States Meeting Transcript - 02.02.2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 2ndFEBRUARY 2011

PERSONAL STATEMENTS.....................................................................5

1. Personal statement by the Chief Minister regarding the resignation of Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade as the Minister for Housing........................................5

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

2. Personal Statement by Deputy S. Power regarding his resignation as the Minister for Housing....................................................................................5

2.1 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................5

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................7

3. Standing Orders: additional signatories on propositions (P.174/2010) - resumption...7

3.1 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:..........................................................7

1. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................7
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................7
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................8
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................10

5. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................11
6. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................12
7. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................13
8. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................14
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................16
10. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................16

4. Jersey Consumer Council: future mandate (P.182/2010)..............................19

4.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................20

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................21
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................21
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................25
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................26
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................26

6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................26
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................26

5. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Amendment No. 18) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.185/2010)..................................................30

5.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................31 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour (Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.....................32

6. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 11) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.186/2010) ..........................33

6.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................33

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................33
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................33 Deputy T.A. Vallois (Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):....................................33

7. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Amendment No. 14) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.187/2010) ..........................35

7.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................35

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................35
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................35

8. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Former Hospital Scheme) (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.188/2010)..................36

8.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................37

9. Draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 201- (P.191/2010) - as amended........38

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................38

2. Draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 201- Proposition of Deputy of St. John to take matter in camera...................................................................39

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................39
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................40

3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................40
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................41
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................41

6. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................41
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................41
8. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................41
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................42

3. Draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 201- (P.191/2010) - as amended - resumption...............................................................................43

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................43
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................43
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................43
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................44
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................44 Deputy T.A. Vallois (Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):....................................45

4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................45

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................46
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................47
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................47 The Attorney General:........................................................................48
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................49
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................50
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................50
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................51
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................52

5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................55

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................55
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................55
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................56

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................57 [12:58]............................................................................................57 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................57

10. Jersey Police Authority: establishment (P.192/2010)..................................57

10.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (the Minister for Home Affairs):............................57

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................60
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................61
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................61
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................62
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................63
6. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................63
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................63
8. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................65
9. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................65
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:...................................................65
11. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..............................................................66
12. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................66
13. Senator B.I. Marquand:............................................................66

11. Draft Employment (Minimum Wage) (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.193/2010)..............................................................................69

11.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):...................................69

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................69
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................70
3. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................70
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................70
5. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................70
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................70

12. Standing Orders: minimum lodging periods – revision (P.194/2010)..................73

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................73

2. Standing Orders: minimum lodging periods – revision (P.194/2010) – amendment (P.194/2010 Amd.).......................................................................74

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................74
2. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................75
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................75
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................76
5. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................76
6. Senator T.A. Sueur:..................................................................76
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................77
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................78
9. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................79
10. The Deputy of St. Martin:..........................................................79

3. Standing Orders: minimum lodging periods – revision (P.194/2010) - as amended...81

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................81
2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................81
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................82
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................82
5. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................82
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................83

7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................84
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................85
9. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................85
10. The Connétable of St. Saviour:....................................................86
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:..............................................................86
12. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................87

13. Assistant Ministers: Notification of Appointments and Dismissals (P.5/2011)........89

13.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................90

13.1.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................90

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................91

14. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......91

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................91
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................92

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

[9:30]

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

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chief Minister, you have an announcement, I understand.

PERSONAL STATEMENTS

1. Personal statement by the Chief Minister regarding the resignation of Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade as the Minister for Housing

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

In accordance with Article 22(4) of the States of Jersey Law, I can advise that I have today received from Deputy Sean Power of St. Brelade a letter advising me of his resignation as Minister for Housing. In the months that Deputy Power has been Minister and previously in his term as Assistant Minister for Housing, he has been enthusiastic and dedicated in his task of developing initiatives for the best future of housing policy in the Island. He has earned the support of officers, staff and clients of the Housing Department in his dedication as well as championing the needs of those seeking affordable housing. In accordance with Article 23 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 I shall bring forward a nomination for a replacement as Minister for Housing at the next sitting which is within the prescribed period set out in Standing Order 113(3).

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. Deputy Power, I understand you have a personal statement to make.

2. Personal Statement by Deputy S. Power regarding his resignation as the Minister for Housing

2.1 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Yes, Sir, I will be as brief as possible. At a meeting yesterday, the Council of Ministers expressed a view that I should resign as Minister for Housing and I have now done so. The background is this. On 5th August 2010 - it was about lunchtime - I visited the States building to pick up some files I had left in my locker. There were workmen in the area putting in the new lockers in the computer room. I noticed a printed email document sitting on its own, face-up on one of the printers nearest the wall. Because it was face-up, it had already been read. The front page appeared to be an email between 2 Members of the States dated 3rd August. The following pages appeared to be, at first glance, an email to one of the 2 Members from her former partner. I do not remember the date of the email. I do remember the detail. In view of the inflammatory nature of the email sent by the former partner, I was not sure what to do as there were workmen in and out of the building.

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Sir, is this not breaching data protection, going into the contents of the emails? Deputy S. Power:

Sir, I am not going into the contents.

The Deputy of Grouville :

Going into the nature. This statement breaches data protection as did Deputy Power's statement to the media that he forwarded to all States Members yesterday and his interview with CTV last night. He went into details about what was in the emails, which he has been found guilty of breaching the Data Protection Codes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , Deputy Power has been permitted by the Bailiff to make a personal statement and he is able to do so.

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Yes, sorry, Sir, I was going to interrupt before Deputy Labey . I would like to say that he infers that

The Deputy Bailiff :

This is not the moment for other speeches. It is not a moment for other contributions, Deputy . Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, I would just like to put on record that the Deputy wants to be very careful what he misleads in this House. I am very sorry, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Please sit down. This is simply not a moment for other contributions. It is a personal statement which is being made by the Deputy .

