States Meeting Transcript - 20th February 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 20th FEBRUARY 2013

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.5/2013): third amendment (P.5/2013 Amd.(3))..........................................................4

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................4

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................7
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................8
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................10
4. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................12
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................12
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................14
7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................15
8. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ....................................................16
9. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................17

2. Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.5/2013): fourth amendment (P.5/2013 Amd.(4)).........................................................19

1. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................19
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................20
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................22
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................23
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................24
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................25

7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................26
8. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................27
9. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................28
10. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:...................................................30
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................31
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................31
13. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................33
14. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................33
15. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..................................................34
16. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................35
17. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................35

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................37 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................37

3. Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.5/2013): second amendment (P.5/2013 Amd.(2)).........................................................38

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................38
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................40
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................40
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................45
7. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John:........................................................46
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................48
9. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................49
10. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................51
11. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................51
12. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................52

4. Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.5/2013): fifth amendment (P.5/2013 Amd.(5)).........................................................54

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................54
2. The Connètable of St. Mary:............................................................56
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................57
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................61
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62
7. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................62
8. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................63

5. Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.5/2013) - resumption...............................................................................65

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..................................................................65

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................67
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67
3. Deputy S. Pinel:........................................................................68
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................68
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................68
6. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:........................................................69
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................69
8. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................71

9. Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................71
10. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................72
11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................73
12. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................73
13. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................73
14. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................75
15. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................76
16. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................76
17. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................77
18. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................77
19. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................78
20. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................79
21. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................79
22. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................81
23. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................82

24. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin : ........................................83
25. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................83
26. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................83

2. Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.8/2013) ...86 [Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................87

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................88

3. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......88

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................88

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.5/2013): third amendment (P.5/2013 Amd.(3))

The Bailiff :

We return to the debate on the Draft Referendum (Reform of States Assembly) (Jersey) Act and the next item on the running list is amendment 3 lodged by Deputy Trevor Pitman. I ask the Greffier to read the amendment:

The Greffier of the States:

Page 19, Schedule. In the Ballot Paper in the Schedule for reform option B substitute the following option: "Reform option B Parish Constables will continue to be Members of the States. There will be 46 States Members: 34 Deputies and 12 Parish Constables. There will be 6 large Districts, each choosing 5 Deputies, apart from St. Helier Districts 1 and 2 which will each choose 7 Deputies."

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

Thank you. In making this amendment I should highlight straight away that the only reason I am doing it is because of the issue of fairness. I did not want to bring an amendment and I hope Members accept that. I voted for an independent commission, I am disappointed with what has been put forward, very disappointed. So as a representative of St. Helier, which is a third of the Island's population, I honestly felt I had no other recourse than to do so. In fairness, as I say, that is my only motivation. With regard to that I hope Members have read the report because the figures in there are quite important, but I would also draw Members attention to the written answer to question 24 because when the possibility of this unamended version of option B was talked about many months ago, I was quite clear, because there are members of the public who had spoken to me about their concerns about the unfairness to St. Helier, the potential is there should that ever be put forward unamended to become law then it will be challenged with the Privy Council simply because of the fairness. Not on the issue of the Constables but it does disenfranchise St. Helier hugely and, to be honest, I do not think any St. Helier Deputy would be doing his job if he did not take up the cause for those people who have elected them. So, as I say, it is definitely not about the Constables personally. Everyone who has been here for any length of time knows that I do not believe the Constables should remain in the States and that is simply because I believe of one type and one class of States Member is the most efficient and it will be the most accountable and transparent. I have got nothing personal against the Constables, I talk to all of them, I even like a few of them, and the worst bit - and I am only saying this because I know nobody is listening - I know that a couple like me. [Laughter] I will not name them because it could be curtains for them. I will have a drink with a couple of them .. we will not go there. So there it is, it is not and this cannot be about individuals, it has to be on the issues and it surely is as far as I am concerned. I brought this because the option B put forward by the Electoral Commission, does discriminate, as I say, against the population of St. Helier, it does make the weight of vote far inferior for those people than country-based Districts. It does mean that if accepted today and it comes to law they will be effectively second class citizens. Now, we will probably hear some speeches trying to argue that is not the case, but if Members look at the figures it is quite clear. But I also have to be quite up front. My amendment is not perfect, my amendment would still fall foul of the Venice Convention - I always want to call it commission - and that is because of District 5. District 5, of

course that is St. Lawrence , St. John , St. Mary and St. Ouen . Even with what I am proposing, and I have used what should have been done with the full population figures instead of eligible voters, which is obviously already out of date, District 5 will be over-represented and the only way I could or any Member could bring that into line of what the Venice Convention says would have been to remove a couple of Deputies, which I did not think would be politically acceptable and I certainly did not think there was any chance of it getting through this Assembly. Now, maybe I am wrong for taking that approach but I have done that. What I would say to Members, why is it though that the commission feel it is okay for District 5, 4 country Parishes, to be over-represented yet from what I am hearing from a number of people it is okay for St. Helier to be massively under- represented. Now, I am often critical of the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post), I do not know why but I am, I think it was Lucy Stephenson , she wrote a good piece, a fair piece on my amendments but I was disappointed with the headline, which obviously the journalist will not have written herself because it said about more seats for St. Helier. You can say that is true but it is actually about fair seats for St. Helier . Now, I repeat again, I do not believe the Constables should be in the States but it is a completely valid and sustainable argument to say the Constables should be in here. Anyone who tries to argue against that is living on cloud cuckoo land quite frankly. It is a viable argument but I hope the Constables agree with me that their remaining in the States should not override fairness, and that is at the core of what I am saying to people. Now, I made - I have notes here but I am not really using them which perhaps I should be - 2 submissions to the Electoral Commission and I am quite happy to accept the number in the Assembly can be reduced, indeed I have tried before myself, tried to reduce it to 47, which I think had the most votes last time but still not enough. I felt that the Assembly could be reduced perhaps between 42 and 44, well I did veer towards the 44. My only concern with what we looked at yesterday is this issue of the Troy Rule, which I believe is very, very important and was discussing this with Deputy Le Fondré. Another Member that I do not agree with everything he says and nor he me but we both recognise the huge importance of this. Now, of course, 42 you have to say, whether it is an option A or an option B, I think the reality of whether the Troy Rule can be protected with all these new Ministers being talked about has to be very, very questionable. So, 46, that was the reason for coming up with 46, it allows comparative fairness. As I say, I was very unhappy when I looked at the figures and I saw that eligible voters had been used. Of course, that is on the census for 2011. As we all appreciate, they are already out of date, I spoke to a couple of young people the other day and they have turned 16 since then, they will be able to vote. There are many people who will have fulfilled their couple of years in the Island, hopefully they will vote because we need everybody to vote, do we not? My biggest concern with what I felt was almost the massaging away of people by using those eligible voter figures was that almost 7,000 people had disappeared from St. Helier. Almost 7,000, 6,632 I think. I think it is engraved into my brain now. As I said yesterday, surely all those people are worthy of representation. They might not be able to vote yet; I suppose it depends on one's political philosophy. But if Members do look at the figures that I have used in the report you will see, and it is such a stand out example, District 1 that the commission has proposed, population 17,543 yet the commission are saying they should only have 5.5 representatives. Now, we can

