States Meeting Transcript - 16th May 2012

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 16th MAY 2012

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

1. The Minister for Social Security will make a statement regarding meeting the costs of long-term care ............................................................................4

1.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): .........................4

1. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................4
2. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ......................................................5
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................5
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................5
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:....................................................................6
6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................6

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................6
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................6
9. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................8

2. Draft Connétable s (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.36/2012) ............8

1. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):............8

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................10
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11
3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................12
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................13
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................14
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................18
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................18
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................18

9. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................19
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................19
11. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade : ..............................................20
12. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................21
13. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................21
14. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................23
15. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................23
16. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................23
17. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................24
18. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................25
19. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................25
20. The Connétable of Trinity :..........................................................26 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................26

2. The Connétable of Trinity :..............................................................28
3. The Connétable of Trinity :..............................................................29

3. Electoral Commission: appointment of members (P.39/2012) .........................30

3.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................31

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................32
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................32
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................33
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
6. Connétable S.A. Rennard of St. Saviour : ...............................................34
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................37
10. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin : ........................................37
11. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................37

4. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (P.33/2012)........39

4.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................39

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................39
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................40
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................41

5. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Italian Republic (P.34/2012) ....................................................................41

5.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................42

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................42
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................42
4. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................42

6. Ratification of the Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the State of Qatar (P.35/2012)...............................................................................44

6.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................44

7. Draft Harbours (Inshore Safety) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.24/2012).......................45

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................45

1. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................46
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................46
3. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................46
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................47
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................47
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................47
7. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................47
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................47

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................48
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................49
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................49

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................50

8. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......51

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................51

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................51
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................52
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................53
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................53
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................54
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................54

2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................55
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................55

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................56

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Bailiff :

The first matter for the Assembly I think is a statement which was deferred from yesterday to be made by the Minister for Social Security regarding the costs of long-term care, so I invite the Minister to make the statement.

1. The Minister for Social Security - statement regarding meeting the costs of long-term care

1.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security):

In July 2011 I was one of 49 States Members who unanimously approved a new long-term care law. The debate on the law was a culmination of a comprehensive consultation programme, including the publication of Green and White Papers, considerable public support, and pressure from the Health, Social Security, and Housing Scrutiny Panel of the day. The principles of the law were clear: to collect money from both working age and pensioner contributors to be paid into a new ring-fenced fund and to use that money to help adults of all ages to pay for long-term care. In particular, to encourage the growth of care services in the community, the new benefit will be available to people receiving care in their own homes, as well as those living in a care home. Experts predict that between 2010 and 2040 there will be a 95 per cent increase in the number of residents aged over 65. The costs of long-term care will continue to rise over the next 40 years. As politicians we have a duty to put in place long-term policies that will benefit not just the current generation but will also stand up to scrutiny by the next generation. Towards the end of November 2011 I became the Minister responsible for this new law. I asked my officers to thoroughly review all aspects of the law and its proposed implementation. In particular I believe that it is vital that any new scheme that requires contributions from members of the public should be based on firm financial principles and be sustainable into the future. This point was raised by a number of Members in the States debate and the plan was always that further analysis was to be carried out on the financial aspects of the scheme. Over the last few months my understanding of the detail surrounding the provision of long-term care has deepened. I have been a member of the Ministerial oversight group looking at the Health and Social Services White Paper, Caring For Each Other, Caring For Ourselves. I remain a firm believer in the aims of the proposed law, however, it is vital that when this new law is implemented the benefit it provides for older people is balanced against the costs it imposes on younger people. The impact must be fair both across generations and between rich and poorer Islanders.  In order to ensure that we have the best scheme for Jersey and that we work out all the details in advance, I have asked my officers to aim for implementation during 2014 rather than 2013. This timescale will also allow my department to work closely with the Income Tax Department to fully explore the possibility of contributions being collected using existing income tax methods in order to streamline administration and to allow contributions to be collected from both earned and unearned income. While the detail of the new long-term care scheme is being finalised the existing arrangements for funding long-term care will continue. At the end of March this year my department was supporting 547 individuals with their care costs. I would urge anyone worried about meeting the cost of care fees to contact the Income Support

Residential Care Team at the department. Thank you.

1. Senator A. Breckon:

The Minister has said in his statement, final paragraph: "While the detail of the new long-term care scheme is being finalised the existing arrangements for funding long-term care will continue. At

the end of March this year my department was supporting 547 individuals with their costs." Can he tell this Assembly how much money it will cost the department by delaying this nearly 2 years.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The budget for residential care under income support for 2012 is £17.7 million.

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

Given that the Minister is mentioning ring-fenced funds, are they going to be ring-fenced as well as those which recently have been raided by £12 million over the last 2 years? Will the Minister confirm that these will be properly ring-fenced and that the Treasury or Health or any other department will not be able to get their hands on the money at any time in the future?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

A ring-fenced fund means a ring-fenced fund in my opinion and this money will be available for payments for long-term care, both in care homes and people who need care in their own homes.

The Connétable of St. John :

A supplementary on that?

The Bailiff :

Well I think we only have 10 minutes and a number ..

The Connétable of St. John :

Well it does follow straight on to that.

The Bailiff :

I think we will move on. You can come back if we have time.

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

Whereas most people in the Island trust the Social Security Department to maintain the ring-fence around contributions, mixing up with the tax collecting system would seem to suggest to many that this money may end up in general taxation reserves. Will the Minister consider carefully the advantages of using the social security system and not joining in with general tax collection?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The answer to the Deputy 's question - and this is something I am sure he would support - is that by using the tax system the collection of the contributions will be far more progressive than using the Social Security method of collecting contributions because it will be based on all income and there is a strong possibility that we will use the current income tax thresholds to exempt certain groups, low income groups and pensioners, from paying the contribution. But the contribution will be kept completely separately and the money paid across to the Social Security Department for the new long-term care fund.

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

The Minister in his statement mentions: "In the last few months my understanding of the details surrounding the provision of long-term care has deepened." I would ask the Minister, will he allow the background papers - not policy papers but the background papers - giving the information that is increasing his understanding? Will he release it to States Members so we can increase our understanding of it?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

In answer to the Deputy 's question there are no papers other than the research that was done for the Health and Social Services White Paper by KPMG. Those are the documents I am referring to when I talk in terms of my understanding of the fact that we will be rolling-out more care in the community, and particularly end-of-life care which has been trialled by the family nursing and home care. This is another service that would be able to be funded through the new long-term care benefit.

5. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Will the Minister give us the specific references  in those documents that concerned him and provide us with the information?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I am always happy to refer Members to stuff that I have read but I will have to read the whole document again to comply with that request.

6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

First of all I am extremely disappointed that the Minister informs that there will be a delay in the implementation of the new law that was agreed last year. Furthermore, I am equally concerned that the Minister is now choosing to look at a different sort of fund to support the delivery of the law when decisions were already made and large consultations took place which identified that the contributions through the social security mechanism would be the most appropriate way forward to cover all areas, including pensioners. Can the Minister explain whether or not he is proposing to review the current law as it stands which identifies the source of funding and how long-term care should be provided?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

The law made it quite clear that it was an enabling law in that regulations would have to be brought back to the States as to how the collections of contributions would be made, et cetera, so all of these things were to come back to the States and will come back to the States in regulations. I would just express surprise that the Deputy , who  is very quick to pick up on Minister's not planning for the future and looking at costs, this is exactly what I am doing and I would have thought he would welcome that.

[9:45]

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

Would the Minister explain whether this new principle he has introduced of moving away from a simple insurance system to one of differential contributions is going to be applied across the social security system, and how did Guernsey introduce this in such a simple, quick way several years ago and we have stalled it for nearly 10 years?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

There are a lot of questions there. As I know you wish me to be, I will be brief. Yes, the Deputy is correct, Guernsey started their scheme in 2003. I have to point out that Guernsey's scheme does not cover care provided by the States of Guernsey in their own homes, nor does it cover care in your own private home. Our scheme will be far more comprehensive and I still maintain that it is correct that we should look at how we collect this money because - in reference to the previous speaker's question - how would we collect a contribution from a pensioner when we have no idea of their income. We would have to use the tax system and, therefore, that is why this is the way forward.

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

My concern is much as the last speaker. I think what the danger is here is we forget underneath this all is people and with the huge difference in suffering in people who have maybe sacrificed all their lives and some people who have not sacrificed. We thought this was going to come in and my real concern is with what the Senator said about "aim for 2014". What assurances can he give that we are going to have a firm date?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I do not like delay and I would have liked to have achieved this next year but it is important - as I keep stressing - that we get this right and I am sure the Deputy would not want to place a burden on low income people at the current time when their hours and their rates of pay are reducing to impose effectively a new contribution to pay for long-term care at a time when they are struggling. Now, that is not the only reason but because I want to, if possible, exempt those on low incomes - this is the right way forward. This is the best way to make sure we have a fair system and that the first recipients also pay significant amounts towards the care which they will be the first beneficiaries of.

9. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

It is really along the same lines, Guernsey have been doing it for 10 years. We did a Scrutiny Report with Professor Forder, who I know has been advising the department, in 2006 and the line that this must balance against the cost of those imposed on younger people and older people and rich and poor; what we have not got at the moment is a pot of any sort and this was promised last year, this year and next year, now again it is due in 2014. If anybody thinks the problem is not already out there, I cannot understand. There is only about 3 or 4 ways to skin this cat and the Minister has been advised by a very, very high professional how to do it. Now, why are they still stalling? I am Assistant Minister, I sit on the oversight group and I ..

The Bailiff :

Ask your question, Deputy .

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Okay, and I did not know about this. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

At the risk of repeating myself, we are not stalling. We are making sure that we create a system that will stand up to scrutiny from not just people who will be the first beneficiaries but our future generations who will look back and say this Assembly did not make the right decisions because we did not look into it carefully. I should also remind Members that we now have an upper earnings limit of £150,000 and it would be my intention that these contributions would be collected up to the upper earnings limit. This is something new that came in this year and so, therefore, we have to take all these things into consideration.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

A supplementary ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy , time has run out. The Connétable of St. John :

Could I ask the review committee of Government to look at question time so it is meaningful because if we cannot get supplementaries on something like this it is absolutely ludicrous. We are all wasting our time.

Just to be clear, Deputy , the difficulty is with 10 minutes one has to strike a balance between supplementaries and Members who wish to ask questions.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. Draft Connétable s (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.36/2012) The Bailiff :

Very well, now we return to Public Business and the next matter is the Connétable s (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law - P.36/2012 - lodged by the Comité des Connétable s. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Connétable (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law. A law to repeal the policing functions of the Connétable s to empower a Procureur du Bien Public to deputise for a Connétable in certain circumstances, to remove certain other functions from the Connétable s and to make ancillary and consequential amendments. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

1. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):

It is almost 14 years to the day since the States approved the principles which will be enacted if this draft law is approved and receives Royal Assent. Only 6 Members of this Assembly were in the Chamber when the in principle decision was made. Senator Bailhache was the Bailiff and presided on the day and only 5 of the current Members took part in the debate. For those who may wish to know who they are: the Connétable of St. Clement who was then Senator Norman; Deputy Breckon who is now Senator Breckon; Deputy Duhamel who has not changed, he is still a Deputy . [Laughter] Deputies Philip Rondel and Simon Crowcroft who are now Connétable s of St. John and St. Helier respectively. So a brief outline on the background. In 1994 the Defence Committee proposed an independent review of policing services in Jersey. The reasons for that review as set out in report were that the provision of independent review body for total policing of the provision has not been reviewed since 1950 and the increase in the resident population, demographic changes and the trend towards more sophisticated crime meant it was an appropriate time to seek to balance the expectations of the community with the level of service provided by the States of Jersey Police, Honorary Police, and other agencies with law enforcement responsibilities. The review body was chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier and the terms of reference were a full and thorough review of the policing system in Jersey, including the powers of the police to combat crime and the protection afforded by the law to the individual citizen, together with the level of service provided. The review body reported in July 1996 and the report became known as Clothier 1. The States would form a working party to consider some of the key issues in more detail. This working party reported in 1997. The States then in 1998 approved a proposition of the Defence Committee which included the following recommendations made by the working party: establishing by law the office of Chef de Police for each Parish to have charge of Honorary Police within the Parish and the Connétable s shall cease to fulfil an operational policing role but retain overall responsibility for the effective and efficient policing of their Parish; the merging of the Centeniers Association and the Association of Vingteniers and Constables Officers; that the senior Procureur du Bien Public in the Parish should be empowered by law to deputise for the Connétable in the event of the latter's incapacity or absence from the Island. The proposals put forward by the working party were an evolution of the recommendations of Clothier 1 and were considered to apply to the Island and would maintain the honorary system. It is interesting to note that the 1998 proposition also

