States Meeting Transcript - 03/03/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 3rd MARCH 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................4

1. Draft Gambling (Remote Gambling Disaster Recovery) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.199/2010) - resumption..............................................4

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................4 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ...............................................9
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................10

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................10
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................10
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................10

2. Standing Orders: time limits on speeches during debates (P.1/2011) ..................11

2.1 Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................12

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................12
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................14
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................17
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................19
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................19
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................20
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................20
8. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................21
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................21
10. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................22
11. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................23
12. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................24
13. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................24
14. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................25
15. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................27
16. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................28
17. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................29
18. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................31
19. Deputy A.E. Jeune ..................................................................31
20. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................31
21. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................32
22. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................32

23. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................34
24. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................34
25. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................34
26. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................35
27. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................35

3. Composition of the States: implementation of remaining Clothier reforms – referendum (P.3/2011)...................................................................38

1. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................39

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

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

2. Composition of the States: implementation of remaining Clothier reforms – referendum (P.3/2011) – amendment (P.3/2011 Amd.).................................41

3.2.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................42

3. Composition of the States: implementation of remaining Clothier reforms – referendum (P.3/2011) – as amended ...................................................42

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................42
2. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................44
3. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................45
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................45
6. Deputy J. M. Maçon:...................................................................46
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................46
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................47
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................48
10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................48
11. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................49
12. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................50
13. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................52
14. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................54
15. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................54
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................56
17. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................56
18. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................57 The Attorney General:........................................................................58
19. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................59 The Deputy of Grouville :.....................................................................62 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................62 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................63 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................63 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................63 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................63 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................63 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................65 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................65 Deputy J.M. Maçon:..........................................................................65 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................65

4. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 201-: request to Privy Council (P.26/2011)......................................................................66

4.1 The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................67

1. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................69
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................70
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................70

4. Deputy C.J. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................71
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................71
6. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................73
7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................73
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................74

9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................77
10. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................78
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................80
12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................81
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................83
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................84
15. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................88
16. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................88
17. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................90
18. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................95
19. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................98
20. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:....................................100
21. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : .................................................103
22. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................103
23. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.....................................................104
24. Senator B.E. Shenton: ..............................................................104
25. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...............................................................105
26. The Deputy of Grouville : ..........................................................108

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................111

5. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......111

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................111
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................111
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:................................................................112
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ............................................................112
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................113

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................113

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

[09:31]

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Draft Gambling (Remote Gambling Disaster Recovery) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.199/2010) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, the position is for you now to reply.

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am sure I am not the only one feeling a little fresher than if I did my summing up yesterday. I will try and be as brief as possible, Sir, but I note that you were not here yesterday so I will try to ensure that we have enough detail in so that everyone can understand. [Laughter] I would also like to start on a positive note. I would like to start by congratulating the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel on completing their review so quickly. Unfortunately there are one or 2 errors that will need to be addressed [Laughter] but I will deal with those in due course. Nevertheless I think it is fair to say that the panel worked hard to produce the report in the time they did and I know the chairman of the panel made this reference yesterday, but the officers in his panel worked exceptionally hard, as indeed the officers did at Economic Development and indeed with the Jersey Gambling Commission in order to bring together the report and to attend the various hearings. To begin, I am going to deal with the Scrutiny Report itself. Most of the questions raised in the debate relate almost directly to it. Firstly, as background, the panel state in their report that they decided to undertake this review for 4 principal reasons. The first reason given was that the title was confusing to a number of Members. I do find this slightly strange. The title follows normal practice, carrying the existing name with the word "Amendment" clearly stating that the Draft Disaster Recovery Regulations are to be amended. The first reason that it was confusing was the concern, and it was raised in debate I think by the Deputy of St. Mary and also by the chairman of the panel, but this confusion in the title was cleared up very clearly in my view in the first sentence of the report. This clearly stated, as Members will have noted, that the purpose of these amendments is to make lawful by licence the continuous operation of eGambling. So I think it was very clear to everyone exactly what we were intending. Indeed this opening sentence of the report certainly should not have been a surprise to the panel. They have been aware due to numerous panel hearings during 2010 about our priority, about bringing forward an eGaming regime. Indeed at the last panel hearing in 2010 on 14th December the minutes confirm that we informed the chairman and the panel that we would be lodging the amendment to the Disaster Recovery regulations to allow eGaming. That was clearly stated in December. The second reason given in the report for this review was that eGaming was not included in the modernisation of the gambling legislation yet, as I have stated, the panel has been aware for months about the intention. The advice we received said that the quickest and easiest way to introduce an eGaming regime after the Assembly had approved the principle in 2010 was by amending the existing Disaster Recovery Regulations. The third reason for the review was that no codes of practice had been produced or published by the Gambling Commission and this was a point raised on a number of occasions by both the panel members in their comments yesterday. But I have to say that it would be, and I hope Members agree, premature and indeed costly to produce and consult on Codes of Practice before

this Assembly had even approved the amendment. This process I have to emphasise is not unusual. Exactly the same process occurred in the U.K. (United Kingdom). The U.K. Gambling Act came into force in 2005 without licence conditions and without Codes of Practice. These were issued later in 2007 although of course the delay as far as we are concerned is going to be a matter of months, not an extended delay as indeed the U.K. had. The final reason for the review was the panel's concern that if this amendment is passed it will come into force in 14 days, but that is exactly what amending regulation allows. It is a well-trodden path, as I am sure Members are

