States Meeting Transcript - 30th April 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 30th APRIL 2014

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................3

1. Elected Speaker of the States (P.160/2013) as amended - request of the Connétable of St. Helier to withdraw the proposition...................................................3

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................3

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................3
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................3
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................4
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................4
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................5
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................5

7. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................5
8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................5

9. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:.......................................................5
10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:..................................................5
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:..............................................6
12. The Connétable of St. Helier:.........................................................6

2. Elected Speaker of the States (P.160/2013) as amended - resumption..................7

1. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ..........................................................7
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................8
3. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ....................................................10

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................11
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................14
6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................16
7. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................16
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................17
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................17
10. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................18
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................19
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................21
13. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................22
14. Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General: .........................................27
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................28
16. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................32
17. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................33
18. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................36
19. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................37

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................38 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................39

20. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin : ........................................39
21. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier : ................................................40
22. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................42
23. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................45
24. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................47
25. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................48
26. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................49
27. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................50

2. Interim Population Policy: 2014 - 2015 (P.10/2014)....................................52

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................52

2. Interim Population Policy: 2014 – 2015 (P.10/2014 ) - amendment (P.10/2014 Amd.)53

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................59
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................60
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................62
5. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................64
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................65
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................66
8. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................68
9. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................68
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................71
11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................73

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER .....................................74

1. The Bailiff :.............................................................................74
2. The Bailiff :.............................................................................74 Deputy J.M. Maçon:..........................................................................74 Senator I.J. Gorst :............................................................................75

3. Retirement of the Deputy Greffier of the States........................................76 The Bailiff :...................................................................................76

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................77

[9:30]

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

Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Could I ask for the défaut to be lifted on Deputy Southern , please?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes.

Deputy A.K.F. Green:

I was going to do that. Also, Sir, can I just apologise to Members that I will be absent for a short while this morning attending a friend's funeral?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. Members agree to lift the défaut on Deputy Southern ? The défaut is raised. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Would Members please raise the défaut on Senator Maclean?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are Members content to raise the défaut on Senator Maclean? Very well, the défaut is raised. I was just about to say: "The debate continues" Constable. Do you wish it to be?

1. Elected Speaker of the States (P.160/2013) as amended - request of the Connétable of St. Helier to withdraw the proposition

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

Yes, if I could. I will just say the following, Sir. The States has indicated its wish that the question of whether to replace the Bailiff with an elected Speaker should be put to the public in a binding referendum. I suggest the Privileges and Procedures Committee now has a clear steer to bring this forward in due course. However, P.160 as amended, if adopted, risks complicating an already difficult general election with a second referendum on 15th October, therefore I would like to seek leave of the States to withdraw P.160.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. It is a matter for the Assembly. Those in favour of granting leave for the Constable to withdraw, kindly ..

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

May I speak?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Yes, you can speak.

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I would like to speak, because I think it would be entirely wrong for the Constable to withdraw the proposition at this stage. It would be extremely unfair to the Crown Officers and leave them hanging in limbo, not knowing whether the Assembly wishes them to preside over the Assembly or not. If the debate takes another hour, so be it, but the Assembly, in my view, must make a decision.

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

I think Senator Bailhache is slightly wrong there. If I remember correctly, the referendum that is going to the public is on Clothier, and Clothier includes provisions about the Bailiff and therefore they would not be left in limbo.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think at the risk of Members being confused, there was some discussion yesterday on this topic. The States decision, although it referred to propositions contained in Clothier, it was clearly on the issue of a single category of Member. There was no suggestion the whole of Clothier was going for referendum.

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Sorry, Sir, I was listening to you, but I did want to speak at some point. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, go ahead.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not think it follows that the Crown Officers will be left in limbo if the debate does not proceed, because the status quo would obviously remain and it just means that the question will not have been raised, it will be deemed procedurally to not have been raised and therefore things carry on as they were until a future point, at which the role of the Bailiff in this Assembly will be raised again. So I do not accept that argument. Of course there is an argument to say that we should deal with it here and now and of course that is the argument which should have been pressed yesterday, rather than seeking - for some of us perhaps - spurious reasons to try and bring amendments to what was ultimately a simple question to say: "This needs to be put to the public", et cetera. We should have really grasped the nettle and decided one way or the other. We should have had the courage of our convictions to say: "We do not want the separation of powers. We are quite happy as we are, thank you very much. We do not accept the various reviews that have taken place." That did not happen and we are now left in a position where we have a choice of rejecting this altogether today by not debating it or by debating it and rejecting it, or by passing this and putting to the public a spurious - if that is the word - or a slightly unsatisfactory, very unsatisfactory, question, although it does not necessarily need to be unsatisfactory, because it is ultimately a straightforward message. So for my part, I would be quite happy for this to be debated today. The Assembly should not be seeking to abdicate its responsibility for what is a very simple decision, when it comes down to it. It may be profound, but it is a simple decision as to who is able to chair the meetings of our Assembly and who we, as a parliamentary body, wish to chair our Assembly. For my part, I would encourage the Constable of St. Helier - although I fully appreciate the difficult predicament that he is in - to consider maintaining the proposition as amended and letting this debate take place today.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I presume, Sir, the issue, if the Assembly agreed to allow the Constable to withdraw this, would just fall away and rely on the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) bringing back the question as a referendum proposal. Can I just be clear ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The entire matter falls away if it is withdrawn, including the amendments. Deputy Southern .

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

An unusual precedent if we were to say that the tenor or the tone or the feeling expressed in a debate expressed the will of this Assembly. This Assembly expresses its will by voting. That is what we do, that is what we owe our electors.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Hopefully we will not spend too much time debating whether to debate it, but one or 2 more Members.

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

The only other additional comment I would make to both Deputy Southern and Senator Bailhache and Deputy Tadier , is the media reporting at the moment is that the States will hold a referendum where the public will decide if we agree to remove the Bailiff . That is kind of how it was being reported this morning, so in other words, we do need to vote one way or another, because otherwise if the P.P.C. followed the Connétable of St. Helier's comment that there is this clear steer for a referendum, it would also be interpreted that the States had given a direction that they support the removal of the Bailiff . I think one needs clarity on that and therefore to seek closure on this debate and vote on it.

