States Meeting Transcript - 7th June 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 7th JUNE 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 9) Law 201- (P.18/2017) - resumption........4

1.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:........................................................4

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.....................................................................4
2. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :.........................................................5
3. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : .....................................................5
4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:........................................................5
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................5
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................6
7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................6
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................7
9. The Connétable of St. Clement:..........................................................8

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 9) Law 201- (P.18/2017) - Leave to withdraw the proposition............................................................................9

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

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................10
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................10
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................11

4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................12
5. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:......................................................14
6. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen:........................................................14
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................15
8. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................17

9. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................18
10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................19
11. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................20
12. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................21
13. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade : ..................................................21
14. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................22
15. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................22

3. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.23/2017)..23

3.1 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):....................24

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................24
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................25

3. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................26
4. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................26
5. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................26

4. Chief Minister: Term Limit (P.24/2017) ................................................28

4.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................29

1. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................31
2. Deputy M.J. Norton:....................................................................31
3. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................32
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................32
5. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................33
6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................33
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................34
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................35
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................38
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................39
12. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................40
13. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................40
14. Deputy S.M. Brée: ..................................................................42
15. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................43

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

16. Senator S.C. Ferguson:........Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. La Collette Low Rise Development: protection of existing amenity space and trees - direction to Andium Homes Limited (P.22/2017) .... Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:....Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. The Connétable of St. Peter:.....Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:............Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
5. Deputy S.M. Brée:......Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
6. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:..Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
7. The Connétable of St. John:......Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
9. The Deputy of St. John : Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ........Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
11. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

12. Senator S.C. Ferguson:........Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
13. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
14. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin : ..Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
15. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:.. Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
16. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ....Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
17. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier : Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
18. Deputy M.J. Norton: Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
19. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:......Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
20. Deputy G.P. Southern : ........Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
21. Senator A.K.F. GreenError! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
22. The Connétable of St. Mary : ..Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
23. Deputy R. Labey :....Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
24. The Connétable of Trinity :....Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
25. The Connétable of St. Helier:.Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS Error! Bookmark not

defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

ADJOURNMENT.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

[9:32]

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

1. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 9) Law 201- (P.18/2017) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

I think we continue to deal with Articles 2 and 3 in their unamended form and I call on the Chairman. I beg your pardon, it has been proposed and seconded. Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 2 and 3?

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

Sir, could we just have a quick recap, because my memory has gone overnight? What do Article 2 and 3 include? I have lost my memory overnight.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

They implement the States decision to reduce the number of Deputies from 29 to 28. The Deputy Bailiff :

Members will remember the chairman proposed Articles 2 and 3 to be seconded, the amendments. It was then debated yesterday, at the conclusion of the sitting yesterday, but the amendments were defeated so we now move to consider in unamended Articles 2 and 3. Does any Member wish to speak on those articles?

1.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier :

This is a small step for man but a large step for mankind perhaps. One reduced Member in the States of Jersey, little steps maybe, so I commend that this goes forward and I hope it is the beginning of further reductions. We have had significant reductions and redundancies in the public sector. How do you think it feels if you are a public sector employee and you cannot see reductions occurring in the States Assembly as well when there is a perfectly legitimate reason for doing it and there are perfectly good reports out there explaining why? I do accept the Constable of St. Mary's point yesterday where she expressed concerns about the machinery of government and she is quite right. That is not to say you cannot do that at any stage during this Assembly and the Chief Minister has already said he wants to bring proposals forward to that extent and I am sure P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) will be doing the same, so it can be done. A reduction of one is a poor substitute to the reduction of 5 that the public were expecting during the referendum but nevertheless it is progress, so I would endorse it and hope that everybody supports it.

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I know we are talking about the reduction in numbers but if this is not the debate where we are talking about merging the Parishes I do not see how we can reduce the number of Deputies without knowing where they are coming from. I would really appreciate some clarity on that because I do not think it would be right for the States to reduce the number of Deputies if we do not know where they are coming from. I would just ask the Chair for guidance.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Article 4 that we will come on to, having debated this, deals with where the Deputies are coming from. It sets out the schedule in the law.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

What would be the implication, for example, if the States were to vote this through but not vote then through Article 4?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, that is a matter that the Members would have to understand. Quite clearly there would be a reduction but the schedule would not have been adopted that says where they are coming from, so it would be a strange result, I suppose, for Members to have adopted one but not to have adopted the other. There are always possibilities for inconsistencies and strange results, of course.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Especially in this place, Sir. I appreciate this is probably a procedural thing but I think I have made my point.

2. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Briefly, I would like to ask the Deputy when he makes a claim that there have been significant reductions in the public sector, what evidence he has to back that up. When I was looking at some statistics the other day it was clear that that is not the case because if you take away Andium, Ports and other entities, Visit Jersey, those numbers are no longer counted.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Could I clarify with you, if you are asking a question of Deputy Andrew Lewis , he is not the proposer of these Articles and he will not be able to answer in the summing up at the end. So the most you can be asking for is a point of clarification of his speech and that would normally be done immediately after the speaker has sat down. If you are making a speech saying you do not think the evidence is there, then that is one thing, that is a speech. If you are asking for a point of clarification, then it must be a very succinct question.

The Deputy of Grouville :

I will be voting against because there is no evidence of his claims.

3. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

I would like to thank Deputy Maçon for clarifying this because, quite frankly, I think Senator Bailhache 's comment of "dog's dinner" comes very relevantly to mind. I do not see how we could vote for something without knowing exactly what the consequences are and anyone who votes in favour of this clearly, without knowing the consequences, needs to explain themselves most thoroughly.

4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

I do not know what Members are talking about. There is nothing complicated about this process at all. It is exactly what happens when the States debates legislation in any other instance. We go through the Articles, we debate them, we vote on them, and if there is inconsistencies or changes that arise out of some Articles being amended and then adopted or not adopted in the first place and you do not like the final result, then you vote against it at Third Reading, so there is nothing unusual about this process whatsoever. This is entirely normal and if we support all the Articles we then have an intact piece of legislation at the end to vote on on Third Reading.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Just to add to that, this amendment here, this paragraph, is not about reducing the numbers. It might look like it but it is just a necessary precursor to us having a proper and full and sensible debate about super-constituencies and whether we adopt them or not. If Members are hung up on the issue of whether there are too many or too few States Members, that is another matter for another day. Of course, no doubt we will in future have the debate about whether or not Grouville , St. Peter , St. Lawrence need one extra or fewer Deputies and about the redistribution but, of course, that is part of what we are doing here.