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, then we will be allowed to give a personal statement too. Thank you, Sir. Deputy S. Power:

In view of the inflammatory nature of the email sent by the former partner, I was not sure what to do as there were workmen in and out of the building. I quickly scanned the document and emailed it to myself. I put the email in my bag. My feelings in those minutes were at best confused. Why was this document lying around? Why was it printed and was it genuine? I took it back to my office and subsequently posted it that afternoon to the Data Protection Commissioner, that is 5th August, with a hand-written note on a compliments slip. That afternoon I then emailed the scanned document to one person and asked them their view of the document. I was then advised to delete the scanned document and did so. My mistake was this act of scanning and forwarding to a third party. I have been found to be in breach of a Regulation of the Data Protection Law 2005 by the Data Protection Commissioner. Consequently, and as a result of this, I am in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. I accept that I made a mistake and that I breached a Regulation on this part of the Law and I also realise how easy it is to do so. I have left confidential documents - Housing documents in my case - on a printer in the same room in the past and I have had to rush back to retrieve them. I realised that I should simply have shredded this email there and then and indeed last weekend confidential documents relating to the Deputy of St. John in his role in the Chairmen's Committee were sent to me at my address and I took them to his house. However, the contents of the email referred to were, in my opinion, such that I did want the Data Protection Commissioner to see it and I did not want to leave the email where it was. I made no attempt to cover-up. My recipient assured me that they had deleted their copies of the offending document the next day and that no copy of the document was forwarded to any other person. The fact that it did end up on an internet site in August may have been due to the fact that another party may have picked it up between either 3rd, 4th or 5th August 2010 in the States computer room where it had been lying for over 24 hours. An overt threat against any serving States Member is unacceptable and while I have made a mistake in this case and regret my actions, I am glad that I did send the offending email to the Data Protection Commissioner and that it has been investigated and concluded. The threat of a vote of no confidence in this Council of Ministers is now averted and I hope that their fears are allayed. However, I would have reservations serving on a Council of Ministers that would roll-over at the slightest whiff of trouble and eat cordite. A lot of innovative and good work has been done within the Housing Department in the last 2 years, both with my predecessor, Senator Le Main - who it was a pleasure to work with - and it is now in good shape to carry on. The Housing Transformation Programme is now on full-ahead and the team at Housing

are a great bunch of men and women. I apologise to them for leaving them after just over 2 years of work. I also thank my Assistant Minister for his loyalty and hard work in the last 8 months. The worry related to this whole episode did affect my health throughout November and December and while I am now fully recovered, it is with a great deal of relief that I return to my duties in St. Brelade.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

3. Standing Orders: additional signatories on propositions (P.174/2010) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, we now return to the debate on P.174/2010 and I call on Deputy Shona Pitman to speak. [9:45]

3.1 Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

I just have a question for the proposer. There has been a lot of talk about how undemocratic this proposition will be if successful. I would like to know from him if he can answer this: how is this system that he is proposing more democratic than current practice, and I do not mean Minister time constraints or workloads. If he cannot figure that out, then he should withdraw this proposition.

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

I am not sure I do wish to speak because yesterday I was very disappointed. The debate, I felt, did not show the House in a good light. I had thought I would support the proposition because I had hoped that having to discuss and persuade 7 other Members in order to endorse your proposition would have generally sorted out the hidden issues and raised the standards of the proposition. However, having heard some Members say that they would endorse a proposition automatically, possibly without even reading or examining it, I was appalled. This has nothing to do with democracy. Members are objecting because it will be harder to bring an instant knee-jerk proposition. Realistically, that is what their objection is. Endorsing automatically would make Members look irresponsible and lazy. Even more, I think, it is more important to say it would make this House look irresponsible and ridiculous. I do not always agree with Deputy Tadier but he was correct when he said he would not put his name to a proposition he had not examined. Neither would I. To do otherwise makes a mockery of our responsibilities and the trust placed in us by the electorate. How can we criticise Ministers and their projets if we do not even read what we endorse? We must do better than that. We have a duty to take our responsibilities seriously. I am afraid that I cannot rely on Members to be responsible and therefore I regret I cannot support this proposition.

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I was going to say last night that I have little doubt that Senator Routier was responding to the fact that there have been too many propositions which are lodged and then tabled for the debate and get nowhere. We have to be honest and frank among ourselves and say that the standing by which this Assembly is held in the community outside is probably - I regret to say, for some of those reasons - at an all-time low. I do not think that we can rest with a continuation of the status quo in the way in which numerous debates have been lodged. I agree completely with the words of the Constable of St. Saviour in terms of the comments that he made about propositions and people not reading them. There are too many propositions which have been lodged and which this Assembly has debated and then there has been no beneficial result apart from people outside this Assembly thinking that individuals could be said to be grandstanding. Maybe this proposition probably is not going to succeed. I will support it because I think it is a responsible check in terms of at least propositions having a second reading. I think I agreed with Senator Breckon in what he said yesterday. I think that he was indicating that if this proposition does not go forward, maybe there is another

intermediate step that could be put in place: that a proposition is lodged but cannot be debated until there are a number of supporters which at least indicate that the debate has a possibility of moving ahead. There is a problem. We have to realise that there is a problem in the way that this Assembly, the Parliament of Jersey, is held, the standing in which it is held in the wider community. One of those issues is the fact that propositions are lodged and waste time when we should be debating the important issues in politics. I can see people on the other side of the Assembly snickering at my remarks. They will say no doubt that it is issues of tax and spending that are a problem. I think that this Assembly is held up with some degree of integrity in relation to responsible decisions that are taken. This is not an issue of Ministers versus Back-Benchers. I celebrate the fact that Back-Benchers - I have done it when I was a Back-Bencher - can bring forward propositions and make a difference, and that is a fantastic situation for our unique political system but unfortunately it is not working to the extent that it should. There is a problem and we need to, I think, accept that there is an issue and we need to reform our procedures accordingly. I will support it and if it is not supported, I think P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) has a job of work to do in at least putting an intermediate step before issues are tabled for debate.

