States Meeting Transcript - 15th July 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 15th JULY 2015

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................3

1. Humanist and Open-air Marriages (P.65/2015) - resumption...........................3

1.1 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:......................................................3

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:......................................................4
2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................4
3. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:................................5
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................6
5. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:..................................................7

2. States Assembly: filming proceedings and the installation of clocks (P.39/2015) - as amended...................................................................................9

2.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......9

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................12
2. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................13
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................13
4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................15
5. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................16
6. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................17
7. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................19
8. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ....................................................19
9. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................19
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................21
11. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................22
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................23
13. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................26
14. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................29
15. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................30
16. Senator Z.A. Cameron:..............................................................32
17. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................33
18. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................33
19. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................35
20. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................35
21. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................36

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................39

3. Statement made by the Assistant Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the Island Games.............................................................39

3.1 Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade (Assistant Minister, Education, Sport and Culture):................................................................................39

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................40
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41
3. The Connétable of St. Martin:..........................................................41
4. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................42
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................42
6. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................43
7. Connétable M.J. Paddock of St. Ouen:..................................................43
8. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................43
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................44

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................44

4. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee).....44

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................44

[9:30]

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

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Might I further enquire through your good officers whether we are likely to see the annexe to the Medium-Term Financial Plan today because that contains the meat that we need to work on? It is rare, never imagined before, that we have not seen it before we break up.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , this is a not a time for asking questions. I am sure that is a question that can be asked outside of the Assembly and the sitting today.

1. Humanist and Open-air Marriages (P.65/2015) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

We now resume the debate on Humanist and Open-air Marriages P.65/2015. When we adjourned yesterday I had 3 persons notifying their intention or desire to speak and I therefore call upon those persons if they still wish to do so. Deputy Norton.

1.1 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade :

I think for many in this Assembly we will have varying degrees of wedding experience. Some more than others. [Laughter] I personally having worked in the hospitality trade is what I am referring to.  [Laughter] May I congratulate Deputy Doublet on bringing this excellent proposition? Many of the points that are covered in her report that accompanies the proposition cover some of the questions and issues that have been raised so far, particularly that of a plan B in the case of weather not being suitable. One point that I noticed, there was a word being used by one Connétable of "solemnity". I find a wedding to be a joyful occasion as opposed to one that is solemn. At least for that day. The market for weddings, it was referred to by the Connétable of St. Martin that he was not sure if there would be any economic upturn from having this proposition brought through. The market for couples in the United Kingdom getting married, 250,000 couples upward of got married in the U.K. (United Kingdom) last year. Of those, according to figures that are out at the moment and are suggested by Mintel, one-third of those, upward of 80,000, get married abroad as opposed to getting married in the U.K. They do so because it is cheaper to do so and there is also the offer of getting married in a location of their choice. So you have got an awful lot of people getting married, some 80,000 or so, outside of the U.K. from the U.K. There is a huge market there. Adding to those joining the wedding day celebrations, according to ABTA, 1.5 million people from the U.K. travel abroad every year to attend a wedding, 850,000 of them are under 35. Unsurprisingly, combining the wedding and honeymoon is a popular reason. You go to one destination, you have the wedding there, you have the honeymoon there, and your friends can also join you. Yes, even on the honeymoon. According to You & Your Wedding magazine they published [Interruption] .. the average cost of a wedding in the U.K. according to You & Your Wedding magazine, which I will pass on to Deputy Doublet afterwards, is £21,939 per wedding in the U.K. currently. The average spend on a wedding abroad is between £7,000 and £8,000. So if you are looking for an economic upside, given our superb locations, shorter travel links, excellent reputations in hospitality and catering, Jersey should not miss this opportunity. Of course, a wedding is about people, it is about their love for each other, and for some they want this celebration, this union, done in a house of God. Some will not. It is sad but also true that in order

to either conform, appease or simply have the ceremony not in an office in town, some will have opted for the only choice they have got: a church and a church wedding. I am sure no church wants this any more than any non-religious couple who are running out of options and awkwardly turning up a few weeks before the wedding just so they can be present at church for church "keeping up appearances". But it is not what anyone wants. I have spoken at length with Deputy Doublet in the past about this proposition and it is one I support. I have also spoken at times with the Dean, who I am pleased to say is here in the Assembly today, and I would look forward to his comments on this proposition. As I understand it, and as was mentioned previously, it is something that the Dean is open to, if not supportive of, but we will wait to find out more. Experiences can range from there being a wonderful terraced garden where you could have got married but instead everyone has to move from the wonderful terraced garden overlooking the bay and the beautiful glimmering sea of Jersey and be squeezed in a room which is inappropriate for everyone to get into, so some people have to stand outside while the ceremony takes place. Then everyone troops back outside again afterwards to pretend that they had it in a great location. It is an experience I have had. As a guest I have been all the way across to Elizabeth Castle, a fabulous location. A jewel. You go all the way across there and then everyone tries to squeeze into the tiniest of little rooms where everyone has to stand outside. Why? Because the law says so. It is about time it changed. So you have it economically from my standpoint; morally, it is right to support this proposition, and I do so. I also look forward to the further part of this proposition which has been postponed at the moment for the humanist marriages as well. I would recommend to all Members of the Assembly to support this proposition. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Maçon.

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

As Deputy Doublet said yesterday, we are of similar minds about having raised this with the Minister previously in trying to establish what the departments were doing on this matter, so I do welcome and support this proposition; I was going to say "this wedding", this proposition. Being a guest, just having been to my third wedding of 6 this year, I can tell that as a guest, there is certainly a lot of spend that goes on as well, and attracting more guests to the Island is certainly something that we want to do. Briefly, I just want to thank the Assistant Minister for her speech yesterday and for adopting a "can do" attitude and taking a pragmatic approach in order to try and achieve this. We look forward to scrutinising the legislation perhaps when it comes along. With that, I just hope Members will support this proposition. Thank you.

