States Meeting Transcript - 07/07/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 7th JULY 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4

1. Composition of the States: further debates before the outcome of the Electoral Commission (P.78/2011) - resumption....................................................4

1.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................4

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................5
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................5

2. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201-: request to Privy Council (P.99/2011)................................................................................6

2.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :.........................................................7

1. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................9
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................12
3. Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:............................................12
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................13
5. The Solicitor General:..................................................................13
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................13
7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................13
8. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................14
9. Connétable L Norman of St. Clement:..................................................16
10. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................16
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................17
12. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................17
13. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................19
14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................19
15. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................21
16. The Solicitor General:...............................................................22
17. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:...............................................24
18. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................28
19. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................32
20. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................36
21. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................39
22. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................40

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................40

23. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................41
24. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................42
25. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier : ......................................................43
26. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................44

27. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................44
28. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................47
29. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................48
30. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................51
31. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................53
32. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................54
33. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................54
34. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................55
35. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................55
36. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................55
37. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................56
38. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................57
39. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................59

3. Jersey Harbours and Airport Shadow Board: Terms of Reference (P.47/2011)......61

3.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (the Minister for Economic Development):....................61

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................63
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................63
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................64
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................65
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................65
6. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................67
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................68
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................70
9. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................70

4. Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.71/2011)..........................................................................71

4.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst (The Minister for Social Security):...................................72

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................72
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................72
3. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................72
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................72
5. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................72
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................73

5. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Amendment No. 11) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.74/2011)..........................................75

5.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................76

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................76
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................76

6. Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 38) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.79/2011)...............77

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................77

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................79
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa..................................................................79
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................79
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................80
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................80
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................81

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................83

3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................84

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................84
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................84

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................86 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................86

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

[9:31]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Composition of the States: further debates before the outcome of the Electoral Commission (P.78/2011) - resumption

The Bailiff :

Then we return to the debate upon Projet 78. Does any Member wish to speak?

1.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I will, but I am not sure where my notes went from last night, so one will have to ad lib. Of course one cannot talk about the proposition of the Deputy of Grouville , but I think in order to put the arguments for and against Deputy Pitman's proposition, which I think some of us should and do have reservations about insofar as it does seem, in principle, to slightly restrict what this Chamber is about insofar as it should be open to any one of us to bring up a proposition, which we think has merit, which we think might reflect the fact that a mood in the general public has not been fully taken into account. If we think that there is real possibility that the public mood has changed or facts and circumstances have changed, I think that is an acceptable practice. But that must also be qualified and I think we also have to be consistent. First of all I do not think that much has changed and, of course, the main arguments will come out in the subsequent debate. But I think the reason we can support Deputy Pitman's is because we have come a long way in this Assembly to getting through reforms. It seems that the main argument being put by proponents of 12 Senators rather than 8 is the fact that it is undemocratic to reduce Senators by 4; from 12 to 8. I am not convinced that is the case and of course there will be many arguments to suggest that it is more democratic to move towards a single election date, and it is completely undemocratic to have 6 Members of the States who are not facing election and whose mandate is not tested after a 3-year period when the rest of us do have to do that. It also is the case that reform has been debated time and time again; can anybody tell me in their memories how many times reform has been debated while they have been here? Perhaps, the Constable of St. Ouen, Senator Le Sueur. So it is not simply the case that we can compare it to the likes of G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax), which I think are social issues, which are economic issues, which do change from day-to-day. The format and the constitution of the States is something which we clearly have not been able to decide on. We have made some limited progress towards a general election date, and that is where we are now. The status quo is not 12 Senators insofar as, okay, that is what we have now but the decision going forward, the status quo, is that we have 8 Senators and that we are moving to a general election day; that is the status quo, and that is what we should be leaving for the Electoral Commission as their starting point. I did have lots of other comments, Members will be thankful that I no longer have them, but

it was simply to say that I appreciate, I think, Deputy Pitman has been put in an invidious position. I do not think in an ideal world he would have liked to have brought this proposition, but I think we are having some smoke and mirrors going on. I do not think it is coming from the Deputy of Grouville . Personally I believe her motives are quite genuine, but we have seen a move from a small vocal and, perhaps, very prominent section of society to, what I think, wreck the very significant progress that this States has made. Significant, albeit slow, measured and thoughtful over many debates to reform and to the constitution of the States. We know that those who are behind this are self-interested, in my opinion, insofar as some of them are election candidates. It seems also that those who would be standing for those positions in the States also have a level of self-interest. That is not to be criticised. I am sure if they were cutting a seat in St. Brelade in No. 2 District I would probably have something to say about it as well, but although I may have been willing to accept that were it to promote a single election date. So I think we do have to be

cautious. I think, as I have said in a previous interjection, I do have serious reservations about the way the Privy Council have been lobbied. This kind of stand-off that is being brought is effectively a bluff because we know anything that goes to the Privy Council, unless it is an extreme, and at the moment hypothetical situation, the Privy Council cannot do anything but endorse what this House is doing. I think we are being bullied into making a decision perhaps with the thought at the back of our mind that the Privy Council might override us, which would just lead to a constitutional crisis, which is not going to happen. Certainly not for this. I will be supporting Deputy Pitman's proposition but I will not be supporting .. I do it with slight reservations because I think that it is up to the Assembly and up to any Member to be able to bring propositions as they see fit, but I do think that we also have to put that in context, we have to be mindful of the fact that we have a very busy schedule, Back-Benchers, Ministers, bringing forward what they consider and which are certainly important propositions and legislation. Really, at this stage, just before an election, just before summer recess when we have such a long list to debate something which has already been decided on many times and that has been resoundingly rejected or an alternative decision pursued, I do not think is the best use of this Assembly's time and so I will be supporting, on this occasion, Deputy Trevor Pitman's proposition and rejecting, in all likelihood, the Deputy of Grouville 's, for consistency.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

You can tell this is a proposition of Deputy Pitman, when you read it. It is in fact a very ineffective proposition. You can vote for this proposition and still support the Deputy of Grouville 's proposition. You can vote contre for this proposition and support the Deputy of Grouville . You can abstain from this proposition and still support the Deputy of Grouville , so it does not achieve anything. In fact you can also go off and do a mountain of constituency work, and I think I know what the public of the Island would prefer. We spend far too much time in this Chamber debating meaningless propositions while the backlog of work for the people of the Island builds up, and it is very sad that we do spend so long sitting in this debating Chamber instead of doing proper work for the people of the Island.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon Deputy Pitman to reply.

