States Meeting Transcript - 22nd January 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 22nd JANUARY 2014

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

1. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform - proposal 1 (P.93/2013) - amendment (P.93/2013 Amd.) - resumption..............................................4

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John:..........................................................4

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................5
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................5
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :....................................................................6

2. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform - proposal 1 (P.93/2013) - second amendment (P.93/2013 Amd.(2)).................................................9

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................10
2. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................10
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................11
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................12

5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................13

3. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform - proposal 1 (P.93/2013) - resumption...............................................................................15

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................15
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................16
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................17
4. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................20
5. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................20
6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................20

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..................................................................22

7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................22
8. Connetable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................23
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................26
10. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................26
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................28
12. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................30
13. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................30
14. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................31
15. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................31 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:..................................................................33
16. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................36
17. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................36
18. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................37

19. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................39 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................39

20. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ..................................................40
21. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................41
22. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:...................................................45
23. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade : ..............................................46
24. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................46
25. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................47
26. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................48
27. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................48
28. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................50
29. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................52
30. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................53

2. Draft Public Finances (Amendment of Law No. 1) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.133/2013)..............................................................................63

2.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................63

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................64
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................65

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................67

3. The Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel - statement regarding the CCTV report re camera surveillance in Jersey.........................67

3.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):.........67

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................68
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................68
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................68 Deputy J.M. Maçon:..........................................................................69

4. Ratification of the Agreement between the Government of Jersey and the Republic of Croatia with respect to the Taxation of Savings Income (P.147/2013).................69

4.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................69

5. E.U. Taxation of Savings Income Agreements: replacement of the retention tax by automatic exchange of information (P.150/2013).......................................69

5.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................70

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................71
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................71

6. Draft Taxation (Agreements with European Union Member States) (Amendment No.

2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.151/2013) ..............................................72

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................72

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................72
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................73

2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................73

7. Referenda: revised procedures (P.153/2013)............................................73

7.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................73

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................74
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................74
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................74
4. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................75
5. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................75
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................75
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................76
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................76
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................77
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................78 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq , Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................78

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................80

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform - proposal 1 (P.93/2013) - amendment (P.93/2013 Amd.) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we now resume debate on Senator Farnham 's proposition, P.93 amendment, and does any other Member wish to speak?

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John :

The reason that I am standing to speak is that this may well be the last opportunity to explain to Members what my thought processes have been regarding the office of Senator for the Island-wide mandate and not for any other reason other than there may be some elements in my thinking that might ring true with some Members and it may just change the odd Member's mind. I do not know. I would have supported, and did support, Deputy Noel's amendment to Lyndon Farnham 's amendment because I would have preferred it marginally because I also need to explain, as a Deputy of St. John, why I am going to support Senator Farnham 's amendment which effectively reinstates Senators but at the expense of one of the Deputies in the proposed super-constituency of St. John, St. Ouen, St. Mary and St. Lawrence which means that those Deputies, potentially, would number 3 in that District. Now, it could be construed, therefore, that I would be voting myself out of a job, potentially, but I think on balance the office of Senator is more important than perhaps my own wish to get re-elected possibly, potentially, at some time in the future or to inhibit my chances of being elected at some time in the future. A lot of people talk about Clothier. The fact is that Clothier was some time ago now and things have changed since Clothier. We now have a Department for External Relations and that was felt to be right by the Assembly. What does that say to us? It says to us that one of the elements that we have to manage in this Assembly, of the 2 elements in very general terms that we have to manage in the Assembly, in fact has grown and has become more important and that is the issue of us becoming more independent, taking more care of our own destiny outside of the Island. In other words I am talking about the wider external .. what would be termed in the United Kingdom system as the central government role, has become more important and expanded. I do not see that it is going to go in the other direction in the future at any time. I think it is only going to get more important. The Island-wide issue is going to become more and more important. The other side, of course, of what we are doing here could be termed in the U.K. (United Kingdom) system as local government. That is the reason why I do not see any particular problem with there being 2 offices that stand for election in this Assembly and I believe that one of them in the future should have an Island-wide mandate, should be more focused on Island-wide issues and including external issues potentially. That is why I think we are potentially making a mistake to abolish the Island-wide mandate and the office of Senator. In essence, that is simply why I have consistently spoken out that we need .. and this is my thinking processes, why it may well be a mistake to lose, at least for the time being until we see how it works out in the future anyway, the office of Senator. Now, some people will say that if we have super-constituencies then the mandate is big enough to cover that and I am not going to go over all the arguments that people have made in favour of keeping Senators, things like: "Would the Chief Minister come from that area?" and potentially a sixth of the Island would not have had a chance to vote for a new Chief Minister. All of those things have been well covered by other people so I am not going to go on about that at this point but I do need to explain to people what my thought processes are. I think it

is really important that for the time being .. we will see how it works out in the future but I do not see any reason why there should not be 2 offices. If I  had not have voted C  in the recent

referendum I would verge more, I am afraid, towards A than B but I do think that A with Senators may be the right way to go. I do not see any problem with the Constables standing for election after a Parish election, shall we say, for a Constable. As long as he had made it clear to his parishioners when he was being elected as a Constable I do not see any reason why he would not be able to stand also for the States-wide elections as a Deputy or even, potentially, as a Senator for that matter. So there we have it. That, I hope, explains my thinking and why I am going to support Senator Farnham . If it fails then we move on to the next most important thing, which I believe the people of the Island and I want as well, and that is a reduction in States Members. So if Senator Farnham 's amendment is not successful I will also be supporting Senator Ozouf .