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

I am really pleased to follow the Minister for Treasury and Resources because he highlighted a lot of the problems in this government, albeit probably not in the way he intended. The real issue, I think, we are held in pretty low esteem and I have to say that what we have seen this morning really goes a long way to explaining why. As someone said, the Ministry of Sleaze and that is sad that we are seen that way when we all know that this has gone on for months and the Council of Ministers have not acted because, as we know, they must have their way. Again, this is what this proposition is about. It has got nothing to do with enhancing democracy. I just pick up on what the Constable of St. Saviour said. I said I would sign anything that did not go against my principles of social democracy and social justice, so I would read everything and I have to laugh when I realise and think about the fact that only a couple of weeks ago we saw a proposal on Deputies pulled out at the last minute by the Member behind me on the BlackBerry instruction of the Minister for Treasury and Resources because it was seen to come and this is the low standard of person who cannot even think for themselves. We say we do not want party politics but I am sorry, the Minister for Treasury and Resources is very good at what he does. He is the big whip-master. He gets it out and he gets things done and he is very effective, but the way this democracy has been eroded and the time wasted, as we have seen with a democratic decision taken to remove 2 Senators' posts, and we see all the desperate vested interests. We saw another one in the paper yesterday, another former Member, who I regularly used to see sitting out there with a cup of coffee when he should have been in here, and it is quite shocking. People do not want that any more. This is not just a club for the wealthy, I am afraid. It is a democracy. It is the Island's Government and what we really need is for democratic issues to be heard and to be brought forward. Really, Senator Routier, I think, sums up why some of my residents down at Albert Quay have had such problems because he seems to have so little to do that he could suggest that people wake up one morning and think: "I will put in a proposition today." What a crazy idea. Now, I know the term "barking" was used yesterday and nobody got pulled up so perhaps I can use it, because I normally do get pulled up, but what a barking idea that is. I bring issues if I think a serious minimum wage whatever, they are serious issues. They might not fit in with the Minister for Treasury and Resources' idea to turn Jersey into Corporation Jersey, do away with the public sector, survival of the fittest and the wealthiest. The poor can eat cake if they cannot afford bread. I am afraid this is about governments, about differing views. We have all got them and this constant drift towards suppressing democracy coming from the Council of Ministers or some to be fair, not all, is really bringing Jersey to a crisis point. I have voted since I was 18, I think, and I think I have heard every election and Senator Le Main will not mind me saying that but every time I think I have heard him stand, he has told the Island we are at crossroads. It is one of his catchphrases, I think and I think now we are at the crossroads. So if he is standing next time, he can say it. We have been brought

to these crossroads by the vested interests of an elite or people who think they are an elite. As was in that book I held up yesterday, saying about there is objection to the peasants being in power, well, I am sorry, but the peasants are as good as anyone else and the peasants have a right to a voice like everyone else. It is absolute nonsense. I could get 7 signatures for anything because I would not bring anything totally absurd, and if I did bring something it would be because I felt very strongly or my constituents had brought it up to my attention and I thought it needed debate. I am not going to bring something absolutely ludicrous and perhaps get 3 votes just for the sake of getting a good kicking, as Deputy Southern has had over the years. It is nonsense. Really I would ask Senator Routier to withdraw this because I am happy to sign up and say I will read things and if it does not conflict with my principles of social justice, I will support a Member to bring their issues further and their constituents' issues. So really that negates what this Senator is trying to do. This is all about control. It is all about this concentrating power in the hand and as a member of the public said to me the other day, they are quite appalled that it seems that democracy is an inconvenience for some of these Senators. They want to troll off to whatever they do, their day jobs. Well, that is fine. If people have got day jobs, go and do those day jobs. No one is asking them to be politicians. They are not forced. If democracy is a secondary interest to how much money they can make, fine. It is a fact. People are sick of it and now we have got this other nonsense coming up about length of speeches. I am not going to speak for 3 hours but completely fictitious arguments are put up that everyone does: "Everybody knows that he will speak for 3 hours." You are not going to sway anyone. In fact, you do not sway anyone here with most speeches because, sadly, half the people who have a righteous mentality, they have come in and they are going to do exactly as they are told. They are not even going to listen to the debate and we see it regularly when the Deputy of St. Mary gets up to speak, or Deputy Southern : people disappear and that is really bad and that is why I highlighted my respect for someone like the Constable of St. Lawrence a few weeks ago. I come into this House and I am willing to listen and I might not agree with the proposition but I am willing to listen and consider it. What is so wrong for Senator Routier and some of those Members? I have to say that the people who have got in touch with me: "Go back to your day job if you do not want to be a politician." Democracy, as I think Deputy Southern said, is a messy business because in this House time is taken up again because people are concerned about vested interests. They did not like a democratic decision about Senators. Well, I stuck to what I said at the election so I am not going to change my mind. The arguments, there was no new evidence as Senator Le Gresley said at the time, and that is what really takes up this House's time and the waffling answers, the evasive answers. I am sorry, but with due respect to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, at question time, I have never seen a man manage to avoid answering a question so many times. It is an absolute skill that he has honed

to perfection and I do not think even Jeremy Paxman could draw it out of him.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you think you could return to the proposition, please?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is all relevant, Sir, I think, with due respect.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The question - the proposition - is whether or not there should be additional signatories Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Absolutely not, Sir, but I think Deputy Tadier is quite right. It will draw people properly together and if party is the way you want to go, again, Senator Routier really does not seem to know how it works in this Assembly. I talk to people about propositions. There are at least 12 of us who exchange emails. Luckily we only exchange our own emails but there we go. People do talk about issues. We are in a minority at the moment on this side of the House but people are getting so disgusted with the way democracy has been dragged down and this 7 signature thing, it is just going to add to that. Again, it is really a wrecking motion. I am not going to go on about the way I approach propositions and I just wish some other people would have that mature approach. We have all got different views and they all should be allowed to be heard, and I would ask Senator Routier to withdraw this. I for one say that if this is going to go through - I am not going to support it - but if it does, there are only 16 of us left in Scrutiny. It is the final straw for me. I will be leaving Scrutiny and focusing on putting in propositions and perhaps the Deputy of St. Martin has been right all along. He works very well on his own. I thought people should work together but maybe he is right. This should be rejected. It is just a complete undermining of democracy, another step down the slippery slope.

