States Meeting Transcript - 2nd May 2019

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 2nd MAY 2019

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 4

1. Climate change emergency: actions to be taken by the Government of Jersey (P.27/2019) – amendment (P.27/2019 Amd.) - resumption ............................... 4

1. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 4

2. Climate change emergency: actions to be taken by the Government of Jersey (P.27/2019) – as amended .................................................................. 10

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ........................................................... 10
2. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : .................................................... 10
3. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 11
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 12
5. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ...................................................... 14
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ...................................................... 15
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 15
8. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ...................................................... 16
9. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .......................................................... 17
10. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : ...................................................... 18
11. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : .................................................. 18
12. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ...................................... 19
13. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 21
14. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : ....................................................... 23

2. Draft Amendment (No. 39) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.29/2019) .............................................................................................. 26

2.1 Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 27 Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 29 Deputy K.F. Morel : ............................................................................. 29 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General: ............................................... 29 Deputy S.M. Wickenden: ....................................................................... 30

1. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................... 30
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 32
3. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 33
4. Deputy S.M. Wickenden: ................................................................. 33
5. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 34
6. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 35

The Deputy of St. Ouen :........................................................................ 36 The Solicitor General: .......................................................................... 37

7. Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter : ........................................................ 38
8. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 38
9. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 40
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 40
11. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 41
12. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : ....................................................... 41
13. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : .................................................. 42

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

Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 43 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 43 Deputy G.J. Truscott: ........................................................................... 43 Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ............................................................ 43 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 43 Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 44 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ................................................................ 44 Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 44 Senator K.L. Moore : ............................................................................ 45 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :........................................................................ 45 Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :....................................................... 45 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 45 Deputy J.A. Martin: ............................................................................. 45 Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .......................................................................... 46 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement : ......................................................... 46 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 46 Deputy R. Labey : ............................................................................... 47

2. Draft Amendment (No. 39) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.29/2019) - resumption .................................................................................. 47

14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 47
15. The Deputy of St. Peter : ............................................................... 48
16. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 48
17. Senator K.L. Moore :................................................................... 52
18. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 52
19. Deputy L.B.E. Ash: .................................................................... 53
20. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 53 Deputy K.F. Morel : ............................................................................. 55
21. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 55
22. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 55
23. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour : .................................................. 56
24. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 57

3. Elected Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the States Assembly: selection and appointment (P.31/2019) .................................................................. 60

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 61

2. Elected Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the States Assembly: selection and appointment (P.31/2019) - amendment (P.31/2019 Amd.) .............................. 63

1. The Connétable of Grouville : ............................................................ 64
2. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 65
3. Deputy R. Labey .......................................................................... 68
4. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 70
5. The Connétable of Trinity :................................................................ 70
6. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 71
7. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 71
8. The Connétable of St. Mary : .............................................................. 72
9. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 74
10. Deputy L.B.E. Ash: .................................................................... 75
11. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 75
12. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 76
13. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 77
14. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 79
15. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 80
16. Deputy G.J. Truscott: .................................................................. 81
17. The Connétable of Grouville : .......................................................... 81

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 83

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Climate change emergency: actions to be taken by the Government of Jersey (P.27/2019)

– amendment (P.27/2019 Amd.) - resumption

The Bailiff :

We finished last night on the amendment of P.27/2019, with the Minister about to sum up. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Before we start, can I just inform you and the Assembly I need to be at a funeral at 10.30 a.m. and I will be back as soon as I can. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy .

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

I would like to start by thanking all the 26 Members who have spoken in the debate. I think it was a very good one and, as far as I am concerned, the best for a very long time, having been a spectator previously of the States, because we were discussing matters of real importance to the public and our community. I think the first thing I would like to say, it is really good news - I know we were debating the amendments - from the comments made by Members, there is a clear consensus in this Assembly that we have to address the issue of climate change through moving to carbon neutrality on an accelerated timescale. The debate, obviously, we had yesterday, as far as I was concerned, was about the mechanics and the methods that we use, in order to give us the best chance of success of doing so. Of course, no matter whether the amendments are passed, or not, I want to be clear - and I have made it quite clear to everybody - I shall be supporting the principle, because there is no disagreeing that we are in an emergency situation. But, as all the reports say, what is required is a 12-year action plan. A plan that transcends this Assembly, elsewhere, other governments and that requires us to have real methodologies, structure in place to how we are going to go about it, step-by-step. I am a very analytical person and I tend to look at ways of achieving things. My work with the civil service advisers I think we have some really excellent people that have produced the amendments and we have drawn upon the views, despite what was said yesterday, of the Energy Forum, which I did in a bit more detail and we tried to look at the best practice and the best way we can make things work in Jersey. The debate yesterday, as a new Minister, has been a learning experience for me. As Deputy Martin said, I share the same situation - although Deputy Martin much longer than myself - a move from the backbenches into a ministerial position has made me realise that my communication skills are not what I thought they were, because there was so much misunderstanding of what this amendment is about and there has been some misrepresentation and that saddens me. It is a learning curve. So, many Members, I think, have the impression - I do not know how they got it, or even argued - that my purpose is to water down the importance of our tackling climate change seriously. I was astonished to hear it argued that my purpose is to delay and obfuscate this vital work towards carbon neutrality. My purpose is entirely the opposite; it is to make sure that the fine words in here and the declarations we make are matched by delivery and action, something which, I hope, becomes a fashion for this Assembly. Those Members, who really believe that my purpose is to delay, do they really think that I would have the gall - if I am allowed to say that - to stand in front and address the activists, the wonderful people who are putting themselves out there, the climate change activists in

the Square and then come in here and seek to undermine them? Do Members have so little faith and trust in me, in my sincerity? Is that really the case? If so, I wonder why I am in my job. One or 2 of those contributions sadly - and this is again new for me, because I do not do personal - I think did seek to personalise things, rather. I think there are a couple of contributions that were very highly politically motivated. But thankfully, I praise Members generally because the majority

The Bailiff :

Minister, would you sit down just a moment, please? Could I please ask those in the gallery to remove the banner? That is not permitted under Standing Orders. Thank you very much.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

While we have a natural break in the speech, it seems to me that the Minister is risking collectively breaching the Standing Order which imputes false motives on States Members, by saying that we said the purpose of his proposition, or amendment, is to some nefarious ends. I think that is not what I heard in the debate, I heard that we are saying the unintended consequences of the amendment may be negative, but that the intention of that was not. Would you be able to rule on that, Sir?

The Bailiff :

First of all, I would ask the Minister to clarify. Deputy J.H. Young:

What I was reporting was impressions and later I am going to go to say there were one or 2 particular comments that were made, which I think attributed purpose to me, which is not there and I have never said. So, if Members see that as a general slur, I apologise, because I was going on to say that Members did recognise the sincerity of myself and Deputy Guida. Hopefully that is sufficient. May I continue, Sir?

The Bailiff :

Please continue. Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you. Of course, there was another theme where I think it was those who did not support my amendments drew a distinction between my role in fact, not just me, but individual Ministers in the Council of Ministers. I think we have seen an email this morning that suggests that having a Minister responsible for progressing action plans is somehow flawed. We have to put it to the Council of Ministers. It is a new experience for me. I have got news for people: 10 people around the table with the volume of work we have to do, the notion that we can only ever deal with the high responsibilities, the high-level tasks and Ministers have to be the engine of delivery. A 12-year plan is a real big vehicle to deliver. So, obviously, Ministers are accountable to the Chief Minister, they are accountable to you, to Members. If the Chief Minister thinks that a Minister does not perform, he has the power to dismiss. You have got it collectively as Members. If you are not satisfied with the performance of any Member, straightaway a vote of no confidence and that is it. The mechanisms are there. Real accountability there is. So, I think that is a false and nonsensical division. I think we have no option in tackling this task, but to address practical resources at our disposal, which means our outstanding civil servants and I want to pay tribute to them, as Members know I am very uncomfortable with the situation of changes that many feel undervalued; I certainly do not and do not believe Members do. We have to make sure their contributions, their advice and money are valued. We all know we have a structural deficit. We are en route, we are going to have to make decisions to how we fund our Government Plan as we speak in 2019. This is a financially bad year for us. So, therefore, working within our resources is part of the political leadership and the role of Ministers is to motivate those civil servants and provide political leadership. I am, of course,

a past civil servant. I sometimes think, perhaps, I am thinking as a civil servant, because I spent the majority of my working life as a senior executive and I know how systems work. I know if politicians want to get things done, they have to work with the available machinery, in the civil servants, in the resources and have that sort of integration. I think that is infinitely more likely to succeed than just having, perhaps, very general - some might say airy-fairy, I am not being pejorative in that term - aims with no focus on who is responsible, especially when there are no resources in place to get the task done and little prospect of getting them. Yesterday, during the debate, obviously, I realised things were going against my amendments, particularly on part (a) that talks about whether, or not, the timescales a valid issue, what is the timescale of this work, how are we going to start?

[9:45]

I have been exchanging emails with the Chief Minister and the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the civil servants overnight and this morning and I am told and I have to confess that I only got the full email about 5 minutes before the hearing, but I got the guts of the thing last evening, that it is going to require additional resources if my amendment of part (a) is not approved. Those resources, at the moment, are estimated at around about £300,000, but I am not sure that we are going to be I cannot be confident that it will not be more, because if we are going to get work done by consultants at the very time every consultant you know, there is every local authority and government in the world seeking to get those people and I suspect the price is going to go up. So, not only that and, of course, I ask: "Well, can we get this?" and the answer I have got is: "No, Minister, you will not be able to get those additional resources agreed in our current system before the end of 2019." That is the reaction I am getting. I think it is likely that one will be placed in an uncertain situation, if my amendment is not passed, where we have to scratch around using what resources we have, go into this bidding process, that we had a debate yesterday on, which I do not even understand, it is an investment thing and I do not even know where those decisions were, but the evidence is that they do not deliver and they take a long time. So, worryingly the work would have to be conducted also, the other aspect of it would have been conducted in a policy vacuum, out of context from our work in preparing the Government Plan. To deliver the C.S.P. (Common Strategic Policy) priorities which join up all those elements. The Constable of St. Saviour said she criticised - because of lacklustre performance at Environment Scrutiny, but, of course, we are not doing it - the Minister for Infrastructure and I; we have split responsibilities, waste, transport, I got policy and so on. The only way we can join that up is through the C.S.P. process, that is the only way and that is why it is imperative we do this work in that. My worry, also, is that we do have such a small team of leading civil servants on this - I would like to name them, but I think it is probably not protocol in the States, but the people know who they are. They will be diverted away from their vital role in co-ordinating and supporting that work of the C.S.P. for the Environment to do this. When, in reality, I believe they are absolutely the same thing. I do not think I overstate that. I think it was the Constable of Grouville spoke about water, absolutely spot on. Water pollution issues - or the Constable of St. Saviour - there is a whole suite of activities in the strategic plan about that. I do not want to put any of those policy issues at risk. Then, I think, it was suggested somehow that the Energy Plan, which is the focus of the amendment, is somehow a minor part of the exchanges. I have to remind Members: the Energy Plan is the States, it was agreed by the States. It has been in place for a number of years and all our work has been in accordance with that plan. Of course, what does that strategy do? It charges the Minister for the Environment with that role. If the progress is not good enough - and I have set out a brief summary of where the progress is - get rid of me. Get somebody else. I do not think there is any evidence the Energy Plan has not worked so far; on the contrary, but what has happened is aiming at a moving target. Aiming at a moving target that the world's requirements have changed and we have to be much more ambitious and that is why we need to change that Ocean Plan. Of course, much was made of what was called the focus of fiscal measures as the part (b) of the proposition, because it is too specific. Also, I read in an email this morning from the main proposition, focusing on fiscal measures is likely to frighten people off and, therefore, we are not going to be able to achieve it. Dead right. We have to address those measures. How else are we going to deal with traffic and pollution issues, unless we address fiscal measures? Where are those resources coming from? I make no apology for that focus. It is not an exclusive focus, it says and, of course, this word was omitted in the speech, it says to include it. It does not say "only fiscal measures" it says "include", it is part of a suite of work that has to be done. I do not want to see anybody arguing for maintaining the Olympic track record of signing up and not doing anything. The Energy Executive advice, I believe it was quoted in their report. Members have all seen the full one, I hope every Member has read it. If so, you will know it was quoted selectively. It says, as I have spoken already, it requires a concerted effort over 12 years. They also say that the Energy Forum argued that the 2019 Energy Plan Review will provide a good framework for agreeing a new target for carbon emissions. That is what they are saying. I think there is nothing in our proposition that is inconsistent with that, that is what we looked at. Then, of course, Members have spoken about carbon sequestration and carbon offsetting is somehow I do not quite know what Members were saying about it, they clearly did not like it, but the Energy Forum says that they are valid and part of our plan. Of course, part (b), their comments on the original proposition of part (b) says: "The Energy Forum does not believe it will be practical to provide a detailed climate assessment of the proposals set out in the Government Plan, as proposed in the original proposition." That is why the amendment seeks to include an assessment, but not just a theoretical climate change assessment, but going further on policies and how we do that. So, what my amendment seeks to do is integrate the Government Plan into the energy policy. Now, for me personally, this has been a new experience for me and I think I have failed to communicate clearly; my purpose has been misunderstood. I referred earlier to a word that Deputy Tadier challenged, I will not repeat it, but it was said in a J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) headline that the targets were too ambitious. Now, I have never given an interview to the J.E.P., I have never said that. The only comments I made are what is in the amendment. A couple of personal comments, nicely dressed up and thank you, but I think, in the end, we really I am going to leave that. Then we have political issues. Plainly, I have to be robust and I really admired Deputy Ward 's passion yesterday. Wow, political rhetoric in full flow. It was scary. I saw a new side of Deputy Ward 's presentation. I thought: "Crikey, what is happening here, we both agree with the same thing, but we disagree on how we are going to get there." I do believe that some of the things that Deputy Ward said in his major speech yesterday did not fairly represent what I tried to explain in the propositions. Now, I wonder if I can turn to a few specific responses. I particularly want to thank Deputy Huelin who, I think, summed up my purpose in a very few words. He summed up why I brought the proposition and put my head on the block to deliver it. That does not work, I am accountable, you have a mechanism. Where is your mechanism in the Council of Ministers? Are you going to bring all the Ministers down, are you going to mess up the whole thing? Are you going to wreck the Government Plan? No. I empathise with Deputy Martin, obviously I have seen the situation that she has been faced with in her new ministerial role and Deputy Martin is leaps ahead of me with her passion and fire and her ability to see things through, and I have seen the way that some of the things have been more and it is surprisingly while having to deal with many negative comments. That is a shame. I think some of these issues, I put them down to dysfunctional elements caused by our ministerial system. They would not happen before and I think Members know that we have not quite got this right yet, where we set Members against each other when we are all agreeing the same things and we all become divided. I hope very much we can have an agenda of change there in the future. It is frustrating being a Minister. You have little resources, but what the Ministers provide is leadership and passion and they have to work with the existing resources. I also want to thank the former Minister for the Environment, who absolutely understands what I have said here, because he had a number of well thought-out, hard-work policies that did not survive this Assembly. We are now having to deal with the consequences of that. A whole set of sound policies about urban planning, infrastructure levy and so on, all of which I believe were sound and would have put us in a