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak?

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

Afraid so. A fresh day and a fresh task and here we have various versions of reform light; how little can we do and get away with? While I was listening to Senator Farnham 's gentle meandering through his proposition yesterday I thought: "How wonderful it must be to live in his panglossian world where everything is for the best." His suggestion that by the mere retention of 8 Senators we solve the democratic deficit is very far from the truth. We have just had a speaker suggest that we have moved on from Clothier, now we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs' who has to deal with these things but the people out there do not vote for a Minister for Foreign Affairs.' They do not vote for any Minister. They do not vote for the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister prepares his Strategic Plan and his business plan after the elections. No one on the Senatorial hustings, which increasingly is the bland leading the bland, stands up and says: "This is my vision. Elect me. I will be your Chief Minister and I will enact this particular set of policies." Why? Because until they are elected they cannot say that so there is no solution, I do not believe, in the mere retention of 7 Senators as a solution to the way forward. Members should, I believe, reject this along with all of these reform light motions.

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

I wish to follow .. what a great pity that we were not able to follow on immediately from that rousing tub-thumping speech from Senator Ozouf . Never in the history of this Assembly have I heard such a fine speech. He is brilliant, as we know, on his feet and it was utterly contradictory to everything he said in this Assembly before that speech. I thought it was unbelievably well delivered and unbelievable in its inconsistency. The amazing thing is from a person who is so good at sometimes reading the political tealeaves he is utterly out of touch. He is utterly out of touch because he failed to get into the spirit, such as it was, and it was a pretty dull spirit, of the last round of debates when everything was put on the table and the States made its last, ultimately, forlorn attempt to reform itself having known that it was in a state of panic because of the mess that had occurred as a result of the rejection, which I voted for it has to be said, of the referendum and for the right reasons, even though I know Senator Bailhache to this day undoubtedly must feel quite bruised about that.

[9:45]

The point remains, if I may take a general point in dealing with Senator Farnham 's proposition, we cannot reform ourselves. It does not mean there cannot be reform, quite the opposite, but we cannot reform ourselves because immediately we try to do that .. and Deputy Ryan, as he outlined his thought process, as he called it, made that clear, we take the interest of a particular group. We fragment instantly into the vested interests of this Assembly and we cannot rise above that and behave in a statesman-like or stateswoman-like fashion. The only way we could do that, as we said well over a year and a half ago, was setting up a truly - and I underline the word "truly" - a truly

independent commission. I know the Commission worked hard. It worked with the best of intentions but it was flawed from the beginning and that was why, when we were presented with its advisory recommendations .. sorry, both from it and from the referenda, the States ultimately turned back and they turned back, obviously, because of vested interest. They faced the dilemma which was why, despite that wonderful rousing speech from Senator Ozouf , he could not ultimately follow the logic of his speech. The logic was, if he believed in those democratic principles which he said were missing and which he allegedly has been fighting for the last 17 years of which he has been a Member of the Assembly .. and I challenge him to put his voting record forward at all the reform debates so we can assess the sincerity of that position because it is very dubious, quite frankly. He could not follow, ultimately, through on the logic of his position, and the Electoral Commission faced that same dilemma. If you are going to go and give people the right and same number of votes ultimately you cannot have the Constables in the States and if you want the Constables the only way to resolve it is to have a referendum where the public tells us very clearly: "This is what we want or do not want" and then we can work with that. At the moment, as Senator Ferguson said yesterday: "We are continually dealing and dancing around the elephant in the room." The words "dancing" and "elephant" perhaps do not go together but anyway it is worth trying. We are continually dancing around that issue and trying to make the illogical logical. Senator Ozouf was not prepared to push the logic of his argument because he knows where it would land him. He knows where it would land him, in a position he has never been prepared to properly articulate and that is why we are in this mess. I advise the House, as did Senator Ferguson yesterday, let us stop this charade, let us stop this waste of public money and let us put this to the new House and move on and stop wasting time. This has been, quite frankly, a cynical attempt to use the emotion of being in the Last Chance Saloon, a cynical attempt to say: "I have got the formula which has eluded you for so many years." Well, as much as I admired Senator Ozouf 's speech, if not the content, sadly that is not the case. Sadly, that is not the case and let us have a moment of reflection, let us stop being put into the sense of panic because that is all that is being

attempted at the moment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on Senator Farnham to reply.

3. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I just want to remind Members briefly while I meander my way through my next charming delivery. It would be so nice to hear Deputy Southern say something charming once in a while but maybe we can live in hope. I thank the Deputy anyway for his compliments. I just want to remind Members that under this amendment all voters can elect a similar amount of States Members. I just want to read an excerpt from Lewis Baston's report, the Electoral Systems Research. It says: "Absolute equality of numbers is not used anywhere as a sole criterion for determining the size of legislative districts, other criteria are taken into account. The most relevant to Jersey is respecting well established boundaries between local government units and the community identities they represent." It goes on to say: "That also relevant is that many Legislatures are bicameral and membership of the second chamber is often used to give small states and other tiers of government a voice in the Legislature." Jersey is unicameral and that is why any such representation has to be in the single Assembly. That is why retaining the office of Senator alongside the office of the constituency, the Deputy and the Constable is important. Failure to do so will undoubtedly lead, in the future, to a second chamber being established because where you have one type of States Member and a number of constituencies there has to be that check and balance in my opinion. All voters, under this amendment, will vote for more States Members so the voter influence will be increased. The minimum number of States Members that a voter will vote for will be 10 as opposed to 6 or 5 under Senator Ozouf 's amendment and that is important. Deputy Noel brought this important point up because I refer him back to my previous comment, sole criteria. While it is desirable for everybody to have the same number of votes in our unique situation it is not essential. I think that increased voter influence by being able to vote for a much bigger part of your Assembly more than covers for the fact that some voters can vote for 10 and in St. Helier, where my amendment increases voter influence, voters can vote for 13 Members of a 45-Member Assembly. So not only is voter influence greatly improved but voter equity is also greatly improved. I bring this amendment .. we have used the word "compromise". Well, I have tried to compromise because when I worked with my colleagues on the option C campaign we did not like the idea of super-constituencies. The fact that they are made up around the Parish boundaries I think is a plus at this stage but in determining to find a solution I am prepared to compromise on that because my position on the Island-wide mandate, which I think with the super-constituencies is absolutely vital and we are kidding ourselves if we say it is not without vastly changing the structure of our unicameral system. Do not forget the option C campaign, and Senator Le Marquand knows, because this was his creative thinking that delivered our strapline change but not this change. We wanted change. We do want change. The 16,624 people that turned out and voted in the referendum, whatever we think of that as the size of the sample, voted for change, 16,000 people turned out and voted for change. The campaign, I thought, was an excellent and well run campaign by the 3 reform groups and it turned out the option A and B campaigns gave themselves a very close fight, but option A only losing very slightly to option B. Interestingly I think about 80 per cent of a second vote went to option B which produced option B as a clear winner after the second round of voting. Now, that tells me that although the option C option was misrepresented by being represented as a vote for no change it strikes me that the majority of option C supporters voted option B for their second choice and therefore would accept a solution which is, in the current circumstances, the best of what we have on offer, which is the retention of the Constables,

the 6 super-constituencies, with a slight adjustment to make sure St. Helier have a representation, and the retention of the 6 Senators. So I would appeal to my colleagues that worked on the option C campaign to remember our slogan: "Change but not this change" so we can vote for change now and we can have something that is acceptable. We can also restore the public's confidence, or go some way to restoring the public confidence, by reinstating the large part of the referendum result. I would also appeal to those option B supporters and ask them because I believe if we work together we have a chance. This vote is on a knife edge. Maybe Senator Ozouf 's proposition, if mine fails, will run closer but it is on a knife edge and the only way we can avoid leaving a legacy to the next States Assembly of indecisiveness and inaction is to work together to find the solution and that puts us in a better place. Do you all really want to be part of an Assembly that absolves itself from this responsibility? I have heard this a lot, it is the easy thing to say now and it sounds plausible especially when Deputy Le Hérissier boomed it across the Chamber just a minute ago, and that is: "Let us leave it to the next Assembly." Are they going to thank us for that? Are they going to miraculously do what we have not done or could not do or refused to do? I do not think they are. By doing that we are absolving ourselves of the responsibility and the opportunity to bring some reform. Now, when I led the option C campaign I did not like the super- constituencies but I can live with them and I think in time they will work but we have to give them the opportunity. I thank all the Members that have contributed and I just finally remind Members to think; the opportunity we have today and the legacy of inaction and indecisiveness we will pass on to the next Assembly if we do nothing. Thank you. I ask for the appel please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I invite all Members ..

Senator P.F. Routier:

Is it possible to take the paragraphs separately, particularly 5?

Senator L.J. Farnham : I did ask at the ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

You did. The appel is called for and it is requested by the proposer that we take each paragraph separately. I am just wondering about that, Senator, when I look at parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 and put them together.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes please.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

May I ask a point of order, which is not specifically related to this, but do we now need 25 votes or 26 in order to carry any constitutional reform?

