States Meeting Transcript - 20/01/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 20th JANUARY 2011

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

1. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010): third amendment (P.176/2010 Amd.(3)) - as amended - resumption..........................4

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................5

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................6
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................7
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:......................................................................8
4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................9
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................10
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................11
7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................11
8. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................12
9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................13
10. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter : ......................................................15
11. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................15
12. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................16
13. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................17
14. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................18
15. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................19
16. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................19
17. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................21
18. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................21
19. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................21

2. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010): fourth amendment (P.176/2010 Amd.(4)) - Paragraph 1(b)(iv)(A)............................24

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................24
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................25
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................25
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................25
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................25

3. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010) - resumption ...........................................................................................26

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................28
2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................28

4. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010): fourth amendment (P.176/2010 Amd.(4)) - amendment to Article 5..........................28

1.4.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................28

5. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010) - as amended ...........................................................................................29

1. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................29
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................29
3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................30
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................30
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................30

6. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010): fourth amendment (P.176/2010 Amd.(4)) - paragraph 3.......................................30

1.6.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................31

7. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010) - as amended ...........................................................................................31

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................31
2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................31

2. Ratification of the Agreement for the exchange of information relating to taxes between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the People's Republic of China (P.178/2010)......................................................................33

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

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................33
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................34
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................34

3. Jersey Bank Depositors Compensation Board: appointment of members (P.180/2010) ...........................................................................................35

3.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................35

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................36
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................36
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................36
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................37
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................37
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................38
7. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................38
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................38

4. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: appointment of non-States Commissioner (P.183/2010)..............................................................................39

4.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................39

5. Draft Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Amendment) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.184/2010)..............................................................................40

5.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................41

1. The Deputy ofSt.Martin:..............................................................41
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................41
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................41
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................41
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................41
6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................42

7. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................42
8. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................42
9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................42
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................42
11. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................43
12. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................43
13. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................43
14. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................43
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................43

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................45

6. Statement by Senator F.E. Cohen regarding appointment of an additional Assistant Minister ..................................................................................45

6.1 Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................45

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................45
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................46
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................47
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................48
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................48
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................48
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................48
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................49

9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................49
10. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................49
11. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................50
12. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................50
13. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................50

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................51

7. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......51

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................51
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................51

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................52

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

[9:35]

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft States of Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201- (P.176/2010): third amendment (P.176/2010 Amd.(3)) - as amended - resumption

The Bailiff :

The Assembly is debating the amendment lodged by Senator Ferguson and before we resume debate an issue was raised, I think, yesterday on a point of procedure, namely as to whether there could be separate votes on the 2 parts of the Senator's amendment. She wishes to amend the new proposed Article 6A in 2 respects. Under paragraph (a) of her amendment she wishes to, in effect, preserve the number of Senators to 6 who will be elected this coming year instead of reducing it to 4, as is put forward by P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), and then the second part of her amendment, paragraph (aa), in effect, preserves the position at the next election in October 2014 instead of only 8 Senators being elected at that time there would be 12. There are 2 separate..

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

That is where I had a procedural .. that means we are having our first general election in 2014? The Bailiff :

Yes, that is what the States has already agreed with Senator Ozouf 's proposition.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I thought it was 2018, the first general.

The Bailiff :

No, 2014. But the question then is whether they can be taken separately. When one considers whether amendments can be taken separately one just has to check to see that they work and that they do not, in fact, lead to a legal nonsense. Having considered the position overnight, it is quite clear that they can work separately. In other words, Members could choose to keep 12 Senators for the time being by agreeing to paragraph (a) but then reduced to 8 in 2014, or they could agree to keep the number at 12 in 2014. In other words it works legally either way. So it is a matter for Members therefore I rule that the amendments put forward by Senator Ferguson can procedurally be taken separately. Whether they are is a matter for the Senator; as with all amendments it is up to the Senator whether she wishes to put forward a package, saying, in effect: "I want to keep 12 for ever and therefore you must either vote against me or for me" or whether she wishes to say: "I am content to let the States decide whether they want to keep 12 for the next few years until 2014 and then have the option either to keep it at 12 or reduce it to 8." It is a matter entirely for the Senator.

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

One question, and it is only because I had not looked into the splitting of the thing until I see you passing your judgment there, if Members vote to keep 6 Senators for the time being, for next year, and then to reduce it to 4 Senators subsequently, is that 10 in total? I do appreciate I have not gone through that correctly because I was assuming we were taking the whole lot.

The Bailiff :

No, at the moment of course there will be what is proposed by P.P.C. as approved .. we still have the second part of Senator Ozouf 's, of course, which is consequential, but assuming that were to be passed if Senator Ferguson's is not, because it would be consequential, you have a situation that at the moment there will be 4 this time, 8 in 2014, so you will be left with 8. What is being said by Senator Ferguson is keep at 6, i.e. 12 for the moment, and then she says, on the second part of hers, when you get to 2014 keep it at 12. If you vote for her then you keep it at 12. If you vote against then you will, in fact, in 2014 reduce the number of Senators from 12 to 8. So it will be a matter for the Senator. Senator, do you wish at this stage, for the assistance of Members, to say whether you will be willing to take separate votes?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I can appreciate the feelings of the Assembly. For myself, if the chairman of P.P.C. would like to give some thought to it, if there is a genuine prospect of a proposition for an Electoral Commission then I am quite happy to take them separately.

The Bailiff :

It is for you to decide, Senator. You do not have to decide now. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

If she can give me that assurance before the vote.

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

It may assist Members if I make a comment. I have just ..

The Bailiff :

But you have already spoken, Deputy .

The Deputy of St. Mary :

It is about this matter of the Electoral Commission. I have just announced to the media, and I am now announcing to the House, that I will be bringing such a proposition.

The Bailiff :

I see, thank you. So there will be a proposition to have an Electoral Commission. Senator Ozouf , you have already spoken, but do you .. no, you did not, it was a point of clarification. Do you now wish to speak in the debate?

