States Meeting Transcript - 15th July 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 15th JULY 2014

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ................................................................. 5

1. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.103/2014) ... 5

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ............ 5

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...................................................................... 6
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :.......................................................... 6
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson: .................................................................... 7
4. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :........................................................ 7
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :.................................................. 8
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :.......................................................... 8
7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter : ...................................................... 9
8. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 9
9. Senator B.I. Le Marquand: ............................................................... 10 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ............................................... 10
10. The Deputy of Trinity : ................................................................ 10

2. The Deputy of Trinity : .................................................................... 12

2. Urgent Oral Questions .................................................................... 12

2.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the resignation of the Treasurer of the States: ................................. 13 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ............................ 13

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 13
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 13
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 13
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 14
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 15
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 15
7. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 15
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ................................................................. 16
9. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier : ........................................................ 17
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 17

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ................................................................ 18

3. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): third amendment - proposal of Senator P.F.C. Ozouf to reduce lodging period ....................................................................................... 18

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 18

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 19
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 19

3. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ....................................................... 20
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 20
5. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ............................................................ 20
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour : ................................................ 20
7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 20
8. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 20
9. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier : ..................................................... 21
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 21
11. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 21
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................. 21

2. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): second amendment - proposal of Deputy G.P. Southern to reduce lodging period .............................................................................. 22

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ...................................................... 22
2. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 23

4. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014) ................................................................................ 24

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ................ 24

2. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): third amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.(3)) .................................. 27

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 28
2. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 29
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 31
4. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 32
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier : ........................................................ 32
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley: ............................................................. 33
7. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 34
8. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 34
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 35
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 36
11. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary :.................................................... 36
12. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ...................................................... 36
13. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu: ................................................................ 37
14. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 38
15. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 39
16. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 40
17. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: .............................................................. 41
18. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 41
19. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ................................................................. 41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 47 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 47

3. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.) ............................................ 47

4.3.1 The Deputy of St. John : .................................................................. 48

4. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P118) (P.118/2014 Amd.Amd.) ................................................................... 49

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 49
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 51
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean: .................................................................. 51
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 52
5. The Deputy of St. John : .................................................................. 52
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 52
7. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 52

5. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.) - resumption ............................ 55

1. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 55
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 56
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 56
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 57
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 57
6. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 58
7. Senator P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................. 58
8. The Deputy of St. John : .................................................................. 59

6. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): second amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.(2))................................ 60

4.6.1 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ...................................................... 61

7. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): second amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.(2)) – amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.(2)Amd.) .............................................................................. 62

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 62
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 63
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 63
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 64
5. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 64
6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 64
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................... 64
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 64

8. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): second amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.(2)) - resumption ................. 65

1. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 65
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................. 66
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 66
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 67
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 67
6. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : .................................................. 69
7. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 70
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : .................................................................... 70
9. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .................................................................. 71
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley: .......................................................... 71
11. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 72
12. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement : ................................................ 73
13. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 73
14. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu: ................................................................ 74

15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: .............................................................. 75
16. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 76
17. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : .................................................. 76
18. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ................................................................... 78
19. Deputy A.K.F. Green: ................................................................. 78

9. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014) - as amended................................................................. 80

5. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) ....................... 81

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ............................................................................ 81 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 81 Senator B.I. Le Marquand: ...................................................................... 81

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel (The Minister for Planning and Environment): .................. 82

2. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – tenth amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(10)) ...................................................................... 84

5.2.1 Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 85

3. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – tenth amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(10)) – amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(10)Amd.) ....................... 85

5.3.1 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.................................................................... 86

4. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – tenth amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(10)) - as amended ...................................................... 86
5. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – ninth amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(9)) ........................................................................ 86

5.5.1 Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 87

6. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – ninth amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(9)) - amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(9)Amd.).......................... 87

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.................................................................... 87
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 88
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 88
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.................................................................... 88

7. Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – ninth amendment (P.37/2014 Amd.(9)) - as amended ........................................................ 88

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ................................................................ 89
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 89

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 90

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.103/2014) The Bailiff :

We were going to take a question to the Minister for Treasury and Resources but Deputy Le Fondré will wait until he returns. That seems sensible. So on that basis we move on to P.103, Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law, lodged by the Minister for Health and Social Services. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law. A Law to amend further the Restriction on Smoking (Jersey) Law 1973. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of premature death and ill health in Jersey, and yet every day we see children coming into contact with second-hand smoke, which can have a devastating effect on their health. We also know that children who see adults smoking are more likely to smoke. Often children have no or little voice in the issues of their health and certainly when it comes to exposure of cigarettes - of smoke - from adults, they have very little. Health and Social Services Department have therefore been reviewing future options for action to protect our children. During last year, the department led on the consultation protecting children from second-hand smoke. Many countries, including England, Ireland, Scotland and France, have been taking steps to protect children from the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The purpose of this public consultation was to gauge public opinion and explore Islanders' views about protecting children from second-hand smoke in public places, private homes and cars. Just under 3,000 Islanders took part in this consultation to have their say on the matter and almost 8 out of 10 of them said they would support a law in Jersey to stop smoking in cars carrying children under 18 years of age. Those consultation findings were published earlier this year. The 2013 Jersey Annual Social Survey, designed to reach conclusions representative of Islanders as a whole, indicated that 81 per cent of people would support such a ban. Very encouragingly, 66 per cent of smokers were also in support. Following these strong views voiced by the public in last year's consultation, I am persuaded to put in place this amendment to the law that will allow the restriction of smoking in motor vehicles carrying under-18 year-olds. Throughout the progression of this amendment to today's final stage, I am pleased to have the support of the Council of Ministers and the Comité des Connétable s and of course from the public. The proposed amendment is made under the Restriction on Smoking (Jersey) Law 1973. The amendment will extend the law to include a definition of motor vehicle as well as extending prohibitions and restrictions to include motor vehicles carrying a person under 18 years of age. This is primary law and will allow the introduction of detailed regulations in the near future that will bring into effect these restrictions. Discussions have already taken place with States of Jersey Police and they are confident that enforcing these new restrictions will fit in their regular police checking requiring no additional resources. However, sometimes these laws are less about enforcement and more about compliance as social norms change alongside a shifting majority view and public support. Legislation just helps to shift norms more rapidly. An example was the ban on smoking in workplaces and I think how many of us would turn back the clocks to allow smoking in offices, restaurants and cafés. In essence, some degree of conformity is necessary for society to function and to be protected. The success of these proposed Regulations will be measured primarily by a reduction in children's risk of and exposure to cigarette smoke in motor vehicles rather than the number of people charged for an offence. The aim of these proposed amendments is all about protecting the health and even lives of our young people, protecting the future of our Island. We know that in Jersey around 160 babies each year are highlighted during their 6-week check as being at risk of exposure to second-hand smoke; evidence of increased harm from second-smoke in the enclosed space of a car, even with windows open. Information from the schools survey data from 2014 shows that 10 per cent of year 8 and year 11 students are exposed at least weekly to second-hand smoke in cars. If similar levels of exposure are experienced across all ages under 18, nearly 2,000 children could be experiencing weekly exposure to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in cars. There is an increased 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher risk of acute respiratory illness such as asthma among children exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke. There is a higher incidence of ear infections and increased likelihood of development of disabilities and behaviour problems. Evidence for prohibiting smoke in motor vehicles carrying anybody under the age of 18 is also very convincing. Several studies have shown that second-hand smoke levels and pollutants in vehicles can be extremely high because of the confined area in which the smoke is circulated, even if the windows are open. Another study has shown that exposure to smoke in cars significantly increases the risk of initiating and encouraging smoking, further lending support to the case for legislation to protect our children. Acting on the growing research evidence, a number of countries, including Australia and Canada, have already implemented laws that prohibit smoking and the use of tobacco in vehicles, which carry children. England and Wales are similarly pursuing law changes, which are expected by April next year. So, with all this evidence, this is something we need to do, and I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

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

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Just a query. People can drive when they are 17. Does this mean that a driver, a 17 year-old driver, is unable to smoke in a car, which would seem rather odd? Provision might have been made to deal with that but I could not see it. That is the only question.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I broadly welcome this law change and it would be interesting to hear some of the arguments that will come out today, some of the, what I could call spurious libertarian arguments, who are more worried about the rights of adults to inflict medical damage on people under 18 in their cars. Hopefully there will not be too many of those arguments, but putting that concern ahead of the health benefits. What I am disappointed at and what I would like the Minister to engage is that the report and all the statistics always focus on obviously the negative health aspects of second-hand smoking, always in the context of cars. When it says 160 babies are at risk of exposure to second- hand smoke, it does not say in cars, I mean these babies who are at risk to second-hand smoking, presumably because they have parents who are smoking around them, does that happen in cars? I mean what if these parents do not own a car? If they are smoking in a bedsit with a 4 week-old child and they are doing that during the first few weeks of life, is that not of concern to the Minister?

[9:45]

It is something I have raised in the past. Why not just extend it to enclosed spaces? If the answer is because it is not enforceable, the Minister has already addressed that, because it is about changing the attitudes of people in society, so you have a law and say: "You cannot smoke in a car with a baby but it is perfectly fine to smoke in your bedsit with a baby", and I do not know why the Minister and the department has not taken that aspect on board because surely a car journey in Jersey lasts, what, 20 minutes, so you go from St. Catherine even to Corbière, which is probably one of the longer journeys you might do, that is half an hour. Absolutely right that there should not be any coerced passive smoking going on in that car, but the real damage will happen in the home when a baby is sitting there in the corner, a small toddler, Corrie is on television, the Super Lights, or whatever the cigarettes, the 20-packs come out, probably 20 to 40 cigarettes being smoked there, and the Minister is saying: "That is fine, we have no interest in helping those individuals." That is where the real risk is so I would like the Minister to address that. Is this an easy step? Is this perhaps the low-hanging fruit? Of course you are pushing on an open door, are you not, if you say: "Should we ban smoking in cars with children?" Of course anyone in their right mind is going to say yes to that. If a similar question had been asked: "Should we ban smoking in bedsits where there are babies?" you would probably get 95 per cent of the public saying: "Yes, of course we should do that." So it is all about which questions are asked. So, of course I fully support this, because it is a step in the right direction, but there are underlying questions, which I think the Minister needs to address, and that is the perfect time I think to give way to the next speaker in Senator Ferguson perhaps.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Frankly, I can talk about this because I am an ex-smoker. But what I would like to know is, since when is it appropriate for the States to act in loco parentis, for that is implied by this proposition. In fact we are gradually slipping into a Brave New World come 1984 come Animal Farm situation. It is not for the States to dictate a lifestyle. It is for the States to educate. I have had occasion to discuss this with constituents, either they do not smoke or they do not with children in the car. This proposition is akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Minister has talked about workplaces and the restriction on smoking. Having lived through this period as a smoker, I can assure this Assembly that the restrictions came into play, apart from pubs, well after the social change and the businesses had stopped smoking on their premises. The same applies to this current restriction. The report is replete with statistics, which are expressed in percentages, and it is only just now in her speech that the Minister has said there were 3,000 people, which is 3 per cent of the population, replying to the consultation. When you put percentages in a report it usually means that the actual number is less impressive. Is this an example of a vocal minority or have in fact, as in fact the social background, the social morrow's practice, moved on and the legislation is just trying to catch up with what is happening in the world? The problem with this proposition is that this legislation is pretty well unenforceable. We cannot stop mobile phone use, so how on earth are we going to do this? With great respect, if Members had spent time with the Honorary Police, they would have appreciated the total impracticality of this. As an ex-Centenier, I can assure you that stopping people on mobile phones is almost impossible and adding to the list of unenforceable legislation is a totally nonsensical way of Government business and waste of time. In fact trying to enforce clearing up dog messes is yet another piece of unenforceable legislation. I am told that in order to prove that the dog mess came from a particular dog you need to D.N.A. (deoxyribonucleic acid) test the mess and the dog. I mean, really, come on. I would also point out to the Minister that smoking is an entirely legal occupation inside private property and surely a car is private property, which brings me back to 1984 and Brave New World. It is quite wrong for us as a government to dictate people's lifestyles. By all means, educate. For once, try the carrot and not the stick. I urge Members to reject this .. I was going to say "proposition", but I do not know that it should be dignified by that title, Sir. [Laughter]