The Deputy Bailiff :

In respect of paragraphs 1 to 4 you need 26. In respect to paragraph 5 .. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

With respect I am not sure that is right at this stage. This is an amendment. I totally agree with you in relation to the final vote.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am sorry in relation to the final vote that will be the .. because it is just an amendment of course you are right. Thank you. When it comes to the final vote on a structural change you will need 26.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I hesitate to question your ruling but I do not understand how paragraph 5 can be voted on separately because it refers to the office of Senator and if we do not have 1 we do have no Senators.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We will not vote on 5.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Thank you.

[10:00]

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

Sir, can I just ask for clarification? You referred to the final vote requiring 26. By that, do you mean what we are voting on now, 1 to 4, requires 26 to be approved by the Assembly as an amendment to go to Senator Ozouf , because I ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

What we are looking at at the moment is an amendment to Senator Ozouf 's proposition. These amendments will either pass or not pass. If they do not pass we go to Senator Ozouf 's proposition, and that will require 26 in relation to the changes to the Assembly, the composition of the Assembly.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Sorry, Sir, I hate to challenge but my understanding from the advice direct from the Greffier in the past, all amendments when we went through this last time round had to achieve 26 before we even got to the final proposition. That was my understanding.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well,  these  amendments  will  have  no  standing,  as  it  were,  until  we  vote  on  the  amended proposition if it is amended. It has to be that way. Right, I will once again invite Members or the Member to return to his seat and ask the Greffier to open the voting. The first vote is on parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Senator Farnham 's amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

In the circumstances part 5 of the proposition falls away because there may not be consensus.

2. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform - proposal 1 (P.93/2013) - second amendment (P.93/2013 Amd.(2))

We now come to the amendment of the Connétable of St. Mary and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition and simply refer to the table.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2 paragraph (d). Delete paragraph (d) and replace it with a new paragraph (d) as follows: "(d) That the proposed new 4 large areas will replace the current schedule 1 to the States of Jersey Law as follows: each of the areas between 8 Deputies."

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I have got no pleasure at all in standing here today. I believe more than enough has already been said in this debate, more talk about a subject that really should have been done and dusted after the public expressed their views. However, I have heard it before, we are where we are. Senator Ozouf tries to adhere to the 4 key principles set up by the Electoral Commission but does not achieve an equal number of votes for each voter. The only reason that I have brought this amendment is to enable that principle also to be met. The idea behind this amendment is not my own but was expressed by a goodly number of respondents to the Electoral Commission's interim report, who all proposed a different mechanism for defining the boundaries of the proposed larger electoral districts. In bringing this amendment, I fulfil a responsibility to allow their voices to at least be heard. Briefly, a few points from my reasonably brief report. Is it reasonable to elect Members? We have heard Senator Ozouf 's concerns about electing 8 Senators. We are not in fact talking about electing 8 Senators with this amendment, we are talking about electing 8 Deputies in districts. There is a very big difference; the size of the pool for candidates is smaller and so potentially the number of candidates standing smaller, but the other side of the coin which Senator Ozouf did not touch on and which is my real fear about Senatorial .. a wide Senatorial election is that it has long been seen that the Senatorial position is something that people aspire to after a, shall we say, training ground in another office. With a move to a single-day election and the fact that Senators only have the same term of office as other Members, where is that incentive, that motivation to step-up into the role? We run a real risk that the office of Senator would be devalued if it continues as at the present time. We must not forget when we are talking about electing 8 Deputies at a single time and that this is simply one more Deputy than was suggested by the commission under option A proposals. The views expressed by the public were to be able to directly elect as many States Members as possible. This amendment enables every elector to vote for 9 Members, one Connétable and 8 District representatives. The districts have been arranged to maintain the Commission's preference not to amalgamate Parishes where electoral districts .. into electoral districts where there are not adjoining boundaries. Each district as proposed represents a quarter of the electorate. Each district includes either 3 or 4 Parishes, or parts of Parishes. The amendment crucially maintains the Commissioner's principle of equality of votes. The question that Members need to ask themselves, it is a very simple question, no matter where you live, no matter who you represent. Surely equality of vote should be guaranteed for all and have no dependence at all on whether one lives in a country Parish or an urban Parish. Thank you, I make

the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does anyone second it? [Seconded] I call on the Deputy of St. Mary .