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am grateful for that clarification because I did submit 2 amendments to the provisions originally but one which we have already discussed, and the second one was my proposal that I wanted to have a debate to keep 6 Senators in this election but then to have 8 Senators in 2014. I want to see reform like, I think, many other Members but I want it to be reform that is done in parallel, both in terms of a reduction in terms of States Members, which I think everybody wants to see, or many Members, as they said, want to see. But I also want to see a corresponding parallel review and reform of the Deputorial benches and allowing 6 Senators this year and no change in the ratio of the Assembly, the commencement of work in order to redistribute the unfair distribution of Deputorial constituencies and what I can say is, is it was a full moon last night, I do not sleep as much on a full moon, and I drafted [Laughter] an Electoral Commission which Deputy Le Claire asked me. It has got tweaks to be done on it but I want to bring forward a proposal, if P.P.C. does not want to do, in order for an Electoral Commission to look at the issue of the Deputorial boundaries, to look at the distribution of Deputorial seats and there are a number of options that you can look at in terms of maintaining Parish boundaries but also looking at super constituencies. That is not a matter for the debate now, but clearly this is an issue which Members have spoken about for a long time. I think that one should be set up. How it is set up, its composition, what the terms of reference are I think that it can and should be set up this year. I think that the work needs to happen next year in terms of its work after the census, looking at the populations of the different Parishes. I believe that it should probably be the subject of a referendum in terms of the overall matters, and that that could be done in 2013 in line for reforms being brought-in in the now agreed brought forward general election that will happen in 2014, which is a result of the other amendment that I have made. In 2014 we can then see the reduction in the Senators down to 8 and then the new arrangements for Deputorial seats, which would then preserve the balance between Deputies and Senators in terms of the composition of the States, but meet that objective in terms of there being a parallel reform and a reduction in overall numbers. I think there is another good reason why there is logic in supporting the maintenance of the 6 Senators but, if I may say to Senator Ferguson, rejecting the 12 Senators in 2014. There is an important issue of legitimate mandate in terms of electing people at once. I, as Members will know, have been number one and number 5 in the Senatorial list, and I think the people in positions 5 and 6 can say that they are legitimate in terms of having a sufficient number of credible votes in order to be discharging political office.

[9:45]

I think there is a real issue when one goes down to the inevitable consequence of people voting .. everybody does not use their 6 votes in the current 6 votes election. I cannot remember what the numbers are but I think the average number of votes is something over 4.5, it is certainly not 6. If voters are given the opportunity of 12 votes I do not think that they are going to use their 12 votes, just as they are not using their 6. The difficulty arises is that probably, and this is a matter that has been discussed I know at P.P.C. and previous House Committees and other people that have looked at it, you do have a legitimacy issue when you get down to the people that are going to be elected in position 10, 11 and 12. Certainly, 7 and 8, that is probably going to work with a good campaign, good awareness and with people knowing. People are going to have to think through, we all know who is in this Assembly. We all know the candidates because we are political animals but Islanders who are getting on with their lives will not know names and will not be able to absorb - and I mean no disrespect to Islanders - they will simply not be able to absorb and make choices, in my view, when they are having to decide not only just 12 Senatorial seats but then also a choice in terms of Constables in contested elections and whatever we end up with in terms of Deputorial. It is simply not going to be .. it is going to be a lottery more than an election in terms of the choice, and I think that there is a real issue in relation to choosing 12 Senators at one go. I do not think it is going to be legitimate. I think it is going to be not defensible in terms of the mandate .. a number of Members have said that they have got a problem in relation to the Deputorial mandates and the slim number of votes, and I think that there is going to be an issue in terms of the mandate if we do go ahead with 12. Eight is probably defensible but 12 is too much. So for that reason I would urge Members to vote against the 12 because I do not think it is going to be credible. There is a debate at the moment in Guernsey of having everybody in their Assembly as an Island-wide . That is going to be 45 and I think many people realise that that is just not possible. Many people want the Island-

wide vote, but the vote itself has got to be a proper test of electoral competence, of policies, et cetera. My conclusion is what I originally would have wanted to do, reform but reform which comes into place in 2014 when there is a parallel reform of both sides of the Deputorial and Senatorial benches, maintaining 6 Senators, agreeing now that there should be 8 Senators in 2014, and getting on with the reform of which I think that it is possible to do within that period of time and then looking forward to that first general election in 2014.

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

I am pleased to stand to speak after the last speaker because I do not wish the Chamber to be taken in by the attractive words just spoken. The Senator has just said that he wants to see change but what he is proposing and what this amendment proposes is that we do not change. Let us get it very clear. The proposer of the amendment has very cleverly tied-in a number of issues and in her opening remarks said: "This is the end of Senators." It is no such thing. It is a reduction in the number of Senators, which after being defeated in this Chamber this amendment seeks to come back and alter that decision. This House has decided to move slowly and in small steps with evolution and not revolution, but it has decided to move to change. This amendment stops that change. Whether or not we go on to a 2-part or a one-part proposition and change it later, it is still a stop to change. This House has decided that it wishes to change, this amendment - let us say it square - stops that change. Other Members have previously said if we stop now we will make a

laughing stock of ourselves, that is the truth. In her opening remarks the Senator cleverly weaved in lots of strands. Here we are: "It is the end of Senators" she said. It is no such thing. It is a reduction in the number of Senators, we have agreed that. It is also the beginning of the end of the Constables, she says. What a lovely way to rope in everybody's votes on that side of the Chamber. That again is not true. There is no mention of the Constables in P.P.C.'s work or in this amendment. That is simply not true. That is a way of trying to garner votes through the fear principle. It is the Constable's next. That is not true. Let us take carefully time to consider where we are, the decade in which we have wrestled with this need for change, and it is a need. There is a need to change. We decided within the last 4 months to take this one small step towards that change. Let us stick with that decision and go ahead with that change, small though it is, and let us reject this amendment in one part or both parts, or whatever. It is a proposition. It is a rearguard action to try and stop this Chamber from proceeding with change.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I will keep it brief because I think these arguments have been rehearsed time and time again and Members probably know fairly well by now how they want to vote. I too want to address some of the comments that were spoken by Senator Ozouf because really what I think we have seen here is, I do not want to say disingenuous arguments, but I think we have seen arguments which really miss the point. We have heard a lot of speculation and talk, probably fair, saying 4 or 6 is manageable; 8 is probably still going to give you good results but 12 definitely will not. The point is we know under our current system - and it is the same problem they have in the U.K. (United Kingdom) where you have a first past the post system - is that obviously the closer you come to the top of the poll the more legitimate your mandate is, and the lower you are down the less legitimate that your mandate is. We have already spoken yesterday - I mentioned it - that fifth and sixth place are already becoming questionable, and seventh and eighth remain questionable so that the point, I think, that Senator Ozouf is bringing out is not so much about the numbers, it is about whether the system is fair to start with. I would say if the system is not fair for 12 or not fair for 8 then the system itself is not fair. It just becomes more obvious, and what I think he should be advocating, as I mentioned before, is a system either of transferable voting where everybody has to be approved by a majority of the population in a meaningful way so you go down from a number one to 6, et cetera, and that would give real credibility. But this is not being proposed. That has never been proposed before and I have never heard it coming from Senator Ozouf , and that is what leads me to think that these arguments are disingenuous. We start to worry about democracy only when our positions are under threat, and clearly for a sitting Senator it is much more attractive to be sitting with a slate of 6 candidates at the next election, or 8, rather than to have to sit with 4. Also I am concerned from a practical point of view. We saw the last elections, and it is not the fault of any of the candidates who put themselves up because, of course, I think everyone should have a right to stand for election within the prescribed limits of who can stand. But it has to be said the last Senatorial elections were moving towards a debacle and I really worry about what the next elections are going to be. If we have got 6 seats we have got a situation where Deputies are very unlikely to stand, with perhaps one or 2 noble exceptions, so really I think we are just going to see a battle between some sitting Senators and we are going to see candidates possibly, I do not like to use this type of language, who have got little chance of getting in although you may get the occasional maverick. I really think, practically speaking, we should be sticking with what we

