States Meeting Transcript - 8th July 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 8th JULY 2014

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................4

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:...........................................................4
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:....................................................5
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:......................................................5
4. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:......................................................5

5. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ..................................................5
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................5

2. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014) - second amendment (P.102/2014 Amd.(2)) - proposition to reduce the minimum lodging period..........................8

2.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................8

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................9
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................9
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:....................................................9
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................9
5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................10
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..........................................10
7. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:....................................................11
8. Deputy J.A. Martin: ..................................................................11
9. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier:..................................................11
10. Senator L.J. Farnham :.............................................................11
11. Senator I.J. Gorst :..................................................................11
12. Senator B.I. Le Marquand: ........................................................12

3. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014)........................................14

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:......................................................14

2. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014) - second amendment (P.102/2014 Amd.(2))..................................................................................16

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):.......................17
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................19
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................19
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................20
5. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:................................................................21

6. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................22
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:............................................................22
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................30
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: ..................................................................33
10. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................35
11. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ................................................36
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:......................................................37

13. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ...........................................................38
14. Connétable S.A. Rennard of St. Saviour:..........................................39
15. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:.................................................40
16. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ...................................................41
17. Senator I.J. Gorst :..................................................................41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................43 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................44

18. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:.........................44
19. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...............................................................44
20. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ..............................................................44
21. The Connétable of St. Mary : ......................................................45
22. Senator B.I. Le Marquand: ........................................................46

3. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014) - resumption - as amended..........47

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................48
2. The Dean of Jersey:...................................................................49
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................49
4. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................50
5. Deputy S. Power:......................................................................51
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :................................................................52
7. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:................................................................52
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:............................................................53
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................54
10. Deputy J.H. Young:................................................................54
11. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................55
12. Senator I.J. Gorst :..................................................................56
13. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ..........................................56
14. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :................................................................57

4. Draft Aircraft Registration (Jersey) Law 201- (P.62/2014)............................59

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...............60

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :................................................................62
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................63
3. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................63
4. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ......................................................64
5. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..................................................64
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................65
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.......................................................66
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:..............................................................67

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:..............................................................71
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:..............................................................71

1. The Connétable of St. John:..........................................................71
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:..............................................................71

5. Draft Air Navigation (Jersey) Law 201- (P.63/2014) ...................................71

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):.............................................72

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................72
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................72
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................73

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................74

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................74
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................76

Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General: ...............................................77

3. Draft Air Navigation (Jersey) Law 201- (P.63/2014) - as amended....................80

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................80
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:............................................................81
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................81
   4. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................81

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................81
2. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................81
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................82

5. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................82

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:.................................................................82
2. Deputy J.H. Young:...................................................................83
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................83

6. Draft Civil Aviation (Amendment of Law) (No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.51/2014)...............................................................................84

6.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):.............................................84

7. Draft Public Finances (Transitional Provisions – States Trading Operations) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.50/2014)...................................85

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.................85
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................86
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................86

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................86
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................86

8. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 7) (Economic Development to External Relations) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.54/2014).............................87

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):.............................................87
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :....................................................................87

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................88 ADJOURNMENT................................................................................88

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

1. Redundancy payments: businesses which have ceased trading - reduce lodging period to enable the matter to be considered at the present meeting.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Sir, could I seek your advice on when it would be appropriate (a) to give notice I wish to defer P.119/2014 and P.122/2014 from next week's session.

The Bailiff :

From next week's session. Deputy G.P. Southern :

From next session but to bring forward if I may seek the permission of the House to bring forward and shorten the lodging period for my proposition P.120/2014 – Redundancy payments: businesses which have ceased trading. I think it is in the public interest that we debate this as soon as possible. I very much fear that next week's session is full of the Island Plan. We are not going to have any time to do any other business at all, and these are 8 people there not receiving redundancy or insolvency pay, and who will not be dealt with until September unless we can debate it sometime in this session, I think.

The Bailiff :

Right. Sorry, could you remind me, which are the ones you want to defer from ..? Deputy G.P. Southern :

To defer P.119/2014 - Milli's Contact Centre, and P.122/2014 - Survivor's Benefit, neither of which, I think, are urgent, but I believe Redundancy Payments - P.120/2014 - it is important that we are seen to get some insolvency payments to these people because this is exactly what happened last time and it is happening again.

The Bailiff :

It would be as well for Members to know exactly what lies ahead of them on this sitting, so perhaps this is a convenient moment to take your proposition. So you wish to propose that the lodging period for P.120/2014 be shortened so as to permit it to add to the end of the list for this current ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes. It has been lodged for 3 weeks plus so it is almost there anyway and it is a repeat exactly of what the House accepted when we had a temporary insolvency scheme, which was not delivering support in a sufficiently prompt manner. It looks like what we have with the real law now this time, in 2014, is suffering the same fault. I wish to get that discussed and debated at least before September because it will be ages that they have been unemployed now. They have been made redundant now for some 9 weeks and nothing is moving. The system is stuck, as it was again back in 2009.

The Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to say anything about whether that should be brought forward?

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I can understand where the Deputy is coming from, but the urgency is not going to be achieved by his proposition because it requires a law change. So he may say that we have to debate this today,

but it is not going to change anything because we have the insolvency benefit set in a piece of legislation.

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

Just following on from the previous speaker, perhaps the previous speaker could tell us if Deputy Southern 's proposition was accepted, even though a law change would be required, does the Minister not have discretion that he would be able to do something?