6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think the Constable is doing the right thing. We have arrived at a situation where, because of the way that this debate has happened, we have an unsatisfactory situation where we have effectively mixed the issue of civic head and elected Speaker. Senator Bailhache cannot, I am afraid, have it both ways. He brought the proposition and then he said he was going to reject it and then he was going to argue against it. The proposition I do not think is going to be accepted. I think presumably that is why the Connétable of St. Helier is not wanting to waste the Assembly's time. I am afraid on the question of whether or not the Crown Officer has certainty, if this Assembly does vote in favour of a referendum there is no certainty. Then, in any event, I am afraid there is the ongoing issue of the separation of the issue of the civic head and elected Speaker, of which there is a serious issue. There are serious issues to be debated, which I am afraid is not going to be dealt with by a simple referendum, which is not capable of happening in October. I am afraid I absolutely support Senator Bailhache cannot have it both ways. He brought this amendment, he has amended it, he has made it more difficult because of the representations he has made and we now must abandon this and come back to it. There is no certainty in life. That is democracy.

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

Just very briefly, I would seriously ask Members to consider that if we support the withdrawal of this particular proposition, what message will we send to the public? I will leave it at that.

8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I did warn you this would happen yesterday, but here we are again, but what we must do is allow the Constable to withdraw this proposition, absolutely, because the proposition has been changed so substantially by the amendments that he cannot support it. How can you ask the Constable to proceed with a debate where he has no longer the wish to be the proposer or even sum up? It is ridiculous. We have to go with the Constable's request. We have to stop this debate here and now.

9. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

I agree with the last 2 speakers. I completely agree with every word that Senator Ozouf said. I think we have got ourselves in an absolute mess and I think to carry on with the debate will further compound the mess. I think the only thing to do is to stop it and let us get on with other business.

10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Somebody said earlier in this debate, probably for the wrong reasons, that P.P.C. had now been told what the Assembly wanted to do. I think that is completely incorrect. Things have changed beyond all recognisable thought, but the fact is that this Assembly, of its own volition, made those changes.

[9:45]

We need to see this through, because there are things that now need to be said, and if they are not said now, then they will be said the next time this is brought. Sooner or later we have got to grasp the nettle of how we deal with this. The issues need to be aired now so that even if this is not taken right the way through, if the substantive proposition is not accepted, that we know what the views are that people need to express, because there are things that my constituency have said to me that have given me some cause for concern that have not even been raised yet. I would like to raise them so that people can air them and we can decide if that is the sort of question that we should be asking the public between now and the next time that this is debated, so we do not end up in this ridiculous mess next time.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Something new to add, Deputy Le Hérissier?

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

I am not sure of that. As somebody who muddied the waters, I totally agree with the Constable of St. Mary, I think we must go ahead. I do not want this debate, in the sense that the public are absolutely fed up with our obsession with Government reform, so-called reform, fed up, and I would much prefer .. well, I am not sure I would much prefer to be discussing population, but I think that I would like to hear Members' views on population; we have not aired that properly at all for the last several years. But we have started this, we have set up public expectations, I am afraid, and I think we have to see it through. As the Constable said, we have to see it through.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): I call on the Constable to reply.

12. The Connétable of St. Helier :

Senator Le Gresley said, perhaps far better than I can, the invidious position a Back-Bencher is in when they bring a proposition, which in this case was a simple question about whether to have an elected Speaker or not, which was subsequently amended to produce something which is very difficult for me to support. I have done it once before, I brought a proposition which I ended up voting against, so it will not be that difficult to do, but I suggest that the Assembly has got far more important things to do this week than to spend half a day, if not longer, as Members bring out the speeches that I know some of them have been up since 5.00 a.m. this morning writing. I must say there are things I would like ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I thought we heard them yesterday, Constable. The Connétable of St. Helier :

There are things I would like to say particularly in reply to some of the comments made yesterday, but I am quite prepared really to sit on my hands and not to say those things in the interests of getting on with the other business, but I am in Members' hands. If Members wish to have the debate, so be it.

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

May I raise the défaut on the Deputy of St. John ? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, propose the défaut on the Deputy of St. John be raised. Those in favour; those against. The défaut is raised.

Deputy E.J. Noel:

Can I ask for the appel, please, Sir?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the appel is called for on the proposition of the Constable of St. Helier , so if you wish to allow the proposition to be withdrawn, you vote pour, if you wish to carry on, you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.

2. Elected Speaker of the States (P.160/2013) as amended - resumption

1. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement :

As Members will know, I am not a fan of repetition, and as yesterday was largely that, I have curtailed my original speech. If the public was confused yesterday, they certainly will be very confused today. May I also ask, is it reasonable that a Member should not be able to hear an opinion or, as happened yesterday, a summing-up because of Members constantly talking? I would think it was a matter of good government, if not courtesy, to listen when others were speaking. [Approbation] While I fully accept the need for Jersey to portray itself and to be understood to be a modern, well-regulated and democratic jurisdiction, we also have a unique heritage and tradition that must be protected. The removal of the Bailiff from the presidency of the States Assembly would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the concurrent important position as civic head.

Many modern - for example, Caribbean - constitutions have developed over a few decades. Jersey's has evolved over centuries. As a Government, we have a history of attempting to introduce piecemeal changes without recognition of the implications on the bigger picture. The last Government reduced Senators by 4. We are now debating separately to remove the Bailiff . Taking the proverbial brick out of the wall would be destabilising in already uncertain times. The suggested alternative of a Speaker of the House: "The role of Speaker should improve democracy." A quote from the Minister for Treasury yesterday: "Since the inimitable Betty Boothroyd, there has been little credit accrued by elected Speakers and Deputy Speakers in the Houses of Parliament in the U.K. (United Kingdom)." So this is not a model we need to follow: "As President Speaker of the States of Assembly, a strong legal background would be required to interpret Standing Orders and make fairly instant decisions in rulings. Impartiality is imperative, a deep understanding of the Constitution is essential, an ability to command authority and act with dignity at all times is a prerequisite." I suspect the above job description would somewhat limit the choice: "It is also very important to provide consistency and length of service, which a new Speaker selected before each election would not necessarily produce. The argument of a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights is strongly denied." I quote Mr. Rabinder Singh Q.C. (Queen's Counsel): "On the current state of the authorities, in principle there would be no breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights if the status quo were to be maintained." The Office of Bailiff as Chief Justice, President of the States Assembly and civic head stretches back many centuries. There has been no breakdown or failure in the occupants of that office. Why should we dispense with that record of history and good governance? Furthermore, what would happen to the mace presented to the Bailiff by Charles II, which precedes the Bailiff at every States sitting over which he presides? To quote from our esteemed Jersey Evening Post: "How many establishment States Members does it take to change a light bulb? None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb."