decided only a few months ago. We should try an election with 4 seats to see how that .. and that will have a massive impact about who is going to run. So I think if we go back to the situation of having 6 seats now we are going to get a very messy election. Let us have a tight election for 4 seats. Let us see how that runs and let us see what the implications are for the further election. There is still time to make changes if necessary for 2014 after that election, so I think that what we have heard are some arguments which are perhaps not the correct arguments that should have been given on the other side. I would say let us hold our course, let us hold firm, let us trust what P.P.C. have brought forward. I know, having worked on P.P.C. in the past, although each member has

slightly different political views, of course - that is natural - we did take time to sit down, and they carry on taking time to sit down in a coherent and logical way. I think we should not be accepting these amendments which really are coming too late and which are coming, if I am to be truthful about it, with vested interest.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Whatever I might think of Senator Ferguson's politics I have always thought of Senator Ferguson as quite a practical person and we are always told politics is the art of the possible. So I set her a challenge, and it is now 2014 - and I think I must have missed something yesterday - but I am glad we are going for the first general election, and I set Senator Ferguson a challenge in her summing up, because we, on P.P.C. have not been able to do it, how practically we are going to elect 12 Senators in 2014? She has obviously thought this through because she has brought the amendment, and it is about .. we have heard talk about this Electoral Commission and suddenly it is an Electoral Commission with 2 hands tied behind its back, because we do not touch the Senators and we do not touch the Constables. How do you divvy-up the votes when you have to have those in the House? The Deputy of St. Mary will obviously not get his passed because he has just told me he has lodged something which is open, everyone is open, everyone is fair game basically, and we go back to Clothier. Again, please remember this Electoral Commission has come out of the forest somewhere and suddenly it is going to do everything that Clothier did not do, probably Carswell did not do, and it has got another C in it. A commission will not do it. It is for this House to bring forward and you will not. It is not binding. We have had this before and it will not be binding. Once you start mentioning getting rid of the Parish boundaries and talking about possibilities of getting rid of the Constables or including them, you cannot do a count and not include the Constables and the Island-wide . You cannot do it. So we have a real practical problem in 12 Senators in 2014. It was interesting yesterday .. and it is about believing. Who do you believe? I listened and it was something funny, I think he did not mean to say. I was listening downstairs in the coffee room to the Canons debate when Deputy Trevor Pitman said something about he had the first humanist marriage, and obviously I have asked, and that is somebody who does not believe in God. Then he went on to say: "But I hope one day I get into heaven." It was a slip of the tongue because he does not believe, and that is fine. That is fine, you can have your own beliefs but it is what Senator Ferguson believes we are debating today and I know Senator Ferguson believes that we should all be elected or there should be a good representative in this House on Island-wide . So to me it is a fudge in the very best intentions, but it is not truthful, it is not practical. Guernsey, we hear, is going back to look at the Island-wide mandate. They did away with the whole Island-wide mandate. We are just trying to reduce it. I think if we ever need a reason of why this is supposed to be kept, it was the speech of Senator Le Marquand, and I know he is not going to support this, but he did say as elected as a Senator he had the responsibility taken away from him of representing people. [Aside]  No, no, no. What does Senator Breckon do then? Senator Le Marquand does not have the .. and he talked about conflict, it is because he is a Minister, not because he is a Senator. It is because he is a Minister and we have already established you do not have to be a Senator to be a Minister or a good Minister. It does not follow through in this House. As I say, I am not seduced. I do believe that Senator Ferguson wants to reduce today, tomorrow or in 10, 15 years' time, whenever it be, she has no intention of reducing the Senators unless she has come up with something that P.P.C. and previous P.P.C.s have missed in the last 10 years to elect 12 Senators in 2014, and it will be very interesting to hear because I was accused yesterday of saying that I know

what the people want. [10:00]

I do not know what the people want. I just read. There was a letter last night in the Post again saying: "Get on with it. We do not believe we cannot all elect you all." People out there want to know that they have a say in everybody's seat in this House, absolutely, totally and it will not work. If it could work, if there was a way to do it I think we would have brought that system in by now. So that is what the people think they .. that is what the people want. The actual letter said: "And do not fob us off by saying you cannot do it", well, I do not know how to do it, and how to make it fair, first across the post, how do you do it? It cannot be done. Deputy Tadier behind me is saying "party politics". But we are not there yet. I do not know whether we will get there, but probably not in my political lifetime. As I started, I am a politician, like I thought Senator Ferguson was, to be practical, do what is possible and we have promised the election now and the general election in 2014, and if Senator Ferguson thinks we can do that with 12 Senators, and it is the 6 this year, you have got to do it slowly, and this is where we are. I am on P.P.C. but it is not that. I totally believe we are not doing away with the Island-wide mandate. We are reducing it, and we are reducing it down, and in 3 years' time we will have a general election, and we will be absolutely nowhere if we have to elect 12 Senators. It will be absolute chaos.

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

I am sure the Deputy did not mean to misrepresent me, but I must clarify that, to enlighten her, a humanist can believe in some other force, what we do not believe in is books written by humans and passed off as the word of God and used to persecute others. So just to correct her on that.