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

It is nice to see Senator Shenton here, we always like to see him. I thank all my friends who spoke and Senator Shenton as well. I do not intend to go through what everybody said because .. well, I could be wrong because I did get to sleep yesterday eventually after a fun-packed day here, 4 constituency meetings, some of us do do a lot of constituent work, and then we had a parish assembly, so it was a long day, as we all know, but I think, and people can correct me if I am wrong, but what can be said, I think, without any fear of challenge is this proposal is eminently sensible and common sense and it is what the people want. People want us to talk about real issues, they do not want us sort of running off to day jobs or things like that. They want us to get on with the issues of taxation, population, et cetera.

[9:45]

They do not want to be bothered with these little vested interests, small minority issues. So really what I would say is if you do think that population control, taxation, education of our children, et cetera, is important, and it is important to work for the people who elected us, then you can support this and I hope Members would. Senator Shenton, of course, has got it quite wrong. You cannot really support this and then support the Deputy of Grouville ; I mean, if the Senator, with due respect, knew a bit more about politics he would understand that. This is about sending out the message that, no, we are not going to just cherry pick again, as we always do, and as it has got us into a terrible mess. Senator Perchard, I think, was the best .. and I respect Senator Perchard because he has been consistent in his support of the Deputy of Grouville , but he is quite wrong, if we support the Deputy of Grouville everything else will fall. That is a fact. P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) have got legal advice on that. That is a hard fact. So if you think that we should get on to other things and if you think you are willing or future Houses should be willing to be constrained by common sense and letting an Electoral Commission do whatever it needs to do then support this. But, please, Members, if you are going to support the Deputy of Grouville vote against this, and with that I will leave it there. I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for then in relation to the proposition of Deputy Trevor Pitman. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting. If all Members have had an opportunity of voting, the Greffier will close the voting. The proposition is lost: 21 votes pour, 23 votes contre and 2 abstentions.

The Greffier of the States:

The  following  Members  voted  contre:  Senators  Routier,   Ozouf ,  Le  Main,  Cohen, Ferguson, Maclean, the Connétable s of St.  Ouen, Trinity , Grouville , St.  Martin, St.  John, St.  Peter, St. Lawrence , Deputies Le Hérissier, Southern , St. Ouen, Grouville , St. Peter, Trinity , Lewis , Gorst , Dupre and Noel. The Connétable of St. Mary and Deputy Jeune abstained from voting.

2. Draft States of Jersey(Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201-: request to Privy Council (P.99/2011)

The Bailiff :

Then we move next to Projet 99, Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law: request to Privy Council lodged by the Deputy of Grouville , and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (to refer to their Act dated 20th January 2011 in which, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, they adopted a law entitled the States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201-) and to agree that it is no longer the wish of the Assembly that the law should receive the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council and to charge the Greffier of the States to write to the Clerk of the Council notifying the Clerk that it is the wish of the States of Jersey to withdraw the law which was transmitted through the official channels under cover of a letter from the Greffier of the States dated 26th January 2011.

2.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

I make no apology for bringing this proposition back to the Assembly for reconsideration. I do not do so lightly, nor do I represent a political grouping or persuasion or campaign that is currently going on. I bring it because I am convinced that it is the right thing to do for our Island. To save Members the time let me advance from the outset the arguments that we have been here before, we have been here too recently, we will look stupid in the eyes of the electorate if we change our minds now. We have been here before but the impact of our decision on those who placed us here was seriously misjudged, in my opinion. As part of the slew of the other reforms the reduction in Senatorial seats slipped through the net in a way that should never have happened under the proposition title of Miscellaneous Provisions. Members, with the best of intentions, perceiving dissatisfaction among the public with the makeup of this Assembly took a step to address that, but instead of raising an Island-wide cheer for their efforts this part of the so-called reform was met with dismay, distrust and with more, not less, dissatisfaction and in some quarters complete outrage. We have all read the letters, the emails, the press and seen the resultant petition. It is our responsibility to listen to that and respond to it. We are a States of deliberation. The public has given us something tangible to deliberate upon and it is only right that we should do so. The other argument against debating this is that we have been here too recently. Well, yes, in truth we have. But that vote was lost by only 2 votes and we are under a time constraint for the forthcoming elections. Thirdly, we will look stupid in the eyes of the electorate if we change our minds now. Remind me, how many times have we voted on school milk, G.S.T. exemptions, and other issues? The Members of this Assembly are bigger than this. It is the saddest and most frustrating of all reasons so regularly put forward in this Chamber for sticking to an unpopular or wrong decision. Yes, we are put here to lead. The good leadership involves listening and having the strength to admit when we have got something wrong and the courage to correct it. That is not stupid, it is responsive and right and the public will thank us for it. While I am addressing the arguments against can we please avoid the navel-gazing argument that the listening public are so mightily fed up with us discussing, our own internal affairs. We should move on. This is not our affair, this is theirs and this is about their vote, not our seats. We have a duty not to turn a deaf ear to their cries while their democratic votes are being eroded. Why have they spoken out so forcefully? Because this generation of the voting public, and most of us here have grown up with the senatorial system, it is known to us and trusted because uniquely it is the Island as a whole having their say. A lot of our debates on these issues have brought forward, frankly, offensive claptrap about deterring the wrong sort of candidate from standing. I believe we should all be trying to improve the calibre of membership of this Assembly. Let us be honest, standing in the Senatorial Election is an arduous and rigorous test; to make it less attractive by reducing the chances of success so dramatically is not going to encourage new blood, it is going to deter it. It might only be 2 seats this time, but those are vital 2 seats as it is those 2 seats that can let in the fresh blood and the unknown with an Island- wide mandate. Our electorate is largely centre right as, by and large, our candidates are. That is not going to change. The point is, all of us here can guess who are the certainties to get re-elected and so can the public. Well-known people, politicians with a good track record, established politicians with families and followings in clubs and parishes, who always do well at the ballot box. There is nothing wrong with that. That is reality. But if a potential candidate with no particular