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

I am amazed that the Constable is presenting this proposition today with her having been part of the Commission which brought the original proposition for public referendum. A referendum that was not taken up by the majority of the electorate because they did not like the choices given, and after a long debate to decide if this Assembly should accept the pathetic turnout for the favoured vote, it was quite rightly rejected. The last time that we debated this, the Constable presented a proposition based on the Commission's ideals, and again the proposition was rejected along with the other propositions that Members had brought. Surely that should have told these Members something; it

is not wanted, certainly not in the form that it has been presented so far. That is not just a decision for this Assembly. That is the message of the electorate, or it is if you listen to them. The people in St. Mary and indeed throughout the Island are dismayed that this proposition should be presented without any further form of public engagement, either Island-wide or at least within the Parishes. We in St. Mary wish to remain with our existing Parish boundary system, that is important to us as a community. I have listened to those people. That is my duty; after all, it was why I was elected. I therefore have no hesitation then to reject this proposition also. Any further drastic changes to our constitution should only be done with the approval of the electorate. Listen to what they are saying: no to constituencies, keep our Senators, keep our Island mandate, keep our Parish representation and boundaries. If you vote for this proposition you are ignoring the overall public opinion. Please do not do that. Reject this proposition. Thank you.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am pleased to follow the Deputy of St. Mary because again, he has, with respect, in this debate, I think not wilfully, but I think that he has partially explained the democratic mandate that we have or do not have in relation to these matters. I am going to come to the Connétable of St. Mary's proposition because as frustrating as it is for Members we should be examining it and properly considering it to see whether or not it passes any of the tests that we have got. I say that because - and I will come back to this later on - there is the issue of mandate, whether or not we have a mandate to do anything at all. The guiding principle should be that we should, but we should not forget that rejecting anything in this debate today would ensure that the electorate have a system which has no mandate at all. There was no mandate to reduce Senators, there was no mandate to a single election day, there was no mandate for any of the changes. So, I am afraid, to talk about mandate is certainly partial. Let us examine what the Deputy of St. Mary has just said. He claims that his parishioners want a no-change situation. Well, I have looked overnight at the St. Mary result. I have looked at his own result of how he got his privileged seat in this Assembly. No disrespect but the facts are the facts. In terms of the mandate that he has, he has 291 votes. That is what he got to be the Deputy of St. Mary. There was a 57.1 per cent turnout, a legitimate mandate, he had the nearest .. he had 42 per cent of the votes cast in St. Mary. There were 696 people that turned out in that Deputorial election. He presumably thinks that he has a mandate. He does. He had a mandate to secure the position of the Deputy of St. Mary and nobody is criticising that but that is how it was achieved. He has a mandate but it was a mandate of 291 votes. The second candidate got 246 and the third candidate 159. Mandates are legally legitimate. The mandate that he says that there is not for reform, the St. Mary results for the referendum, was that there was a total of nearly 500 people who turned out to vote in the referendum. About 70 per cent of the

people that voted in the Deputorial election voted in the referendum; 70 per cent, that is a much higher number of people than a lot of other areas of the Island. The people of St. Mary spoke in the following way: 124 of them said they wanted option A. The greatest number, 192, said that they wanted option B. Only 165 said that they wanted to continue with the current system. So I just ask the Deputy of St. Mary to reflect upon his remarks to say that his constituents wanted no change. I cannot see that. I cannot see that in one of the Parishes that has the greatest number of people turning out for elections for Senators, for Deputies and indeed in the referendum. Is it correct, I ask the Deputy , for him to stand in this Assembly and say that his constituents, when the full test was made, said that they did not want change? I do not think that the numbers reflect that, and when we look at the transfer of the option C votes of what they preferred as their least .. as their second choice, it was an overwhelming decision in St. Mary to keep the Constable and to have larger constituencies. That is what they said, they wanted to keep their Constable but they wanted to have larger constituencies. Now, to deal with the Connétable of St. Mary's proposition. In this debate, and Deputy Le Hérissier said and challenged people's sincerity of their convictions of reform. Now is not the time to repeat history but very briefly some of us have tried to have reform, to have

an Island-wide mandate. I worked with the Deputy of Grouville to  maintain an Island-wide mandate right up to the wire in the shenanigans that were in the last .. the Deputy will, I think, agree, both Deputies will agree that there were certain political .. we are saying that this is the Last Chance Saloon. Well, in fact the Senatorial issue was done really, really, really right up to the wire and there were close votes with people known not to be here. This is a close vote, this is a difficult issue, so let us not over-exaggerate what has happened. People have changed their position. I have thought about whether or not my position should be changed, or Senator Farnham or the Deputy or the Constable of St. Mary's proposition. I have done so with sincerity and with some guiding principles but with an overwhelming view that we should be avoiding the worst possible situation which is an electoral system which has no mandate which everybody in this Assembly appears to say will not work, P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee).