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

As I rise I would like to say a couple of words because questions have been asked about the Electoral Commission and what P.P.C. was planning to do. To keep under review the composition of the States is quite clearly in our remit as P.P.C., and I think it is a little unfortunate that Members do not perhaps share their intentions with us when they stray into that area, not that there is any impediment to them doing so, simply so that we might apprise them of what we are doing. I have asked for this matter to go back on to the P.P.C. agenda but I think I have to be very clear. We cannot live on promises of what might come. [Approbation] We deal with what we have before us now. P.P.C. is willing to look at it again but there is no guarantee, there is no certainty that despite .. the words "Electoral Commission" are not a magic potion. This is not Harry Potter. This is real life and there is nothing that says that anything a commission, if it was established, would come up with would meet the favour of this Assembly. That it would be more acceptable, for example, than anything else that P.P.C. or any other organisation before us has come up with and put to the Assembly. So it is totally, I think, misleading .. not misleading, I do not mean to mislead the House. It is not right that people should put their stock into something we have not yet come to. For me, P.P.C.'s comments are quite clear. We do not support either of Senator Ferguson's amendments, either of the ways forward that are now on the table. The reasons we give are quite clear. There is certainly a question of legitimacy of trying to elect 12 people at the same time on an Island-wide mandate. Our comments spell that out. The figures say it for themselves. Senator Ozouf first mentioned it. People rarely use, across the board, all their votes. They find it difficult to identify candidates that meet their aspirations in a field of 6. To find 12 candidates at any one time, it just does not bear thinking about. The fact that we have to be sure that when we elect people they are elected with a mandate, no matter that we think in some areas now the mandates are small or the mandates need to be changed. We do not reform things unless we make them better. I think we would make it more confusing and less legitimate for those Senators who come in at the end of the poll. It is not just a question of the difficulty of organising the hustings, and things like that. We have seen in the past that we have had huge numbers of candidates standing, very difficult to organise. We could possibly overcome that. My real concern is for legitimacy of those who are elected. There is an issue of credibility here as well. The States has taken hard decisions to reduce the number of Senators and it has taken us an awful long time and an awful lot of debate to get there, but having made that decision, and having charged my committee to go away and do the work, which, as I said, we have done to the letter. There is an expectation that the States will carry through its decisions and I think the credibility has to be borne in mind here. Things have been done on the strength of that reduction. For example, in the budget book that Members have in their pigeon holes, the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) proposals published already take into

account that reduction. There is no way that financial implication should be the reason for making a decision to reduce Members. That is the least benefit. But having taken that decision, it is quite right that the people who do the budget take on board what that is. What the result will be. We have not done it to reduce money, to reduce costs, but costs have been reduced or will be reduced if we carry through our decision. The forecasts already have that. I find it astonishing now that here we are with the Minister for Treasury and Resources effectively supporting a proposal that would cost £300,000 in a time when we are tightening our belts. [Approbation] Again, I stress, we do not reduce membership simply to save money, but having made the decision the wheels are set in motion and we have made a choice. We have said we are reducing our Senators over time to 8. I think the most sensible thing, I have often said this, slowly, slowly catchy-monkey. We reduce to this over time. To have no reduction in the next election and then dropping dramatically after that I think would be much harder for the Assembly to absorb, much harder for plans to be made and, if we do make other changes, much harder to unpick if necessary. So I wholeheartedly commend P.P.C.'s comments to the Assembly. Please take the time to re-read them and please vote to reject all of these amendments from Senator Ferguson.

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

Just to say I wish to repeat what others have said, which I know is the curse of this Assembly. But I was totally shocked by what Senator Ozouf said. He put it across as very sublime and benign, but it was quite the opposite. It was, as is Senator Ferguson's proposition, purely an amendment to retain the status quo and to hope that by a battle of attrition, which is what this whole reform debate has been about over the last 11 years, we will all go away and we will all give up in desperation, which of course a lot of people are perhaps on the brink of doing. Where he lacked logic was in saying that he has to have, for example, a comparable reduction in the Deputies' position, as is being sought in the Senators' position. That is totally erroneous because if you have got, as I think Deputy Tadier said, a fundamentally faulty system at the beginning in its design how on earth can you make it better simply by reducing the Deputies. I know that is what the Senator is after and I am sure, as I speak, he is not in the Assembly but I am sure he is in the corridors of power, trying to reduce those numbers as we speak - the numbers of Deputies. There is no way I support the numbers of Deputies or the way we are elected at the moment, quite frankly. It is not a good system. As I said in my opening remarks yesterday before I opted out, there is only one logic to this whole process and this is to get everybody on the same voting basis in order to get legitimacy. Sadly, we will not do that because the vested interests we are seeing in this particular debate, and we have seen in most of them that have gone on, the vested interests are very strong and sadly, it is not, despite what Senator Ozouf was trying to suggest to us, an argument that can be settled by logic. The chairman of P.P.C. said: "Beware an Electoral Commission." She is quite right in the sense that it will bring people face-to-face with the issue that they avoid time after time after time, which is, at heart, that the system is ultimately faulty. It is based on totally incomparable electoral areas. It is based on what in the world is absolutely unique, 3 levels, 3 types of Members, and it is based on the notion that a lot of us, whatever we may say, do not have anything that amounts to a real policy mandate. Do not articulate it, do not get voted in on it, and do not have any means - I suppose because we lack parties - of translating it into concerted and unified action once we reach the Assembly. If you do have a group of people, which we do at the moment, who are, for want of a better term, like-minded, then they do have a lot of influence, as do the Council of Ministers because the rest of the group are flailing around desperately trying to come up with a common line as against the Council's line but we are doing it in a funny Assembly. We are doing it in one where consensus is broken down but where the opposite to consensus, united action, has not yet emerged and we are in a very strange place. I think this is purely a delaying tactic. It just carries on the confusion in the public's mind who, as Deputy Martin said, are totally fed up. Totally, totally fed up. They listen to these debates and I think they just absolutely give up the will to live, and they wonder why on earth we spend so much time on these debates when there are so many more major issues facing this Island, the direction this Island should be going into, how it should be handling

the more turbulent international environment it faces and so forth. Instead we spend all our time on this unbelievably tedious and boring and never-ending display of various vested interests fighting for their corner.

6. Senator J.L. Perchard:

I think there are some things the Senator is not good at debating and perhaps should not debate. I think we generally agreed that we should not debate our own remuneration. I think we have finally got to a position where we have outsourced that responsibility and we accept the conclusion from the body that has that responsibility. Similarly, I do not think we should or we are very good at debating the makeup of this Assembly.  [Approbation] I genuinely believe that we should outsource this responsibility to a well-respected body to look specifically at the makeup of the Assembly. Clothier did and had a very wide berth. Specifically now, we have learnt a lot from the introduction of Ministerial government and the Assembly.. I mentioned yesterday to Members, that perhaps the majority of the Assembly not being in the Government is not preferable. Maybe a Commission looking at the make-up of the Assembly would agree. Certainly they would be able to receive representation from the public and ourselves, look at other examples, and come up with a formula that would probably survive at least a decade or 2 for the make-up of the Assembly. I genuinely believe whatever we decide today, it is important that an Electoral Commission is invoked as soon as possible and that their recommendations are taken to referendum, and the results of that referendum be adopted by this Assembly. That is the only way to do it. I am going to be brutally honest here. I believe - I have heard Senator Ozouf , I have just heard Deputy Le Hérissier - this is territorial battles we are having here. There are people on this side or that side of the House that want the Constables out, they want the Constables in, and there are people who want to reduce the number of Senators, others that want to maintain the number of Senators.