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

I  will  probably  come  from  a  slightly  different  angle  to  the last  speaker,  also having  been a Centenier, but I am going to go back somewhat further. Just after the occupation when televisions were very rare in any household, families used to go to one another's homes to either play cards or for other entertainment on a weekend. I recall well as a young child being put in the back of a van, my father was an avid smoker of over 100 a day, and having to put up with driving to St. Helier or wherever aunty or uncle lived for an evening's entertainment. We would get there and everybody appeared to be smoking, you could not even see across the room. Hours later you would leave to come home, get put in a cold vehicle, which started to fill up with smoke, you maybe just fell asleep when you got home - you were about 5 or 6, or whatever age you would be - only to be woken up and put into a cold bed, and you would think: "Well my word." Even today, when I think of anybody playing cards, I think: "Oh, no thank you", because that always reminds me of a smoke-filled room, having been brought up with that as a background. I have nothing against cards, it is just the thought of it as a child; that memory stays with me close to 70 years later. That is the kind of thing children remember. I recall also going into my parents' home many years later when I came back from sea and the house had just been decorated, the rooms were, shall we say, a white, for instance, or similar. Go off, and a few months later came back, and the colour of the paintwork was the colour of this chamber, it was brown, and my mother was not a smoker at all, but she had this passive smoke. Needless to say she died of cancer. To me, anything that will prevent, from a very early age, young children having to go through this scenario of sitting in the back of a vehicle with people smoking, to me must be right for the child. I would, unlike the previous speaker, who mentioned what the Honorary Police do or do not do and the way they would deal with it, there are ways of dealing with it. Yes, you do not have to stop the vehicle there and then you can take the J number and get in touch with the family concerned, and a few wise words or a Parish Hall Inquiry, or whatever, there are ways of dealing with it, as my Honorary Police in St. John and in the rest of the Island deal with mobile phone offences now. They do not necessarily stop the vehicle there and then, they have seen the offence, they take the J number, follow it through, and the offences are dealt with. Yes, dogs are slightly different, but in fairness I think this is probably the right way forward. We have taken the cigarettes out of the public place, i.e. public houses and the like, and it is a far better atmosphere when you go into a restaurant or into public houses where you do not have a smoke-filled room, your clothes, you get home and you hang them up, the following day there is no smell of nicotine on everything, and therefore I think it is the right way forward. Thank you.

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

I notice, as an example Article 3, apparently this only applies to smoking tobacco, so presumably you can smoke anything else in a car and this law will not have any effect. [Laughter] But I agree with the comments made by Deputy Tadier , as far as I am concerned by far the greatest problem, and the small child obviously has no choice of people smoking in premises, especially a small flat. But I have to say that, as far as the information I have, what is known as passive smoking is probably more unpleasant than it is unhealthy. I am not aware of any major research that has been done that proves it is injurious. But I would agree with Senator Ferguson about the enforceability of it, and picking up on the Senator Farnham 's comments about people driving at 17. I think, if I remember correctly, you can drive a tractor, which has a cab these days, at 16, so whether that applies to that I do not know. But how do you enforce it? Only if smoke is pouring out the windows? How do you know whether a person who appears to be smoking is not using an electronic cigarette? I would have to disagree with the Minister when she says that open windows would virtually make no difference, of course it would, and what about a convertible? I mean this whole thing is wide open.

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

I will be brief but it would be remiss of me as the Assistant Minister with responsibility for children not to just have a few words on this and take me back to Senator Ferguson's world where she thought that everybody in pubs and restaurants had come around to that way of thinking before 4th

January. Everyone took in their 60 cigarettes and smoked the place out and then on the day it came into force nobody smoked in the pubs because it was against the law. This is to protect children who have no choice but to be in that car where their parents are smoking. It is a first step. Thirty years ago you could take your child home from hospital basically and put them in the car in what you liked. Would anybody let a child go out of hospital today without a proper fitted car seat? No, they would not, because it is dangerous. As for Deputy Tadier , yes, unfortunately there is lots of education, but  there  are  already  so  many  limited  places,  if  you  see  adverts  for  bedsits,  it is normally: "No children, no pets, and non-smokers", so people have to live somewhere. But this is a first step. The enforcement, it is a myth that we cannot enforce it. Society will enforce themselves. Honoraries can deal with it like the Constable of St. John said they do. I, myself, if I see somebody smoking with children in the back of the car, I cannot say anything at the moment. I can if they are using a mobile phone and I do, and I tell them to put it down or I will take their J number and I will report them. It is ridiculous that people cannot think that they can do a short journey, like Deputy Tadier says, and not use a mobile phone. It is also incredible that people do not think of their children's health and they think they can do a short journey with their children in the back of the car. I have sat in the back of a car with 2 adults smoking and the windows open touring Malta and it was a very unpleasant experience and I kept telling them and I am over 18. So we can prolong this; I think really and truthfully we all know it is the right thing to do, it is the first step on to legislation to protect children who are strapped into backs of cars and we have no law to stop them being affected by second-hand smoke. I hope we do not have too long a debate on this, it can be enforced, it will be enforced by society, and it will educate the parents. The children are already trying to educate the parents, and this, then they can say to their parents: "You better not be smoking because you know it is against the law", quite simple. Thank you.

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

Unfortunately I am following my fellow Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services, but I just really want to point out a couple of things and I think Members need to consider the role of the Minister for Health and Social Services.

[10:00]

One of the departments that comes under her remit is public health, officers of which are sitting outside in support of this proposition today. This is what this is about. It is about the Minister carrying out her duty and doing it properly to improve and protect the health of the emerging future generations of children. Certain comments have been made about why have we not gone the whole hog and done it in houses as well? Yes, we would love to, but I do not think that we are ready as a society to accept that type of proposition just yet, but I am sure it will come, to protect children in the long term as well. Another thing that really, just thinking back to the comments generally about nanny states, but I think as a politician I would rather be accused for what I do than what I do not do. If you want to call me a proponent of the nanny state then please do so because I would rather do the things that need to be done rather than avoid them because I am going to be called a.. dealing with nanny states. Enforcement, again, my Honorary Police Service, I was a Constable's officer many years ago now, I will not tell you how many now, but we do not have to stop people, we see them, we note their numbers, they get a letter, they are invited into the Parish Hall to discuss what they have been observed doing. That usually is enough to make them say: "Terribly sorry, forgot, did not realise, I will not do it again." It is about as much encouragement as enforcement, and encouragement is far better in my book and I fully support this proposition. Thank you.

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

As an ex-smoker myself, caught up in that in the 1960s, I am in favour generally of discouraging smoking, and particularly in vehicles, because, as a motorcyclist, I look forward to the day when one can overtake a vehicle and not face the prospect of fag ash or dog ends flying out the window and hitting you in the face as you overtake them. But seriously I think it is correct that this law is virtually unenforceable or difficult to enforce, but I think it is clearly right to do so. It is a similar argument to the cycle helmet issue and I think generally what this law does is reflect changing social attitudes and the increasingly social unacceptability of smoking. We have already a structure of laws for restrictions of smoking in vehicles, already there are guidelines about smoking and they are treated as the workplace and so on, so they are banned. So this is a natural extension and I would hope issues of 17 year-old young people would see the sense. It is not a sensible thing to do, it is not cool, stop it.

9. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I think that Members may be overlooking the fact that this is simply an amendment to the law, which enables subsequently regulations to be made. That is why the detail of the precise wording of what will be provided for is not here. This is just to amend the law to create the enabling powers and if Members doubt  whether I am right  on that  they  may wish  to  look  on page  8 at the explanatory note, which is very brief, and says exactly that. I have taken the precaution to put the learned Attorney on notice that I was about to ask him some questions as to whether the wording of the Regulations, the regulation-making power, was sufficiently wide to enable certain types of case to be dealt with. The sort of cases I was interested in were first of all that mentioned by Senator Farnham where you might have a driver on his or her own who was under 18 and simply asking at this stage could the Regulations exclude that. Secondly a question, there may be some Members who might want to have a younger-than-18 restriction, in other words only make it active if it was a person aged 16 or younger. Again, I am asking whether the regulation-making powers are wide enough to deal with that. Indeed, my colleague Senator Farnham 's fertile brain has come up with a third interesting suggestion, which I did not pass by the learned Attorney, which is you could have a situation of course where there was a person aged 16 or under smoking in a car where there was an adult present. I do not think that is going to trouble him particularly because I think he will know the answers already to the others. But I simply want to know, we are not dealing with this kind of level of detail, this is a regulation-making power, the level of detail will be dealt with later. I am wholly supportive, incidentally, of the proposition and I wonder if the Attorney General could attempt to answer my convoluted questions.

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

The proposed amendment to the Restriction of Smoking Law will enable the States to make Regulations,  which -  in  the  part  that  is  amended -  would  prohibit  or  restrict,  subject to  such conditions as may be specified in the Regulations, smoking tobacco in a motor vehicle in which a person under the age of 18 is present. In my view, that provides a very broad power to put whatever is necessary in Regulations, subject to whatever restrictions or qualifications on those restrictions the Assembly might wish to put in. It would, in my view, theoretically be possible to restrict, for example, different kinds of motor vehicles, if the motor vehicle was not enclosed, if it was enclosed, these are all matters for the Assembly, and when one knows what the position is with regard to the draft Regulations at that point one can look as to whether or not they may or may not throw up any human rights issues on which the Assembly would need advice. But, in terms of passing this, there are no human rights issues and the vires making power is extremely broad.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? Then I invite the Minister to reply.

10. The Deputy of Trinity :

To start off, there is only one thing here, is to protect the lives of young children and to protect them from the fact of second-hand smoke. I would like to thank all those who spoke and I will just run through some of them because I know my 2 Assistant Ministers have answered some of the questions. Regarding people who are 17 and perhaps driving and smoking. In the Smoking Law - I cannot think which one it is - it is illegal to sell cigarettes to anybody under the age of 18, so in fact if they are 17 they should not be smoking anyhow. Regarding the wider enforcement, I am aware where Deputy Tadier - he is not here - is coming from, but I think we need to take one step at a time. It is putting all different pieces, trying to tackle the effects of smoking, because we know the effects, we have strong evidence of the effects of smoking, and trying to come at it from all very different angles, and education is important, and the clinicians in the hospital - we see them from time to time - have really voiced that should Jersey be a smoke-free Island. We will leave that one there. There is lots of evidence to show, as I said, about the effects of smoking, but there is also a lot of evidence to show the effects of passive smoking, and the evidence of that was based on the previous support on restricting smoking in the workplace. So there is a whole lot of evidence around and I am happy to give Deputy Baudains any of that evidence that he wants. We have asked the public, we continue to ask the public about their thoughts on smoking, not only through the consultation, as I mentioned it before, but also the Jersey Annual Social Survey, where 81 per cent of those who answered that survey was supporting of a ban within cars. Regarding Senator Ferguson, this is about saving children's lives and I do not think I will ever be able to convince the Senator to change her mind at all and I am sorry about that. I thank those who have spoken, and those who have spoken in support, and I will ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is asked for then in relation to the principles of P.103/2014 lodged by the Minister. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Hilton, as Vice-Chairman, do you wish this matter to be referred to ..

Deputy  J.A.  Hilton  of  St.  Helier  (Vice-Chairman,  Health,  Social  Services  and  Housing Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Then do you wish to propose the Articles together, Minister, Articles 1 to 4?

2. The Deputy of Trinity :

Yes please, Sir, and I will answer any questions.

The Bailiff :

Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the individual Articles? All those in favour of adopting Articles 1 to 4, please show? Those against? They are adopted. Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading, Minister?

The Deputy of Trinity : Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in the Third Reading? All those in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading please show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in Third Reading

QUESTIONS - resumption

2. Urgent Oral Questions The Bailiff :

Perhaps this would be a convenient moment, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources has returned to the Island, to move to Deputy Le Fondré's question from yesterday.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I apologise for the lateness, it was due to a late arrival, but the French Ambassador does send you and the rest of the Assembly the warmest of wishes and he made a special mention of Jersey in his remarks at the Embassy last night.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Senator. Deputy Le Fondré, would you like to ask your question of the Minister for Treasury and Resources?

