all sides of Parliament for Ministers to provide more human rights information when proposing new laws. The reason for that was quite simply is because human rights issues were coming up more and more when laws were being debated. In fact I think we are starting to see that even now, again yesterday when we were looking at the regulations that the Minister for Home Affairs was bringing forward. There again we looked at possible human rights violations there. Now what I am pleased to say is that Westminster have beaten us to it. Westminster now whenever they do propose a law there is a statement of compatibility now along with all their laws and that is what I am seeking for today.

Can I add that there is no need to recruit any more officers to do that, because quite simply they were doing that already but the only thing they were not doing, the information they were giving to the Ministers was not included on the proposition or in their draft Bill. So there should be no extra staff. Now, again, I would hope that we will have no difficulty with Members here agreeing to what I am proposing today. Now, Members will have received comments from the Chief Minister and I am getting to the stage really when I feel that when the Chief Minister receives any proposition from the Deputy of St. Martin he sends it along to his department of misinformation and says to them: "Look, draft some explanation will you, it does not matter what it is because we are going to oppose it."

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Just in case Members are confused, Deputy , the comments are from the Council of Ministers, not the Chief Minister.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Well, from the Council of Ministers, sorry. But, again, I do believe this time the Council of Ministers are scraping the barrel when they seek to oppose something which basically really makes sense. I cannot see why and I would ask Members to look at the comments which are on page 2 of the Council of Ministers' comments. If one looks way down under 2 where they start giving the information, it says: "It is not clear what level of detail would be envisaged under the proposed amendment." Well, I would have thought that was quite common sense. It is one thing they could have checked with Westminster and said: "Well, what are you doing on your Bill?" So, again, I would not have thought there was any problem there again. It goes on further: "Furthermore, it is unclear that any additional benefit would be attained by providing detailed analysis of the legal position." Well, what rubbish. I would have thought any information that is given would assist Members on both sides of the House. If we look at the next one: "At present the Attorney General and the Solicitor General attends States meetings and are available during the debates to provide advice to the Assembly in response to specific questions on human rights compatibility." Well, we have already found that in the 3 debates we have had now with Deputy Noel, again yesterday I asked and at no time did Deputy Noel look across to the Attorney General. In fact the proposition about a month ago the Deputy had an opportunity to get that information during the lunch break because there was a break during the debate. Again, that was not working, so again it is not working now and why should the Attorney General be asked to stand up and give an answer when that information should already be included on the proposition? If we look at the next: "In addition, the existing scrutiny process provides an important and effective opportunity for Scrutiny members to consider any legislation proposals before it is brought to the Assembly." Well, again, if the Scrutiny Panels are not given that information how can they do so? They have got to ask for it so why should it not be there in the first place? I ignore the next 2 paragraphs because that is stating the obvious, because once they have really gone past the House and gone to the Privy Council one would have assumed that everything then is human rights compliant. But then again if we look again: "Since the law came into force in 2006 and previously when voluntary statements of compatibility were made, there was no indication that the present form of compatibility statement

had caused any problems or that the position would be improved with more extensive statement." Well, again, I maintain that any information which is in the interest of Members has got to be a help and again that is a lame, lame excuse. I will really go to take issue here about the resource implications. In broad numbers, the States considers around 35 principal laws each year, well one assumes that the Minister has already received that information for 35 laws. So, again, what is the problem of giving that advice which the Minister has received, and they say the proposition is compatible; why should that not be put in the proposition at the moment? This is really where I think we are scraping the barrel, it talks about: "In addition, the workload involved is estimated to require up to one additional legal adviser in the Law Officers' Department with associated costs." Again, that information should already be there. It should have been given to the Minister, otherwise how can the Minister make that statement of compatibility? It just does not stand up and one wonders. Recently Deputy Higgins brought forward a proposition. I remember making a comment to the Chief Minister saying he must have a wry smile, because here we have the Chief Minister opposing Deputy Higgins' proposition and using a human rights argument. In actual fact, when I looked at the human rights article, and I did query it with the Attorney General, it was, again, open to interpretation. I think it is very important that we do get this information before us. So, again, my proposition is quite simple. It makes sense, it is a commonsense approach. The information should already be there, given to the Ministers, and all I am asking for is that when propositions containing laws - bear in mind this is only when laws come to the House - that that information is given to us. All I am asking for is why a particular law is human right compliant and what articles are affected. I propose the proposition.