approved the establishment by law of the Police Authority. The Draft States of Jersey Police Law, which we have just debated, finally brings that to fruition. So why have we had to wait for nearly 14 years and what has happened in the meantime? Since the review body's report in 1996 the Connétable s have chosen not to undertake any actual operational policing. Although all the Connétable s who were then in office have since retired, the policy has consistently been restated by those subsequently elected Connétable . The Connétable remains head of the Parish and this includes the Honorary Police. Operational policing is the responsibility of the Parish's Honorary Police led by the Chef de Police but the Connétable remains responsible for policy. A shadow Comité des Chef was formed in 2002, consideration was given to the method of an appointment of a Chef de Police, the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations 2005 were approved so enacted the following part of the 1998 States decision, the procedure for appointing a Chef de Police for the Parish, establishing a Comité des Chef in law, and merging the Centeniers Association and the Association of Vingteniers and Constables Officers. Extensive research has been taken by the Law Officers' Department to identify all legislation which will have to be amended to remove the policing powers of the Connétable s. The Comité des Connétable s has repeatedly inquired when legislation could be approved to complete the States decision, for example, to empower the senior Procureur du Bien Public to act in the Connétable s' absence. But this can only be done if the Connétable s operational policing powers are removed. Meanwhile we have continued to debate the composition of this Assembly and whether the Connétable s should remain in the States. The rationale which came out of Clothier 1 for the Connétable s to relinquish operational policing is to remove the political policemen so that the States is a true democracy. Thus, if the States decide that the Connétable s should no longer be Members of the Assembly then there is no reason to remove the operational policing powers. The Assembly has had a number of debates about its composition and to date has rejected the removal of the Connétable s. An Electoral Commission is about to be formed to undertake a further review, but the proposed law for the States of Jersey Police means that we can no longer wait to bring forward proposed change to the Connétable s policing role. The Minister for Home Affairs earlier explained that new States law means that the current 1974 Police Law will relate solely to the Honorary Police. To ensure both laws meet with Privy Council approval we must now grasp the nettle and amend the law so the Connétable is no longer a policeman and this means we can empower the senior Procureur du Bien Public to deputise for the Connétable . After many years of waiting to progress the States decision, the Comité des Connétable s was presented with a draft law in June 2011 which would remove the Connétable s' policing powers and provide for the senior Procureur du Bien Public to deputise in the Connétable s' absence. It did come rather out of the blue and not surprisingly there were some concerns about the earlier drafts. The Comité des Connétable s has since then consulted extensively with the Comité des Chef de Police and also with all the Procureurs du Bien Public about the provisions in the draft law. In working out the detail we have had to identify those duties which are operational policing nature and those which are not. Operational policing matters will be undertaken by the Honorary Police, led by the Chef de Police. The Connétable s will remain responsible for the non-operational matters and in the Connétable 's absence the senior Procureur du Bien Public will deputise. As may be expected, there are some areas that at first glance may involve operational policing but in practice are administrative by nature. The reverse is also true in

other areas. Several examples are given in the Comité's report on page 12. A good example would be that of the Parish by-roads where the Connétable s and the Roads Committee have specific powers to close roads, for example, resurfacing. But the Chef de Police also has powers to close a road for operational policing reasons. Another example would be that of the revocation of driving licences where the responsibility rests with the Connétable but he or she may well take advice from the Chef de Police if there have been complaints or reports of erratic or dangerous driving. The Connétable s, Chef de Police and Procureur du Bien Public will obviously work closely together to ensure the Parish is efficiently administered for the benefit of the parishioners. What has become

evident to the Comité des Connétable s is that the approval of this draft law is not the final step in this progress. Aside from the subordinate legislation which has to come back to this Assembly for approval, the Comité intends to review the current structures within the Parish and Honorary Police to ensure that it contains all the necessary checks and balances. This is essential if the structure envisaged and approved by the States since 1988 has evolved piece by piece over the last 14 years with different parts being introduced at different times.

[10:00]

The Comité must review that structure to ensure it is cohesive and where necessary it must fine- tune the structure to ensure it delivers a robust model for the future. At this stage I do not wish to go into details which are contained in the Articles so I hope this explains the law, the original decision made by the Assembly in 1998 and the past have all been enacted. This draft law enacts the final part of that decision. I propose the preamble.

The Bailiff :

Is the principle seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

1. The Connétable of St. John :

Having worked under 5 Bailiff s: Sir Robert Le Masurier, Sir Frank Ereaut, Sir Peter Crill, Sir Philip Bailhache , and yourself; and 9 Connétable s since the end of the 1960s when I first joined the honorary system, there have been big changes in the way that the position of Constable and the honorary system have moved. I was heavily involved in the 1974 Police Law, setting in place the one we changed yesterday, along with Don Filleul, John Le Sueur and Roger Sebire, and Brian Ahier and others. But my biggest concern is that we are seeing the creep from the Parishes to the centre. I will name just a few, not in any particular order. Obviously the 1974 Police Law, then we moved driving licences to the centre and the database processing centre, which, in fact, if an error is made in one of the Parishes and somebody picks it up on a Friday at 5.00 p.m., we cannot get that altered until the Monday when that centre opens. Likewise, we have a gun register which is in part administered by the Parish and part by the States of Jersey Police, which I do not have a big problem with at all because it works well. We have seen a big move to the Island-wide rating system plus the electoral system and obviously welfare having now been administered by the centre from Social Security. The latter is not working as well as it is supposed to and I have seen people in St. John 's sleeping rough in the bus shelter through lack of support from Social Security and that really worries me. More recently, to my amazement only 2 weeks ago at the Committee of Constables, the Chairman of the Chef de Police attended with the President of the Honorary Police Association to give us an update of how things were going and also to inform the Connétable s that a new charging system along with the States Police is to be set up and is being trialled to Nelson House in Nelson Street and it came as a shock to myself and my colleagues who were present at that meeting that no member of the Connétable s Committee had been invited to sit on this reform group. But the bigger picture was that the Island-wide charging system would be rolled-out across all Parishes if it worked and that is a concern. I have to ask who is running things. Have we officer groups being set up to undermine the Parish system and if so who are the brains behind this