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

I am happy to follow that speech. I thought it was a very good speech, a very uncomfortable speech for some Members and Senator Shenton is laughing. No doubt Senator Shenton might think that it is a good idea if we have a certain number of voters behind our propositions before we bring those to give them some form of legitimacy. He recently criticised the fact that Members - and I am included in that group - who voted to reduce the number of Senators in the Assembly. I find that ironic. It was the same Senator who brought a proposition to do exactly the same thing in November 2006 which was debated on 1st and 2nd May, reduce the number of Senators by 4, a 4- year term, one single election day. This same Senator thinks that democracy is somehow achieved by the number of votes one receives. When I last stood in a Senatorial election, there was no expenses limit and that was one of the things that Senator Shenton did introduce in his proposition and people could literally buy their way into politics. That is what I would put to Members is what has happened on occasions; and influence, and is this not about influence?

[10:00]

Is bringing propositions and the number of signatures that one needs and the sorts of people that one needs on those papers not about influence? We have a proposal to require propositions to have 7 signatures. When I stood for Senator encouraged by the former Senator's father and nominated by the former Senator's father, it was on a work permit basis. I did not achieve 4 votes when it came to that Assembly voting on the issue but I was returned fourth by the electorate in the Senatorial elections and I am sure that you would recall that the vast majority of my aim at that time was about introducing work permits and the difficulties around the human rights implications that were considered at the time. The fact of the matter is that I was returned fourth from being a new Deputy in this Island as a Senator without spending a fortune on a one-ticket platform, work permits. I got to this Assembly and I got 4 votes. So how does it translate into democracy? How does 7 signatures on a proposition translate into it being better thought through, better understood when Members have said already that they are willing to sign anything? I have signed practically anything but not just anything. I have signed practically anything to ensure that they had the right to bring their debate. I would certainly cast my eye across it but I would sign practically anything also just to give people that legitimacy of bringing to this Assembly what they said they would do when they stood on the election platform, even if they only had 4 votes. I stood again on the Deputies' elections and said again I would bring work permits, and I did again and I did not receive much more than 4 or 5 votes on that occasion most recently also. I am afraid we are at the tipping point and I know that has upset Senator Shenton. I know that some of the speeches in the debate have upset people and I know that possibly Deputy Pitman's speech has upset people and it has been uncomfortable. My speech is probably upsetting some people so let us go a little bit further and see if we can upset some more. Senator Ozouf talks about the fact that the standing of States Members has gone down in the eyes of the public. Gone down? No. Driven down. Driven down at every election prior to the elections to ensure that businessmen have a foot in to get behind the Senator and his covert political party. He talks about the integrity of decisions when he himself is facing an issue in relation to the integrity of the decision he made on G.S.T. (Goods and Services

Tax). He says that P.P.C. has a job of work to do. Well, I would say P.P.C. has an enormous job of work to do to make sure that ordinary representatives of this community are protected from such antidemocratic propositions as this and the calls for the support of them by people like Senator Ozouf who has huge sway and influence in the media and in the business community in this Island. The vast majority of people in this Island do not work for the media. The vast majority of people in this Island do not work and do not live the lives of the privileged. They are finding life extremely tough. They have, for many years, been disenfranchised through disinterest, their votes not equating to action and results in this Assembly, but one thing is for certain, if this proposition, and I warned about it yesterday, goes through, then politicians such as myself and Deputy Pitman and others will have no other thing to do than knock on doors and unify people to represent them to ensure that the vast majority of people who are constantly ignored bring their vote and bring it into action in this Assembly. If that is the divide that this Council of Ministers wants, this control freak Council of Ministers, cut it down. I like the words Deputy Pitman used: this drift to suppressing democracy. We have seen in my time in only 10 years a considerable clampdown on the rights and the abilities of States Members to do what they want to do in the way they feel that they should do it and in the manner in which they are allowed to do it. We see this from Senator Routier and more to come. We do not have anything to do. This Assembly is a rubberstamping exercise. It is good for speeches, that is all. I have made this point in the last little while. We have been disenfranchised. We cannot deliver any change. All we can do is request. I will go the States and ask the Ministers. They can totally ignore me but that is all I can do. All I can do is ask the Ministers. Now I need 7 other Members to ask the Ministers because the Ministers think I should have 7 friends asking me to ask them: "Go away, Paul, and get 7 friends and come back and ask me and then I will tell you what I think." It cannot be done. No, I am sorry. I do not like to get in between the Members that have come from one part of this community and the other. I think that we should be pulling together as one bigger community, and I am going to be bringing a proposition to return this Assembly to small committees because I see this Ministerial system as the most divisive and destructive thing that this Island has had to put up with since the Second World

War.