aware. In certain circumstances it is a route that adds speed to market, that can prove vital in an increasingly competitive world. But I must emphasise, as I am sure Members would expect, that no eGaming licences will be issued until the Codes of Practice are consulted upon and agreed. To put this into context, it would take several months to process an eGaming full licence application with all the due diligence that is required. There is therefore plenty of time to ensure the codes are properly consulted upon and introduced. I would now like to briefly deal with the findings and recommendations of the report. These directly relate to many of the questions that both Deputy Higgins and the Deputy of St. Mary were asking yesterday. The recommendation on page 5 would like all major changes to be through primary legislation. In many areas, especially finance, this would quite simply not be a practical route to take. As I have said, speed to market is vital in a competitive world. The second recommendation is that when draft amendments to existing legislation are lodged they are accompanied by marked-up copies to show the differences. I accept there is certainly some merit in this recommendation and we will certainly try to accommodate it where we possibly can. It is a point that has been raised before and I think we have indeed tried with the panel to do this. On page 6 of the findings it states that a full public consultation on the way the regulations would work should have been taken. Now the principles of an eGaming regime were indeed widely consulted in a public consultation. Despite the highly emotive subject there were only about 30 replies from groups and individuals. It would not be effective or practical to have a public consultation on individual regulations which are complex and technical. In fact I can barely think of any other existence where we would go out to consultation on regulation legislation that is coming forward from a technical point of view. The important point is that our regulations meet or exceed international standards. I am absolutely confident that they do, especially as just about every other jurisdiction now has eGaming legislation. We are not exactly trailblazers in this particular area and therefore our experts have had plenty of time to consider and

assess the legislation in place in other jurisdictions. [9:45]

On page 11 the recommendation is that no eGaming licences should be issued until the Codes of Practice have been approved, but as I have already hopefully clearly stated, no licences will be issued until the code is approved. On page 18, under findings, the panel were concerned that little progress has been made on determining health and education provisions. This is not directly relevant to this amendment which, if approved, will not create or generate any more gambling in Jersey, but nevertheless the finding is wrong. A great deal has been achieved in a very important area of social responsibility and harm reduction. Firstly I would make it clear, because I think the panel might be confused on this issue, that the Shadow Gambling Commission had a very limited budget and no powers. It was purely an advisory body. Until the Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 2010 came into effect in October 2010, only 4 months ago, there was no means to ensure that responsible gambling programmes were adopted. The policy has been clear from the outset, social responsibility is a matter that the industry must address and pay for, not the taxpayer. Until last October there was no effective regulation of the existing gambling industry in Jersey. There is currently no provision to address problem gambling issues. However the Gambling Commission has already been successful in encouraging bookmakers to stock problem gambling literature. The Commission have had detailed discussions with gambling charities in the U.K. such as GamCare and the Gordon Moody Association to provide their services to problem gamblers here in Jersey. This will also give us valuable real life data on problem gambling that may exist in the Island. We expect the figure to broadly follow those identified in U.K.-prevalent studies, as they do indeed elsewhere. Health and Social Services have also been involved and they have been considering ways in which they can assist in providing an on-Island facility for the counselling and support of those who suffer from problem gambling. Tacade, specialists in educational therapy, have been consulted and indeed have visited the Island. A social responsibility panel has been appointed, a social responsibility fund has been established and bookmakers have already made voluntary contributions to this particular fund. If these regulations are approved more can and will be done as

greater funding becomes available through new eGaming licences. Members may be interested to know that Jersey is the first jurisdiction to set up a social responsibility fund in this area. There is more to do in this important area but a good start has been made in a short period despite the impression that Members might have got from the comments that were made yesterday. The panel recommendation on page 18 asks the Minister for Economic Development to make a statement in the summer of 2011 on the progress in relation to education and health strategies and programmes to address social harm reductions. I can state today that I am more than happy to make such a statement this summer. The final finding on page 25 was questioning the economic value of eGaming. The panel effectively questioned the validity of a KPMG report into the value of eGaming in Guernsey and Alderney, whose reported findings in both the Guernsey Press and the Financial Times state that the industry is worth £50 million in Guernsey in 2009 and that is up from a figure of £7 million in 2007. The panel were also sceptical about the Isle of Man's published results that show £91 million was spent in their economy as a result of eGaming activity and an approximately 18 per cent increase in jobs was also recorded in the sector. Members might be interested to know that Jersey companies, including I may add Jersey Telecom, are investing in Guernsey as a direct result of eGaming where they are building new data centres. I want to see that business here in Jersey. Jersey needs that type of investment and Jersey certainly needs the job opportunities that would follow. Some of the specific questions that I have not already covered, which I would just like to briefly address, Deputy Higgins asked about how the Commission can ensure it can assess the true yield of licensed operators. The answer to the question is through their published accounts. He asked about source codes. There is some significant detail regarding source codes, it is again a relatively technical issue but under Regulation 15 this repeals Regulations 16 and 17 of the principal regulations. Regulation 16 currently imposes statutory conditions restricting the hosting of source codes. If necessary Codes of Practice may deal with source codes and supplementary conditions may be imposed to regulate their storage. Source code is that which is written by game developers in software development houses. This software is then