[10:15]

Let us be honest with ourselves, this is about political territory, this debate. It is. Let us be brutally honest and if we are honest with ourselves about trying to climb political territory by removing the conservative Constables or the conservative Senators, then we should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves. I urge Members to do what is right. Engage an Electoral Commission, take their conclusions to a referendum and adopt the wishes of the people as a result of the conclusions of that referendum. It seems to me so Janet and John that I am surprised that P.P.C. did not come up with this. It is so simplistic and it is so right. Until then, I suggest to this House we do nothing.

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

The public, by in large, believe that all politicians are dishonest and we only act in our own self- interest. My belief, if this proposition is passed this House is in danger of confirming that view. Now I say this for the following reasons. Firstly, the House passed P.P.C.'s proposition to reduce the number of Senators in stages, starting in October 2011 with 4 instead of 6 being elected. It was another incremental step in reform because we tried bringing comprehensive reform and the House rejected it. Secondly, by voting for Senator Ferguson's amendment, this House will be reversing itself and thereby demonstrating it is incapable of reforming itself because every time someone's own interests are at stake they will fight one rearguard after another using every tactic, whether it be deception, disinformation, prevarication, you name it, they will use it to try and ..

The Bailiff :

I am sure, Deputy , you well know the rules of this House, you are not alleging that any Member has sought to deceive anyone else are you?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I think I am putting it that the public will believe that we are deceiving them.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you know the rules. Please do not infer that other Members are using deception. It is attribution of improper motives and you must not do it.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I accept that, Sir, sorry. I was using deception as a technique of a rearguard action at any point. I do think, for example, Senator Ozouf was an example of this when he was saying we need to delay our reform to deal with the failures of the Deputorial system. I do not believe the system of representation for Deputes is right either. I also have views on the role of the Constables in the States. I do believe that we need to look at all these areas and do we need to reform each and every one of them. It is not a question of reform is needed, and it will come. If I have any part of it I will be happy to help try and reform the Deputies' benches and the Constables as well. It is not a question of partisanship, as Senator Perchard seems to indicate, it is the Senators against the Deputies and the Deputies against the Constables and everybody against everyone else. We do need to reform this House and we need to look at every area. But to delay is wrong. We have already taken the first step and we need to follow it through. So, again, I have no problem looking at other types of reform. Another reason, I believe - this is my own view - it is dishonest to state that it is all about preserving the Island-wide mandate because we are not doing away with the Island-wide mandate, we are just reducing the numbers. In my view, it is all about self- preservation. It is self-preservation on the Senators' benches. This is where the main push is coming from. It is also self-preservation of the Council of Ministers because we all know that it is going to be harder for all of the current Senators who intend to stand in the election in October to be re-elected if there were only 4 places and there are 6 or 7 credible candidates, and that is what it comes down to: self-preservation. We are also told that to reverse our decision is to maintain the status quo. It may be what our ruling clique want but it is not what the population want, what the public want. Senator Ferguson's proposition, no matter how it is dressed up, will further delay reform, which is the reform that the public are craving for and it will further diminish the reputation of this House and every one of us who sits in it. I, for one, will not be supporting this proposition.

8. Senator F.E. Cohen:

Deputy Le Hérissier has confirmed to me this morning that the account that I outlined of the history of the Island-wide mandate was indeed correct. Some others accused me of a version of history that was rose-tinted. But I assure Members that it was entirely correct. Whether or not certain Members like the fact that the Island-wide mandate is many centuries old, it is a fact. In fact, the origin lies .. I am not giving way.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I said it was incomplete; accurate but incomplete. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have not given way. Deputy Le Hérissier sent a note to me this morning confirming that my historical account was correct, and it is entirely correct. The facts remain [Aside] .. Deputy Le Hérissier seems to be going back on the note that he sent this morning. If he would care to provide me with a single piece of evidence that my account was inaccurate in any way I will be delighted to retract my history. But the fact is that the origin of the Jurats lies in Article 1 of the Constitutions of King John, and that the franchise, while initially limited in terms of those who were able to vote, by the 18th century we enjoyed the delight of 12 Members elected by Island-wide popular franchise. Therefore tinkering with the number of 12 is a most important matter and something that we should not do lightly. Some suggested my proposition yesterday was a wrecking motion. I assure Members it was not, but should Members believe that it was a wrecking motion because it had the effect of not allowing the continuation of P.176, they should support Senator Ferguson's amendment because that preserves the other reforms suggested in P.176. There is no doubt that the Island wants the retention of the Island-wide mandate. Anyone who is in doubt should only need to refer to the MORI poll. It was absolutely clear. Clearly P.P.C. in only 2009 agreed that that was the case for P.P.C. said, and I quote: "P.P.C. does not believe that tinkering with a 3-category Assembly, for example, by reducing the number of Senators, would overcome these problems. If the position of Senator has the benefits that some perceive it is reasonable to suggest that there should be at least 12 Senators. A reduction to, say, 8 would mean that Senators would be so outnumbered in the Assembly that the position would not be of any real value." That is P.P.C.'s words. I urge Members to support Senator Ferguson's amendment.

9. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

How pleased I am to follow Senator Cohen. I only really want to talk about what we have learnt, but I have to say in leading-in, that Senator Ozouf is already out there trying to bring about his view of world domination. Just so all the Deputies know what he is proposing is 22 Deputies. An Electoral Commission, is it not funny how everyone wants this now when they are backed up to the wall, the public are sussed and the brink of defeat. I would love an Electoral Commission, and we have already got a proposal for that within the Clothier reform referendum. But an Electoral Commission, as someone has said, with its hands tied behind its back, cannot touch the Senators, cannot touch the Constables, and with due respect to both, so they have already got a nice bit of a guide there. You have got to cull a few Deputies, preferably the bolshy ones who [Interruption] .. revolting ones, the unwashed, that is, as someone said to me, the Electoral .. I do not know if people ever read or watch Harry Potter, that is the Electoral Commission of Lord Voldemort. That is where we would be going. Now I want to return to what we have learned because that is the key to all this. What have we learnt? Because Senator Ferguson talked about new evidence. We have learnt that Senator Le Gresley is a man worthy of the population's vote next time, and I knew the Senator to a degree before he got elected so I am not too surprised. But he has been true to his word because, as he said to me yesterday, and I am sure he would confirm this, there is no new evidence and he is going to be consistent, and fair play to him for that. He might be a turkey but he is willing to vote for Christmas. Senator Le Marquand now I had a lot of respect for Senator Le Marquand when he first came in and I think he is quite aware that it dipped somewhat because I do not agree, rightly or wrongly, with his handling of the Police Chief suspension, and I am sure he is big enough to accept my view of that. But he is another one who has gone up in my estimation because he too is being consistent. He said, and I remember him saying it, he was going to be another turkey who would vote for Christmas because it was the right thing to do. Fair play to Senator Le Marquand, another man who the public can see. Okay, we might have had our doubts but he is consistent. We might still have some doubts. As he said to me yesterday, he may be a closet rabid right-winger. It will probably emerge just after he becomes Chief Minister, I expect, but there we go. What else have we learnt? We have learnt that Senator Cohen really should not worry about whether, if he stands again, he can come in the top 4 or 6 because he can make far, far

more money as a highly successful author of historical fiction. I think there is a great career for the Senator.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

If I can  interject, my books on history of the Island have been rather successful, thank you. [Laughter]

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I look forward to the sequel, inspired by George Orwell. I was going to suggest he not be Foreign Minister, perhaps he should become Minister for Propaganda, but there we go. It has been a really informative debate because we have even learnt, incredibly, what Deputy Noel got for Christmas because judging by the figures in his argument in his proposition clearly Santa only brought him a back of a fag packet. But the nub of all this, and it came out from conversations that I had with Senator Perchard and Senator Perchard and I probably do not agree on a lot of things politically but we had a little discussion yesterday, and the fact of the matter is that now the Senator is against this reduction and he has been consistent, and I can respect that because he has been consistent. He has got his view and he can respect me because I stood on the Senatorial hustings, I said 6 years was too long. I said there were too many of the Senators. So he can respect that. We have got big political differences but that respect is good. So the nub of all this, and the crux of it, is that whatever happens with this, win, lose or - heaven forbid - draw, Senator Perchard's not going to be taken to task by people who support him because he has been consistent. I am not going to be taken to task by people who support me because I have been consistent. The people who are going to be taken to task are those, and let us remember there were 31, a big majority, who voted just 4 months ago are going to be the ones who suddenly, without any new evidence, because Senator Ferguson is going to have to accept there is no new evidence, they will be taken to task for not sticking with the decision that they made on the basis of their own intellect. They will be seen as the ones who suddenly have done a U-turn, an about turn, because they were not man or woman enough to stand up to the overnight lobbying of the Senator Ozouf party. The cursed BlackBerry, the text messages. They are going on now. They were going on yesterday. So that is fine, just remember that Members have that respect because you made a decision, whether it was right or wrong, you made it on your own intellect or be held up to be seen that you could not stand up to pressure, and that is the most important thing we have learnt today and that is what all this is going to come down to. People say a week is a long time in politics. Actually, an election is only 10 months away. The people are not going to forget who voted in October because I know there is enough people out there who will be looking at that and thinking whatever we think of those people they stuck to their guns or they just wither away, cower and are bullied. I do not want people like that. I told Members who I voted for in the Senators in 2005.

[10:30]

I was pleased about some decisions, some I wish I could change who I voted for because they have not delivered for me on what they said. Senator Perchard and I, we are okay here. There is another 29 or 30, apart from me who voted for this, let us see you under the public scrutiny.

The Bailiff :

Through the chair please. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Sorry, I take your direction. It is also apparent that we have learnt that the left, the centre-left, the progressives, we did not really want to get involved in another debate on reform. I think most of us accepted that although some of the reforms had not gone as far as we wished, it was to be left for another House. We have taken a long time, P.P.C. have taken a good proverbial kicking over the years trying to get somewhere. We have got somewhere when its back is to the wall, it is getting near to the brink, those vested interests come out again and the pressure starts. What will we do if we do support Senator Ferguson? Although I do not want to get into further reform debates, I think I will go and dust-off my amendment to P.P.C.'s proposal to say reduce the Senators by 6 and bring them back and we can have this all over again. I wanted an Electoral Commission, we can have that after the next election, I think we all agree on that. By this pie in the sky, jam tomorrow that Senator Ozouf is trying to tantalise us with, an Electoral Commission that is preordained to come to one conclusion that the establishment, the right, get rid of all the people they do not like, that cannot be right. He is talking about super-constituencies, and I hope the Constables heard that, because super-constituencies then that is the end for the Constables, so we cannot have it both ways, can we? We have all got to vote the way we see fit. All I would say to Members is vote according to your intellect. We all displayed our intellect back in October. If anyone is willing to be bullied then I look forward to the electorate seeing that.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , Standing Orders say you must not impute improper motives. I am sure you are not imputing that Members will vote other than in accordance with their intellect and their confidence, are you?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Of course not, Sir. But I do find it funny sometimes when only yesterday it was allowed that the left were the danger and we were going to undermine the Island's economy and the Chair did not challenge it. I always get a bit confused why it is so inconsistent there. But I will always take your direction and one day we might be able to get to vote for you, and I look forward to that day. I will sit down and say: "Hasta la siempre victoria."

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Can I ask the previous speaker to clarify, preferably explain something he said during his speech. He said: "The Electoral Commission will have their hands tied behind their back as they cannot touch the Senators and they cannot touch the Constables." Could he explain and preferably clarify what he meant by that?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am happy to reply to Senator Perchard. That is certainly the impression that Senator Ozouf gave and I am sure it is not the Electoral Commission that Senator Perchard would want or I would want. I would be happy to have a wide, across the board but we cannot have it like Imagine Jersey was where we are already going to come to the decisions that certain people want. That is all I was getting at, Senator, I appreciate the question.

10. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

I too also despair at times. We have spent many hours over the years discussing reform and there is one thing that has been very clear throughout the years that I have been in the States, is that there will always be an appetite for reform even if we carry out reform. Because you cannot please all the people all of the time because different people have different views and those views sometimes will change year to year. A lot has been said about where we are at the moment. We voted in October for reform. We are now trying to reinvent that reform. We should not be doing this again, the States should be supporting P.P.C. and where they are going. A lot has been said about setting up an Electoral Commission. I know that is on the agenda of P.P.C. but it also comes with a health warning because a lot has been promised from an Electoral Commission for people who do not know what the outcome will be. There are a lot of issues that are unique to Jersey which will not be easily rectified or easily understood. The idea of trying to bring it down to a Janet and John approach is, I think, disingenuous to people who have worked very, very hard over a long period to actually start reform. I emphasise what my chairman said early on, this is a start - unless you kick start something we will never get anywhere. We have had a lot of amendments come through. I also find these amendments disingenuous. Everybody had the opportunity last year to put forward what they are putting forward now, that was not happening then, this is a last minute knee-jerk. I cannot support this amendment and I would remind people of where and how we voted in October last year.

11. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

I hesitate to rise because I recognise that I am conflicted and that I do have a vested interest, however, I suspect that there are 52 other Members today who find themselves in that very same position, and it is unfortunate that this debate has to some extent become a little bit personalised from time to time and I regret that. However, because of that conflict and because of that vested interest I shall endeavour to be careful in what I say. We have heard what this debate is not about - dependent on one's point view - that it is not about removing Connétable s, that it is not about changing Parish boundaries, that it is not about changing the Deputorial representation, that it is not about who can stand for Minister, what type of Member can become a Minister and ultimately it is

not about what type of Member can become Chief Minister. Of course the corollary to that is that although it is not about those things directly it is my belief that ultimately it will affect those things, be it in the medium or the longer term. We could of course make a positive decision to change our system to allow those things to change in a positive way but that is not what we are choosing to do. Why do I perhaps make this note of caution? Well it is because when one is redeveloping or looking at how one might redevelop a building, how one does that and the effect of that redevelopment might depend upon which stones one chooses to remove and change and in which order. One could remove a particular cornerstone and see the whole edifice crumble. One could do some small changes and see that building improved. It really does depend on which stone, in effect, we decide to move or change. I want to comment on one or 2 speakers. My good friend, the chairman of P.P.C., said that we should not change or we should only change when we are changing for the better, when we are changing to improve something. I have got to say, to my mind, I am yet to see the evidence of how this change to the number of Senators improves anything and what that improvement is that we are proposing to provide. She also used a phrase which I am myself fond of and I like the approach greatly and that is slowly, slowly, catchy-monkey. The question I would ask of the chairman and of the Assembly is what is the monkey in this instance that we are trying to catch? I do not believe that has been laid out or a case for which monkey it is we are catching has been made. The Deputy of St. Peter in his preceding speech said that this change will kick-start reform. Of course we all know about requiring to kick-start an engine in order to start moving forward but the question that we have not addressed is while this might kick- start reform, where is it we are going to? I do not believe, or should I say I do believe that some people who, to be fair, approved this change to the Senatorial numbers back in October and have not changed their minds, still believe that is the right decision. I believe that they have not necessarily thought out where this particular - what appears on the surface - a small change will lead us or where it will lead us to and I would ask them to consider that. I want to also just comment upon Deputy Le Hérissier, I do not always agree with him but I believe that today he made a very fair and honest speech. He said in actual fact this is a small change, we can turn over our previous decision and stay with the status quo, or we need to look at appropriate change of some magnitude. Although we might, as a national characteristic, like to change slowly and proportionally, I have got to say that unfortunately I have a while ago come to the point of view that when it comes to electoral reform and the make-up of this Assembly, that is not possible. We either need to be honest with ourselves and say: "No, we are satisfied with the status quo, let us get on and do the work to which we were elected and try and face some of the challenges that we face as a community." Or: "Let us really look seriously at the big change so that we are all on a similar or at least same mandate." So while it is quite simply about a reduction, whether to reduce Senators yes or no, I believe that it has much wider ranging ramifications and I would simply ask that Members consider that before they place their vote, what I hope optimistically is this morning.

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

I have sat through any number of debates on reform and I hope we are now getting very much to the close of this particular debate. I just want to make a couple of very quick points because yesterday I mentioned that the referendum was brought by Senators for Senators at the end of the day and now we have an amendment here again by Senators for Senators and it is a shame really that it has to be polarised, but that is the way it is. If we are going to make a move in reduction it has got to start somewhere. But I did ask also yesterday where was the evidence to make people want to change their minds and, I am sorry, I have not seen any at all and I do not know if any other Member can, but I would like to remind Members that this vote was taken only last October. Deputy Trevor Pitman has reminded us that there were 31 who supported it, well I cannot think of any those 31 who have seen evidence this morning to change their minds. Of the 17 that opposed it, 4 were Ministers or Assistant Ministers and of that 17, or the 13 left, 9 were Senators. So, again, I doubt whether any of the 17 will change their minds. Indeed I have seen no reason why anyone can change their mind simply because nothing has happened since last October. So I will sit down and ask the other Members, who will obviously consider carefully what the decision they made last October, and what could make them want to change their minds this morning.

13. Senator A. Breckon:

When I got this amendment and the proposals, also what seemed to be flowing was there was something from Deputy Noel and then there was the referendum from Senator Cohen as well as Senator Ozouf 's amendments. It was unusual to me because they are not known for their individual efforts in propositions. So I thought it seemed a bit of a sort of a concert party. There is some tension I think between where we are trying to get to here, but people want an Island mandate - we are told that - but then what exactly is it they want? Is it what we have got already or do they want some ration of it or some change to it, and we have never had that discussion with the public. But I should be clear, as the Deputy of St. Martin will know, last time I voted for the reduction because generally we have said we must reduce the number of States Members and it was obvious where we were it was not going to happen with the Deputies because it was too complex with amalgams of Parishes, because there are issues about Assemblies, an authority for a Deputy in another Parish to even speak in a Parish Assembly.