particular group? Moving on, I accept that this has come about in a big part by the electronic age, but not all; and it is concerning to me that we are moving too much from the Parishes to the centre. That, along with data protection, where one cannot share information with one another or one department and another without a person's consent and we have to jump through hoops to help people within the Parishes because Social Security are not permitted to pass information back as to people who are in need. There is little left under direct Parish control; probably dog licences and Parish Rates Committee and several other small areas which at the moment do not come under the centre. To go down the road of removing further powers of the Constable will open the door for the Parish system to be moved to the centre at the stroke of a pen or more likely the press of a button. At a time when some Members in this Chamber would like to see the Constables out of the States, this law and adopting it today is playing straight into their hands. It will further break down the historic Parish system and open the door for districts or wards and I do not believe the Island requires this just to please the few in this Chamber who would like to see the Constables lose this particular power. I say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We do this at our peril. The Island has in the recent past been sold a pup by the former President of P. and R. (Policy and Resources) with Clothier. Let us not compound our problems. The Parish system has worked well for hundreds of years. Let us not at this uncertain time in world affairs dismantle further the honorary system which is the backbone of our Island. I applaud all that our forefathers have done for our Island over generations and let us not cast asunder to please the minority to the cost of the majority. All this came out of Clothier, a totally flawed system of government because it had not been adopted in its full capacity. I can trace my ancestors back to 1204 as leaders in this Island on my mother's side. You just have to look at the Bailiff 's Panel down below and you will see a de Carteret having been in office as Bailiff of this Island at least once in every 100 years. I would not worry about the Rondel bit about it. [Laughter] I would not worry about that. Rondel is on his feet today trying to save something historical which has worked well. I say again: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Let me remind you the Parishes have lost their driving licences, pictorial register, the rates system in the big part, welfare, the gun register in part, all to the centre, along with a big part of our policing powers over the last 50 years, which I do not have a problem with because we have to move forward. But what I am seeing now in a small Parish like St. John with very little crime - the odd accident here and there - I am now seeing uniformed police walking or cycling around my Parish in 2s, which is okay but we have Honorary Police within our Parish who keep an eye on things. I see uniformed officers walking into our licensed establishments when the only people in there on a Wednesday night may be the Connétable , the Chef de Police [Laughter] and a couple of duty officers coming off duty having a refreshment; because our pubs at 9.00 p.m. at night are generally empty because they are used solely, basically, as places for having a meal because our pubs have become little restaurants. So really the manpower in blue should be used to better effect in other parts of the Island. I do not say we do not have a problem but we do not have discos anymore. In St. John we used to have those and we could always use the support of our uniformed colleagues but really I just wonder if, with the pressures on the police, on our border forces, the manpower

could not be used somewhere else. I am not having a go at the States Police - they do a good job - but I thought I had to raise that. I spoke to the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday on that particular issue. I urge Members to vote against this. Remember, this is part of Clothier, a report brought to this House by the former president of P. and R. and I well remember him saying of the debate on Clothier at the time: "Accept this in principle and we will put the meat on the bones later." Well, we all know that that never happened. The Senator decided to jump ship instead of finishing the job he had started and to make things worse, the same ex-politician wanted to sit on the new Government Electoral Commission. I am so pleased that he was not chosen as part of that review team. I say let this proposition rest in a pending a tray until after the Island have had their say as to government reform by way of a referendum or whatever Senator Bailhache 's committee brings forward. If the Island votes to keep the Constables in the States that is the time to remove this particular power - in 2 years' time, 18 months' time, whenever that debate happens - but until then I would strongly recommend that we do not go down the road of removing that power today because I believe yet again it is another nail in the coffin of the honorary system as we know it and I do not want to see our Island being controlled from the centre any further. I cannot support this proposition.

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Without wanting to prolong this debate I found that contribution by the Constable of St. John utterly depressing. There are a couple of certainties in life; one is taxes, the other one is change. Change does not need to be negative. It would be easy to be negative, to think back of the Parish system in the 1910s where it was very difficult for un fils français et catholique to be elected to the Parish system. It would be wrong to think that life has not changed. I would encourage the Constables to think positively, freed from the shackles of policing powers, freed from the accusations that they should not be in this Assembly, to identify what their Parishes can do in a future Jersey. [Approbation] I am reading a book at the moment about megatrends: The World in 2050. It is very clear that local communities are going to be even more important in the future than they are today. They are going to matter and the Parish system is going to be at the heart of our local communities. There are fantastic opportunities for the Parishes. We are working with Parishes to deliver housing projects, we are delivering a new Health White Paper; there are huge opportunities for health care as we deal with an increasing older society. There are massive opportunities for community groups, youth groups,  et cetera, in Parishes. I would ask the Constable, he is the Constable that has inherited what I think is the only Parish Plan. I thought that was fantastic. I thought it was great that a Parish had a plan, an integrated plan about what they were going to do with their communities. Those are the things that the Constables should be focusing on rather than trying to hold on to a world which is wrong. No Member of this Assembly should have a policing power. That is what this is about. I urge the Constable of St. John to be positive, to be optimistic, to be future-thinking rather than negative and backward-looking. [Approbation]

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

It is rather unusual to find myself between 2 stools - the stool of the Constable here and the stool of the Minister for Treasury and Resources there. I think, as most of my colleague Connétable s know, I have had some significant reservations with regard to the Draft Connétable s (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law and some of the Members also know of my concerns with regard to that. The Connétable of St. John alluded to one of the things that raised my concerns, and that is what I call the unforeseen consequences. The unforeseen consequence which he alluded to was the meeting that we had 2 weeks ago with the Chairman of the Comité des Chefs advising us of work that they had done outside of the knowledge of the Comité des Connétable s. I think for me that raised a concern that there may well be - and I am not talking about the Chairman of the Comité des Chefs in person here, I am talking about the principle - one or 2 people who would like to see the Honorary Police to go into a direction which they could effectively do when there is not that strong link back to the Connétable s which would adversely affect the long-term viability of the Honorary Police as we know it.