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

This is going to be a bit like chalk and cheese. We have just had the chalk and here comes the cheese. With all due respect to my much-valued colleague, this is a completely different speech. This proposition, if approved today, will change for ever Jersey's traditions and heritage. Some Members will balk at taking these steps towards a more modern, democratic and accountable Government, relying on the age-old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and that is just what we have heard from the last speaker. But time is running out for Jersey to show our serious commitment to achieving true independence of the 3 branches of Government, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. As a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, we should by now be fully compliant with the principles of the Latimer House Guidelines on the accountability and relationship between the 3 branches of Government, which was approved by the Commonwealth heads of government back in 2003. Yet we hide behind the skirts of tradition and meekly accept that the Bailiff 's dual role can continue on the basis that the Latimer House Principles state that it is recognised that the special circumstances of small or under-resourced jurisdictions may require adaptations of these guidelines. We may be small, but we are hardly under-resourced. Our G.V.A. (Gross Value Added) would surely top the charts of Commonwealth members. In researching for this speech, I have come across a number of interesting reports and letters. As I said yesterday, I have also read Hansard on the debate in February 2009, which was the proposition of the former Deputy of St. Martin to conduct a review of the role of the unelected Members of the States, which led to the Carswell Review of 2010. A short speech by former Senator Ben Shenton during this debate caught my attention, and I quote: "Last year the Bailiff " that is the former Bailiff , now Senator Sir Philip Bailhache : "and his learned colleagues carried out a review looking at what the Island would have to do if it was to seek independence. The review clearly stated that there would have to be a separation of powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary and the Bailiff 's role in the Chamber would have to be removed." The review the former Senator was referring to was the second interim report of the Constitution Review Group chaired by the former Bailiff , now Senator Bailhache , and presented to the States on 27th June 2008. The Chief Minister refers to this report in his comments on page 4. I have this report with me today, and in the section on internal constitutional considerations, paragraph 76 of the main report, it is stated that: "The dual role of the Bailiff as President of the Royal Court and President of the States would have to be reviewed in the event of independence." The report then goes on to say: "While the dual role can be justified while Jersey is a Crown dependency, because the Bailiff has a representational role and is the guardian of the Island's constitutional privileges, the latter justification would not exist post-independence. Jersey's constitutional privileges vis-à-vis the U.K. would cease, because Jersey would have the greater privilege of sovereign status. In those circumstances, it would arguably be of greater importance to avoid any perceptions, however misconceived, that the independence of the Judiciary might be compromised by making provisions for an elected or appointed Speaker other than the Bailiff ." Of course there are currently no plans to seek independence from the U.K., as far as I am aware, but what this extract from the Constitution Review Group's report of 2008 shows is that the dual role of the Bailiff has and was already under consideration by not only the Judiciary, but also the Executive. The review group concluded each section of their report with a number of recommendations for actions, which were said to be consistent with the aim of the Chief Minister of securing greater recognition of Jersey's international identity. The recommendation that caught my attention was the creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission. The review group were advised by a Professor Jowell Q.C. and his detailed report is in appendix 3 to the main report. He had this to say about judicial appointments: "Judicial independence is the fundamental tenet of democracy and the rule of law and a necessary ingredient in a fair trial. In particular, it is necessary to avoid judges being or appearing to be biased towards the Executive. An independent judiciary ensures that governments and administrations may be held to account and that duly enacted laws are enforced." Professor Jowell made a clear recommendation that Jersey should adhere to the principles set out in international tests, such as the 1985 United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in any

future constitution for Jersey. [10:00]

I am sure that there are Members who, like me, are surprised that we do not have a Judicial Appointments Commission. The Island is currently going through the process of choosing a Deputy Bailiff , our second most senior judge, but we appear to be relying on the tradition of involving political representatives from both the Executive and the legislature in the selection process. This is in conflict with the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct which state that: "A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with and influence by the Executive and legislative branches of government, but also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom." The Chief Minister has lodged comments on this proposition, and in my opinion, these summarise succinctly the arguments for ending the dual role of Bailiff . The fact is we simply cannot go on with the current arrangements. When the former Deputy of St. Martin brought his proposition in 2009, it was hoped by many who voted for it that this matter should have been resolved, would have been resolved, well before the departure of the current Bailiff . I have to say that in my time in the States I believe successive P.P.C.s have ducked this issue. We should be grateful to the Constable of St. Helier for bringing his proposition. Our current P.P.C. have shown in their second comments paper that there is sufficient time before the next election to deal with the legislation required for an elected Speaker. However, the approval of the amendments yesterday will certainly delay the process. The concept of the separation of powers of the judiciary, legislature and Executive is believed to date back as far as 1748, when it was first articulated by Montesquieu in his publication, De l'esprit des lois, On the Spirits of the Law. Jersey is rightfully proud of the historic role of the Bailiff in Island affairs, but to quote Lord Carswell: "It might be

said that the Jersey institutions have functioned satisfactorily more because of the way in which those who occupy the posts have carried out their duties than because of the inherent suitability to the modern age of the institutions themselves." Today we can take a giant step forward in modernising our democracy and I urge Members to support the proposition.