compiled so that it becomes computer code and therefore unintelligible to human understanding. Further testing takes place and once authorised moved on to the game production servers. The prevention was adapted in line with requirements placed by other jurisdictions earlier on in the last decade and is now out of step with international requirements purely on common sense terms. The original prevention of hosting source codes has been researched and found to be uncommon business practice. The premise was to prevent the use of live servers for any form of development of testing of the code, with a clear intention to protect the operator from any hacking attempt to doctor the code. However the industry is wise to this danger and the provision is now redundant. I hope that addresses the Deputy 's concern in that area. The Deputy of St. Mary asked whether the levy - in fact it is fees- were too low and were we in a race to the bottom. Well, fees are appropriate to cover regulatory costs. They are also in line with other well-regulated jurisdictions, a point that was raised yesterday as well. He asks about harm reduction, which he described as the key issue and he is absolutely right, it is a key issue for the Gambling Commission which this House approved last year. It is a key issue for me as well and that is why the Commission was approved and why I was so keen to bring it forward for the approval of this Assembly. But it is not relevant to this amendment, which does not seek to add any further gambling here in Jersey. He asked about tax from operators but as the Deputy must know under Zero/Ten there will be no direct tax revenue, and I can see Deputy Southern smiling; it is a question he has asked time and time again and that is the case. There will of course be taxation from staff who in the future would be employed either directly or through other existing businesses in the Island in this area. But the benefits to the economy are extensive and I have alluded to these already. They have been evidenced in many other jurisdictions. In addition there is a future provision for a levy on licensed operators to allow flexibility to raise further revenue if that is thought appropriate, and I should stress here with regard to the potential use of the levy in the future, we are the only jurisdiction that has that as a statutory provision within our regulations. The Deputy also asked about Regulation

8(1)(ea), that deals with the Disaster Recovery Licence which might go on for perhaps too long. The Commission will be vigilant in this matter and it would seek to move the operator on to a full licence, should this be the case. Regulation 11, the Deputy was concerned about licensing conditions in other jurisdictions, but an operator who is then licensed in Jersey would need to meet the conditions and standard prescribed in the Jersey law. The Deputy asked about Regulation 31 which refers to level 4 fines. That level of fine is £5,000 and it is based on a per infraction basis. I believe that I have covered all the relevant questions raised. This is a tremendous opportunity for Jersey to exploit one of the best eCommerce opportunities that I believe is currently available. This is an opportunity for genuine economic diversification; it is an opportunity that will make gambling in Jersey safer. It will raise revenues; it will create jobs from a well-regulated sector. I very much hope that Deputy Higgins will now support this amendment, especially as he was the one who brought the amendment to the Strategic Plan, amendment number 10, which was seeking greater economic diversification. I maintain the Regulations.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Can I just seek a point of clarification from the Minister? First of all he mentioned that the Gambling Commission had only just been created and did not have the funds. Well, the States passed the law in 2010 but the debate was in December 2009 when we approved the Gambling Commission and they were given sums in excess of £220,000, which could have been used for the harm reduction.

The Deputy Bailiff :

What is the clarification you are asking the Minister? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sorry, I am going to come to this now.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You are not allowed a second speech.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, thank you, Sir. I will just come to the question, then. One of the questions I did ask yesterday was that there was concern that Jersey could be very much used as a brass plate for some gambling entities in the sense that their servers do not necessarily have to be located within the Island, and therefore you can have a Jersey person which can be an individual or a partnership or a company here and they pay the appropriate regulatory fee, but their operation may be elsewhere and therefore we will not get the benefit of increased bandwidth and so on. So how are they going to make sure that they have got proper control of these operations and we are not just being used as giving them perhaps the much better reputation than they would otherwise have?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I would say that that is another question but nevertheless I am happy to answer it. The Deputy Bailiff :

I am not sure if it was raised yesterday or not, but if it was raised yesterday then it is a proper point of clarification.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That is fair enough, and I am happy to answer it. No, I do not consider that the Island would be used as a brass plate. Of course there are servers in more than one jurisdiction, that is one of the reasons that this Assembly approved the Draft Disaster Recovery Regulations so that companies can have a back-up facility, but the bottom line is that businesses that are licensed in Jersey have to be what was described - and I explained it yesterday - a Jersey person, they have to be a Jersey- incorporated entity and to do so they are going to be regulated here and the Commission has the necessary powers in order to do that.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can I ask a further point of clarification? The speaker mentioned the £50 million with reference to Guernsey. Is this £50 million net benefit or is this £50 million turnover? What is the turnover and what is the net benefit?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

It is the value to the economy, it is estimated value to the economy, but not fee income, it is value to the economy of Guernsey and Alderney which is assessed by KPMG and reported in the press both in Guernsey and in the Financial Times.