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Just a procedural matter to say to Members and remind them that since we have changed essentially what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. At the last session we made decisions to shorten lodging periods without even any discussion, automatically voted for them; a few of us did not. If we are to be a fair-minded Assembly, we need to apply the same principles whether it is a Back-Bencher's proposition or Ministerial propositions coming forward.

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

Just as I seconded this, I think what the Minister for Social Security has stated is for the debate. Deputy Southern has offered up a couple of other propositions and for tidying of business if people do not agree with the proposition on redundancy they will vote against. But I think, as Deputy Tadier has said, we have moved so many times on the public interest and this is nearly 4 weeks. We are just building up and building up because Deputy Southern will probably ask for it to be put at the beginning of the next session. So we will have to have this debate and I urge Members to give Deputy Southern the same as we have done for Ministers since we changed the Standing Orders to be in the interests of the public.

The Bailiff :

That is probably sufficient unless anyone else is standing?

5. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I just want to say it seems to me staggering that we have gone from almost impossible to have things brought forward to having it done as a matter of routine. Notwithstanding that, I just feel there is a difference when it is proposed for the same sitting. We have a very heavy agenda. I have prepared fully for what is on the agenda this time, but I was preparing next weekend for what is on the agenda next time. I think to do this at the eleventh hour is wrong.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Do you wish to reply, Deputy Southern ?

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes. I just wish to apologise for doing it at the last minute. I accept that that is the case.  There are occasions, though, when it is appropriate that this House responds to situations out there. This is a group of 8 people who have received no payment now for going on for 9 weeks. If we do not debate this, then we will not debate it, I think, until September and that will be 3 months when we have been seen to do nothing about hardship caused to 8 people made redundant by a company ceasing trading but not pursuing en desastré proposals.

The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel? The appel is asked for then in relation to Deputy Southern 's proposition, which is to bring forward P.120/2014 to this current sitting from next time's sitting and, of course, reduce the lodging period as a consequence. If you want to do that, you vote pour; if you do not, you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Well, Members were so anxious to discuss what they were going to discuss that they beat me to it in welcoming His Excellency to this current sitting. [Approbation] I am sure he is already enjoying it.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

May I just ask a point of order? Just for my own clarity, have we amended Standing Order 32? Do we not have to give 2 days' notice to the Greffier in order to debate something at the present meeting?

The Bailiff :

Well now, Connétable .. sorry, that was Standing Order .. remind me of the number? The Connétable of St. Mary :

Thirty-two.

[9:45]

The Bailiff :

Quite right. Sorry, I missed that.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Would it be in order to propose we suspend that Standing Order?

The Bailiff :

Yes, Members will now, if they wish to .. we have taken it but I do not think we should have. I think you will need to propose to suspend Standing Order 32.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Suspend Standing Order 32? Right. The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Right, and we do not need to have a debate on this, it seems to me, do we? Minister, do you wish to say anything?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Yes. I can understand what Deputy Southern is trying to achieve here, but I did not come to this Assembly, as the Constable of St. Mary said, in a position to debate P.120/2014. In fact, my department is working on the comments, which normally Deputy Southern would be furious if we had not lodged comments on one of his propositions. We have not finalised those comments. Therefore, Members are not going to be au fait with what my position is as Minister for Social Security, where the law stands, and I just think it is rushing something through. As I said before, it is not going to change anything because we have to change the law.

The Bailiff :

Very well. I must apologise to Members for not having reminded them of Standing Order 32. You will have to make that proposition, which you have, Deputy , and it has been seconded. Members need to vote on it. The consequence will be if this is passed then I think we can take the previous vote as having been valid. If this is not passed, then I am afraid the previous vote was not valid and, therefore, the proposition will not stand. The appel is called for then. The proposition now is to suspend Standing Order 32 so that Deputy Southern can bring his matter forward as discussed previously. The Greffier will now open the voting.

The Bailiff :

The Standing Order is suspended: so the previous vote stands. That brings us on to Public Business. Senator Le Marquand, would this be convenient if you wish to ask for your second amendment to be debated?

2. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014) - second amendment (P.102/2014 Amd.(2)) - proposition to reduce the minimum lodging period

2.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I was just going to ask you whether that was appropriate. Could I just explain to Members a further development over the last 24 hours? In fact, I was notified of this this morning. I had intended at the close of the speech of Deputy Mézec to basically ask the Assembly to refer his proposition to Scrutiny. I have now heard back from the Chairman of the appropriate Scrutiny Panel that they are of the opinion that they should not be scrutinising Back-Benchers' propositions. I respect that and, therefore, I am not going to make that proposal, which leaves me now in a situation where I need to apply for shortening of the lodging period on the second amendment so that this can be heard as part of the overall debate. The test which is applied is a public interest test now and it is, in my view, in the public interest that this Assembly be able to consider this amendment, the second amendment, at the same time as the proposition and the first amendment. In my view, the case for this is even stronger than it was for Deputy Southern 's because this is an amendment to an existing proposition. The same issues are going to come up in relation to consideration of this as would come up in relation to the main debate. Also, once I realised that this was something that I should do - and I realised that Thursday of last week and acted on it on Friday, although it was only, in fact, technically lodged on Monday - I did give as much notice as possible to the Members of this Assembly of my intention so that nobody was taken by surprise and people had the opportunity to be aware of what I was proposing. In my view, this is in the public interest because it is in the public interest that there be a proper debate as to whether or not prior to the ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I make a point of order? It seems that we are in risk of having a second speech later because surely the amendment is down as the second item and it should be up to .. Deputy Mézec 's item is in order and once that has been made it will then come to the amendment and then is the right time to be asked for the shortening period.