joke, and we did yesterday, about cutting the Constable in half and perhaps it is quite desirable, I do not know. Sometimes I feel it would be, sometimes I do not.

[9:45]

But that would give a public representative of 3,189. Just compare that with District 5. Even with the 4 Parishes taken into account, population 14,178, 9 representatives, only 1,575 per person. We can have the argument that, of course, 3 of those are Constables .. let us take St. Mary for example, because I am going to use it, it always gets used, nothing personal again but it is a smallish Parish. St. Mary will be able elect one Constable, whether it is the charming present Constable or a successor, and they will be able to elect 5 Deputies. They have a population almost exactly 10 times smaller than St. Helier No. 1 District; 1,752, yet they are going to have more representatives than St. Helier No. 1. How on earth did we reach this point? Now, my background is in education. We have a lots of different backgrounds of people, different businesses and health services, et cetera, but everyone knows when you do your research your conclusions, your recommendations, should flow from it. Like just about every other person I speak to, nobody can imagine where these recommendations came from. They just do not make sense. You just go and look on the website at what people have said. It is utter nonsense. Reform is about making things better, it is about making things fairer. The commission even have that lovely saying, which I think Deputy Southern quoted yesterday, it is the cornerstone of reform. So what I am doing, I am asking that the States consider amending this. Increasing the number of Members that are left in the Assembly to 46, as I say, and those 4 would be distributed between the 2 large St. Helier constituencies. They would have comparative parity with everywhere apart from the special case of District 5. We heard yesterday that we all have to have compromise. I am compromising because I am saying: "Okay, I am not going to make a fuss about that", the young man, Sam Mézec who did all the figures, and did a great job doing all the figures, he picked up straight away on No. 5. It is an anomaly and really if we were serious about parity, about equality we would have to address it. But I am willing to let that go. Forty-six, is it that much of a problem? Where did the magic figure of 42 come from, I say? Forty-six certainly protects the Troy Rule unless there is going to be even some more currently unheard of Ministries proposed, possibly there will be. It also provides the option, and obviously this is a big topic, another big topic, and lots of people do not like to even talk about it, but I completely believe that within time complete separation of powers will be imposed on us so we will have to come up with a solution about who is the speaker in this Assembly. Maybe it will

be someone independent from outside, maybe it will be one of the present incumbents who changes their job and decides: "Well, actually, I am more interested in being speaker of the Assembly than a judge." But it might have to be like the U.K. (United Kingdom) where one of us does it. Whether that would be a sought after job I would not like to hazard a guess. Perhaps it could be on a rota system, at least we could all not use the excuse any more that we do not understand Standing Orders when we want to make points of order that perhaps are not right points of order. But it certainly offers that potential, does it not? Let us just also consider that if we reduced the Assembly to 46 and you compare it with the election of 2011, we will still have stripped away 7 Members. That is a saving of what, £300,000 or a bit more. Is that to be sniffed at? Again, I refer to something else here on this issue of figures because I rarely agree with the J.E.P. but as they are saying: "Is numbers, our numbers, the overriding factor?" We do not want to reduce numbers just for the sake of it and it is very easy to say: "Let us have less" but if you are going to have less you want it to be for a reason. I cannot see where the figure of 42 has come from and many people I speak to cannot see where that has come from. Yes, you do not want surplus numbers but you do not want to be in the position where you find there is some unforeseen impact of what you have done. It will be too late, will it not, if the Troy Rule cannot operate, if we decide we have made a bit mistake? So there we go, that is my reason for doing this. Fairness. I am asking Members .. and I am particularly appealing to the Constables .. well, I have never been appealing to Constables much in the past but I am asking them to put fairness first, argue their case, fight their campaign to retain their seats, it is an entirely valid position to take, as I have said. The funny thing is, and I got criticised by a few of my supporters about this, who said: "You are putting forward a proposal that might put the Constables in the strongest position to maintain their seat." I have to say that they are right because much as I supported Deputy Southern , because I believe a referendum should be just a simple yes/no in or out question, we have got to the stage where we are going to have 2 options, or hope it will only be 2 options or say: "None of the above." But for me, committed as I am to a one type Member States Assembly, if my amended option B goes forward and the people vote for it, I have to accept it. I cannot moan about it because my issue with the Constables being in has always been the unfairness and, like I said, I have still compromised, I have done nothing about District 5 being over-represented, I have compromised, I have accepted that and I would ask the Constables particularly, because those 12 votes .. you know, we joke about the block vote but we saw it yesterday and I do hope the Constables will vote for this and put fairness first because it still gives them that right to argue their case and make their points but it does not penalise nearly 34,000 people in St. Helier who if we go with what is before us now, the commission's option B, will be hugely disenfranchised. As I said, and it is not a threat, it is just reality; there is the answer in written question 24. It can go to the Privy Council and it will be because not one of us .. we are very different people in St. Helier, the representatives, I do not agree with everything that Deputy Hilton says, she does not agree with everything I say. I do not agree with everything Deputy Southern say, I do not agree with anything at all that Deputy Rondel says and I tried to tell him what he should say but he does not listen much. But the fact is all of us have to stand up for those people who we represent. I would have to say to 2 out of the 3 members of the Electoral Commission, the political members, I have had it said to me: "I wish the Senator and Deputy had said to me when they asked for my vote in 2011 that they were going to be happy for something to go forward which would disenfranchise us." You have to say, those people have a fair point. I could not stand on the doorstep next time, if I stand again, if I am able to stand again, if I was supporting allowing them to be second class voters. So I do hope all the St. Helier representatives at least will be supporting me. I am going to end again by appealing to the Constables because their 12 votes are very important here. This option can allow them to argue their case, as I said, fight their case, and know that they are not making anyone else suffer by their position. Actually, sadly I might say because of my beliefs on the one class States Assembly, if this went through and succeeded it may put the end to all these arguments and debates, would that not be a terrible thing? With that, I will make the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Senator Bailhache .