better position. I do not want us to be in this position on climate change. I think, in conclusion, a very good debate yesterday and I appreciate Members' efforts, because 26 Members is a massive contribution. I want to say, whatever happens on the amendments, I shall be supporting the main proposition. Whatever the outcome. I truly do believe that the amendments that I have put forward, with the support of civil servants and advice and a good number of Members recognised at the time, provides the best way of getting there. As I said yesterday, I do believe that there were different arguments coming forward about propositions (a) and (b). Proposition (a) deals with the timescale of the work, proposition (b) deals with the specific focus, that is included by the work we need to do and I think these do stand separately and, therefore, I would ask if I could propose part (a) of my amendment and part (b) separately. I believe it is best in doing so if both part (a) and part (b) are separate. But, if I was forced to make a choice, part (b) is absolutely critical. Would I be allowed to propose those votes separately?

The Bailiff :

It means, I think, Minister, that the penultimate may need to be adjusted, because it refers to the review of the Energy Plan, which does not appear in the main proposition and only appears in part (a). So, Members can proceed to vote for it separately on the assumption that the last and penultimate lines are perhaps not there, because the review will not take place, according to this proposition at any rate.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you, Sir. On that basis - I am happy to go along with that if no other Member stands up and makes an objection - can I therefore propose part (a) of the proposition and ask for the appel on part (a).

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. Deputy M. Tadier :

Before the vote could I raise the défaut on Deputy Southern , please. The Bailiff :

Propose the défaut be raised on Deputy Southern . The défaut is raised. So, the vote is on part (a) of the amendment, which would substitute paragraph (a) for paragraph (a) of the main proposition and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Bailiff :

I now ask the Greffier to reset the system and we turn to paragraph (b) which substitutes (b) for paragraph (b) of the main proposition. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

[10:00]

Deputy M. Tadier :

I would like to raise a point of order. I did not want to do it during the speech, perhaps for tactical reasons, but there is a convention that in summing up whoever is moving the amendment, or the proposition, tries not to introduce new information, because it cannot be responded to, obviously, by anyone else. I know the Minister will say that he only received the cost implications of £300,000 at the very end, conveniently, this morning, but the proposition by Deputy Ward had been lodged for a very long time and it is completely unsatisfactory for these kind of figures to be brought to us at the last minute when Members cannot respond to them.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you are right that the proposer of any proposition ought not to introduce new material in a reply and that is a point of general approach. I have to say, it would not be the first time that it has happened in this Assembly and, Minister, is there anything you wish to add to that?

Deputy J.H. Young:

If I helps, I apologise for that. I am very new to this role and I thought this was a material matter, because, yesterday, I did speak about the resources issue generally, although I did not have a figure on it. But, of course, that had to so I apologise for that.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I thank the Minister. He is new to the role, but the civil servants are not, they have played this game a long time.

The Bailiff :

The question of resources did come up during the main debate and, indeed, Deputy Guida addressed the question of cost at some length. Indeed, the figures he used put the £300,000 rather in the shade but still.

2. Climate change emergency: actions to be taken by the Government of Jersey (P.27/2019)

– as amended

The Bailiff :

Very well, we now return to the main proposition, as amended, paragraph (b) has been amended, it is now open for debate. Deputy Labey .

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I listened with interest to the debate yesterday. I am going to support Deputy Ward 's proposition, it is an important proposition, it is an important debate and the speeches and contributions yesterday were excellent. You gave the Members generous leeway, because a lot of what was referred to was in the substantive proposition. I do not want to undermine, or denigrate, or say that this debate is not important, it is vital. We have a very heavy schedule today and there is absolutely no need for Members - we listened intently to everything that Members said - to repeat what they said yesterday in the substantive debate, or to repeat what other Members have said in the debate, or are about to say in the debate. We must discipline ourselves in that regard, if you do not mind me saying so. We do have a heavy schedule, it is important, but no repetition and a conciseness and economy would be appreciated.

The Bailiff :

A heavy schedule accompanied by a heavy hand. Excellent.

2. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour :

Wow, note taken. Yes, just sit down. No, hang on. I did not take part in the debate yesterday, to speak about climate change, because, as Deputy Labey pointed out, it was on the amendments and I thought others did that well. But, I want to bring the subject back into what we were talking about and that is, of course, the proposition brought by Deputy Ward . There appears to be no single definition of a climate emergency, but it is generally agreed among those calling for the notion that climate change represents the greater threat to all walks of life, including national security; interestingly, the economy, social well-being, which is a big passion of mine and the natural environment. While symbolic, such a declaration by an authority, or government, which is looking

like it is coming, would recognise the life-threatening risk that would come with an inactivity over climate change. The statements about carbon emissions are true. The global carbon project, a study released last December, revealed that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in millions of years. At the end of 2018, the United Nations Secretary General said: "Climate change is the defining issue of our time" and said that the planet faces a direct existential threat. "If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change with disastrous consequences for people and the natural system that sustain us" he warned. His predecessor Ban Ki-moon warned a decade earlier - a decade earlier - this is an emergency and for an emergency situation we need an emergency action and probably new ways of thinking. According to the U.N.'s (United Nations) annual intergovernmental panel on climate change report, that I have not heard mentioned yet, humans have 12 years to make unprecedented changes to all aspects of society before climate change and its effects - environmental disasters and famine - are irreversible. Therefore, no challenge - no challenge - poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. 2014 was the planet's warmest year on record. Now, one year does not make a trend, but this point does, I believe. Fourteen of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century. Fact. To hit the point home even more locally, I urge everybody to do a search for the warmest day on record on local media websites, like Channel 103, the Jersey Evening Post, et cetera, you will find many stories repeated that confirm, including just this past February when Jersey had its warmest February day on record, beating the previous one and smashing it back in 1948. I have heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying things like: "These people, they are not scientists, they do not know what they are talking about. They do not have the right information. This is not a political argument, I do not believe. I am not a scientist, surprisingly, and I am not defined by my politics, or faith, or the roots I came from. But, you know what, I know what makes a lot of really good scientists around the world, or respected experts and professors at major universities and people on the television that have been quoted many times in this debate. They are telling us what we already know. In fact, our children are starting to tell us what we already know. That was a conversation I had with Beatrice this morning: "Sweetheart, what is the most important thing to you apart from me and the Coco Pops that somehow you are eating without me telling you you could?" She said: "Daddy, I am worried about my pets. I am worried about the future, I am worried about we are not acting quickly." That is my daughter, she is 10 years old. She is going to be 11. She gets it. She is coming into a world where she is looking up at us to act quickly. How many times, in our short political careers, for some of us, or longer for others, have you been asked: "Things are so slow. Things do not happen." You have said in interviews, or on the doorstep, or to your parishioners: "You are right, is it not slow? Do things not take time?" This is one of those moments where we can look everybody in the eye now and say: "Actually, yes, this is one of those times where we can act quickly, we can do something", because, soon, in 12 years' time and in years at a time, we will have missed that opportunity. So, I congratulate the Deputy for bringing what I think is a proposition for our time. I hope, in years to come, that we can all look back and say we did some good here, we did try to move urgently and we did try and make a difference. This is for our children. This is for our children's children and that is why I wanted to stand up today. I commend everybody for getting involved. Let us keep it on the issues, let us not make things personal. Let us leave that for others to do. Let us just make a difference.

3. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I just want to address 2 points. One might sound a little bit administratory - if that is the right word

- but in other words part (c) of this is to place the actions to tackle climate change in Jersey to be included as a standing item on the agenda of the Council of Ministers. I would say, although it is probably not going to be a world-shattering end if that is approved, I am not supporting that particular part. Principally, obviously, I will be supporting the amended part (a) and part (b) as amended. Essentially, the structures that are in place already is the delivery of the Energy Plan is overseen by

the Jersey Energy Partnership and it is their role to monitor and review it and the partnership has 2 parts: it has a ministerial energy executive and a multi-stakeholder energy forum. The executive is responsible for the ongoing monitoring of actions, as outlined in the Energy Plan, to review the delivery and development and commission of new policy areas, or actions, accordingly. It is made up of the following Ministers, which is obviously the Minister for the Environment, who I would hope everybody endorses his passion, particularly for this area, but for environmental matters generally; the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture; the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for Social Security. Therefore, it is considered that there is sufficient ministerial oversight for delivery of the plan. Obviously, what then happens is the Energy Executive brings the matter to the attention of the Council of Ministers as and when needed. That has worked successfully to date. The only risk one will have alternatively is that we will have a standing item on the agenda and essentially, very often, there will just be "no matter to report" recorded. I am trying to be relatively practical, from that point of view. It is not going to be the end of the word if the Assembly do go for it, I just want to explain why I will not be supporting that part. To go back to the main parts, obviously, I do not think any of us need serious persuading that climate change is a serious challenge, I did vote for the Energy Plan in 2014, which is the Island's most ambitious carbon reduction plan, obviously, to date and, as Chief Minister, I did support and put in the environment and climate change as one of the key 5 strategic objectives in the C.S.P. That states: "We must demonstrate to global partners that we take our global environmental responsibilities seriously and global climate change is a direct threat to Jersey." Again, if we are putting children first, oddly enough protecting the environment is going to be pretty high up there. I just wanted to end with a slight comment, as well, obviously, the Minister has referred to the extra resource requirements and it is with an element of possibly irony that a number of Members, who are critical of using external consultants, have just asked the Minister to take on extra consultants at an extra cost. Bear in mind the work was going to be scheduled to take place in 2020, anyway. The reason I say that because, hopefully, it is a recognition that there are times when external expertise is required, that an extra cost is required to be paid. I just put that point out there in the general context. I am very happy and delighted to be supporting parts (a) and (b), I wanted to explain my reason I will not be supporting part (c). I will leave it as a matter for the Assembly, but in practical terms it is just an administration matter.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