[9:45]

If there is an issue perhaps before we start it is the futility of today when we have 2 senior Members of the States, who we know in theory would have voted in favour of this, are away when we had a 25 knife-edge majority at the last one, which can only be eroded. So it seems to me that we have assembled ourselves here today when it is mathematically impossible for any of these reforms to go through. We might want to bear that in mind and, of course, I fully presume that anybody who does not want any change has got no reason to support this Article anyway. So let us carry on with the futile debate until whatever time it is, knowing that there will be no change on this occasion because 2 senior Ministers .. and I am not saying that they should not be outside the Island but certainly without those 2 nothing is going to be through today.

6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I will not say much but Sir Philip has said that he feels that this is a dog's breakfast but he would have voted for it because he reckons that any change is better than no change. He says we can take the second steps in due course but at least we have taken the first step, which puts me in mind of David Lloyd George who said: "There is no greater mistake than to try to leap an abyss in 2 jumps." I fear we are standing at the edge of an abyss. One of the inherent snags attached to all these revisions is that the public are greatly attached to their Parishes. As Deputy Le Fondré has said, it is one of the key cultural identifiers of our Island. In the U.K. (United Kingdom) the balancing of the constituencies is effected by changing the boundaries and it perhaps is a conundrum that even Clothier was unable to untangle because, given the attachment of the population to their Parishes, any move to change the Parish boundaries is likely to meet with outright rebellion and revolution.

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

Sir, is the Senator not getting on to the amendment here rather than the Article? The Deputy Bailiff :

We are just dealing with Articles 2 and 3.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, but reducing the number of Deputies is an integral part of merging the constituencies, and I shall not be speaking again, you will be glad to hear.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You shall not be speaking again on these points? Senator S.C. Ferguson:

No, I do not think so. Given the fact about the boundaries, any extensive development in a Parish, like the Samarès glasshouses, for example, will change the electoral balance. The result is we shall be constantly changing and revising constituencies and numbers of representatives, so it is better that we take a step back and not try to cross the abyss in 2 steps.

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

I might need some advice from you, Sir. Just to be quite clear, on page 11 the amended Article then would read: "For remain 29', substitute the words be 28'" and obviously they are talking about Deputies because there are not 29 Senators or Constables. That is fine but on its own it just

says a Deputy goes from 29 to 28. The explanation on page 7 says it should change Article 2 and 3 and the Assembly should be 28: "And these Deputies should then be elected from 6 districts." So I think you said, Sir, we could have a vote for this and so we are going to indicate we are going to go down to 28 Deputies, then not pass the whole thing in the final reading. Have we got this hanging over us or .. sorry, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No. If the law is rejected in the final reading then it is of no purchase. It is simply an indication given by the Assembly on a previous occasion, which can change on the next occasion. It happens all the time.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Thank you for your clarification. Well, then I just say it is the way we do legislation. As Deputy Mézec says, it is not great. You vote for this, because is it popular to say: "Yes, I voted to reduce States Members by one. Actually, I did not vote for the end so it is all still hanging in the air"? I will just say that for tidiness I am not supporting this because it is the cart before the horse, whatever the Deputies behind me think.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am sorry, it is still a bit early in the day. Are we agreeing to a different makeup of super- constituencies with this? No? Sorry.

The Deputy Bailiff :

If all of the Articles were adopted then there is a schedule at the back which will explain the position.

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

Sir, can I make a point of clarification with yourself? This is reserving my right to speak later. Surely the debate we are having is to reduce the number of Deputies from 29 to 28. The default position, therefore, is because the schedule is the only item that gives us the details of how that 28 would be split would surely mean that we are, therefore, in principle signing up to super- constituencies, or are you suggesting that it would be perfectly possible for the reduction in Deputies to be reduced to 28 but then .. the law has to stand as to when we pass it, surely, so we cannot not be signing up to .. if we do not approve schedule 4 we then have a hole in the law, so surely the principle would be that if this article is not approved then the whole debate falls. If this article is approved then in principle the debate will go on to super-constituencies, but in principle we are debating the adoption or the allocation of those 28 to super-constituencies because that is the only option in front of us that adds up to 28.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The position is, of course, that the Assembly can pass these Articles and reject the matter in Third Reading in the event that there is dissatisfaction in connection with the constituencies as set out. Obviously if this is passed, if these 2 Articles are passed, then the chairman will go on to move Article 4. That will deal with these schedules and there will then be amendment debate in connection with Article 4 as we go. At the end of the day, if Members or a majority of them are not satisfied with the overall shape and purpose of the law then the Assembly votes against it. It is really, I think, no more complicated than that.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Sorry, Sir, to test your and the Members' patience, to be clear, if we support this we then discuss which make-up the super-constituencies will follow?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. The chairman, I am sure, will then move on to propose Article 4. There are amendments to Article 4 to consider and at the end of the day there will be an overall numeric picture one way or the other and then the Assembly can vote for or against the draft law as the case may be. Does any other Member wish to speak on Articles 2 and 3? I call on the chairman to respond.

9. The Connétable of St. Clement :

Just briefly, I think, because you have clarified many of the queries that were raised. I would say to Senator Ferguson that these Articles, and indeed none of the Articles in this amendment to the law, impact on the Parish boundaries. The Parish boundaries will remain exactly as they have been for centuries. [Approbation] Where she is right is that we do need, even if we do not make any changes at all, to keep an eye on population shift and the number of people who represent the Parishes or super-constituencies or whatever we might have, and that is something we have failed to do over the years which is why many Parishes like St. Helier, St. Clement , Grouville and some others are well under-represented in this place and others such as Trinity , St. Mary and others are over-represented. That is wrong and that is what is totally unfair about our electoral system and that is why the States have agreed twice this year to change the system to make it fairer and more honest so that people have a relatively equal number of votes and those votes have proportionality and have the same power. That is why we made that decision in February, that is why we made that decision in May and that is why, despite Deputy Tadier 's pessimism, I would expect the States to maintain that decision today. It is fairness and equity for all of our population not just our own individual Parishes. What are the consequences, asked the Constable of St. John and I think Deputy Maçon. The consequences of approving this legislation, these 2 articles and the next, would be to implement the decision that the States has already made, simple as that. I maintain the Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I ask the Greffier to open the vote. To clarify, the vote is on whether or not to adopt Articles 2 and 3 in their unamended form. Members have had the opportunity of voting and I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 17

Senator P.F. Routier Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator A.J.H. Maclean Senator L.J. Farnham Senator A.K.F. Green Connétable of St. Helier Connétable of St. Clement Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy M. Tadier (B) Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) Deputy R.G. Bryans (H) Deputy of St. Peter Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H) Deputy A.D. Lewis (H) Deputy M.J. Norton (B) Deputy P.D. McLinton (S)