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

Deputy Pitman is partly right but in my view mostly wrong. Where he is partly right is that reform option B creates greater voter inequity than we have at the moment and the Electoral Commission has made no secret of that. It is in the final report and it is a fact. So in that respect Deputy Pitman is right. But he produces a solution to the problem that is distorted and biased against reform option B. He does that because the amendment confuses 2 separate issues, voter equity on the one hand and the link with the Parishes on the other. They are apples and pears. You cannot have voter equity if the Constables remain in the States, the commission has conceded that, but equally you cannot have a constitutional link with the Parishes if you have an Assembly composed only of Deputies representing large Districts. So which is the more important? That, the commission says, is the issue for the electorate; it is for the people to decide. The amendment assumes that one can add the Constables to the Deputies and arrive at a total number of representatives for the District but that is incorrect. The Constable of St. Lawrence is not the representative of voters in St. John, St. Mary or St. Ouen. She is not elected by them; she is not answerable to them. If an elector living in St. Ouen were to telephone the Constable of St. Lawrence, assuming the reform options came into effect, about some political problem, I shall be very surprised if the Constable did not say: "Get in touch with your own Constable." The Constables are Parish representatives. It is only the Deputies who are District representatives. Constables do not represent electors in any Parishes other than their own. So what is the logic of this amendment? It is based upon the premise that Constables are District representatives and so Deputy Pitman arrives at the conclusion that the voters in District No. 1 only have half a Constable. That is absurd. Do they only telephone him on 3 days a week; do they only get half his attention? That is nonsense. [Laughter] The Constable gives the whole of his attention on all occasions to all his parishioners. So where does the amendment lead us? We have at the moment in reform options A and B 6 Districts with almost equal populations and eligible voters, but 2 of the Districts will then have 7 Deputies and the rest of them will have 5. Where is the logic of that? Where is the offence? What about the other semi- urban Parishes that only have one Constable, St. Clement, St. Saviour, should they have some kind of compensating allowance because the Constable has more parishioners than the Constable of St. Lawrence or the Constable of St. Mary? The argument is not logical because the Constables are not District representatives, they are Parish representatives. Even if one looks at St. Helier as 2 Districts, at present it has one Constable and 10 Deputies. How many representatives will it have if reform option B is the favoured option and succeeds?

[10:00]

It will have one Constable and 10 Deputies, exactly the same. I refute therefore the suggestion that parishioners in St. Helier are second-class voters. They, in fact, will be better off proportionately in an Assembly of 42 than they are at present. The Deputy sets out in his report a number of additional benefits but none of these additional benefits will apply if the public supports reform option A, which is, in fact, Deputy Pitman's favoured option. If reform option A wins, there will be 42 Members which he thinks is sufficient because he is supporting reform option A but if, under his amendment, there are 46 Members in reform option B, what is the logic of that? I will say that there is a hidden advantage and I said at the opening of my remarks that the amendment biased the question against the Constables. There is a hidden advantage in the amendment for reform option

1. We know that the vast majority of members ofthe public think that there are too many Members of the States and they want a reduction in the number of Members. They will be presented, if this amendment goes ahead, with 2 reformoptions. Reform option A will offer them 42 Members; reform option B withthe Constables will offerthem 46 Members. It will be biased against the Constables remaining in the States. I think that creates an unfairness and I ask Members to reject the amendment.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am sure the Senator did not mean to mislead but I said I support a one Member Assembly and I said I had real concerns about 42 so that is what I said. I do, of course, support a one type Member as the ideal but it is not there for us.

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I am sorry if I misread the Deputy 's favoured option.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