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

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I know that the Deputy of St. Martin has a particular interest in this matter and, as he said, he brought a similar proposal to the States a couple of years ago because he remains of the view that Article 16 needs amendment to provide additional levels of detail. He suggests in his opening remarks that we do not take the Human Rights Law seriously and I refute that remark. I think we all have a duty and we all do take the Human Rights Law very seriously, and we have to ensure that our legislation is indeed compliant. But, to come back to the proposition, I think there are at least 3 good reasons why this proposition is unnecessary and should be rejected. First, the proposition is unnecessary because it implies that there is some defect in what we are currently doing and I suggest that there is no implication and no evidence that we are defective in what we are currently doing. Secondly, it might be suggested that there is any evidence that law is other than fully effective. At a time when really we are trying to do things more efficiently, is this a good time to be spending more money, or should we in fact be trying to find better value for money? Really, I suppose, in order to help Members work out whether this proposition is worth supporting I need to explain in more detail the way in which law starts from an idea in some Minister's mind and ends up on the statute book. I would need to indicate the involvement of the Human Rights Law in that process. At the outset, there will be a decision in principle to consider the creation or amendment of a particular piece of legislation. In some cases that may involve the production of a Green Paper or a White Paper and perhaps a debate in the States on the principles of that legislation. But the next step, if that is approved, is for the Minister to produce a law drafting brief to the Law Drafting Department to produce suitable legislation. It goes without saying that the law drafting brief will expect the law draftsman to produce a law which is human rights compliant.

[10:00]

When that draft law is presented to the Minister it is then for the Minister to ascertain whether in his view the draft law is indeed human rights compliant, and to make a statement to Members on the face of the draft  law stating that in his view the draft  legislation is compatible with the convention rights. Before coming to that decision, the Minister will normally choose to seek legal

advice, since that statement he makes is in accordance with a legal obligation. The legislation then comes to the States for debate and at that time either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General will be present in the Chamber and that Law Officer is able to answer any questions of compatibility that any Member might choose to raise. Having debated the principles of the legislation, it is then up to the relevant Scrutiny Panel to decide whether or not they want to look at it in detail. If that panel itself has any concerns about human rights compliance, they can then ask to review the legislation and to obtain whatever legal advice they require to satisfy themselves that it is human rights compliant. After scrutiny, if any, then the articles will be debated and again one

of the Law Officers will be in the Chamber in order to deal with any concerns Members may have. Ultimately, the legislation will be adopted, perhaps with amendments. But that is nowhere near the end of the matter. The approved legislation then has to go before the Privy Council for ratification and that process gives further opportunities for human rights compliance checks. Once the legislation has been passed by the States it is the duty of the Law Officers' Department, and perhaps Members do not realise this, to submit the legislation to the Ministry of Justice, along with transmission to the Privy Council. But in addition to submitting the law, the Law Officers' Department also has to submit a commentary on that law, including its acceptability under the human rights requirements. So the next step is that the Law Officers have to submit that report and it is the legal advisers in the Ministry of Justice itself who will further review that report and review the legislation and satisfy themselves that it is human rights compliant. If they are satisfied it then goes to the Privy Council for approval and ratification and the Privy Council itself has another chance to look to see whether in their view it is human rights compliant. So I make that at least 6 hurdles that have got to be overcome before any draft legislation reaches the statute book, 6 or more opportunities for expert review - and I say expert review - of human rights compliance. Yet, the Deputy apparently wants more. He does not just wish to be assured that the legislation is human rights compliant, he wants a detailed analysis in each case of what articles of the convention might be involved and the actual reasons why the draft legislation is indeed human rights compliant. Now, that is where there are resource implications, despite what the Deputy says. Because it is a relatively straightforward matter for a trained legal professional to determine, on the face of past experience, together with a knowledge of European Court law, whether a piece of legislation is compliant or not. It is what you might call a gut feeling. On the other hand, it is a far more detailed piece of work to review and analyse each and every article of legislation to confirm why it complies with each relevant article of the European Convention. Not only would that cause delay, but I am advised that it would require the full time attention of one employee in the Law Officers' Department with no spare capacity. Accordingly, there would be resource implications and we all know that Law Officers are scarce and expensive. That estimate of additional staff is not my estimate, it is not the estimate of the Council of Ministers, it is the estimate of the Law Officers' Department who are the ones responsible for looking at these matters. So what would be the benefit of employing another well-paid employee in the Law Officers' Department, when we already have a whole variety of ways of ensuring that legislation is human rights compliant? The answer is none that I can see. It is simply spending additional money, using additional resources for no additional benefit. I ask Members at this time when all ought to be considering simplifying and doing things more efficiently, do we want to spend more money? Do we want to engage more resources for absolutely no additional benefit? As I said from the outset, we do take the human rights obligations seriously, there are numerous checks to ensure that our legislation already is human rights compliant. We do not need to do anything more, we do not need to spend any more

money, we do not need to approve this proposition.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I have heard the Attorney General explain on a number of occasions how he reviews laws for human rights compatibility. Each law can be affected, as the Chief Minister has said, by a number of human rights and there is also the proportionality. It is an art, I think, to analyse as much as a science and it is very much like - I am not insulting the Attorney General - servicing a car. A really good mechanic can tell by the sound of the engine what is wrong with it, and there are so many factors that the Attorney General has got to consider all at the same time, each of the human rights, are they proportional or is there proportionality. As I say, I think it is an art. Members will be aware that I am concerned and continue to have concerns that the Human Rights Law is only too often used as an excuse to avoid doing something. Members may not be aware that the origins of the Human Rights Law, after World War 2, were based on the intention to extend to European countries the benefit of such customary practice and laws as the 1689 Bill of Rights in the U.K. or the U.S. (United States) Constitution. In the U.K. and U.S. customary law in practice and