2.1   Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the resignation of the Treasurer of the States:

When did the Minister first become aware that the Treasurer had resigned? Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

The Treasurer offered her resignation on 1st July and I was informed on the following day. Discussions since then have centred on timings and contractual matters.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Is the Treasurer's resignation in any way connected with any disagreement of how budgeted revenue figures are to be presented? Bearing in  mind the last time I asked, the cumulative reduction in revenue to 2015 was £70 million.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Not at all. The reasons for the Treasurer's departure, which of course I regret, are personal reasons as cited in the statement that has been made following the press release. There are ongoing issues about forecasts, the Deputy has asked me a number of questions, and the Budget will be lodged later on this week with the up-to-date assessment of income, which is the product of the Tax Forecasting Group.

2. Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister spoke about contractual matters, discussions after 2nd July, when he became aware, and yet the statement we received was yesterday, 14th July. Could he tell us why it took 14 days to deal with somebody's resignation? That does raise questions. Could he elaborate on what happened during that 14-day period?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am not directly involved in the matters of staff. The Chief Minister with S.E.B. (States Employment Board) is. I am sure the Deputy will know, as a former chief officer himself, when an individual decides to resign - and in this case the Treasurer is returning to the U.K. (United Kingdom) to be nearer to her family and to pursue alternative careers, which I am sure she will do extremely well - there are a number of procedural issues, which need to be taken into account. There are arrangements of handover, of holiday leave, and discussions that need to be had with S.E.B. I understand that S.E.B. met and they have been dealing with those matters. But until a resignation has been agreed and matters have been concluded by S.E.B., it would be entirely inappropriate to put anything into the public domain, which has been the case.

3. Deputy J.H. Young:

Clarification, Sir. The Minister spoke of S.E.B., could he tell us when S.E.B. were involved please?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I said that S.E.B. is not within my remit and that is a matter for the Chief Minister to answer that. I am not briefed on everything that happens with S.E.B. My Assistant Minister sits as a Treasury member on there, but I am not briefed. Those are confidential matters concerning staff.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Minister for Treasury and Resources has just said that the resignation needs to be agreed. But, if the Treasurer resigned, why did it have to be agreed and why is there a compromise payment? Normally in business, if you resign, that is it, you go.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Treasurer of the States is one of the most, if not probably the second most senior individual in the public sector. So of course S.E.B. and in this case in discussion and consultation with myself, appropriate handover periods and appropriate people need to be put in place where there is a position where the individual is going to leave, and it is not going to be possible to recruit somebody in time. So it is perfectly normal that these discussions would take place and Members will have seen the announcement also yesterday that the former Deputy Treasurer - the current Comptroller of Social Security - has been appointed, or is going to be appointed as Interim Treasurer, which will take us through what is a very vital time.

[10:15]

It is important that we start a recruitment so that the new Assembly has a Treasurer as soon as possible in post on a permanent basis to deal with the massive workload that will happen next year. No time is a good time, but now is probably the best time, because we can organise this for the next Government.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Minister for Treasury and Resources has not answered my question. If the Treasurer resigned, why is there a compromise payment?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think the Chief Minister answered that. I have had notes from his answers yesterday. These are matters for S.E.B. and there is nothing outside the contractual payments that are being made and will be, of course, as the Treasurer herself has put in place in the most transparent accounts ever produced by the States, all of the payments will be documented in the States accounts next year.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Chief Minister said ..

The Bailiff :

No, I am sorry, Senator, you have .. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

That was not my proper supplementary. The Bailiff :

Yes, it was. [Laughter]

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

That was just trying to tie the Minister for Treasury and Resources down to answering the first question.

The Bailiff :

That was your supplementary, thank you. Deputy Tadier .

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Yesterday, when questioned in a similar vein, the Chief Minister reminded the Assembly that it was important for the Minister for Treasury and Resources or any politician to hold the senior civil servants to account. Was that a consideration in this case and was the Treasury holding the Treasurer to account and is that perhaps why she left?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have reflected overnight as to what I would say on this question. If I look back to my tenure as Minister for Treasury and Resources and the 4 years that the Treasurer of the States has been in office, I could read 20, I will not do it, but a new Public Finances Law, 3-year budgeting, long-term capital programme, £60 million of savings, consolidation of investments, new investment strategy, hundreds of millions of balance sheet improvements, hospital, liquid waste, new housing bond, marginal rate cut, long-term care, fundamental review, hundreds of questions, dozens of propositions. If the Treasurer and the Minister for Treasury and Resources do not have a good constructive forthright relationship in which I take advice and the individual gives advice, none of this would have been possible. I applaud the service and dedication of the Treasurer over the last 4 years. She has done a spectacular job. [Approbation] She will be pleased by those remarks because you cannot do that without teamwork. Of course there are forthright discussions. That is what a relationship between a Minister for Treasury and Resources and Treasurer is about. That is what delivers better value and service. But we spent hours together and I have enjoyed almost all of them. [Laughter]

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

The Minister said he thought about how he would answer this question and it is essentially by not answering the question. Perhaps a different question is, how many notches are there now on the bedpost on the Minister in terms of the cadavers of senior civil servants, and is this one of them?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Absolutely not. I doubt whether there is another chief officer working with the Ministerial team, with my Assistant Minister, that could have delivered on the agenda that we have. That is done. I saw the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) picture yesterday of a smiling Minister for Treasury and Resources and a smiling Treasurer working together properly. But when you work together of course the Treasurer is not a shrinking violet, where she has told me absolutely: "No, I do not think that is right, Minister", and on the other side I have had to say: "I need to sort this out, Treasurer, because another department of the States want me to do things." I am being frank and open about discussions, but I hold the Treasurer in the highest esteem. She has delivered and worked, the times that I have taken the Treasurer home at 10.00 p.m. at night after late nights in the Treasury is indication of a brilliant working relationship, which I believe has served this Assembly and the Island incredibly well in the last 4 years. She has made her own decision. She will be going with my remarks, with full thanks and appreciation for what she has done, and the thanks for the forthright way in which she has dealt with difficult issues right the way through her period of time serving in Jersey and I wish her well.

7. The Connétable of St. John :

Will the Minister be frank and tell us, has there been any disputes or disagreements between himself and the Treasurer, because we have seen over recent years the departure of a former Treasurer, a C. and A.G. (Comptroller  and Auditor General), and a C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) from another department where the Minister was involved. We are well aware that earlier, or some months ago, the Chief Minister did say that he was going to sort out an anger management course for the Minister.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I stood in this Assembly on the debates on Andium Homes and I thought that there were some Members, and the Connétable is one of them, that when you work as hard as you possibly can, when you are under stress, some Members still ask you for more, and I work hard, I am proud of what I do, and I am desperately proud of Jersey, and I am even more proud of my Treasury team. The Treasurer has decided to return to the U.K. Other people have decided to return. But to somehow cast that in a dysfunctional way of managing people, I see today from the news there is a reshuffle going on in the U.K. Prime Minister's Cabinet. The Chief Minister said yesterday that senior people move routinely after 4 or 5 years in top jobs. That is what has happened here. Not all of those other departures have been in those situations, but I stand by all of the support I have given chief officers and all the support that I have held other States employees to account for doing what the public want in the interests of the public interest of Jersey, and I do not apologise for that. I certainly do not think that I am an angry person, I think I am a fairly happy person and with most of the time a smiling face because that is the way you get the best out of people, by being nice, polite, and motivating people. The portrayal otherwise I deeply regret.

The Connétable of St. John :

The question was, has there been any dispute or disagreement between the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Treasurer?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

There have been lots of forthright arguments and discussions. That is what there should be between a Minister and a Treasurer. But we have delivered and we will again, and the Treasurer will be by my side presenting the Budget this week, and we are dealing with a challenging situation, low interest rates, an ongoing protracted recession, but delivering a balanced budget and delivering the capital programme that we have done. Look at what the Treasury team has achieved. The bond rate: I spoke to somebody last night from the U.K. Treasury and I explained to him that we had got 52 basis points over 40-year gilts and he could not believe it. That is a member of the U.K. Treasury. [Approbation] Those are delivery results, which happen out of hard work, constructive dialogue, forthright debate, and, outside of the Treasury, coming out with a unified voice. That is what we have been doing for 4 years and will continue to do so for as long as the Treasurer is here.

The Connétable of St. John :

So no disputes then.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Disputes, it is not right ..

The Bailiff :

No. The Connétable has had his 2 questions. Deputy Baudains.

8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Would the Minister agree with me that it is rather extraordinary for a person at this level to give merely 2 weeks' notice? Does it not signal that there is something unusual about it?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is entirely wrong. I do not mind Members giving me a hard time. I have become used to it, I do not like it, it is difficult, it is hurtful sometimes, but that is politics and one has a thick skin. What I regret is any suggestion on the part of the Treasurer herself, who Members know has worked beyond the call of duty on this matter, on serving Jersey, and she has made her own decision. There is an important issue of the handover. There will be a new government. There will be new Ministers. There may well be a new Minister for Treasury and Resources. It is important that there is now a Treasurer up and running to deal with the next M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan), serving the Council of Ministers' Strategic Plan, and all the rest of it. If her decision has been made, and the timing of it, then it is probably the best timing, given the change in government and the huge workload that is ahead in serving this Assembly over the next 12 months. But it is her decision and we should respect it and we should send her, at the appropriate time, off with the thanks and appreciation of a job well done.

9. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier :

Would the Minister acknowledge that this was probably one of the worst-kept secrets over that 14- day period as a number of Back-Benchers seem to know that the resignation took place earlier rather than the announcement? I am just struggling to understand why it did take that 14 days to notify Members.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I agree with Deputy Rondel that sometimes the rumour mill we are a small Island, we are a small community, rumours travel fast. I do not know the precise reasons for that. I know a number of Members have been asking questions, some very inappropriate questions, and there have been some inappropriate social media messages too, linking issues, and I am pleased to say that one of them has been deleted overnight. It does take time to get transition. S.E.B. needed to deal with it and we needed to find an Interim Treasurer. The other Deputy Treasurer, as Members will know, is fully occupied dealing with health matters. So these things take time and the Treasurer has had to discuss with her own family, et cetera, exactly what the relocation will be, and that has had to be agreed by S.E.B., but I deeply regret the rumour mill and how utterly hurtful and destructive that can be sometimes.

10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just as an aside, I was one of the people who was contacted about 2 days after, apparently, the date of resignation, by the media. Obviously I was in no position to confirm one way or another what the situation was. I said it was a rumour. What I would like just to say, I note from some of the comments from the Minister for Treasury and Resources ..

The Bailiff :

Could you ask a question, not make .. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I will do, with the lack of reaction from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, I will await the forecasts from the budgetary team on Friday with interest and that they may even be as bad as one was indicating. Sorry, I will get to the direct question. One of the other points made was ..

The Bailiff :

Not another point. Question time. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

No, Sir. It was about the Treasurer. I would just like to emphasise that the emphasis of questions from my point of view has been on the relationship between the 2 individuals and not on the capability of the Treasurer. What I would just like to ask is, given that the Minister for Treasury and Resources said the figures will be in the public domain at some point or other, what will the figures that will be going into the accounts approximately in relation to any compensation arrangements arising as a result of the resignation?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

There are a number of questions there and I do not know what the Standing Orders think. First of all, Deputy Le Fondré - and I have been criticised previously - knows what a dysfunctional relationship is because he was part of a dysfunctional relationship previously at the Treasury that did not work and you have to deal with that. Things did not work when he was at the Treasury and sometimes you need to part and move on. He has been persistent in his asking of questions of me and of the Treasury. Sometimes I feel as though it is an attempt, it may not be genuine, but I generally feel sometimes I am being tried to trip-up and face the memory test, I do not know. Estimates are going to be presented on Friday. It will be of no surprise to any Member of this Assembly to see the States accounts having been presented last year and the continuing pull on personal income tax and corporate tax profits and low interest rates, estimates that were done in 2012, in a world when there was a thought that interest rates would be recovering and there would be an economic recovery. Of course, where there is one certainty of estimates, they will be wrong. But what this Council of Ministers and this Treasurer and this Minister for Treasury and Resources has done is, notwithstanding difficult estimates and further economic difficulties, through no fault of our own, we are going to be delivering a balanced budget in accordance with F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) advice, delivering on a capital programme and keeping people in work, and also delivering the marginal tax rate cuts and all the rest of it. So, Deputy Le Fondré has had a stream of criticism for my tenure as Minister for Treasury and Resources in 4 years. There is nothing that I think that he will want to agree with. He will want to pick holes. Estimates do change and they will be updated and there is a fully-funded balanced Consolidated Fund and delivery of fiscal stimulus in terms of the capital programme and I hope the F.P.P. is going to agree with my strategy, endorsed by the Treasurer.