I will just say to Deputy Labey that just because some Members could not stick to the point of the amendment yesterday; for those of us who did speak to the amendment, we are not going to be penalised from a second speech on the main proposition to focus on the very critical issue of climate change. If we cannot spend 5 or 10 minutes more talking about the future of the whole of humanity and all of the diversity, biodiversity, that exists on the planet, because we have to go on and talk about who chairs this Assembly, then I am afraid we have our priorities wrong. Both are very important issues, for different reasons. Listening to these kinds of debates, I am reminded of the old gospel song, which says: "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." I will use that example to develop into a couple of different areas, but the first point, I think it is quite clear what is meant by that, but just in case it is not, is that we all aspire, apparently, to what Deputy Ward wants to achieve. We want to save the planet, we want to become carbon neutral and we want to at least try and slow down, as far as possible, the human impacts that we are having in terms of carbon on the planet. Of course, when we talk about carbon, that is a portmanteau word, not just for carbon dioxide, but for all the greenhouse gases which are emitted and which we contribute to. It shows that there is an element of doublethink within that, because we know that climate change is real, we know that, because we are told by the best experts around from a whole host of different areas and of all different kinds of political persuasions, but scientists need to try and remain objective and they look at the evidence. All the evidence does tell us that we are going in that one direction, where there are dire consequences if we do not act. Yet, we still get people standing up: "But we cannot act too quickly, because I am a realist." This is where we get the concept of doublethink coming in, where the doublethink, as we know, the Orwellian concept, suggests that you can hold 2 competing and mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time, but still believe that they are both true. The facts are that something needs to give, because our reality that we live in is completely subjective and we only need to go back a few centuries to realise that pre-Galileo, in around about the 1600s, it was the norm to believe that the earth was flat. That was reality.

[10:15]

People would stand up: "But I am a realist, I am not going to go and travel on that boat for too far, because, eventually, I will fall off the end of the world, so I am not going to do that." They had to listen to the crazy people, who at that time were the scientists, who studied the stars. They were tantamount to astrologists, because astronomers did not exist in that sense. They were the real scientists of the time; and it turned out that the crazy people were the right ones. Later on, as we get on, we realise that there are similar parallels to be made. Today, we also live in a world whereby the consequences of that reality and that knowledge - if the penny truly drops, and I think it is starting to drop for many people - we know that we cannot go on living as we do. We live in a world where we are consuming resources far quicker than we could ever hope to replenish them and the consequences of that are dire. In the Jersey context what does that mean? Well, Jersey is very good at tax neutrality, but we need to learn to be excellent at carbon neutrality. What I also mean by that is the fact that there are consequences for the neoliberal model that is being pursued by the world because, as others have said in the past, while we all consume to excess, it is the wealthy who consume the most. We also have a model - not just in Jersey, but Jersey is an excellent microcosm of that - where we promote tax breaks for the richest people. The consequences of that and the paradox if you like is that we get people standing up yesterday - and I am glad Senator Ferguson is just putting her light on, because she is one of the people I am talking about - saying: "We have got to be careful about what we do, because it is going to have an impact on poor people. So, if you introduce a tax on travel, whether that is airplane travel, or cars, all the things that we have to do and we have to get to grips with, if we are going to solve the problem, then it is going to have a negative impact on the poor." Well, it will only have a negative impact on the poor, if you do ecology under the current system and do not reform your economic system. What we need - and she is partly right - is that capitalism is the problem. If not to destroy capitalism, we certainly need to fundamentally reform capitalism. I am not sure if that is possible. You need ecological socialism if we are going to have any hope in the world. What do I mean by that? It means if you are going to impose a high tax on carbon and on petrol and on diesel, which we inevitably will need to do .. and Greta and others talk about politicians needing to be truthful. At some point, the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister for the Environment and all of us are going to have to be honest with the public and say: "You will have to pay for the damage and what we are going to do for you, as part of that social contract, is we are going to put on much improved transport." So, in Jersey, that means we are going to have many more businesses. Is it not an irony that when Deputy Ward asks a written question saying: "Would it not be good to have free buses in Jersey?" One of the reasons for which is not just because we are socialists and we want nobody to pay for anything at the point of use, it is because we want people to use public transport, get cars off the road and then reduce emissions, all of those good things and free buses is a possible way of doing it. "Yes, but the problem with that is that will increase the number of people who use the buses and we might need more buses." That is not a Monty Python or a Private Eye response that has been fabricated; that is a real response, which you can find on the internet in Jersey to a question about climate change. So, while we can all aspire to that, we cannot even give sensible answers to questions that are being asked today. More globally, what it means is that we have to change the way we think and we are all culpable here. So, when it comes to the

ability to just jump on a plane and travel halfway, or a quarter of the way, across the world, because there is such a thing as a cheap flight and I am one of those who have benefited', if you like, from the cheap flight revolution. It is quite remarkable. Previous generations could not; I vaguely remember the times when it cost quite a lot even just to get the U.K. by plane. Now, we pay a lot to get to the U.K. by boat, even though the boats are the least polluting. In the U.K., they were talking on Radio 2 the other week when they focused specifically on climate issues. They were saying that, in terms of carbon, to travel from London to Edinburgh, it is clearly much worse to travel by plane. The other thing is that it takes longer to travel from London to Edinburgh by plane, because by the time you have waited at the airport, cleared security, waited on the runway, taken off, landed, taxied and then got out the other side, possibly with luggage, it takes longer to travel from London to Edinburgh by plane than by train and it is much worse for the environment. So, why on earth would people do that? It is because it is cheaper and it is because the whole economic model in the U.K. is completely skewed. The same can be applied to Jersey on a smaller scale, although we have a very good bus service, I would say, on the southern route. We need to completely turn that on its head. We need to make sure that it is expensive for people to travel around the world by plane. But, there are consequences for that because, going back to the original quote about gospel, everybody wants to get to heaven, everybody wants to get to climate and carbon neutrality, but nobody wants to die, but nobody wants to change the way that they live. So, when there is an announcement the other day that there is a new airline setting up between Bournemouth and Jersey, how should we react to that? So, if I ask Senator Farnham , or the Chief Minister, or anyone else, that is good news, right? The announcement that was put out in the media that there is a new flight, an airline coming from Bournemouth to Jersey, that is good news. But, of course, it is not good news for the environment. The first thing we have to do is point that out and at least question it, so you send out a tweet saying: "So, this week we are debating climate change. There has been an announcement of a new airline opening to Jersey; is that good news?" Of course, you get responses saying: "Are you not in favour of tourism? Do you not want tourists to come to the Island?" Of course, I think most of us say we do want an element of tourism, we do want Jersey to survive, but we need a model that is sustainable. Is it not the right time, at the moment, for example and why are we not already doing it, thinking about having a second operator for the ferry service? Goodness knows that there are many good reasons for it other than just the environment. I think the public are crying out for a second ferry company to operate in Jersey. There is probably the market for it, but there are certainly the emerging climate control arguments that can be used in that respect. The point I am making is that we fundamentally have to challenge everything that we do and the realism that we think we live under at the moment is completely an illusion, when we start looking at it through the eyes of climate change. But, there is clearly not much appetite for this kind of talk at the moment; we have seen that a lot of the Assembly has now vacated, so I apologise for that. But I do not apologise, because I know that there are many people, who have campaigned very hard, not just in recent days and weeks giving up their time and putting themselves in the Royal Square, but right throughout the world and also for many years, when it was not popular. So, it is to those individuals, in particular, that I would like to pay tribute, whether they are based in Jersey .. I know I have got some very committed constituents and I think they are upstairs, so I pay tribute to them as well, but to all the individuals around the world, who are taking stances when it is unpopular and often against their own individual interests because, ultimately, they have seen the reality. When you have glanced at the truth and you have understood it, you cannot un-know that truth.

5. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement :

I shall obey the edict of Deputy Labey . I would say, though, I did find Deputy Tadier 's assertion that we should debate this subject and have a 10-minute speech, I agree, before moving on to perhaps less important issues. But, he was the man who gave us the 3½ hour debate on whether Jèrriais should be the third language in the Chamber, so I find that slightly rich.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am sorry, could I challenge? I would not normally. I did not decide whether the debate would be 3½ hours. I am sure my contribution in the Jèrriais debate was relatively short and it shows that it was clearly an issue which the Assembly wanted to debate.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you have got to take the slings and arrows of outrageous debate.

Deputy L.B.E. Ash:

One thing that did occur to me and it occurred to me the other evening, when I was talking to Jersey Telecom, there are major things we can do, as an entity, here and people have to pick the baton up and run with it. We are the only place in the world with 100 per cent 4G coverage, the only place in the world. Tomorrow, if we can find the political will, they could put a G.P. (general practitioner) facility into every single house, so people would not have to visit the G.P., it could just be there in their front room. They can do that tomorrow. Talking to their chairman, we have a 5-year window to put some fantastic things in. We could be one of the centres of marine environment technology here. We can be massive; it is there. We have a 5-year window when we are going to be ahead of the rest of the world. But it is up to every single member in this Chamber to go and see them. I can get Phil Male, the Chairman of Jersey Telecom, to come and see you, Deputy Ward , and we can really drive this forward. But, there is no point all talking about it, let us go and see them, let us say: "What can you do to make us a greener place, to reduce our carbon, using the technology that we have at our disposal, where we are the only place in the world that has it at our disposal?" So, let us look towards doing that. I am fully supportive of this proposition, but we have to use what we have at our disposal and we have got some pretty powerful tools. We are not as small on the global stage as we might think. I would just end with saying one more thing; when the Minister for the Environment brings in - and it is no good fudging the issue - some very unpopular decisions that will take place in the Budget and when the Treasurer and the Minister for the Environment brings that Budget with some things that will not go down particularly well with the public, but are necessary, if we are going to drive this forward, this Chamber cannot be found wanting. All the people who stood up and said yesterday: "I am fully behind this, let us drive it forward" when those measures are here and they get someone going: "Well, I do not want to pay this extra amount on petrol" or whatever it may be, you have got to be found to be strong. Not, as has happened in the past in here, where people back down.

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

Can I start by saying how much I appreciated that previous speech, surprisingly? It is absolutely the right tenor of mood that we should be taking today and to be repeated when it comes to Budget decisions, et cetera. But, I just wanted briefly, in order to ensure my vote - and I am minded to vote for this proposition as amended - I would just like to hear from the proposer how he sees this amended proposition being delivered.

7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I think I probably should start by saying I am an absolutely firm capitalist and I believe in equality of opportunity. I think I probably owe the States and the farming community a slight apology. I was informed yesterday evening by the agricultural Members of this Assembly that the farmers are doing rather more to improve the carbon content of their soil than I, perhaps, understood. Therefore, I apologise to them and to this Assembly. I do not know whether people noticed in the paper yesterday, or one day this week, British Steel have had to take out a £100 million loan to pay carbon credits.

One of the questions that has come up over the last couple of days is what is carbon neutral. Carbon sequestration that they talk about includes putting the carbon back into the soil, so that all the measures the farmers are taking are positive. The garbage guzzler, which is up at the airport - they have not got the home models available yet - is changing food waste into something which will put carbon back into the soil. So, that is carbon sequestration and it is an important thing, but it is an environmental thing. That is the important part about it. It is not just buying a few trees. The proposals put forward by Deputy Ward are really talking about de-industrialisation. There is a power station in the north of England, Drax, which was a very efficient power station and it has been converted from coal to wood pellets.