It may be a difference of opinion, it may be a difference of fact, but I believe that I need to correct something Senator Bailhache said. He said you cannot retain the Constables in the States and maintain voter equity but that is not true because about half a day before I went to see the Electoral Commission, it was during the lunchtime, I had done my submission, a fairly lengthy one, which was my official submission and at lunchtime, I sat down in the States computer room and within an hour, I came up with a model whereby you could maintain the Constables in all the Parishes and you could have voter equity so long as you were willing to be flexible on the number of States Members and if you based it on single seat constituencies with, I would recommend, a transferable preferential voting system to stop incumbency. The way that that would be achieved is that you take the smallest District, which is St. Mary currently, you respect the Parish boundaries, you use that as the basic unit and you say: "We keep the Constable of St. Mary. Because it is so small we get rid of the Deputy of St. Mary." We give St. John one Deputy and one Constable and you replicate that throughout the Island and to achieve perfect statistical distribution, you would have to have 55 States Members but you could also achieve it with fewer and obviously the fewer States Members you have, you get further away from voter equity. But with around about 45 to 50, you can maintain the Constables so this myth must be disbanded and I put that in deliberately. You will remember, those of us who were here in 2009, I lodged a proposition to say let us ask the people whether they want to keep the role of the Constable because that is the fundamental issue that we always come back to time and time again and we have been told by this Electoral Commission that that is the sticking point. They are traditionalists out there, some of whom want to keep this very what they see as a vital role and a vital link to the Parish, others who do not necessarily think of that in the same way and until we resolve that problem, unfortunately we are not going to be any the wiser and that is why it would be very good to have a steer from the public on that one single issue. Then we could have gone away to the drawing board and designed a system around that and also designed a system around the number of States Members but we refused to do that and that is why I think we are in this difficult position of trying to guess what the public want and trying to make a system around it with far too many variables. I say that just to put that in context. There are 2 reasons why I will not be able to support this amendment and it is often said that there is a solidarity between left and right and if perhaps Senator Bailhache is not going to support this, and I am not supporting it, it sends a message out to other Members that we must both be wrong and therefore you should support that perhaps by some somersault of sophistry. There are 2 reasons that I cannot support this personally. The first is that I subscribe to the Reform Jersey principles, 3 of which were laid out very early on and which seem to have been adopted by the Electoral Commission as part of their guiding principles. They state that every elected politician should represent the same number of people as a basic principle, give or take. Any new system should be simple and user friendly and every voter should have the same number of votes no matter where they live in the Island, and it is part 3 which I think is key. Whether it is one man, one vote, one Deputy or whether it is everybody in a District gets 5 or 7 votes, it should be the same throughout the whole Island and option B does not provide that. Of course option B in its current format does not provide all of those other points either. You will hear a lot more about Reform Jersey because, as far as I know, they are the only cohesive group which will be campaigning when it comes to the referendum unless there is, of course, an ad hoc lobby group which campaigns to keep the status quo and keep the seats for the boys and girls. There may be a States Members group which says: "We do not want any change because we want to get re-elected at the next elections. Do not change anything please; we are quite happy as we are" and maybe that group can apply for funding from P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) if we are minded to give any funding for this but you will hear a lot more from Reform Jersey. By extension of that, I will be campaigning actively for option A and I hope we have a good debate around the reform issues. That leads me to

the second point why I cannot support this is because this amendment makes option B more viable. Deputy Pitman was quite correct that if we pass option B, there is a risk that when the voters in St. Helier turn up to vote, they may vote for option B. When I knock on the door and I try and explain that option A is the only sensible option and option B, as I have written here, is outlandishly ridiculous and blatantly gerrymandered and it is a testament to the group think folly of the Electoral Commission which has allowed itself to be persuaded by prejudice of the 3 elected States Members, when I try and explain that to them and say: "Oh, yes, but option B gives us a couple of extra Deputies, it represents us", it is much more difficult for me to try and explain that sentence that I just read out to them on the doorstep. There is a risk they might vote for option B and there is a risk that we may not achieve one type of States Member which is what I essentially have been campaigning for for years now. So this is the reason we must reject option B. It makes it more viable. It does make it fairer but I was quite astounded that we have the Chairman of the Electoral Commission who stands up without any kind of shame, tells us publicly that option B creates more voter inequity and that they have never been ashamed of that. That is a remarkable position to even put something on the table which creates even

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I have never said that I was not ashamed of that. I made no mention of shame whatsoever. I merely pointed out, as a matter of fact, that the Electoral Commission had made it clear that reform option B created greater voter inequity than there is at the moment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think the Deputy 's point, Senator, is that you should be ashamed. I think that is it. [Laughter] Whether Members accept that or not is a matter for them.

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

If that is what he means, that is what he should say.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not usually accept those kinds of interventions from the Chair but in this case, I think I will The Deputy Bailiff :

It is called impartiality, Deputy . [Laughter] [Approbation]

Deputy M. Tadier :

That is right. When it underlines the point I am trying to make, it is definitely impartial. That is what I would agree with. But the point is, the Senator stands up quite rightly, it is a fact the Electoral Commission have put this option on the table and obviously when I make an observation, which is my opinion, that he is doing so in an unashamed way, if one is to present something, you would presume it would be done in such a fashion. The point is, why is the Electoral Commission even putting something on the table when their guiding principles are to have equal representation wherever possible and I read those out yesterday, I do not need to repeat them. One of the guiding principles was never to take into account the traditions of Jersey and to take into account the importance of the Parish system and its representation within the States of Jersey as an Assembly. That was never one of the guiding principles. If it was meant to be, it should have been written down there in the first place. So I have made those 2 points. I cannot vote for option B because I would be hypocritical as it does not maintain all of the things that I think are basic to the democratic process and we cannot vote for option B because it makes it more viable and people in St. Helier are more likely to vote for the retention of the Constables in this format which I do not think would achieve a sensible position.

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

I have been looking forward to the remainder of this debate since I lost the vote yesterday because here we are attempting desperately to make something out of what is a bad deal. We are trying to stitch together a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The faults that I complained about yesterday with the mechanism with 3 options and 2 votes as being skewed towards one outcome are still there. I am tempted to vote for this amendment because it does stick to the principles outlined by the Electoral Commission when they started which were all electors should have the same number of votes; constituencies should, as far as possible, be of broadly equal size; candidates should generally require a significant number of votes to be elected to the Assembly and the Constable of St. Mary, how many votes does that count? The electoral system should be simple, fair and easy to understand and here we are trying to mess it up. We might go to that position better if we accept this amendment but yesterday I was attempting to be as polite as I could because I had an amendment to win or lose but when I started talking about the faults, the mistakes that were made early on with the Electoral Commission, I did not really go to town on it. Today I can because not only was it absolutely a mistake to appoint Members to this Electoral Commission which automatically then says: "Hang on, is there not some conflict of interest there in some way whatsoever?" and there is. Not only that, but this House chose a recently elected Senator, one of the few to stand on a clear platform of he knew what to do with electoral reform and lo and behold, he told us before this and we elected him to the chairmanship of this when he said: "And my solution would be 42 Members, including the Constables." A number of people in this Chamber who have some experience and long experience of how the Chamber works, groaned and had their head in their hands. What a recipe for bringing government on this Island to a complete halt. Let us look at the analysis of what the Constables do and let us not beat about the bush. Do they have 2 responsibilities, one to their Parish and one to the States? Do the vast majority of them, including those recently elected, say: "And when push comes to shove, my duty is to my Parish.  That is where my heart is, even when I am in here." In general terms, do the Constables hold as many positions of responsibility? Are they as active? Do they bring propositions? Do they bring amendments like others do at the same level? A brief look at the record says by and large no and yet this proposition option B does not place less control and power in their hands. It increases their proportion, 12 out of 42 people in this House and what does that do to the Troy Rule? I think the Troy Rule has gone if we vote for this. It may just be viable.