The Bailiff :

Very well. That brings questions to an end. I can tell Members that the Privileges and Procedures Committee has lodged R.96, which sets out the meetings for the States in 2015.

[10:30]

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

3. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): third amendment - proposal of Senator P.F.C. Ozouf to reduce lodging period

The Bailiff :

Now, in accordance with the decision reached yesterday, we turn to P.118, which is the proposition of the Privileges and Procedures Committee re the Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act. I wonder whether Members would agree that, before we start on that, Members ought to discuss which amendments, if any, they are going to take where extra time is required, so that we can see the shape of the debate. So there are 2 matters lodged, 2 amendments lodged, which need the Assembly to agree to their being taken without the proper lodging period. They were both lodged yesterday and one is that of Senator Ozouf , an amendment, and one is that of Deputy Southern , which is an amendment to an amendment. Do either of you have any concerns which order we take them in? Shall we take yours first then, Senator Ozouf ?

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

First of all, I understand that you were critical, and rightly so, of late amendments and I understand that. It was a genuine misunderstanding. I thought that the lodging date was on .. I had not seen Deputy Maçon's email of Friday, I did not know that the debate was going to be deferred and I

humbly beg States Members .. they may well be against the amendment, but it is an amendment that is designed to be helpful and to try and ask all the questions that need to be asked, I think, in order to get a proper answer from the public on this difficult issue. This issue is divisive, difficult, there is no consensus and in exceptional circumstances, I had no option after seeing the amendments and the seeing the consequence, the fact that they were, in my view, incomplete and there may be criticism of some of the other amendments. I did it in the spirit of trying to assist the Assembly in giving the Assembly an option of what could be a way forward. But I am in the hands of Members, I understand it is not best practice but I do not think anything in relation to the composition of the States questions could be regarded as best practice. It is not unusual for parliaments to have late amendments and for them to be considered, particularly up to a timeframe. So I would ask Members respectfully - I will be very brief in my remarks - in order to lift Standing Orders and to allow the amendment to proceed. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to say anything? Deputy Tadier .

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

I think it is important to be fair-minded in this particular vote. I am wondering whether, because it seems to me that it would be entirely wrong for example to allow one amendment through, which is out of time and not to allow another amendment, the proposition here before us should be to allow both amendments, yes or no.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , if I may, of course if Members feel they want to be fair they will reach the same decision on both, but we cannot vote on them together because they are separate matters and require separate shortening of the lodging period in relation to each one. We will have to take them one at a time but the point you made will no doubt be considered by Members.

Deputy M. Tadier :

So I wonder after this vote whether we could take that immediately with this proposition. But we can deal with that when it comes.

The Bailiff :

Yes, at this stage we would move straight on to consider Deputy Southern 's, although he will want to make his proposition and you may wish to say something.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think probably just one thing in favour is that this obviously was meant to be at the end of the Order Paper and it was entirely possible - we do not know how long the Island Plan is going to take - that was going to take a week, Members may have thought, quite reasonably, that they could put an amendment in and it would still be time if it was taken next week. So I think on the balance of that I am certainly happy to vote for the lodging period to be reduced, but obviously to reserve the position for the merits of each of the amendments.

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

Speaking with my hat of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) on, think of how the Standing Order is framed to decide whether something is in the public interest to reduce the lodging period, within that balance does come - as was said yesterday - about the ability of Members to consider something  in  its entirety, in  its context, to  take soundings from the people that  we represent on these particular matters, and I do think that less than 24 hours' notice on that balance I am afraid is not strong enough to waive the Standing Orders as are present and therefore I urge Members not to support reducing the lodging period on either of these amendments because I do not think it is being fair. Certainly my Committee have not had a chance to properly sit down and discuss these amendments, nor bring further amendments to them if we felt that that was appropriate. Therefore I would ask Members not to support a reduction in the lodgement period.

3. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

I would just like to remind Members that last week we did lift Standing Orders and allow for a late amendment to come through on the same sex marriage debate. I believe in fairness and I think today we should show the same fairness and allow both these late amendments to be debated.

4. Deputy J.H. Young:

We cannot possibly discuss some of these amendments and leave others out. I think we do have to be fair. It must be right and in the public interest that Members have lodged these, whether we like it or not, whether it is inconvenient or not, and I differ with the Chairman of P.P.C., I support it and I think there is this issue of Members are worried about the Island Plan. I believe that some of the work that has gone on in the Island Plan will simplify that debate and I do not think that is a reason for not ensuring this referendum debate includes all the items.

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

Just very briefly. I am really concerned that this meets the test to shorten the lodging period, especially when one considers that the States adopted, back on 5th November 2013, a proposition which agreed that a referendum under the Referendum Law should be held on the day of the 2014 election with a single yes/no question. This amendment is seeking not only to ignore that States decision but to introduce a whole load of other issues that have already been discussed, agreed and decided upon by this Assembly.

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

I am very much of a mind of the Chairman of P.P.C. We have, when we discuss these things, the most fragile of unity on these matters and I have to disagree with Deputy Young, which is unusual, I think we will go on for ever; we could work through 51 amendments. It was contested, I would tell Deputy Noel, last week, the very late moving. I think there are power plays at work here and the notion that we will ever reach consensus to the public .. the public are absolutely laughing at us totally and we are exacerbating this. Here we are again, government reform, a total mess faces us because we are so disunified and we cannot find that basic consensus and working together to come to a kind of consensus. I am afraid we are on the way to making to total fools of ourselves.

7. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

To be honest, Sir, I would endorse your comments from yesterday about the whole point of Standing Orders and lodging periods. To me if we do this, what is the point of Standing Orders? I would just make the point to Deputy Noel that at least Senator Le Marquand last week gave notice before the weekend of what he was doing. I appreciate that it did not find favour with everyone but at least we had some notice. I saw this as a point that was made less than 24 hours ago. I simply have not had a chance to work out all the ramifications and indeed one Member yesterday pointed out some issues that I had not even considered. So we have not had the chance to see comments from P.P.C. I really think we will look very silly .. or where do you stop on this if we agree to take this today? What is to stop anybody else bringing any other amendment to any other law at any point at a day's notice or less than a day's notice because it is in the so-called public interest? We really should not be voting for this.

8. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I wanted to simply say that I have come to the Assembly this morning fearing that we are not going to get anything through on this referendum. Having not voted originally for a referendum, I am strongly convinced now that there should be some form of question put to referendum at the next election and therefore I think we must allow all the options, both Senator Ozouf and Deputy Southern 's options, so that we can have a reasoned debate and have a reasonable question to put to the electorate. If we do not, that is when we are going to have got ourselves into hot water. So while I find it difficult to speak against the proposal of the Chairman of P.P.C., I support the Vice- Chairman of P.P.C.'s view and the one that he gave earlier.

The Bailiff :

Yes, do you have further things to say on this, Deputy Le Cornu?

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

I have. Let us be blunt, the political class is paralysed, it is unable to deliver democracy to Jersey. That is very, very clear, very, very simple, paralysed.

10. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, Sir, I just have to really endorse your words yesterday. Why would we have a Privileges and Procedures Committee? This was lodged on 17th June and that it took Senator Ozouf until yesterday to put forward a Back-Bencher's amendment is absolutely beyond belief. But if you read the amendment there is nothing in any of the other propositions that were lodged in time to be debated that really does not cover his amendment. This is ridiculous. We really should need to rethink everything else if we let this go through with both the amendments. Deputy Southern can be accused of being late, he is a Back-Bencher and does not .. but his could have been debated on Friday if we were doing it that way around. I think Deputy Tadier and Deputy Le Cornu think half of the House is playing games with the other half. Both of the amendments need to be chucked out because they are not in time, otherwise P.P.C. need to resign and we need to absolutely get a way forward for this House.

The Bailiff :

Connétable of St. John , have you got anything new to say on this?

11. The Connétable of St. John :

I hope so, Sir. I hope so. I would like to think that the P.P.C. will stand or fall if this accepted. The Bailiff :

Very well, Senator Ozouf , do you wish to reply?

12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Briefly. I again reiterate my apologies for the late amendment. I have got the 4 ballot papers, or the 5 potential ballot papers, before me, which clearly gives Members a complete choice in terms of what they want. Deputy Maçon said that propositions and lodging should have a period of time to take consultation. There has been more consultation on these issues, a referendum which for better or for worse, the construction of it is taken to the people and then many people are as unhappy with the options as with the result. I think we are all aware of these issues. We do not need to have a long debate. We have probably already made up our mind. The worst position would be, I say to Deputy Le Cornu, is not to have fair and balanced .. I cannot remember the words he used. We have a clear system of choices. Mine was designed in order to have those additional questions which many of the public of Jersey feel want to be asked. My questions, I feel that they are going to be able to give Members that opportunity. I will not be long but I think Deputy Southern 's and my amendments are done to try and be constructive. It is exceptional circumstances; we are right up  to  the  wire. We  have  the  most  divisive,  difficult  issue  about  our  composition,  and  our composition, if it is looked at by outsiders, will be a problem. There is a problem with our composition. It has been years in the making and attempting for resolution. I fear that this debate will come to nothing and that we will look even worse. I implore Members, let us have a debate on all of the options, quickly, properly and make a decision that we believe is in the best interests of Jersey to ask the people of Jersey what they want, and not be partial. Let us hand it over to the people and this is what these amendments are about. I ask Members to, on this occasion, rarely, in exceptional circumstances, to lift Standing Orders and to allow my amendment to be debated. I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. Technically it is not lifting Standing Orders; it is to shorten the lodging period in accordance with the Standing Orders. So if you want to allow it to be debated you vote pour, if you do not you vote contre and the Greffier will open the voting.

2. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): second amendment - proposal of Deputy G.P. Southern to reduce lodging period

The Bailiff :

Now, Deputy Southern , you wish to ask for a similar shortening?

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

Just briefly. It is an unusual case when Senator Ozouf is debating on my behalf. But when I came across this issue on Friday, talking with my party colleagues, and we realised that we could not support any one of these amendments, and only had to fall back to a partially satisfactory main proposition I volunteered to be the guinea pig to see if we could get an amendment that worked.

[10:45]

My emphasis was certainly with Deputy Green's proposition, which carried the words "remain in the States" which was not the wish of Clothier, which were not the words of Clothier. I think it is very important to stick as closely to Clothier as we could and that therefore the statement made by Clothier was that Constables should no longer be entitled to sit in the States simply because they are Constables. They should seek election to the States if they wish like everyone else. That, to my mind, was the simplest and clearest way of expressing ex-officio and had been cogitated about, reasoned by the Clothier panel, and that that to be the core of the question; not the opposite they should remain in the States because that is not what Clothier wanted. So I thought the question was wrong in both the sense that it was a reversal and was not clear. It was leading. When I did lodge this - I got it written on the Sunday - at the time of writing I was aware that it could have been debated on Friday and we had not yet made the decision to bring the debate forward. So therefore technically I was within my 4 days, so I had a clear conscience I could lodge it legitimately but I am in the hands of Members.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to say anything?

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

I will keep it very brief because I hope the argument has already been won. It is simply to add, though,  there  are  obviously  2  reasons  why  this  is  even  more  compelling  than  the  previous amendment. First of all the lodging period is closer, it would have been taken this week, but the other point that I think is relevant is that out of the 2 models that P.P.C. was charged to bring forward, it was Clothier which we did and we are being criticised for that. The other one was Constables, which we did not do but which now has been put back on the table. The problem was no one ever had a chance to look at the wording of that question and Deputy Southern has given an alternative wording. If we do ever get to that stage it is important that we do at least debate what kind of wording is right. But that must be in the public interest and so I think it does add something to the debate that it is in the public interest.