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

Was it not Abraham Lincoln who said: "Do not interfere with anything in the Constitution"? That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. I rise as a result of deep concerns I have that we are seriously contemplating the removal of the Bailiff from this Chamber. One of the few things that separates us from other places in the world is our ability to call on the experience of somebody so qualified as our Bailiff . While others will say that this is not right because he has not been elected, we need to remember what his role is. He is the guardian of our Constitution, our President of the Assembly. He is not just another Member of the States or indeed just a Speaker. Listening to others or listening to those, I have heard suggestions he should be removed. They would do very well to look at recent history and see how important it is that our Bailiff has a political role to play. Given the United Kingdom is ever keeping a watchful eye on us, and I would suggest treating us wrongly, we need somebody with the ability and knowledge to be able to take stock and tell them when they are acting incorrectly. To those who say that he should not be a judge and sit in the Assembly, it has to be put on the record that we have our checks in place to prevent any wrongdoing. A Bailiff or Deputy who presides over us cannot then go and sit on a case which discussed the same law. Now perhaps we should turn to the practical consequences of what the removal of the Bailiff would mean to this House. Who is supposed to act as Speaker? If we turn our attention to the comments made by the Privileges and Procedures Committee, they have suggested that they could be elected from within the Assembly or from outside. What are they suggesting? We have to remove a Bailiff because he or she is not an elected representative and at the same time they are saying that we shall be able to elect somebody who is not a member of this Assembly. It cannot be right that on the one hand those against the Bailiff are arguing for democratic accountability and on the other they are arguing that we could replace the number one judge of the Island for another person who is unelected and less qualified. That argument does not stand up. It does not hold up at all. If we read the comments of both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General we can see that there is nothing wrong with the position of the Bailiff . If it is a choice between voting to keep the Bailiff , a position which has been sown into the fabric of our society for hundreds of years, for hundreds of years, or support a proposition so short-sighted, I know which way I will be voting. Further to this, I note the Chief Minister also wants to remove the Bailiff as head of our Assembly and I asked myself why. Why? Could it be that he wishes for more power? Or is it that he comes from another place; he is homesick and he plans to turn Jersey

into some UK backwater? Or has he been put here as a stooge from the UK?

The Greffier of the States:

Constable, I think these are becoming very personalised attacks on the ..

The Connétable of St. John :

Sir, this is of concern to me. We are aware of the position of the Chief Minister has taken on this. The Greffier of the States:

He has made clear in his comments why he is bringing those comments and you are attributing improper motives. He has made it clear he is ..

The Connétable of St. John :

I will withdraw that particular remark, Sir, and I will continue. It is known that the Chief Minister does not want the Bailiff in the Chamber. I sincerely hope that when he comes to speak and/or consider voting, he will reconsider his position because it hurts me to think that a person we elected just under 3 years ago as Chief Minister, and I did vote for him, wants to change our constitution so radically that we will lose something that the Island has cherished for something like 700 years, probably closer to 800 years. I will not support the removal of the Bailiff . Given between 1948 and 2006, this Island had the most successful period in its history and everything we have today .. apart from the pre-1945, everything we have, these Members in this House have today comes from the hard work done by our forefathers in the last 60 years. It is a shame that back in 2004, 2005 when Clothier was debated, we allowed, by only a small majority, to go for the reform on the back of Senator Horsfall's proposal. He did tell us, in this Assembly: "Adopt this proposition in principle and we will put the meat on the bones later". The meat has never been put on the bones and we finish up with a system that does not work - a system that does not work - so much so we have spent the last 10 years, 9 years, trying to reform that system. Until you get that system right, you should not - you should not - remove the only stable bit of Government we currently have, which is our Bailiff . I will not be supporting the Constable of St. Helier 's proposition.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

Members, do we remember the good old days when all life was in the sea? Was it not so much better then, before the audacious aquatic creatures dared to come on to our land, which had not even been formed yet? It was much better then when life was all pre-existing in the sea. Life was a lot better then but these bastard fish, because that is what they were - they did not have any fathers or mothers - dared to come out of the sea and dared to progress. How dare they? But even then, that was too much. Do we remember when protozoa were ruling the world? Protozoa, back in the day, protozoa, they did not need democracy. They did not need an elected stooge from the U.K. coming over to tell them that their protozoa were not sufficient and they should split their cells; they should form into reproductive organs; they should have all sorts of things; they should ingest oxygen; they should have a cardiovascular system. No, they did not need that, those protozoa. They did not need these people with their new-fangled ideas saying: "This is the way we have always done it without single form life cells. You can keep your multiple cell life forms and your reproduction and whatever way you do it." But even then, before that, do we remember when the earliest life forms in the earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, which is what scientists think .. those scientists who did not want to stay as protozoa. But what about before that? Do we remember when there was nothing, 4.5 billion years ago? Nothing? There is nothing: "Oh, was it not so good back in the days? There is nothing, nothing. There is nothing." Was it not so much better then? We did not have a mace because the mace had not been created. Now, all of these arguments that we are hearing today are basically nostalgia and what did we have before a Bailiff ? There presumably must have been something. There would have been those harking back to the druids saying: "We do not need this Bailiff who has been sent over here." I am reminded of the old Monty Python quote when the king is walking through in the Holy Grail saying: "Who's that?" He goes: "It's the king." "How do you know it's the king?" "Because he doesn't stink of the proverbial." "Well, what's a king? I never voted for him" et cetera. So really in one sense this debate is futile because we have got the conservatives in the Assembly trying to bring reforms. We have got the progressives since the 17th century, 18th century trying to reform. Now it is the conservative element in the States that are trying to reform. But it is the reactionary element who are the block, as they have always been. The house of cards is probably quite an appropriate metaphor for what is going on in Jersey currently; 52 cards in a pack, 51 States Members and a Bailiff . If we get rid of the Ace of Spades or possibly the Ace of Hearts, we have got 12 other court cards in the pack thinking: "Oh, if the Ace of Spades goes, what about me?" The court cards, quite literally court cards because that is where their allegiance lies, they are going to be the next ones on the agenda. They know that their positions logically are not tenable. It does not mean as individuals they do not have a place in our constitution but their place ultimately is to be elected in

the same way and not to give disproportional benefit to the country Parishes. Essentially, this is why it hits and it is visceral. The issue of the Bailiff is nothing to do with who chairs this Assembly because we could find somebody to chair this Assembly. A question, is there anybody in our number who is capable of chairing this Assembly? No. Okay. There seems to be at least one Senator among us who would be capable of chairing this Assembly adequately, and that is Senator Bailhache , because he has done it in the past, so there is, at least, somebody who could do that. If Senator Bailhache is such a good chairperson, it would be remiss of us because all of the Bailiff s, as we know, have always been excellent chair people as well as indisputably immaculate individuals, like the Pope, that they cannot do anything wrong and Carswell basically told that as well, which is salutary reminder. So we could choose somebody from within our number and in the absence of that particular individual we know that the Constable of St. Clement has also chaired very satisfactorily. [Approbation]