[10:15]

The machinery of government may not come to a halt with a few more Members. Where should those Members be? The figures show that they should be in St. Helier and here we are. This is not new. This is a repeat time and time again of not just the last 50 years or the last 100 years. This argument between St. Helier and the country Parishes has been going on for some 200 years now. The fight for control of politics on this Island has ever been thus, between the country Parishes, the northern Parishes and St. Helier and here we are repeating it once again. In an attempt to get a reasonable balance and a proportionate control to St. Helier, we have got this amendment. Can it be made to work? Can we create the silk purse? I do not think so because we start from a fundamentally flawed position, an unworkable position, one which contains bias to the Constables. As Deputy Tadier said, this in fact will make it easier for those with problems about the overall package voting for reform like Deputy Le Fondré, whom I mentioned yesterday, who had an objection to 42, this piles perhaps one more vote in there when what we should be doing is saying we have to bite the bullet. This is an opportunity. We have to and what we have to do, as a matter of principle and as a matter of effectiveness, is to bite the bullet of what is the role of the Constables. It is dual and they are, whether we like it or not, less committed to this House than the rest of us. That is the reality and I know the Constables are shaking their heads. They do not like to hear it. They do not like to hear it but that is the bald truth and until we answer until this Commission this Commission should have proposed that and said to the electorate: "Do you want this or not? Let us decide one way for all" but they did not. They ducked it. They produced a scheme starting with the principles which ended up without the Constables. It was option A. That is why it is called option A. That is where they arrived first surely but that was: "Oh, that was led by a Senator who recently stood and said I will keep the Constables with 42." As I said yesterday, I do not know how they arrived at this solution. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall. What were the arguments? They must have been very heated but what we have got is a compromise that does not work. We set out to produce the thoroughbred racehorse and we produce - sorry for the cliché - a great big camel. That is the reality. Deputy Pitman says: "I can still race the camel. Give me a saddle. I will fix the shape of the saddle." The reality is we are starting in the wrong place and we are trying to amend it. This is a minor improvement and it does not deal with the fundamental flaw in this proposition. I will be voting for this amendment because it does stick to the principles of the equal vote that is essential and is recognised internationally, the Venice Commission, recognising internationally that that is the way to go. It should be equal votes with equal weight. As soon as you stick the Constables back in that, that goes out the window so we are seeing the true colours of the chairman of this commission. When push comes to shove, and he says: "Yes, here are the principles of equal votes with equal weight but as soon as it comes to the

question of the Constables throw that out because that is more important." This chairman was not independent. He had his conflict of interest. He committed himself to the Constables and that is what he has delivered and that is why this referendum is completely flawed and lots of people out there know it. We know it, you know it, Members, electors know it. The danger is that we will get nowhere with this because of the flaws.

4. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Despite my lack of commitment to this Assembly, I should like to make a short and modest contribution to this debate. What I wanted to say was that like the Deputy of St. Martin, I shall be voting against all of the amendments, not because some of them do not have a certain amount of merit, not this one, but some of them do have a certain amount of merit. If I had been so inclined, I might have brought an amendment myself because it has always been a huge disappointment to me, and I mean this sincerely and honestly, that the Clothier proposals were never put to the people in a plebiscite or referendum because the Clothier proposals have so much to commend them. It would resolve the issue of Constables who would no longer be in the States as of right but would retain their right to stand for election to the States in their Parishes. The Clothier proposals would ensure a true general election. It would ensure, as near as makes no difference, an equality of votes and representations. It would remove the lottery that is caused in elections when you have 5, 6 or 7 seat constituencies. Sure, it does not meet the criteria of the Venice Convention, something we only found out about in the last few months, but I say, so what? The Clothier proposals would work and would suit Jersey and perhaps one day we will come back to those and recognise the fact that that is the best solution for us. I turn to Deputy Pitman's speech and he used St. Mary as an example and said that St. Mary would be electing I think he said 5 Deputies to the States. Not a chance. It is possible; it is possible that that could happen but the reality is if the Constables remain under proposal B, they will elect one because St. Mary is amalgamated with St. Lawrence, St. John and St. Ouen so by sheer weight of numbers, the people who will be electing St. Mary's Deputies will be living in St. John, St. Ouen and St. Lawrence. By sheer weight of numbers, they will decide who represents St. Mary . The Deputy , and indeed Deputy Southern , spoke about the Troy Rule and how important it is that that is maintained and yet in other debates and in question times and at other opportunities, both of those Deputies will complain about the lack of inclusivity in this Assembly, that not enough people are involved in the government of this Island. If the Troy Rule continues to exist as it does at the moment, then inevitably more than half of the Members of the States are excluded from being in government because the rule says you can only have half less 10 per cent effectively in government so you have got a built-in lack of inclusivity. I could go on for ages but because of my lack of commitment to this Assembly, I will now stop. I will now stop and confirm that I will be voting against this particular amendment because it has no merit and against the others because we made the promise to the public that we would put the recommendations of

the commission to a referendum and I think we must maintain that commitment. [Approbation]