legislation, as I understand, I think there are probably some legal nuances there that as an engineer I will not understand. But human rights are an integral part of the legal systems and customary practice in the Anglo-Saxon countries and by extension, I assume, to Jersey. Human rights is, for our system, an additional layer of icing on the cake and this was not the general case in Europe, as I understand it. There was no provision in the sort of customary practice or common law and no specific provision had to be made in statute. This particular proposal - as the Chief Minister says - seeks to impose yet another layer of beaurocracy on to our system. I ask Members to vote against this overly beaurocratic and red tape approach.

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

We will go from red tape to red herrings, I think. First of all I should declare an interest because I am a member of the Jersey Human Rights Group. That does not mean I am an expert, I am not at all and, as has been said already, human rights is an area of great difficulty, it is not always black and white. I think this is a reason for supporting this proposition and I will go on to explain what I

mean for that. I do regret that this proposition has not been accepted and I will, if Members permit me, just re-read what part (a) of the proposition says. It is: "To agree that Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law should be amended to require Ministers to state what articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, if any, are affected and the reasons why the Minister considers that the proposed legislation is or is not compatible with the Convention rights." There is nothing of rocket science there. I think most Members reading this before the comments of the Chief Minister would have said: "Okay, that seems quite sensible, there is no reason we should not all get behind that." The point I want to make first of all is that we are not here to debate whether we like human rights or not, we have already heard from the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers that we all agree - well, certainly the Council of Ministers and the bringer and supporters of this proposition - that human rights are important; we agree that the European Convention on Human Rights is also something that Jersey is signed-up to and which we take seriously. So while it is quite valid, and I respect Senator Ferguson's questioning of human rights, this is not the forum to do that. If, for example, we do not agree with human rights that is another proposition for another day, although I suspect it would be very difficult for Jersey at this point to get out of its international obligations. That is certainly not something that I would want to see. I do not think that would be beneficial for Jersey as a society or as an international jurisdiction. Nor are we here today to debate whether or not there should be a statement of compatibility, that is up for debate but it is not here, this is not the place. We already have a statement of compatibility which is brought forward by the Minister. There is an argument to be had, of course, that Back-Benchers when they bring propositions should also have to make the same statement of human rights compatibility, but that is for another day. So let us look at the arguments why it is sensible, I think, to have a little bit more detail as to why a law may or may not be human rights compliant. I would suggest it is a red herring that it is going to cost any extra money or any extra resourcing. I think the extra input would be negligible, we have already had a manpower and financial implication statement from the Deputy that there should be no additional manpower or cost implications, and I am sure the Deputy will go into further detail when he sums up. The point is, when a Minister makes this statement, he is not an expert on human rights. He will have had to take legal advice from the Law Officers and from the Attorney General. So, presumably the research has already been done in the background, I think the analogy of a car is probably slightly unfortunate. The Attorney General, as we have heard on many occasions, does spend time weighing-up the decision and it is not acceptable and I do not think it is fair to put that kind of pressure on the Attorney General with an ad hoc question which often needs a lot of research. Because, as we know, while some of the human rights articles are absolute, there are many of them which are subject to exemptions. The information already has been out there, it is quite sensible to want to know which articles come into play. I would suggest that Members should get hold of a copy of the E.C.H.R. (European Convention on Human Rights) even if it is just to try and refute some of the arguments of the Deputy of St. Martin or myself when we stand up and say: "I do not think this is human rights compliant." Because ultimately it is for

us, as Members of the States, to make the decision and so it is quite sensible, I would suggest, that the articles at least that come into play be given during the statement. I do not want to labour the point so I will simply say that the advice has already been given, it is simply a case of writing that advice into the proposition, saying what has been taken into consideration. These are grey areas and it is up to us as States Members to decide whether we are happy or not that the correct information has been given. I would ask Members to support this proposition, it makes sense, we should not need a long debate on something fairly straightforward and logical as this. So I hope Members can get behind the Deputy of St. Martin.

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

I remember this when it last came up and on that occasion I was not convinced by the Deputy of St. Martin sufficiently in order to vote for it and I am shocked now when I think I back that I did not at that time.