The Bailiff :

No, the normal and better practice is to do it beforehand so everyone knows whether they are going to be debating an amendment or not. Carry on, Senator.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have lost my flow there so I have to think where I was. Yes, it is, in my view, in the public interest that this Assembly is able to debate the issue which is set out in the second amendment as to whether prior to a decision in principle being made on this matter there should be an in-depth study of the issues involved. Now, it is my view that that is what should happen. Effectively, otherwise, we are rushing into making a decision on what is a most momentous matter which involves a complete redefinition of marriage, which has been at the very core of our society - and hopefully will remain at the core of our society and community - from time immemorial. To make such a change, even in principle, in my view, without there having been a proper study of the issues involved is insulting to the general public. It is probably insulting to both sides of the argument in relation to this matter because we as responsible Members of a responsible Legislature really should not be making major decisions in principle on the hoof without having all the facts, all the details, all the risks, as it were, associated with the proposition before us. I am not going to outline in detail ..

The Bailiff :

No, I think you must confine yourself to why you think it should be debated .. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, I am not going to outline in detail the issues, but they are set out clearly in the second amendment, the issues which I think are well deserving of more detailed study. If you think it is improper for me to go into the detail I will not, but I hope that Members have the second amendment and will have read that and will be aware of what these issues are. I ask the Assembly to reduce the lodging period on the amendment so that this can be debated now as part of this overall debate.

The Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to say anything on it? Yes, Deputy Tadier .

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

Two points, essentially. The first one is if it is such a momentous issue, why did the Minister in his busy schedule not find the time to put an amendment in in time so that he could have had this in order and be guaranteed a debate? It is clearly because it was an afterthought. It was a desperate attempt to scupper something which had been planned and on the table for the correct period of lodging. The second point is the right time to scrutinise this is not to use a device but it is when the Chief Minister, whoever that may be in the future, comes back with the substantive legislation after a period of consultation, which will necessarily have to take place anyway, and then Scrutiny can decide off their own bat if they want to scrutinise it. I would imagine that any Scrutiny Panel would want to scrutinise it. They would want to engage in the process. I am speaking ..

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

With respect, the Deputy has not understood what I said. This is not sending to Scrutiny. Deputy M. Tadier :

Essentially, the consultation period amounts to the same thing. It will happen anyway so there is no public interest test here to secure what will happen anyway. Any decent Chief Minister will have to engage and any decent Scrutiny Panel, when the legislation comes back, will at least want to look at it, issue comments, et cetera. My point is that there is no public interest to be gained by shortening the lodging period; quite the opposite because it does not do what it seeks to do. So I think we should robustly vote against the proposition that is currently being made.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes, briefly. Despite my plea previously, I see no merit in this particular request. [Members: Oh!] We have a wrecking amendment here designed to derail the process altogether, which is late. In fact, I would never come to the House - I do not think I have done that in 12 years - and say: "Sorry, I was late lodging it. Can you please consider it anyway?" No, you take the rules. That is the reality. I see no justification in what has been said today that we should bend the rules in this particular case.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

I am just wondering whether we could speed up time and if the Chief Minister could just give an undertaking that he would do this anyway if the proposition was lodged, as I would suspect would be appropriate with this type of legislation anyway. We could speed up the whole process.

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am the only openly gay Member of this Assembly and over the years it is not something that I speak about often. But over the years of my service in this Assembly I have been humbled by the acceptance, the tolerance, the inclusiveness and the respect that I have been treated as an entirely equal Member of this Assembly. Gay people have been the subject of unfairness, inequality and discrimination for decades and this Assembly has over the period of time since I have been a Member passed symbolically landmark and important ending of discrimination in the eyes of the state. These issues have been discussed, debated, ventilated in many parts of the world, including in Jersey. There is a detailed issue in relation to the established Church and the detailed legislation and I have an amendment before Members designed to achieve just that. I say with the greatest of respect to Senator Le Marquand that nothing is, I am afraid, going to yield any more information than is currently known and that currently Members know about this issue. If we accept the amendment, we are going to catalyse a divisive debate on both sides of an extremely difficult set of issues and I see no merit in accepting this late amendment. I suspect that nothing, if I may say respectfully to Senator Le Marquand, is going to change his mind and I would hope that Members would not accept this late amendment. I do not say anything unkind to Senator Le Marquand, but many people will say that this is an amendment just simply to put the issue off. We know enough about these issues to make a careful, general degree in principle and to move on and to move to the drafting of the legislation if the Assembly approves it and then to have a proper consultation on the detail. This is a proposition in the eyes of the State only and that is what is before Members. Sending a message that we are not going to be able to have that in principle, in the eyes of the State only, putting that beyond doubt, I think would be a sad day and would send an unfortunately negative message towards the community in terms of tolerance, inclusivity and acceptance.

The Bailiff :

Sorry, Senator, I am going to have to ask you to press on. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I know, but I want to say that there are consequences to what Senator Le Marquand is saying and I see no case. I do not think he is ever going to be persuaded in having more debate.

The Bailiff :

You have said that already, yes.

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

The last speech was a very good speech against the amendment but, correct me if I am wrong, we are now debating whether to raise Standing Orders. We did that ..