[10:30]

The wood pellets are being made in the United States from ancient forests, which are being logged and cut up into pellets and sent to the U.K. to go into a power station and burnt. I have never heard anything so regressive and stupid in my life. We are going to have to drive electric cars, but if firms like British Steel have to buy carbon credits, the price of the raw materials is going up. Will we be able to afford the cars? It is an end to air conditioning - ask the people in South Australia what they think about it - and many of the conveniences of modern living and definitely an end to the prospect of affordable energy for third world countries and a significant increase in the cost of electricity. There will also be a substantial increase in unemployment as industries fold. So, here we are; Deputy Tadier has already mentioned the fact that pensioners and lower income families will revert to a similar position to medieval serfs, unable to travel, because of the costs. They are talking of thermostats pegged at 19 degrees centigrade. It makes me think of Brave New World, 1984, call it what you will, it is a dictatorship. Do not forget, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations, wants to use this opportunity to get rid of capitalism and convert everything to socialism. That is what she said, in public. My generation have lived through the tail end of World War 2, the Korean War, Suez, Vietnam, the Cold War, nuclear winter forecast, global cooling, the Millennium Bug, forecasts of starvation, reduced life expectancy - 42, I think they said it was, I think you and I must have beaten that, Sir - peak oil, the population will exceed food supply, excessive air pollution, childbearing will be a crime. We are dealing with all these matters that have arisen, but as H.L. Mencken said - he was a columnist with the New York Times - "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." If he had met computer models, he would have damned them too. I prefer the philosophy of Julian Simon, the economist, who had the utmost faith in the power and ingenuity of the human mind. I follow the Julian Simon approach. I am not prepared to sacrifice our children's and grandchildren's future on the basis of political correctness, computer models, or hobgoblins. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it is the environment, stupid. That I support; this proposition I cannot.

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

I would urge that Members take this as an opportunity to think outside the box. I do not want this to be a negative approach. I say this, because the last thing I want to see is people lying in the middle of the road trying to stop cars, because all that will do is increase the carbon footprint with the cars being stationary. It will slow the economy. It will reduce taxation and increase the burden on society as a whole. Let us embrace it and use what we really can. I was delighted with the speech from the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, Deputy Ash, about Jersey Telecom and what they can do. It reminds me of a sketch - and if I can just humour you shortly - many years ago between the Two Ronnies'. They were both dressed up as cavemen and Ronnie Corbett was sat next to the fire in the cave and Ronnie Barker wheeled in a great big round stone and Ronnie Corbett said: "What is that?" He said: "It is a wheel." "What is it for?" "I do not know, I just thought I would go down

in history as being the first person to invent the wheel." I say this, because we have got 100 per cent fibre in all our homes. Let us use that as a way of preventing journeys, so that you do not get in your car, so you do not have to run over the people who lie in the road. A very interesting point too, we need to act sensibly and not a kneejerk reaction. My last car I traded in when it was 16 years old. I intend to keep my current car, which is a diesel, for at least 15 years. I do not want to trade that in, in 2 or 3-years' time, for an electric car, because the footprint of doing so is worse than continuing the way I am. We need common sense with this approach. I urge that Members understand this and that in the thinking that we are going to have to adopt it is going to be different, but it needs to contain those degrees of common sense. I will support this, because I think it is right that we should make a statement and move forward. But, I do have this serious hesitation about setting ourselves up to fail. In a speech made yesterday: "It is better to set a target and fail than to set no target." I fundamentally disagree with that, because if I set a target I expect to achieve it and I sack people if they do not.

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

At the outset of this debate, when we discussed the amendments, I said I was in a dilemma and that was a dilemma as to whether to support the amendment, or the original proposition. That dilemma was because I do not like being hypocritical. I do not like to say one thing and then do another and I certainly do not like to vote in favour of the principles of something and then vote against the detail later on when it comes down the line. I was disappointed that, in highlighting the challenges and the costs and the difficulty in achieving carbon neutrality, that I was accused of somehow supporting the cause, because nothing could be further from the truth. However, I am clear in my mind that I am one Member of this Assembly who does know the subject well and I understand completely the whole list of issues that will be before us, their difficulty and how painful they will be to make. On electric vehicles, we know we are going to have to accelerate the take-up, there are charging points, reducing and subsidising parking charges. We have got to find ways of increasing bike use, getting people to walk more. We are going to have to adopt anti-diesel and petrol car policies. We are going to have to increase, massively, charging for parking. We are going to have to reduce, massively, the cost of using public transport. That is all going to cost, as is moving away from oil and gas to heat our houses. We are going to have to go to electric heat pumps. We are going to have to specify carbon neutral houses. That is going to cost. We are going to have to increase the bylaws, to make it even more difficult to convert. That is expensive too. On renewable energy, we are going to have to get used to wind farms on land and offshore. We are going to have to embrace turbine technology. That is going to cost, not only physically in pounds, but that is going to cost us visually in the way we interpret our countryside and the way we look at it when it is full of solar and, potentially, wind turbines. We are going to have to find ways to get our farmers to capture more carbon in their land. We are going to have to continue to embrace nuclear energy and, while it says lots of good things about carbon, the cost of the infrastructure will continue and we will continue to have to invest in it. We are going to have to change the way we feed ourselves, we are going to have to change our diets. Specifically, lamb, beef and dairy products and we will have to accept that the cost of some of these products will go up by 40 or 50 per cent and we will have to accept that and find ways of helping those that find that a difficult cost to cope with. The U.K. are going to have to plant 2.7 billion trees to achieve carbon neutrality. That is about a 20 per cent increase in the conversion of agricultural to forestry and we may have to do the same here. We will have to discuss with our farming community how we achieve that. When it comes to transport - mainly aviation, but also in boats - we are going to have to pay extra for our tickets, as the companies operating those services find ways to offset the costs of looking at the alternative energy that they will have to use in moving us around. All I wanted to do in supporting the amendment, was to do a proper job of looking to how we might achieve all these targets and so I am grateful that we have agreed that extra year. But, it is still going to be challenge, but it is work that we must take up and do. I am absolutely going to support this proposition, but I say this to all those Members, who are also going to push the pour button this

morning, saying yes today is the easy bit. It is the very easy bit and it can only get more difficult and more challenging from now on. But, I look forward to Members' support as we move ahead to tackle all these issues; the most important issues facing our globe today.  

10. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter :

I think this is following on from a theme of the more recent speakers; that is all it is, so I am honouring Deputy Labey 's request to keep it brief. Obviously, we must not only support this proposition, but I suggest every Member of this Assembly endeavours to find and support their own projects and initiatives to take us in that carbon neutral direction. We have spent the best part of half a day discussing process, timing, accountability, but this is something that we can do now today. From my part, I have been approached to help with a concept - I am using the loosest word as I can, because it is far too early and commercially sensitive to give any details, sorry to be capitalist about it - all I can say is that it ticks every box in our pursuit to be carbon neutral, however, it is only one. If we all champion an idea, with 14 ideas we can start today, to make a difference today. We do not then have to wait for the timings of 2020. It is the sum of the parts that will make the difference.

11. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence :

I just wanted to say I was disappointed in the Minister's admonishments, because I feel they are wholly inappropriate. As I mentioned  yesterday, my daughter  - and we heard today Deputy Pamplin's daughter - are fearful and they are fed up. I believe, in the gallery, the people outside are also fed up. I ask why? Why 30, 40 years after this scientific evidence, which underpins our knowledge of climate change, why are we still doing so badly? The reason is because it is the failure of leadership. The people in the Square, Deputy Pamplin's daughter, my daughter, they want leadership. I stood and spoke to them a couple of times and both times I was saying: "It is not so much the Government that you need to be protesting against, what we need is practical advice to help Islanders move away from our own activities and the way that we pollute, whether it is in our cars, whether it is travelling around the world in airplanes." But, I have been listening and looking at more statistics and I think, no, you know what, I understand why you might protest Government, and our Government in particular. Again, I will say it, like I did yesterday, not specifically this Government, but all the governments over the past 30 years. The reason is because they have done so very little. That is the truth.

[10:45]

That is why, when I hear the Minister telling us off I think: "Why are you saying this? You are genuinely trying to water down a proposition and you are saying that it is our fault and I just do not get that." Let us look at the Pathway 2050 progress. Both the Chief Minister and the Minister for the Environment talked about: "We have got this pathway. It is fantastic." Well, if I read from there, I can tell you that emissions in the energy and transport sector .. so this is the most recent review, the 2017 review of our progress on that Pathway 2050. It states: "Emissions in the energy and transport sectors increased slightly in  2016, but  all other sectors remain  static, or marginally decreased." If that is a response to an emergency, to increase slightly, to remain static and at our very best to marginally decrease, then I say: where has the leadership been? Because it is clear we have not moved. We have rested on the laurels of the decarbonisation of our electricity supply for far too long. It is now time to move beyond it. You read anything our Government puts out about our progress on climate change and they all say 28 per cent decrease on 1990 levels, entirely due, basically, to the decarbonisation of our electricity supply, which happened years ago. We cannot keep looking there. We cannot keep thinking: "Wow, we have done that 28 per cent, 30 per cent decrease, that is fantastic, we are better than so many other jurisdictions." Yes, but now we need to move on and we need the leadership to push us forward to move on. So, when I hear the Constable

of St. John talking about, basically, abdicating the leadership position it really worries me, because we want leadership. Islanders want leadership and if this Government cannot give leadership, then the next Government will. I promise you that. It is disappointing. Let me just read some more, just to put through the facts. This is a list of actions, in response to our marginal decreases, so this is a list of actions that the Government has come up with in terms of commercial and government policy, so this is how the Government currently wants to help us respond to a climate emergency: "To continue to run a Lunch and Learn programme. To continue to encourage businesses to monitor energy use. A series of good practice case studies to be published. J.P.H. (Jersey Property Holdings) to continue to monitor and manage energy use. The States of Jersey Treasurer's report will include the annual sustainability report." Let us move to the annual sustainability report, let us see how well the Government, itself, is doing in combatting climate change in its own actions: "Total emissions from air travel, made by this Government" as in our States of Jersey, "2016, 1.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. 2017, 1.5; 2018, 1.8 tonnes of CO2 equivalent." Is that progress in combatting climate change? We have done an almost 30 per cent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide this Government puts into the atmosphere through air travel in the last 2 years. If we look at total emissions, from all government operations, including vehicle fleet, et cetera, 2016, 19 kilotons of CO2 equivalent. In 2017, it did fall slightly to 18.6; 2018 though, we did not like the fall, so we put it back up to 19.9, so we are now, basically, about 5 per cent higher in 2018 than we were in 2016 in the amount of CO2 that this Government emits. That is what the leadership that we have had over the past 30 years has brought us. So, I am incredibly disappointed to see the watering down of Deputy Ward 's proposition and I do wonder, because financial levers, fiscal levers, yes, they are important, they do play a role, they do need to be balanced, but fiscal levers .. it is just so strange that that amendment to this proposition focused so heavily on fiscal levers. I just wonder - and I do apologise in advance to impute motives - but it is a cash-strapped department, fiscal levers would probably bring in a bit of money to boost that budget, which, while being a good thing, does make me think: "Do not just focus on the fiscal levers, because it is not just about a department's budget." So, definitely, no question, I urge everyone, this should be unanimous, adopt the proposition. But, we now need a stronger, better proposition, to be honest with you, to come later. Soon, but later, because as I have shown you, government after government in Jersey has failed to get to grips with climate change; it has rested on its laurels, it has not helped Islanders move away from the habit of driving. The Sustainable Transport Plan has not succeeded. We cannot keep pointing at, as the Minister did: "We have got a Sustainable Transport Plan." Yes, we have got an energy pathway, they are all failing. They are not working. We cannot just keep pointing at plans and keep monitoring and keep saying: "We have got to assess, we have got to monitor." It does not work. I have studied environmental decision making, so I appreciate the need for a practical take on how you move forward. Deeply embedded in the way I think about the environment is it has to be practical but, at the same time, we as a Government, as a States Assembly, have to be inspirational and we are failing to be inspirational. The proposition is not as inspirational as it was. Like I say, hopefully we can re-amend it back into a more inspirational position. It is time that this Assembly and the Government that comes from it really did think about the future and about what they are leaving behind. We cannot think in a 1950s way anymore, we cannot think in the ways of the past. This is the 21st Century. We do need new economic thinking, we do need to build a sustainable economy and that does mean moving away from the way many of us have been taught for the whole of our lives: "This is just the way it is. It has to be like this." No, it does not. So, please do vote for it, but please do know that we need more now, we need stronger and we need action, Minister and I expect to see action, whether it is with fiscal levers, or without fiscal levers, because we need inspiration. That has to come from here and we have to lead Islanders to a better future than the treading water that we have been doing for the past 3 or 4 decades.

12. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I am pleased to follow one of my new Deputies and I have listened closely to what he said. At risk of incurring the wrath of our P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), I will try to not repeat what has already been said. But, I want to reference what Deputy Morel has just brought to our attention; he has spoken about leadership and leadership over the past 30, 40 years, particularly in connection with matters of the environment. I would like to tell the Assembly that I was elected in 2005, with our current Chief Minister, we were both Deputies of St. Lawrence and I really like our Chief Minister. He is an affable chap. We can chat to him on any matter and he listens to us. If you get a sense of déjà vu, Members, this is what I said really yesterday about our Minister for the Environment. I like them both. But where is the leadership from our current Chief Minister? I cannot believe that he stood in the Assembly, this morning, to say that he is going to reject part (c) of this proposition. I will read it, so that Members can be reminded of it: "The Chief Minister is requested to ensure that consideration of action to tackle climate change in Jersey is included as a standing item on the agenda of the Council of Ministers." What a simple and straightforward request that is to our Chief Minister. Please include this as a standing item when your Council of Ministers meet. He tells us that he is not going to do that, because it is an administrative issue, because the environment is down to other Members, who are leading on it, the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister for the Environment, he may have mentioned somebody else. But, surely, this is the first Government that has the environment as part of its Strategic Plan, or whatever we call it now - I am old school, to me it will always be Strategic Plan - it is the first Government, we have all agreed with that. It should be up there. It should be being supported by our Chief Minister and every other Member of this Assembly and yet, for administrative purposes, it is being rejected by our Chief Minister as a standing item on his agenda. I would urge him .. he is with us now in the Assembly, he is smiling, I think he recognises that what he said earlier is probably an error. It is a mistake. I would urge him, please, to not reject this part of the proposition, but to have it as a simple task, if there is something to report, then so be it. The entire Council of Ministers should be advised of what is happening. There is no doubt that the proposition is going to be approved, as amended, but let us just reinforce to our Chief Minister, to our Council of Ministers, that we are taking this seriously and it should be a standing item on the agenda. I think I have ticked him off enough there. If the proposition is voted on, in separate parts, I will be watching how our Chief Minister votes. Just a couple of other things that I would like to say and really it is based on what Deputy Morel has just said. We are all responsible for not putting the environment as a priority within recent Strategic Plans. We must all - all of us who were here before this current Assembly - we should all be holding our heads in shame, because we did not include it within the Strategic Plan. Coming back to the proposition, who has brought it? It is a backbencher. We are only debating this, because Deputy Ward has seen fit to bring this forward for debate. Where is the leadership? I come back to that. Where is the leadership? Why has it not been brought forward by the person who is championing the environment in this Assembly and on behalf of this Island, our Minister for the Environment? He has been silent on the matter. I never heard him reference it when he spoke earlier. I am trying to remember, Sir, can you advise me please, has the Minister for the Environment spoken in this debate?

The Bailiff :

On this debate he has not, but no doubt he spoke briefly earlier.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

But no doubt he will respond as to why he has relied on a backbencher to bring this forward for debate. So, Deputy Morel mentioned we have all failed over the past 30, 40, 50 years. The warnings were there in the 1970s and, in fact, I think it must be 35 years ago, at least, that I was at school debating these very issues when we were talking about the use of the motorcar. That is quite an old-fashioned term. Talking about the use of the car and the impact on the environment, the damage it was doing. This was the 1970s when I was at school and debating these matters.

[11:00]

I am in a fortunate position today to be debating, in our Parliament, in our States Assembly and being able to influence the outcome of the vote. I will certainly be supporting the proposition, as amended, and I thank Deputy Ward for bringing it, to allow us to have the discussion, while at the same time acknowledging everything that has been said regarding the difficulty there is going to be for us all in achieving anywhere near carbon neutrality within the Island. I listened intently to what the Deputy of St. Martin spoke to when he said how hard-hitting this is likely to be. In fact, it will be and this is the easy part and our difficult choices are yet to come.

13. Deputy J.H. Young:

I have to respond to the last speaker, but I want to start, before I deal with that - because that is a secondary issue - is to support the whole principle of the proposition. I am not going to go into detail, but suffice to say I think I wholeheartedly support the views that the Deputy of St. Martin has set out and the views of Deputy Ash. These 2 are strongly related. To achieve all the actions that the Deputy of St. Martin outlined - which I would absolutely commit to achieving as many of those as is possible

- that will require us, as an Assembly, to face up to the realities of the choices that are going to be coming forward to the Assembly. I think they will start to come pretty soon, in July, in the draft Government Plan, in the plans that we discuss through the autumn. I think it is imperative that if we are to convert those goals into action that we do so. Now, it is fair to say that it has got to be a whole Council of Ministers issue, this. As Minister for the Environment, whoever holds the seat of Minister for the Environment, under our government structures at the moment .. which I think are, frankly, far from ideal and we are not that well-equipped and well-structured as a government to help us do that. Of course, I do have major concerns, as Members know, about the mismatch between the ministerial structure and the States of Jersey Law and our civil service structures that do things differently. There is a real issue there which can, if we do not sort it out - and it is urgent that we sort it out as a Council of Ministers - will lead to underachievement at best and at worst dysfunctionality, and I am concerned about that. So, all of us Ministers do have to ensure that we do our very best to work constructively together and the vehicle we have got to do that at the moment are the Common Strategic Policy work, which kind of underpins the whole Council of Ministers' work. So I, as one Minister with certain responsibilities, will do my best to do that. But, of course, I can see the case for co-ordination. I absolutely can see where the coming together in the end .. there is a purpose in reporting through to the Council of Ministers and ensuring there is a flow of information. That is rather mechanical. I do not know that I need .. I mean, I asked the Assembly to trust that I have the conviction and passion in the environment to see this through. I would not have put myself forward for this job, I am not a careerist and I think in the debate yesterday it all came out and I was absolutely delighted. I do not know that we need to go over that again. That is now our new goal. Now, I congratulate and I always have, Deputy Ward for bringing this forward. He was absolutely on the ball, because the first sign I think .. why did we not react earlier, well I think the first sign was in October last year, 2018, the I.P.C.C. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) international report provided .. well, like I said, and Deputy Morel has said 30 years ago, look, I certainly am aware of the general tendency of how important .. but when we started to see the clarity of the numbers and the increasing tone of those international reports, which I do not believe personally I have seen until that time, things started to change. What happened in Jersey is, I believe, that was pretty strongly instrumental in the adoption of environment as one of our common strategic policies. That is the work that took place in the autumn. Of course, then what happened is that certainly there was discussion with the Energy Forum locally, but internationally .. the theme was picked up

internationally and obviously with the young people spectacularly and David Attenborough and, suddenly, all of this has occurred in the beginning of this year. I congratulate Deputy Ward and I am very happy to have backbench Members lead. In my ideal States administration, I would not draw distinctions between Ministers, Assistant Ministers and Scrutiny and others. We should all work together [Approbation] I have never been a fan of this artificial structure that we have to work within. I suppose it does raise the issue .. I can remember when we had committees when all Members were in Government and we did work in teams and we were able to embrace initiatives, such as Deputy Morel 's, as part of our structure as a Government and work together. That is now more difficult for us, but anyway that is a theme for another day.

The Bailiff :

I think it is, Minister.

Deputy J.H. Young:

But, nonetheless, I congratulate Deputy Ward and as a Minister I welcome input from other Members. I talk to other Members, I talk to Scrutiny as much as I can and I will carry on doing so, because only in that way, I think, can we advance and make up for the kind of procedural issues. So, I am 100 per cent behind this and I will be voting for it and personally I shall be voting for part (c) as well.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Am I allowed to seek a point of clarification from the previous speaker?

The Bailiff : Yes.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It is a slight procedural device, because I meant to seek a point of clarification from the previous speaker and missed my opportunity, who is no longer here and if he could note that.

The Bailiff :

She is not here; that you cannot do.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Could he just confirm that the principle around putting it on the agenda was not to make environment an administrative item, it is purely from the point of view of making sure we have focus when the Minister brought the matters back to the Council of Ministers. Could he also note that I concur with him and ..

The Bailiff :

This is a second speech, Chief Minister.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

.. would he accept me in voting part (c) as well.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Chief Minister, that is a second speech. Can I say to Members that I have not heard, so far, anyone speak against this proposition and I really wonder about the usefulness of continuing to debate something which it appears, with perhaps one or 2 exceptions, everybody agrees. I quite understand that there is spectrum of opinion on paragraph (b) and the voting on whether the amendment should be adopted shows that. But the real debate about paragraph (b) is going to come when the Minister carries out the process of producing the next plan, whether the policies are ambitious enough or not and Members, of course, are quite entitled to put their markers down now. But, the real debate on that is going to come when that comes out. I really wonder whether it is useful, given the agenda - and this is no derogation of the importance of the issue we have been discussing since yesterday afternoon - I wonder whether it is really useful to carry on this debate indefinitely when it is really expressing positions which are going to be taken up when the real debate comes back later on.

Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity :

I defer to your advice and I will not say anything.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can we just clarify that the Chief Minister was the only person in the debate to speak partially against the current motion, in opposing part (c), so it is not quite true?

The Bailiff :

Well, I will not pass any judgment on which are the important parts of the proposition. Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Ward , would you like to sum up?

14. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

I will be quick. I would like to thank Deputy Young for referring to political rhetoric because when I looked up the word rhetoric' it says: "The art of effective, or persuasive speaking, or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques." That is the sweetest thing you have ever said to me, thank you very much. [Laughter] Part 1 of this proposition is about setting the target for 2019. We must act now, we have 8 months to do something about this and I would invite the Minister along to the St. Helier group that is meeting - we met last night - and the positive nature of that meeting last night about coming up with solutions to make St. Helier carbon neutral, as quickly as we possibly can. We have a target, but that target we will reach as quickly as we possibly can and if we do not reach that target then we will be accountable to it. I have got to say, I come from a profession where we are accountable for absolutely everything, so we all need to be accountable for a lot more in this Chamber, so let us do it. I would like you to do that, please. You do not need to employ consultants in the way that you are saying, I object to the £300,000 figure, to be quite frank.

The Bailiff :

Through the Chair please.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sorry. I do not believe that we need to employ consultants; we have knowledge on this Island. Talk to the people who are outside, talk to the people on this Island who know about Jersey and know about its environment and are willing to take some action. We have people who are environmental planners, we have people who are ecologists, biologists, we have the lot there if you want to use them and they are specific to this Island and that is what we need to use. Now, in terms of part (b), I like a musical quote that will split the Assembly, I will quote Meatloaf: "2 out of 3 ain't bad." That is OK for me. I am disappointed in (b), but I will be holding you to account. I do not think fiscal

measures are enough; I think the whole of the Council of Ministers needs to take responsibility. Just as we are a corporate parent, we are a corporate parent to our climate and our environment and we all need to take that into account when we look at this. In part (c) I would like to, if I may, offer the Chief Minister a way out of this, which is to do something very simple. Invite young people to the Council of Ministers' chamber when you have that on your standing item and talk to them, because I heard some of the climate activists on a Friday out there speak eloquently, intelligently, with well-researched ideas and we need to be listening to them. If we are genuinely going to be a transparent Government and listen to children and put them first, let us listen to them, because it is their future and that would be such a positive thing for us to do. It would say to young people that politics is something you can be involved in and you will be listened to. So, there you go, that is what you do with part (c) of this proposition, a practical outcome to it. It has brought people together, it is remarkable. The Constable of St. Lawrence , accepting something from a Reform member; it is lovely to see and quite remarkable. The most remarkable thing is Deputy Southern agreeing with Deputy Ash. Well, I did not think we would ever see that, but there you go. I will say a couple of things that I must say, which is very important, the worry that Ministers do not have enough officer support to get this done, well, I am really sorry, but backbenchers have absolutely zero support for anything that we are doing. When we want to bring propositions, we do not even have the resources to sit anywhere and do them. So, something needs to be done if we are going to genuinely address a Government that is going to be thinking through and achieving the actions that we want. I make no apology for having passion in what I believe. I think it is very important that we have that passion and that will continue, because this is such an important topic. I would say to everybody here and everybody outside and everybody listening, yes, it is about what we do individually. Once you start to look at this and if there is genuine leadership from the Government about climate change, we do start to consider our own actions. We start to think about whether we need to have that car, whether we need to eat in the way that we do, or whether other options are available and we start to change. Once you make that change, it is a steamroller effect and we all start to improve our lives. I would say you do not have to be frightened of change. It is 2019, embrace it, enjoy it, it is much better to be on the right side of history than on the wrong side. In all of the economic worries that we have, the biggest economic worry we have in this Assembly is uncontrolled climate change, because that will change everything and you will not be able to buy your way out of that. We will not be able to economically adjust, or fiscally lever, your way out of that, so we need to act now and we need to take genuine, positive action in order to make the changes that are there. I would say we can prove to the people of Jersey that we can lead and we desperately need to do that. I am fed up with the phrase politician' being a bad word. I do not want that to happen.