The Bailiff :

Do you wish to reply, Deputy ?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I will leave myself in the hands of Members. The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel? Yes. The appel is called for then in relation to the proposition of Deputy Southern , which is along the same lines as that of Senator Ozouf . So if you want to allow it to be debated you vote pour, if you do not you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I just raise the issue of the order of the debate. I understand that the Greffier helpfully sent a list around. I am grateful to Members for the opportunity of asking, is the decision final on exactly the order because mine was a genuine attempt, if there was a disagreement on any others, to ..

The Bailiff :

I think it has to go this way, Senator, because it was not easy to work out in some respects the correct order, but Standing Orders say it should be done by reference to the text. Now yours and the Deputy of St. John 's are similar in timing of the text, so there is no distinction between them there but the invariable procedure, as always, you take the amendment first which makes the biggest change to the proposition because that logically must be right. So yours makes the biggest change so under Standing Procedures yours will be taken first.

4. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014) The Bailiff :

Very well, so we return therefore to projet 118 and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition. The Greffier of the States:

The Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201-. The States, in pursuance of Article 1 of the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002, have made the following Act.

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

Ever since the publication of the Clothier Report in December 2000 there have been continual calls for  the  public  to  be  able  to  consider  Clothier's  recommendations  that  the  States  should  be comprised of a single category of Member elected on a Parish basis. This Act will allow the public to have their say on this matter. If adopted, the Referendum Act will be held on the same day as the elections for Senator, Constables and Deputies on Wednesday, 15th October 2014. Since the adoption of the propositions that the Assembly made last year, my Committee worked very hard in

trying to balance what the States Assembly asked us to do. Many Members appreciate that the committee felt that it was put into a very difficult position by being asked to pose 2 questions on a yes/no basis, one which we felt conflicted with the other. I will go on to explain that later. Members will be wondering, with the question that is before them as proposed by the committee, as to how we came with this particular proposal. Just to explain the methodology that the committee used, we went to an independent marketing research body which conducted a series of independent focus groups on various questions or formula of questions that we had. We began with perhaps too long a question. We tried to have a question that was on the ballot paper which explains the current States Assembly, how it is made up, its composition, and what was going to be proposed. Consistently what came back from those focus groups was that the questions were too wordy, too complicated and confusing and unclear. What we needed to do was simplify what we were trying to propose. So on receiving that feedback the committee had to consider again how we could distil the Clothier principles and proposals in one of the simplest forms without losing the meaning of what was trying to be proposed. That has resulted in the question that is before Members, which asks Members to consider whether on the ballot paper the question, which I shall bring up, whether the States Assembly should be made up of a single type of elected Member, that 49 Members would be elected and that the allocation of seats within Parish districts would be proportional to the population. Many Members might have questions on why the form is as it is. So if we look at, for example, the number of 49. Why did we choose 49 and not a lesser number as some Members have asked, as was suggested in the Clothier Report? One of the reasons why we went for 49 was because we knew that within the Assembly there is not a consistent attitude to how many States Members we should have. We also knew that from our focus groups that if we were to produce a lesser number than current, the focus groups are very clear how they felt that if a reduced number was there it put a bias into the question that tilted it into a yes position. The concern was then does it allow for the public to fully consider the proposals in the round. Secondly, with regards to the numbers, we were going down to 49 Members regardless, so whether the Referendum Act was adopted or rejected we would be in the same position with the number of Members. In addition to this, the population of Jersey since December 2000 has increased considerably, as we mentioned in our report, by about 10,000, although within the number 49 there still keeps the ratios that existed at the time of Clothier. So we have been able to be consistent with regards to that. Also, as Members will know, since December 2000 we have had extra Scrutiny Panels and extra Ministries that were not envisaged in the original report. So we have, indeed, created more posts which require more Members. Since December 2000 some of us have had the call that the public wanted the ability to have their say on the Clothier proposals. We are now 2014, 14 years later after that report was produced. I believe that when many Members asked my committee to come forward with these proposals they were of the opinion that it was right that the public should be able to have their say on this matter. We have had numerous debates in this Assembly over the Clothier Report proposals and I believe that unless we give the public the ability to have their say on these proposals that the matter will simply come back again and again and again. [Approbation] I feel we have to show some leadership and deal with this matter. To grasp the nettle and just get on with it. Regardless of how we feel about the Clothier principles, it is about allowing that to go to the public and allow them to make a decision. There is some concern, what happens if we get a no vote, where will we be? At least we can cross something off the list. At least we have something where we can say: "The public do not want this, we will just have to try something else." But at least we will know. Just to remind Members that the Clothier Report was an independent report, which was comprised mainly of local people and that a substantial amount of taxpayers' money went to produce this report. Unfortunately this report, like so many other States reports, because States Members did not like what it said, it was put on the shelf and tried to be ignored, but we are where we are. When comprising our referendum question, looking again at various models of referenda and how they are used, the committee was strongly of the opinion that it was appropriate for a single yes/no question to be asked. Not questions, because as we have seen if we start to split up on one component of the electoral make up, what was to stop a flood of other questions and other elements to come forward? In fact that is what we have seen today. We could carry on asking various questions: how long the term should be, et cetera. There are always things that we can go and ask more about. Unfortunately that does not make a referenda, that makes a glorified survey. Never mind all the various problems when it comes to campaigning and all these types of things to say: "Yes, for question 1; no for question 2; maybe for question 3 and do not quite know for question 4" for example. Therefore what the public told us from our focus groups was a simple, clear, yes/no question, one of them was the way to proceed. That is why we have drafted our Referendum Act in the way that we have. There were some interesting things that did come back from our focus groups in that despite all the work that was done with the Electoral Commission and their education campaign - and I just want to draw Members' attention to the booklet in our report, which is a draft example of the type of education campaign which we would want to go with this - it was interesting to learn that - and sometimes we forget because we are used to all these different terms - with the public, the workings of this Assembly and how we are comprised is not that well known. We learnt that there is a new term for the Constables, which is "Connectables". We did have someone from the focus groups get a little confused about how that should be pronounced. There was a lot of confusion about the roles of States Members. We did have people saying: "Where do the Centeniers fit in the States Assembly?" We did have questions about our Ministers, separate States Members. So despite the work of the Electoral Commission and the work they did in trying to educate people on the Assembly, it still appears that there is a lot of work that still needs to be done in order to allow ordinary people the ability to make that assessment.

[11:00]

So I just want to highlight the importance of an education campaign that should go with this. What I can say is what we have drafted in our report again was seen by the focus groups, was analysed, we changed a significant amount of it to make it more user friendly which we would hope States Members would appreciate and adds more credibility to the Referendum Act because they are able to see that both parts do go together. Again, reflecting what the focus group has told us, they were of the opinion that the elements that are highlighted in the comments of the Comité des Connétable s, which is why are you not explicit about this, that and other elements, from the focus groups what they told us, that is all fine in an education campaign and that is where it should be but on the actual ballot paper what we want to see is what is going to be proposed. What are we voting on? That is what we want to see and we do not want to be confused by other elements, which need to be considered absolutely, but we do not want them on the ballot paper. Again, that is why our Referendum Act is drafted in the way that it is. We are responding to the independent focus groups information. Within those focus groups we did also ask about the matter of whether we should include words about single seat constituencies, multiple member seat constituencies and whether that wording should be included. We were on a hiding to nothing trying to use that type of language. It really was not well understood and because we were not able to intervene and explain in this focus group what it meant the committee decided that it was more important to establish the principle of what Clothier wanted to do and then to allow them to establish the exact detail of how the districts would be established later by an independent Boundaries Commission. In addition to this, the committee also wanted to steer away from a debate of where my district is divided between different areas: "Why am I not in this street and why am I in that street," and all these types of things when what was more important to consider was the principle of the measures. There is a comment in the comments from the Comité des Connétable s about why use the population figures instead of the electoral register numbers and the reason why we decided to do that is because, as stated in our report, those Parishes who might have lower or slightly lower people who have registered on to the electoral register, as opposed to population, could lead to under representation in the figures and that would not produce a fair system. This is consistent from some of the advice that was given to the Electoral Commission as well, where it said really population .. it is either population if you have it or if you have it as well use eligible votes. We decided that we would go with population, simply because it was the closest and clearest figure that we had to date from the census in 2011. Another reason why P.P.C. decided to present a whole package was preferable to the various component parts was because we reviewed the Mori polls that were conducted previously and, again, we know that if we ask the public sections of the system they can give us contradictory advice. So, for example, if we were to ask questions about Senators, Constables and Deputies, or if you need to keep the Parish Deputies, the answer tends to be yes, yes, yes, yes. But when you ask the next question of: "Do you want a reduction in States Members?" the next answer is: "Yes." So it is very difficult to then decide where to take the reduction from. Again, this is why, as I say, the committee opted to go for a package approach rather than to go through the component parts. I believe that a lot of money and time has gone into bringing this referendum question forward. I believe that my committee has tried its best within the time that we have got, and I do thank the acknowledgement from the Comité des Connétable s in their comments to suggest that my committee was pressed for time in bringing this forward, but nevertheless we have brought something forward which the public can comprehend, which they can understand, which we have independent evidence to support that, and which has already been tested. I believe that it is time to take leadership, it is time to show the public that it is not reasonable to delay their right to have their say on these matters for as long as we have and I hope that Members will support this Act as presented so that the people of Jersey can decide whether they want a fairer democratic accountable system for the future of the Island. I ask Members to support this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

2. Draft Referendum (Composition of the States Assembly) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.118/2014): third amendment (P.118/2014 Amd.(3))

The Bailiff :

Very well, now then in accordance with the running order which the Greffier circulated, the next matter to consider therefore is the amendment of Senator Ozouf , the Assembly having agreed to take it. The amendment is quite long, are Members content to take it as read?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Sir, because it was done so shortly I think it should be read out. The Bailiff :

You would like it to be read? Very well.

The Greffier of the States:

1 Page 20, Article 6 – In Article 6, for paragraphs (5) and (6) substitute the following paragraphs and renumber the remaining paragraphs accordingly – "(5) A voter may record a vote for or against a question in the referendum by making a cross in the blank square next to either "Yes" or "No" opposite the question on the ballot paper. (6) A voter's ballot paper is not invalid by reason that the voter does not record a vote in respect of all of the questions on the ballot paper. (7) The Judicial Greffier, having added the votes for or against each of the questions in the referendum in the electoral districts, shall inform the Greffier of the States of the results of the referendum.". 2 Page 22, Schedule – For the ballot paper set out in the Schedule, substitute the following ballot paper – Ballot Paper. Answer "Yes" or "No" to each of the 4 questions. 1. Should the number of elected States members be reduced to 42? Yes/No 2. Should a minimum of 8 Senators elected on an island-wide basis continue to be members of the States? Yes/No 3. Should the Constables continue to be members of the States by virtue of their office? Yes/No 4. Should Deputies be elected on an equal and proportionate basis in larger districts to be determined by an Electoral Boundaries Commission? Yes/No.