The Bailiff :

Connétable , sorry, just to interrupt, not to raise Standing Orders because in this case the 2 days' notice was given, so it is whether to reduce the minimum lodging period.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Thank you. We are debating whether to reduce the minimum lodging period so that the debate can be had on Senator Le Marquand's amendment. I am going to vote against that amendment, but I do think he has a right to be heard, just as I feel that Deputy Southern has a right to be heard and that is why I supported his similar request.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone have anything new to say just on whether the period should be shortened? Deputy Le Fondré. This is not a debate on the amendment.

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

Yes, I was worried that the last but one speech was a speech about the matter rather than whether we take it early. I think it is clearly a matter of public interest and the point I would like to make is while there are some members of the community who want this matter approved today, it is clearly the case that there are other members of the community that want the matter, in their view, properly consulted upon.

[10:00]

Surely, whichever side of that argument we sit, it is respectful of all of those views to have the debate in this Assembly; in other words to allow Senator Le Marquand to bring his amendment and have that debate today. So I will support Senator Le Marquand.

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

We are obviously deciding whether or not to debate an important amendment. The question I would like to ask is: as there are clearly contextual issues here, if we do not allow to exercise the Standing Order discretion in the public interest, can I have it confirmed that means that the amendment completely falls away and we will go ahead with the debate without that opportunity to have those contextual issues?

The Bailiff :

Yes, it does. Does any other Member wish to say anything?

8. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, it is quite a simple question to the Senator because in his proposal to shorten he never explained why to shorten it. On 28th May P.102/2014 was lodged. I want to make up my mind honestly and I want to hear an honest reason why the Senator has now brought this very late amendment.

9. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier :

This is a delaying tactic, there is no question of it, by the political right, the homophobic right. They are doing so because they are frightened of going to an election which is in October having made clear their own position on this issue. They are aware that their supporters in the Evangelical Christian right are homophobic in many cases and they do not want to have to face them down. Likewise, they do not want to have to face down the liberal opinion which would be disgusted by the rejection of this proposal. That is what lies behind it.

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

I would like to ask Deputy Le Cornu to withdraw his comment he has made about the Evangelical church. [Approbation] He cannot claim that the church is homophobic in that general term.

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is the only true speech of the day and Deputy Le Cornu is being shouted down for it. The Bailiff :

Can we return then? Does any other Member have something relevant to say on whether we should debate this amendment? There is a limit to how much Members can say about it I would have thought.

10. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Can I just appeal to Members to conduct themselves in this debate without vilifying other Members for simply having a different opinion? [Approbation]

11. Senator I.J. Gorst :

It is always difficult to know whether one has something relevant to say having been ruled by the Chair. Today I hope is not going to be a difficult debate. I hope that we are going to be respectful of each other and respectful of the differing views within our community because I think it is an important issue. We are elected to do what we think is best on behalf of our community and I hope that we can be respectful of each other. We may not agree but it is important that in our disagreeing we are respectful. I suspect I know where we are going to end the day, but I do think it is right that all aspects of opinion do have the right to be heard today. Therefore, I think that whether Senator Le Marquand's amendment is ultimately approved or not is right for this Assembly, but I do think it is right for the debate to be had on the amendment and then all opinion can have been considered.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I just add a point of information for Deputy Le Cornu? I would just ask him, if I may, he said the Evangelical right and I would just invite him to avoid a divisive debate. Not all the Evangelical people believe what he said.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Senator, this sounds to me like a second speech. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would invite him to consider withdrawing his remarks because I think that they are not helpful and also I believe not true because I have had many people from the Evangelical community supporting this proposition. I would just invite him if he could just withdraw his remarks because I think they are unkind, genuinely speaking, and I hope Members would understand why I am saying that. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

That is a matter for the Deputy . Now, Senator Le Marquand, do you wish to reply?

12. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I will start in response to Deputy Martin. The relative situation, as I said in the second amendment, is that I thought that someone else was putting in a similar amendment. Indeed, I was not certain that Senator Ozouf was not putting in a similar amendment. When Senator Ozouf 's amendment came forward, I noticed that although it was referring on into the future for study of a particular narrow issue, it was not altering the position that this Assembly would have made a decision in principle first. I was unhappy with that but then, I am afraid, I became embroiled in preparation in relation to States propositions last week. Members may recall that I had 6 propositions before the States last week, 2 of which were major pieces of legislation. I am afraid my focus and my concentration went almost entirely on to that. It was only once I had finished with those on Thursday that I began to think seriously and then I thought about referral to Scrutiny as a way forward. Then subsequently I realised that there was a risk involved with doing that that Scrutiny would do exactly what they have done, which is decided that it is not appropriate to scrutinise a Back-Bencher's amendment. It was from that point onwards that I realised that I needed to go ahead and lodge this amendment. This is not a wrecking amendment because apart from other things the amendment provides a timescale for the Chief Minister to consult and report back by the end of the year. Neither the proposition nor the amendment provides any such timescale. In a sense, potentially it accelerates forward the process of consideration, not slowing it. What it does is ask Members not to make a decision in principle before they have had proper consideration and study of the issues concerned. I was asked whether this will change my opinion on matters. That is, in my view, completely irrelevant. The issue here is should the States, before it makes a major decision on public social policy, have ensured that a proper detailed study of the effects of that has been made. That is for the benefit of all Members and it is also so that the general public will see that we have gone through a proper process in relation to this matter and not simply decided on the hoof, as it were. I maintain the proposition of the reduction of the lodging period so that the second amendment can be debated.

The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel? Senator B.I. Le Marquand: I ask for the appel.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

A point of clarification, if I may, of the speaker. He said he decided to lodge this after learning that the appropriate Scrutiny Panel had turned down the opportunity. Did he really mean that?