[10:15]

Deputy Le Hérissier says that the current system is broken. I am trying to avoid a situation where that situation does not come to pass with no mandate. That will not work, and in that spirit I have looked at the Connétable of St. Mary's proposition. I supported Senator Farnham because it was the least .. it was better than doing nothing, and with respect to the Connétable of St. Mary, I think that the conclusion is that now faced and we are now in the funnel of reality, we are in a funnel of having only fewer and fewer options available to us. Some Members will say it is inappropriate to say that is the Last Chance Saloon but we are now whittling down the options. We now have very few options left and we effectively have 3, we either have do nothing; we either have the Connétable of St. Mary; or we have an amended referendum result. Those are the options. Now, for those who want change, let us examine the Constable of St. Mary's option. I will not be supporting it, I am afraid. I think the Connétable .. I have the greatest of respect, she is trying to find a solution and she should be commended for that. She has been trying to find a solution to the problem of electoral reform for some time. I do not think her solution works, unfortunately, for 2 reasons, and I think that she said it herself. I think that the 8-seat election will not work. The rules about mathematics are the same in a large district or a slightly larger district or a Senatorial. People will not choose and this is borne out by other elections in other places, in Guernsey. Yes, in the Cayman Islands, if I may say to Senator Ferguson. There are other elections where there are multi seats and you can see what the numbers of votes that are used in those elections, and in an 8-seat Senatorial, in an 8-seat large district, which the Connétable is proposing, it will not, I am afraid, deal with it. The first few will be fine but the next few will not be fine, and I think the other problem which is of concern perhaps to those that want to keep a Parish link with their elected representatives, there are some people that are purists that are saying it must be just simply the Deputy and a seat. There are others that are saying that they want to have a broad outline effectively of groupings of Parish with the guiding principles of the same number of votes. I think the problem, if I may say, with .. to the Connétable is that her proposal of doing some merging .. I look at my Constable, the Constable of St. Saviour and I think about her District which is now split effectively between a District 3 and 4. I do not think that works. If we believe in Parish life, if we

believe in the Parish system, I think that we need super-districts that respect the Parish boundaries. St. Helier is split  and I say that is not necessarily the right thing. There needs to be some groupings. Democracy can work. The basic rules of how democracy should work can still work with Parish boundaries. So having taken it seriously which this debate should be serious, it should not be flippant, it should not be about rotten cabbages, it should be about serious analysis and serious thought. That is what we are here for. I do not think that on that analysis, with the greatest of respect, I do not think the Connétable 's work .. but I think she is right to have brought it, it is right to have a test, but I hope that ultimately she will support the underlying principles which she worked on in terms of the Electoral Commission.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Another veteran of these debates, we have now reached the point where I am reminded of that free insert that came with Viz, I think it was - Viz comic, some years ago - which was entitled "Crochet your own hang glider" [Laughter] where everybody comes up with a version of the truth as they see it. Senator Ozouf had the words when he was setting the Constable of St. Mary's proposition, when he said: "Does it pass any of the tests that we set for it" and he said: "No" and I think that is true of this particular hang glider. It may well have very pretty patterns, it may well have very pretty colours, it may look beautiful, you may want to pin it on your wall and admire your handiwork. You may want to put it on the bed and keep warm because you cannot afford the electric any more, but whatever you do, do not go to the top of the hill and try and get airborne because it will not work, and I do not think this will work either.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I will call on the Connétable to reply.

5. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I thank the Members for their contributions, Deputy Southern 's particularly amusing, I think, and has a point to make. Like other speakers I have tried to keep my contribution to a minimum. I have not spoken before. I am going to .. I have very little to say in summing-up but as a member of the Electoral Commission and mindful of some of the things that I have heard in this debate on my amendment and also elsewhere, there are a couple of things .. remarks I would like to make in the whole debate and I think this is the time to do that. Firstly, I would just like to say a word about hijacking, about the Commission being hijacked because personally, and I know from a public point of view, I am rather tired of this cliché. Members should be careful how they express themselves in this Assembly. It is always possible to disagree with a decision taken democratically, it is always every Member's right to do that, but it is wise to understand that this Assembly as a body has the right to revisit decisions and to either reverse them or adapt them, or in some cases to fully reinforce them. There are very few parliaments in the world where a single Member backed- up by only one seconder can seek to review a proposition brought, for example, by a Minister and passed by a majority of Members, and that is something that a good many in this Assembly hold dear and think is a valid boost to our democracy. In the case of the format of the Electoral Commission, the changes in its makeup were proposed not by an individual but by the Privileges and Procedures Committee and were adopted by a considerable majority of Members exercising their democratic rights and responsibilities. So no more talking of hijacking, it was a change of direction. Secondly, about the criticisms that the public had not had a chance to express their views, that they were being offered things they did not, by a majority expression, want. The Electoral Commission worked extremely hard to encourage the public to participate and the results of that encouragement can be seen on the website of the Commission. The number of submissions was formidable and the range of topics covered, likewise. The engagement at the public meetings and the response to the interim report bear further witness to this. It is completely disingenuous to infer that the views of the public were not received, and it is insulting to imply that they were not valued and taken account of. It is a sad truth that States Members are often considered fair game for insults. It goes with the territory, and we just deal with that. What I cannot accept, however, having seen at first hand the robust discussions held among Commission members and the fact that no one, and I mean absolutely no one on that Electoral Commission, got away without having their views challenged, and seriously challenged during the process. What I cannot accept is that the integrity of the non-elected members who cannot have a voice of reply is in any way challenged by Members of this Assembly just because the Commission's recommendations did not tally with their own private views. This, to me, is quite unacceptable. There are some in this Assembly who still do not understand that the work of the Commission was, in a nutshell, to gather submissions, review them and then to bring forward recommendations. It was not simply to carry out yet