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

I do not want to upset anybody. I want to make a few remarks. This proposition is brought in the name of States efficiency. How we debate matters would be one thing we could look at just to take a little example of the context of improving things. On the back page of the report to this proposition is a copy of procedures in Guernsey. I notice there something that I have long thought and sent to the working group on States efficiency, which is the format of a debate. There the proposer gets the right to sum up, just as they do here, but the main opposer, i.e. the Minister in the case of a Back-Bencher's proposition or the leading opponent of that proposition, also has the right to sum up before the final summing-up of the proposer. So the structure is A, B, then the debate, B, A. So you get the 2 summings-up of the opposing points of view. Now that sounds like one extra speech but, in fact, it would serve to shorten debates because it would make sure that the cases for and against were put at the beginning which sometimes they are not at the moment. Then the debate is all in context and then the 2 gladiators, if you like, sum up at the end. Then that would get away from the: "I will wait and try and be the last speaker before the summing up" syndrome, which I have noticed and people sort of playing games with when they speak. That is one little improvement. I am not saying we should do it. I am just saying that is the kind of thing that we should be looking at. The other is in committee debates. We have had 2 occasions recently where there have been multiple options in front of the Assembly and we do not do it well. We just plough through the amendments in order. All the amendments relate to each other and we get ourselves into quite a pickle whereas, in fact, we have the mechanism but we do not seem to use it of the in- committee debate where people can come back, tease-out the issues and then we proceed to the formal voting bit on the different options. Those are just 2 suggestions that I am saying are more realistic and more helpful and the kind of areas we should be looking at in the context of an overall

review. So what is this proposition supposed to be about? What should it be about? The quality of propositions and the number of propositions. That is what we are really looking at, is it not, one that some people have said there is a problem with the quality of propositions. Okay, so, let us address the quality of propositions. Why not have some kind of .. not format, not tick box A, B, C, D, you have got to write paragraphs on these, but at least your proposition must state what the problem is. It must state the background to that issue, alternative solutions to the problem and why they are not being proposed, the actual solution, research carried out, consultation and of course social, environmental and economic aspects and financial and manpower statements. If you have some kind of template, then a proposition would come with a report that had the necessary information in it. There should be a way of creating that filter on the quality of propositions and that would, in fact, serve to have an effect on the number of propositions. When we look at the number of propositions, why are there so many propositions? Well, people have referred time and again to the split in this Assembly and the fact that for a Back-Bencher there often is no other way than to bring a proposition if a department, or a Minister seems to be missing out on a certain area, or there is an over-arching concept that just is not being handled at all, then you have to bring a proposition. So that too, in the context of the way we operate, maybe we could reduce the number of propositions by improving the overall feel in this Assembly. So really, in summary, tinkering; this is tinkering. It is not taking an overall view of what the issues are and how we can improve the way we operate. We do need to improve the way we operate. The Minister for Treasury and Resources is quite right. There are too many propositions. We do talk for too long in here about this, that and the other and quite often reversing things that we have talked about before, but that requires an overall view of how we can make our processes better. This proposition does not address those issues and it ignores the all-important context, and I will just remind Members of what the P.P.C.'s own working group on States Business Reform said, and I have to remind Members of this before the proposer sums up. The sub-group, and this is their findings, and they looked at all the things that people said to the representations by States Members: "The sub-group does not consider that making small adjustments around the number of propositions that may be lodged, time limit on speeches, the number of questions, to mention a few items, will make any appreciable difference without looking more deeply at why the increases in questions and individual Members' propositions is occurring" and they go on to talk about the exclusivity of the Ministerial system of government. That is the conclusion of the working group that was set up by P.P.C. with a range of people on it, Deputy Fox, Deputy Higgins and chaired by the Deputy of St. Peter and that was their conclusion. Then they recommended that P.P.C. undertake an overall review - either a quickie or a bigger one - into all these processes to come up with some better solutions for the way we work and their final statement, and I have to remind Members of this, I said it yesterday, I do not apologise for saying it again. Remember this is, in my view, tinkering. It is not taking the overall view. What did they say: "If a review of the current recommendations is approved, the sub-group recommends that no piecemeal amendments to Standing Orders are made in advance of such a group reporting back." The Chairman of P.P.C. says so. Yesterday she said we should not be going down this road of a little bit here and a little bit there. It reminds you of trying to reform our electoral processes, does it not? We just pick at the scab and we pick at the

scab and we do not get there. We do not make the genuine improvements that we need and that the public deserves. Other jurisdictions have procedures on propositions. Have we looked at them? Have we presented any coherent picture of that? No. So I do urge Members to reject this proposition because it just has not taken into account the context. It is not part of an overall plan. It is simply tinkering.

6. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

Having already adopted Senator Routier's proposition in my proposition P.2, I have experienced first-hand the benefit of doing so and to date I am the only Member of this Assembly to have done that. Having gone through the process of finding 7 endorsers allowed me to discuss my proposition with others prior to debate and to refine my arguments and to test my ideas. I did not continue with

my proposition on that day only because I knew it was not going to receive the required 28 votes, and that was based on the mood of this Assembly with the previous debate of Senator Cohen. Deputy Trevor Pitman claims that he would not bring a proposition to this Assembly if he was only going to get 3 votes, his words, not mine, but if my memory serves correctly, one of his previous propositions only received 2 votes. I believe that having 7 endorsers is a healthy evolution of our Standing Orders.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I would just like to say that that is not true what I said. Sorry, I know you are not with us very often, Senator, because you are normally skiving off but

The Deputy Bailiff :

Can I just say to Deputy Trevor Pitman that Standing Order 104(2) says a Member of the States must not use offensive or insulting language about any Member of the States and really it is appropriate to try and raise the level of debate it seems to me in this Assembly. The Deputy of St. Martin.