parish ties and an Island-based manifesto is looking at a possible election and is in a field of 6 places we can probably guess the shoe-ins and the certain favourites. They will probably number 3, even 4. If there are 6 places available it is still worthwhile for the unknown to stand. They might still be in with a chance, cut that down to only 4 places and they will not waste their time and money. What does that do for our democracy? So, yes, the proposed reduction in senatorial numbers will deter the so-called no-hopers but it will deter everyone else too and give us less choice in the spectrum of opinion. Therefore, those that argue that this is a Council of Ministers' ploy could not be more wrong. To disenfranchise Island voters at a time of such dissatisfaction with our workings in this House is dangerous beyond belief, and yes I know there are implications to my proposition. The fact is, by restoring our membership to 6 Senators in the forthcoming election, we will have increased the chances of quite a few and the electorate have a real choice instead of being presented with an A list of 4 dead certs. The Chairman of P.P.C. will no doubt elucidate the many reasons why we cannot change this decision. The administrative reasons it cannot be done. Well, yes, it can and she can do it. I know it is asking us to return to an issue debated in only January and in March this year but I am passionate about our duty to keep our democratic process intact until, as an Assembly, we have decided on a different system. One that has been reviewed by those without a vested interest, consulted upon and then debated thoroughly. I believe that the decision made by the Assembly in January is not only anti-democratic it is unconstitutional and conflicts with the third recital of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which says: "Whereas Jersey wishes to enhance and promote democratic accountable and responsible governance in the Island." The removal of 4 senatorial seats will reduce the electorate's democratic rights to vote by between 20 and 26 per cent. It therefore neither enhances nor promotes them. What that decision did was the complete opposite of what our constitution promotes. We have removed and reduced people's democratic rights without even consulting with them. When our rights and freedoms have been fought for over the centuries I would like States Members to ask themselves, by what authority they think they can make such a decision without any consultation with the people they serve and whose rights they are removing. I also remind Members that when the public were last consulted about the reduction in the membership of the States 63 per cent wanted a reduction in Deputies, 17 per cent wanted a reduction in Constables and 6 per cent wanted a reduction in Senators. The P.P.C. commissioned a MORI poll whose results were able to allow the revealed trends to be extrapolated to the voting population as a whole and presented the findings to the States in March 2007. The preferred option was based on a formula of fewer States Members and a general election day. Thirty Members would be elected Island-wide , as Senators are at present, and 12 Parish Constables would stay in the States. All Members would be elected on a single election day every 4 years. There would be, therefore, no Deputies but we would have 30 Members elected in an Island-wide mandate rather than the 12 at present. With 12 Constables there would be a total of 42 States Members, 11 fewer than at present. This scored 31 per cent in the poll and was the favoured option. It is option one that P.P.C. is using to advance the argument for fewer States Members but they failed to point out that it was based on a very different formula. The

second preferred choice was their option 3. [10:00]

The same number and the same 3 categories, Senators, Deputies and Constables, as at present but all elected on one general election day. This allows the existing membership to be retained but instead of having a lot of separate election days and different terms of office all 53, Members would be elected on the same day every 4 years. When going to the polls electors would have 3 separate ballot papers to vote for 12 Senators, their Parish Constable and their Deputy or Deputies. This scored  17 per  cent.   These results clearly demonstrate that Jersey  voters  want a higher proportion of States Members to be elected on an Island-wide franchise as, and I quote: "Senators are at present." The least favoured option was a reduction in Senators. Therefore, as we move towards an Island-wide election on the same day for the first time, ask yourself why we, as

Members of the States, voted by a majority of 2 to do the opposite of our voters' wishes. Then ask whom it is you serve. As I have said before, it is not our constitution that is causing voter dissatisfaction. It is, in my opinion, ministerial government. We are shining the torch in the wrong area. For all that, we have achieved a lot in 3 years but we seldom reflect on our successes. We now have all the Constables being elected on one day, the Deputy 's term of office has been brought forward to deliver a single voting day, thus doing away with the 2 bites of the cherry that the public resented so much; where a failed senatorial candidate, having received 5 weeks' worth of publicity could then chance his or her arm in the Deputies elections. We no longer have elections spread over 9 weeks with the inevitable and understandable election fatigue contributed to by the gap between the senatorial and deputies' elections. Now, for the first time, all Constables, Deputies and I hope 6 Senators will be elected on the same day this year. I congratulate P.P.C. on achieving these long-awaited reforms, however we still have the problem of having to decide the numbers of Senators. One of the most underrated aspects of Senators is that they are elected on a rolling basis, 6 out of the 12 are being required to stand for election every 3 years. That, in my opinion, is a good system. It provides stability within Government. By historical coincidence the element of stability ideally suited the emergence of industries based in the Island, particularly the financial part of our economy that provides the vast majority of our jobs and income as a Government. This sector relies entirely on the international perception of the stability and effectiveness of our governance. We simply cannot afford to be seen to be tinkering with it rather than amending it following a properly consulted upon review. It is therefore a great benefit that in March this year the Assembly agreed to appoint an Electoral Commission. I voted for it. I voted for it because I knew our constitution would be independently reviewed in a holistic way, free from vested interest. It will review all aspects of the composition of the elected membership of the States Assembly and the election and voting processes, hopefully improving all our performance and effectiveness as a Government of this Island, and as the Lieutenant Governor said last week, to establish a better

understanding ..

The Bailiff :

Standing Orders do, Deputy , prevent Members from relying upon things said by the Lieutenant Governor in their argument.