[10:15]

So let us not make this argument about what it is not, because what it is is very simple, and I am always amazed at how readily this Assembly will give up its sovereignty. We are going to see that very soon in the P.33 debate, where I believe, judging from the mood of the Assembly, that the Assembly is quite willing to give the two-way whip, which we will see in that, whatever they want and give up our powers, although this is a completely different debate. The Assembly holds itself .. and we often hear about how the public holds us in low esteem but this Assembly holds itself in such low esteem that it believes that we cannot and can never in the future be such a mature democracy, mature parliamentary democracy that we can do what almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world seems capable of doing, and that is choosing a Member from within their own number to basically chair their meetings. We do not ask the Bailiff to chair our other committee meetings. He does not chair our P.P.C. meetings. He does not chair our Scrutiny meetings and that is because we are quite capable of doing that ourselves. I go back to the argument that I touched on yesterday. Is the role of the Bailiff , is the esteem, the civic headship of the Bailiff so precarious among the public that he needs to be in this Assembly to chair meetings in order for them to respect that role? I do not know what the public think and the public is not one homogenous mass who have an opinion on our traditions. For some of us, the appearance of the mace at every sitting is something that maybe strikes a chord with all of us and it makes us wonder how we can even function today when we do not have the mace in front of us. Some of us can barely hold it together and have had to leave the Assembly already. The issue of the mace is quite simple. What we do as soon as we remove the Bailiff from this Assembly is we melt it down and we make a crown for the new elected Speaker. But we do not have to necessarily make a crown. We could also make a chain, a bit like the one that the Constable of St. Helier has. So the ideas as to what to do with the mace are multiple. We could even sell it off for charity in its current form; auction it off in order to pay for food parcels for the poor or to open a new shelter for the poor in St. Aubin, something akin to that. Is that not a shocking indictment of what we, as an Island, allow to go on happening in the Island? We make great clamour about the perceived tradition, in fact, which is not a universal tradition necessarily. It is history which has been recorded in some ways by some people and all of the other stories about the Bailiff in 1769 who did not listen to the people when they asked for justice, and it was the U.K. who had to come over and intervene, those stories are not necessarily recorded, even though we do now have a reform day, because it is an embarrassment to the ruling establishment and what they have been historically. So please spare me some of this nonsense rhetoric that I am hearing from the political dinosaurs who should have no place in the current Assembly, save for the fact that they have been put here democratically like the rest of us, which I do nonetheless respect. The issue I have got here today is that we are not simply debating clear cut whether or not the Bailiff should be chairing our meetings. What we are doing, however, is that with certain caveats because we have decided that it was too simple a

question and that it needed to be complicated. So the proposition before us, which has kindly been circulated by the Greffier, says all of that but subject to the approval of the public voting in a referendum to be held on 15th October 2014 on the question: "Should the Bailiff cease to be President of the States?" But even that has got a further caveat now: "Provided that the referendum shall not be held unless the States have already adopted legislation to give effect to the change, which contains a commencement provision which specifies that the legislation shall automatically come into force if the change is supported by a majority of those voting in the referendum subject to a minimum turnout threshold to be specified in the legislation and shall not come into force if it is not." All of that without a comma. There is no comma there so I had to basically just take breaths when I could, although there were parentheses. What does that mean? Do any of us clearly know what that means? It means that what we are debating now is not the dual role of the Bailiff . It is whether to have a referendum on the dual role of the Bailiff , which is a completely different proposition, because some of us think that absolutely the first proposition was clear and we could agree with it. We cannot necessarily agree with the idea of a referendum because it is not necessarily the subject of a referendum. But some of us are willing to go with that. If the States seem to be wanting to make fools of themselves, let us take that to the public and highlight the fact because the underlying issue remains the same. But we have asked P.P.C. to bring forward legislation which will give effect to the change which contains a commencement provision, which specifies that legislation should automatically come into force. How do we do that? At what point will P.P.C. be bringing back legislation? It is a completely different proposition that we have been asked to .. and that is why I changed my mind during the course of the debate, that the Constable of St. Helier should be allowed to withdraw this. Probably time to sum up, I think. By the way, I should admit on the record that I plagiarised some Stewart Lee, the stand-up comedian's work earlier when I did my little spiel about the protozoa. He was taking off on U.K.I.P. (United Kingdom Independence Party) about that. Recommend it very highly. But it seemed to work for this particular debate. Should the role of the Bailiff be separated? Absolutely it should be separated because we can and should elect somebody from within our own number, and to those in the Assembly who say we do not know what the future plans will be, we do not know how we are going to elect our own number, I would suggest that the only way forward it to elect him or her from within our own number. The suggestions that have been made that we could elect a President externally is a nonsense because it has to be somebody who can be held accountable by this Assembly and be accountable to the Assembly, and it is the same argument which some have made in the past for Chief Minister: if the public were the only ones who can elect a Chief Minister, how on earth do we work with that individual? So while it might be an appealing thought, it is not going to be workable, I am afraid. We will, at some point in the future, have to grasp the nettle of the dual role of the Bailiff .. the triple role of the Bailiff . There are arguments to be made as to whether or not even the Bailiff should be civic head as to whether or not we need a civic head and if we do need a civic head, why that person should not be elected directly from the public or even

on a rolling random selection process whereby we can just pull someone out of a hat: "Right mate. It is your turn to shake the hand with the Queen this week." "Do I have to?" "Yes, I am afraid you do, otherwise you will get thrown in jail." "Okay. I suppose I will do it in the same way I do jury service." That is the speech for what it was. It was not particularly well planned. There will be others who make more eloquent speeches but it is very difficult when you are arguing, fighting against a phantom when you are not fighting against real arguments but arguments which are just being made up, straws which are being clutched at to move things forward. But that is my contribution, for what it is worth. I am sorry if it has been longwinded and I look forward to other speeches and change perhaps, if not in this millennium, perhaps in the next.