[10:15]

If we just go back for a moment - say a generation and a half - most of the Centeniers at that time were landed or they were farmers. They had the ability to direct what they did during their day. They could choose to go and do policing or not. If you look at the Centenier of today; they are generally employees. Their employers would allow them or not to go and do policing work. It is making it more and more difficult if we try to professionalise - I will come back to this word "professionalism" - the Honorary Police service to the point they become a pseudo States Police Force albeit in an honorary capacity. It would make it far more difficult for us to get the ordinary man to come and volunteer to work in the Honorary Police because they cannot make that level of commitment. Coming back to the word "professionalism"; there are 2 ways to look at professionalism. The way which I thoroughly and undeniably support is that the Honorary Police must be professional in everything that it does but it does not have to be a professional policeman to do that. I think this is what people need to just reflect on professionalism; what do we mean by professionalism? Fortunately yesterday morning I had what I suppose one could call a pastoral conversation with the Attorney General - and I thank you very much for that - and it helped to solve some of my fears about the unforeseen consequences. It is really quite simple in that what we did yesterday in changing the 1974 Jersey Police Force Law and now renaming it under the Honorary Police Law 1974 .. all we did yesterday; we took the States Police element out of it. We left in it exactly what we have got today, what we had yesterday with regard to the Honorary Police. There is no change with the relationships now with Parishes and the Honorary Police as a result of the work we have done yesterday. That now will continue in perpetuity or until such time as we change it again. So the relationship now today, whatever we decide today will be the same as it was yesterday. What we are doing today with this proposition is merely agreeing to release our operational policing powers and say to the Honorary Police: "That is for you now. You get on and do that. We have sat back now for a number of years and we have allowed you to do the now you have the Authority to do that on your own." It does not change the relationship between them coming back and talking to us as Connétable s about how they are doing things and it does not change the relationship that allows us to say to them: "I would like you to look at the policing priorities which I consider important for this Parish at this time." That is still there as passed in 1974, now the Honorary Police (Jersey) Law. This change today will only give them that power as a result of them taking on that extra duty, that we will release them from the requirement for them to deputise on behalf of the Connétable and ask the Procureurs to do that on their behalf effectively. So what we are doing today is a simple change in the internal arrangements within the Parish. My pastoral counselling I had yesterday reinforced for me that what we did yesterday has maintained the link between the Parish and the Honorary Police which we had yesterday, will still be here tomorrow and in the future. I think the Comité des Connétable s - and I am equally as guilty and I challenge them - have sat on their hands a little bit in the run up to this and we have not looked in depth about how do we ensure the working relationship between the Comité des Chefs and the Comité des Connétable s and there is a piece of work that needs to be done there. Perhaps through the Honorary Police working party being re-energised and brought back into place again, and I know the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s has suggested that may be a way forward for us to do. I was trying to think of an analogy earlier on this morning and I came down to the analogy: "Let us not create a fine piece of furniture where we have to destroy the tree to do it." That is really

a message which I am sending out to everybody that be careful when we are creating this fine piece of furniture or this new model that we have that we are fully aware of the potential consequences and we look for those unforeseen consequences before we depart down different routes. Yesterday I was not going to support this proposition. I totally support the principle of the Connétable s releasing their policing powers; I was concerned about the unforeseen consequences. Today I will support the proposition.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Constable of St. Peter has mentioned a number of things about the Honorary Police. I cannot let the occasion go without responding to some of them. He talks about the fact that nowadays the main employer is effectively the finance industry. The Honorary Police and I some years ago organised a breakfast briefing for the finance industry to explain that the qualities needed for Honorary Policing are those which the industry requires for management. So we were trying to get them to consider encouraging their staff to join the Honorary Police for free management training. I am glad to say that some of the finance industry companies are encouraging their employees to become members of the Honorary Police; not as many as I would like to see but certainly some. I do agree with the Constable of St. John regarding centralisation. I know we cannot believe everything we see in the press but it appears that the amount of fraud in social security appears to be growing after centralisation, or maybe it is just that there is more being found. Certainly it was very difficult for people to defraud the system when it was run through the Parishes; the Connétable s used to be very much more up to the mark. But the reason this Island has operated successfully is because it is worked locally. There is a saying that all politics is local politics and I am concerned that through ignorance we may well be losing the local connection. With regard to the Connétable of St. John's mention of seeing the uniformed police around, I would refer to Sir Robert Peel who said that the test of efficiency is not the visibility of police but a lack of crime and disorder. I have received a number of representations from the public regarding this proposition. I quote from the messages I have received. "Given that the office of Chef de Police is now firmly established and it is proposed that the Chef relinquishes certain duties, will the Connétable s be allocating part of their salaries to the Chefs in light of their reduced responsibilities?" "Have the Connétable s consulted with their parishioners regarding this proposition?" This particular individual says that: "My understanding is that the Chefs and Procureurs have been consulted but not the Parish". There was a duty of Connétable s - I do not know whether it was ever written and it has been neglected of late - but they have the power to call Parish Assemblies to discuss significant matters so that they know the thoughts of their parishioners when they come in to the States and why have they not been doing this? My constituent goes on to say: "What are the costs regarding the numerous legislation changes?" Again, having the Connétable s as an arbiter in contentious parochial policing matters is a tremendous asset and will be lost with the adoption of this proposition. In my other email I think most people have received which says: "I urge you to think carefully before further eroding the parochial system that has served us so well for so long and along with honorary service has been at the heart of making Jersey a special place. Decisions such as taking welfare from the Parish resulting in a centralised benefits culture irrespective of the current economic crisis, where at the same time Connétable s cannot find out about cases of need in their Parish not being addressed by the system, have been shown to be ill-advised. I would be grateful for the Connétable s to answer these queries because the thinking members of the public - and I think these are fairly representative comments - are concerned that we are throwing out our heritage." The very reference by the Connétable in his opening speech to "changing the structure"; I got the impression that this was changing the structure of the Honorary Police. Exactly what does

the Comité des Connétable s have in mind over this and I will wait to hear the rest of the debate. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Could I just have a point of clarification from the last speaker? The Senator made reference to income support and Parish welfare. Would she just agree with me that income support combine 14 benefits, only one of which was Parish welfare?

The Bailiff :

It does not sound like a point of clarification. It sounds like a debating point to me.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I have 2 questions. The first one is slightly whimsical; who wrote the song "What a difference a day makes, 24 little hours"? I am sure that Constable Refault, were he in the Assembly, would be able to tell me because clearly this proposition has been put forward not by Senator Ozouf or by the Chief Minister or anyone else; it has been put forward by the Comité des Connétable s. We have already heard a speech from the Constable of St. John who said that this is a nail in the coffin of the honorary system. We have the Constable of St. Peter who, presumably had read this document before last night and had time to not only necessarily read it and digest it but I would presume have some input into that document. Until the day before the debate or on the debate, because it could have been debated yesterday and should have been, he was not going to support this proposition. One imagines that a phone call comes last night and says: "Constable, also Assistant Minister Refault - you are not just a Constable, you are also an Assistant Minister for 2 different departments - we need you to support this because it is imperative that this goes through because

otherwise we have the proposition yesterday which did go through which not everyone was happy with and it would look silly, would it not, if the proposition that the Comité des Connétable s are lodging and debating today is not going to go through." That would just be a complete nonsense for Jersey politics. It would embarrass the Parish system because it would show that the Constables cannot get at their own proposition and support it. If the Council of Ministers were to lodge a proposition in the Assembly and let us imagine Senator Ozouf says: "Well I was not going to support the Council of Ministers yesterday but I will do it today." It does not send out a very coherent and strong message. [Laughter] What conclusion does one draw from that? You do not necessarily draw any direct conclusions; what it does suggest is that certainly this does not have the full support of the Comité des Connétable s or certainly there were reservations among them. So I invite the Chairman to answer this perhaps before I continue with my speech although he can do it in summing up if he prefers; how many of the Constables support this proposition? There must have been a vote at some point. There must have at least been discussions before today when this was brought to say which of the Members do support the