The Bailiff :

I did not understand him to say that at all. I thought he said he related it to Senator Ozouf 's proposition.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

He did say after learning that the Scrutiny Panel concerned had turned it down. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

No, that is not what I said. What I said was I was considering on Thursday a course of action of asking today for a referral to Scrutiny, but I then realised that there was a risk in that approach that, in fact, the Scrutiny Panel might decide that they did not want to scrutinise it. That is why I then proceeded with this. That is what I said.

The Bailiff :

Very well, so the matter before the Assembly on the appel  is the proposition of Senator Le Marquand that the lodging period for his second amendment be reduced so that the matter can be taken as part of today's debate. If you wish to do that, you vote pour; if you do not, you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.

3. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014)

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Could you please now clarify the order of the debate that we will now have? The Bailiff :

Yes. The order now then will be clearly the proposition will be made by Deputy Mézec . Then the amendment to be taken next is that of Senator Le Marquand on the basis that it effects the greater change to what is proposed. If that is carried, then I think yours will fall away, Senator. If, on the other hand, his is not carried, then we will move on to debate your amendment. Very well, I invite the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to agree in principle that same sex couples should be permitted to enter into civil marriages and to request the Chief Minister to bring forward for approval by the States the necessary draft legislation to give effect to the proposal.

The Bailiff :

Before inviting Deputy Mézec to propose it, may I just endorse one or 2 comments that have been made? This is clearly a subject on which strong feelings may be held on different sides, but this Chamber must debate things in a courteous and measured manner and that is what Standing Orders provide. Therefore, Members are not to impute improper motives or make offensive remarks about other Members. [Approbation]

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

This is inevitably going to be one of those debates where the States of Jersey has 2 options. On the one hand, we have a chance to do something good and do something right. We have an opportunity to take a step forward to becoming a fairer and more just Island that treats all members of the community with dignity and respect. On the other hand, we have a chance to send out a message that this is an Assembly that lacks the bravery and the courage to do what is right because of a noisy but influential minority group that wants to hold back the aspirations of other people. I sincerely hope that we choose the former and stand up as an Assembly worthy of the title. This proposition is motivated by one self-evident and inalienable truth and that is that gay people are completely normal human beings. There is nothing wrong with them. They do not choose to be the way they are and there is nothing wrong with the way they are. To them, their relationships are equally as legitimate as heterosexual relationships. They mean exactly the same thing and their purpose is exactly the same. They live their lives the same way as everybody else. They want happy and fulfilling lives in the same way that everybody else does. If you accept that as being true, then there is no legitimate argument that says they should not be treated as full and equal members of our society with full and equal rights. If you really believe that, then you should also believe that they should have equal access to the same institutions as everybody else. So this is a matter of justice and equality. It is about saying to a group of people who have been marginalised throughout history that you are equal to everybody else and your sexual orientation does not make

you less worthy of respect than anyone else. That is the message that we have an opportunity of sending out here today. Now, obviously, it is a contentious issue that has stirred public discussion. Some have said that this is not about equality because gay couples can already have civil partnerships, but I say that is a disingenuous argument because those same people will shout from the rooftops about how valuable an institution they think marriage is, how sacred it is, and how worth defending it is, and they are absolutely right, of course. Who would not agree with that? But they do not espouse the same emotions for civil partnerships. They do not care about those. They are not important enough to start campaign groups for or to lobby politicians to defend, so how can they possibly say that this is not about equality when it is second best that they expect gay people to settle for? Whatever anyone says, this is about equality. Some are worried about the impact allowing same sex couples to get married will have on society, but I can assure Members that there will only be one consequence of allowing same sex couples to get married and that is that same sex couples will get married. It will not speed up the melting of the ice caps. The Russians will not invade and a plague of locusts will not ravish this year's harvest. For any U.K.I.P. (United Kingdom Independence Party) sympathisers in the Chamber, it will not spoil our weather this summer. Everything will be exactly as it was before except a few good Jersey men and women will be able to live their lives just that extra bit happier, and I cannot see what could possibly be wrong with that. Some very interesting things have been said in the run-up to this debate by people that oppose equal marriage. Some have said that their position comes from a point of view where they are not anti-gay but are pro-marriage, but how can you possibly not be anti-gay when you are vociferously insistent that gay people are excluded from something you consider to be special and good? That is just a complete contradiction and excluding them on the basis that they are gay. You either believe gay people are equal or you do not. This debate has brought out the worst in some people. Some of the messages we have had in our email inbox have been utterly atrocious and I deplore them and hope Members of this Assembly will deplore them. There was one in particular that said: "Rather than extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples, redefining marriage would introduce the instabilities and infidelities commonly associated with homosexual

relationships into society's understanding of marriage." Now, those words are homophobic. I am not casting aspersions on whoever said it, but those words are homophobic. To associate negative attributes to an entire category of people who do not choose to be the way they are is utterly senseless and offensive. It is no different from saying that black people are commonly associated with crime. It is exactly the same sort of thing and I deplore those sorts of comments.