CONTRE: 23 ABSTAIN: 0 Senator S.C. Ferguson

Connétable of St. Peter

Connétable of St. Mary

Connétable of St. Ouen

Connétable of St. Martin

Connétable of Grouville

Connétable of St. John

Connétable of Trinity

Deputy J.A. Martin (H)

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)

Deputy of Trinity

Deputy of St. John

Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)

Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy R. Labey (H)

Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)

Deputy S.M. Bree (C)

Deputy T.A. McDonald (S) Deputy of St. Mary Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chairman, presumably you do not move the rest of the Articles? The Connétable of St. Clement :

No, Sir. The States have made the decision that they wish to have the number of Deputies remain at 29. Article 4, if it were adopted, would say there would be 28 and it would make an absolute nonsense of the law. Therefore, I do not know whether I withdraw or what I do here, because the

States have adopted the principles, they have adopted Article 1. I am not quite sure what the procedure is now, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The position, Chairman, is that you obviously need the leave of the Assembly to withdraw now that the matter is open, so it is a matter of you asking that you withdraw and the Assembly consider it.

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 9) Law 201- (P.18/2017) - Leave to withdraw the proposition

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

I think that would be the sensible thing to do. It just seems to me rather odd that all we are doing is trying to implement the decision in the States but as the States, after 3 or 4 weeks, have decided they no longer want it, I will ask for leave to withdraw the amendment to the law.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You propose the withdrawal. Is that seconded? [Seconded] Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I just ask if there is any other procedural way? I know we are absolutely in the Last Chance Saloon because if it is withdrawn there is absolutely no chance of anything and it is lost. I am just asking whether there is anything that can be done, whether or not this can .. if it is withdrawn or if it can just be held and sat there and see whether there is something possible. I just ask that because after today then we are in, to many Members' minds, the apocalyptic situation of no reform and I just thought it is worth asking the question, if I may.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, sorry to interrupt. Could I propose a recess? The Deputy Bailiff :

No. I have considered with the Greffier what the other options may be. It seems to me that the only practical way is to let the chairman's proposition that he now withdraw be put to the Assembly. If the Assembly rejects it then the debate will continue with whatever the result may or may not be. If the Assembly agrees then it can be withdrawn and brought back on another occasion in a different form if that is the will of P.P.C. or indeed any Member of the Assembly, but it seems to me that we must deal with the proposition at hand and the proposition at hand is whether or not this should be withdrawn. You propose that you withdraw?

[10:00]

The Connétable of St. Clement :

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

It has been seconded. Does any Member wish to speak on that?

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

In yesterday's debate on the removal of the Senators the Chair allowed many of us the latitude to speak about the whole proposition, and I am quite glad he did, given what has happened this morning. I do think it is appropriate that Members are given the chance to comment again on what 25, I think it is, Members have just voted to do because I do not share Senator Ozouf 's view that this is an apocalyptic moment. I think there are far worse things going on in the world than that but I do think it is a highly significant vote that the States have just made and I think it is significant enough for Deputy Southern to ask for the votes to be read out. No one is impugning anything to the motives of those who voted for the status quo but at least the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee .. and I have been in that place myself, I have the scars on my back, as does the Constable of St. Mary and Deputy Maçon and many others. It means that we will come to the end of this Government without having made any changes at all in what is clearly a system of government that is unfair. There cannot be many places left, unless one looks at the banana republics, where members in the 21st century can vote to maintain a gerrymandered system, in other words - I said it yesterday and I will say it again - where you have more political influence depending on where you live. I think it is a sad day. It is not an apocalypse but it is a sad day and Members will have to keep fighting for this change to come in. It may take a Royal Commission, it may take electoral observers as have been talked about. I would not be surprised if in next year's general election some attention is given to commentators who will say to Jersey: "What you are doing is plain wrong." So I am not disheartened. I am pleased, if you like, to be on the side of the right, because I think Members who voted to change were absolutely right and I sympathise with the chairman of P.P.C. I do not know whether he will want to do it again but clearly we have got to change our system of government. It is not right that we have this system in place and I just would put my name forward as one person who is not disheartened. I believe we have to keep fighting. After all, we are still fighting for the States to pay rates and I have been on that one for 20 years, but we will get there. We will get a system, as Guernsey has of course, which is fair, and good on Guernsey for getting there ahead of us on this issue as with several other important issues, I may say. That is all I am going to say and I commend Deputy Lewis for bringing forward these amendments and trying to sort this out in time for the election and I am just sorry that he has not

been able to.

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I was just trying to find if there was any way of effectively avoiding a situation, because the withdrawal means that there will be no reform before the next election. When I say "apocalypse", I am sorry, in the context it is inappropriate perhaps to use it in terms of other issues, but it is extremely serious. I looked again yesterday at the numbers of constituencies and representatives and it is just simply unfair. It is just simply the report of 133 from P.P.C. just showed it. We can see that the Constables have historic boundaries and that has been accepted, the United States Senate and all the rest of it. That is fine. There are places that do that, but in terms of the Parliamentary Assembly and the fairness of the majority of the Members of the States, with fairness and equality, having different numbers of votes, people in St. Helier No. 3 with 4 votes influencing 4 Members of this Assembly and people in St. Lawrence 2 with the same population of St. Peter and others with one, it is just simply unfair, unsustainable. When I said yesterday .. I might have been excitable but I am an excitable person, and if excitable is divisive because it is the explanation of what I believe and what most democrats believe is right then I am sorry, but it is wrong and we are now embarking and we are accepting an electoral system which is unfair to the people who put us here. It is not right to have some people with 4 electoral votes and others with one with people in twice the size of the constituencies. We are doing it knowingly and we are allowing this to happen. When you do not know something you perhaps can have an excuse to say: "Well, I did not understand" but we know the problem and when I have talked about election observers, they are going to write the report. I was up at 5.30 this morning. I almost thought I would write a draft electoral report of what will come and what will be said, and Members do not like it. I do not think Members are self-interested. I hope they were not, but it feels uncomfortable. It feels jolly uncomfortable for people with their safe seats and their uncontested seats. This stretches the political divide in terms of left and right but the thing that we should be united about is what is fairness in democracy and we are just on the cusp of accepting for now 18 years. Then it cannot come back because we have had legal advice to say you cannot do a short-term Parliament, you cannot bring forward a general election; I hope Members understand that. You cannot do, with the greatest of respect, what the Constable of St. Saviour said yesterday, have a year and then have a general election. We cannot do that, so we are going to have a 4 year and it will be 25 years and we will have to sustain 4 years from May next year of effectively an undemocratic and unfair electoral democratic system. That is simply wrong and knowing that we are going to do that is the thing that is, I think, the most serious. If you do not know there is a problem and you continue that is one thing. We know that there is a problem; the public know there is a problem. I have looked at the P.P.C. report. How many issues, how many debates have there been? Hundreds. I am taking the States Assembly up on something that is now lost and probably wasting my time but if ever there is something more important it is the foundation of democracy. It is the font, it is the very thing that gives us legitimacy, the legitimacy to pass laws, to impose requirements of taxation on the people who we are here for. If we are here illegitimately and unfairly, and some of us are, that must be a very, very sad day for Jersey's democracy and has serious consequences. I am astonished, astounded. I listened to the debate again yesterday and I thought it is possible to get the Constable just to simply not withdraw and to just stop the debate and to see whether something is possible in this last, last chance to see if something is possible out of what is here, that something, if it is Trinity and St. Saviour or .. I do not know what is possible but something must be possible before we embark on an election which is just simply unfair and we will be told we are unfair and that report in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be reported. We have hidden from that reality. We will not hide next time and it will have consequences to the very validity of every Member of this Assembly that is sitting here. For me, if democracy does not matter then what does? Fairness in democracy must be the absolute .. if there is one priority that we have it is that and every other decision that is based upon that system must, therefore, be called into question by some people, and it will be and that is what worries me. So I do not know whether the Constable can not withdraw, hold, stop the debate and have 2 weeks of reflection, as Deputy Tadier , I think, said. Something must be possible before we embark upon something which is going to be knowingly cast into the most serious echelons of undemocratic states in a single Assembly. It is