2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I just wanted to put some of my experience of the current situation to Members for thought. I was a Parish Secretary when the Marriage and Civil Status (Jersey) Law 2001 and the registration of premises came in and at that time I thought I could really understand the reason why everything had to be in a building, in a room identified as part of a building or attached to a building, whatever. I could not see myself really ever wanting to support an open-air marriage which seemed a bit American in the movie sense of the word and did not seem to quite fit with it. But over the course of time that view has totally changed.

[9:45]

I was a guest at a tourist wedding here in the Island where an Australian couple came over to be married and they chose a beachfront hotel and they luckily had a nice room overlooking the beach. When the bride got there and she said: "There are Australians on the beach" because this was in the day before we changed the contract and there were Australian beach guards just outside the window and they would have loved to have been out there with them. It would have been such an easy thing because literally open the glass doors, take 2 steps, and you were there. So that really made me realise that there are a lot more possibilities than we already accept. I have also as a Constable had to deal, under the current law, and I must say with the Registrar's co-operation, a fantastically pragmatic department, with torrential, torrential rain in the 3 or 4 days leading up to a marriage that was due to take place in a marquee annexed to a building and of course you have a licence for a specified place. There was just no way the marquee was going to stand up where it should have been put and of course we had to then find alternative solutions because the last thing anybody would want to do is cause the bride and groom any undue stress as they approach their big day. They are usually stressed enough. So in my experience and following on from what the Constable of St. Lawrence said, there are lots of things to consider but there are absolutely easy ways to overcome them all and it can all be achieved. There are lots of things that will need to be considered. There are conditions now that mean you cannot consume food and drink in the same premises or whatever, we have to look at all of that, but there is absolutely nothing here in my opinion that cannot be undertaken. The costs have been raised, there is a permit fee now for a single marriage; there is another slightly increased fee for a 3-year authorisation of premises. If we stay with the authorisation of premises route, really I do not see any difference between an open-air location, as long as it is clearly defined. There are things like safety, literally, that is the simple thing. We look at that and it will not cost any more to do an outside venue in my opinion as it does to do an inside one. I would just like to say that from my own personal experience with dealing with last-minute climate catastrophes, it might always be a good idea to specify on the permit an alternative location because in my experience usually there will be one simply across a promenade or in a very close location. We have an excellent venue in St. Mary, a small fort on the hillside [Laughter] .. I am not promoting it, I am trying to explain. [Interruption] Of course, it does not belong to St. Mary . At the moment the actual ceremony takes places in a tiny little place, as has been said, only a handful of the guests witness the ceremony. If they could take literally 5 steps to the left, everybody could be part of that fantastic ceremony. In my view, no matter how you decide what your religious or non-religious conviction is, it is not the fact of where you get married, it is the fact that you are making that commitment. We have lost that in society for a long time and I

think anything we can do to encourage that should be encouraged. [Approbation] The Deputy Bailiff :

The Dean.

3. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:

My apologies to Members that I had to be in London yesterday and I am delighted that Members managed to keep talking long enough to allow me to take part in this debate this morning. Many couples get married in Jersey by a Dean's licence or in the French terms of dispense ordinaire or dispense extraordinaire. The document is still in French, they swear a legally-binding oath before me as President of the Ecclesiastical Court, and the licence does away with the need for banns but it also permits, at least the extraordinaire permits, in exactly the same way as an Archbishop's licence in the United Kingdom. There may be things Archbishops can do that I cannot do but granting wedding licences is not one of them. That extraordinary licence says this: that licence is given to the rector of wherever it is to conduct the marriage at any time and any place he judges to be convenient. So I asked my ecclesiastical lawyers whether any time or any place meant just that,

0. a.m. in the morning on the beachorwhatever,or did it mean justin a different Parish church? They said, no, as far as they were concerned it meant any time and any place. The dispense ordinaire allows weddings only in the front ofthe church between 6.00 a.m. in the morning and

6.00 p.m. in the afternoon. I want to respond if I may to Deputy Norton's very helpful point about stages of faith because anyone coming to church for a wedding does not have to pass a theological examination before they get in the door. The very fact that they want to be married in church is good enough for me. They may well have a very strong faith, they may not be certain at all what they believe, but they are not a nuisance. It is a supreme privilege for any priest to be involved in

marrying a couple. One of the things that the churches do is not just wedding arrangements but marriage preparation. It is an astonishing amount of money. £21,000 for the average wedding in the U.K.? When my younger daughter decides to get married I think I shall give her a couple of thousand to elope, it sounds much cheaper. [Laughter] The question is not how much is spent on the wedding, it is how much is invested in the marriage. Certainly in marriage preparation, then families are covered, sexuality, faith, communication and the number one reason statistically why marriages break down, which is the mismanagement of money. We encourage couples to make sure they have talked through all of those things. There is usually a preparation day and, yes, if they are coming from out of the Island, we link them up with a good place in the U.K. where the same opportunities are available to them before they come to get married in Jersey. So I think I support this proposal because I think the church needs to get with the 21st century and meet people where they are and minister God's love to them. The Anglican wedding service starts by reminding people that Jesus went to a wedding in Cana in Galilee. I have got to tell you that wedding took place both in the open air and inside. There was a procession from one family's house to the other and that was an integral part of the wedding. So an open-air marriage would be nothing new, it is certainly biblical, at least 2,000 years ago. Open air and indoors, God is just as present in his beautiful creation on the beach, or a lovely Jersey wooded valley, as he is in the most beautiful medieval church and, yes, if it rains I can guarantee a beautiful backup plan B. Thank you. [Approbation]