another opinion poll. The Commission had to go beyond that and had to distil the essence of the submissions, and then find and present a workable proposal to be put to the public. Enough about that. I am having the greatest difficulty with this debate, not least because so much of what has been said previously is based on a narrow selective reworking of past consultations, but also because I personally feel a responsibility, having gone to a referendum, to honour the views of the public; if we could not honour that referendum result to at least honour the principles. We went and took the views of the public, not just in a particular area of the Island but in the Island as a whole. Of course, in my case the decision was clear cut as the Parish and Island results were the same, but any Member who has spoken on the importance of the Island-wide vote ought to be considering why they felt able to reject the overall Island decision taken in the referendum. To me that has got a feeling of a double-standard about it. My real difficulty is this however: I have striven to adhere as closely as possible to the principles identified by the Electoral Commission and to the result chosen by the public. I can see the writing on the wall for this amendment, I could see it when I brought it but, as I said, it was a duty I felt that this view needed to be represented, and I am grateful to Senator Ozouf for saying that it deserved to be explored. I see the writing on the wall so I am drawing to a close. While the main proposition does not meet all of the principles, not to adopt it means that the system we take to the next poll is the one system that the public clearly expressed a view that it did not want to take forward. The level of contempt for the public is hard for me to accept. Thank you. [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats for voting on the amendment of the Connétable of St. Mary . I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

3. Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform - proposal 1 (P.93/2013) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now return to the main proposition of Senator Ozouf . It was some time ago but I had down on my list to speak, Deputy of St. Mary if you still wish to speak. I should warn the others that the next 2 on my list carried forward from the start was the Connétable of St. Helier and Deputy Tadier .

1. The Deputy of St. Mary :

This proposition which the public now consider to be a farce, just as the Senator's speech was yesterday, aided by his crystal balls; I assume he has 2. However, the one he consulted yesterday only portrayed his dreams. He needs to consult the reality ball which shows the wishes of the general public rather than ego trips. This did not start with the April referendum, this started before the October elections in 2011. In fact, having telephoned Sir Philip Bailhache prior to his hustings in the Parish of St. Mary, to warn him of the Parish .. St. Mary's parishioners' dislike to possibly becoming a constituency, and then at the hustings asking Sir Philip again if his idea of reform with constituencies was the only way to go, the Senator said it was not set in stone. On that statement he secured many votes, mine included. I even wore his colours during my election. We were however misled, for on being elected the Senator then headed the Reform Commission and constituencies were  not  just  on  the  agenda  but  quite  firmly  set  in  stone.   Subsequently  there  are  a  lot of disappointed people in the Island and I know that my parishioners in particular also feel that way. I, and I know the public, have a great respect for both Senator Ozouf and Senator Bailhache for the work that they do for the Island of Jersey.  They are both ideally suited to their roles within our Government. However, messing with our constitution when it is not broken is not one of them. Once again we are dragging up an old issue, ironically due to the main proposer, Senator Ozouf , having played a tactical game at the last .. at the start of the last debate on this by withdrawing and deferring his proposition, then leaving the table having successfully allowed others to bring their propositions to be debated on and rejected.

[10:30]

But like a card sharp the Senator has slipped in through the back door and is once again back at the table ready to play his hand with little opposition. The card he holds is quite rightly the joker, a colourful character, it should no longer be in the game but back in the box. This Assembly quite rightly rejected the previous propositions which differed very little from this one, only to have this proposition bounce back for consideration in what is a very underhand way. The situation has not

changed, the public have still not been consulted. Their views have not been asked for or their previous comments listened to. The public still hold the ace card but they are still not being allowed to play. The Senator once again intends to bulldoze his proposal through regardless of public opinion; something he has done in the past on other issues, something that this Assembly has reprimanded him for previously. The Senator has to accept that sometimes he is not always right. This is one of those times. This proposition is now between the Senator and the people of the Island. The people need to have their chance to show their hand. The Senator is denying this once again. They are being duped. Once again they are being dictated to. This proposition has no more merit than the previous melee. It should be not presented like a card sharp with the attitude of a bulldozer. The Senator is wrong on this issue, the people of the Island say so and the Senator needs to listen to those views of the public and let them engage on the right way forward.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , forgive me, this is the second occasion in your speech when you have likened the approach of Senator Ozouf to that of a card sharp which is a suggestion of cheating, which is dishonourable. It is not appropriate parliamentary language and I would ask you to withdraw it.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Sir, that was not my intention and I apologise for that. The Deputy Bailiff :