[10:15]

I should have. The Chief Minister has given us a long litany about how rigorous our system is, taken us through the 6 stages, the 6 hurdles to get over, all of which I think flow from the first hurdle. As the previous speaker stated, articles of law - and certainly human rights - are rarely black and white. I can assure him I think they are never black and white, there is never a clear breach. What we are asked to do is to weigh up a sort of a balance, a margin of appreciation is given to the Government in order to allow it to govern properly, without infringing the individual rights of individuals, and that is a balancing act. The fact is, one never knows in particular circumstances whether an article will be deemed to be in breach of the particular article until it is tested in the courts. Of course, so far since 2000 when the law came into force, I do not believe a single case has been brought in Jersey to test the boundaries of what we do. I believe one or 2 should have been, but that is another matter for another day. So it is not straightforward, it is not black and white, it is always a grey decision. In the balance between the rights of the government to govern, the margin of appreciation for the government, and the individual human rights, where does the balance lie? Now, it seems to me that any lawyer examining a particular law must consider it against a particular article. This relates to articles, let us say 6, 8 and 10 - 6, that seems okay; 8, that seems okay; 10, and 10 is a bit iffy, it is a bit close to the mark, is it? Let us have a look. That work has to be done. Let us have a look at the precedent. What is European law saying and how close does ours come to that? Take, for example, the recent decision in the European Courts that the blanket ban on denying the vote to all prisoners is a breach of their human rights. That does not say you cannot stop some prisoners having the vote. It says you must not just apply that to everybody and take away one of their rights. It seems to me that if you were examining that against the right to vote it is a fairly clear cut case, and one can come to a decision that one knows clearly what are the articles one is considering and the way in which they have been considered.

On balance one can say: "I think it is safe" or: "It is not" or: "There is some doubt." That work has to be done. If it is not being done, we are not doing the job properly. All this proposition says is, fine, that work is done, write it down and tell us about it and if there is an issue for Scrutiny or whatever it is flagged-up there, it is sitting there. We are talking about Article 6, or Article 10, of the Human Rights Law. Bear that in mind when you push this through. It is a balance and it is not proven one way or the other until a court - the Royal Court, in our case - says one way or the other, the Government has exceeded its human rights obligations, it has gone too far, that is where the line is. It is not just based, as the Minister said, on precedent. It is an individual case, what is the practice for individuals and how does it apply to their lives? That is where the line gets drawn, but only by the courts. Everything else prior to that is mere legal opinion. It may be very safe legal opinion, but it is absolutely safe, or not. Or it may be in a grey area that says there may be an issue around what we are doing. The point is the work has to be done, it is being done, and I do not know if it ends up scratched on a little note pad somewhere, but it gets written down. Let us see

that, in print, in front of us when we come to pass the law. I think that is a point that, as Members, we should have a right to see and a right to make up our opinion on. So I urge Members to support this proposition.

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

It seems to me that the Council of Ministers, in opposing this, are making a mountain out of a molehill. Because the issues are really quite easy, quite simple, and I am not sure why they are making out that it is all so difficult. So, a few points - I will be going through some of their arguments like on the Scrutiny Panels and the Ministry of Justice and so on, just to basically refute each one. But the first point and possibly the most important is the one about information and I think the Deputy , in his opinion remarks, said: "How can you question something if you are not given the information?" That is absolutely fundamental to this proposition. How can you question something if you are not given the information? Now, if we have these statements - fuller statements than just: "This law is human rights compliant" - if we have the fuller statement of which articles are affected and how it is that the law is deemed compliant, this allows us, the States Members, to decide, given that information, whether to check, whether to ask questions, whether to fire off an email to the Attorney General or even to raise in the debate if it goes that far. But we have the information in advance, we can test the information. The Chief Minister in his remarks said: "There is no evidence that it is currently defective" and that is a direct quote from what he said. No evidence that it is currently defective. Now, what that seems to suggest to me is that there has not been a challenge, there has not really been serious questions asked, although they are raised in debates, and I will come to that later, because the information is not there. The information is not there so we do not know what there is to test or question so, of course, we do not ask the questions. But what we do know is the effect of States Members not having information so that they do not ask questions, and I go back to my special subject which is the incinerator. The Members at that time in 2008 were not given information about the cost of hedging and the cost of dealing with that possible currency fluctuation. Because they were not given that information they did not challenge it because the information was not there. They did not test, they did not say: "How much? Gosh, this is a lot extra, what are the risks?" and so on, because the information was simply omitted. Here we are in the same position, if we do not have the information we cannot check; that is fundamental. So the only issue then is, is it worth it? Is there an additional cost? Is there some problem with providing this information? Which brings me to my second point: if the declaration is genuine, that this law or these regulations are human rights compliant, then what is the problem? Because there is no extra work, as other speakers have pointed out, beyond the printing of the opinions and the background work of the Law Officers. How can this involve an extra person? It is already being done and, as we have heard, not only has it been done but the

statement or something pretty well like it has to go to the Ministry of Justice later on in the process. So how it can involve an extra person when the work is already being done, I simply cannot understand. The system at the moment, people have said: "Oh, well, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General attend States debates so they can provide the information as we go along." Well,