The Bailiff :

Deputy , this is not question time; you can ask the question and the Connétable will reply when he replies.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I understand but I also understand it is customary, if Members choose to, to give way and I am happy to give way at any point to the [Laughter] Constable of Trinity .

The Bailiff :

Do not answer now, Connétable , you answer at the end. The way we do things is people make speeches, not ask questions.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I understand that. I also recognise that it is important to make informed decisions, to have informed debate, so that is why I am simply saying that I will give way to any Member who can give information that would usefully direct a debate. Moving on, I think first of all let us deal with one of the points of Senator Ferguson who in a past life, as she said yesterday, has been a member of the Honorary Police. The point, of course, about salaries is a spurious one because the Connétable s are not remunerated for their Parish duties. It is an honorary position; they get remunerated for their position in the States which is quite right. Any States Member should be paid for their job as a States Member; that is my opinion. I do not think we are delegating any of the States duties to a Chef de Police or to a Procureur du Bien Public and I would be very surprised in fact if those in those positions were asking to be remunerated. Certainly that would be a departure from Parish traditions. I did agree with much of Senator Ozouf 's speech and it is probably 3 things we have agreed on over the last couple of days which is not necessarily worrying but certainly perhaps unusual.

[10:30]

His speech was remarkable in the sense that it was very progressive, it talked about the need for reforms and in many ways it could have been a speech rather than to do with the removal of notional policing powers, to do with the removal of the positions, the separation of the political role from the role of the Connétable . It would be interesting to know whether he would make such a speech if ever that debate does come back to the States. I think the point is that reform is needed. For some Members it would suggest that this document does not go far enough. I think the comments of the Constable of St. Peter were welcome in the sense that if one is a proponent of the Parish system or even if one has reservations about some aspects of the honorary system in the

Parishes, which I think some members of the public do, and at this point it is worth noting that similar to the subject of reform, the public do not necessarily share all the same passions that we States Members – politicians - in Jersey do. There will be members of the public, the vast majority, who do not know what we are talking about today and do not really care; they have got other priorities. There will be members of the public, I am sure that the ones that Senator Ferguson spoke to probably live in very close proximity to the Parish Hall of St. Brelade and they have very strong opinions and know the intricacies and differences between a Procureur du Bien Public and the Chef de Police and a Centenier, a Vingtenier and all the rest of it, but most of the members of the public do not and I would suggest that there are those who do not care at all. There are those who love the Parish system and there are those who have, from their experience, some contempt of the Parish system. There are some people who receive a driving fine, perhaps, or they would expect to receive a fine. They may have come over here on a (j) category, they get stopped for speeding for doing 50 miles an hour, they get out their wallet and say: "How much do I owe you" and are told: "No, you have got to go to a Parish Hall Inquiry in St. Helier", which is not at the Parish Hall anymore. You have to wait in a room for 3 hours with people that you do not know, not knowing when you are going to be called. Of course at that point you are innocent until proven guilty and you find this thing very bizarre. So of course there are reforms that could be made and I would hope that anyone, even the Constables in a supervisory role, will be mindful of improving any system of justice. I am not going to carry on for very long. I think this document, from my position, needs to be supported simply for internal consistency. We are trying to reform. It is a way to protect the Parish system. What I would say the conundrum for all of us is how do you maintain a strong and healthy Parish system, how do you maintain the individuality of those Parishes while ensuring that standards are consistently applied across the board. That is the challenge I think for all of us for the Comité de Connétable s. That is indeed why I brought the proposition in the last session to do with a handbook. Now I understand that something is going to be produced online, that is purely to make sure that if people are mobile, whether you are new to Jersey, whether you are moving between St. Helier and St. Ouen , and even States Members seem to move out of St. Helier to the country Parishes, they need to know what they can expect when they go to their different Parishes in terms of their Parish Hall systems, whether or not it is to do with

the administration of justice. So that was the idea there. I think it is not an unsolvable conundrum. I think what it requires is more working together. It may well be in the future that we need to, rather than having 13 different police forces, we may need 2. We may need the ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you are going to come back to this proposition, are you, which is whether the Constables reduce their policing power.

Deputy M. Tadier :