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

I will forgive my Constable for his lack of commitment to this Assembly. I must admit I had not noticed and I was a little concerned about the previous speaker. Deputy Southern 's blood pressure, I thought, was getting slightly out of control and I have to say while I was slightly hard of hearing when he started, I am now almost completely deaf. [Laughter] I would also advise Members that if this debate runs into Thursday afternoon, which it looks like it might do, I am afraid I shall not be here as I have a longstanding appointment related to States work which I really cannot defer anymore. I also intended, as one or 2 other Members said yesterday, to speak only once so I thought this would probably be an appropriate moment as this amendment deals with both the number of 42 and the super constituencies. Yesterday the commission was critical, as other Members were, to people producing amendments to it and thought that it should not be interfered

with. But it seems to me that what these Members do not understand is that these proposals are basically seriously flawed and it seems to me they are producing basically 2 options and most of the amendments follow in that vein and that is reducing the numbers to 42 or keep numbers at present. Of course, the question of Constables was inconvenient so the first question was split into 2. I have an answer to that. Just let us have half the Constables, maybe on a rota basis, I am not sure. Seriously, the number 42 to me is a serious issue because despite the commission's view that they have done a lot of work in this area, I do not think that they have done sufficient because they, in my view, have failed to justify the number 42. As a previous Member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, I spent 3 years working on this subject and I do know a little bit about it. We carried out more consultations than you could shake a stick at. We even held a Mori Poll and yet we did not succeed in getting change. So why should the commission expect to succeed with only a fraction of the work? I ask, how was 42 arrived at because I really do not understand. Where was the analysis to arrive at that number? As far as I can see, the commission started out with 42 and then attempted to justify it and failed. I believe the reason for that is that the commission started at the wrong end. If somebody asked me how many staff I thought perhaps would be appropriate for B&Q or Normans or the J.E.C. (Jersey Electric Company) or any other company, I would have no idea. I do not work there. Why, then, should a member of the public know the most appropriate number of States Members for efficient government? The truth is they do not and what the commission has failed to understand and, I believe, some of the amendments, is why the public or at least some of them have said they want a reduction. It is not because they know exactly how many are needed for efficient government. It is because they do not like politicians so they want less of them. What I found when speaking to members of the public holding this view is that when I have explained the ramifications of a reduction to 42, they have, without exception, changed their view because what had escaped them is that when we changed from the committee system of government to the present Ministerial one, we needed more Members not less. The reason for that is now less than half of States Members are running the

Island. The others are watching over them to see what is going on. They are the checks and balances. This is what happens when you try to fit Ministerial government into a non-political party jurisdiction. I believe that in this regard, the commission's work is premature. What we should have been doing is first of all deciding what the structure should be. That would dictate the most suitable number of Members required to do the work efficiently and to do it the other way round, especially without defining the ramifications, is doomed to failure. That is why we have so many amendments before us. The Commission did make a reference to having to do away with the Troy Rule and I am concerned about that as I explained to members of the public who thought 42 was perhaps an appropriate number.

[10:30]

Where would you make the reduction? You cannot really reduce the number of Ministers. In fact, there is an argument that perhaps we need one or 2 more. It was only yesterday that we approved the possible creation of another Ministry. Assistant Ministers are,  in the main, already  fully occupied so where would the reduction come from? There is only one place left and that is Scrutiny where all our checks and balances are. I sincerely believe that those members of the public currently asking for a reduction in the number of Members would be the first to complain when they found the outcome was a de facto dictatorship, there was no control and checks and balances. The only way a reduction to 42 would work democratically would be by returning to committee government where all Members are in the Executive. I would have no objection to that. In fact, having been a States Member in both committee and Ministerial government, I believe the committee system was more efficient and made better decisions. However, analysis shows I am in the minority and that the chances of a return to the committee system are remote; 42 will not work without emasculating Scrutiny as I said a moment ago and we cannot afford to do that. Secondly,

the issue of super constituencies, which is carried forward in this amendment. When I was a member of P.P.C., we brought that very option to this Assembly and it was roundly rejected and the reason for that is because it is impractical. To take an example, the proposed St. Clement, Grouville and St. Martin constituency. How would the parishioners of St. Clement feel - and I believe my Constable touched on this - if all their representatives were from Grouville or from St. Martin or any similar permutation? Would it marginalise Parishes because at the present time, most parishioners enjoy the attachment they feel to their Parish? Most seriously of all, what would it mean at election time? At present, it takes me about 3 weeks to canvass St. Clement. Our Parish is not divided into Districts. Neither is Grouville or St. Martin so that if I was standing for election in a super constituency, the idea of canvassing those 3 Parishes is a complete non-starter. I would not even think of it. So how would electors get to know the candidates? Certainly not by meeting them at the door. How about at the hustings? Well, again, at present, St. Clement has 2 Deputies and has normally 4 or 5 candidates so with 4 or 5 candidates on the stage, the electors have a reasonable chance of questioning them and finding out a fair amount about them, they have a reasonable chance. But if you have got 6 or 7 positions to fill, you are going to have 12, 15, 18 candidates so what you end up with is, as we have seen on senatorial elections, with half a minute to ask a candidate and by the time the question gets to candidate 8 he says: "Oh, well, the answer that 2 gave did not go down too badly. I will give that as well."

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt you but both under the main proposition and under the amendment, there are the super constituencies and therefore a speech on whether there should or should not be super constituencies is not a speech which is related to this amendment. It is quite important not to debate the same matter 6 times or 5 times so if you could contain your speech please to the amendment, that would be helpful.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I appreciate your advice, Sir, but as I did say at the beginning, I am not going to make the same speech 6 times. I intend only speaking the once.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Unfortunately you cannot make that commitment for your colleagues. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

If I were to support this amendment, I would be supporting super constituencies. I am trying to explain why I would not but I am nearing the end of that particular part because what I was going to say is that the senatorial election is different from a super constituency election inasmuch that usually, certainly in the past, the candidates were usually known to the electorate beforehand because they were either sitting Senators or Deputies seeking to step up. So in conclusion, I am unable to support a reduction to 42, certainly at least until an analysis of the ramifications has been made. I am unable to support the creation of super constituencies for the reasons that I have just given. As Members will therefore realise, I am struggling to find any benefit in either the main proposition or most of the amendments. I am beginning to think the answer is to glue down my contre button and attend to the outstanding work in my office.