[10:15]

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

I was going to say I was pleased to follow the Deputy of St. Mary because what he is saying really makes a lot of sense. I wanted to speak earlier to follow Senator Ozouf because one of the problems we have in the House is that people are in and out. We do have to leave the Chamber, I accept that. I have to go out at times. But yesterday, I gave a breakdown of the 29 propositions that had been withdrawn and this proposition is all about the frustration about the numbers that were withdrawn and yet when one looks at how the 29 have been withdrawn, I think most of them have been withdrawn or pulled for good reasons, 11 by the Ministers themselves with P.P.C. P.P.C. pulled 2. One they brought forward the media or the Code of Practice. Now, personally, I thought that was a pretty poor proposition, in fact, so much so that I almost rewrote the thing. I met P.P.C. I discussed it with P.P.C. and as a result of my meeting with P.P.C., P.P.C. withdrew their own proposition who had the freedom of information, another P.P.C. one. That has been on the desk for how much work that has been done. That was pulled by P.P.C. and I respect their right to do so because they felt it was right. When one looks at some of the other propositions lodged by the Ministers, I accept the reasons for it. Likewise, some of the propositions have been put by the A-Team' by non-Ministers. They have been lodged for a reason and they have been pulled for a good reason. I can look around the Chamber and I know that I will get nodding heads from those in agreement with me saying: "Yes, when I brought my proposition, I thought it was a very good idea to do it" and sometimes by lodging that proposition, action follows through and, in fact, we have got a classic, I think. We have heard Senator Perchard talk about a line in the sand yesterday. I think his proposition about the fee increases in private schools really got some action going as a result of his proposition. It was pulled but rightly so because we had some action taken by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. There are sometimes very good reasons for bringing propositions forward and then withdrawing them, as indeed I think Deputy Le Claire said yesterday. Some of his have been withdrawn simply because action has followed and then has resulted in no debate to follow. In many ways, that is the merit of bringing forward propositions and it is just one of the opportunities for people like myself - those who are non-Ministers - to bring forward propositions with a hope of making change, and that is certainly one of the reasons why I was elected. But to come back to the Deputy of St. Mary because what he is saying, quite rightly, is that this is piecemeal. I met P.P.C. last week again because I was concerned that we have got propositions to the House here and there are going to be knock-on effects. I put a proposition to one of Senator Routier's and I do not really think that I have really thought it should have been a stand-alone but having discussed with the Greffier, one puts it in as an amendment to Senator Routier's. But I would ask maybe Senator Routier not only withdraws this particular proposition but also withdraws the other 2 that he has and then come back and discuss it with P.P.C. and we can look at the things in the round because there are other knock-on effects. If we agree to this one, we have really got to come back and say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to expect individual Members to have 7 signatures, then it must follow throughout for everything. It should include amendments as well and if you are going to include amendments, how are you going to get 7 signatures in such a short time? As I say, I do not think the whole proposition has been thought out. The Deputy of St. Mary, I think, has reminded us about the good work undertaken by the Deputy of St. Peter and his group, and what we are doing is flying in the face of it. So I would ask maybe if Senator Routier, who has been in the House a long time, a senior States Member now, withdraw it; withdraw your other 2 as well. Go to P.P.C. and let us discuss this in the round in accordance with, was it R.58, I think it was, 59, and that is what we have asked P.P.C. to do. Withdraw this one and the other 2, and I would ask him to do so now, save us wasting more time.

8. Senator J.L. Perchard:

It is true that I did recently lodge a proposition requesting that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture bring to the States his plans to amend the subsidy paid to fee-paying schools and, as a result of that proposition being lodged, the Minister conceded and subsequently the proposition was withdrawn. But I would have had no fear of asking 7 other Members to support that and I think probably I would have had no problem getting 7 Members to support that proposal because it was a sensible proposal. It is with regret that I have heard a couple of speeches this morning that do this House a discredit really. The tone of some of these speeches is unnecessarily provocative and aggressive and confront Members on an unequal basis, and I urge Members to just consider whether they are doing themselves, let alone this House, a service when they make some of these inflammatory speeches and remarks about other Members. One Member spoke this morning against the proposition. He said: "I would never bring a ludicrous proposition to the States. I would never bring an absurd proposition to the States." So that Member accepts that it is possible that there would be a ludicrous proposition brought to the States or an absurd proposition to the States but not by himself. That is really what this is all about. It is to stop that ludicrous or absurd proposition being brought to this House. It is important, and the Constable of St. Lawrence has said quite eloquently yesterday, when debating the amendment that the rights of the minority are protected and I am a champion for the minority and I am often, it seems, in this place in the minority these days but the majority have a right as well. In my opinion, the majority of the Members of this Assembly have rights as well. Currently, a single Member is able to abuse the power and trust that they have been given through Standing Orders of the States. They are able to

bring, as has been admitted by Deputy Trevor Pitman, a ludicrous or absurd proposition. To me, that is an abuse.  If they are the only person in this Assembly with that view, it is an abuse of the authority and power that they have been given by Standing Orders. If a proposition is not worthy to achieve the support of 7 Members to the principle of it, it is not worthy of coming to this Chamber. It is a waste of not only the proposer's time but that of the rest of us and yourself, Sir, and the Greffier and all the people that are involved in recording the

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I  ask for a point of clarification? The Senator has made reference to speeches being confrontational. I do not wish to be confrontational in this intervention but surely to suggest that Members function within Standing Orders cannot be right, to accuse them of operating in an abusive fashion. Surely that cannot be right.