[10:15]

Homophobia has no place whatsoever in the 21st century in a civilised discourse and I hope all Members will agree with that point. There are some people who have legitimate non-bigoted concerns of this issue and it would simply be churlish not to treat them seriously and try to address them. There are some who have concerns about the impact it might have on their churches and that is fine. That is a legitimate concern. It is an important discussion to be had and watertight safeguards have to be created, which is why I completely support the amendment  lodged by Senator Ozouf . But the time to discuss these safeguards and these issues is in the legislation drafting phase. There will be a public consultation and any worries that might exist can be nipped in the bud there and then through that consultation process. It is not right or necessary to avoid making a decision today and instead having a consultation on the principle, which will inevitably drag out the same comments that we have already had in our email inboxes from lobbyists. The consultation will end up being about the principle rather than the substance of the legislation, so the States should today make a decision that it is right that we treat gay people with equality and dignity rather than delaying that decision to another day. Now, Members' faiths are obviously going to affect how they vote today and I personally do not have a problem with that. I believe that politics is fundamentally about your values and your values are going to be determined by all of your experiences in life, including your faith, and that is absolutely fine. But I urge those Members who have strongly held religious views on this subject to respect that not everybody shares those views and their happiness should not be determined by a faith that they do not subscribe to. That would just simply be unfair. Religious institutions are not being asked to change their doctrines. In fact, religious people and groups we have seen have been torn on this issue. I have met many people who passionately believe in equal marriage specifically because of their interpretations of the teachings of Jesus, so there is a diversity of view within the religious community and that must be respected. If that is respected, then so should the right of other people to have their relationships recognised in law as equal to everybody else's. In 2009, when the States first decided to accept the principle of civil partnerships, there were 7 countries in the world that allowed same sex couples to get married. Today, that number has more than doubled to 16. There has only been one opinion poll done in Jersey and I accept that it was not scientific but the question was non-biased and it showed 81 per cent in favour of equal marriage here. But more scientific polls that have been done across the U.K. have always shown a consistent majority in favour but, in particular - and I make this point because I think this is important - when they have done polling for people between the ages of 16 and 34 they have all shown around an 80 per cent majority in favour. This is just the way society is going and how attitudes are changing, how we are becoming more accepting, more respectful and more tolerant. As we live lives in which we encounter more openly gay people than was likely to happen several decades ago, if you were growing up then, you just begin to realise that these people are completely normal and you do not develop any sort of instinct to treat them differently. When I was growing up, a very, very close relative of mine was a lesbian and she was in a long-term relationship with another woman. I absolutely adored them both. I adore them both still. Growing up, I saw nothing unusual about that. At school, every now and then somebody would come out as gay in their teens and these were people who you would have known for several years. They come out, it is no big deal. You do not really think that much of it. As you have these experiences, these attitudes just become more and more common and that is the way things are going. Jersey often lags behind the U.K. when it comes to these sorts of things. Jersey legalised homosexuality far later than the U.K. It took decades to allow abortions and to equalise the age of consent for homosexual couples. We still do not have statutory maternity leave or discrimination law for categories other than race. So I am urging Members not to let it be decades before we follow the U.K. on this important social issue, too. If Members grasp this opportunity and vote for this proposition,  it will just be a year or 2 before it is sorted rather than the decades that it historically has been. We do not have to lag behind. We could lead the way. It is simply a matter of political choice. One of my heroes when I was growing up was the singer/songwriter Bob Dylan. He famously wrote the song "The Times They Are A-Changin'" about the civil rights

movement in America. Now, we look back now on that struggle and just think how obviously right it was to give equality to black people. One of the main points of Bob Dylan's song is that these issues may be controversial at first, but over time history does not look back favourably on those that got in the way of change. Now, I will not torture Members by attempting to sing it, but the most poignant line in that song goes: "Come, Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall. For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled. There's a battle outside and it's raging. It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls for the times they are a-changin'." That is the point. In years to come, people will wonder what the big deal was. Jersey has a long way to go. There are all sorts of other things we need to do. We need to prioritise bringing in anti-discrimination law for things like age, gender, disability, et cetera. All of this is better off done sooner rather than later. With this proposition, we have an opportunity to take one huge step forward and send out a message to the rest of the world that we are a modern, progressive and respectful society that treats all of its citizens fairly and equally. I urge Members to back the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

2. Civil marriages: same sex couples (P.102/2014) - second amendment (P.102/2014 Amd.(2))

Very well, then we come next to the amendment of Senator Le Marquand. I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Page 2 - for the words "in principle" substitute the words "in relation to the proposal"; for the words "and to request" substitute the words "that the" and for the words "to bring forward for approval by the Assembly the necessary draft legislation to give effect to the proposal" substitute the words "be requested by 31st December 2014 to investigate and report to the States as to whether it would be appropriate to introduce legislation to allow this, with appropriate safeguards, and as to the arrangements which should be made for the recognition in Jersey, in some way, of civil partnerships and civil marriages entered into outside of Jersey."

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

Because it is quite confusing, that amendment, without it being consolidated, I am going to read out slowly the effect of that amendment on the proposition so that Members can hear and assimilate what it would mean in practice if it were passed. The proposition would then read: "To agree in relation to the proposal that same sex couples be permitted to enter into civil marriages, that the Chief Minister be requested by 31st December 2014 to investigate and report to the States as to whether it would be appropriate to introduce legislation to allow this with appropriate safeguards and as to the arrangements which should be made for the recognition in Jersey in some way of civil partnerships and civil marriages entered into outside of Jersey." The important difference between this amendment and that of Senator Ozouf - the important changes - are as follows. Firstly, the process of investigation reporting would take place prior to the States making a decision in principle. Secondly, as I said before, it imports a time period for the work to be done, which does not exist either in the proposition or in the amendment. Thirdly, it brings into the work to be done the important issue of decisions on recognition of civil partnerships and civil marriages entered into outside of Jersey. I begin with the last point. Although within our existing legislation there is a degree of recognition, the fact is that the world has changed. If I take an example of a country quite close to us, we have a situation in which in France same sex marriage is now permitted, but our legislation has not, as I understand it, moved in order to recognise that in any way. Similarly, it has not as yet moved and needs to move to recognise the same position in the U.K. Now, it seems to me it is important - and I concede this principle - that where other jurisdictions have permitted other relationships which are analogous, as it were, to civil partnership or to marriage that we have some method of recognising it. So that is an addition - I believe an improvement - which most Members would recognise in relation to the original proposition. Turning now to the proposition, it is a highly significant matter which we are debating here. I can conservatively say that at least 1,500 years of marriage as a committed for life, exclusive relationship between one man and one woman would be changed by the proposition. I have been conservative with 1,500 years because I think it has been understood as such in many communities for longer periods, but I am unable to say what