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am grateful for Members to give the opportunity of discussing this amendment. It is difficult to propose my amendment without raising the reasons why I believe that the proposal by P.P.C. is deficient in a number of respects. What I fear is that unless an amendment dealing with the very difficult .. and these are difficult issues of which there has been no consensus within this Assembly and there is a divided view across the Island. I worry that we are going to end up with a referendum which could be a referendum that would be rejected, a referendum that would be unclear in a number of different respects and a referendum that would not work on a fundamental principle of how to build a democratic system. I am not going to spend a lot of time, because Members are familiar with the arguments, but what I want to say about the fundamental problem with P.P.C.'s approach .. and I would ask Members, if I may, to turn to page 12 of the P.P.C. report. The way I am handling this debate is I am putting out all of the multiple choice of options of all of the ballots before and just simply looking at them and seeing which one is the one that is likely to achieve some sort of way forward. The difficulty with P.P.C.'s amendment, of which I understand and completely sympathise with the view of Clothier and the recommendation of Clothier, that there should be a fair distribution of seats according to electors. That has to be right. The difficult thing for Members to accept, because it affects some of their seats, it affects our affection to our parochially-based Deputies and Constables, the fundamental issue is that there should be equality of votes per voter. It is a fundamental tenet of electoral and democratic government. I have been privileged to be selected for 2 international election observing missions where you are given a mandate to look at democracy and whether democracy works. The most recent one I did was in the Cayman Islands, which is in exactly the same position. It has multi-seat districts with different numbers of votes. Now, it is not me saying so but there is a fundamental problem if you have a system, and I believe the problem, which is the reason why P.P.C.'s proposal ultimately will not work or will only work if you move to what, I think, must be the conclusion, which is a single seat constituency. In other words, a first-past-the-post. St. John and St. Mary have one next to them. That must mean on a Parish-based system that if you abide by that fundamental principle that everybody must have the same number of votes, it is wrong for one Islander, it is wrong for one elector, to have a different number of votes and to be able to influence a different number of people in a parliament. I see some Members shaking their head. It is a fundamental principle of democracy, it should be equality and fairness of distribution of seats which P.P.C. achieves. But the other thing is there should be equality of the numbers of votes, unless there are exceptional circumstances. That is the problem. What P.P.C. is effectively heading towards - and the only way that a referendum in the affirmative would be able to deal with this - is effectively single-seat constituencies. I think it is an issue that the electoral review group that attended the Cayman Islands and such eminent people as the Speaker of the Bermuda Parliament, a highly respected, well-experienced election observer from Malta, a member of the Scott ish Parliament and served by legal officers from the Caribbean region, we were worried about small constituencies with single seats. When you have a small constituency in a small place with a small number of votes, ultimately questions are ultimately raised in relation to .. without very strong checks and balances and ultimately that does lead to a hearty system because it is really the only manageable way to deal with it. I do not think Jersey wants to have small, single-seat, first- past-the-post electoral districts. P.P.C. I can only see heading in that direction. If they can explain otherwise then perhaps they can tell me how. I do not think we want that. I think it would .. even if I were to say dangerous to our democracy to move to small, first-past-the-post systems. They are not regarded in small communities as being ultimately the right way of doing things. I understand,

I am sympathetic, we all want to have a voter equality system with a fair distribution of seats - and that is what Clothier does do - but the world has moved on and I would ask Members who all have their devices and other things, look at the Electoral Commission reports from the United Nations, from the institute that is based in Prague, the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie, where I did the election observing mission in Rwanda where we also looked at the election system. It is a standard. Many Members do not want to be told by an outside body what is the right principles of democracy. We do not want to be told by Royal Commission or otherwise. But it is a fundamental tenet and that is where it leads us. A number of other Members have quite genuinely also then tried in their amendments to bring the other key questions.

[11:15]

There are no easy answers to this, but a question does need to be asked in the most neutral way. I offer absolutely no criticism to Senator Farnham , Deputy Green or Deputy Southern . I may have got the wording wrong but the wordings that I am proposing in relation to the Senators are about as fair as can be. I also think there is a natural flow that happens in people's minds from dealing with Senators to Constables to Deputies. My questions are based upon I think the public needs to say whether or not they want to reduce the number of elected States Members to a certain number, which was the subject of the referendum previously. The public are exasperated with us in not having done something. This asks that question. If the answer is no, then we know it and then you can then .. it is not a zero someday, you can vote yes or no on some of these clear issues and then still deal with effectively, which is, if I may say, the lacuna in the .. not by design but the lacuna in some of the other amendments. We are not asking if Members do not want to support P.P.C. in my concern about those single-seat constituencies, I am asking that final catch-all question with the remaining number of Members that would be in place that should be determined by electoral boundaries. I agree with P.P.C. that a Boundaries Commission should be put in place. With the system I am saying it is those 2 important matters, which is equality and proportionate on large districts and what we will then have. I hesitated on the use of Parish boundaries. I think Parish boundaries should have been .. I could have put in that question. Maybe I am regretting not doing that but there is no other option here on that. I think it can be clear the outcome of my questions will give a certain direction that will be able to be implemented by the next Assembly. Asking no question about Constables, asking no question about Senators, asking no question about a reduction and not asking members of the public whether or not they agree with equality and proportionality I think will mean that we have an even more difficult situation as the outcome. This is not easy. I am not saying that my questions are perfect, but given all the other alternatives and given where we are, and given the fact that we are having a general election then we might as well have questions that we can then build upon and try and solve what has been one of the most difficult and divisive issues that this Assembly has been dealing with. Deal with it we must. We cannot simply continue to have another term of office where we have no answers and we do not know what the public wants and we then have no solution to put in place. The unfair distribution of seats, it is difficult, it is personal to Members, has to be fixed and with those remarks I move what is effectively the most radical amendment, but there is no other way of discussing it at this time. I did it with an attempt to be constructive and helpful. I move my proposition.

The Bailiff :

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

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

I want to put this in context first. The context is - which the Chairman alluded to earlier - 14 years ago we commissioned a body, U.K. led but also with very much local experience on that. It came back with what I think is the Jersey solution for reform. It is not everyone's cup of tea. It was never put to the electorate. We do not have a logical system at the moment and it has been argued that certainly what is in front of us makes things extremely worse. It would just result in utter confusion, which I will explain in a moment. The other context is we, P.P.C., were asked by the States Assembly - and it is a bit of poisoned chalice I think it is probably fair to say - to go away and to do 2 things, which were not necessarily mutually exclusive but which were divergent, let us say, and we came back and we did the work which we were originally asked for. The first proposition was to bring back Clothier to this Assembly and we did that in the best form that we could. We interpreted Clothier, we went back to the clerk for Clothier and we spoke about what it would look like. I think it is an opportune time to remark on the very hard work that the clerks have put in at the Greffier's office in producing a quality document in short period of time, which I think looks very good, which I want to have a debate on because that is what this Assembly was doing and process is important. I hope that Members will respect that even though we will not necessarily always agree politically that I do take process very seriously. I do take reform very seriously and I take fairness very seriously. I think it would be completely wrong to charge the body which we have set up to go away and do the work and then at the last moment, a couple of days before, to accept an amendment. Let us go through the amendment and what that would mean. First of all, it is essentially do you want to have your cake and eat it. We have got lots of cake in the coffee room today all going to a good cause. You ask the public: "Do you want to have your cake and eat it?" They will say yes. "Do you want to have 4 mutually exclusive things which cannot be done?" "Yes, we do want that." So we know what the answer will be to number one if it goes through: "Do you want 42?" "Yes, we want that because we want a reduction in States Members." Why 42? It is an arbitrary number: Clothier said 42 to 44. That was a suggestion, but again that was 14 years ago which did not take in account the increase in population, which did not take into account the increase in workload. Is there any Member in this Assembly who considers themselves part-time, because I certainly do not and I have certainly seen the workload that I have had to do, even though I am currently not even on Scrutiny at the moment, is very onerous. Should we have a minimum of 8 Senators? Why, 8? What is all that about? We know that the public will want to keep Senators. We know that, but it is not sustainable. We made the decision to move to a single election day and therefore the position of Senator becomes obsolete. Of course it is easy to understand the concept of Senator. There are those who say that Senator is the most democratic. It is certainly on paper very democratic. Everyone gets the same number of votes and you get the same number of people. But I will address the issue of smaller constituencies because with smaller constituencies comes greater accountability. You have a more democratic say, your vote is more valuable in a smaller constituency, your elected representative is more accessible in a small constituency, whether it is St. Mary , St. John or one of the Parish districts because you are seen in the community. You are there, you are approachable. The influence that you have over Senators, and in fact over the policy which may be non-existent, the manifestos which may be trite or whatever, it is very difficult to influence policy. That is the fundamental problem we have. In trying to round the circle, in trying to say that what we want is essentially what Senator Ozouf is saying. We want large constituencies but we are quite happy to have small constituencies so long as my political allies get elected in them. We know that the small constituencies of St. Mary , St. John , St. Ouen are all great places. We are saying we must get rid of the Deputies for those places and have a Boundary Commission, which is part 4. Why only have a Boundary Commission for the allocation of Deputy seats? Where is the Boundary Commission for the Parishes? Are we going to suggest moving the Parish boundaries? Clearly that is not politically favourable but we need to sort out the distribution of seats for Constables. The only way that we are ever going to get reform, we know this in our heart of hearts, is to have one type of States Member and to have a Boundary Commission. That is what we do. We all know that is the way forward, that is the only logical way forward. But we are not getting there. What P.P.C.'s proposition does - I know we are not debating that but I am debating the merits and why we should not put this through - is because that is the closest thing we get to it. We are bringing forward what the States wanted to and we are

also respecting the Parish boundaries. Now, logically we should not even use the Parish boundaries as a way of electing people to this government because it does not work, it is not fit for purpose. It is fine for electing Parish officials; it is fine for electing Centeniers, Vingteniers, ecclesiastical courts or the church hierarchy, whatever - not ecclesiastical courts but I think people know what I am getting at - it is fine for those purposes but it is not logical in the modern age to do that. So Senator Ozouf is correct when he says of course we need to be looking at whether we have single seats, multiple seats and how we divide those up. But you need to do that wholesale, you cannot do that by saying: "We will necessarily keep one particular class of States Member in here." So let us just finish off, we know (1) will get through. We will have 42 States Members, the public will say yes to that. They might even say yes to 30, probably say yes to 24. They will say: "We want to keep 8 Senators" but they would probably also quite like to have one Senator that they could elect. They would also like to elect the Chief Minister directly. We do not give them that choice though, of course. We only give them selected choices. Should the Constables be in or out? We will come to that debate in a moment. I think it will be very tight, that vote, and it will be an interesting Island-wide debate to have, depending on the question. When you get down to point 4, the public are going to think: "Oh well, blow it, we do not really care too much about the Deputies now, we will probably vote yes to that one." Then what is the future, what is the way forward for reform? There is no way forward for that, it is just another dog's dinner which we will be endorsing and putting to the public. After the last referendum, which I think many of us invested in both politically, financially and also emotionally we do not want to go through a whole completely flawed process, and it would disrespectful, quite frankly, to put this question to the public.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes, Members will not be surprised to find me being critical of this particular amendment, because we do not really have to go any further than copies of the Clothier Report to see what a coherent holistic approach to the questions at issue might be. The Clothier Report was very clear. A central thrust of that was if we have any chance of having a proper functioning democratic society then what we need is a single type of Member. That is the crucial issue. The proposer of this amendment says that he may not have the right questions but they are his attempt at being fair and balanced in these questions. A moment's examination of them, they do not have to be lodged for a very long time to read them and see what has happened here is that the writer's own preconceptions have skewed nearly all of the questions. So we start with question 2: "Should a minimum of 8 Senators .." oops, a minimum, what is that doing in there? Oh, we want to return to what we had before. We want to return some more Senators. There it is, that is the intention. The possibility opens up so there is no need for minimum in there. "Elected on an Island-wide basis." Oh, big red flag waving. Oops, Island-wide basis, Island-wide vote. That is the key trigger word attached to Senators, and we know that that gets people going: "Oh, yes, we want that." It is one of those: "Yes, nice-to-have" lollipops. We must have that. Keep that. Big flag in there. No need for Island-wide basis. Assumption: Senators, we know what they are, shall we keep them? Do not know. But look at it yet further. Just to remind you that is the  status quo in case you have forgotten and that is what the writer wants you to do, is say: "Let us continue with that." Again: "Should the Constables continue to Members of the States by virtue of their office?" Looks open and neutral on the surface but again there is that word "continue". What were the words of Clothier? "Constables should no longer be entitled to sit in the States simply because they are Constables." So not: "They should continue" but they should not continue automatically to sit in the States. So we got there, 2 goes, one for Senators and one for Constables, of going against the central principle of Clothier the single type of Member. So if you do not get the Senators, we will have the Constables perhaps. One of the 2. You have 2 goes driving straight through Clothier.

[11:30]

Then you have got: "Should the number of elected States Members be reduced to 42?" Why not 44, which was also in Clothier? The world has moved on says the proposer of this amendment. The world has moved on, yes, the world has moved on, our population has gone up and we have devised more and more things to do in this Chamber so the 42, I think we agreed at the last referendum, was too small a number. But it is the one that the writer intends to get through. Then just to finish it off we have a fourth question, in case you did not consider voting for the Constables to remain, to continue to be in office, we have the version that says we are going to do something about the Parish boundaries, so the other key word "Parish recommendation" which stands with the Constables is reminded in that fourth question. Far from being fair and balanced, this is leading and reveals the writer's intentions throughout. It is designed to end up with no change. That is what this is doing, it is clear. It is not fair and balanced, it is wrong.

4. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I think one of the things the public finds difficult about these debates is the perception of the vested interests that we have in the Assembly and my appeal to them is just to try and cast that aside as we all juxtaposition to find a compromise. It is important that we try and approach this in as fair a manner as possible and I have, in fact, been called a "die in the ditch" supporter of the Senator. Well, I am not a die-in-the-ditch supporter of the Senator, although I think the Island-wide mandate is important in a unicameral Assembly. We have one Chamber, one Assembly so it is important all areas of the community are represented in that single Assembly, and that was at the heart of how this Assembly was constructed in the post-war days when it was put together. But what I am a die- in-the-ditch supporter of is that we ask the electorate what they want; is that we bring the electorate with us. I think we have lost the electorate on this whole issue and it is going to be very, very hard to get them back. I think that process was started when the States, in 2010, prematurely started the process of reform by agreeing to reduce the number of Senators without the consultation, the knowledge or even the permission of the electorate. That was a very bad move because that did influence, in my opinion, the Electoral Commission to go a step further and recommend the abolition of that important role. I just want to turn briefly to what Deputy Tadier said. He talked about the voter influence and the influence of a first-past-the-post system, a Member in a smaller electoral district, which is important, although you must make sure that is balanced.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Would you give way? I never mentioned first-past-the-post and had I, I would have said that we definitely need to change it to an alternative vote.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I do apologise, I got that wrong. But he did talk about the importance of the influence of an elected member in a smaller constituency and, yes, that is important. What Senator Ozouf rightly picked up on in the P.P.C. proposal, then the question has to be asked about voter influence and equity. While you might have more influence in your electoral district, the influence of the voter in the Assembly is greatly reduced because an electoral member of St. Mary will have voted for one Member of the Assembly where Members in other districts can vote for a lot more and that is where the office of Senator is a great leveller. I am going to support Senator Ozouf here. I think all of these are important questions to ask. If I can be slightly critical, I am a bit uneasy; I would have preferred that we were not tying ourselves to numbers. But, having said that, I think the numbers he has mentioned are about right and whatever we end up with, if we end up with retaining the Island-wide mandate and a smaller Assembly, I think it is not going to be far away from what he has suggested. I commend not only Senator Ozouf but all who have participated in the debate by bringing amendments and I shall be supporting this one.

5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Any referendum question that is not simple and a single "yes" or no" question is going to be doomed to failure from the start. This proposed conglomeration of questions is going to get us absolutely nowhere. We cannot ask people to vote on the minutiae of reform elements without some sort of overarching guiding context because we will not get a coherent answer and can claim that the system that we get from it represents what the people want. I do not even think it is a good idea to ask people an individual question on whether the Constables should be in the States because how can you ask people to vote on whether they want the Constables in the States if they do not know that the future of their Parish Deputy is also secured? What if you are somebody who does not want the Constables in the States but is adamant that the Parishes are so fundamental there must be some form of Parish representative? They could vote the Constables out of the States in a referendum and then the States goes ahead with the rest of the subsequent reforms that are needed and decide to do away with Parish Deputies and instead have super-constituencies, this person will have inadvertently voted for a system that does not represent what they wanted and if it were a choice between super districts and keeping the Constables, even though they do not want the Constables, they would vote to keep the Constables just for the Parish link. These people exist and you cannot just ignore their view, which is what these questions will do. We cannot look at States reform as a series of unconnected issues because they are all interlinked and it is all about the context in the bigger overall picture of what we want our democracy to look like. Looking at these questions, it is entirely numerically possible for the question on keeping the Constables to be lost by 51 per cent and the question on moving to super-constituencies be won by 51 per cent, but in fact there may only be a 2 per cent crossover between these 2. So we end up with a system that 98 per cent of the public do not want and if they had known the answer to the other question it would have changed their answer to this other question as well. It is just impossible to end up with a system drawn from this that will claim to have any clear mandate. There is also nothing in these questions to ensure that the system we get is fair. Senator Ozouf said in his speech how fundamental he thought the principle of equal votes was to democracy. I am glad to hear he has converted to that cause because he certainly was not on that cause when he was wearing his Option B' badge in the referendum last year. We could have these questions and we could have a "yes" to the first question, so that is 42 Members; we could have a "no" to the second question, so that is getting rid of Senators. We then have a "yes" to keeping the Constables and a "yes" to super- districts. Then we just end up with Option B' and we all know that Option B', as was proven by the expert advice the Electoral Commission got, was a non-representative system that was heavily weighted towards the country Parishes and left my Parish that I represent underrepresented. This could leave a pathway for achieving something that Senator Ozouf says would go completely against democratic principles, so that just does not make sense. In his reports with this, Senator Ozouf says, without a hint of irony, that the question P.P.C. has put forward is a partial question. Well, P.P.C. had expert advice on their question; they put it to focus groups to make sure it was as clear as possible and I, for the life of me, cannot see how it is a partial question. It is very clear and does not lead voters to picking "yes" or "no". It is very, very clear. The questions that are partial are the ones that are found in this proposition: "Should a minimum of 8 Senators elected on an Island-wide basis continue to be Members of the States? Should the Constables continue to be Members of the States?" If the U.K. Electoral Commission or Electoral Reform Society had looked at these questions they would have thrown them out straightaway for being leading. Senator Ozouf has just not thought this through. That is shown by how late this was added into it. P.P.C. has spent a lot of time and effort getting a decent question forward, Senator Ozouf has not. So, please, I hope the States will reject this rubbish.

6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I am glad to follow the previous speaker because he has a lot more knowledge than I think a lot of us about the voting because he has studied it and I respect his knowledge on these matters. I have not really followed all this because I find it all terribly boring and I wish we were doing something else, and get on with the Island Plan and get on with my Family Friendly Rights, and if we do not get it in this session I will be very annoyed. I am only going to speak once and this is I am going to support P.P.C. I think these 4 questions are ridiculous, if I might say. The fourth question in particular should say: "Should the number of Deputies be reduced to 22?" because that is what it means because we have already totted up 20 with Constables and Senators. That should be the question if we are going to have that question. I suggest that people going into the ballot box on Election Day will not be interested in the referendum; they will be interested in voting their new Members of the States. This is a side show. The 4 questions are absolutely ridiculous and the fourth question is pure jargon. Nobody will understand what it means. They will be fed up with the whole process by the time they get to number 4 and will not have a clue what they are voting for. Chuck all these amendments out, support P.P.C. and let us get on with Island Plan debate.

7. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I thank the previous 2 speakers for what they said. In Senator Ozouf 's opening speech he said: "I may have got the wording wrong." We are talking about referendum questions here. That is the last thing we need to be doing. A genuine question to Senator Ozouf , is he able to indicate what independent, if any, advice was given in the formulation of these questions? Have you seen these questions? Did they go even to the Statistics Unit for checking for non-bias within the questions? Did anything like that happen because to put forward referendum questions which have not had that type of independent oversight to look over them is crazy, I would argue strongly. I do want to pick up on something else, which is about question 4. The first question is about changing the numbers and we know that there is a bias in that to begin with anyway. The second one is to endorse the status quo, fine; which begs the question why are you having a referendum just to endorse where we are. But the third question is not about endorsing the status quo; it is not asking about whether we should retain the Parish-based Deputy system as it is. Again, like Senator Le Gresley has already said, the wording in it is technical, certainly the issue of larger districts. It depends what you mean by larger districts. Do you mean the way in which St. Helier 3 and 4 is currently made up or do you mean how the Parish of St. Mary or St. John is made up when they are choosing the issue? We have to go through all these processes as well when looking at our referendum questions and this is why we have not gone down that route because it is confusing and it can mean different things to different people. That is why I would ask Members not to support this amendment. It has been poorly thought through; I do not believe there has been any independent oversight on these questions either. Just to point out that when it comes to equality of votes, P.P.C.'s proposition does not rule that out, it says it is to be considered by an independent Boundary Commission and that issue is still to be tackled. There is something else which Senator Farnham said, which is quite right, that we should not allow this debate to be overtaken by vested interests which is why we should allow an independent report done by Clothier to go to the public and we should not be supporting any of the amendments which have been brought forward.

8. The Connétable of St. John :

I have listened to quite a number of the speakers and they keep on referring to Clothier. In fact, Clothier was brought in by the government of the day and, I must say, the report was done not dissimilar to the local government reports in the U.K. But Jersey is not local government; we are a Crown Dependency, which is a totally different thing. Clothier was not looking at us, the Island of Jersey, as a Dependency, he was looking at it as part of the bigger picture, as they had done in the U.K. where they reorganised their own local government system and put in Ministries and the like. In many cases, in fact, a lot of those local government areas have returned to a committee system. I am not going to go on about the committee system but that is what has happened on the other side of the pond.

[11:45]

I keep on hearing the word Clothier, Clothier, Clothier and it rings in my ears to the day in this Chamber when Senator Horsfall said: "Accept this and we will put the meat on the bones later." We are 14 years down the road and the meat is still trying to be put on the bones because he sold you a pig with a cow's head because that is what we have got; we have got something that is not workable. Yes, I know this is very late being brought in and in fact I voted against us debating this. But this shows us probably more of the pig with the cow's head than anything else because what the P.P.C. are offering is yet more and more and more looking at our navel - navel-gazing - because nothing is going to happen out of what they do today if we go back to the main proposition. Let us get something put in place. This is not perfect by a long way but I am sure it is far more perfect than what has been proposed by P.P.C. I see here that we are asking people questions and I hope that when it comes to voting on this that we can say: "Right, I do not want to vote for number 1," for instance, because I do not believe we are going to manage with 42 in this Chamber. I see that the Greffier is shaking his head so obviously we will not be able to. If the P.P.C. had brought something of this nature I could have probably gone along with it but what they have brought is something that I will not be able to go along with, I can assure you. It does not fit. It does not fit in the box. It is a round peg in a square hole, or the other way round. If it was solely between those 2 propositions I know which way I would be going. I will listen to the remainder of the debate before deciding.

9. Deputy J.A. Martin:

It is interesting to follow the Constable of St. John because he is absolutely a proponent of the machinery of government and how it was introduced. But that was Clothier and what we do say in all our comments to the official amendments that were lodged in time was that Clothier was partially introduced and it was put better than I will - and Deputy Young might want to pick up on this - we do not have a political system now to support the machinery that we have introduced because we have half the people in the government and half the people are out. But I will leave that there. It is quite obvious that we do need to reform the way people are elected to this House to implement the rest of Clothier. We are doing what States ask; it is Clothier, the campaign. If you read the whole of our report, which is 23 pages, the majority of it will be put out to the public. Totally impartial, not by P.P.C. but from the Greffier, the absolute facts will be put out to the public. Let us ask a question when we have asked it before and we have not got the right answer. If you look at P.93, which Senator Ozouf brought, it is exactly this: it would not work then and it will not work today except he says that the Assembly should be comprised of 44 Members instead of the 42. Comprised of 12 Constables, 32 Deputies, Senators should be abolished, la-la-la, and there will be 6 new large constituencies. But if you go through his questions, as has already been said, they do not add up. I am telling you now, in this unbiased campaign that the Greffier will be leading, they will exactly show you. We have 49 Members now, or will have after the next election. When the President of P.P.C. was saying it would be biased to have a leading question I saw the Constable of St. Mary shaking her head in disagreement, but you ask anybody out there if this is not a leading question to reduce the number sitting here as long as it is under the number, if it is one under, if it is 5 under, if it is 8 under. They absolutely do not care how we get the work done. You have got .. yes, we have 42 Members, yes, we have 8 Senators, or we do not, but we have 12 Constables. Senator Le Gresley said quite clearly we have got 22 Deputies and in the Senator's world .. in P.93 he said the Deputies would, under the new structure, have a more wide- ranging role than Deputies in the current Assembly. My role is quite big enough and I have no time for this amendment. If he had not put the 42 in .. even in his own amendment, P.93, he had 44 Members. He knows the work cannot be done but this is how to carry it in the House, maybe to carry it in the public. Reduce us to 42 and then vote, no, no, no to the rest then how do we do the work? Please, this amendment was lodged yesterday; we have been working on this with focus groups from as long as it has been put back to us, and it is sensible. The questions are there and all the information but you ask the simple question of the public. Do you really think they are that stupid that after reading a very clear, factual document that supports the question that we have put in P.P.C. that they will not make the right decision? I think it will be very tight. There are a lot people, after it being explained, that are going to lose their Island-wide vote. They may lose their Constable but they will still write "no". But it is a straightforward "yes" or "no", a straightforward question, we will have something to hang the result on and we will come back to the Boundary Commission. People have said Senator Ozouf somehow has seen the light and this P.P.C. is unfair. Where does he get this 22? How many Parish Deputies in his proposition does he get rid of? He has done no homework. This should never have been debated. You should not give it any more time of day than this States Assembly has spent on this subject. Just because it puts a simple yes or no question on everything, let us come back and find out the simple yes or no. We do not know where we are at all. We have got one chance on 15th October to get the turnout of the people to get this right. Put it to bed once and for all and then if they say "yes" we have got 3 or 4 years to get it right, and if they say "no", not in my time again will I ever let a debate go on about reform. The people will have spoken quite clearly. This has got to be thrown out.

10. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I am just going to focus on the proposed changes to Article 6 and the wording of the ballot paper. I am not going to touch on multiple choice and all the comments that have been made up to now. The ballot paper states: "Answer yes or no to each of the 4 questions," but I will draw Members' attention to the changes going to be made to paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 6. Currently paragraph (5) of Article 6 in the P.P.C.'s law, or amendment, states: "A vote is recorded in a referendum by making a cross in the blank square opposite either "yes" or "no" on the ballot paper." That is very clear and simple. Senator Ozouf is suggesting a voter may record a vote for and against and he goes on in paragraph (6), his amended paragraph (6): "A voter's ballot paper is not invalid by reason the voter does not record a vote in respect of all of the questions on the ballot paper." So not only have you got this multiple choice but now you have got a selection process that is offered to the voter. How on earth Senator Ozouf , or anybody else in this Assembly, believes that this is going to provide the clear steer that I believe all States Members are looking for, is beyond me. I really do think that you need to think very seriously about supporting this particular amendment.

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

Yet again we discuss change, this being the third time in just over 2 years. The last referendum was a total farce and how could we have justified change under the then preferred option of 13 per cent of voters. Yet again the questions have been manipulated to obtain the result that a few desire. Yet again key questions have not been asked. A key question could be put to voters such as: "Do you want to change our system or are you content with the present system?" Also the criteria for accepting the referendum result should also be established before the event so that voters know if a result will be accepted or binding. To be democratic, the result should have a majority of 51 per cent of voters. That needs to be made clear before the event. However, let us all look around us to define the problem. Is the system the problem or are we the problem? A quote from Leo Tolstoy states: "Everyone thinks of changing the world but no one thinks of changing himself." Very interesting words. At present I am not really content to accept any of the propositions as they do not reflect the wishes of the majority of my electorate. However, the Senator's proposal allows the public more flexibility when making a choice. Also, in the meantime it allows us the chance to engage with the public on each separate issue. If I am to make a preferred option, I will support the Senator in order to do that.

12. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

As usual I find myself agreeing with Senator Le Gresley and I will only be looking to speak once in this debate but then, very unusually, I find myself disagreeing with him because I would wish to differ with the conclusion and the way he will vote when he comes to do so. Members today know that my blood pressure is somewhat dodgy and if there is a subject that is likely to increase it it will be the referendum. I have to ask Members: "When will we learn?" Complicated multi-answer questions and complicated multi-question answers get us nowhere. We have made that mistake before and we are in danger of doing the same again. We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to keep it simple, one easy question, yes or no. Senator Ozouf 's amendment, while it does ask individual questions and asks for simple yes or no answers, is complicated by the fact that there are 4 all being asked at the same time. The proposals from P.P.C. are even worse because we have 3 questions and we are only allowed to give one answer. We have no idea what they mean. One easy question, one easy answer. It is not because the public cannot understand the question, it is because we cannot or are incapable of understanding the answer that they give us. This process has to be done step by step. The first question was and has to be: "Do we want the Constables in this Assembly?" and I will be supporting Deputy Green and voting against all the other amendments and the proposition.

13. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

These amendments, there are lots of them so what we see are the gerrymanderers out in force again. I am very proud to participate in the charge today for democracy against the gerrymanderers. In fact, I sharpened my literary sabre last night to ensure that it had a good cut. I believe there should be one category of States member all elected on the same day in districts of equal size. What is the function of a referendum? It is something new for the British political class to use them. What they are trying to avoid is taking difficult decisions themselves. They are trying to legitimise their own position by going to the public, which they fear, to endorse positions which they themselves hold, but do not believe that the public holds, but need the public to do it because of legitimacy.

[12:00]

That is precisely what happened in the referendum in April 2013. It was there to legitimise a decision of the political class to support Option B.' That was the preferred Government position; the Chief Minister supported it. The Deputy of St. Ouen spoke about the clear steer from a referendum. That is not the purpose of a referendum. It is not to ask the public what they think; it is to legitimise views already held by the political class, hence Senator Ozouf 's proposition. What does it do? It supports the status quo which suits the political class as it exists. They want to keep some Constables, they want to keep Senators, they do not want a democratic system. In 1856 when Deputies were first introduced, St. Helier received 3; each country Parish - and they really were country Parishes - got one, but half the population of the Island lived in St. Helier . What was the consequence of all that? The dominance of the seigniorial property landed interest over the interests of commercial capitalism in St. Helier . Remember, this was in a time when working men - let alone women - who owned property did not have the right to vote, it was only property owners. But half the population lives in St. Helier so it is a system which began the democratic change and modernisation of the States Assembly. In 1948 when the Minister for Home Affairs of the United Kingdom, Chuter Ede, came here, the British Government should have imposed a democratic system on the Island in spite of the desire of the vested interests to leave things as they were. There was a great battle, of course, between the forces of progress and those who wanted progress but not so much progress.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you are coming to this amendment? Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:

I am coming to this but I am trying to explain what is going on here. I am doing it exceedingly well because it is important that these things are said that otherwise have not been said. I said previously that I was very proud to have been elected to this Assembly in order to make these points on behalf of the electorate who put me here, who worked very hard to put me here because they knew I would say the things that they wanted to be said, which are never heard, which are never mentioned in this Assembly, which are not reported by the media. I am asked to draw my attention specifically to the amendment. It is completely leading and misleading. The population wants a package of reforms that leads to a democratic system. They do not want the political class telling them: "Oh, we should keep Constables. Oh, we should keep Senators" because the Constables and the Senators want to remain in the cosy club and the Government in this Island will not take those difficult decisions. It is coming to the point where a British Government is going to have to intervene and the implications of a Royal Commission having to come over here and tell us how to formulate democracy is not acceptable, we should be able to do it ourselves. The British Government did it with Sark. They modernised the ancien régime; they imposed the model and they also said it is an example of a model to follow for democracy in the islands generally. They did not say: "You have to do it." They could have said: "Have a look at it; it has got separation of powers. It has got Deputies elected on an equal basis and there is no property rights involved or any of these kinds of peculiarities of the past." That is what we need to be looking for and the Government to get a grip to present to the population what a modern democratic system looks like in the Channel Islands, what it looks like in Jersey. Just asking all these leading questions is not going to produce that. It is very bizarre that the principles of equal and proportionate, in relation to Deputies, Electoral Boundaries Commission is quite acceptable when it comes to carving up what Deputies stand for but Constables, no, that does not apply to them even though there are great disparities between the St. Mary s and the St. Helier s of the world. The Senators? Well that is a peculiar sort of thing that has come out of the past which does not really have much explanation. I cannot quite understand it, they were replacing Jurats but it effectively was used by the political class and dominated the post-war period as the mechanism to create their leading cadres. I am going to wind up. I am going to vote against this because I think it is just another piece of gerrymandering. The public wants real reform and the Government - and I am not part of the Government - is not giving the leadership. Once again paralysis is so evident. I am going to speak against every proposition that attempts to amend P.P.C.'s proposition and I will do it with that democratic sabre swinging.

14. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am pleased to follow the last speaker because there are some things that perhaps I can agree with in what he was saying. Historically, this Assembly has left electoral reform to a committee of this Assembly, including Members from the Government and Members from the Back-Benches. I think that whatever happens with this electoral question, or questions at the election, I think whoever sits on the next Executive I am now convinced that the time has come for the Executive to do exactly what the last speaker has said and that is to start to show some leadership. I recognise that some Members in this Assembly will not like that because it is taking a current responsibility, as I say, away from a committee of this Assembly but I think that that day is rapidly approaching. Therefore, I am pleased to follow the last speaker because I think on that point alone he has hit the nail on the head. I think that is important because I think that what the amendment endeavours to do, and perhaps it is not formed in the way of a traditional referendum question, but what we need to do on one level is to go back to basics. We have floundered around - and I see the Chairman of P.P.C. lowering his head - asking complex questions, not being clear about what it is that we are asking and I have to say that I fear that the question that P.P.C. would have us put to the Assembly is going to deliver a very similar outcome. I think that this amendment, and I have to be honest and say some of the other amendments, if this one does not get through - I have my other personal

favourite, but we will come to that later in the morning - is going to help to give indication towards delivering a solution in the next States Assembly. I have heard it said that this sort of referendum question is more like a Mori poll and, to some extent, there is value in that argument. But I do think we have got to the point where we have got to now ask some very basic questions of the electorate and that will then allow the next Executive to take forward proposals based on those questions. Therefore, I can give my support to this particular amendment.

15. Deputy J.H. Young:

I am pleased again to follow the Chief Minister because I am struggling a bit with the logic there that the Chief Minister has a personal favourite, which is not this amendment, and yet he has put forward a case of why this amendment should be approved. Pretty astonishing.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

If the Deputy would give way. He has misquoted me, I said "another" personal favourite. Deputy J.H. Young:

I accept that the Chief Minister has got several personal favourites and a kind of a let us choose .. I apologise for my voice, I seem to have picked up a bug from somewhere. Moving on, the States set P.P.C. the job, some might argue it might well be mission impossible. We do not want any more confused questions, multiple part questions, and so on. We want a single question and we want a "yes", "no" because that is what we need. It is what we have not even asked the electorate after so many years of installing half a system of Government with Clothier and we do not have - as Deputy Martin says - the proper framework of political accountability to manage that Executive structure. We desperately need it. What we are offered by the amendment is a survey, in my view. It is an opinion survey. Where will it take us? It is argued it will be the brave new world to find in the future.   No, it will  produce  similar  answers to previous surveys over  the decade. Even the questions, I think, are flawed. Four question, the first one, the number of States Members should be reduced. Well, we know what the public thinks of States Members numbers, that is where we have come to. A leading question. Second, Senators. It does not say shall we have 8 Senators, it does not say have 10. We asked the public a minimum of 8 Senators. Uncertainty. Fails there. Then we have should Constables continue in office by virtue of their office. I would question that language, whether that is appropriate language to be able to explain to people what that really means. It means do they automatically keep their seats in the Assembly. Then in the fourth question we have a phrase that talks about a proportionate basis, well, what does that mean? Larger districts, what does that mean? They are not described. Do we mean the super-constituencies or something else? Then it says an Electoral Boundaries Commission. What does that mean? Three confusing elements in the fourth question. Now, P.P.C. in approaching their proposal how to come up with this simple yes/no, what did we do, we went to an external body and said: "Can you help us with this?" We have focus groups, 12 focus groups of 10 people each, right across the range. They were not political geeks, they were quite clearly people who are not political geeks, they were ordinary people, ordinary voters, from 16 right through to older years. Nice, well-balanced groups. They said they were confused by the first draft of the questions. They raised all sorts of questions. It is clear that there is not a level of understanding about the geekiness of the way this Assembly works at that level. We might think there is but there is not. They want simplicity and clarity. So we went down the route with first one question and then revising it, and coming out with something which met the purpose. Yes, there are issues downstream, as with the P.P.C. proposal. Yes, there is a question: well, why 49? Forty-nine was chosen because it is the same as now and, therefore, it is neutral. Personally I believe clearly, now we have a Planning Committee we need it anyway, 49. We could run that Executive on less but it is neutral. There will need to be a clarity in election leaflets. I do not know if Members have had a chance to look at this but a lot of effort has been spent on graphics to try and explain that if the P.P.C. question goes as lodged that what it means in