The Deputy Bailiff :

What is the ruling you are asking for, pursuant to what Standing Order? Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

He is misinterpreting the motives of Members when they are bringing them, Sir, and I think that that is surely part of impugning the motives of Members when they bring propositions. He has impugned the motives of many Members in a broad brush there by saying that their bringing propositions on their own is somehow abusing the powers that they have been given under Standing Orders.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I understood the Senator's argument to be that Deputy Trevor Pitman had said he would not bring ludicrous propositions. That was therefore to accept that somebody else might bring a ludicrous proposition and therefore it was right to change Standing Orders to require 7 people to subscribe to any proposition in case other Members - not Deputy Trevor Pitman - brought a ludicrous proposition. That is what I understood the Senator to say and that seems to be the agreement.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I just press you, Sir? That was not the point of order at all, Sir. I never made reference to Deputy Pitman. I said that in the speech that the Senator was

The Deputy Bailiff :

You were criticising Senator Perchard. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Pardon, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff :

You were criticising Senator Perchard to say he was out of order and I have explained why I think what he said was in order.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

But, Sir, that was not the point that I asked you to rule upon. [Laughter] [Aside] The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, then you have to try again. I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was not inferring that the comments made by Senator Perchard were in direct relation to Deputy Pitman's speech at all, Sir, but I was saying that by inferring that Members are somehow abusing their powers under Standing Orders is impugning the motives of all States Members that bring propositions that he is currently disagreeing with, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, if you are asking me to rule on whether all Members regularly speak entirely in accordance with Standing Orders, I have to say that my ruling would be that they do not. Senator.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

That sort of all went over my head a little bit, all that. I am not really sure what the point was and I regret that Deputy Le Claire thinks that I was impugning his motive, I was simply pointing out that it is possible for a Member to bring an absurd or ludicrous proposition that will only be supported by himself, and I seem to even remember a proposition being brought that was not even supported by the proposer who made it and that was quite recently. So we do have situations where the majority of Members, the vast majority - in fact, 52 Members - have to endure a ridiculous no-hope proposition that should never have made it to the floor of this Chamber. There needs to be a bar - a test - to ensure that a proposition reaches a certain level of credibility before it comes to this Chamber for debate. Senator Routier has brought a proposition which I think is quite reasonable. As I said earlier, if a proposition cannot obtain 7 Members of support, it is just not worthy of being debated in this place.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could I seek clarification from the speaker, Sir, please? The Senator talked about inflammatory nature of speeches. Is that something that he would include when you tell another Member to go and slash their wrists, because I think those are things that really upset people, not people putting things across forcibly and that did offend a lot of people. Is that something the Senator has learned?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you wish to respond, Senator? Does any other Member wish to speak?

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

It will be very brief because I had not realised the elections and the hustings had started so early. I would like to bring it back to the main points. Number one, the Deputy of St. Martin yesterday and today has demonstrated that there is absolutely no need for this particular proposition. Number 2, it is a complete nonsense because it will be overridden by the fact that Members will freely give their consent to people to bring propositions. I think it is time that we dispose of this one and move on with the rest of the business.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I will call on Senator Routier to reply.

10. Senator P.F. Routier:

This debate has taken longer than I thought it would take. We have obviously had a number of amendments yesterday which lengthened the debate and they have extended the debate, but I really would like to start by saying that at no time - and I want to make this very, very clear - has it been my intention to stop any Member bringing forward a valid, well-researched proposition. That is every Member's right to be able to do that and that is what I would hope to do. This is not an Executive versus Back-Bencher proposition at all. This is there to help this whole Assembly to be able to debate things in an orderly and good fashion. The aim really for this proposition is to give Members a bit of breathing space and thinking time before they get this germ of an idea that they want to progress to something and bring it forward to this House. It gives them the opportunity to speak with other Members to see if there is some validity to their proposition and to see if they have got a level of support because we need to get a majority of the House to support any proposition we want to bring, so I believe that it is a mechanism which is appropriate. It was Senator Breckon who told us about the times he had brought a topic for debate on a number of occasions, on 3 occasions, and on the first occasion, he did not achieve very many votes, not even the 7 that I am suggesting.

[10:30]

The second time, he brought the same topic back and he gained a few more votes and on the third time, he was successful. This was over a number of years that he was trying to achieve something and he achieved it and full marks to him. He felt that the ability of getting something on record was vitally important. But I have to say that it may have been better for him and he might have achieved his aim a lot, lot sooner if he had been speaking to other Members in the earlier days, in the first time he wanted to bring something forward. He might have achieved his success a lot, lot earlier. Deputy Southern never fails to amaze me. Yesterday afternoon he was saying that we had spent an inordinate amount of time - 2 hours - debating this matter, that we should not be wasting our time and there have also been calls today from Members to withdraw this proposition. These comments are coming from Members who want to have Members' freedom to debate anything they want. I think it is amazing that that is something that Members are calling for. The time we spend debating things is in Members' hands obviously and it always should be. Several Members spoke