I would suggest to those who are cost conscious that is quite an expensive way of providing legal advice, of having the A.G. (Attorney General) or the S.G. (Solicitor General) there all the time to provide legal advice when in fact it could be written down in the report so that we can vet it first, if you like. The next point is the Ministry of Justice argument. It is a very weak argument that: "Oh well, the Ministry of Justice is going to look at it later anyway, is going to look at the statement of compatibility later so, therefore, we do not have to be informed." It does not follow at all. The Ministry of Justice cannot assume that we get it right, but I am sure they would find it problematic if time and time again we were not getting it right. I am sure that is not the situation. I am sure that the Ministry of Justice are in a supervisory way checking that we have got it right. That is their role but it does not affect this issue at all. In fact it proves yet again that the information is already there because it has to be sent to the Ministry anyway. The argument about Scrutiny Panels is particularly extraordinary. If a Scrutiny Panel is going to subject a law to some kind of human rights audit, they will have to get independent legal advice because they cannot use the Law Officers because the Law Officers have given advice on the law in the first place. So the cost of that method of reviewing human rights compliance should be something that would concern the Council of Ministers and indeed all Members. If we are going to rely on the argument of cost we really cannot go down the route of saying: "Well, park it with Scrutiny." I think that is all I need to say. The arguments advanced by the Council of Ministers are very flimsy in this instance and I just wish they had been a bit more pragmatic, a bit more sensible and just said: "This seems to be a sensible way to go." Thank you.

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I just want to make a few comments because a lot has been said. I am a member of the H.R. (Human Rights) Group but I am certainly not one of those people who believe that paradise lies in the greater and greater implementation of human rights because obviously one of the issues is that one person ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , one moment please. I need to do a count, I think we are not quorate. Could I ask Members outside the Chamber to return to the Chamber, we are currently inquorate. Very well, Greffier, will you please call the roll?

The roll was called.

The Deputy Bailiff :

It is indeed a delight to welcome so many old faces back to the Assembly. [Laughter] I cannot help noting that it is fortunate for the Connétable s and the Deputies that they are called after the Senators because it is certainly the case that Deputies are able to come back and be recorded as present when Senators have not had the same opportunity.

[10:30]

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Next time we have roll call, would it be possible to start from the bottom and work up?

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am very tempted to. If I am in the Chair I will do that.

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Can I check, please, that the Greffier recorded  me as being present because the stampede of Members coming in was so loud that I am not sure she heard me answer.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

On a point of order, I do appreciate that I was not in the Chamber as the roll call began. In fact, I only just managed to make it in time for my name to be called. But the Standing Orders are there. We do not change them lightly. The States have recently agreed a change in procedure because I brought a proposition suggesting exactly what you have pointed out, Sir, and I would contend, with the greatest of respect, calling Deputies in reverse order will just mean that most decisions are made by Deputies in the future.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if I am not able under Standing Orders to do a reversal, and I have not checked them, obviously I will not be able to do so.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

All I can say is it is a bit of a joke because, quite honestly, everybody has rushed in and the same Members that are the ones that are always missing from the Chamber in 15 or 20 minutes' time will be gone again.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Now, if Deputy Le Hérissier has not completely lost his flow, I call on him to resume his speech.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Unaccustomed as I am to speaking to a fairly full Chamber [Laughter] which is fast reducing again, what I was saying, I have been staggered by some of the arguments put forward by the Chief Minister, as the Deputy of St. Mary said. I remember a comment made by the very much-lamented former Senator Lakeman and he said, when the Human Rights Act was first debated in the States, I remember him saying: "It will not involve lawyers. In fact, be assured it will not involve lawyers getting involved in political issues." Then I wondered. I looked at bodies like the United States Supreme Court. I looked at how decisions were made in Roe v Wade, the very famous or infamous, depending where you stand on the issue, abortion decision, how one word could change things and how massively important I thought political issues ended up being resolved by a court, by the American Supreme Court. Then that is why, much as I very much respected the former Senator, I did go away with a certain scepticism and I have noticed obviously as decisions are put through, increasingly it is difficult to distinguish between what you might call the judicial decisions and what you might call its political implications. That is why I think it is terribly important that we do see the arguments put forward. We have had some quite extraordinary arguments and I am waiting for the Attorney General to reply with his gut instinct. We have had the Chief Minister's assertion that the Attorney General sort of reviews laws and sort of makes a decision based on gut instinct, which I think is a terrible summation of how he reaches decisions. I am sure he reaches them in a very logical way, a very strict analysis of the facts and so forth. We have also heard the Attorney General compared to a car mechanic. Now, he may be a bright spark [Laughter] and he may be steering us in the wrong or right direction, depending on where you stand  [Aside] .. yes, disappearing in a puff of smoke, but again I found that an unbelievable analogy. Again, there was this feeling that he can look at the engine, as was elaborated upon, and then make some sort of decision about whether the engine is working correctly or not, and again I think that does a disservice to the very elaborate process hopefully of reasoning in which he is engaged when he studies these matters. Surely, by having done this in the department, he is in possession of a line of argument which he can then write down. Given what I have said, my worry, which I think will become more and more acute, is that it is very important that we can see the distinction between what you might call the political implications and we can see how the judicial officers reach a decision. It is very important that we see how they reach that decision. Of course, if you take, for example, the right to family life, which I think Deputy Southern - he was not referring to that one but he was referring to some of the articles - there is an enormous amount embraced within that simple phrase. You can go off in an enormous number of directions, depending on how you choose to define it. Oddly enough, I hesitate to raise the whole issue of legal advice to Scrutiny Panels because, as we know, that was a fairly well argued and perhaps acrimonious fight at times but