exactly was going on in Jersey in those similar periods. What will the effect of redefining marriage be? It is at best a redefining of the term. At worst, it could be described as an undefining of the term of marriage. What I mean by undefining is by significantly changing the original definition, creating a situation in which there is great uncertainty for the future as to what will be considered in or not considered in marriage. Once the doors, as it were, have been opened in terms of one change, what other changes may follow? I do not need to tell the Members of the Assembly - but I am going to do so - how important marriage is. It is the solid foundation block of our whole society. People coming to the end of their political careers, as I may be, sometimes think in terms of a legacy, so what is the legacy of Senator Le Marquand? I will tell Members that. It is nothing that I have done either in the legal field or in public administration or in politics; it is none of those whatsoever. It is my family, my daughters, sons-in-law, grandchildren; my wife, of course, very much involved in that process [Laughter] along the way, but I am talking about legacy on into the

future. Where has that come from? It has come from the covenant relationship between myself and my wife, which has been replicated in the next generation and which I hope will be replicated in generations to follow as the absolute bedrock of society. That is my legacy. My daughters and grandchildren would be embarrassed probably by my saying that, but that is my legacy. The other things probably someone else would have done anyway. I am passionate about marriage and I do not want anything, no matter how well meaning, to water it down. Members of the Assembly will see in the report that I have set out major areas of concern that in my view need to be looked at in depth before the decision is made in principle on this matter. Firstly, the effect which the undefining or redefining of marriage will have in the medium to long term. I have already said that once the definition is loosened in this way, when will it next be loosened? Will the lifelong commitment go at some point, which is a vital part of it? Secondly, the medium and long-term effect on Church of England clergy in particular and on the relationship between them and their Parish, in the case of rectors. Redefining in this way will leave the Anglican clergy and the clergy of any other church which decides that they are not going to marry same sex couples wide open to the accusation of unjust discrimination in a position in which conscience and belief mean that they cannot go ahead in this way and perform this particular set of marriages. How long will that situation last before there is a judgment in the Human Rights Court or elsewhere or political pressure moves things on to say: "No, it is not right that churches be able to maintain this position of conscience in relation to this matter"? If that happens, the only way they will be able to respond reasonably is by saying: "Well, we are not going to marry anybody then." The matter then will become a civil matter and so on. There are, in my view, issues here which need to be looked at very carefully, and they are particularly pertinent because of the historic arrangement and relationship between a rector and his Parish. With respect to Deputy Mézec , he has tried to talk in terms of civil marriage as if civil marriage was something separate from marriage as conceived and

understood within the Church of England. [10:30]

My understanding of the position is this. Although there have at times been restraints and controls in terms of who could remarry within a church, there has never in the past been any difference of opinion on the definition of what marriage itself was. The effect of this, if the state decides that marriage will now incorporate something which, as it were, the established church cannot accept is so, will be to create a division and a split and a totally unsatisfactory position. It may be that there are Members who are quite happy about that. There may be Members who would prefer if there was not an established Church of England as part of our community life and so on, but that is the reality. In my view, serious study has to be made of this kind of issue. There is also the issue of individual conscience and of church schools. What of people whose personal faith means that they cannot accept this new definition? What of church schools whose ethos and faith means that they cannot accept this definition? History, I am afraid, elsewhere shows that it is likely that the state will at some point ride roughshod over their conscience and say: "No, you have a duty to accept that which we have put into the law." That will be the official line and perhaps: "We will take away your funding unless you do so." Those matters need to be very carefully considered and there may be other issues of which I am unaware. As I said before, this amendment provides a timescale for the work to be done with reporting back by the end of this year. If we decide the principle today, this could put the Chief Minister into an extremely difficult position because what if, as part of the process of consultation and the consideration of issues, he comes up with some issue of fundamental importance which makes this very, very difficult to decide upon and we have already made the decision in principle, unaware of those issues or the impact or import of them? It puts him, in my view, into a very unfair situation. We should, in my view, pass the whole issue, including the principle, to him for consideration at this point. It is, in my view, frankly insulting to the people of Jersey, of whichever side they are in this argument, for us to be seeking to make a snap decision on this most important area. I cannot conceive of a more important area than this of social policy. Whichever way people are minded or if they have no opinion on this, in my opinion