of their desire to have informal discussions with other Members about topics of interest prior to debates. There were, I have to say, some very thoughtful and considered contributions and I particularly focus on Deputy Tadier 's comments who felt that there was a need for Members to pull together, to think about things and to discuss matters before coming to the House. I sense that there are a number of Members who have the same sort of feeling, that they want to discuss things before things come to the House. I would like to see teamwork. I would like to see teamwork and trying to achieve things, and Members on specific projects - whether it be social, environmental or fiscal - and then there is more likelihood of a proposition being successful. Even Deputy Duhamel expressed similar desires to have a sharing of ideas before a debate in the Assembly and this proposition will help that. It was Senator Le Gresley who said that when he first joined the Assembly he expected to have had a process to go through before a proposition was lodged, and that he would like a forum outside of this Chamber to discuss with other Members when they want to bring something forward. The Deputy of St. Mary, although he is not convinced about this proposition, I think was talking along the same sort of theme really: that there needs to be a mechanism - a forum - to discuss things before a proposition is brought here. He did say that we cannot carry on with this open access to bring propositions. His words were exactly that. He has mentioned the work - the review- that is being carried out on the States operation. I share those views. There is obviously an issue to be dealt with. Of course, the Deputy of St. John wants total democracy, as he calls it, with no restrictions at all. Of course, that is a privilege. That is a privilege we have and we all like to be able to do what we want to do. But I believe that we have a duty to accept our privileges but to be responsible. We need to be responsible of how we use our privileges. We need to be responsible of how we use our resources. We need to be responsible that we use the resources of, not only this Assembly, but also of the departments that we put pressure on for them to provide the services for our community. Both Ministers and Scrutiny members are under pressure to find time to carry out their duties outside of the Chamber. We all have a function outside of this Chamber and we need to be able to have that ability to do those duties. Scrutiny members do need to have time to scrutinise, to scrutinise the legislation which is coming forward, and any proposition that Ministers are bringing forward. They need to have that time. I am afraid to say the more time that we spend debating propositions which have little success at the outset of being successful, the less time we are able to spend in Scrutiny. It really is evident that the balance of the way we are working now has changed. I know there is a feeling that perhaps the old committee system was better and the Ministerial system is not proving to how they would like it to be, but I think this proposition does help to pull people together. It helps them to discuss things before things are brought to this House. It is not anti-democratic at all in any shape or form. As Members have seen, I have attached the Guernsey Rules of Procedure, who have a similar requirement for 7 signatures. Their rules are not anti-democratic; they do not stab in the heart of democracy. The Guernsey rules go a bit further than what I am suggesting here over a category, or the similar things that we have; an individual Member's proposition. It goes to the Policy Council before it gets to the Chamber. I am not suggesting that. I think that is a step too far. I think we need to still protect the right of Members to be able to bring propositions and this proposition does not stop that at all. All it does is put in a mechanism to enable Members to sense-check what they are bringing forward. I would like to address an issue which the Constable of St. Saviour raised this morning, and a number of other Members and Deputy Higgins raised, about if a proposition is brought forward and then any Member will go and sign it and it devalues the whole issue. What I would say to that is of course it is a Member's choice to sign it. If they are prepared to sign something without having read it or having taken note of it or really considered it, that is a matter

for them. It will be up to us as Members to think about that when that comes forward. It will be up to the electorate to think about that when they see that Members have signed things which are absolutely a waste of time, if that is what it is. That will be for the electorate to decide. I did have a thought that it would be a bit like signing a J.D.A. (Jersey Democratic Alliance) petition. I was not going to say that but I have said it now. This is a very straightforward principle focused on ensuring that propositions are well thought through and have a measure of support before this

Assembly is asked to consider a matter. I would like to thank those Members who have spoken, some have spoken in support, and those who have endorsed and countersigned the proposition. When I did discuss this proposition with the other Members before I lodged it, it was a very, very useful thing to do. They advised me and enabled me to redraft the proposition and that was a very useful function. I have to say it was a good process and it was a simple process and I would recommend it to Members to think about when they are bringing forward a proposition to do that; to get some ideas. If Members support this proposition, which I hope they will, proposers and supporters of propositions should have all considered the principles before it is lodged. We will in future have debates that will be well informed and have some initial oversight and, importantly, a measure of support. I believe what I am proposing can help all Members to achieve successful propositions. There could be an oversight and a sense-check by other Members, rather than have propositions which have not been thought through sufficiently and eventually, and unfortunately, fail for one reason or another. There is an opportunity for us all to work together more to help each other and, I believe, to use our limited resources a great deal more effectively. I maintain the proposition and ask for the appel.

Deputy S. Pitman:

Before we go to vote, the Senator did not answer my question and I wonder if he can explain how he believes his proposition, if successful, is more democratic than the current system.

Senator P.F. Routier: I have made my speech. The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, the appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

4. Jersey Consumer Council: future mandate (P.182/2010) The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we now come to P.182 - Jersey Consumer Council: future mandate - lodged in the name of the Minister for Economic Development and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to refer to their Act of the 25th April 1995 regarding the establishment of the Jersey Consumer Council and agree the following future mandate for the council; (i) to seek information, investigate, highlight and publicise anomalies and irregularities in consumer affairs and to encourage good trading practice by local business; (ii) to provide a consumer response to consultations, to advise on consumer priorities and concerns and identify anti-competitive practices in support of the statutory roles and responsibilities of the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority, the Jersey Financial Services Commission, the Department of Economic Development, other relevant departments, and in future a financial ombudsman; (iii) to provide consumers with adequate, accurate and timely information so that they are able to make informed decisions and to know their rights in doing so, where this is not already adequately provided  for  by  the  activities  of  relevant  statutory  agencies  of  the  Economic  Development Department, to include the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority, the Jersey Financial Services Commission, and  any  future  financial ombudsman; (b)  to  request the Minister  for  Economic Development to take the necessary steps to provide for the council's effective operations by (i) preparing for the establishment of the council as a separate legal entity able to rent accommodation and enter into employment and research/consultancy contracts in its own right and to bring a proposition to the States for approval by July 2011; (ii) recommending to the States for approval the appointment of a Chairman who should not be limited to being a States Member, and should be appointed in accordance with the Jersey Appointment Commission's Code of Good Practice; (iii) appointing the members of the board of the council in accordance with the Jersey Appointment Commission's  Code  of  Good  Practice,  which  membership  should  be  fully  representative  of consumer  interests  generally,  with  the  opportunity  to  co-opt  individuals  with  appropriate experience/expertise to assist in the undertaking of research or to form consumer focus groups; (iv) requiring the council to present to the States an annual report and accounts; (v) requiring the council to present an annual business plan to the Minister for Economic Development; (vi) seeking to obtain funding for the council through a States grant, to be supplemented by private donations and/or  members'  subscriptions  so  that  it  is  able  to  carry  out  a  proper  programme  of investigations/research in respect of those matters that fall within the remit of the council; (vii) ensuring that there is a clear and specific line of responsibility for consumer affairs to the Minister or Assistant Minister; (viii) requesting the Chief Minister to arrange for the States Statistics Unit to advise and agree with the Consumer Council on the best approach to collect prices, make price comparisons, and present price information to the general public; and (ix) requesting the Minister for Treasury and Resources to arrange for the States insurance arrangements for indemnifying States employees to be extended to the board members and executive(s) of the council.