The Deputy of Grouville :

I beg your pardon, Sir. I think we all know what he said. Surely the Electoral Commission and its process of review should only be based on the status quo from an established position rather than after a one-sided reduction in those who represent the whole Island. What we cannot and should not do is introduce piecemeal changes where democratic rights are infringed and reduced in the guise of a reform package. I recognise that it could be some time before an Electoral Commission's recommendations have been consulted upon, agreed and implemented. Nevertheless, I believe we should maintain the current system of Government that has stood us well through time until that time arrives. I also recognise that there will be a real impact on those Deputies who are looking forward to a 4-year term of office that will fall away if my proposition is passed. I ask them to reflect on the benefit to the electorate rather than their own positions. We cannot logically consider reviewing the effectiveness of our Government by offering up a reduced number of States Members taken from the broadest mandates in an untried system. I make my proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Tadier .

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

I am making the mistake of speaking early in the morning and also speaking early in the debate, but it is something I feel fairly strongly about. I am surprisingly better than I thought in the morning, certainly when it comes to matters of electoral reform. I am not going to try and pursue the argument that we have been here before and we have debated this enough because, as I have said, I have certainly been here re-debating G.S.T. and re-debating the incinerator, even though I did not debate them initially. It is worth noting though, there is a difference between re-debating the incinerator, which was one of the first debates that we had in this new Assembly, and debating electoral reform because very many of us felt passionately that the incinerator was the wrong decision, the same as the Deputy of Grouville thinks that the reduction in Senators is the wrong decision. The difference is we had not appointed an independent board to look at whether or not the incinerator was a good idea or to come up with alternatives as to what other kind of incinerators could be used. If that had been the case neither the Deputy of St. Mary nor myself or other supporters would have found it necessary to support the rescindment decision. This is one key difference, I think it is important to highlight. We do have an independent body to look at the whole issue, which can be used as an argument both ways, I agree. What I am going to focus on is what I see as the myth, or certainly the half truth that is being pedalled that somehow the reduction in Senators is antidemocratic and that what the Assembly has decided democratically and by majority on several occasions now is somehow less democratic or, as the Deputy of Grouville has put it: "Undemocratic and unconstitutional" because it certainly is not undemocratic or unconstitutional. It is the democratic will and decision of this House. The first thing I would say is that what the House has very difficultly managed to gain over the last series of debates is a general election. We can hear .. of course we get letters in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) and we know how the J.E.P. around election time sources their letters. I certainly know that in the last elections there were fanciful letters being written to the J.E.P. from people who did not exist and who did not live in the houses that they said they were. I was the subject of one letter myself - I just put this in as an aside to show that we have to be wary of some of the machinations sometimes of some of the media in Jersey - because I received a letter, which was critical, and it came from this address on the electorate which the person was not on the electoral roll at all. I made some inquiries and the J.E.P. said: "Would you like to respond to this letter before we publish it?" and I said: "Well, I would like to ascertain that it has been written by a real person. They are not on the electoral roll and clearly somebody with such political interest should be on the electoral roll." After I said that I heard nothing back from the J.E.P. But that is not to undermine the argument; there is a very strong feeling in Jersey that the reduction in Senators is somehow wrong and somehow undemocratic. The argument I wish to put forward is what we are doing is that we are promoting democracy insofar as that we are giving people more choice at a general election because, as things currently stand, in any one election cycle there are 6 Senators you cannot vote for. This is something I know the electorate feel very strongly about. My own constituents, some of whom are not as completely up-to-date with politics as we are, say: "Oh, there is an election coming up in October, are you standing for election?" "Yes, I am standing for election." "So I know there are certain Senators, I am not going to be voting for them again" (I will not mention any names) "I am not going to vote for Senator X, I am certainly not going to vote for Senator Y." "No, you are not because they are not up for election." And they say: "Really? That is not right. They are not up for election?" "No, but they will be in 2014 because what we have done the States have decided that we are going to have a general election day and you have the right to change the whole of your Government." This is the kind of undemocratic practice that the Deputy of Grouville is talking about and others, so there is a great fear here because this "stability" is a completely subjective word. The 6 Senators who remain there who then go on to become Chief Minister, usually at the lowest point of their popularity, the public popularity, are then appointed by the States Chamber without necessarily the mandate of the people. This is something that people feel very strongly about. The question is, though, I would pose to the Deputy of Grouville (who I know is a proponent of democracy) is how do we balance what seems to be .. it is not counter-intuitive but mutually contradictory desires of the electorate. They want to have more Senators because there is this perception, because they are somehow elected on an Island-wide basis because everybody can vote for them, it is easy to understand, that much is certain. How do we balance that with the fact

that people want to vote ideally for their Chief Minister but, in the absence of that, they want the Chief Minister to be appointed from a new intake of people? They cannot do that. They have therefore no real control over the Council of Ministers - in the absence of any party politics they do not have any way of controlling policy direction - they at least want to be able to change all of the States Members on a single date if they want to. Stability is not for us to dictate. It is not for businesses to say: "We need stability therefore for stability we need 6 people out of 53 staying in the States." Why do we not just say let us have half of the States staying the same or if we want true stability let us not have elections at all. Let us have the business community appointing candidates not just the normal candidates that they do every 3 and 6 years in the form of some of their Senators, who are surreptitiously backed by the business community and then given the top jobs by, what some think, is a nod and a wink in the corridors of power. Let us just not have any elections at all and let the business community, if it is for stability's sake and for the economy, let them just appoint those who they think are best to run the Island. That is probably how things were run in the past. That is certainly not a democracy, that is tending towards more of an oligarchy. That is not something I want to have any part of. I think we have to talk up what the States has done. I do have sympathy for the head of P.P.C. because I know, having been there; I know also previous P.P.C.s what they have had to deal with, they have had to wrestle, and I think on this occasion she has been given an unfair ride by the media, the media who seem intent on keeping what are essentially conservative seats. It is not because of the fact they are conservative it is just simply because of the fact that I think we found a better solution. We have found a way to give the people what they want, which is a general election, we have found a way to make sure that in future the Chief Minister will have to be elected on a new round of elections, therefore solving the problem of asking Chief Ministerial candidates to stand down before or to have to declare before, because that is something which really grates with the public, so I do think that these arguments have not been brought out. The anti-democratic arguments have been pedalled, by and large, by those who have got absolutely no interest in democratic reforms. One of the Senators, who I will not mention, said to me: "I have no interest in democratic reforms. I think the States works perfectly well as it is." That is fine, that is an opinion. He is entitled to that opinion, but it also goes to show that the reason that some Members do not want any change in the reduction of Senators is not because it is particularly democratic, it is just that they will defend at any cost the

status quo. [10:15]