this Assembly owes it to the people of Jersey that we should engage in a proper study through the Chief Minister's Department as to the effects, et cetera. To fail to do so, I cannot conceive of any other area in which we would not insist that such a detailed study had happened before we made the decision. I move the second amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment? Senator Ferguson.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I think my comments will probably go for all amendments on the main proposition so you will be spared my continual rabbiting on. [Interruption] That is a bit unkind, is it not? [Laughter] I must admit, though, I do not understand the full collateral effects of this proposition. As Deputy Mézec will know, having studied law, there is a law of unintended consequences and I have not yet heard any explanation of the unintended consequences of approving the main proposition. I have also not received any comments from the Council of Ministers. Why not? This is a change in policy which did not figure in the Strategic Plan, so why has there been a deathly silence, apart from amendments from the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Deputy Chief Minister? At the same time, I have heard comments from the public, roughly evens for and against. I understand the position of the Catholic Church. I have heard the position of the Church of England, so I thought I had better find out what my own church, the Methodists, were officially thinking. I have heard plenty of the grassroots thinking so I thought I had better find out what the official line was. They have a working party working on the concept. They have found that opinions are sharply divided and their phrase is "contradictory convictions". The working party has recommended, as I understand it, that there be a 2-year review, a period of discernment to consider the question of relationships on a much wider basis. There are inherent problems in redefining marriage which could lead to a sharply divided society in the Island, and I am sure this is not what is desired by the proposer of the main proposition. I do wonder why we have not looked seriously at the Guernsey option, for example, which follows the French model rather than the United Kingdom, with a union civile and then an optional church ceremony. I would suggest that, as the Methodists are doing, more work needs to be done in order to achieve a consensus regarding the proposals and I, therefore, support the amendment.

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

I did send an email to States Members over the weekend, which I hope they had a chance to read, where I gave some of my thoughts on this. I absolutely completely 100 per cent oppose this amendment and I think some of the points that have been made by Senator Le Marquand need addressing because I think some of them just do not make sense. He says that we need some sort of investigation to find out the effects of allowing same sex couples to get married. Well, there is only one thing that is going to happen from letting same sex couples get married and that is that they will get married. If the proposition is accepted without Senator Le Marquand's amendment, there is going to be a consultation process anyway on the form the legislation takes, so it will be possible to address some of these issues they may have about churches carrying out marriages and what implication that may have under the definition of civil marriage. But Senator Ozouf and I have spoken to the people at the Law Draftsmen's Office and they have told us that it is perfectly possible to do this. It will take a bit of thinking to get around it but it is totally possible. Senator Le Marquand talked about the longstanding definition of marriage and he talked about how it has lasted for 1,500 years, or whatever the figure he gave was. Marriage 1,500 years ago was a very, very different thing to what it is today. Going back historically, you can even take biblical references if you want to about what marriage has meant previously. Monogamy has not always been a staple part of marriage in this world. There have historically been lots of examples of polygamist marriages in Judeo-Christian society. He talked about marriage being life long and I thought that was really interesting. There was a guy about 500 years ago called Henry who had something to say on this issue. Admittedly, he took it a bit too far when it came to lifelong commitment, but divorce has been around for a very long time and the issue of marriages being lifelong we now accept needs a bit of flexibility because you cannot have a lifelong marriage. If 2

people get married and all of a sudden one of them realises that the husband is an alcoholic, he is abusive and all sorts of things, there has to be some sort of get out clause. That is absolutely fundamental to a human being's wellbeing and for community. Senator Ferguson talked about the law of unintended consequences that I know about from having studied law. Just to let Members know the law of unintended consequences is not an actual law, it is just a saying. The Netherlands has had same sex marriage since 2001 and the last time I checked, I was there just a couple of years ago, they seemed to be getting on quite all right. The community still exists. People are still happy. For all we know they may even go on to a World Cup victory in the next week or so. Their society still manages just fine. In the wording for Senator Le Marquand's amendment, he has raised a few issues. Under section A in the report he talks about whether arrangements can be made for the recognition of civil marriages outside the Island in Jersey. Well, I have already asked about this issue in the States. I asked the Chief Minister what he was going to do to look at this law once the U.K. started having their first same sex marriages because there was a gap that would exist. The Chief Minister told me that he would look at it and that he had already sent his officers to look at it. If you look at Schedule 1 of the Civil Partnerships Law it already has a list of various legal relationships that exist in other countries that in Jersey are recognised as civil partnerships. That list just needs to be updated really so that it includes whatever there is now in France, whatever there is now in England and Wales. So that issue in itself is one that can be dealt with completely and separately, is being dealt with completely separately and is not anything really that means the States should not back the principle of equal marriage today. Senator Ferguson mentioned what Guernsey are thinking about, about the union civile. We do not know a huge amount about that. We do not know if it definitely is the right way to go about it. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but once we have agreed in principle, this is what it is about, we agree in principle that same sex couples should be allowed to get married. Then we look at how we do it because maybe the Guernsey option is the one we want to go for. Maybe it is not. That discussion will take place during the consultation with the Chief Minister. What I see with this amendment, if States Members adopt it, is that it is what I spoke about at the beginning of my speech on the main proposition. It would be the States lacking the courage to stand up and say in principle we believe that gay people are equal and their relationships should have equal status to other people's relationships. Having this consultation or this research into the effect, which by the way most of that research we just need to look at what went down in the U.K. when they were passing their Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. They will have done all of this stuff. We just need to look at that. Having this consultation process will not change anybody's opinion. You either believe that gay people are equal or you do not. What is a report looking into the effects going to do to change people's minds on this? It is not an issue of practicality, it is an issue of morality. It is whether you believe in principles of equality and this amendment does nothing whatsoever to address people's concerns on that. All it will do is delay the inevitable, and I say that we say to Members of this community that we are an Assembly that will stand up for equality, not an Assembly that will kick