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

A couple of points of clarification now; there was one, now there are 2. The first is £5,000 per infraction. Could the Minister clarify what that means, because to my mind a corporation with yields of billions and millions, £5,000 is frankly neither here nor there. The second point arises from the previous question, which is that this assessment of economic value, can the Minister clarify that he has not and his officers have not seen a report on which that claim is based?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The Deputy of St. Mary is correct, £5,000 per infraction is appropriate in my view. Of course the ultimate sanction that the Commission has is revocation of the licence, so if an operator is operating in a way that is inappropriate one does not necessarily need to criminalise it, you can just remove the licence and they have the power to do that. With regard to economic value, and the report regarding KPMG, I have not seen the report itself. It was a report commissioned by Guernsey, however, as I stated several times during both my earlier comments and in my answer a moment ago, the results of that particular report have been published both in the Guernsey Press and in the Financial Times. It is published results and those are the figures I was referring to. However the Isle of Man results are in their published accounts.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, you proposed yesterday the Regulations en bloc did you? Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I did, to be helpful to the chairman and the panel, yes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. I was just confused about that on some of the information I had received. So the proposition before the Assembly is to adopt the Regulations en bloc. Do you call for the appel?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean: Please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

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

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister, do you propose the Regulations for the Third Reading?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir, I do. There is a matter I think the Attorney General might need to raise. Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Just as a matter of assistance, there is I think a clerical error, which can be corrected under Standing Order 75 within the Regulations. Regulation 4, its title is "Substitution of Regulation 2" and the body clearly does substitute Regulation 2, but the line before that is for Regulation 5 of the principal Regulations: "There is substitute of the following regulation." I confirmed with the Law Draftsman's Office that that is indeed a clerical error and it should be Regulation 2 and the President I think can give leave to correct the clerical error under Standing Order 75.

[10:00]

The Deputy Bailiff :

So the alteration would be to say for Regulation 2? The Attorney General:

Yes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Standing Order 75(4) allows amendments to the draft to be made if they are a clerical error or oversight with the permission of the Presiding Officer, and I give that permission. So with that amendment do you now propose the Regulations for the Third Reading, Minister?

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

1. Senator A. Breckon:

Just a word. I would just like to use this opportunity to praise the Scrutiny Panel for the work that they have done and the officers [Approbation] for the timely way that they have come forward. There were some oh's and ah's when they did say they would look at it, but I think it has been worthwhile and what I think has come out of it, when they produced their comments with the colour coding on, that it does show that this legislation has been changed substantially since the original legislation and I think that is for Members to note for the future if changes are coming forward then perhaps this practice could be used again. Scrutiny has been criticised in the past for not looking perhaps at legislation enough, but I think this is a case where they have come out of it with credit.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Higgins.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would just like to again thank the Minister for accepting that no licences will be processed or granted before the Code of Practice has been consulted on and also for agreeing to come back with a statement regarding provisions to deal with social harm.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on the Minister to reply.

3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I thank both Members for their comments. I do not think anything else needs to be said. It was in the end a good process and a lot of hard work went in by a lot of people to ensure that the review was carried out in a timely fashion in a week, and I think that must be commended to all those who were involved. So I thank all Members for their support and the comments which have just been made.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You have proposed the Regulations in Third Reading. All Members in favour kindly show. The appel is called for and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

2. Standing Orders: time limits on speeches during debates (P.1/2011) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to P.1/2011 - Standing Orders: time limits on speeches during debates - lodged by Senator Routier and ask the Deputy Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - (a) to agree that the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey should be amended to introduce maximum time limits for speeches made by Members during the debate on any proposition;

The Deputy Bailiff :

Can I ask Members please to keep their voices down, particularly when the proposition is being read.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

(b) to agree that time limits should be as follows - (i) proposer of proposition - maximum of 30 minutes (except during any debate on the Strategic Plan, the Annual Business Plan or the Budget where the maximum would be 45 minutes); (ii) any Member speaking during the debate - maximum of 15 minutes (except during any debate on the Strategic Plan, the Annual Business Plan or the Budget where the maximum would be 30 minutes); (iii) proposer replying to debate - maximum of 30 minutes (except during any debate on the Strategic Plan, the Annual Business Plan or the Budget where the maximum would be 45 minutes); (c) to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for approval the necessary amendments to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey to give effect to the proposal.

2.1 Senator P.F. Routier:

I have had a number of versions of the speech in mind, some which are longer than others and some which are a bit of a ramble, but I have settled on one. The Greffier has just read out what this proposition does, so I will not repeat what is very clear and very straightforward. I expect Members will have also read the proposition and the report so I will not repeat what is written there. Members may like to perhaps just turn to the appendix of the report which shows the time limits that other democracies have in place in their Standing Orders. I think it shows that this is the sort of thing that happens in a lot of democracies, so I do not believe that we need to have a long debate on this simple matter. I make the proposition and I will be happy to respond to any comments.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Pitman?