wrong and we should not be here.

3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I think, firstly, the vote of the Assembly has been very clear. I think it is a lot cleaner just to accept to withdraw this and then we deal with the next iteration as and when probably the next P.P.C., I would suspect, want to do something about this. I would like to say we are here because we were elected. Yes, some of us, and I am one of them, were not contested last time round but we have all been elected. I have contested twice; I have been uncontested twice. You do not know, one does not know if one is going to be contested or not until that nomination night or until one second after the Connétable has said: "Are there any other nominations?" and there are not any. One has to be ready to go and I would have welcomed a contested election, certainly the first time I was

uncontested, because, as I said, that was the first time we had had effectively a general election. What I would say, and this is trying to look forward, I do suggest, if people wish to, they look at the transcripts from all of the people we had in front of us and I will again, I make no apologies, cite Mr. John Henwood, former member of the Clothier panel, who is passionate about reform and he made a comment and some suggestions about how to move forward. What I would just draw to the attention of Members is our final recommendation on the report and what it says there is: "Given that any desire for equal voting power and the desire to retain the Connétable s are, on the face of it, mutually incompatible, the panel considers that some principles need to be established to create a framework endorsed by the public before moving to any set of reform proposals." I want to expand on that because the public very clearly have endorsed the position of Connétable in a referendum and I think from my point of view, and I have always supported the Connétable s, that nails down that part of reform. The consequence, though, everybody has to accept, is that there is a distortionary effect because the Connétable of St. Mary , as we know, who I like very much, and the Connétable of St. Helier, who I also like very much, have different sized constituencies. If one brings in the numeric calculations to try and get a proportional representation including the Connétable s, the maths either does not work or you end up with a massive amount of Deputies to compensate. What I was saying is one needs to resolve those kind of issues. I have used that as an example and there are one or 2 others. There is the desire for Senators, because Senators and super-constituencies do not tend to go well together. We have heard all that. My take is that people like the position of Senator. Submissions to us were that we want to be able .. we think the Chief Minister should come from the Senators, but I do not want to get into that detail because we were desperately trying not to get drawn into redesigning a system because that is where everybody goes and gets into problems. We were trying to look at what was in front of us. What seemed to be clear is that one has these competing tensions, which P.P.C. have struggled to deal with, and one needs to almost try and get those competing tensions worked out before one leaps for reform factor because certain results of those competing tensions lead to differing outcomes. We seem to be leaping to the outcome but not resolving those competing tensions. That is all I am going to say. I will be supporting the proposition to withdraw because I think otherwise if we do not withdraw we will be carrying on with this debate and we will keep it going for 2 weeks and we will cobble together some suggestion and that is not a good way of doing business. I do urge people to support

the proposition to withdraw.

4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :

I am very pleased to follow Deputy Le Fondré, because he just talked the Constables out of a job. I thought that was excellent. I thought that the Deputy was very keen on maintaining the Parish system but he made it very clear there that it is complicated when you have the Constables in the States, but the public have spoken twice about keeping the Constables in the States so the system was designed around that. What happened yesterday was Members had the opportunity to have a simpler system but maintain the Parish context, which is important to all of us, and they did not take that opportunity but it was close; 5 votes would have swung it. There are 2 things that have wrecked the opportunity for this Assembly to make the fundamental changes that Senator Ozouf has outlined in terms of democracy. That was Senator Farnham 's well-intentioned but wrecking amendment because that created the dog's dinner that has been described by many. The opportunity to fix that and make it a gourmet dinner was missed yesterday by 5 votes. I think that is tragic really in the context, not in the context of many other things happening in the world, of course. That was the opportunity that was missed. Perhaps I did not sum up well enough yesterday. I was a little rushed; people were getting a little weary. Whether it would have made much difference I do not know, but the Deputy of St. Martin was very clear in his speech that without that amendment he could not support the muddle.

[10:15]

However, there was still a huge thing to gain and the Constable of St. Mary expressed similar concerns but still voted for the amendment because she saw, as many others did, an opportunity for step change. There is nothing that wrong with step change. People do not like revolutions. They prefer evolutions and Parliaments across the world do evolve; they do not change significantly. That is called revolution and people do not like that very much. If you keep harking back to Clothier, as many Members have in the course of this debate, and the foetal position, as the Constable of St. Mary calls it, when we come into that position and think everything will be okay if we had Clothier, that is not what we were debating. Clothier is something quite different. This was an amalgamation of all of those possibilities in the commissioners' report, all of those things were looked at, and the opportunity was there to be had, a compromise. The fact is that Clothier presented us with an opportunity to introduce ministerial government, in my mind a better system of government rather than a committee system that simply was not working very well. One can criticise ministerial government but that is what Clothier delivered. We cherry-picked from Clothier and that was the only thing of significance that went through from Clothier. That is how the States seems to work. It likes to do small bits at a time. So we had that opportunity today to make quite a large step, not a revolution but to create larger districts. That is a little step to some, a big step in my mind, a big step in the mind of Senator Ozouf and others that believe in a greater democratic process than we have today. We had that in our grasp yesterday. We still had it today because we could have made that little step, yet still including Senators for the time being, and it would have become obvious in subsequent elections that having those 3 categories of Members is hugely problematic and the results of those senatorial elections would have become obvious in terms of Deputies not standing in those seats and, of course, newcomers coming to senior positions or perceived senior positions as Senators. Then we will be sitting here with a new P.P.C. saying: "See what happened in the last elections. The prophecy was true. Now we need to look at that role too, that little step." That, at the moment, is lost, or is it? Is it possible in the next 2 weeks for P.P.C. to come back and say: "That Article which took out that one, got everybody going today, is there a way of resolving it?" Is there? Can we be creative enough so the public have been listened to in terms of the referendum, have been listened to a certain extent in terms of the work done by the scrutiny panel and we do something of significance to improve our democratic position? Today it looks like we are going to lose that. I think that is a really sad day for democracy in Jersey. I brought this proposition. It was not my proposition; it was a proposition brought by a previous P.P.C. chairman. All I did was acknowledge the result of option A as well as B and I did that for