oddly enough, I am not sure the Deputy of St. Mary is right in saying that: "Well, look, we have got the Attorney General's position. We only need it laid out in writing and then the Scrutiny Panel will be advised." Well, unfortunately, that was not necessarily the view of everybody who was involved in that argument and there have been 2 Scrutiny Panels who have sought legal advice on the human rights implications of legislation and, as we know, the findings of their advisers were not necessarily congruent with the findings of our Law Officers. I know our Law Officers have this fear, and I am slightly digressing, that the States will then end up as the court of law deciding between competing legal opinions. Back to the point. I think, as the Deputy of St. Mary said, a mountain has been made out of a molehill. I am sure there is a very clear process going on within the Attorney General's chambers and I cannot for the life of me see how an extra person is needed to write that down, but I would like to hear from the Attorney General. I think it is vital we hear whether he is a car mechanic or not or operating on gut feeling. I think that does a disservice to what the process is.

7. Senator T.J. Le Main:

I would like to say that I feel that Members have had a very good explanation from the Chief Minister. He went through all the procedures and all the steps that have to be gone through. I am opposed again to more laws, more bureaucracy, more staff needed. We just cannot continue down this road. I submit that the extra burden of increasing the workload on the already pressed Law Officers' Department, which, at the end of the day, will cost financially and have manpower implications, is something that Jersey just cannot afford. The response from the Council of Ministers is quite clear, that all the procedures are in place to make sure the Privy Council and the

Ministry of Justice are fully informed of the compatibility with human rights on any legislation that we produce  in Jersey. Even though I  keep reading all the time, even Mr.  Cameron  is now determined more than ever to rid the U.K. of unnecessary bureaucracy and laws that quite honestly are not needed. I submit to Members that this is another luxury we cannot afford. I am going to oppose any new unnecessary bureaucratic laws. We are a modern, small democracy and we do need to heed human rights, freedom of information, privacy rights, and more but please remember Jersey is 48 square miles and 90,000 population. I submit, as well explained by the Chief Minister, that all the procedures are in place and it is working well. With the Ministry of Justice, I have not seen anything from that department to say that our procedures and laws in human rights are in breach of any convention for which they hold responsibility for Jersey. I noted the Deputy of St. Mary saying the Council of Ministers is making a mountain out of a molehill. Well, I say to the Deputy of St. Mary if you want to continue making more laws, more bureaucracy, then somewhere along the line someone has got to pay for it. At the end of the day, we are going to be asking and the Minister for Treasury and Resources is going to be seeking savings and also not only savings but possibly increasing taxes on this Island. The public of this Island do not want more taxes. If we continue the way we are doing, now spending something like £800 million a year and we continue to increase staffing and other issues, then this Island will be bankrupt in 10 years' time. I would like to say that I have full confidence in our Attorney General and Law Officers and I have worked with the Law Officers over a period of years in Ministerial government and, as far as I am aware, there have been no issues. In fact, I sent a note to the A.G. before. I believe that Jersey has been reported on a couple of occasions - I think they were probably  housing issues - to the European Court of Human Rights and Jersey was found to be compliant in every way possible. I

noticed the Deputy of St. Saviour, Deputy Maçon pulling faces there when I mentioned that Jersey will be bankrupt. Well, at the end of the day, you are either going to tax people out of this jurisdiction or, in years to come, the way we are spending money and not having any control over the spend in this Island, then we will be, I submit. I am not going to support this proposition. I am going to be opposing in future any new laws or issues that are going to create an extra burden that is not necessary. I believe that the Chief Minister, in my view, has made a very, very good case with his Ministers and I will be supporting the Council of Ministers in this and I do not support this proposal in any way, shape or form.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I was wondering if I could ask the A.G. a question at this point. I think it might be useful for the whole Assembly. We have heard statements that passing this law is going to increase the Law Officers' workload and incur significant costs. Would you be able to confirm whether you think that is the case?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Attorney General, there is a professional golfer who is very affectionately known as "the mechanic" [Laughter] but if you would like to address the Assembly now, go ahead.