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I apologise also for not being in the Assembly yesterday afternoon, having represented the Chief Minister and the Minister for External Relations at the Bastille commemorations in London yesterday, so I have not been part of the debate. I have just realised that the drafting of the Deputy 's proposition might not have included something close to a lot of people's heart and that is civil partnerships. As it is cast at the moment the proposition simply deals with having open-air marriages which everybody is agreeing to. Therefore, I thank the Chief Minister for lodging today a proposal for us to deal with the issue of marriage equality and that is fantastic. That is really good news. So it may be that it is not going to be necessary but it probably will be because we all understand why, in the event of the Assembly approving the marriage equality proposal, that that is going to take some time and it would probably not be before the end of 2017 that we would be able to have same-sex marriages. Now the alternative for same-sex couples is civil partnerships and I am quite sure that if I know the Deputy as I think I know her to be an absolutely fair-minded and equality-promoting individual, that in her proposition, while it does not say it, perhaps she would respond as to whether or not she would invite the Minister in bringing forward what might be .. I do not know what the timing of the proposals could be, but for the period of time that we have got civil partnerships before marriage equality, that we have equality and that civil partnerships could be performed outside. I have been to a number of civil partnerships, not my own. I might be waiting for something else, you never know.  [Laughter] But I have been to lots of civil partnerships and I know that civil partnerships are the same-sex equivalent at the moment to marriage. They are fantastic events and they have all the same attributes that the Dean and other

Members have spoken about in terms of being the important day for the 2 individuals. In the eyes of the States, of course, the Church of England has not yet indicated whether they are going to opt in to marriage equality and that will be a matter for future times but certainly in the eyes of the States, civil partnerships are just the same. So I will just invite the Deputy as to whether or not she would agree with me that we could send a message to the Minister, and again it would be up to Members to vote on it, that this decision should be perhaps regarded .. marriage is either sex, it is not civil partnerships, but for the purposes in the spirit of this if we could have civil partnerships included in it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak then I call on Deputy Doublet to reply.

5. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

Thank you to all Members who have spoken on this debate. I will respond to Senator Ozouf first of all and, yes, from the bottom of my heart, absolutely I think this proposal should include civil partnerships. As the original proposition it was not a standalone open-air marriage proposition, it was a humanist marriage proposition and the open-air part of it was in some way to facilitate the humanist part of it. So that was my thinking behind that but absolutely 100 per cent I think that the open-air option should be available to those who are having a civil partnership and any kind of marriage. Religion should be able to opt in if that is what they want to do. Non-religious belief marriages and civil weddings I think this option should be open to all, so I hope the Minister will be able to maybe confirm that at some point. So yesterday we heard from Deputy Tadier . Thank you, I heartily agree with you that we should be facilitating diversity of beliefs in Jersey. I am not sure I agree on the issue of union civile and that might be a matter for another debate but I think if we are going to make things fairer in terms of having your belief, celebrant or priest perform your ceremony rather than taking rights away, I think it is better to bring things up and give rights equally to all in terms of humanist and other non-religious belief groups being able to do that. So that is for another day, I think. The Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, thank you. I am very pleased with the support there and, as Deputy Maçon said, the "can do" attitude. Because there are things to be considered but I do believe they can all be overcome, and I have pointed out many possible ways of doing that in my report. Deputy Norton mentioned the plan B. That is something they do in New Zealand. They have some very sensible marriage laws there and I think perhaps the Minister might want someone to look at those when she is drafting. They can put 2 options on the marriage licence for where they are going to get married, so some very reasonable and straightforward ways to go about doing this. The Connétable of St. Martin, yes, I do agree with you the financial argument is the least important and that is why I left it until the end. I am pleased that you agree that marriage should be meaningful, and that is my intention with this proposition, is to give all the couples in Jersey the meaningful marriage ceremony they want. Or civil partnership as Senator Ozouf has pointed out. I really hope that the Connétable s will be consulted when the

legislation is being drafted because obviously as the system is now, the simple way would be just to make it that you approve the location, but there are other ways of doing it which would be far less onerous on the Connétable s. New Zealand, again, I think they register their celebrants rather than their location, so there are lots of ways of doing it.

[10:00]

Deputy Norton, thank you. [Laughter] It was very nice hearing about all of your experiences of marriage and some interesting statistics there. I hope some of those 80,000 people that go abroad from the U.K. will come to Jersey. I am quite excited about the prospects for Jersey on this. I do not think Jersey should miss out on this, I think we should grab it with both hands and totally agree marriage is a joyful occasion. Connétable of St. Mary, thank you, very reasonable comments, as always. I always like hearing what you have got to say. As for defining a place, Scotland have a very nice way of putting it: that the location has to be "safe and dignified" so that is quite simple wording I think that could possibly be written into our legislation. A big thanks to the Dean. I am very pleased that you are supporting this. I am sure your parishioners will be pleased to hear that as well. Sorry, I should be going through the Chair. I think I have covered everyone who has commented. I just want to remind Members of the reason why this is a good thing for Jersey. It is reasonable, people want it. 93 per cent of people who took that poll in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) said yes to this so it is quite overwhelmingly supported by the public. It would be very simple to introduce, it would strengthen marriage in Jersey in line with the Chief Minister's intentions and hopefully increase wedding tourism to Jersey. So I urge Members to vote pour and I call for the appel, please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for. Presumably you wish to take (b) and (c) together, Deputy ? They seem to be inextricably linked. I would invite Members to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Thank you to the Assembly for supporting it.

2. States Assembly: filming proceedings and the installation of clocks (P.39/2015) - as amended

The Deputy Bailiff :

The  final  item  of  Public  Business  is  that  which  was  deferred  from  yesterday  which  is  the proposition lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee entitled States Assembly: filming procedures  and  the  installation  of  clocks, P.39/2015.   Chairman,  I  understand  there  is  an amendment in the name of the Committee. Presumably you would wish the proposition to be taken as amended?

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

In which case I would ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended. The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion: (a) to agree that the proceedings of the States Assembly should be filmed and broadcast live on the internet and that the broadcast of each sitting should be available online to view again for a period of at least 6 months at a cost not exceeding the sums indicated on page 6 of the attached report and the addendum to the report; (b) to agree that the official media should be permitted, at their own cost, to record the proceedings of the States Assembly from the footage made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a), and to use it in news reports in accordance with rules to be established by the Privileges and Procedures Committee; (c) to agree that 3 digital display clocks should be installed in the States Chamber to indicate the length of speeches and other interventions made by Members.