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

I will try to avoid the super constituencies and stick to the amendment but it is very hard when we are facing an amendment that is trying to put St. Helier into an even position where I have always argued it is us and them, one Parish against the other 11, normally when there is building, when is this going to go on, when Crabbé could not do the green waste any more overnight, when in St. Helier and now we have got to work we are where we are but, you know, St. Helier does have good representation. No, it does not. I really get confused when I listen to Senator Bailhache and he has been in this House and he has been in the Chair and he is back in this House and he does not seem to understand how people vote. In the executive summary on page 6, it was very, very grey before they went back out to consultation. In fact, it was said at the Town Hall this absolutely puts St. Helier out there on a limb against teaming up the country Parishes, 4, 3, 3 and 2 and 2 and there is St. Helier. The commission and the people on the commission said: "Oh, no, no, you do not understand. Those 4 Constables will not be working together." Well I am very sorry. They have now got it into now we have, you know, the single Deputies have said to me: "What Parish Assembly do I attend? You listen to Senator Bailhache and you read this and it says Deputies might live in the same Parish and they might want to attend a representative Parish Assembly but the Constable or other members of the municipality of a Parish or a Parish volunteer shall deal with Parish problems." When someone rings me up, what is the Parish problem in St. Helier or what is the Parish and in the big Parishes, I do not know, could you have voted "Well, I voted for you" but everyone is going to vote for me, it does not matter where they live. I mean, yes, we all know that because you know it does not matter. It is not statistically possible but they did so you never argue. You just get on and do and if you need the Constable to help you, you do. So not content with that, if you really do not think that the 4 Constables .. you will have in St. Clement you will have your 5 Deputies working with 3 Constables in St. Clement, Grouville and St. Martin and in the back now they are even going to change the Electoral Law rights of Deputies to speak at Parish Assemblies only if you want to. You can vote for Honoraries and the Constables will have to work together to make sure this is rotated so you do not have to be in 3 places at once or 4 in some Parishes so of course you are not going to get the 4 Constables in that District, the 3 and the 2 working together. Of course you are. So St. Helier would definitely be under-represented. Saying that, and I can see where the Senator is coming from when he says: "If you are a thinking man and you do not want any more States Members, you are going to look at the 2 options. You are going to say if you keep the Constables, you are going to need to have 46 States Members but get rid of the Constables and you only need 42" and out there where that is disliked, you could call us chickens and they would say: "Right, there is only going to be 20 of them and I am going to have 20 chickens to represent us so that would be very good." I am probably finished speaking on this absolute shambles. I am not supporting it does not improve it. It does not make the question going to the public fair. It does not help St. Helier really. It is all a fudge because we had the answer yesterday to say yes or no. I pick up on what Deputy Southern said. I mean I think he absolutely over-egged it about the Constables are not committed to here. We have heard it too many times. The Constables, and rightly so, have their Parish first.  Last time we lost a Constable who happened to be a Minister. Was it because he happened to be a Minister or was he not a good

Constable? I do not know. We have had people resign because the workload of the Parish is more. Can we have 42 Members and 10 Ministers, 12 of them being I mean 12 Constables who then draw back and say: "I can only do a little bit of Scrutiny. I cannot be a Chair, I cannot be a Minister, and I cannot be an Assistant Minister." You have got to add all this up so I really cannot

as a representative of St. Helier , this is not right. We had one chance yesterday and looking at it, I think Deputy Southern did miss the trick. He should have brought the question B but even then would the Constables have gone with it? Did anyone vote with it? Is it too much to ask and it should be. We have got to clear up straightaway do the public want the Constables in the States, yes or no. Let them decide and this is what they should have done. This is a fudge. We will get an answer. My worst dread is we will keep the status quo come 2014 when we have got to elect 8 Senators. We will get chickens coming in at 6, 7 and 8.

7. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

That is quite well timed really as I am a Senator. I have a lot of passion for the parishioners of St. Helier and why have I got that? Because in the last 2 senatorial elections they placed me at the top of the poll. That may surprise some people. They did not know that but a third of the population live in St. Helier and they chose me as their Senator to top the poll. I am delighted with that and therefore I am very minded to support this amendment from Deputy Pitman and he has made a good case but I do not think his heart is in it.  I think Deputy Tadier has hit the nail on the head here. We had the main debate yesterday, let us be honest. We had the debate yesterday. It was a very close call. I call it a close call because there were 19 votes in favour. Deputy Le Fondré did not vote. He did not abstain but he did not vote and we know why he did not vote, because he said he would have gone with that except it left 42 Members and he thought there should be an odd number, which is a fair comment, and I probably agree with him, that 42 is not the right number. So he did not vote but his heart was with that amendment. So we would have had 20 votes in favour, 20 votes against who were not Constables and 10 Constables who voted against. I have no surprises there. We had a tied vote yesterday.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Will the Senator give way? I think there were 11 Constables who voted in favour, one was away. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