my constituents because I am a constituent politician. I reside in a large district, a super- constituency if you like. I already do. When I was knocking on doors in the election I was told by so many people .. in fact some doors were slammed in my face, metaphorically, because this Assembly, not everybody in it but this Chamber, had rejected the results of the referendum. "Why should I bother voting again?" I suspect that others will say the same in the next election. I cannot see a high turnout in the next election as a direct result of this, and other things of course as well, and that is a sad day. We had an opportunity to grab some of that interest back in politics and we have blown it and I think that is a really sad day for our democracy, that step we could have taken today. If there is any way that the P.P.C. Chairman can find to bring that forward, despite the restraint that we should observing of the Venice Convention, then I would urge him and his committee to consider that because we have lost today a huge opportunity to move forward with our democracy in Jersey and maintain the Parish system at the same time. That looks like it has been lost and I regret that and I am very, very disappointed, but I must applaud people for yesterday's debate. It was good natured to a certain extent. There were some excellent speeches on both sides, passion for politics. I would like to have seen more passion for democracy.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The issue is whether or not the Chairman's proposal to withdraw ..

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

I think I have said enough. Hopefully that resonates with the P.P.C. Chairman and Members. If anything can be done, I would be grateful to hear it.

5. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement :

Like you, I was getting slightly confused as to where this debate was going. First of all, I will say quite clearly I will support the proposition to withdraw this proposition, the reason being it does not work. Also the people I represent in this Assembly have told me they do not support it. There can be guffaws and laughs and insults thrown around about those of us who voted against it but I think it is very important that those of us who voted against it have the opportunity to respond to the insults that are being thrown at us. We are not anti-reform but we want reform that works, that benefits everybody in the Island and is what everybody in the Island wants. The flawed referendum that the reformists cling on to like a lifebuoy was flawed and only 11.81 per cent of the population, sorry the eligible voters, voted for it. We are not gerrymandering either. The fact that some of us passionately believe in this Island, its people, the Parish system and its traditions is not gerrymandering and I find it particularly insulting to suggest that we are attempting to support such a system. We all believe in reform but not this. That is why we have to support the proposition to withdraw it. Most of the people that I have spoken to about reform who do not support this proposition also want reform, but it is not about voter equity and to suggest that we are supporting an unfair, undemocratic, inequality system again is wrong. I will support a reform that works. This does not. It is not what the people of this Island want. They want reform but they want reform that they, the voters, are involved in the actual government of this Island. They want a system whereby if we stay with ministerial government that they can vote for Senators who will be Ministers. Yes, we will need more Senators, fine, if that is how the system will work .. I am sorry, do you wish to say anything, because I am not giving way?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if there are any remarks concerning your being interrupted, I will deal with matters. Deputy S.M. Brée:

Certainly, Sir. My apologies. I think it is important that when we talk about reform, those of us who voted against this and are going to vote to withdraw the proposition are not labelled as anti- democratic, we are not labelled as being unfair. Just because we have a different view about what reform should be does not make us trying to support some undemocratic system. I frankly find it slightly worrying that during this debate we have heard some very passionate speeches, particularly from Senator Ozouf yesterday, but it was trying to instil in us a fear factor, a fear factor that if we did not vote for this everything was going to collapse, we were going to be the laughing stock of the world. All I would say is that in voting to support the withdrawal of this proposition, do not fear fear itself. This is not anything to be afraid of. The world will not end. It is not apocalypse that will happen tomorrow. But we have to have a reform that we, as an Assembly, overwhelmingly support and what has come out today is that we, as an Assembly, cannot support what is within this proposition, but that does not mean we do not support reform. Therefore, I would urge Members to support the proposal to withdraw this and all of us try and work together on speaking to our electorate, talking to the people of this Island, who we are here to represent, and trying to work together to come up with a system that the public of this Island will support.

6. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

To those who have expressed such righteous indignation, I have to say that I will not be told how to vote. I will not be told that I should vote for something that I believe is so ill-considered and has no evidential basis and, moreover, for my part with such major changes that would be not submitted to

the public in a referendum. I cannot accept that I have voted in an undemocratic manner. I believe I have exercised my vote responsibly and I would urge that the only realistic option now is to withdraw this proposition and we continue the struggle to find a way, but this proposition, as brought by P.P.C. but essentially Senator Farnham 's proposals, I believe is so ill-considered as to be unworthy of continuing.

7. Deputy M. Tadier :

I do think it is important that we listen to the voices that voted against this today, because I found myself in a position, perhaps, of one of the previous iterations where I could also not support what was being proposed by the mover of that proposition. In such situations when one feels quite passionate, there tends to be a kneejerk reaction to put up the defences and say: "I do not agree with what the others who voted a different way said" and you tend to think, being human, sometimes that there are nefarious reasons for that. I do not for any one moment suggest that there is not an element, both in here and in society, of deep conservatism that does not want any change whatsoever but I am reassured that over the past few Assemblies that things have been moving, I think, and there has been an acceptance that change is necessary and vital. We have heard some great words today and we have heard some monumental quotes or paraphrases. I was tempted to start by saying: "Ask not what you can do for democracy but ask what democracy can do for you", deliberately getting that the wrong way round of course, because there is a perception that in here we tend to look at how things are going to affect us and there is political manoeuvring that goes on. Getting back to the point, we should not blame anybody and especially the public who looked at this proposal, which I think fairly have been described as a dog's dinner or suboptimal as I called them truthfully when I have been talking to constituents. But there is a need for accountability and there does need to be some blame parked, at least an explanation for the constant failure of electoral reform in the previous 5 to 6 years. From my perspective, it is because there has been a complete lack of leadership again at the very heart of government. It is no coincidence that we have the head of the Government of Jersey and the person who chaired the Electoral Commission not in the Assembly today. We are being told that this is one of the most important votes that we have ever had, that this is the Last Chance Saloon, yet we have those 2 senior Ministers who want reform so badly, we are told, because it reflects so badly on the outside world, not in this Assembly discharging their duties of leadership about electoral reform but they are out there in that external world which is supposed to be looking at us. I am not being critical, because we all have to balance those demands, but I would suggest why is it that they are not here, especially on such an important debate when we can presumably have other people out there doing business for Jersey? Ultimately we are all politicians elected to this Assembly by Islanders and our first and foremost duty should

be towards them. [10:30]