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

I am just going to pause first for a long, reflective, analytical silence before I start, with my eye on the clock. I have to say that I do not usually enjoy Senator Routier's propositions but today, this week, we have had Historic Abuse and we have had a good result and I think a good debate. After this, if there are enough Democrats, as some claim there are now, we have the opportunity to finally ask the public to support or reject the key elements of Clothier, we have got the Electoral Commission coming up and finally at the end we have got the Deputy of Grouville 's projet 666, I think it is. [Laughter] I am sorry, I think I got that one wrong, 26, I am sorry. I would say to Members on this occasion let us enjoy this debate. I know for a fact that Senator Routier is concealing his best white rabbit stopwatch behind his desk and he is going to be timing every one of us and no doubt telling us how long we have rambled on for, or whatever, so it comes down to the arguments and there are 2. I mean Senator Routier's argument, and it is a totally sustainable one, is that if we do this it will focus Members' minds on making relevant, punchy, concise speeches and it is totally sustainable, that argument, certainly on the surface. Nobody wants to sit here listening to days and days of debate, as I think Deputy Le Claire pointed out somebody phoned him up the other day or sent him a text to tell him he was the reason that people were turning off their radios or some such. Fifteen minutes, well I could support this on the fact that I can stand up and say it is not going to affect me at all, because I do not speak just for the sake of speaking and I do not make long speeches. They might be rambling but they are not long ones. So I guess it will come down to what one feels are the most important aspects. Speeches can be long but they can be

very important and very interesting and have a lot of crucial information in them. So while I understand Senator Routier's argument for bringing this, I am not quite sure how he has worked out what he sees as the differences for say the strategic debate, et cetera, and other propositions, but there we go. If we do this yes, it might focus Members' minds, and I expect that you would say that it certainly would help you feign interest in what was going on if you have only got to do it for 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes at a time. It would, I think, unfortunately take out those little joyous moments when in a speech about the Waterfront Deputy Fox manages to remind us how much better Jersey was when we had a police motorcycle team or the Deputy of St. John manages to work in the main drains into some completely different debate. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe it is bad. I think what it comes down to mean and my concern about this is what is more important? Is it short speeches or is it about getting the information we need? I think it is Deputy Southern who said a while back that democracy was a messy business and it is, and none of us are perfect, none of us are perfect speakers or speak as well or put ourselves across as well as we would like. When I look at the debates I have been involved in people like the Deputy of St. Mary often get criticised and I think Deputy Duhamel has been criticised but on hugely technical issues like the incinerator would it really be fair to say to someone like Deputy Duhamel, whose whole life has revolved around that sphere of interest, and it is an important aspect of our Island life, that in responding to a proposition he could only have 15 minutes? Could he even do it in that time? The same for the Deputy of St. Mary and we have all got different areas of expertise, but I think what Members have to focus on in my view is that balance. What is the more important? So I have got mixed feelings on this. I will not reject it out of hand but I really want to ask Members to think about those issues while enjoying their 15 minutes of fame. I must admit I was a bit surprised when it was brought because I want to give the Senator the credit and say that he has brought this with good intentions. There is the cynical part of me that thinks that this is just another way to dumb-down politics. I think a lot of people - and the Senator will probably concede that - will think that, listening, especially with some of the other things we have heard about making it more difficult to bring propositions, et cetera. We hear another Senator highlighting how the questions cost money. Well, that is all part of democracy. If I was going to be naughty I would say that with so many free market fundamentalists in here telling us that it is a public sector who are so vastly overpaid and over inflated that they are really to blame and must take the brunt for the global economic meltdown, which is of course the responsibility of a few foolish, arrogant and vastly overpaid individuals in certain elements of the global finance industry. So we cannot afford debate to be dumbed-down anymore. So we looked at the facts, and I was going to do some research and analysis, and then I had a better idea and I asked the Deputy Greffier to do it. I first asked if she could give me an analysis of the times of speeches for a whole year but she very kindly and quite rightly pointed out that such information probably would not be of huge benefit for me if I was in a

hospital bed and taking my food through a straw, so we settled on 20. They were picked at random and I thank her for it, because they are very revealing. Far from this perception that is being put around, this myth that we all speak for hours and hours and hours, 20 projets, picked at random, proposers. How many of them spoke for over an hour? Only 2 and I think on an average year it is about 200 probably projets put forward. So only 2 spoke for over an hour. Two more spoke for over 30 minutes but the rest, no. How many Members went over 15 minutes in that time? Ten. Two of those went over 30 minutes but the rest of us, no. There are some big ones in here as I say, it was done without any sort of trying to pick ones where we could say: "No, well no one is going to talk for long on that." There is the Millennium Town Park, the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) savings, cycle helmets, Annual Business Plan, the Jersey Police Authority, Children's (Jersey) Law, Guardians. So there we go, and I think it is a myth that we all speak for hours and hours, and I think if we go down this route there is going to be a real danger that people will perceive that this House is just becoming a rubber stamp for a few people, and people are already greatly concerned that all the power is condensed in the hands of a few. Democracy is messy, it is not perfect, none of us are perfect, and much as I may disagree with some people's political views I would rather sit here and listen to them and make those decisions on full information, and I think that has got to override any concerns that some people might think: "Well, I have got other things to do, I want to get away."