I do think we need to reiterate the fact that the public want lots of different things. They want ostensibly, we are being told, to keep 12 Senators but they also do not want us to carry on talking about elections at the same time. They do not want us to, what is being termed as "navel-gazing." It is unfortunate that we are in this position and that we are being asked to lobby the Privy Council to go back against our decision. It is a very curious thing that we are asking. We are asking the Privy Council not to take on board our previous decisions. It is a very strange set of affairs. So I think the points have been made. The current proposals that we have and that P.P.C. have worked on diligently in many meetings, which could be cast aside today; we could just click our fingers, we could say: "No, we are going to get rid of this, we are going to get rid of all the hard work that is being done, we are not going to have a general election day. Mrs. Ecobichon, Mr. Ahier of St. Brelade, you are not going to be able to vote to change your whole Government in 2014. You are not going to be able to have the ability to change the Government. You are not going to be able to vote for all Senators. You will continue to have a minus 6 deficit at any general election that could have been. There will be 6 people that you cannot vote for." The last thing, I think, is this idea that we are reducing people's rights. No, we are increasing the rights. I think the argument has been made by a Senator himself, Senator Le Marquand: instead of every 6 years, you are voting every 4 years. So you get to choose every 4 years rather than every 6 years. You do not have to wait 4 years to kick out somebody who has managed to perhaps fool you and say: "I support a reduction in

G.S.T. I am not going to increase G.S.T." As soon as they get the first chance they increase G.S.T. and then you have to wait another 3 years. You say: "Hang on a minute. Is this democratic? We are talking about democracy here and I have got to sit here while there is an election going on for 47 Members and the one person in the States that I want to get rid of because he misled me in the elections, I have to wait another 3 years and what is he going to be? He is going to be the Chief Minister. All right. So, Deputy , who is talking about democracy here? I have to stand here or sit here while the States is being run. I can vote for Senators, Deputies, Constables and it does not matter so long as the 6 people who are controlling power, the 6 people who say things to get elected then change their minds, stay in power." See, this is the problem that I have and I think many Members of the public have. That is why I favour a single election day. That is why I favour more democracy for the people. Give them the chance to change their whole Government. Do not say that 6 people, on the ostensible grounds of stability .. I mean, one person's stability is another person's stone around the neck. These are the only arguments I can make. I have spoken early, I have spoken passionately, and I think that there will be other arguments which I miss. But I think the whole story has not been said. This idea that the public are being peddled in particular by one election candidate who has no doubt spent much money, and he has the money to spend, on a campaign which presumably will not count towards his election expenses; although that is maybe something that P.P.C. would like to look at .. he has been able to put across one side of the story, which is not representative of the whole debate. I am quite happy to stand here, because I know some constituents have been perplexed, saying it is strange that you voted for a reduction in Senators and I hope that I have given an acquittal of my position today and the position which I think many Members of the Assembly would agree with.

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

Sir, I wonder if I may ask the Solicitor General a question based on what Deputy Tadier said and the statement made by Senator Perchard at end of session last night? Is it the case that, if this is accepted by the House, all the other reforms will fall away or can this be separated out, as Senator Perchard was intimating, from the other reforms?

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Sir, while the Solicitor General is contemplating that question I wonder if we could raise the défaut on Deputy Le Fondré?

The Bailiff :

Does everyone agree to raise the défaut on Deputy Le Fondré? The défaut is raised. Solicitor General, can you answer that question?

3. Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

Yes. There is presently a law to be considered by the Privy Council and, if this proposition is adopted today or next week, presumably the result of that will be that that law will be withdrawn from the Privy Council's consideration. So that law will effectively be removed from their in-tray and they will not consider it and, therefore, everything in it will not be passed into law. I hope that helps.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I thank the Solicitor General but could he comment on whether the law is constructed in such a fashion that every part depends on the other; it is totally interconnected, in other words?

The Bailiff :

I think the Solicitor General has made the position clear. The law fails, everything in the law fails.

The Deputy of Grouville :

Sir, could I just clarify that? As I said in my speech, we still have one election day, albeit 6 or 4 Members will not be up for election. So it is not everything. It is not every reform. We still ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry. You cannot start having a second speech at this stage. You can deal with this in your reply.

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

I wanted to just ask a further question of the Solicitor General. It was to follow up on a question I think Senator Perchard raised as well yesterday, which I believe he put to the Solicitor General and maybe this is the right time to ask. I think there was a reference that even if this was all rejected today, that is the law is withdrawn, it would be no problem to get any Senators elected under 6 years forthcoming elections to shorten their term. In other words, he inferred that if a 4-year term was to be introduced in the next sitting sometime obviously there would be an impact on the Senators that are elected at the forthcoming elections in October and that they could have their term reduced effectively by an act of law. Now, my understanding in the past is the advice has been that would be against all sorts of rights because the electorate had voted in someone for 6 years and the only way that could be achieved was by those Senators voluntarily standing down. I suppose the point I am asking is Senator Perchard seemed to imply that it was something that could be done legally and my understanding is that is against legal advice that was previously received in all the other reform debates we have had.

5. The Solicitor General:

So the question is: supposing Senators are elected in October, thereafter can the States pass a law reducing their term of office? The position, of course, is that when you start talking about changing the constitution in such a fundamental way alarm bells start ringing in lawyers' minds and there are risks involved in such a process. There are 2 risks, in my view, or at least 2 risks. The first is that you are not recognising the express will of the electorate. That is to say, they have voted somebody in for 6 years and expect that person to serve the 6 years, save for bad behaviour, I suppose. The second risk, of course, relates to the expectation of the successful candidate who also expects to serve the 6-year term. So there are risks in those 2 ways in the States voting to reduce an elected Member's term of office halfway through the life of a States Assembly.

6. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

As usual, I will be brief. I did support the reinstatement of the Senators last time and I will be supporting it again. It is my belief that the people of Jersey wish to retain the full Island-wide mandate and, for that, I do support an Independent Electoral Commission. But I do not support in any way, shape or form any petition or approach to the Privy Council. I think this is a very dangerous precedent and should be avoided at all costs, but I will be supporting P.99.

7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Hopefully you will agree with me that as we get older our memories start to fade. I have to say today my memory has not faded since January or since March and I do not expect to hear anything new in the speeches that have followed that of the proposer and the alternative view put by Deputy Tadier . The only thing that has changed is that we are going to set up an electoral commission. To me, that has not changed where I stand on this particular issue. I would also like to say that one would have expected a vulnerable Senator like myself to be lobbied between March and today's debate to change my vote and I can tell you that not one person has contacted me.  [Approbation] So if there really is a mood out there to get back to 6 Senators at the next election why was I not contacted, because I could have been regarded as vulnerable. I think we are going to be wasting our time today. In fact, I noticed very soon after the Deputy sat down, having made her speech, 20 Members left the Chamber. I suspect that those 20 will be summoned back when we come for the vote because they have already made up their mind. In fact, I would go so far as to say we have all

made up our minds. We are wasting our time. We have got a massive agenda. [Approbation] I know that the Minister for Economic Development is desperate to debate his terms of reference for the Shadow Board for the Harbours and Airport and I think we should bring this debate to a very swift end, take a vote and get on.

8. Senator A. Breckon:

Notwithstanding the previous comments, interestingly in her comments the Deputy of Grouville has said: "I felt so strongly at what this Assembly had done that I vowed to fight on." Then in her speech she has said: "Well, there has been no consultation." Well, my question to her, and perhaps she could tell me when she sums up, is: where has her consultation been? Have there been any public meetings? Where were they?  How many attended, or have I missed this? I can remember organising a meeting with the Finance and Economics Committee when we were talking about stopping mortgage relief and we had to call out the Fire Service at the Town Hall to check and we had to have another meeting the next night. I do not remember this happening about Senatorial seats. So perhaps she could tell me where the strength of this argument comes from and where the public feeling has been whipped up, because I have missed it; it has gone over my head or I have not picked it up. The other thing is she has mentioned a petition. Now, this petition, the one that is supposed to be around, is a bit of a mystery. It has been on the street, it has been off the street. She also mentioned the Town Park, G.S.T. and the school milk, but they have been very visible and they have come before this House. Where has the other one gone? There are some questions there. Maybe she could tell us how many signatures she got for it. If she feels so strongly, has she been standing out in King Street in the rain doing that, or even in the sunshine? How many signatures, who organised it and who paid for it? These are questions people would like to know. Where is this public feeling? Nobody paid for a milk petition, nobody paid for a G.S.T. one and nobody for paid for one on the Town Park. So where is this coming from? I would like to know and perhaps she could tell us in her summing up. The other thing, this has gone to the Privy Council. I know of cases and Deputy Le Hérissier probably knows them as well. When I first got elected to the States many years ago a number of people phoned me up and they had some seriously complex legal cases and they had trouble with the courts. They were litigants in person and the courts had been kind to them, but they were not satisfied with the outcome and they used this petition as an individual member. Deputy Le Hérissier knows the same cases and people come to you with a suitcase full of papers and say: "I would like to petition the Privy Council." Now, those are the only ones that I am aware of done by individuals who have felt aggrieved by the system. But, again, and I am sure this is the same, if somebody wants to go to a European court then you have to prove that you have exhausted all local remedy. You need to have gone through a process and demonstrated: "Well, I have tried this where I am. I have tried everything and I have tried appeal. It is finished. I can go no further. So I need to go outside." Here, we have not had a public meeting that I know of and somebody has gone to these lengths to go to London to present this to the Privy Council without

having a meeting at the Town Hall even to get people there. [10:30]

Now, if we had filled the Town Hall and we had to go somewhere else then I can understand the strength of public feeling. But where is it? It is not there. So I would say to those that have gone outside the Island, perhaps they have used processes when they should have used people power first to demonstrate the strength of feeling. The other thing the Deputy of Grouville said in her opening speech was: "The decision was seriously misjudged." That is what she said. She also touched on about 4 seats and 6 seats and it seemed to me that she had people in mind: "Well, these 4 are strong. These I am not getting. These are going to have a go." It seemed to me that she had individuals in mind. What we have to do is set aside individuals and look at the process and this is something that has plied the minds of this P.P.C. and others before it. What has happened is that this House has balked when it has been given a set of proposals: "What can we do? Oh, we do not like that bit. We do not like that bit." What has happened is I remember it coming from the Constables, they were proactive in proposing the 4-year term and that had to be rescinded because the other bits were not coming with it. That is where the progress was and I think P.P.C. recognised at the time that the wholesale change will not happen: "Then we will try bits and pieces here and there", and that is what happened, the bits were cherry-picked. It is a long time since I was at school, but in maths we learned things about a common denominator and I will explain this. If we think of 3-year terms and 4-year terms, the common denominator is 12 because in 12, 3 goes into it and 4 goes into it. Now, for every 3 years, if you are voting for 6 Senators, it is 24. In the same 12 years, in a 4- year period if you vote for 8 Senators it is 24. So how we get a reduction in who you can vote for, I am not quite sure. Who did the maths? But they are the figures and that is rock solid. That is it. It is true; it is indisputable, indisputable. So where the reduction comes from I do not know. The other thing that has happened, and other people have mentioned, it is possible .. Senators Shenton and Perchard are sitting behind me. They are in the second period of a 6-year term. Now, I am not saying it applies to them but it is possible for Senators in the second part of their term to fall asleep at the wheel and then what can the public do? The idea of coming to a 4-year term was so that this would not happen and we would all have our act together and we were more accountable. Now, that is what the process was about. Now, if we talked about the change, where was the change going to come from? The Deputy of Grouville talked about ministerial government and possible failure. I would say to Members that I think the Constables have kept the contact with the people more than anyone through this process of ministerial government. When we had a committee system we were all out there doing things in various ways and the Constables have kept that contact with the schools, the churches, the parish events and the rest of it and some of us have disappeared a little bit from the public view. Not all of us, but that is how the people feel about it. Now, that is really where we are. So if we look at change, and it is something that has been mentioned recently in this House, we need to keep that contact. That is why others have put a great deal of faith in the