What I will do is I will context it by addressing parts in the report. If we turn to page 5 of the report, 2.6 we are told that in the modern context there is a parallel - albeit not an exact one - between the role of the Connétable within the Parish as described by Le Quesne, et cetera, and the function of the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the States of Jersey Police Force. My initial thoughts when reading that, it is okay, that may be true but there are not 12 Ministers for Home Affairs and there are not 12 police forces that the Minister for Home Affairs has to administer. So that is one key difference there. I am saying, of course this is going to be complicated when you have 2 systems running in parallel; there are going to be considerations that need to be made. My point in response to this part of the report is that this is one of the areas which already has seen some progress. There was a point in the past where Honorary Police Officers from different Parishes could not have jurisdiction outside their own Parishes. That has now been changed because presumably it has been recognised that it is helpful to have that overlap and that inter- agency communication. I would see a point though where it does not matter where you live in the Island, that you can be called up to go and serve somewhere else because we know that St. Helier, for example, is having a lot more difficulty in recruiting Honorary Police servants than perhaps other Parishes where the tradition is a lot more entrenched and a lot stronger. I said that the powers do not necessarily go far enough because we are looking solely at policing powers, which I think need to be removed. My question is will it still be possible for a Constable to carry a warrant card if we are removing the notional powers? This is where I disagree in principle with 1.3. The Constable of St. Mary is grimacing but yesterday one of the Articles that was passed was to do with impersonating a police officer. Now, if one is not a police officer, one has had all one's power removed, what possible use can one have for carrying a warrant card which identifies one as an Honorary Police Officer? I think certainly that is not good protocol and you may be opening yourself up to breaking the law, in fact, by impersonating a police officer. So when we see 1.3 of the report on page 4 which says: "Irrespective of Clothier" of course the Constables have long accepted that they should not, in practice, perform an active operational police role. My experience from the written questions and the oral questions that I have asked over the last 3 years is that that is not completely consistent, is it? We had a position only 2 years back where 6 of the Connétable s carried warrant cards. Why would they carry a warrant card? Because they are not known in the Parish? That is complete nonsense. We now have an I.D. (identification) card for States Members which I have just received with not a very good photo incidentally .. a piece of advice, do not use the photograph from 5 years ago which is on your driving licence because it will not necessarily help you be identified among your parishioners. So let us just emphasise it one last time; I would be very disappointed if any States Members were carrying a police warrant card because obviously that would be directly contradictory to that statement there. The last point I will make here is that we need also to look at the executive powers of the Connétable s. I will be quite honest here, I do not have a problem with a Connétable being head of the police force. I do not have a problem with them being a police person who is elected in their own Parish. I do not have a problem with the Connétable issuing gun licences, dog licences, and certainly, if there was a demand for it, the issue about them issuing income support. That has been a moot point; it is not something I would support under the current system but there was an argument in the past that they knew their parishioners and the Parish system is one of the truest forms of grass roots democracy. They elect their own officials for their community and then they make decisions in a local way and not in some kind of bureaucratic centralised way. That is completely to be applauded. But of course any system is only as good as the weakest link that it has. So all that notwithstanding, that is fine, I am quite happy for that role of the Constables to be in place. That is what strengthens the role of the Constable but the ultimate contradiction is that you cannot have that and be a States Member. That is the problem in this day and age. This is why we are enforcing this 13 years down the line and we will be back here in another 5 or 10 years' time to say: "Why is it that the Connétable s can sit here a year ago and decide on Sunday Trading laws" and then one Constable, for example, can say: "Well I think Waitrose should be able to open in St. Brelade" and then Waitrose, let us say hypothetically in St. Clement is not given the right to open. That does not seem like a very

consistent approach to take and there is an inherent conflict there but if the .. The Bailiff :

You are wandering a long way from the subject again. [Laughter]

Deputy M. Tadier :

The reason I am saying this is because one of the reasons one might want to reject this proposition is that it does not go far enough. My point is that at the moment I am hesitating because I am thinking, is it worth supporting this proposition on the basis that it is a step in the right direction, it is some kind of slow evolution or is it worth rejecting because it does not do the whole job? It is

complete nonsense. There are very many reasons for not supporting this proposition. One of my reservations - and I am sure it is the reservation of other Members - is that this does not go far enough because until we have a system either where the Constables remain in the States; fine, let them remain in the States but their position would have to be so far removed in the Parishes from what it is now to weaken the Parish system or we have a system whereby we enforce and affirm the age-old rights of the Connétable s in the Parishes but they can no longer be a de facto Member of the States Assembly. They can be voted into the States Assembly perhaps by their own parishioners if they want to be. I will leave it at that. Simply to say that there are good reasons to accept  [Approbation] .. I think that was to do with the fact that I am finishing rather than necessarily the content and quality of my speech although I hope it were both. To sum up, the point is I am saying there are good reasons to accept this proposition as a slow, imperfect progress. There are very good reasons to reject this proposition in the sense that it does not do what is written on the tin. There is no consistent way forward, there are perhaps unintended consequences which have not been fully thought through and I would hope that one day we would be able to sit down and put our differences aside rather than saying: "This lot here are anti-Constable, this lot here are pro-Constable", because there are a lot more nuances in the system. I am a proud Jersey man, I am a proud democrat first and foremost and I am also very keen to make sure that the Parish structure and all that is good in the Parish structure is preserved and that the relevant changes that need to be made are also made. So I think hopefully that has given Members something to reflect on, even if it has confused other Members.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

I am not sure if the Deputy , the last speaker, realises this proposition is about the policing powers of the Connétable s, not the overall role of the Connétable s.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do understand that and that is why I have put everything in context in my speech.

6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

I will not go over the meaning of life and the various other [Laughter] just heard recently. I am generally relaxed about this law. I do, however, have one small concern and that is traditionally the Procureur du Bien Public keeps a watching eye over the Connétable s, especially in financial matters. Now if a Connétable was to be indisposed for some time and the senior Procureur was taking over his duties for a considerable period of time, who would be watching the watcher?

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Previously in this Assembly I have criticised the way in which we amend legislation. A proposition simply stating that we are amending a particular section of a law or regulation is meaningless unless the amendment is reviewed in the context of the rest of the law that we are amending. It is for this reason that I and the former Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel insisted on marked-up copies of the laws being amended. Not only do we not have marked-up copies of the legislation that is being amended, a number of the laws being amended are written in French; the law of the 1853, 1797, 1864 and so on. I have had a look at these on the Legal Information Board. I have not got a clue what they say. As someone who does not speak French or read French, I have no idea of the consequences of the amendments that we are making and I think it is bad law if States Members are sitting here going through debating things for which they have not got a clue about possible unintended consequences, to quote the Constable of St. Peter. Therefore, I will not be supporting this legislation. If I do not understand its context and what it is about I will not support it.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :

So soon, so soon. This proposition today goes hand-in-hand with yesterday's and yesterday's was indeed an opportunity lost for full, in-depth and proper reform for policing on the Island. As the rapporteur today presented this document, he talked about Clothier 1 and Clothier 1 reforming the way we conduct our policing on the Island, talking about training, emphasising regulation and accountability, increasing the professionalism; not to make them professional, not to pay them but the professionalism with which the honorary act. Here we are having missed that opportunity yesterday to bring in a single, over-arching authority and we talk about centralisation of power. Good grief. We are a population of 100,000; how central can we get? We are only 100,000; the size of a small town in the U.K. (United Kingdom) and we are talking about centralising power. I do not believe that argument for a minute. If we cannot conduct business in a proper manner on behalf of 100,000 then we should not be trying to put up a whelk stall. So an opportunity lost yesterday and I think an opportunity lost today.