[10:15]

We have all got busy lives and I think that is probably why some of us are still sending paperwork through at 2.00 a.m. in the morning. Perhaps we need better lives but there we go. So I say to Members, in my view, and the facts seem to repeat this, there is no justification, no real need for it. Yes, Senator Routier is probably right to remind us to all be reasonably concise and I do not think there are that many of us who go over 15, I am not going to go over 15. But I end on this point. As someone who did stand in the Senators, when we used to get the bell .. we used to get a little warning bell that you were nearing the end, literally. I can remember one hustings I went to, I will not reveal who the Chair was, but he was very pedantic. The final bell went to stop me speaking and I only had 2 sentences to finish and he would not let me do it and it totally changed the context of what I was saying. So I might have been proposing hanging, that I was totally against it, now I am sure you, Sir, would not be that pedantic but imagine if [Members: Oh!] - you do not have to rise to that one, Sir - but the question would surely be what would happen if one Member came up with the answer for total prosperity for Jersey for all and he was just getting there, doing the best as he could, he knew he was not the world's greatest speaker, and bang the 15 minutes was up. Time to sit down, prosperity out the window, let us move on to the next debate. That may seem a bit over the top exaggeration but democracy has got to come first and listening to what people have got to say. It is part of politics, it can be a boring part of politics but I just think, Senator Routier, there is not really a need for this. It is a good reminder, and I have to say I do not understand the justification for the different times on certain elements such as the Business Plan, the Strategic Plan, so I do not think I can support it and I would be interested to see what I clocked-in on the white rabbit's watch. Thank you.

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

Groans from the Constables as I rise to speak. Oh, it was coughing, okay. They can groan if they want. Sir, you have been in the Chamber longer than I have, I think, and you have had to endure most of my speeches, including some of the ones on the Waterfront where I took great lengths in going through the accounts of the people who were getting handed the gift of the Waterfront, and also in relation to trusts where I pointed out in great detail how the Cleaning Trustee got the cleaning contract, how the Electrical Contract Director got the electrical contract, how the Property Services Director got the property servicing contract of the Housing Trust and at the time it was all rubbished. Yesterday we had Senator Cohen standing up saying that that a small housekeeping matter is something of importance in relation to the new directions in what needs to be done for housing and the Waterfront is now completely self-evident for everybody to see. At the time I made my speech, which I think was the longest one I made, it was about an hour and a half, I took great length to make sure that for history's purpose, because it was going to be a gift of that property for 150 years, nobody could turn around and say: "Oh, we did not realise at the time." All they could ever do was say: "We were not listening at the time" because if they were listening they would have heard from myself and other Members about what a self-evident disaster we were agreeing to. Deputy Pitman says if one Member could come up with - this is an aside - a law to make the Island completely prosperous and we cut them off at the knees how bad would that be, and I joked in the Planning Applications Panel the other day when one of the Constables remarked about the fact that it had not stopped raining since Senator Cohen had passed the Water Law. I suggested that maybe we could get Senator Cohen to bring a money law in and then maybe we would not have any money problems. But all of that aside we get to the specific proposition before us, and I do not think it is about making for a better debate, I do not think it is about making better decisions. I think it is political and I think it is coming from a political group that are pressuring people in this Chamber to shut them down, to stifle resistance, calm objection and silence scrutiny and accountability. It has been an ever-increasing, widening gap that has been creeping into this

Assembly. When I first came here, Sir, your brother, the former Bailiff , was kind enough to make it clear for Members that we have Parliamentary privilege at a time when the former Chief Minister would constantly enter into speeches by saying: "Do not go criticising the Waterfront people, I will warn you all, I will remind you all through the Chair that the lawyers have been informed." Members would sit there quivering in their seats: "We are going to get sued, do not say anything, do not say anything" and the former Bailiff , Sir Phillip, Sir, your brother, pointed out that we had the privilege of Parliamentary privilege, but it was not to be abused. From that moment the chains of fear and quivering in one's seat dissipated in an instant and questions and scrutiny started to enter into the debate. I have, in all my time in the States, only on one occasion ever filibustered in this Assembly and Senator Ozouf knows full well what that was. Again it was your brother, Sir, Sir Phillip who was in the Chair and it came to a debate at the time the late Constable of St. Saviour, Senator Ozouf 's father, was due to return to the Assembly the following day. It was approaching 4.30 p.m. or 4.00 p.m., I was downstairs in the computer room and I was typing-up some work and Senator Ozouf came into the room and was very emotional and said: "It is such a shame because we are going to finish today and that means my dad will not be here tomorrow", so I took it upon myself, I was not going to and I know that we always say that, but I literally was not going to come back up to enter into the debate and I came upstairs, the debate was going to finish, we were going to finish for the day, the former Constable of St. Saviour was not going to attend the States again and I deliberately spoke at length. Unfortunately I really upset Senator Perchard. [Laughter] I could say, Sir, if I was smart enough: "I rest my case." It is what has been said to me countless times by Senator Ozouf and now by Senator Perchard. It was one of my best speeches, when I just went on and on and on and on, making it up as I went along just to drag it out. When we got to 5.30 p.m. the former Bailiff looked at me and said, rather wryly: "We are approaching 5.30 p.m., Deputy , are you going to be much longer?" and I said: "Well, Sir, I could go on for another 2 or 3 hours but if we wish to break now and come back tomorrow I am prepared to sit down and complete my debate." He did not quite grasp it at first because it was a bit of a strange thing to come out of the blue, with my explanation it is understandable but at the time it was not so clear, and I had to make it quite clear that unless we were going to break and come back the next day to allow the Constable of St. Saviour to be party to his last session I was going to talk all night, until the Constable could have been here. Fortunately, and not to many people's knowledge, we broke for the evening, Senator Perchard was rightfully really upset with me for the way I had spoken, because I had to choose one side of the debate and I unfortunately chose to go against Senator Perchard at the time, and suffered the wrath of that, and the next day the Constable of St. Saviour made one of the bravest things I have seen entering into the Chamber, and I do not think there was a person in the Chamber who was not moved by that personally. That is the only time in 11 years I have ever spoken for longer than I wanted to [Laughter] and, Sir, through the Chair, it is not all about them. Okay, so that was the only occasion that I spoke longer than I wanted to, obviously not the only occasion that I spoke longer than other people wanted me to. So let us look at the facts, shall we? Setting aside that single moment, and I am sure Members will join with me in the memory of that brave man and his return to the Assembly, the European Parliament has a 2 minute limit on some of the most complex laws in the world, and what you generally find is that the M.E.P.'s (Member of the European Parliament) tend to speak in very large, overarching policy terms about the issues and some of the speeches are excellent, but many of them lack detail. Another Member of the Council of Ministers said to me yesterday: "We do not need Government by proposition" and it was almost a list of: "Thou shalt not say anything in here; commandment 1, we do not need propositions to tell us how to run the Island." Yesterday also a question from the Deputy of St. Mary to Her Majesty's Attorney General was that would he not agree that justice delayed is justice denied and quite astutely and intelligently Her Majesty's Attorney General crossed swords with the Deputy of St. Mary and responded, defeating him outright by saying: "Justice rushed is also justice denied." We could all rush our speeches and we could all rush our contributions but will that bring about a greater level of participation and a greater quality of debate and will it have an effect that is what the people of Jersey want as an outcome? We could have less