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq QC., H.M. Attorney General:

I am grateful for the advice from the Chair but I am not a golfer myself, I am afraid, [Laughter] so it is a matter that is rather lost on me. In terms of the resource implications for the Law Officers' Department, I think it is important to understand the way in which human rights advice evolves during the course of its consideration and the way in which we end up delivering it from time to time. Sometimes at the end of the process, it is possible simply to say: "We have considered everything we need to consider and we can assure you that there are no human rights issues." Sometimes we have to advise at rather greater length than that but it is not the case in most situations in which there is a single human rights analysis done of a piece of legislation. Generally what happens is that legislation comes in original draft form to the Law Officers' Department. It is evolved, changed, redrafted in response to legal advice, many of those being human rights considerations, and the human rights advice analysis is often to be found in a collection of memoranda, research documents, emails, memoranda internally, memoranda externally and it is an evolving process. What there is very seldom is a single definitive document at the end which says: "These are all the human rights issues. These are why we think you have no difficulty with them." Quite often it is very straightforward and there is no problem because that has been an evolving matter of advice over a protracted period and we have ironed out the difficulties as we went along. That, I suppose, is the first thing I should say to the Assembly. The second thing I should say to the Assembly is that we are at absolutely full stretch in terms of our resources where human rights work is concerned. We already have a backlog. I would say we are under-resourced in our ability to deal in a timely fashion with human rights matters and any increase to that workload will inevitably mean either much greater backlog or that we will simply be under-resourced and unable to deal with it and other things will suffer. There is no slack to move from one area of work to the other. We are fully committed in all our various guises within the Law Officers' Department.

[10:45]

There will inevitably be, in a large number of cases to my mind, an exercise in synthesising a definitive statement of position from a number of files to provide that advice in a single document and that will mean more work in a large number of cases. My best estimate is that that will be a sufficient amount of additional work to necessitate a further person within the Law Officers' Department although it may be the case that a portion of that person's time can be dealt with in assisting with the backlog and making things rather more efficient. But having taken the advice from my specialists within the department who deal with this work on a regular basis, and knowing the pressures that they are under, this is not, to my mind, resource-neutral for the reasons that I have explained. I might make one or 2 other observations, if I may, simply from the point of view of the legal position, of course. The Law Officers' advice is politics-neutral. It is independent. It is advice, yes, that we give to the Minister who is proposing the projet because that is what we are required to do but it is the same advice we would give in the Assembly if we were asked for it and it is the same advice we would give to a Scrutiny Panel if called before Scrutiny to ask for it. So to that extent, it is independent advice and it is distinct from the advice to an extent in the United Kingdom because I understand that it is Ministerial departments and their legal advisers that prepare the advice that goes into the statements that go before the Houses of Parliament. But the Law Officers' Department is independent and neutral so the use of the term "independent" in terms of requiring independent advice, I would suggest to the Assembly, there is independent advice. There is perhaps one further aspect that I will mention and it is absolutely a matter for the Assembly if more information is required on a routine basis. Of course it is and, as a matter of principle, there is no difficulty with providing it, provided we are resourced properly to do so. But the other point that I would mention, I think, is the nature of the report that goes to the Privy Council in putting a law forward for the Royal Assent. We have an obligation to say to the Privy Council if we think there are any difficulties which would place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. We therefore have to have done that consideration. Normally, in a

report to the Privy Council, it takes no more than a line or 2 to give that assurance, no matter what the background work might have been but the importance of me making the point at this point is that it seems to me that it would be wrong and invidious if we thought that there was a human rights issue and would therefore have to make the report to the Privy Council that I would not also feel compelled in the Assembly to draw it to the attention of Members while the matter was being subject to a debate. It would be wrong, if I were to be aware of a human rights difficulty, not tell the Members about it, and then make an adverse report to the Privy Council. So to that extent, there is a positive obligation on me to give advice  if I think there  is a difficulty within the Assembly, and those are circumstances where I would offer advice as opposed to merely waiting to be asked for it. Hopefully that gives the information that I have been asked for.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I ask a supplementary and do stop me. I am mindful that I do not want to cross the line in making a second speech but can the Attorney General confirm that it is the Minister who makes the statement of compatibility, not the Attorney General, and presumably if the Minister has to satisfy himself before, there should not be any additional work because the Minister should already be satisfied. It is simply the Minister stating the reasons for which he is satisfied.

The Attorney General:

I do not think I can comment upon the necessity for more work at the Ministerial side of things. All I can say is that if the Minister, in being guided in making his view, requires advice from the Law Officers' Department, and that needs to be in a succinct form which can be placed as a positive statement with that information, then that will require more work from the Law Officers because that is not the way that we currently deal with processing human rights  issues when we are reviewing draft legislation. Perhaps the Assembly would readily understand that it is one thing to say there is no problem and it is another thing to say: "This is absolutely fine for the following reasons", and that, I suppose, while I do not particularly wish to be compared to a car mechanic and listening to the tone of an engine, there is an element of accumulated knowledge and wisdom which only a professional can bring to bear on a particular issue without necessarily having intellectually to recreate the wheel every time they deal with and look at an issue. In creating that into a positive statement, that is a much greater exercise to my mind and that is why I think there are resource implications.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Could I just ask a question of the Attorney General because I have a statement of compatibility. This is the one that was used yesterday and it says: "In the view of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the provisions of the draft Income Tax Law are compatible with convention rights." So he is saying here is a view. How would that Minister have got that information? Would there not have been some resource implication from the Law Officers' Department in the first place? There must have been, surely.