But that is not the only criticism that I would lay at the door of the Chief Minister. If we want to understand this whole affair we have to go back to the fact that the Electoral Commission in 2012 was hijacked. We were supposed to have an independent Electoral Commission and that is what was voted for by this Assembly. Yet in 2012, and I am happy to circulate the vote, the States at that time in their wisdom decided to take out the word "independent" and it was for another States Member, Deputy Le Hérissier of St. Saviour No. 3 District, to try and put that word back in, but it was rejected by 22 votes to 25. Let us look at some of those who voted against having an independent Electoral Commission. It was Senator Ozouf , it was Senator Ferguson, it was Senator Maclean, it was Senator Le Marquand, Senator Gorst , Farnham and Bailhache , most of the Senators, 8 out of the 10 at the time. It was only Senator Breckon and Le Gresley who did not. We have got a list of 8 Constables who I will not read out because I do not necessarily remember who they were but we have got the Parishes written there. We had the Deputy of Trinity , we had

Deputy Noel who is in the Assembly, we had Deputy Green, Deputy Pinel who is still here, and we had Deputy Bryans and the Deputy of St. Peter, all the ones decrying the fact that we have not been able to get electoral reform through. It really does stick in my throat. Of course, we do not use these arguments during the main debate because we all want to win and we use the arguments that we think are not going to alienate anyone and we moderate our language, or some of us do. I think Senator Ozouf is confusing the word apocalyptic with apoplectic because yesterday we did not have an apocalyptic moment, he had an apoplectic moment and he seems to have calmed down a little bit from that. But when we have people saying we need something that is based on fairness, when you campaign for an unfair system during the referendum in 2013 called option B, which is based on inherent unfairness, and you can try and disguise it by saying we need to keep the Parish system in there, you cannot then later come to the Assembly, especially when you have tried to put an amendment in to muddy the waters again, and say: "Let us have Senators, super-constituencies and Constables kept in the States" but say: "I want fairness." It is like going on a diet and saying: "I want to lose weight but I am not willing to cut out carbs, I am not willing to cut out fat and I am not willing to cut out other forms of sweets but I will quite happily cut out fibre and protein. I am quite happy not to eat my greens and my sprouts. Do you think that will help me lose any weight?" No, because the principles from which you start are fundamentally flawed. When we have an Electoral Commission that has been hijacked from its very inception to say: "We want to have 3 people on here who are States Members who all agree with keeping the Constables in the States", you limit your chances from the very beginning for any meaningful reform. Why is it okay to say it is outrageous that we have a Deputy in St. Mary who is elected on a very small basis, when we have Senators in here, but it is perfectly fine to have a Constable in there representing a very small district. It simply does not make any sense and I think it has been touched on before. I do not think that you can find people who are anti-Parish, just because we do not agree with the current setup in this Assembly. It is a very historic position, of course it is. It dates back to medieval times and that should ring alarm bells. If something is allowed to exist from medieval times without any meaningful type of reform then I suspect it is not necessarily going to be automatically fit for

purpose. If the Parishes really want to maintain their vitality it is important that they do evolve. The Parishes' lifeblood does not lie in this Assembly. It lies out there in the real world. I like the idea that you cannot see Parish boundaries from space. Of course you cannot. There are lots of other intangible things you cannot see from space. It does not mean that they are not real entities but there is, I believe, a potential crisis in our Parish fabric if we remain complacent and do not evolve. One thing that young people will not tolerate is unfairness. We have seen that across the world. We have seen one example of that in Jersey when we had the first unofficial gay pride rally, which was not really to celebrate gay pride although that was part of it. It was a protest about this Government's lack of being connected with the feeling of not just young people but anybody who values equality and unfairness. I am getting to the point of why ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. This is purely a debate about whether or not the chairman's proposition to withdraw is supported. Perhaps you could range a little less widely - and that is not a personally addressed to you, that is addressed in general to the Assembly - unless what is being said relates specifically to that.

Deputy M. Tadier :

In balancing up all these arguments, we need to think about whether or not the right decision to make today is to let this proposition be withdrawn or to carry on with the debate. I am not sure we should necessarily carry on with the debate because I probably will not have much left to say or indeed much energy or gusto to say it. So perhaps that is the direction I am going in. I think it is important to understand why we should allow this proposition to be withdrawn and it is not because there has been some kind of attempt to scupper this, although I do think that there were different mechanisms that were used by people who did not want this particular reform to go through today and we have seen that. At least it has been expedited. At least we do not have to sit through a whole day. But what I would say to individuals is that it is fine to say that: "I want reform but not this reform" but now it is incumbent on those individuals who have said that to come back in short order with that reform. Again, that is not a criticism, because there was work going on in the background. It is not the first time that this has happened. Why do we allow a Back-Bencher to come forward with a proposal when P.P.C. were at the point of lodging their own proposals? That is due process. We have charged P.P.C. to come forward with something. We all sat in those lunchtime briefings with those multiple-choice buttons to come up with something that could possibly get through the Assembly. Again, it was not going to be necessarily designed perfectly from a blank piece of paper but it is something that at least stood a chance of winning. We did not allow the Privileges and Procedures Committee to present that. Now I would suggest and I would encourage, if time is on their side, that they do present that or that we do look at the 2013 proposals and that we do look at redistributing seats at the very minimum, so that some of the smaller Parishes, which are currently underrepresented, it is not just St. Helier, incidentally, it is the other Parishes that we heard about, can have their fair distribution of seats. On that basis I think it is absolutely important that we let this be withdrawn and that if something can come back it should come back. But I do not think we can get away from the fact that Clothier put something on the table that was independent, which had local input on it with respect to the Parish boundaries and start it from a fundamental principle saying one type of States Member elected in equal-sized constituencies and we have never put that to the public, have we? We will give them all sorts of nonsense to vote on that does not even make sense. We need proper leadership, somebody who can say: "This is what I believe; these are the principles which I espouse" and which can get some interest inside and outside the Assembly. Until we have that, then I think it is overly optimistic to

expect any kind of change in this Assembly.