speeches, we could have less debates, we could have less Members, we could have less elections, we could have less checks and balance, and we could have less accountability. We could also speak on every single opportunity that was given us, and I know that some Members think that we do, but I can assure them that we do not. Just as the ludicrous example was given and dismissed with another previous proposition, if this is pushed through as undemocratic as it is in my view, there could be just a backlash and everybody could just say: "Right, then, let us all just split it up among ourselves and let us just all speak for 15 minutes at every opportunity." We have seen in my time in the Assembly a reduction in the number of written questions that a Member can ask. We have seen a reduction in the number of oral questions a Member can ask. We have seen a reduction in the time allowed for oral questions. We have seen the introduction of the guillotine motion which curtailed the Shadow Scrutiny Board from Deputy Southern and myself contributing to the migration policy debate. I think at the time it was Senator Routier who called that one. I have voted against that as a principle ever since it was brought in. We have seen a significant curtailing of individual Back-Bench Members' rights since this collective political group of individuals to my right, some dispersed to the left, have seized power of the Assembly, a little covert political clique, a group of political individuals working among themselves to bring everything to the centre, keep it secret, manage it badly, produce poor results, blame us all and give us nothing to say about it. The media blame us for speaking about ourselves all the time. Well, it is all that we have got left to do. We are removed from Government, our constituents are removed their democratic rights are taken away from them because their elected representatives are outside of Government. I sat in St. Thomas' Church at the funeral of my late great uncle Gaston Le Miere last week and I heard a lady from Jersey, obviously from temps passé, who said she did not think the new Ministerial system was working well. She complained about the salary levels of the Civil Service and she also said that she thought the old committee system was much

better when there were several eyes on the issue and several views taken. [10:30]

She also made the point in those days Members came to the Assembly because it was a duty of honour and not something they did for money, and it was a shame that those days had passed because businessmen came to the States and they gave their time and their efforts freely and they brought a certain piece of acumen with them. I could not disagree with anything that she said. Admittedly we do have more business now than in temps passé when the States would meet for 4 or 5 weeks, a huge break and then 4 or 5 weeks. If we go back I have got them in my bag. I have the old times that the States did meet and the amounts of times that they met. I do not think I have it in there. It was significantly different. We recently saw a call for a referendum on the issues of the reduction of Senators. Something that I bought in 2002, which was not supported by the people who are trying to bring it now, and in that newspaper there was an article by the former Senator Corrie Stein who on retirement had said - and she has been gone quite a while now - it was amazing how much the workload had increased in her day and how much more time was now required of a States Member. So, I regularly find myself sitting at my computer working away to the detriment of my own, sanity perhaps, family life for considerably longer hours than I have ever put in before. I do not know if it is just ..

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Would the speaker give way a moment? I think I am due to speak next but I need to pop out to get a glass of water, so will I have time to do that if I am only 30 seconds? Is that all right? I could leave my mobile number.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I think it is time for us all to stop saying that we have no need for Members in here from this background, or that background. I think it is time that we recognised that this Assembly is made up of people who are elected by the people of Jersey. They are elected in fair elections. They come to the Assembly not because it is a club and not because their parents could afford to send them here, but because they struck a chord with the electorate and each in their turn and each in their way brought their issues from their districts into this Assembly to represent their electors. It is a significant downfall, in my view, and it is a sad thing to say because I know how much you had to work and how hard you had to work in implementing the changes that have come about and I am sincerely sorry to say, as I have said before, I think Ministerial government is the most divisive and destructive thing that has happened to this Assembly since the Second World War. It has set us apart from each other. We used to work together. We now ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , the proposition is on time limits on debates.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I know you would like that, Sir, but nevertheless it is where .. The Deputy Bailiff :