The Attorney General:

Undoubtedly; I work on the assumption, which I believe to be correct, that statements made by Ministers of compatibility for human rights matters are made in the very great part on the basis of legal advice provided by the Law Officers' Department. A Minister will take his own cognisance of whether or not he can make such a statement and certainly one of the important factors I am sure will be the legal advice that he has received. But the way that that legal advice is communicated to the Minister via his officers is much more along the lines of a dialogue in a large number of cases and it is a simple definitive statement and I do not think I can assist much more.

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

I have to say I found that very useful so thank you, Attorney General, for that. I just want to focus on a few issues and I was going to talk about the prisoners' issue which I am glad Deputy Southern has brought up. But although I feel very strongly on those matters, I have to say I agree in quite a big way with Senator Le Main. I am no fan of a P.C. (politically correct) society just for the sake of it but I do not think we are really talking about that in this today. We are talking about the serious issues of human rights, hopefully not the absurdities, because listening to the Chief Minister, I could not help but think that really he just gave us a list of excuses. It did seem to sum up, I am afraid, the approach to democracy that his Executive often displays, really looking for reasons why we cannot or should not instead of the benefits of why it might be worth it to do so. I just do not think that can be the right and the best way to go about government. I have to add that I had a chuckle with him rolling out the line that we must not spend more money 2 weeks after asking us to support him in another £15 million. It just seems that old line is used whenever it is convenient and I think anyone listening to him on the radio must laugh at us all. The other thing he brought up was about Scrutiny. Well, listening to him, does he really suggest that then Scrutiny should start pulling every law into: "Look out because I suppose we could do that and what impact would that have on government?" I am not a fan of Scrutiny in its present form, as most people know. I just think it ties us up often looking at total irrelevancies and stops us doing more important things, but if we are really meant to go down this line, as I think it was Deputy Tadier said, who is a human rights expert in here? So we are going to spend all our time trying to work out whether a law is indeed human rights compliant. Frankly, from the Chief Minister, that was an absurd suggestion. But what I really wanted to focus on is at a more base level, if you like, this argument from the Chief Minister that there is nothing defective in what we do. Well, I am afraid I believe that this shows a complete detachment of reality because if we look just a little further down the line to some of what is done in the name of this government, we see that that argument absolutely holds no water whatsoever and I will just touch on the one example, because it is a

personal example of what I went through before I got elected, and I am not going to bore Members again with all the details. I only roll it out when it is convenient. I was forced to stand for election as a part of legislation supported by this House where I could not access money owed to me for hours I had worked on behalf of Jersey. I could not access annual leave I was entitled to. Now, this was human rights compliant apparently, the same human rights compliance I imagine that said I could use that time or access those monies to go out and work in the campaign for a Member of the Council of Ministers. Completely absurd and that was confirmed for me by my lawyer. He said: "You could absolutely win this case on a human rights basis. Trouble is, just 2 little things. Have you got the time and, more importantly, have you got the money?" Well, I did not have the money but how did that come into being? If there is nothing defective in what this House does, how could such a thing be slipped into legislation? Completely absurd, so there are defects and you would expect it in government. There are always going to be defects but surely the issue is that once we see those, we do something about it and I think really that is what the Deputy of St. Martin is asking us to do, to be quite clear at that key starting point that we have got it right. I have to say with the Attorney General if his office is understaffed, then we should be doing something about that because it is a fundamental aspect of government. So I think he has made a good pitch for some additional staff. Whether it is listened to, I do not know. When the Deputy says it is making a mountain out of a molehill, I think that is quite true in trying to object to what the Deputy of St. Martin is. I get that awful feeling again that the real issue is who is bringing it and that is sad if it is the case for some people because the Deputy of St. Martin does go away and he does do his homework and he is not a time-waster, I have to say. I have got every respect for him. I will close on this. It cannot be the right way to go about business waiting to be pulled up afterwards for things that you could have and should have noticed at the onset. I think it is quite logical what the Deputy of St. Martin is asking us to do. As I say, I am with Senator Le Main. I am not a fan of a P.C. society. When I was at university doing my course, it got to the stage where some people said you could not say "manhole", you could not say "blackboard". That is the absurd level of human rights, and it is ridiculous, but I think what the Deputy of St. Martin is really concerned about is the real key fundamental issues and I think we should all be committed to that. It is common sense what he is asking us to do. I think it is important that the House does send out the message that we do take human rights seriously and the best way to do that, I believe, is to support him in what he is asking.