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

I am afraid I am going to go a little bit wider of the mark. I will keep to the point as much as I possibly can. I intend to speak today because I did not speak yesterday. I went to press a button on a couple of occasions yesterday to speak, mainly on the fact that nobody was talking about the Parish system; they were all talking about the wider issues of the States and Deputies and Senators but nobody is focusing on the real values of what we all hold very valuable here in Jersey, is our Parish system.

The Deputy Bailiff :

On account of having indicated you intend to range wide, could I ask you to not range wide and focus very much on the proposition?

The Connétable of St. Peter :

Not too wide, Sir. No, I will be briefer than Deputy Tadier , I assure you of that. But certainly the accusations about it, I consistently voted against this change, this proposition that has come forward with these changes because I do not believe they work. They do not work in the best interests of Jersey. We are having a rush to the end within a year of an election to bring in something. We took 3 years to look at the changes in health. I sat on the Ministerial Oversight Group for 3 years for P.82 for the changes in health. We spent 2 years looking at the changes for the company we set up with Ports of Jersey and, equally, as much time as S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company). We spend more time really looking at and developing, what is it going to look like when it is finished with our entities that we look with the most important single thing that we have, which is our Government in Jersey? We want to rush to the end within a year without looking at the implications, how it is going to affect people, how it is going to affect the real fabric of what we in Jersey are. I am really appalled to hear people in the Chamber yesterday saying, talking to people on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and others, that they did not understand what we were. I have been to many of those and I have spoken at length about our parochial system and how it works within the bigger system of Jersey Government and they are surprised that: "We wish we had something as close as that for us where the people have real power and they can talk and make decisions about where they live in their own Assemblies." I know people over there are pulling faces and laughing but that is what I get. I spoke on behalf of the previous Greffier to a group of 2 dozen speakers from the Commonwealth countries in St. Peter 's Parish Hall about a parochial system and they were astounded how well the people were represented and how they could put their voices forward. It is those things which, for me, are so important that I cannot support this easy sort of split, just brush it aside and change it to something else. Goodness knows, in everything I have done in my working life, my private life and my professional, I have been the champion of change and many people will tell you that. I am not frightened of change; I embrace change, I welcome change. I want to be part of change. I want to be part of something that is changing now in this Chamber going forward and I am happy, even after I step down next year, next May, I will be happy to work on behalf of this Government, finding a solution to bring the right picture, have all the right things in place, have all the memorandum of understandings properly gone through and how things will work. Deputy Tadier a few moments ago, he spoke about the unfairness and about the Constables: "We will never have fairness while we have Constables in the States on voter equity" and he is right. I am of the view within 10 years that Constables will be out of the States. This is just a step change to where we will be with the Constables out. But that is not necessarily disaster; we need to plan what we want that end game to look like, what will be the role of the Constables if they are not sitting in this Chamber? They may be sitting next door in a separate Chamber doing something else. But what we have not done, we have not looked at a name. We have not looked at an objective. What do we really want and how do we get there? This does not do it for me. I am very happy to support the proposition to

withdraw.

9. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I am not sure whether to support the proposition to withdraw or whether it would be better to play it out and vote on it and kill it so that we do not have son of Andrew Lewis and son of Lyndon Farnham limping back into this Chamber because it is too late to change now. It is too late to explain to the people who do not understand what we are doing, seek their mandate and it is too late for the next election. I am sorry, before I take any further castigation or lectures, I went to every single one of those meetings that P.P.C. held early in this parliamentary session, which were researched, extremely well presented. There were very good officers working with P.P.C. scientifically putting options to us. We all had voter buttons like television control things and we voted on it and a pattern began to emerge. I thought it was an excellent approach. I went to every single meeting and at the last one I sat with the Constable of St. Clement and I said: "I think you are on to something here." Because, surprisingly, the most radical option got a lot of support and there was not a single Senator at that meeting, it was before the lady, Senator Ferguson, was re- elected but there was not a single Senator at that meeting. I thought, well, you are on to something because I think that Senators might go for this; you might be on to something and then there was nothing. We heard nothing. It had disappeared like morning mist on the summer equinox, gone. I sought out the Constable of St. Clement and said: "What has happened to that?" "Well, we cannot reach agreement on P.P.C., we cannot reach agreement." The inference was, as a matter of fact he is not here to defend himself, that Senator Ozouf had swanned back in for a rare appearance and wrecked it. Him not tell me that I am stupid or working on self-interests or in the Last Chance Saloon, it is not my fault because if P.P.C. had completed that work, if he had compromised with the rest of P.P.C., brought that proposal

[10:45]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , Deputy , I think it is The Connétable of St. Clement :

Sir, that is grossly unfair. Senator Ozouf has been totally supportive of proper reforms there and I think to suggest that he wrecked this is totally unfair, particularly as he is not here to defend himself.

Deputy R. Labey :

I withdraw that and apologise unreservedly. The Deputy Bailiff :

In which case

Deputy R. Labey :

That was the rumour mill.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, well I think it is a very dangerous thing to deploy the product of the rumour mill in this Assembly. In fact I would urge Members not to do it.

Deputy R. Labey :

Well, as I said, I am grateful. The Deputy Bailiff :

Similarly, I appreciate you feel very passionate about these things and you were expressing yourself in a very passionate way. But, please, could speeches be directed as to whether or not the proposition to withdraw should be accepted?

Deputy R. Labey :

Yes, well I did start with that, Sir. Did you notice my

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, but then when one goes beyond it and one runs a risk of becoming irrelevant to the point. Deputy R. Labey :

Okay. Well, I am sorry but I will draw to a conclusion, I just want to address the stupid I may be but self-interested, no. These proposals would have doubled my chances if I seek re-election and there are plenty of Deputies here who would have gone for the rob St. Peter to pay St. Brelade option, which would have been slightly more risky. Be very careful, I think, people, when you throw around the self-interest accusation. At the end of the day and having been to a couple of the meetings held by Deputy Le Fondré's committee, I do not have a mandate. I was elected 2 or 3 years ago. I do not have a mandate to get rid of the Senators, end of and it is too late to do something now before 2018. We should have a referendum and we should explain things to people much more clearly. Our communications, as usual, are appalling.