The Connétable of St. John :

Sir, can I make a correction to my last speech? I said I voted for the Chief Minister. In fact, I voted for Sir Philip Bailhache in that election but I threw all my weight behind the Chief Minister when he got the position. [Laughter]

The Greffier of the States:

That is a good correction. Senator Bailhache . Supporting?

5. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I am delighted that the Constable of St. John can hedge his bets in that way. [Laughter] The issue of whether the Bailiff should preside over the States is one that has been around for more than 150 years, even if the arguments for change have become more strident in recent years. In 1999 I wrote an article for the Jersey Law Review entitled The cry for constitutional reform: a perspective from the office of Bailiff , and I hoped to lay the foundations for intelligent debate but I was disappointed. The Clothier Panel dismissed the opposing contentions in a few short paragraphs and reached their conclusion the basis of arguments that were flawed. Lord Carswell and his committee, to be fair, made a much better job but that might be expected from a retired law lord. The Chief Minister has given us a report that, for the first time, addresses the arguments, or some of them, better than anything that has gone before. Senator Ozouf seemed to suggest that there was only one rational answer to this controversy but he is wrong. There is more than one rational answer and debating the conflicting issues for the first time, as we are doing today is, it seems to me, the right thing to do. All of the reports that are before the Assembly approach the question, if I may say so, from a preconception that anything that is different from the norm is quirky and therefore wrong. As a Jerseyman with a streak of stubbornness I want something a little more persuasive than that before I part with traditions that have served us well for 500 years. To have a chap called a Black Rod banging on the door of the House of Commons in dress of the 17th century and having the door slammed in his face is quirky too, although I do not put the Bailiff 's role in that boat. But the point is that the traditions of each country lend colour and individuality to their processes. If we want to become a thoroughly modern Commonwealth Legislature with a brand new mace instead of the historic royal mace of Charles II, should we not consider the position of the Lieutenant Governor? Should His Excellency be here in a really modern Legislature? They have pushed him out in the House of Keys in the Isle of Man. What about the Dean? Should he be here? If we are severing the historic link with the Royal Court, should we really be sworn in before the Court? That is very quirky too. In modern parliaments, most of them, if an oath is taken, it is taken before the Parliament itself. Should the Viscount, whose principle duties are to the Royal Court, continue to be our executive officer? He will not be needed to carry the royal mace so perhaps there should be a States enforcement officer instead? The truth is that all these things do need to be considered

from time to time because traditions should not be allowed to stand in the way of necessary change. So I think, although it took me a little time to get around to this conclusion, that the Constable of St. Helier was right to bring the proposition, even if the manner in which it was presented left something to be desired. The Chief Minister asked me on Monday evening whether an elected Speaker was not a necessary preparation for independence. I think he was teasing [Laughter] but perhaps it was a serious point. If it was serious, the answer is that we probably should be looking, in the round, at the kind of Legislature we would need if Jersey became a sovereign state. If we were independent we would have no constitutional privileges that needed protection by the Bailiff , as guardian of the constitution. We would have the greater privilege of sovereignty, as Senator Le Gresley reminded us from the report of the Constitutional Review Group. We would no longer be a bailiwick and so perhaps it would not matter that the Bailiff was not the head of it. We would not have a Lieutenant Governor. We would have a Governor General who might more naturally assume the role of the Island's chief citizen.

[10:30]

But at the moment, we are not an independent state and, so far as I know, we are not planning to become one. So I return to the question: is change necessary? My answer to that is that change is not necessary. There was an email from Deputy Mézec over the weekend which suggested that the Sark case before the English Court of Appeal was authority for the proposition that the position of the Bailiff was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not going to argue law with the Deputy because the legal position has been clearly set out by Rabinder Singh Q.C. in his report to advise Lord Carswell, and by our own law officers. They are higher authorities on matters of law than elected Members of the States. The position of the Seneschal was very different from that of the Bailiff s of Jersey and Guernsey but the Sark case was referred to by Rabinder Singh in his report and he concluded, and I quote: "There is no reason in law why the present constitutional arrangements in respect of the Bailiff should be altered." That seems to me to be pretty clear. It is true that Mr. Singh then looked into a crystal ball and suggested that things might be different in 10 years' time but the up to the moment advice of the law officers of the Crown is that they are, and again, I quote: "Not aware of any case law in the 3-plus years since the publication of the Carswell Review that supports the notion that the approach of the European Court is likely to change." If one reads the case law, and I hope that Deputy Mézec has, abstract notions like the separation of powers do not influence the European Court. They are concerned with the substance of the matter: is the court independent or not? At the moment, there is no legal reason demanding change. So we come to perceptions, and they are, it seems to me, a notoriously unreliable basis for making a serious constitutional change. The Chief Minister's report refers to the Latimer House Principles, the Bangalore Principles and other Commonwealth documents that speak of the importance of judicial independence and Senator Le Gresley made much of those documents in his speech this morning. The Latimer House Guidelines, which are the foundation of these documents, were drafted in 1998, I think, and I can assure Members that the drafters had absolutely no intention of suggesting that the position of the Bailiff in the Channel Islands was

inappropriate. I can say that with authority because I was there and took part in the discussions and debated the paragraph about small states that Senator Le Gresley has referred to. I was one of the 60 judges, parliamentarians, academics and lawyers who drew up the Latimer House Guidelines. The concern for judicial independence is a very real one in the Commonwealth because in some Commonwealth countries judges are sometimes threatened, cajoled and even bribed to carry out the wishes of the executive. That does not happen in Jersey and the fact that the Bailiff presides over this Assembly is not, in my view, going to make it any more likely that it would happen. So should we worry about what people outside the Island might think? For me, it is the substance that is more important. The reports from Clothier, Carswell, and I think the Chief Minister too, speak of it being wrong that the Bailiff should play a part in making the laws and in interpreting them. Can the Bailiff be both lawmaker and judge? Put in that simplistic way, the answer is obviously no. But is the Bailiff a lawmaker in any real sense? He does not propose laws to the Assembly. He does not speak on any debates in the Assembly. He does not vote at the end of those debates. He is not a lawmaker in any real sense of that word. He is an impartial chairman, applying the Standing Orders that we, the elected Members, have laid down. I do not think this is the time for change. There is no need for the Assembly to be frightened of its shadow. If there were anything wrong in substance or in law then that would be entirely different. But there is not. I think that the Constable's proposition will be rejected because Members are not persuaded of the need for change but some good, I think, can come of the debate, because one of the reports, I think it was from the P.P.C., suggested that there was some inability to conduct outreach with schoolchildren and