2.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

This  proposition  is not  about  filming  ourselves;  this  was  suggested  in  a  proposition  lodged yesterday. It is not about spending money on ourselves. This proposition really is about one thing: it is about re-engaging with the public, the public who we represent, the public who put us here in the first place. Filming and broadcasting our proceedings will allow us to open the doors of the States  Assembly  to  our  constituents.   It  will  make  our  decisions  more  accessible  and  our communication  with  Islanders more  effective.   It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Privileges  and Procedures Committee to ensure the provision of information to the public about the work of the States. The committee has worked quickly since its appointment to investigate the feasibility and cost of installing cameras in the States Chamber to bring us in line with modern parliaments, modern democracies around the word. Not just parliaments, indeed, councils, county councils, tiny councils, councils with 9,000 constituents. It is now the norm filming of Assemblies. It is now expected that Assemblies will be accessible to the public through filming. What we are proposing is to stream our meetings live on the internet as well as to provide an archive of States sittings for people to access at their convenience. In developing this proposal, advice has been sought from the

Department of Electronics and the Information Services Department, as well as from potential suppliers and other legislatures who film their meetings. Officers from the States Greffe have held initial discussions with potential third party partners who could manage the web-streaming and archiving services. If this proposition is adopted a formal tender process will be organised to select a supplier. During our investigations positive feedback has been received from other legislatures and councils who have said that filming and broadcasting their proceedings has led to better engagement with the public and improved transparency. As I said before, it is not just parliaments. You think of small parliaments like Gibraltar, Bahamas, Barbados, Malta, Iceland and town councils now all over the United Kingdom, it is significant throughout the world. The committee has previously used filming as a means of connecting with the general public. During the 2014 election campaign hustings meetings were filmed and broadcast online by the Vote.je website receiving, amazingly, some 11,000 hits in all which is much more than quite honestly most of us anticipated. The committee believes that the filming of the States Assembly will be of equal interest or even more interest to people in Jersey and indeed elsewhere. We have received positive feedback too from social media, comments on Facebook and Twitter, for example. Streaming our meetings online is an efficient and effective way of improving the transparency of this Assembly and re-engaging with the people that we represent. Details of the proposal: we propose to introduce 5 high-definition cameras in the Chamber which will be operated manually by a member of staff from the States Greffe. Four of the cameras will be positioned to cover our seating areas and a further camera will focus on the Presiding Officer and Greffier seats. The cameras are small and unobtrusive and will be installed sensitively to take account of the historic nature of the Chamber. When an individual speaks, the relevant camera will focus on the person who is speaking and the operator will zoom in on the speaker. The film and sound will be fed directly through a dedicated high-speed line to an outsourced provider and will then be visible live on a dedicated page of the States Assembly website. Streaming will be at a suitable resolution to allow it to be viewed by any user with a standard broadband connection. After each sitting, once the live broadcast is finished, the film of the proceedings will be available for at least 6 months in an online archive available via again the States Assembly website. Each film will have a basic index attached that will link to individual debates and other parts of the proceedings so that viewers can easily find that part of the meeting that interests them. In addition, links to the footage of debates will be able to be sent out via the States Assembly Twitter feed. The archive will be hosted and managed by a third party supplier who will be selected through an open procurement process. Paragraph (b) of the proposition proposes that footage will also be made available to broadcasters at their own costs for use in news programmes. This means that broadcasters will be able to provide improved coverage of States sittings. Discussions have already taken place with Channel TV and the BBC who are both keen to improve their coverage of States proceedings through the use of film to replace the current audio-only output. The BBC is also hopeful that some footage may be used nationally, either on the Democracy Live website or on the BBC parliamentary channel. The committee will be drawing up rules for broadcasters to ensure that footage provided is only used for genuine news

and current affairs coverage of the Assembly. Local broadcasters have indicated they would welcome such rules to ensure that there are agreed parameters for everyone about the use of the footage. There is some speculation that the introduction of cameras could encourage some Members to speak more frequently or to play to an outside audience. I can recall similar concerns were expressed in the mid-1980s when the radio was first allowed to broadcast the proceedings in the Assembly and in other parliaments, such as the House of Commons, when cameras were first introduced. But in both cases any potential disadvantages were greatly outweighed by the benefits of opening up legislatures to a wider audience. Although in theory some Members may initially change their behaviour when cameras are introduced, in practice Members will almost certainly become oblivious to the cameras within a very short time. Following feedback from Members at the presentation we held a few weeks ago, we have lodged an amendment to our proposition to

ensure that the costs are limited to those outlined in the accompanying report and addendum. The equipment costs for the filming and web-streaming could be funded in one of 2 ways. The initial equipment costs are, with some suppliers, paid for as an initial capital payment, whereas other suppliers provide the equipment as part of an overall annual contract which covers the leasing of the equipment and the running costs of the web-streaming. The decision on the most cost-effective option will be taken as part of the tender process. Leased equipment options are available for less than £30,000 per annum. Alternatively, if the equipment is to be purchased, the estimated cost of the initial setup would not exceed some £40,000 to £45,000. Under this option the annual running costs, including the need for a dedicated S.D.S.L. (Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line) and maintenance costs based on 48 meetings a year would be between £22,000 and £27,000 depending on whether the footage was kept online for 6 or 12 months. In both cases there would be a £3,500 per annum opportunity cost for staffing the equipment. Some Members have indicated to me, and I have heard them saying: "Now is not the right time. Spending £30,000 a year when some of our staff are to be made redundant is not appropriate." I have to say that the spending on this project would not make one iota of difference to any of the departments of the States. We are not asking for any extra money. The modest costs will be funded by prioritising our existing resources, our existing budget. We have already made the savings which other departments have also made. The States Assembly budget has been reduced in the same way that other departments have had their budgets reduced. In addition to broadcasting our proceedings, we are proposing that clocks should be installed in the States Chamber showing Members the total time they have been speaking during a debate. Clocks such as this are in place in many parliaments around the world and have proved to be useful in Chambers such as the House of Lords to inform Members how long their speeches are lasting. We have no intention of introducing time limits on speeches. This proposal today is simply to assist Members to ensure that their speeches are concise and relevant. If this proposition is adopted, 3 clocks will be installed, one over each of the main exit doors in the Chamber. The clocks will appear on a simple flat-screen television around the size of an iPad and will show a