10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I would just like to say, I completely understand what you said about sticking to the bones of this simple proposition but things have been said and were said in earlier speeches and I know there is a need to counter some of them. But I would just like to say, the easiest way to do it, I agree exactly with what the Deputy of St. Ouen said. I am not elected to be a sheep and just to follow blindly. I am elected to make the right choice. I made my choice yesterday; unfortunately it did not find the majority moving on today. What I am planning to say is to say to the Constable of St. Clement and in his role as chair of P.P.C., that I am sorry he is in the position he is and I am sorry that my vote this morning helped to put him into this position. I know how it feels because I, of course, as chair of P.P.C., was put in that position several times myself. I just want to very briefly say that if we are to be able to reform ourselves as an Assembly from within the Assembly, we must hand the responsibility unfettered for that to P.P.C.; the hybrid committee drawing on both sides of the Assembly. It is their responsibility and we need to allow them to do it. We need to allow them to promote a package or perhaps if they cannot promote a package, a series of reforms to explain the exact implications of them and then to have the discipline to debate them unamended. I say this because throughout this debate this morning, throughout debates that led up to it recently, the element of uncertainty, of lack of clarity, has been the thing that Members have most often pointed to. What will happen if? How do I know if I do this, that I will not be cutting myself off of something further off down the line? The way to do that is to let P.P.C. bring something forward, to debate it unamended, so we can have the debate, so we can adopt it or reject it as purely on its merits but in an air of clarity and certainty of what the proposals mean. Because unless we do that I think we will always get to a position where people are uncertain about the amendments because amendments, by their  very nature, make fundamental changes and unless we know the exact implications we will never get anywhere. I am sorry, chairman, that you are in this position. I believe you have no alternative but to withdraw and I am deeply saddened that we will not get

anywhere. But I have acted on my conscience and, unfortunately, it has led to this situation.

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

I will rise just to correct the previous speaker from St. Helier No. 1 District, who suggested that Senator Ozouf spoiled things within P.P.C. But his fine words today, the fine words of Senator Ozouf , were very moving and very, apparently, heartfelt but one has to, rather than look at his actions within P.P.C., look at his voting record and he has saved the Senators' skins on a number of occasions. He brought an amendment to this proposition, which also saved the Senators and judge ye by actions, not by words. I find it ironic to be standing here today as one who has compromised, is my firm opposition to Constables in the States. I have compromised and compromised as time has gone on. We have, reluctantly, accepted the place of Constables in the States, even though it ruins and plays havoc with the fairness principle that we are trying to move towards. I look at the vote today and I say "and what happens as a result of that compromise?" The Banc des Connétable s have wrecked another ship, as they often do. As far as I am concerned, my compromise over the years to accept the Constables here is made null and void by that, the battle begins afresh. Because if that is the bulwark against all change and that is what we saw today, the gathering together of 300 different reasons to object to this particular change because it is change per se; that is what we have witnessed today. I have witnessed it 3 or 4 times in my time in this Chamber 14 years, each time we end up with that same feeling of sick and sad disappointment, that this body of people, of which I am a part, cannot make that step and say, okay, after 70 years, after 200 years, let us draw a truce on the battle between St. Helier and the country Parishes. First time in 200 years, let us have a look and see if what we have been using for the last 70, 80 years does what it says on the cap. Does it fulfil its function? Time and again, and this is an example of it, this Chamber says: "No, we will not go there. We do not want to examine the way in which we work at all; reject all change." I have had enough of that and we will see what happens over the coming time. Here I do agree with the words of Senator Ozouf , we have to embrace change. It has to happen. I believe in a number of months' time when the Commission has reported, they will absolutely rip us apart in terms of what we do, not what we say. Reluctantly, I have to accept today we have got nowhere, absolutely nowhere, and that probably the best way forward is for the chair to withdraw this particular proposition.

12. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I will be very brief because, unless I am mistaken, this started probably about an hour ago now, I think, which I thought we were going in for a very short debate. When Senator Ozouf stood up and said: "We are at the Last Chance Saloon and can we basically make up legislation on the hoof?" Because this does not fit anything; the rest of it says you will then split to 6 districts and you will have 28 Deputies. We just voted that out. But somehow now we are having this massive long debate and people are speaking today who could not be bothered yesterday or did not have time and nothing about, are we going to allow this to be withdrawn? We are in a situation, it does not work, we cannot make it up as we go along and you have to let the chairman of P.P.C. withdraw this because, as I say, it is legislation. It is there in writing, it cannot be passed. We have just voted it out. I cannot go on as long as everybody else, I am sorry, but I think that is quite a sensible statement.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition to allow the chairman to withdraw? Chairman. Sorry, I beg your pardon, I did not see your light there, Deputy Norton.

13. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade : Sorry, Sir, the mace was in the way.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy M.J. Norton:

Nothing inferred by that, thank you. I rise to support the chairman in the withdrawal of this, reluctantly. I did comment yesterday and I have made comments since that I thought yesterday was a sad day for fairness and equality of political representation and I still stand by that. I do take note of Deputy Tadier 's conciliatory remarks of people should not be made to feel guilty for the way they voted, absolutely not. But on the point of democracy and democracy has spoken; the vote was taken yesterday, the vote was taken this morning, democracy has spoken. But, of course, the fundamentals of that democracy is that everyone in this Chamber should be elected proportionally by the similar amount of people and they have not. The very basic foundation on which we base our democracy is flawed. We all know that, some of us just do not accept it at the moment. But going back to the conciliatory manner of Deputy Tadier , which I thought was really important, he said that those that voted against these reform changes should be an integral part of making sure that reform changes come forward in the format that is for them as well. I include people like my good friend here, Deputy Brée, because it is really important that the voice of those people who said they wanted reform, said they would vote for reform if it was the right form of reform that fitted everybody, that they have a voice in all of this. I would ask the chairman of P.P.C. to, please, engage, as I know he has been for so long, with some of those people not that just supported but those that did not support, so that we can get some reform in really short order. Just to explain the C.P.A. comment that I made yesterday that was then taken out of context by the Connétable of St. Saviour, who said: "If you are so embarrassed, why did you stand?" I stood, like many others in here, to make some changes, not for it just to be the same. If I was embarrassed at C.P.A., it was not a C.P.A. conference, it is part of what I am in the middle of at the moment, the contemporary issues of strengthening Parliament and initiating reform. It  is with the McGill University  in

Canada; it is very difficult and I am right in the middle of writing a whole piece at the moment on exactly this subject. Thank you, you have given me plenty to write about. But some of the pointers from the fellow parliamentarians from around the Commonwealth who I have been discussing this with over the last 3 months have been on exactly this subject, on reform, how we make it balanced, fair, equitable  for  all of the people of this Island.   No matter  what anyone says about their representation and the fact that they are representing the people that voted them in, if the people that voted you in were more or less than someone else, then the complete pillars of democracy are slightly wobbly, are slightly askew and we need to make sure that they are absolutely straight. Reluctantly, I do support the chairman's proposition to withdraw but I would say, please, please, can we come back as soon as possible with decent, honest, fair, equitable representation and reform for the people of this Island because until we have that we do not have democracy.