I am grateful.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I urge everyone in this Assembly to take note of your electorate's wishes. Allow the people of the Island to have their say and for us to listen to what they want before imposing yet more nonsense on them. Listen to what they are saying, they do not want the constituencies, they do want Senators and they do want an Island mandate. The Parish boundary system which we have is at present fundamental to maintaining our communities and interest in the Parish system. Let us use these requests to formulate a proposition for change. This Assembly should take heed of that before contemplating change at the eleventh hour just to concede to the Senator's wishes, change that the public do not think is the most important item on our agenda at the moment. The right cards have not been dealt to allow democratic change to happen; democratic change requires public consultation. Senator Ozouf 's proposal does not allow that to happen. The public must be involved once again but this time the right questions have to be asked. Having a limited choice with part of the choice having an unacceptable compromise is not democratic, nor is it acceptable to accept the result when the result is less than 51 per cent of the votes cast by the public. Changing our constitution, our history, should not be executed by a few votes in this Assembly. Voting for this proposition today will result in a close split vote which is not the way to implement such a drastic change to our constitution. Split votes in this Assembly do not give public confidence. We only need to refer to the Plémont debate as an example of that. Let us learn from history. The important issue with the public is not equality of vote, it is the problems that we are evading while debating this; jobs for the unemployed, reducing the burden of the taxpayer at social security, limiting immigration, providing realistically affordable housing for our lower paid workers. All of these things are interlinked. Equality of vote will do nothing to solve those problems. I implore all Members of this Assembly to make a vote for the people of this Island. Reject this proposition. Thank you.

2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I said at the start I was only going to speak once but there have been a couple of interventions in these debates which really give me no choice but to rise. I thought that recent changes in the composition of the Assembly meant that we would perhaps have less personal invective and speeches which lower the tone of the Assembly but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case, at least in terms of the last speech. I am frankly dismayed by the language used by the Deputy of St. Mary and I hope that he will, to quote himself, learn from history and he will take the trouble to look at Hansard and to examine what he has said in his speech, particularly in reference to Senator Ozouf . I think it is not an acceptable .. and you yourself, Sir, brought him up on one matter but I think his whole approach was to belittle and trivialise and personalise the remarks of Senator Ozouf . Indeed Senator Ferguson did that yesterday at the end of the session when after what I thought was a magnificent speech unscripted from the Senator, she stood up and made some throwaway remark about the Cayman Islands which turned out to be untrue anyway, as if to try to pull the rug from under the Senator's feet and deflate the success of his speech. This Assembly is no place for these kinds of speeches. We have had Members in the past who treated it as an after dinner slot and I think it is something which Members have to move on from. [Approbation] The Deputy said that the public have not been consulted. That, of course, is rubbish. If nothing else, the Electoral Commission and their work was a wide-ranging consultation exercise and it is completely untrue for the Deputy to say that the public have not been consulted, they have, and we have had a result. On St. Helier day last year, 16th July, P.64 was defeated by 28 votes to 21, which I thought was a very sad day for the Assembly because we ignored the express wishes of the public, and as the Constable of St. Mary said, and I thought a very telling point in another very fine speech today, the Constable of St. Mary said those who hang their hat on the Island-wide mandate which has just been lost as an amendment are disregarding the fact that we had an Island-wide vote last year on reform proposals and that Island-wide vote was that we should adopt option B. Members will remember that it was not my preferred option but it was the one that I felt I had a job to present to the Assembly. The public have been consulted, an Island-wide view has been expressed. Many Members have concerns about what that view was, and what Senator Ozouf , it appears to me, is trying to do is to give the Assembly another chance to go back to the 16th July, and particularly to those 28 Members who said they were not going to listen to the public's vote, to say well, here is your last chance to do that. As I say, I think there have been some very good speeches on this. The 28 Members who rejected the public's wishes presumably are planning to do it again so I am not that hopeful that this will be any different from what happened on 16th July, but certainly I think Members need to think very hard about what the Senator has also said which is that we do not really have a mandate for the proposals that we are running forward to in October.

Thank you.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

It is a while since I put my light on and I should know that of course we had all those amendments to deal with. Nonetheless I do have some comments to make. The Constable of St. Mary is absolutely right that the blame for the Electoral Commission's curate egg should not be laid at the feet of the non-political members, in fact we should all be thankful that they were on there because it does not bear thinking about what the Electoral Commission would have come back if it were not for the corrective influence of those who were put on there specifically to be objective. I know for a fact that there were members on there who were fighting for sanity and logic to be used. But when it comes to politicians on the other hand, politicians have a reputation for making their living by pushing their own agendas, by being skilled in convincing people, neuro-linguistic programming perhaps, although it is not usually voiced like that, knowing about opinion management, knowing how the system works, who is likely to turn out. What was interesting, of course there were many submissions, much work was done and many of us would have appeared both before the Electoral Commission having made written submissions. The majority of those, and it can be counted, it can be verified by the Greffier the majority of those who made submissions said that we cannot have the Constables in the States, it is not logical. How does that get translated into the final product that