students and others, explaining what the Assembly did and engaging the public in democratic processes because the Bailiff was the Speaker. I do not think that is right. I hope that the P.P.C. will take up responsibility for outreach for the Assembly and that they will, perhaps also in the spirit in which we ought to be engaged in these things, invite the Bailiff and the Deputy Bailiff to take part from time to time. They may not be able to do it very often but I would be surprised if they would not welcome an invitation from them. The Chairman of the P.P.C. should be in the lead, as is right, but it could be that the President and Vice-President would be willing to assist. I made a speech yesterday about the civic head of the Island. I am not going to repeat all that stuff, but that is another compelling reason for me why this proposition should be rejected and I am going to vote against it.

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

On a point of clarification, if I may. I did not want to interrupt the speaker while he was speaking. He talked about the P.P.C. comments discussing possible outreach abilities. That was in reference to what a Speaker of the Assembly might do in their role as Speaker. That is not to say that it should not be done now or whatever. It is just saying what the potential new role could be doing and that is what we were referring to, just so Members are aware of that.

6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I think it is sad day that this Assembly wishes to throw away 800 years of heritage and tradition by removing the role of Bailiff as Speaker. Yet again we are looking at tinkering with a system that has served this Assembly and this Island well over hundreds of years; a unique cultural heritage which we just want to throw away. The Constable, in his proposition, puts the case for change in just 13 lines. That is all; 13 lines. Like many Members, I have taken part in days when primary schools visit this Assembly to learn and understand our cultural history and to take part in debates. One of the excellent presentations done by the Assistant Greffier and Rod McLoughlin .. sorry, I do not know what his title is.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Cultural Development Officer.

The Deputy of Trinity :

Thank you, Sir. They do a very good job and the children are enthralled. They explain the role of the Bailiff , the importance of the historic mace, which only sits before us when the Bailiff presides. The young people there, the children there are enthralled and listen, and the questions that they ask afterwards are very thought provoking and very direct and to the point. The role is our heritage, so if this proposition is approved then it all goes, but the role also commands dignity. Would that be the same from an elected Speaker? We need to start to think what we may be doing here in approving this proposition. Is it going to improve this Assembly? We have no information on what, who would take over the role, what will be required. Will we need a Deputy Speaker, an office? We have no idea of the cost. I went to hear Lord Carswell and listen to his concerns on how our Assembly may be perceived in other countries, but I am proud of my heritage, this Island's heritage, and I am proud of the role of the Bailiff as Speaker of this Assembly. A number of jurisdictions do have split roles, but why do we have to follow? This is a major constitutional change and we need to discuss this change with the public because once it is changed it is changed for ever. As you will guess, I will not be supporting this proposition.

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

Just as the Constable of St. Lawrence, I have also been questioned by parishioners on why it is considered necessary to remove the Bailiff from the States Assembly. I have not received comment from anyone wanting that to happen. In my recent Parish Deputy flyer, which goes out to everyone in St. Mary, I asked the question on retaining the Bailiff and invited comment. I received many replies, all of them wishing to retain our Bailiff in the States Assembly. More to the point, people cannot see the need for this proposition. I can safely say that I am speaking for the Parish electorate and others who have made their view clear to me. If this gets approved it will probably be the slippery slope to yet more unnecessary political correctness and I am wondering how long it

will be before someone brings a proposition to boot the Dean out. Sorry, Dean, I did not wish to alarm you. However, you may be glad to get out of this asylum. I know that this would be welcomed by the anti-Christians among us. If you all remember, it was not so long ago that we had to defend the right to keep prayers at the start of each Assembly. If the Bailiff 's role is controversial, then surely the same applies with political and religious presence side by side. After all, there was a time when the Parish Rectors were part of this Assembly, so that could happen. For Senator Ozouf to insinuate that the public could not cope with a 5-box vote at the election is an insult to their intelligence. The Senator should realise that our electorate are smarter than he thinks. The removal of the Bailiff would be just another erosion of our traditions and constitution with absolutely no benefit to the public. If change is necessary, the reasoning has to be approved by the Island electorate. I will vote against this because I do not believe that we should make the decision today to remove the Bailiff , certainly not without public approval, although it seems clear to me that the public are very happy with the status quo.

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

When I first came over to the Island I was intrigued by our funny little ways and for a short time I said: "Why are we not doing them efficiently like the U.K.?" I was led gently by the hand, so to speak, metaphorically speaking, and after the explanations that were made it started to make sense. Frankly, it is not that difficult to understand. I feel very much for the people on the radio this morning who were absolutely insulted by the way people did not think they would be able to understand the voting slips and so on if we had changes. As the Deputy of St. Mary said, the electorate are a lot more canny than they are given credit for, particularly in this Assembly. It is assumed that the Westminster system is perfect but what about Tony Blair's mentor appointed on a reforming agenda, followed by the pathetic attempts to put a load of political appointees in the House of Lords?

[10:45]

Has the U.S. (United States) got anything to offer in this regard? At the moment, I do not think it has because the judges in the Supreme Court are currently being appointed on a purely political basis. Is this the answer? Their Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are meant to be separate. It is fine to have what is alleged good democracy but it is no guarantee of good behaviour, and there are plenty of examples in the Commonwealth or who have just been expelled from the Commonwealth. We hear cries of human rights but the British Isles have a tradition of common law derived from Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and various other pieces of legislation, and the very important principle of habeas corpus. No doubt my legal colleague sitting behind me may correct me, but I think the gist of it is correct. It is a totally different system of law to the Continent. The Bailiff 's position, I think, as Senator Bailhache says, is more a case of keeping order even than chairing a meeting. The Bailiff has no casting vote but he has stayed calm at times when I think his patience must have been sorely tested. The Chief Minister has come out in favour of the Westminster approach, but has he discussed this with Guernsey, since we are both in the same boat? The Harwood Report said: "The final judgment given by the European Court did not follow the recommendations in the earlier report of the Commission. In particular, the judgment affirmed that there is no legal basis for contending that there should be a separation of the judicial and parliamentary roles of the Bailiff ." That is very much on the same lines as Mr. Singh. Certainly my communications from the public are firmly in support of the current position so I will not be supporting the proposition.