That is not what I wrote down from the Greffier when he read out scores. So we had a tied vote yesterday and we are exactly where the public are. The public are divided between do we keep Constables in or do we have an Assembly with all Deputies which, of course, the Constables could stand for election as a Deputy if they so desired. So that is where we are. When it comes to having 46 States Members, the report from the commission and their expert, Dr. Renwick, hypothesised on page 18 that: "The membership of the lower chamber of a country's national Legislature tends to be roughly equal to the cube root of its population" is accepted. In Jersey's case, this would imply a Legislature of 46 Members so, in a sense, Deputy Pitman has got it right; 46 Members is correct based on our population but I think we are at a situation where none of the amendments left now are really worth spending any time on. We have to accept that we lost the vote yesterday. Senator Bailhache , as chairman of the commission, has stated publicly, and it will be on Hansard, that option B creates greater voter inequity than we have at the moment and we cannot have voter equity if the Constables remain in the States. He has said that, those are his words. It will be on Hansard and that will be recorded by the public when they come to look at option B because the chairman of the commission says it creates voter inequity greater than we currently have in this Assembly. So really anybody who thinks that A and B are going to be the 2 prime things that they campaign about to the public, we should always remember that the chairman, and I will repeat it again, the chairman of the Electoral Commission said that option B created greater voter inequity and therefore I suggest to Members that all these other amendments are a complete waste of time. We accept now we lost the vote yesterday. We accept the Electoral Commission's recommendations and let us see what the public decides and, as Senator Bailhache said, it is for the people to decide, not this Assembly.

[10:45]

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

I was listening with interest to the comments made by one of the St. Helier Deputies about the work done by Connétable s and Members of this Chamber. I have given many years in the Benches across the other side of the Chamber. I am doing as much work now as I did then, maybe in a different format, but I am still doing as much for the Island as I have ever done and for the Parish as I have ever done. That said, what really concerns me, something like in excess of 25 per cent of the elected Members of the Parish of St. Helier do not stand on standing panels or Ministries and therefore are not doing the work that others are having to do. That is of concern. It is all well and good that 25 per cent or thereabouts of the elected Members of one Parish are not doing the work

but other people have to carry them. I was minded, and I still am, of supporting Deputy Pitman because I think 46 is probably the right number and Senator Le Gresley is absolutely right. In the commission, in the expert's report, he did say 46 was the right number. That said, I am going to listen to the Deputy sum up and see how he pulls it all together but it would have been remiss of me not to defend the corner of this side of the House when I hear a Deputy who, to my knowledge, does not sit on any panel or Ministry criticising other people. He may do but he will, I am sure, come and tell me which one he sits on in due course but for many months he did not if he does now. So therefore it is important that everybody pulls their weight in the Chamber, whether they are Senators, Deputies or Connétable s so that we are all doing something but when somebody gets up to criticise who I know for a long period of time if he may have taken something recently, did not sit on any panel and/or ministry.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I call on Deputy Pitman to reply.

9. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am not going to take that long. There have been some good speeches and I think there have been a few instances, perhaps not surprisingly, where we have gone a bit off track. I am not going to go through what everybody said because I have listened with respect to what everyone said, whether I agreed with them or not, and nothing changes. The key issue of what this all comes down to is fairness and I would just ask Members who are considering voting against this, stop and think a minute. Really Senator Le Gresley touched on it. If you are saying that this still is not fair, remember I hold up my hands. It is still not fair. As someone said, I am only trying to make things better and this amendment does make things better. So if you vote against this amendment, you are going to just be supporting something even worse. Where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in that? Now it is a shame that some of the things got a bit personal and defensive and I understand that because we all like to think that we do our job. I point out that it is a bit unfair to Deputy Southern and perhaps he was a bit unfair on some of the Constables but Deputy Southern 's record on Scrutiny speaks for itself, as does his constituent work and I can say I was one of only 11 who saw Scrutiny through. I can also say that I have got a lot bigger constituent base than just about all of the Constables and indeed I have got cases in every Parish, even little St. Mary, that I have taken on. I would just like to have a thought for my good friend the Constable of St. Clement , but I think he misunderstood the 2 issues of the Troy Rule and inclusive government. All that people say when they are complaining about lack of inclusivity is that people are excluded because of who they are, not because they do not have ability and we all know that is the reality in this Assembly. There are 5 or 6 of us that will never get asked to be on Ministries, not because we are not intelligent, not because we have not got things to offer or work hard. That is not the same issue as talking about the Troy Rule. The Troy Rule is important, and that has been a key factor in what I have tried to do here, 46, because every strong democracy needs checks and balances. Now we have not got party politics here so that is why the Troy Rule is so important. You need that check and balance of people who are not on the Executive. I have gone slightly off track but I want to bring it back and quickly round up and say this just makes things better. Yes, Deputy Southern is quite right when he said about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I used that on my blog. I think he has been stealing my material, especially when he said about the bald truth. But it is a fact it is not perfect, and I have said that to Members. It is not perfect but it does concern me deeply that Members seem to be finding a big excuse not to vote for something on grounds that just do not stand up to analysis. This makes a very flawed option better. I am not claiming it is perfect. It makes things better, it makes things fairer, and I am not even going to go into some of the arguments trying to dismantle the figures I have got because they speak for themselves. The people of St. Helier are being disenfranchised and it will go to the Privy Council and these arguments will

carry on, and I do not think any of us here want that. I accept what Deputy Tadier says. I am putting something forward that makes keeping the Constables fairer and more palatable to voters. I will get criticised. I have been criticised by people who know me already but I have got to do that because I am still trying to make things fairer and I am succeeding in making things fairer. So please Members, if you are going to vote against it, just be willing to stand up and say the truth. You will have voted against something that made things better and you are going to be supporting something that makes things worse, worse than they are now, worse for a third of the population and with that, I will thank everyone who spoke. I hope people appreciate I have not taken hours to wind up, probably because I am back on next and please do try and see your way to voting for a fairer option B. It is not perfect, it is far from perfect, and it may be that it comes to the end and you still do not want to vote for the whole package but at least this is a small step in the right direction towards equality and parity and the people of St. Helier certainly deserve that and I would really be saddened and shocked if all the St. Helier Deputies did not support me. So with that I say thank you to Members and call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for. The vote is on the third amendment to the Draft Referendum Act as proposed by Deputy Trevor Pitman. I invite Members to return to their seats and ask the Greffier to open the voting.