digital clock display. It will be the Greffier's responsibility to start, stop and reset the clocks which will be equally linked. We have received a quote in the sum of £1,748 for the supply and installation of 3 elapsed-time counters in the Chamber. We had intended to trial the operation of the clocks, but in view of the cost involved, we are proposing it should be introduced as a permanent measure, as it would be difficult to justify such an expense for a trial period. It was yesterday I heard the Minister for Treasury on the radio saying, when talking about the Medium- Term Financial Plan, that the States needed to become more efficient. Now, I know that he was talking about the various States departments, but of course we ourselves need to set an example and to be as efficient as we possibly can. We have no mechanisms for disciplining ourselves. We have no time limits on speeches; no time limits on debates; Back-Benchers have equal rights to spend time on propositions as Ministers; there is no priority between legislation and straightforward propositions; there are no guillotine motions.

[10:15]

The only way of controlling ourselves is by our own self-discipline. The object of these clocks is to help us to understand how long we are speaking and how relevant, hopefully, we are being. This proposition as a whole is about moving the States Assembly into the 21st century. We cannot expect people to engage with the States via an audio feed and Hansard. If Members are serious about the need to communicate with Islanders and appeal to younger members of society, we must be prepared to accept the additional modest cost of filming and broadcasting our proceedings. As I said earlier, to provide such a facility is now the norm throughout many places in the world and is taken for granted. This is not about filming ourselves, but it is about bringing the public to us. I was thinking about this: there are many people who cannot come and watch our proceedings, even though we have a public gallery, because never will the disabled be able to enter the public gallery

because of the design of this building. Those who cannot manage the stairs will never be able to come and engage with us as other people are able to do. I just wonder, if I was standing here today asking for £100,000 or £200,000 to make disabled access possible - which it is not - in that public gallery, would there be any objection whatsoever? I think probably not. The cost of web- streaming and of the installation of the clocks will be accommodated by making savings in other areas of the States Assembly budget. We are conscious that in coming years, the States Assembly will no doubt be required to find more savings to meet States spending targets, but we consider that this public engagement initiative is an important one that should be funded within existing resources. It is the Committee's job to provide information to the public about the work of the States and to keep the public information services under review. Public engagement with local politics is difficult, but if we expect to be able to communicate with Islanders, our dialogue needs to be accessible. We must therefore consider the way in which Islanders access information in this digital age. The public does not have the time to digest voluminous verbatim records of States sittings. If we are going to communicate effectively, we must provide visual access to our decision-making process. This proposition provides us with an opportunity to broadcast our decisions, providing a more transparent and open parliament and re-engaging with the people we are here to represent. Supporting this proposition will be a commitment to transparency and openness; it will be a commitment to reconnecting with the people who put us here; it will be a commitment to keeping pace with other parliaments of significance; it will be a commitment to a vision of a modern, forward-thinking and self-confident Assembly; it will be a commitment to a belief that politics and the work that we do in this place is significant and important, and it should be captured, it should be open and not closeted. I make the proposition, Sir. [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Deputy Labey .

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

As somebody who has covered this Assembly for both radio and television, I thought I just might share a few comments. When I was a reporter for Channel Television, I would sit in that gallery there, and before I left the station, synchronise my watch with the Betamax video-recorder that was recording the audio feed of the Assembly. Every time I heard a choice sound bite or a sound bite that summed up the debate or was interesting or controversial - sometimes it was by the then Deputy Len Norman - I would note down the time code reader, go back to the station at the end of the day, chop those pieces up, put them into a report and the audio was accompanied by a slide of whoever the speaker was sitting in this Chamber that we had taken at the beginning of the parliamentary session. I thought this was exhilarating television, but I was alone in that. Of course it is terrible, terrible television, because television is a visual media. That was in the 1980s, and even then it was not really acceptable, because parliament had already started to be filmed, so people were used to seeing politicians in that Chamber. It is in the 1980s that Deputy Le Fondré's report is stuck, I am afraid. Things have moved on, and he has missed the point, that for adequate and proper television coverage - and we now have more local television news on the mainstream than we have had ever before - for that to be properly and adequately covered, they need to show the pictures. That is why the reporters do not ever have clips of us speaking with a slide on television now, yet interviewed outside, because it is bad television. Television is a visual media, and not just that, the internet is a visual media, the newspapers are a visual media and the newspapers' websites are a visual media. Look at the Daily Mail one which is one of the most popular in the world, it is full of pictures, it is full of moving pictures. It will also help the J.E.P. in their online coverage and the Bailiwick Express, all of the local media. I just wanted to share with you that. We think we are terribly trendy because we are on Facebook and Twitter, but even that has been superseded now by Instagram and Snapchat and what have you, the reason being Instagram and Snapchat are more visual. That is the point. I think the argument that Members might be encouraged to play to the camera, those who might be encouraged to play to the camera are already probably playing to the microphone, if they exist. [Approbation] Constable Norman, the Chairman of the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), was very clear in his election speech to get the position that he wanted to bring this in. I remember he got approbation for that and I believe it is great that he has come so quickly to this House with this proposition and he should be supported wholeheartedly. [Approbation]

2. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour :

As part of the proposition, I would like to draw Members' attention to this line: "Although in theory, some Members may initially change their behaviour when cameras are introduced, the P.P.C. trust that Members will act in a responsible way, and in practice, Members will almost certainly become oblivious to the cameras after a very short while." The question is will we all be getting our hair done up all nice, choosing our ties more carefully and becoming deeply aware of that blob of mayonnaise that landed on your jacket during the lunch break? What I think we will find is that a number of Members of the Assembly who labour under the misapprehension that they are good public speakers will find that, without the benefit of a Hansard tidy-up, their rambling - "Hang on a minute, it is here somewhere. Hang on, I have just lost my train of thought, err, erm, err" - will be definitely not standing up to public scrutiny, so we can only hope that adaptive preparation of speeches, debates and responses will come into its own, which brings me to part (c) of the proposition: "To agree that 3 digital display clocks should be installed in the States Chamber to indicate the length of speeches and other interventions made by Members." Again, a quote from the proposition: "A simple clock system showing the total time a Member has been speaking to be used in the States Chamber. Hopefully having a conscious and visible reminder of the duration of a speech or debate will focus the person speaking on participating in an efficient manner." There are some Members of the Assembly who, when they stand to speak, I perk up. They may not even speak that often, but when they do, the words they use have meaning, are pertinent, well thought- out and thought-provoking. I may not even agree with their sentiment, but they give me pause for thought. They optimise for me what debate is supposed to be, persuasive of another point of view, another opinion, not: "I am right, and you are all wrong and therefore because you do not agree with me, you are all idiots." Throughout the world this has been shown, that this so-called form of debate is a massive turn-off for the electorate. Just saying, this happens, and it will happen when people get to observe this kind of behaviour in this Chamber. The other Members of the Assembly who think that they have to speak on virtually every subject at virtually every occasion possibly at length, I believe that this denigrates their argument and I, like many in this Assembly now - and historically, I am sure - I am ashamed to say I just switch them off. I should not, but it is hard paying that much attention for that length of time. We are not paid by the word. If we were, some Members of this Assembly would feature in the Times Rich List under the section: "Speaks too

much." A bit rich coming from me, as I have spoken rather a lot over these past couple of days. On balance, I believe that the electorate deserve to witness with their own eyes the workings of this Assembly and that any misgivings that Members may have regarding the performances of Members will naturally find their level in ways that I am sure will surprise us all. I shall wholeheartedly be supporting all 3 parts of the proposition. I urge you to do so. Thank you.

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

So far today, I have heard comments about performance, visual cues and all that sort of stuff. The issue, in the context of where we are, it is about substance. The Connétable of St. Clement said: "This is not about filming ourselves. It is not about spending money on ourselves." He may like to think that, but I think it is how it will be perceived, and I put that in the context of where we are as

of yesterday and what was lodged on our desks yesterday. I note the comments from good friends, I hope, or colleagues who have just spoken with ties to the media, but you cannot ignore the context we are operating in. That is, to an extent, why I lodged my proposition, which may be on Members' desks - it was lodged yesterday, obviously, which will be debated in September - which I considered a small step, a small improvement to this proposal in front of us. Why? To me, it is about politicians, it is about pensioners, it is about message and it is about mindset. We are in possibly the toughest financial position this Assembly has ever had to face. The full forecast deficit for 2015 is £116 million, for 2015 even, that is this year; for 2016, it is £93 million; for 2017, it is £71 million and so it goes on. If anybody wants to doubt me or challenge me on that, look on page 43 of the Medium-Term Financial Plan. The Council of Ministers have announced they will be cancelling the Christmas Bonus and removing for new entrants Television Licences for the Over- 75s. Those are all things that this Assembly in the past they are embedded in our culture at the moment. We are capping supplementation, which does not necessarily mean very much to people, but on the face of it is taking money out of the Social Security Reserve Fund. That is about everybody in this Assembly's own pension. We have compulsory redundancies on the horizon, so politically those are pretty tough decisions. They emphasise the seriousness of the position that we continue to face, yet on the day after the Minister for Treasury and Resources has been defending these measures, we in this Assembly are being asked to approve extra spending on filming us - yes, there will be this thing about engagement - but it is we will be the subject of it and which is going to cost somewhere in the order of £25,000 to £30,000 a year. What message does that send out, because I think it will be perceived that we are more interested in ourselves than in pensioners. Will any Minister be able to look at someone who has been made compulsorily redundant and say: "Your specific job needed to go so that we could pay for filming politicians, and that is why I, Minister for X, Y, Z, voted for that proposition." That is the message that I think could be received. It undoes so much of the work in the M.T.F.P. and we need to be clearly demonstrating that we are serious about the savings that need to be made and we have a clear mindset that we are serious about those savings. That is why this is a matter about principle effectively. Yes, in the overall context it is a small sum of money. We get used to that because we deal with millions of pounds every day. In the context of the man on the street out there £30,000 a year is a substantial sum of money. Voting for this proposition does not clearly demonstrate the mindset here in this Assembly that we are serious about savings. Because filming this Assembly ultimately is a nice to have relative to the things I have just spoken about. You can talk about engagement, you can talk about transparency and all sorts of stuff but ultimately this is a nice to have that presently does not exist. I have to say personally I do not think that filming us is going to increase respect. We all

listen to speeches from time to time. [10:30]

I will relate a conversation I had with a senior politician from a different jurisdiction relatively recently and we talked about the problems they were having. The way they put it was the public are fed up with spin. They are fed up with politicians saying one thing and then coming back later and saying: "Well, I did not quite mean what I said. If you look at my words you should have interpreted them in a different way." That is the first thing that needs to be addressed and that might start improving respect for us. As for transparency, the better place to start in that process might be, for example, not taking 25 weeks to respond to things from the Public Accounts Committee. [Approbation] It might not be, for example, taking 10 weeks to respond to requests from Scrutiny Panels. That is about improving transparency initially because that is your fundamentals. I tried to look at bringing an amendment but unfortunately it was disallowed because effectively it was deemed it would negate the proposition, and I have explored various ways of trying to come to a compromise, so that is why I lodged the proposition that Members have had which, if this is rejected, we can bring in debate in September. Basically we already record