Electoral Commission, but it will be for this House to decide and that is where the issues will be. There are things about super-constituencies and things. I would like to think that we could sit down and do it, rather than wheel in and wheel out the great and good to tell us this, that and the other and then take some notice of it or no notice of it. I have not got a great deal of confidence in what that might do. The other thing, I think I made the point that, as far as I am concerned, this is not about us, as far as the public are concerned, is not an issue at all. The public are worried about things, but it is not about whether there is more or less of us; it is about things like school fees, it is about the price of housing and affordability and things like that. It is about everyday living costs. Who we are and what we do is important, but not necessarily how many of us there are. Ask people: "Do you want more Government or less?" The answer is: "We want more effective Government. We do not really care how many you are, what title you have got or what you do. Just do something about the things that we are concerned about." If you want to know what is really going on out there, go in the 99p shop and see the queue for bread and milk and you will find out what things are about. That is what people are talking about and that is what they are interested in. The thing is, in the end it is who is listening in here and out there and who will act. I have a great deal of sympathy with this P.P.C. and the previous ones because it has got to come before this House and, for me, there is no point spending thousands and thousands of pounds on an electoral commission to do something and then say: "Oh, we do not like that bit." It is a bit like - and I got lumbered with it a few years ago - Sunday trading. Everybody says: "The law is not policed. It does not work. It is a bit of a nonsense. Change it." When you propose change they say: "Do not do that, though. Do not do that." That is about where we are with this. The Sunday trading law is broken every Sunday, every Sunday without exception. So where are we with this? The reason I say that, we are a bit like that with this situation. What is it we are wanting to change? What is it we want to change? Is it the number of people in here? Now, if we need to go to an Island-wide mandate, how do we get 40 or 50 people elected on an Island-wide mandate? You cannot do it in one go. If you do it in 4 goes - turn a timer, let us say - then you have disjointed Government where people are coming and going. How do you have collective working in any way, shape or form? If we are going to have a change, it is simple enough; it will have to be bigger constituencies. That is the only way, whether you still have the Island-wide mandate or not. But this is not rocket science and we all know enough about it. The other thing is (Senator Ozouf will know because he has done figures over the year) I think the average vote in a Senatorial election from the electorate is 4.6. Many people do not use 6 votes and people are aware of the plumping element of it, whether that is Deputies .. not so much Constables but Senatorial, they are aware of that. The facts and figures show that and there is no hue and cry about this. For me, if you like, it is turkeys voting for Christmas. I have been consistent on this because generally we have agreed we must reduce the numbers in this House. How do we do? I have blown hot and cold about the Connétable s and, I must say, my view is that the Constables have been the bedrock of the Assembly and the contact with the public and have seen us through what has been a difficult period of ministerial government where, for some, we have lost touch with the public. But the Constables have not at all. So if we leave that in, where are the rest of us? We need to address that. We do not need, as I say, the great and the good to do that. The reason I voted for this is we need to take a step and the reduction from 12 to 8 was a step. I forget the debate we were having but this Back- Bench was empty (Senator Le Gresley will vouch for that) for a few days, I think people were out of the Island and whatever else. I think it was the Island Plan or whatever it was, in the last fortnight anyway, that this Back-Bench was empty for most of it. I think the Chief Minister and Senator Routier were on States business and I think the other 2 Senators were on a pre-planned visit to the U.K. (United Kingdom). That is the way it was. It did not feel that empty really without that. So I think we can stay as we are. We have agreed to do this. I respect the Deputy of Grouville 's right to do this and I look forward to hearing her answers.

9. Connétable L Norman of St. Clement :

Deputy Tadier was absolutely right. He should not make speeches first thing in the morning [Laughter] which is a shame because he started off so well. He made it clear - and it is the same note that I made - that the decisions that we have made on this issue are not undemocratic or unconstitutional and if we support the Deputy of Grouville today, neither will that be unconstitutional or undemocratic. It would be wrong, but it would not be unconstitutional or undemocratic. You see, what the Deputy is showing concern about is not, I think, the reduction in the total number of Senators but it is about the transitional arrangements to get to a situation where the electorate will be offered a greater choice, more votes for Senators in 3 years' time. We will have more votes for Senators in 3 years' time than we have now because from 2014 we will be able to vote for 8 States Members on the Island-wide mandate every 4 years instead of the 6 we have done and the 4 we will do this year. The threat, if there is a threat, to the role of the Senators is not this decision that we have made about reducing the total number to 8 but the decision to have them elected on the same day as Constables and Deputies and by reducing their term of office to the same as Deputies and Constables. That is where the real threat to the Island-wide mandate is because those changes remove the incentives for Deputies who feel they have got a reasonably safe constituency to move up; because what are they being offered? A longer term? No. Less expensive in running the election? I can assure you, having done it a couple of times, running a Senatorial election is a lot more expensive, a lot more tiring and a lot more difficult than running a Deputies or Constables election. So very few Deputies - I am sure there would be one or 2 exceptions - will choose to run for the Island-wide mandate. Once the current crop of Senators has moved on and retired, what they are going to find is, for these 8 Island-wide seats, the vast majority of candidates will be newcomers to politics. Quite honestly, I do not think the Islanders, the electorate, are going to appreciate that very much and, in the end, the role will disappear altogether. So we will not be arguing about losing 2 seats in the short term, but rather losing all of the seats because it is undemocratic to have every Senator elected from newcomers to politics. So I shall be

consistent in voting against the Deputy 's proposition.

10. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

Again, we have heard this morning, as we have done in the past debates, about vested interested and so I think it is important that I declare my interest in this particular debate. I am one of the Members here today who has been privileged to have quite a large say in the way that my Island is run today and into the future. Of course, after 12th November this year I will not have that amount of say. I will have the same amount of say as every other member of the general public. I am really glad that Senator Breckon picked up on the fact that the Connétable s do have quite a close role with the public that they are supposed to represent in this House. That public has come to me in quite large numbers on this particular subject. They are saying that the States made this decision without the proper backing of the public that they were making the decision about. When I finish in the States, as I said, I will have the same vote as everybody else and so this year, for instance, I will only be able to vote for 4 Senators if we do not change this vote. Now, I listened to what Senator Breckon had to say and that over 12 years I will vote for the same number, but I could be dead before the 12 years are up; so I will not have that privilege. When I listened to Deputy Pitman summing up in the previous debate, he intimated that this was a small minority issue. I suggest to the House that this is not a small minority issue with members of the public out there. They feel, regardless of how they try and manoeuvre the figures to prove otherwise, that this is, in some way, taking away part of their franchise and I think that we have done a great risk to ourselves. I think that it will be an issue in the forthcoming election and it will be an issue that the public will react to. I have been consistent in my opposition to the removal of 2 Senators through every vote and, like Senator Le Gresley, I do not intend changing my mind.

[10:45]

11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I was not intending to speak but, since you have invited me, I will say a few words. [Laughter] [Aside] I think, to quote the Constable of St. Lawrence yesterday: "There is an elephant in the room" and the elephant in the room is the proponent of this and does not want any change at all. They never have wanted change. They know full well that the Electoral Commission, despite the finest rhetoric from the Deputy of St. Mary, could well be a rerun of Clothier. We will be stuck with the same issues. What they also should know and what the Constable of St. Ouen did not acknowledge in his speech, and I am as guilty as he, is it is not just the Senators. It is not just saying: "We must keep them because they are the most democratic element," because what a fallacious argument. Everybody should be democratic and the Constable and I should not be coming in regularly on unelected mandates, for example. What we need is a much more wholehearted reform. I have never, for a moment, believed that the proponents behind this are prepared to do that and, as Senator Breckon quite rightly said (in one of his most passionate and convincing speeches ever, I might add, and I hope maybe this is a sign that he is moving away from the Consumer Council to more passionate areas): "Where is the real democracy throughout the system?" In a way, the public could not give an iota [Laughter] about the rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. What they are worried about is that the States is a dysfunctional organisation, it is not working and I think they will support people who are prepared to engage in proper debate at that level. Not this continual rearrangement of the deckchairs.

12. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

We come to this debate and it is a package of reform that we are being asked to withdraw, and this has not been picked up by our esteemed media when it has been publicised, it is focused on the reduction of the Senators. Like the Constable of St. Ouen, people have spoken to me about it but when you explain to them it is a package of reform and that different bits go together, and when you say the universal 4-year term enables a general election, and I do not know how fine a detail the Constable went, but when I have explained that to people a different attitude has prevailed. A more thoughtful one has come and when you start going into the credibility of the number of Senators elected on the same day attitudes do change. So I have done a bit of research, as I do, and the Deputy of Grouville from the MORI polls quoted different statistics but she neglected to mention that in 2006 when people were polled, 71 per cent of that sample said that they wanted a general election. Now the only way you can have a general election is by having everyone on the same term. There were benefits to that in that if you have everyone on a 4 year term you abolish the 2 tier system that we have at the moment. Now, no one has commented about the vast - I think Deputy Tadier did - frustration of members of the public who find that a fifth-place Senator X number of years ago find themselves being lined up for a Chief Minister's position without facing a fresh election. Now if we move to a universal 4-year term the benefit from that is Senators will have to stand on a proper Chief Minister mandate in front of the electorate. They will be elected on that basis. Many of the electorate want to be able to vote for the Chief Minister. Why has no one mentioned this yet? But of course with the right of appointment comes the responsibility of dismissal. So if you were to move to a presidential-type system you could be in the absolutely awful position where if the public choose their Chief Minister, if that individual is not acceptable to States Members we could find ourselves in a very bad situation. Then you have got to ask: "How will this individual be dismissed?" Is it by States Members, is it by the public. You are opening yourself to all different types of areas where you probably do not want to go. However, if Senators are standing in front of the electorate on a fresh mandate as a Chief Minister then it makes our job much easier and probably more representative of the public wishes at that time. Now the Deputy of Grouville commented that we are in an invidious position, but who has put us in that position? I would say the Deputy of Grouville by constantly lodging the same proposition. That is why we are here. We sat in this Chamber, we made a decision to our democratic system and the democratic decision was made. Yet some people just cannot accept that decision. That is fair enough. In my research I pulled up a previous speech of a Member and on 25th February 2009 this Member said: "Well, even in the short time that I have been a States Member I am frustrated by the number of times that we revisit decisions that we have made. Just ask, is it good government and how much will this delay cost both financially and to the reputation of our Island? Here we are again asking this House to rescind a decision that we made a last year. That decision at that time was not quick or lightly made. So please let's take responsibility for our decisions we have already laboured and agonised over, please let us just get on with it." That speech was made by the Deputy of Trinity during the incinerator debate. But the Deputy of Trinity is one of those people who have countersigned this proposition. She has quite clearly said in the States: "We have made a democratic decision" and here we are showing another face. It is very frustrating. So by the MORI poll we have established that a general election is what the public want and we have decided that should be done for a 4 year term. But let us imagine for a moment that we keep 12 Senators because some think that this is the magic number, and this goes back to explaining the impact on the public. I went back and I pulled up from the last 2 senatorial elections, the candidates and the votes that they got. So in tenth, eleventh and twelfth place last time you had Candidate Tadier with 5,011; Candidate Pitman in eleventh place with 4,931 and Candidate Troy with 3,927, so let us say 4,000 votes over a population of 92,000 officially, we have to give a system to the public which is credible. We have to ask ourselves is someone coming in from a senatorial election gaining 4,000,