9. Senator P.F. Routier:

I like to think I am a traditionalist who cherishes our heritage and enjoys being a stubborn Jerseyman. This debate has been extremely useful for a couple of reasons. It has given Members the opportunity to discuss roles and responsibilities and where they should lie. It has focused on the role of Speaker of the Assembly, which currently is part of the functions undertaken by the Bailiff . The suggestion is that there is a conflict with the role and that there can be difficulty in the Bailiff making decisions or becoming involved in political matters. I have served as a Member of this Assembly for coming up for 21 years and during that time there have been accusations by some Members that the Bailiff has been involving himself in political matters. Whether that is right or wrong, we will all have a different view of that. Having read Carswell and Clothier again, it is clear that there is a logic in ensuring that there needs to be a real separation of roles. What I find ironic is that some Members who have spoken in favour of separation of powers are the very same Members who have in the past wanted to become involved in judicial matters, querying prosecution decisions and making claims that the judiciary have not carried out their duties correctly. I have come to the conclusion that the demarcation and separation of roles for politicians and judges needs to be very clear and that both need to ensure that they do not overstep the mark. The question for me is how to deal with this proposition. I have to say with respect to everyone, politicians, judges, Bailiff s, Deputy Bailiff s, and I hope it does not offend anybody, I would hope that this debate has sent a shot across the bows of both States Members, the Bailiff , the Deputy Bailiff , that we all need to respect each other's roles and stick to our own responsibilities. States Members need to leave judicial matters to judges and judges need to leave political matters to politicians. [Approbation] At this time I find it difficult to support the proposition but, in saying that, I could very well do so in the future if circumstances change.

10. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Many Members of this Assembly may recall a decision in Australia some years ago to part with the Crown and the Governor and to become a republic, followed by a complete failure to agree on what the Crown and the Governor should be replaced with. It seems to me that is exactly where this proposition takes us. We do not know where. In fact, we do not know where this proposition takes us. I sometimes refer to such a decision as Abrahamic. According to the writer of the Book of Hebrews, Abraham set out not knowing where he was going. A favourite Greek philosopher might put it this way: "If you do not know to which port you are sailing then no wind is favourable." The uncertainty here does not just relate to the Australian question: what will we replace the Bailiff with? It also relates to the question: what will the effect of this change be? This is not just an issue of who will decide as to whether propositions, questions and debates comply with Standing Orders. It is also an issue as to what effect will it have on the role of the Bailiff , in particular what effect on the role as civic head. It is interesting that the Chief Minister and others who are supporting the proposition want to retain that, and there I think they have a serious problem. Supporters of the proposition have argued that nowhere other than Guernsey has a judge who chairs a Parliament. However, I have another question. Please can someone tell me where, other than Guernsey, there is a chief justice who is a civic head? My point is that Senator Bailhache is absolutely right. If the Bailiff ceases to have a role in relation to the States then he will very rapidly cease to be the civic head. I believe that the effect is that will lead to the enhancement of the role of Lieutenant Governor. That is certainly what I observed in the parallel jurisdiction of the Isle of Man where not having a civic head and that not being the role of the Speaker of the Tynwald, it is quite clear that the role of Governor is massively enhanced. But also, of course, there is the possibility of the role of the new Speaker leading to that person being viewed, because of their links with the States, as the civic head, or indeed the possibility of the Chief Minister - and I think any sensible Chief Minister would avoid this - being dragooned into doing more and more civic head types of things. Unfortunately we do not know exactly what will ensue. The law of unexpected consequences is highly likely to come into play. When I voted for a reduction in the number of Senators, I totally failed to foresee that certain Members who castigated me for so doing would soon do a complete volte-face and support option B which removed them altogether. I failed to predict that. However, I did not fail to see the consequences of the States decision to go to a 3-way referendum with the most popular option "none of the above" missing. I absolutely correctly predicted that. If anyone would care to read Hansard they might think I was a prophet, which I am not. Today I am again warning this Chamber that the outcome of a pour vote for the proposition, if we leave aside the referendum aspect, will lead to the Bailiff losing his role as civic head. So, in my view, we really should not set out not knowing where we are going. I am going to come on to my second area of argument in a moment. Before I do, I want to deal as gently as I feel able to with one of the statements made by my esteemed colleague Senator Ozouf , which I did find somewhat extraordinary. He told us that a large percentage of the public are dissatisfied with this Assembly. That is undoubtedly so. I suspect that has always been so in fact but, there we are, maybe it is particularly so at the moment. He did not, however, tell us that the satisfaction rating of the courts was much higher, yet he told us that removing the Bailiff 's role in the Assembly would improve our satisfaction rating. I am really struggling with that because is the Bailiff not the senior member of the courts and does the Bailiff not have a much higher satisfaction rating and is it not likely, in fact, that his removal will mean that we are viewed at an even lower rating than at present? However, I now come on to my second limb of argument. There is a further problem, which is that it is impossible to achieve the referendum part of the amended proposition within the time period. That is why this morning I voted in favour of us not continuing with the vote at all on the basis it simply was not practicable. Firstly, P.P.C. - and I am a member of P.P.C. at the moment and therefore must confess a potential conflict of interest here - simply do not know what they are supposed to be replacing the Bailiff with. What are we supposed to be coming back with? We do not know. Nobody knows. We have had no debate on that whatsoever. That will take quite a long time to work out. There is also the problem of whether a law can be passed in the form proposed, with the kind of conditional wording. I have never seen one in Jersey. I am not sure whether that is possible or not. There is also the problem, which the Chairman of P.P.C. has highlighted: how can we create a binding referendum when the Referendum Law does not allow for this and we do not have sufficient time in which to pass an amendment to the Referendum Law to enable that? It seems to me that there are 2 groups who should vote against the proposition, those who do not want to set out not knowing where they are going, and I am certainly one of those, and those who do not want to task P.P.C. to do something which simply cannot be done within the time available, and I