States sittings. We know that. That forms the basis of Hansard. The media already broadcast the Assembly live on audio but you cannot listen again. All I am suggesting is that as a first step we do it through our website through our existing resources and we get that sorted out. Then let us see how that goes. Let us see what the engagement is, and the ongoing cost of setting that up is minimal. It is £1,000 to £1,200 a year as compared to £25,000 to £30,000 a year. In my view it is an incremental improvement that is incidental in terms of costs. There is a one-off capital cost but even that is around one-third of one year's cost under the proposals from P.P.C. Basically all those costs that I have cited that are in my report are those that P.P.C. have included in their report as well, so we are talking the same language. I have used more expensive options in my comparisons. As I said, if the proposition is approved today I will withdraw my proposition. Otherwise it is there and we can debate it in September. But I re-iterate, this is a nice to have. Adoption of this proposition is £25,000 to £30,000 each and every year based on P.P.C.'s own report, and the day after, we have lodged proposals - sorry not we - the Council Ministers have lodged proposals to cancel the Christmas Bonus for pensioners and cancel certain free TV licences. The Constable of St. Clement said we need to set an example ourselves and referred to savings already having been made within the States Assembly budget. Absolutely correct: we do need to set that example and in my view that means do not just then spend the money you have saved. That is about having the correct mindset and it is about sending that message that we are serious about having that mindset and that therefore everyone else should be serious about that mindset. We as an Assembly need to stop wandering round with our eyes shut as to what is happening in respect of the Island's finances. We need to clearly demonstrate we are serious about controlling expenditure and not adding to it unnecessarily. We need to show that mindset and, in my view, this proposition should be rejected.

4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin :

It is difficult to follow the opening speech from the Chairman and I thank the Chairman for delaying bringing the proposition to the Assembly after the query I had raised at the Members' briefing concerning the seemingly uncapped cost of the project had the proposition as it was worded then been approved. Those present will recall that had it been approved then the Assembly would have given the go-ahead to the installation even if the cost had eventually turned out to be far greater than originally anticipated. We now have the amendment with a cap and also an addendum that covers the cost of the States Greffier's Department too. I suspect the cost of the facility will increase rapidly in the years to come. I am an old cynic but I hope it becomes value for money at this difficult time. The proposition is quite thorough but I am not sure of a couple of comments contained within it that filming will help re-engage with the public. It may have been better to have the word "hopefully". I think someone viewing a full day on some States Assembly days then might have the opposite effect. That filming will appeal to younger members of society: can I again add "hopefully" but there is no evidence to support that claim in the paper. Those very broad comments are seemingly the answer to all our problems with engagement with the public. It is sad how often we look up on States days to see the public gallery, and I know there are some people this morning but not very many interested people who will come to a States day and sit here. Most days it is empty, and I am not sure if Radio Jersey is able to tell how many people listen every other week to the States days, and I thank those Islanders who do take an interest and listen to a whole debate rather than subsequent snippets used in media headlines. I appreciate all the work and progress that has been undertaken by P.P.C. but I have concerns on the proposition. This is not a trial proposition. The amendment to Standing Orders to use electronic equipment in the Assembly back in 2012 was initially a trial, albeit I am not sure we all complied with the intent some of the equipment was used for. It was to help us in States debates work towards a paperless society. We know that does not happen. [Laughter] I think it was a term I served sitting next to my dear colleague, the former Connétable of St. John , who called himself the old dinosaur. I think I have taken over, having sat so close to him. Will this proposition be value for money? Will costs

remain the same or suddenly start to escalate? The Chairman of P.P.C. might like to confirm again, I am not quite sure in his summing up if it is £45,000 and £27,000 per annum or just basically £30,000 per annum. And I say "just"; £30,000 per annum. How many will watch or benefit predominantly from our critical, and rightly so, colleagues in the media? The existing cost of running this Assembly today is considerable. I do not have those costs but I am sure it would surprise the public and it would probably surprise us how much a day in this Assembly costs. I have concerns about the responsibility for the Greffier and his team who would have to undertake operating cameras and setting clocks. What a lot of spare time they appear to have and we know they do not have that spare time. Of course, even P.P.C. has concerns about the production of satirical and critical videos from the footage. I am unsure if the Chairman will seek to take the 3 items separately but I would ask that he does. I have no appetite for the installation of 3 clocks in the Assembly. Maybe time clocks as Members leave and return to the Assembly might have a more influencing effect. [Laughter] I would, of course, have a different view on the usefulness of clocks if we had time limits on Members' speeches but we do not have that. I am not convinced that clocks will assist the Assembly or Members in any way whatsoever. In fact, you could compare it to the Mr. Smiley speed machines on the sides of roads, although I am sure nobody in this Assembly would ever dream of seeing if they could get the highest reading as some of the motorists seem to do. I will not mention the stats produced at the end of each term of the number of votes each Member has missed but we know this has happened, where we get a circulation not from the States or from the Greffier but from Members of how many votes we have missed. Even the Greffier on speech times would have something to talk about to Hedley at the Members Christmas lunch. I think it is unnecessary spend of an estimated £1,800, all-singing, all-dancing £600 a clock. That is maybe small on the grand scale of things but I think it is best spent elsewhere. In conclusion, I have changed my speech overnight. I prepared last week for the debate

and I was going to support the filming part but not the part in relation to the clocks. But like with all of us our minds keep thinking. We are assessing and weighing things up on a daily basis, new thoughts flashing through our minds all the time, even when we are sitting here during debates. We had the briefings from the Council of Ministers and the Minister for Treasury and Resources on Friday on the Medium-Term Financial Plan, the reality check that faces us all and that is so easy to ignore. On the front page of last night's newspaper, and I know we should not have newspapers in the Assembly, but I have the copy. "We are all in this together", and it was in black as well. "New health charge: user-pays for sewerage." This is just the headline. "Pensioners' Christmas bonus axed, over-75s free TV licences scrapped, freeze on benefits, rainy day fund raided, £90 million cut-backs in States staff and services, public sector pensions frozen." All on the front page, not in the story, just the headline. I think some of these issues, for the time being, overshadow the cost involved and perceived benefits of the installation of cameras and clocks, so I will be opposing it today.