[10:45]

We had a previous speaker talking about there are lots of reasons to support this particular proposition, there are lots of reasons not to support it. I want to just point to one, because it seems to me I am picking up a tone of "we have a problem in the reform of the States in that we have 3 types of States Member, one of whom, the Constables, wear 2 hats." Technically they are policemen and also they are lawmakers in this Chamber and at some stage in the last 13 years perhaps somebody has come along to the Comité and said: "You have got a choice. You either give up one or you give up the other; what is it to be?" Right, we will give up police powers because we desperately want to stay in the States, even though we get elected as leader of a Parish and not necessarily for our powers of oratory or other skills that we have more appropriate to this particular Chamber. Given that choice, I am looking at this proposition saying: "Right, I think I will vote against this, because I do not want them to give up their police powers; they can have it as long as they get out of this Chamber." [Laughter] But no, that is not my real reasoning. My real reasoning is that yesterday we wasted an opportunity to have proper reform of the 13 police forces on the Island. Today, equally, we are passing up that chance. This is ducking the issue, I think, and so I will be voting against this the way I voted against the previous proposition because the 2 go together and I cannot support either of them.

9. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary :

I am very honoured, proud and privileged to have served with St. Mary's Honorary Police. I get very annoyed when someone criticises and maligns the system, especially when they have neither served nor taken the trouble to understand the workings. Our Parish Hall Inquiry system allows a Centenier to settle minor offences, to use discretion when charging before taking people to the Magistrate's Court. That is the strength in our system and that will not and must not ever change. This proposal merely separates policing and politics. The 2 must be seen to be transparent and impartial. This proposal is necessary in order to achieve that. [Approbation]

10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

Just briefly, there were 2 previous speeches given by the Constable of St. John and Senator Ozouf and I understand exactly where the Constable of St. John was coming from on this proposition, because when I first read the proposition I felt to a certain extent that it could possibly lead to the watering-down of the Constable's position in the Parish, although I accept totally what Senator Ozouf said in that he felt that the Constables were in a good position to strengthen their role in the Parish especially with the future of the community as the heart of the Parish. I think there is an awful lot there that the Connétable s in the Parishes can do and achieve in the future so I think that the role can be enhanced and improved. There were just a couple of questions I really wanted to ask. In essence I will be supporting this proposition. There are just a couple of questions and it is around the criminal record check of the Constables at the current time. I believe the Constables, when they stand for election, do have a criminal record check. I would like clarification whether that process will continue in the future. I know that they are going to be removed from their policing role but will the criminal record check still take place? Also, in view of the enhanced role of the Senior Procureur, could I know whether the Procureurs at the moment who are in very important public positions - and I think it is important for the public that they know exactly who they are voting into these roles - currently have criminal record checks and if they do not, would the Comité des Connétable s or the Parishes consider making this mandatory in the future?

11. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade :

I ummed and ahhed about whether I was going to say anything today but I am fortunate to see both the President of the Honorary Police Association and the Chairman of the Chefs Committee; I have noticed their heads shaking over the last day and a half and felt it was right that maybe some of the inaccuracies that have been said were put right. The Constable of St. John this morning mentioned decentralisation of duties, which I just totally disagree with. He mentioned many of the things that he considers to be moving in a centralised way. Driving licensing, for example; the Parishes still issue them. Electoral register; that is maintained by the Parishes. I cannot see any centralisation there. The guns are still licensed through the Parish although the States Police, quite rightly, have an input in it and that is right again. At the end of the day, what we are looking at today - and I think the Minister for Treasury and Resources just summed it all up in my mind - is that this is about us just having our policing powers removed and the Procureur deputising in our place should we be incapacitated. It is not about anything else than that and some of the speeches we have had this morning have gone off in all sorts of directions, some of which I really just do not understand. Again, welfare payments were mentioned this morning. They have been centralised. In many ways many people may disagree with that but I was always of the opinion that it was wrong for individuals to go - sometimes it felt like a begging bowl - to a Parish Hall looking for funds. It should be centrally done. Maybe the Parishes should have a little bit more input in it but that is for another day. In terms of the centralisation; from what I have understood from some short conversations with the Chief Minister, he would like the Parishes to have more involvement, not less involvement and that is something that has warmed my heart as, I think, many of the other Constables. Many people have mentioned the fact that we may be dismantling the Parish system. There is nothing in this particular law that is dismantling the Parish system. We are merely removing the Constables' policing powers. Again, the Constable of St. John mentioned interestingly States Police patrolling his Parish. Well, they patrol everybody's Parish; they also patrol my Parish. We do carry out licence checks in St. Brelade on a regular basis. Now maybe they were there for the reasons that they are not being carried out on a regular basis; I am not sure. But they have an Island-wide policing role and rightly they do patrol each and every Parish. What is the issue with that? I have heard a lot mentioned in the last couple of days about the professionalism of the Honorary Police and I have shaken my head time and time again. The fact is all of the Honorary Police are trained. They carry out a foundation course and it is carried out to a high standard. Only one out of I think the last 230 or 240 officers that have come into the Honorary Police Force have not been trained in the foundation course, which is the basic course. I have done it myself. It is a perfect sounding board to get a start in the Honorary Police and to learn how to carry out your duties. That again comes down to what the Honorary Police do. We are not a play police, we are not front line police officers, we carry out more often than not community duties but, yes, we do carry out some duties sometimes in St. Helier and St. Brelade on a Friday night that are a little bit nearer to what the States Police do, but generally speaking we are not front line police. We are not trained to the level that they are and I do not think anybody expects us to be trained to that level. We have a role to play in this Island and I think we carry it out to what I would consider to be a very professional standard. There is though I believe - and I think it has been mentioned before - some work to do. There do need to be some guidelines and some protocols maybe put into place to improve the working relationship between the Constables and the Chef de Police. There is no doubt that work can be done. It can be done in-house once this law goes through. It does not need to be done prior. There is time later on between now and the law coming in for that to be carried out. It cannot be right and it is not right that a policeman or policewoman sits in this Assembly. You should not be making the laws and then policing them; it is as simple as that. I just want to raise one issue; again it is something that Deputy Tadier of St. Brelade brought out about Waitrose. Waitrose is not a police matter, it is a civil matter.

The Bailiff :

It was one of the many matters in the Deputy 's speech which seems to have strayed rather far from the subject.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I totally agree. Just summing up, this is purely about policing powers. This is purely about the Procureur being able to deputise. It has been discussed over and over again. There have been countless meetings, countless consultations between the various groups. I think we are at a position now where I am certainly happy for it to carry forward. I had my doubts at times and I have questioned it like all the other Constables have but I think we have come to the conclusion that now is the right time. I do not want to wait for another 2 years to decide or whenever it is whether we are going to carry on sitting in the States or not. I cannot sit in here with my policing powers; it is as simple as that. I urge Members to make sure that this piece of legislation goes through today. [Approbation]