I am asking you to contain your speech to the matter which is the subject of the proposition: the time limits on speeches during debates.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Well, I think it is coming from a politically motivated grouping, Sir. I do not believe it is coming just because we want to make more efficient business occur. I think it is being done for political motivations. I think it is politically motivated and I think that it is time for us to stop trying to draw more and more into a politically close-knit group who do not want committees but will have paid remunerated friends and business colleagues forming shadow boards and advisory panels left, right and centre, while the majority of us have nothing to do in government except perhaps look at Scrutiny and when we do look at Scrutiny we are criticised for pulling things, we are costing jobs, we are jeopardising industry, we are costing the Island money. I do not know if other Members are going to be as honest about this, as I feel I am being as honest about this, and vote in the way that I feel we need to vote on this, but I certainly hope that they stand up and speak out against this because this is an erosion of their ability to say anything and it is their elected representatives who have already lost by this new form of government and any further erosion of the Back-Bench Members' abilities to bring those views into the Assembly and speak about them in great detail if they want to in the future is going to be further eroded if we allow any more curtailing of Back- Bench Members' rights. So, if Members do not want to do it for themselves, seeing as this is the year of democracy, then let us all do it for the electorate and make sure that the people have the right to send Members into this Assembly who can say what they want to say, how they want to say it, and take as long or as short as they want to when they say it.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

I did not mean to be rude there, Deputy . I had a glass of water out the back and I forgot to bring it in before. I am going to give several reasons here hopefully fairly concisely. I am going to try and give you a fairly concise, fairly short speech in order to convince you that we should on occasion allow long speeches, if that is not paradoxical, rather than giving a long speech which maybe tries to convince you to support this and then puts you off. I think we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. I think what has happened is somebody has identified what they perceive as a problem for themselves, perhaps against one or 2 individual States Members, and they are trying to bring in draconian and unnecessary legislation to cater for what they perceive is a minority problem, which is going to have a nefarious effect on the rest of us. Hopefully that is where other Members would sit on the issue as well. We do not have a party system. That can be seen in 2 ways as an argument for or against. You could argue that because we do not have a party system there is more likelihood of the 53 of us wanting to get up to speak, which often happens on certain issues, not all issues. But on the other hand one could argue that because we do not have a party system it is

necessary for us to all put our point across and we may, on occasion, have to combat 52 different arguments. My favourite quote from the book 1984 is: "Sanity is not statistical" which is quoted by Winston Smith, and those who are aware of the work by Orwell will remember that he is pretty much the only sane one, or the only sane one that we know about, in a world of mad people. Sometimes it can feel like that for States Members and it might be necessary, as I have said, to come up with a speech and if you have heard 52 arguments, which you think are completely speechless and spurious, you may well want to address all of those and you should be quite entitled to do that in order to deconstruct the arguments and if you allow, let us say, even 30 seconds for each of those 52 arguments you are already approaching half an hour which is a lot longer than the 15 minutes which Senator Routier is proposing. The idea of filibustering was interesting. I think it was quite brave of Deputy Le Claire to admit that and it is obviously tactical; we all use tactics- we are politicians - we try and get what we want through in different ways. I had a quick look in my dictionary and filibuster, obviously an American term, was described as a process of obstructing legislation by using delaying tactics. It did not refer specifically to speeches, although that is normally how we recognise it, and there are other ways that we filibuster; that is politics and it works on both sides. We can use delaying tactics; we should not do if we are being even-handed and above board but it does not rely on lengthy speeches, and I do not think we have a problem with filibustering in terms of speeches in the Assembly. It simply does not work, so I do not think that is a reason to bring it in. If it was a problem that people were deliberately making long speeches I think that we would have to look for an alternative, but I do not even think this would necessarily be the way to do it. There is an issue of fairness. We all make decisions when we become States Members about how we manage our time. We are essentially self-employed, although in another way we are employed by the public, and I feel that it is not intended this way I am sure, but it is almost like we are being treated like children. We are being told: "You must stick to these 15 minutes if you are not giving the proposition, if you are not summing up." I think it is too restrictive but we simply cannot apply those restrictions right across the board on these occasions because there might be times .. and I will give an example, why should it be that somebody who speaks very rarely in the Assembly, they may not speak at all, or they may speak very briefly, but if they have particular expertise either because they are on a particular Scrutiny Panel or just because of their background, why should they be prevented from maybe speaking for 16 minutes or for half an hour or even for 50 minutes? I think the actual test should not be the length of what they say, it should be the content and it should be whether they have well-researched the issue. I think this brings me to the next point. This is the real problem as far as I see it, what it is is that Senator Routier, and perhaps others, do not like the fact that the Deputy of St. Mary stands up on occasions and, in my opinion, gives very well-informed, well-researched speeches, but they are slightly too lengthy for the particular concentration threshold of certain Members. I think that is the bottom line. I do not know why Senator Routier just simply did not bring a proposition to say that he should be the one that keeps his speeches to 15 minutes and the rest of us should be able to speak longer and maybe Deputy Le Claire could speak for 20 minutes, things like that, or whatever. So, I think this is the real motivation; it is personal. It is not a recent problem. This has been an issue in the States that certain Members speak for a long time, but as I have said and other