[10:45]

I was not convinced about that. The same with the Connétable s, it was too big an issue so if we were going to have a reduction then perhaps the easiest way - turkeys voting for Christmas - was Senators and there we are and that is why I voted that way. The other thing people have said is: "Well, people want this." But in some Parishes, let us not forget - and it has happened to me as a Deputy - I did not have a contested election. It has happened in St. Ouen for Constable and for Deputies. Greatest respect for the Constable of St. Ouen : never stood in a contested election and he said yesterday in 17 years .. now, you could say, as somebody said about the Constable of St. Helier, he has got the strongest mandate in the Island, because nobody opposed him. So, therefore, everybody supports him. So that is really where we are, so we have some challenges and tensions with elections. In Trinity again, no contested election. So if we look down a Senatorial list for a number, however many it is, if we had 12 and somebody gets in with 4,000, okay, it is not brilliant for an Island-wide mandate but it is a lot more than has been spread out in other ways. So people talk about Electoral Commissions and challenges but this is a complicated area because we have all got here by different means. So perhaps Members would bear that in mind when we come to the conclusion of this, and it is not that simple. The other thing is that the public - or we have suggested the public - how would they cope with this? We have heard that if there are 6 seats in the Senatorial, we have 18, 20 or more candidates and - as it is now through the Parishes - it is not the easiest for either the candidates or the public to make any sense of it. Because I think, as Senator Ozouf touched on, if people need to be tested then they need to be tested on where they are coming from, what they are going to do and then when you get here it is not the easiest thing to do that because you have got to convince the Members of this House that is the right thing to do. So there are some difficulties with the whole system, and we have not got to the alliance of whatever that may be that can bring to the people and to the House the policies to do that. This change will not do any of that anyway. The other thing is, what is it the public want? Do they want to vote on an Island mandate, and if they do, which we have heard from Senator Shenton yesterday, yes, people do want an Island mandate partly because they do not have a Parish one, because there is no election so they want to be involved and they want to have some say, but then what exactly do they want? Do they want to vote for 4, do they want to vote for 6, do they want to vote for 8, do they want to vote for 12? I do not think we know. The other thing with this, if you think of the

mechanics of it and how it splits-up, if you have 4 Senators elected I would say that whoever those 4 people are, men and women, have got a truly Island mandate, they have gone there with policies, they have been challenged in the media, at the Parishes, and I think it would be focused. Again, that could be the same for 6, but - and Senator Ozouf I am sure will have looked at this - what happens with the vote? I would say for 6,000 or 8,000 votes which again is good from the Island. But if you get down to 12, and I think this is what Senator Ozouf was touching on, whereas if you have 12 people standing at the same time for Senator then a guess would be somebody getting 4,500 votes would probably get elected and there is a reason for that. Other people talked yesterday about democracy but I once heard it defined in these broad terms, if you said to people: "We are going to paint this ceiling and you have got 2 choices of colour" and 5 people gave a colour and they gave different colours then what do you do? Everybody, the 5 people, made a second choice of pink as a joke: "We will paint it pink" right. So if you look at democracy what you have got, because they had 2 votes, pink wins. So everybody gets what nobody wants. I heard that defined as democracy. Now, if you think - and I know that is where you are coming from - if you have a long vote like filling in a football coupon then there is chance of that, that and that and that is a fear but again, whatever we have got we have to work with. In what Senator Ferguson is proposing with 12, I see some issues there, as Senator Ozouf has pointed out. But again I did vote for the reduction and I will stay with that because I do not see anything else coming from electoral reform or commissions because what will happen - and I think Deputy Le Hérissier touched on this - eventually it will come back to this House and this House has a record of balking on somebody else's recommendations. We get to that and say: "Oh, yes, but, you know, it is a good indication but then we do not have to do it" and then the allegation is we would not anyway, would we, because it is turkeys voting for Christmas. But I think and I did do some work, but the other thing I was under the impression of was it was a bit late to do any of this because when P.P.C. brought something forward last year they said: "Well this is really the last opportunity to do the law drafting to get things changed" and they have done some more work on that. But I looked at possibilities of bringing Parishes together where there are districts and perhaps having less Deputies, say 4 instead of 5 in St. Saviour, maybe 8 instead of 10 in the town and by coincidence, nothing to do with Deputy Noel's proposition, but 2 in St. Lawrence because St. Peter and Grouville have got a similar population and we are not going to have 2 there so then why should we have 2 in St. Lawrence . This is not Electoral Commission, I just looked at the figures and did it the other way rather than adding to it, taken away and suggested perhaps that if we are going to reduce the numbers then should the 6 senior Constables sit and not all of them? So there are other ways but I think it should come from here, and we do not want to debate this for ever, but perhaps P.P.C. could have a session where everything could be thrown in. But for now I will be supporting neither

of these because not many months ago I voted the way I did and I will stick with that.

14. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I think I am not alone in despairing with these debates that we have had on many, many occasions before. In particular, because I have noted not only today and yesterday but in previous debates, the way in which many of the speeches tend to descend into a personal nature. We hear tone and innuendo which is really not becoming of this Assembly and that disappoints me. But beyond that I was listening with interest to many of the speeches. The Deputy of St. Martin said I believe that nothing has changed since last October, it was only last October that this Assembly made the decision that it did that it was going to alter the number of Senators for the forthcoming election. I would say to the Deputy of St. Martin that last October is in fact a long time ago in politics; I am not the first to say that a week is a long time in politics and certainly many things have changed. As far as I am concerned I have been struck by the numbers of members of the public that have been quite shocked and disappointed at the thought of losing Senators from this Assembly, simply because it is the opportunity for the public to have Island-wide representation and that is something that has come through loud and clear as being very important. I think, more than anything else, those Members who did vote in favour last October will now be aware of the very strong public view with regard to retaining the Senatorial seat and the number of Senators that exist in this Assembly. The chair of P.P.C. - and I think I am correct in quoting her - that change should be supported when it is for the better, or words to that effect. As I have said, the public view is that this is not necessarily at this stage for the better. My view is that the decision taken last October was a case of making a change for change's sake. We have tried so long and so hard to change

something and it did strike me that Members perhaps felt that this was an opportunity that should be taken. But what sort of reform do the public want? I do not want to go into details, as many Members have, of all the potential variations that we have. But is it that the public think that the system we have here is faulty or is it the case that they think that some of the Members are faulty and some of the decisions that we take are faulty? I think that may be as much a point as indeed the reform of the make up of this house. What the public quite naturally want and what the public quite naturally expect are good decisions and good decision making. Senator Ferguson has, I believe, undertaken to split the vote and if part were to be supported by Members today we could retain for this upcoming election this year the 6 Senatorial seats, and I believe the most sensible move, despite reservations of some Members, would be then to be in a position to appoint an Electoral Commission to look most closely at this issue and come forward with recommendations before the election following 2011. I believe that this Assembly will never be in a position to be able to make a decision on this. They will never make a decision but if we appoint an independent Electoral Commission then I believe, with clear instructions, we have a hope of having a recommendation coming forward that could seek the support of this House. I, therefore, hope that Members will support the first part of the proposal from Senator Ferguson insofar as maintaining the Senatorial 6 seats for this coming election in 2011 and I believe that an Electoral Commission can indeed be put in place. I think it is something that I would give all my support to and I know other Members feel the same. There is no reason why we cannot do that. Thank you.