5. Deputy M.J. Norton:

I am, of course, reminded that the former members of the media are among the first to stand up and talk when it comes to something to do with television and radio and further broadcasting. I do say without apology there are questions that I would like to ask on this proposition. In the main I support it. There was something mentioned by the proposer of this proposition that the media would be re-broadcasting at their own cost. I wonder, when I look that the BBC receives £4.8 billion in licence fee, if there is some cost to them in order for them to have the pictures we are producing in the States to do so. Is there a payment that comes from then broadcasters to the States for using our pictures from ITV and BBC? After all, we are paying for the cameras, we are paying for the operators and we are paying for the streaming, are we not? They are paying for it. I am being misled. Whoever is paying for it I am just wondering whether there is some fee to be charged from that. It was a question that I had not asked and it is already being answered for me or perhaps it can be made more clear for me. In terms of the growth of social media and the coverage that we will get, of course, there are those that will be interested to log-on and watch the entire States debate. There will be those that would wish to re-tweet links to part of the debate and put it up on social media. Social media is growing at a huge rate and, of course, will attract other people into our debates and I think that can only be a good thing. One has to look at social media at the moment and realise that all our media, wherever they be, in print, television or radio, use social media non-stop all day long, and they do it to promote the headlines they are writing. We are reliant on the headlines they write to feed the information they give to the public. Perhaps we need to let them see and hear what we do as it happens. Not as they report, and not as they spin it, and there will be spin in either way, but I would rather have people see what happens than be able to read from headlines what the media might want to put on it for whatever agenda they have. For those reasons, while I do take note of the spend I think it is important that we open up for transparency as much as we possibly can. It is a minor spend for a great deal of transparency and I will be supporting.

6. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I have a great deal of difficulty with this proposition in a couple of aspects and I have come here this morning prepared to vote completely against the proposition. I have heard a very persuasive speech from Deputy Labey explaining the media side of things and some follow-on speeches as well. I can appreciate what they are saying. When the Chairman proposed this he said we cannot expect people to engage with us via an audio feed and Hansard. My question I wrote down then was, why not? The majority of people who do, in my experience, listen to the broadcast do so while they are doing something else. They do not have the time to sit dedicated to a television programme. They are maybe doing the gardening, doing the ironing, whatever, perhaps even driving or something. They are doing it as an ancillary thing; it is not their prime focus. But they are getting verbatim streaming.

[10:45]

If that was available maybe that would satisfy a need. But I can understand the reluctance of the media to take extracts, as Deputy Labey said, and just put them without images. That is a difficulty. But my real question on this is: where did the focus for this come from? Where did it initiate? I have had 2 emails from people saying: "We encourage you to support this." One from a person and one from a group, and their comments are valid. This is not an easy thing to say yes or no to for me, but I have been out and about and I have spoken to quite a few people about this, just literally asked them a question while we are having a chat about something else: "By the way can I ask you what your opinion of television streaming of the States is?" I have not asked a single person who has told me: "Yes, we need it." Not one. In fact, I have had some very angry responses from some of the people, so I would say that if the Chairman says we need to engage by doing this he might have engaged better with the public first before bringing it in the way it has, because they certainly do not understand the nuances that Deputy Labey and others have mentioned and they are cross that we think we will be doing this at this time. I would just like to be really sure that the Chairman can convince me that the public of the Island want this. But I am very balanced on a knife edge as regards that part of the proposition, but if I could I would like to talk about time clocks because few people have put much into that at the moment. I was thinking this was probably a very good idea and I still do think it is a good idea but I am not convinced the way this proposition puts it forward is the optimum. The cost is there. It is small but no matter how small it is we do need to make sure we get maximum value for money. We do need to think outside the box on this. Members have said that we do not time our speeches but, of course, that is not always true. We time our questions generally. I know that is just a guideline but we have that. More importantly, perhaps, we time our election speeches. We know how long we can speak for after statements. There are already defined time limits in our Standing Orders. I am very lucky in that I have had the privilege of working in other parliaments around Europe particularly, and I would like to share some of the experiences I have had there in the context of further ways that we could perhaps save money if we did this a little differently. I am sorry I have not had time to think about this in order to put in an amendment, but genuinely the penny dropped last week when I was looking at something in the Swiss Federal Parliament and they have television screens around the Chamber. Obviously the Chamber is bigger than ours. We are limited to where we could perhaps put them but there certainly is space there, there is certainly a space there, perhaps a drop down one for other things. Not only could we use those time clocks as the Chairman is saying, we could use small displays, but, of course, if a Member wants to circulate a photograph in an Island Plan debate, a chart or whatever, that Member does not put 49 pieces of paper round the Chamber. They present it beforehand in pdf format or whatever and it appears on the screen in the place where everybody in that Assembly can see it. I have tried to go completely paperless. I am very fortunate. I work very well reading off the screen. I always have my iPad here and for major debates I bring my laptop. But yesterday, and this is when, of course, I am going to shoot myself in the foot because this would be great to put on television, I received on my paperless desk what I estimate to be 500 sheets of printed material that I will not read because I have every single one of these documents electronically and that is how I have chosen to work. [Approbation] I believe that if we could install in the Chamber screens of a slightly larger size to the ones the Constable and the Committee have envisaged we could use them as a dual purpose. The thing that impressed me most about the clocks I saw last week, because we were very busy in our work and we had a very charged agenda, at one point in the debating we were given 4 minutes to speak. At the start of our 4 minutes a green bar appeared across the screen that was 3½ minutes long and it got shorter and shorter and shorter so wherever you were in the Chamber, however you were speaking you could glance up and think: "I do not have much time left. I must focus." Then for the last 30 seconds of that 4 minutes it turned orange and it got shorter and shorter and shorter and then all of a sudden the screen went red. It was a visual reminder, it was a focus, and it worked because we had a defined time limit and while we do not have that for our speeches, as I have explained, we do have it for a lot of other things we do in this Assembly. It would be very useful in questions without notice to have 15