[11:15]

If we lead the way on this topic, we can lead the way on others, we can make the change that is needed, we can change the lives of young people and we can change the lives for the future of this Island. So, I urge you to accept and I would like to take the whole proposition together, accept all 3 parts as amended and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. The vote is on P.27/2019, Climate change emergency: actions to be taken by the Government of Jersey, as amended. It is one vote on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Bailiff :

Before we come to the next item on the agenda, I was asked yesterday afternoon, in the course of this debate and I left it over, because I did not want to interrupt the debate, for a formal ruling and a point of order. This was raised by Deputy Doublet . Do you still wish me to deal with that? [Aside] The point of order that Deputy Doublet raised, arises out of the exchange, which Members may recall, between  her  and  the  Assistant  Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources  over  whether  Beaulieu discriminated against non-Catholics and Deputy Doublet asked me to rule, as a point of order, that the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources was inadvertently misleading the Assembly as the school's publicly available admissions criteria lists baptised Catholic children in priority to children of other faiths, or of no faith. Deputy Doublet was anxious to emphasise that, in requesting the point of order, that she is not asserting it was unlawful discrimination, but she did believe that it fits the

definition of lawful discrimination and, therefore, the Assistant Minister has misled the Assembly. It is true that .. I listened to the Hansard .. not the Hansard to the, whatever it is called, last night and it is true that the Assistant Minister did say that Beaulieu did not discriminate against non-Catholics. When Deputy Doublet raised the objection, he then said straightaway that the school may take Catholic families first but it does have - and he emphasised "does" - a substantial number of non-Catholic families and it would be wrong to make this a faith issue. In my judgment, this was not a matter which was central to the debate itself, although having said that, I can well see that the admissions criteria are a matter on which some people might think that was discriminatory and others not, given the statement which the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources has made. The question for me is a narrow one as to whether he was seeking to mislead the Assembly. I do not believe he was and, therefore, I do not make any order in that connection. I think this is a matter of people's judgment as to whether it amounts to lawful discrimination, or not and I understand the context in which the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources said what he did, which was that he did not think that the debate gave rise to a faith issue. That was a matter on which people may have different views but he was entitled to say that.

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

Can I just make it clear; I did say I thought the Minister was inadvertently misleading? I know that he would never seek to mislead this House.

The Bailiff :

Yes. I am sorry if I did not emphasise that, yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Could I ask just for the record - I think it is relevant - would the Deputy state whether she felt misled and whether she would have voted differently had that comment not been made? That seems to be the most ..

The Bailiff : Whether?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Would the Deputy have voted differently had that not been said? That seems a test, because it seems to me that, in the future, there are all sorts of things that get said in the Assembly inadvertently, which might be factually incorrect and we would not want you reporting on those every time, so it might seem that in cases where somebody feels misled and would have voted differently that is perhaps the right type of bar to use in future.

The Bailiff :

I think that is a subjective approach, Deputy , which I do not think would be right, because it would give rise to all sorts of difficulties in the future, if that were to be the test which is to be applied. It is an objective assessment which has to be made.

2. Draft Amendment (No. 39) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.29/2019) The Bailiff :

We now come to P.29/2019, which is Draft Amendment (No. 39) to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, lodged by Senator Farnham . I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Amendment (No. 39) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, the States under Article 48 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, make the following amendment to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey.

2.1  Senator L.J. Farnham :

For the avoidance of doubt, this proposition is being tabled to encourage change. It has been tabled to enable reform, to force Members to work together collectively and thoughtfully, to blend their views together with the interests of all Islanders into properly considered sustainable reform of our political system and the constitution of the States of Jersey. In my report, I make reference to the practices of a number of other countries and jurisdictions in relation to what is required to change their own constitutional arrangements and that terminology should not be confused with our own constitution of the States Assembly, as set out in Part 2 of the States of Jersey Law. Notwithstanding that many countries and jurisdictions, large and small, have super majorities built into their criteria for approval, for democratic reform and amendments to the makeup of their legislatures and many have a threshold consistent with the two-thirds that I am proposing today. What I am asking for is by no means extraordinary or undemocratic and is common practice in many other places. To leave such important changes to be approved by, potentially, just one vote of a simple majority, 25 to 24, in our case in this Assembly, which directly impacts upon the fundamentals of how Islanders are represented, how their interests are protected, or how they can vote would, in my opinion, completely undermine the importance of this subject. To be absolutely clear, this amendment to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey changes the number of votes that are required under Standing Order 89A for a proposition to be adopted that (a) alters in any way the membership of the States, (b) lengthens, or shortens, the term of office of any class of elected Member, or (c) alters, adds, or extinguishes, the constituencies of any class of elected Member, so that any such proposition shall not be adopted unless at least 32 Members of the States vote in favour of it. As a new, modern and more representative Assembly - which I believe we are - it is likely that we will soon be called upon to deliberate over propositions brought by States committees and Members on important issues that will impact upon the make-up and constitution of the States Assembly and our electoral system. Since writing that short paragraph, we have had no fewer than 3 such propositions with amendments and the prospects of more to come. I know that some Members will think, or say, that this proposition is an attempt to prevent reform, when in fact it is just the opposite. I say that, because having endured

- yes, we have endured - over 50 attempts, since the publication of Clothier, on such matters with the only notable outcome being that we have managed to reduce the number of Members elected by Island-wide mandate - arguably the most democratically elected office in this Assembly - from 12 to

8. That is pretty much what we have achieved with a simple majority. It is probably worth reminding Members that that was done, without the knowledge, or the permission, of the electorate and was, if my memory served me correctly, largely to facilitate the move to a single election day, because it was deemed that the electorate were not capable of voting for 12 Senators on one ballot paper. Guernsey might disagree, as they will shortly be electing all of their 38 members on an Island-wide vote on a single ballot at their next elections and that will be an exercise worth observing. It is clear the efforts to reform have simply failed under the current system, because with a simple majority there is always a slim chance of scraping something through. This means that there is no collective thinking required by which I mean collective' as in the whole, or at least most, of the Assembly being involved with working up such ideas. There is no incentive to work together, to find a consensus. There is no necessity to work together and this has led to a myriad of disparate propositions that we have seen in the past and we are likely to see in the future and the bringing back, time after time, of the same ones, or very similar ones. Any change to the democratic rights of the individual is significant and will be of relevance to all Islanders and this is confirmed by the MORI Poll, outlined in my report, conducted by the former Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel in 2017. It would, therefore, not be satisfactory for a proposition to be passed, perhaps just after 4 weeks' notice, on a simple majority, or by perhaps a single vote, as such an outcome would surely deepen the low regard in which this Assembly is held when it comes to matters of reform, because, with a simple majority on such matters it is highly likely that the result would not be representative, or reflective, of the electorate view. I refer to the Privileges and Procedures Committee's forthcoming proposition, which seeks to remove Constables from the Assembly, among other changes. Their membership is there by automatic right, notwithstanding the strong desire to retain the Constables, as reflected in the 2014 referendum result. I am also tempted to refer to the process followed by the U.K. in relation to Brexit, which was won by a wafer-thin majority and reflect upon the impact that such a process can have on such a monumental decision. One thing that must also be made very clear is that these are matters of substance and of great importance for current and, importantly, future generations. The decisions we make today in this Assembly will alter the democratic rights of all individuals and will dictate how Islanders are democratically represented and governed, long after the current membership has moved on and I, therefore, believe that a far more considered and consensual approach is essential, to ensure that we introduce the change that is in the very best long-term interests of our Island. This proposition, if approved, will force Members to work harder, in a more considered and collaborative manner. It will force Members to work together, to search for solutions for the reform necessary to ensure that we maintain a modern, well-respected, secure and stable democracy. Look what happens when we do work together to find common ground and there are some good examples of that. Most recently, I will use the example of P.18/2019, the draft Commissioner for Children and Young People (Jersey) Law, debated on Tuesday. It seems such a long time ago now, already.

[11:30]

That was a great example of this Assembly working together, when there was a difference of opinions between the Minister, the Government, the Assembly and Scrutiny and what happened? Everybody got together and they came up with a compromise. It was not perfect, but it was a good compromise and it allowed progress and when that does happen, we normally get those propositions through unanimously. Would that not be good, for us all to work together, collectively, on a proposition to reform our Assembly and none of us might think it is perfect but, as they say, the enemy of a good plan is to dream of a perfect plan and some of us, most of us, would have to give ground on certain aspects, but we would move forward. Would that not be an achievement, because reform is something that will be evolutionary? It is not something we can do year by year and chop and change on the whim of a Member, or group of Members, who think they have got a chance of scraping something through, depending on the make-up of this Assembly at the time. These things have to be based on maintaining our stability. Jersey is renowned for its secure and stable political system. Our past success was and our future is dependent on that. At this time of significant external threats and uncertainty, it is more important than ever to maintain that stability. Simply put, it is time to put the interests of all Islanders and future generations before our own personal interests and our own political agendas and, to that end, I respectfully ask Members to support this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] It is seconded. Very well, I call on Deputy Labey , Chairman of P.P.C.

Deputy K.F. Morel :

Sorry, if I may just pause. I was wondering if I could ask for clarification of the Solicitor General, just because it is fundamental about the argument that the Senator is trying to make.

The Bailiff :

What, do you object, Chairman?

Deputy R. Labey : No, that is OK.

Deputy K.F. Morel :

The proposition asks us to amend Standing Orders, effectively, where aspects, which are the make-up of the States and people, who come together in a States Chamber, so in that sense it is asking us to change the constitution of the States Assembly. In his report and in the argument that is presented by the Senator, he likens his points to the national constitutions of Albania, the U.S.A. (United States of America), Estonia and various others. I just wanted to understand, because in my head I am vexed by this. I have been for a while. There is a fundamental difference between a constitution of the States Assembly and the constitution of a state and a nation and I am trying to understand and to have the clarification of whether there is a difference and if so .. I am grateful for that.

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

It is correct that Jersey is not a nation state, but, nevertheless, it has its own democratically elected Assembly and it has its own law, which has been approved by Her Majesty in Council, which governs the constitution of that Assembly. Like the U.K., and not those other jurisdictions that are mentioned in the Senator's proposition, Jersey does not have a written constitution, but that does not mean, in my view, that a change to the Standing Orders, which deal with constitutional matters, is not a constitutional issue. In my view it is. In my view, if one looks at the States of Jersey Law, that is perhaps not all of it, but pretty much most of it. It is a constitutional statute. While the U.K. does not have a written constitution, I am aware of case law - which I am not sure that it is necessary to go into for the present purposes, but I am aware of case law - where the court has found that a particular statute in the U.K., despite it not having a written constitution, but a particular statute is a constitutional statute and applying the reasoning of the court from those English cases and looking at the States of Jersey Law and if one looks at, for example, to the preamble and the long title to the States of Jersey Law, I think that it is pretty clear that it is a constitutional statute applying the reasoning of the courts from England and Wales. So, the long title of the States of Jersey Law .. it says: "That it is a law regarding the constitution and proceedings of the States to declare and define the powers, privileges and immunities of the States and to establish a ministerial system of government." Then the preamble goes on and says: "Whereas it is recognised that Jersey has autonomous capacity in domestic affairs, it is further recognised that there is an increasing need for Jersey to participate in matters of international affairs. Whereas Jersey wishes to enhance and promote democratic accountable and responsive governance in the Island and implement fair, effective and efficient policies in accordance with international principles of human rights." If one goes on to look at the remainder of the law, which I am not sure it is necessary to do so for present purposes, but certainly applying the reasoning of courts from England and Wales, looking at the States of Jersey Law, in my view, it is a constitutional statute. So, in terms of amending the procedures of the State Assembly, which are, after all, established pursuant to the States of Jersey Law, it is entirely open for the Assembly to amend its constitution. This is a constitutional issue.

Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

Could I ask a follow up question from what the Solicitor General has just told us?

The Bailiff : Yes.

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

If the States of Jersey Law is considered our constitution would, by passing this amendment, mean that any future changes to the States of Jersey Law need a super majority?

The Solicitor General:

I did not say that it was our constitution. I said it was a constitutional statute and it follows from that that not every change to the States of Jersey Law is necessarily a constitutional issue, because, for example, there are .. say, take the offences in the States of Jersey Law. There is an offence, I think, for publishing false material, which has a statutory tariff of up to 3 years' term of imprisonment and if, for example, the States wanted to amend that to 5 years, it does not seem to me as though that is a constitutional issue. But what, as I understand, the proposition is doing, is limiting the effect of this amendment, so that one reads .. it changes Article 89(1)(a) of Standing Orders and leaves 89(1)(2) in place, so that it is saying that only changes, which alter in any way the membership of the States, lengthens, or shortens, the term of office of any class of elected Member, or alters, adds or extinguishes the constituencies of any elected Member. So, it is only saying that it applies to those. Well, in other words that the existing 89A(2) of Standing Orders remains in place.

1. Deputy R. Labey :

I am sure we are all grateful to the Solicitor General for that and of course the words "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are bandied about in this Chamber very often, without a full understanding because a constitution, how something is made up, how it is completed, how it is assembled, is something which the Solicitor General has described and something which the Assembly is at liberty to amend, as it chooses. A constitution, in the sense of the United States of America, for example, which begins with 3 very important words .. probably the 3 most important words on any statute in the United States and I wonder if the Senator, who is proposing this proposition, knows what those words are. "We, the people." Because, the constitution in a United States context sets out the people's rights and that is why any change to that constitution has to go back to the people, to be changed. We do not have that. We do not have anything approaching that and it is important that people recognise that distinction. The Senator's proposition provokes timely reflection on the reckless abandonment, the dangerous, radical decisiveness that has characterised this Assembly's decision-making over the last 50 years. He calls for a period of calm stagnation - perhaps appropriately - for a period where we can maintain and preserve, in political aspic, our idyllic status quo. If those scenarios chime with any Members of this Assembly, then they must vote with Senator Farnham . While they are doing so, they might, perhaps, explain to us all about the parallel universe that they have been living in over the last half century, because, as we know, that is not the picture. It would be a shame, would it not, if this debate was to turn into a debate on the latest set of electoral reform proposals that are before us and will be debated in the coming months, because that is not what this .. clearly they played a part in spurring the Senator to bring this proposition. I mean, I think that is nakedly obvious, but it is not right to debate that proposition now, is it? We are talking about whether we should have a two-thirds majority before changing anything. I think this comes at completely the wrong time and is completely misguided and, as Mr. Miller of Radio Jersey summed up so perfectly this morning on the radio: "There is a feeling in this Assembly that transcends political colours, that transcends whether one is in the Executive, or whether one is a backbencher." That zeitgeist, if I might call it that, is about the assault coming from all sides on the sovereignty of this

Assembly. Sometimes, that assault comes from within, if the Executive does not enact a proposition this Assembly has passed. Sometimes, I think, Members are feeling that that assault is of our own making, in terms of the structures now in place with the administration of the Island and the effect that is having on both the Executive and decision-making and information in this Assembly and there is constant assault on the integrity of the sovereignty of this Assembly from all quarters. Members, I feel, are waking up to that and are flexing their muscles and allowing the Assembly to start to flex its muscles and this is coming at exactly the right time. This is really important for this Assembly. I believe principally important for this Assembly to grasp. Grasp its own sovereignty, the importance of what we do here and the democratic implications of what we do. Everything we do in this Assembly is a response to the people who put us here and it is time that the Assembly did wake up and did flex its muscles and assert its sovereignty, because we are on a rocky, dangerous road, in my opinion. So, this runs contrary to that, because what Senator Farnham is doing is diluting the power of Members, individual Members and it is an insult to .. unwittingly, it is an insult to Members and more importantly to the people, who put Members here, to say that a majority of Members is not enough.

[11:45]

A simple majority of Members is not enough for something to pass through this Assembly. It absolutely is. It absolutely must be. That is democracy. If we had a political constitution, a political system that was as near to perfect as we could get, there just might be some merit in Senator Farnham 's proposition, but we do not have that. Whether Members agree with the proposals before them from P.P.C., that we will be debating in 2 or 3 months, or longer, whether they agree with that, or not I think there is a general agreement that our system does need some reform. Most of the important propositions on electoral reform have come to the Assembly as a direct response to learned advice that we have commissioned, either from important Q.C.s (Queens Counsels) like Sir Cecil Clothier .. no, he was not a Q.C. He was an important former civil servant, was he not and diplomat, but an important, learned, well-considered .. a commission that was set up in terms of the Clothier Commission with lay members of the Island on that commission too and the blueprint that that provided in 1999, or 2000, a shadow of that still hangs over the Assembly. That informed, of course, the electoral reform debates that immediately followed it. Similarly, with the P.P.C. proposals, they are a direct response to, again, experts that were invited here by the Assembly and paid for to come and look at our system and tell us where we were going wrong. The fact that we do not have a sensible voter equity and voter equality and that we have problems in terms of a low voter turnout and the fact that so many Members return to the Assembly without facing a contest; all of that they say undermines the principles that democracy in Jersey .. that elections in Jersey are fully genuine. So, that is not the time, is it - whether you agree with that, or not - that is not the time to suggest we put the brakes on any kind of reform? What this will do, obviously, it will prevent any progress in that respect. It will prevent that. It is very hard, as I am finding out, to reach a consensus. P.P.C. has been working hard to do that. I mean, I went as Chairman of P.P.C., I asked myself to be invited to the Council of Ministers, to discuss the latest reform proposals and it was a very rough ride for me. It was very heated at times. One particular Member there was forced to come and see me after and apologise and I said: "It is absolutely no problem. Emotions run high with this." I did say at the end of that meeting: "There is no point in telling me what you do not like about the reform proposals that I am bringing to you. What is important is that you tell me how you would respond to the latest set of advice from the electoral observers that we received. It is very easy to pick on the thing that you dislike most about a certain thing and say that destroys the whole concept. Do not tell me that. Tell me what you would do. Tell me what reform you would do." Senator Farnham will not mind me saying that .. in his summation he said: "Well, I like the Senators. I like the Deputies. I like the Constables." [Aside]

Senator L.J. Farnham : Some of them.

Deputy R. Labey : The categories. So ..

The Bailiff :

Chairman, come back to the proposition please.

Deputy R. Labey :

Sorry. I asked for that I am sure. This would be a dangerous and ludicrous thing to do at this time and Members must reject this proposition.

The Connétable of St. John :

Could I have a point of clarification? The Chairman started by saying: "We, the people" as part of the American constitution. Does this mean that he endorses that changes should be subject to a referendum?

Deputy R. Labey :

It depends what changes those are. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

Senator, before you speak .. Chairman, can I just correct you? Sir Cecil Clothier was in fact a Q.C.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I think we ought to go back to the beginning. Why did the States, in 1948, not follow slavishly the Westminster model? Looking at the structure of the States as it was, or as it was decided, we ended up with Senators for 6 years. Half of them elected at each election and it is obvious from this .. well, it is apparent, anyway, that they used the United States model. Interestingly, as you will note from the report, the States require .. sorry, I will try and distinguish between the States and the United States. All right, the Americans require a two-thirds majority to change the constitution. Now, I know Clothier gets sort of held up for us, but Clothier was working to the Westminster model, as adapted by the E.U. (European Union) and was looking at the structure of a district assembly, a county assembly, which is very much the Westminster model and we are looking at something that was influenced by the American model. The House of Representatives, for instance, is re-elected every 2 years and the number of congressmen per state is proportional to the size of the population. So, you will get an equality of votes. However, the senators .. there are 2 senators per state and it does not matter if it is Rhode Island, California, Ohio, Idaho, you name it, there are 2 senators, a junior and a senior and one-third of all senators are re-elected every 2 years, which ensures continuity and this is what we used to have with the way we were dealing with our Senators. We had a very much more stable Government, because half the Senators had the experience, so we could hit the ground running. As an interesting sort of postscript, congressmen have to be 25 years, or older, so that will rule out some people and senators have to be 30 years, or older and that will rule out some other people. So, I wonder why Deputy Labey has not included that particular little stricture .. I am sorry that Deputy Labey is not in the Assembly but, perhaps, his Vice-Chairman would note it to add to his reform proposition. I mean, basically, what I am saying is that ..

The Bailiff :

Excuse me, Senator, we are about to go inquorate.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

You mean I can have 2 speeches?

The Bailiff :

Well, you would not be the first but .. I think you may now continue.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

So, I mean, basically, we have got to stop looking at this in the Westminster model. The Westminster model, as we have all seen for the last 3 or 4 months over the Brexit debacle .. it is a good word that Deputy Morel came up with. I am sorry he is not here to hear me pick it up, but anyway, I am not sure that Westminster is probably the best model in the world to follow. I happen to like the American approach and I would ask .. I agree with this particular proposition and I would ask the P.P.C. to go back and just look at this, the whole reform, in light of what our forefathers, in 1948, had in mind when they reformed the States after the war.

3. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

I will be supporting this amendment on the grounds that the need for a constitutional change to the Island must be delivered with the maximum competence of the Assembly. We should not and cannot sustain the idea that fundamentally and transformative policies should be passed by the narrowest of majorities. I would just like to say that Deputy Labey is a brilliant speaker. He is a very good raconteur and I would also like to say that we have listened to the people. We have had referendums where the public's wishes have been firm to keep the Constables and have the Bailiff remain in power and these public's wishes have been blatantly ignored. So, please do not tell me that voting for this amendment is going against the public. Deputy Labey says that we need to listen to the people, but if a referendum does not suit certain Members, we are then ignoring the people. Maybe others are living in a parallel universe, but I am firmly in this one. I listen to constituents and parishioners and a wide selection of ages and affiliations and they see merit in this proposition. They really do. So, again, I will be supporting this amendment and I will restate it on the grounds of the need for a constitutional change to the Island must be delivered with the maximum competence of the Assembly and we should not and cannot sustain the idea that fundamentally transformative policies should be passed by the narrowest of majorities. I am happy to support Senator Farnham 's amendment and I urge others to do so.

4. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I thought I must. It was a very nice speech by the Senator on opening this up. It was great. This is here to enable change. We have had 50 propositions that have tried to change this Assembly in the current system, which is just a majority that have failed and that is not good enough. Let us make it harder. Let us make it a super majority, because they have not got through anyway. You know, it is already a very hard thing to do in this Assembly, which is to make an argument for change. It is not an Assembly of change here, or progression. OK, a super majority, let us all work together. Let us collaborate more, work together to get things done. Should we do this too, for the Government Plan, the Strategic Plan, things that tax our Islanders; should that not be a super majority as well? Would the Senator, in his summing up, say whether he would support a change to Standing Orders to make serious government .. proposition changes have to be a super majority, because we can all work together, better in that way. Would the Senator support that? Should it not, if we are going to change the taxes for the people of this Island, not be something that should be a super majority, as well? Should the Government Plan on how we are going to spend money and the Public Finances Law on

how we are going to spend that money; should that not be a super majority, as well? If we are going to go down a route of saying: "This is a good thing if we want to do a super majority in voting." Let us do it for the stuff that really matters to the people of this Island. Why not? I am sure that would not be supported by the Council of Ministers to put anything that they want to do as a .. make it more difficult, more inclusive, should I say, as the Senator's words? I think this is a wrecking motion to stop change. I think this is a Senator, who is scared that in this current Assembly it is more likely that change may happen and the Senator is scared that he has not got the power of conviction to make the argument strong enough to get his majority, just a majority. Therefore, let us make it harder for everyone else. There is fear in this proposition. There is not inspirational change. There is fear. It should be wrong. I am not voting for this and I do not ask other people to either.

5. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I am loath to contribute in this debate, frankly, because I would hope that it would be a fairly quick rejection from this Assembly, because of what it is seeking to do. The Senator says in his report and in his speech that this is a proposition which somehow exists to enable and facilitate change, when it has got to be quite obvious that it will achieve the precise opposite.

[12:00]

I completely agreed with what the Constable of St. Martin said about taking the public with us and how change has got to reflect what they want, but what this will do - because this I think goes conversely against what the Constable was saying - what this will do is, it will give a veto to the minority. It will say that even when there are 31 Members of this Assembly supporting change, then a minority can veto it. That must, surely, be wrong, especially when that minority themselves may be completely divided upon what they think the solution is. That, I do not think, by any stretch of the English language, can be described as democratic and I think it comes from a place that misunderstands what a constitutional issue in Jersey is. The report lists several countries that have government systems, which are completely different to that which we have in Jersey. The American system is vastly different to what we are used to in Commonwealth jurisdictions. They have a constitution, where you have to go through a very convoluted process to change these rules, whereas Jersey has an unwritten constitution. I thought what the Solicitor General said before about the distinction between what is the constitution and what is a constitutional statute is something I think we would all do well from considering a bit more, to help understand these issues. It is not just the States of Jersey Law which could be called a constitutional statute. The Jersey Human Rights Law is a constitutional statute, a law that enshrines the E.C.H.R. (European Court of Human Rights) in Jersey and gives us rights; rights such as the right to life, the right to privacy, the right to take part in free and fair elections, the right to have an independent judiciary from which to get justice. I asked the Solicitor General for a bit of advice, just now, about where the definition of a constitutional statute would come from or, more specifically, when there is a statute, which has some issues in it which are constitutional and some which are not - because there are large swathes of the States of Jersey 2005 Law, which are not constitutional in nature - I asked him to provide me with an authority that would help explain what criteria you have to fulfil for something to be constitutional. The Authority comes from the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council from 2002 which has part A and part B, to help us get to what is a constitutional statute. Part A is: "Something that conditions the legal relationship between citizen and state in some general overarching manner." Part B: "Something that enlarges, or diminishes, the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights." Well, it is obvious that having the right to vote is a constitutional right. It is one that is enshrined in Jersey Law, European Human Rights Law, but what does your vote look like if we were to say, for example, talk about the Parish of St. Clement, which is currently underrepresented in the States. If you were doing it by population, it should have 3 Deputies, rather than 2. If we were to bring a proposition

that left everything else unchanged, but said St. Clement should have 3 Deputies, is that a constitutional issue? The answer is: no, it is not, because it does not do what is referred to in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, which conditions the legal relationship between the citizen and state in some general overarching manner, because that relationship between a parishioner in St. Clement and the States of Jersey would remain identical. The only difference is that they would have 3 votes instead of 2. The difference between 2 votes and 3 votes is not the same as the difference between having no votes and one vote; that is the distinction. That is when it would become a constitutional issue, in my view. The fact is that we have had, as the Senator said, 50 attempts to change parts of the States of Jersey Law, which have failed and he says we need to come together and act collectively with some collective thinking, as if this is somehow a new idea. Has nobody thought of that before? Well, of course, they have. I served on the Privileges and Procedures Committee in the last Assembly, where we tried desperately to bring a proposition to reform the composition of this Assembly and that was very much an exercise of collective thinking. You had both myself and Senator Philip Ozouf on a Committee. You do not get more collective than that, frankly, and it reached a process where we simply could not agree, so nothing came forward. It was not that people did not approach it the right way, because we certainly did. We put our differences aside. We attempted to compromise. My views on issues of the composition of the States are well-known. I do not support - I am sorry to say - the Constables remaining in this Assembly, but I have voted for propositions, in the past, that have kept Constables in the Assembly, as my attempt to compromise and say: "Well, as long as there is progress in other areas I am happy to do that." But, even still, this Assembly could not, by simple majority in the end, bring a proposal forward to be enacted in time for the last election, even though the one that was on the table was about as modest an attempt at reform as it is possible to get in terms of how it sought to change the constituencies. So, it is my contention that Schedule 1 of the States of Jersey 2005 Law cannot be considered, in my view, a constitutional schedule, because it does not change the relationship between the citizen and a state; it simply alters the practicalities in that, whether somebody has 2 votes, because they live in this Parish, or whether they have 3 votes, because they live in this Parish, the relationship is fundamentally the same. You still take part in an election. You still have people represent you and the jobs that those representatives have when they sit in this Assembly remains completely unchanged. If we change Schedule 1 of the States of Jersey Law, the job of the States of Jersey is not changed at all. We are still the law-making body of the Island. We still appoint the Executive. Everything remains completely unchanged and that relationship between the public and our institutions is the same and so I do not think it can be considered a constitutional issue for that reason. Of course, there have been quite drastic changes that have been made to Jersey's constitution arguably over the years; the Human Rights Law being one of those. That did not require a two-thirds majority. That did not go to referendum. So, what I say to States Members is that I hope we can accept that this is an attempt to make it harder to achieve reform, whether it is coming from a good place, or not, when there is a desire for change out there and if that change is to be more modest than many people would like it to be, then we should at least try and get a majority of people on board and to say that 31 Members can support something, but a minority can oppose it .. in fact when this Assembly does not have full attendance, it could end up being a very small handful people that could prevent change. That cannot be described as democracy. So, since this would have, I think, a negative impact on us working together to try and achieve change and try and better represent the people who put us in this Assembly I would urge Members to reject this proposition.

6. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence :

It is funny that with this proposition we have stopped talking about the referenda. One of the first large debates that we have had since we were all elected was about such a referendum and I had to go back home and read the Hansard, because of the things I heard about how they were very important, why would you ask the people, why would the people understand this and we ended up in

a very important question, which could have been solved with a referendum. I think no, we really do not want a referendum. We will just set this aside. How can we talk about representation when we can ask, physically ask, everybody in  the  Island ..we set  it aside and say:  "No, we are representative. We are going to vote and that is fine and we do not need to ask the people." If any question like this arises, do ask the people. If we are in doubt, if we are 25 to 24, do ask the people. You will get an answer. You will get a definitive answer. Why do we not use that? I do not understand it. Certainly, if we say it is expensive, it takes time, it is difficult; in that case, make sure that the decision taken in this Assembly is an absolute majority. If two-thirds of us agree on something, we can estimate that the people in general, all the people in the Island, will agree as well and if we are unsure, or if you are trying to push something and you feel that there is a blocking minority here, put it to the people. It should be easy to ask for referenda. They are going to be cheaper and cheaper and I think our communication with the rest of the Island should be improved. I will be voting for this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Before I call on the next speaker, can I say to Members, who are outside listening to the debate, that we are on absolute minimum for being quorate and it would be helpful if some Members would return to the Assembly, as there may be those present who might need to go out shortly?

Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

If I may, I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General and it follows on ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, are you making a speech, or asking a question, or both?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

No, I would like to ask a question first.

The Bailiff : Yes, fine.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

But I would like to explain my thoughts in the question. It is a question and it follows on from the advice given some minutes ago by the Solicitor General around the States of Jersey Law 2005, which I think he told us was a constitutional statute and which, I note, was approved by Her Majesty in Council, as it would have to be and I have just looked up the preamble to that law, which states that it is a law regarding the constitution and proceedings of the States to declare and define the powers, privileges and immunities of the States. Under that law, the States were given power to make Standing Orders. So, my question to the Solicitor General would be: what is the status of the Standing Orders made under the law? Do they have capacity to make an amendment of the nature requested by Senator Farnham , which would appear to me to make changes to the constitution and, if they can make that amendment, can or should such a change be made without reference to Her Majesty in Council? I note that Article 48 of the law relates to Standing Orders and Article 48(1) says: "The States shall make Standing Orders to give effect to this law [and I emphasise the words to give effect'] and to regulate their proceedings and businesses", and I think of the word "regulate". So, my question is: can Standing Orders go further than giving effect to what is already in the law and can they go further than regulating pure proceedings and business, because what follows in Article 48 is just a long list of requirements that the States establish committees such as P.P.C., a planning committee and establishes a scrutiny process. There is nothing in that Article that suggests to me that Standing Orders can be used to make what would appear to be a constitutional amendment. Therefore, in summary, my question is: is this a proper procedural way of making the amendment sought by Senator Farnham , or are Standing Orders much more limited? I am grateful.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , can you make plain to the Solicitor General what you say is the constitutional amendment because, from the Chair, I can say that my construction of this proposition is that it changes the numbers, but it is no different, in principle, to what is in Standing Order 89A at the moment?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Yes, I had thought of that, but I would, perhaps, even begin to question the capacity to create that super majority within Standing Orders, because it does alter the powers of this Assembly. It does alter the voting rights of Members, so that a certain majority has to be achieved, so the proposer has set forth in his report to the proposition the constitutions of other countries in which it is written into their constitutions that certain super majorities must be established. Can we do that by Standing Orders?

[12:15]

The Solicitor General:

I entirely accept that is a valid question to ask. It may be that I could benefit from a bit more time to reflect on it, but my immediate reaction is that the States of Jersey Law was one that was approved by Her Majesty in Council and it expressly states in the preamble to the law that it is recognised that Jersey has autonomous capacity in domestic affairs and that it is one which Jersey wishes to enhance and promote democratic, accountable and responsive government in the Island and implement fair, effective and efficient policies in accordance with international principles of human rights. Now, this amendment is to Standing Orders. Standing Orders are a matter for this Assembly. Now, who better to decide what is in the interests of the people of this Island than this Assembly? So, I would say that this Assembly has power. It is in its own hands to decide what its arrangements are to be in relation to Standing Orders. I know the language that the Deputy cited but, in my view, overall there does not seem to be anything that is offensive, or would limit the power of this Assembly to decide how best to govern its arrangements as regards votes. Now, is it offensive from a human rights perspective to do that? That is an important consideration that we would need to bear in mind. But my immediate reaction is I do not think that there is anything offensive from a human rights perspective in the amendment that is proposed. So, I think, while I am very happy to reflect on the Deputy 's question further, the fact is that it seems to me that the States of Jersey Law is one where it is expressly envisaged that the States Assembly has autonomous capacity in domestic affairs. Now, this is clearly one of domestic affairs. The only consideration, it seems to me, that might limit that is one of fundamental human rights and, as I say, I do not see anything in the amendment that is proposed that is objectionable from a human rights perspective. I think that is the best I can do in terms of my immediate reaction to the Deputy 's question.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , do you now wish to speak?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Can I perhaps reserve my position, in case the Solicitor General chooses to come back having reflected as he said he may?

The Bailiff :

You do not wish to speak?

The Deputy of St. Ouen : Perhaps not at this stage, Sir.

7. Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter :

I may not be able to speak as eloquently as some of my colleagues; however, I will support this proposition, having spoken to a number of parishioners who have urged me to do so. We talk of the will of the people, but following a number of referendums over the years we have totally ignored the will of the people on occasions. I recently had the privilege of meeting the Swiss Ambassador to the U.K. and I was impressed with his understanding of our government and constitution, something that he felt we should not change. He explained to me the parallels with their own system of government, with the Cantons effectively being similar to our Parishes and although they have a number of different houses within their government, the Council of State, which is one of the main bodies, only has 2 representatives for each Canton, no matter how large the Canton is and how many voters they have. So, I could see how he saw the parallels with our own system. However, the Swiss also require a double majority for any constitutional change; and how do they achieve this? They do not achieve it by a three-quarter majority or two-third majority. They have to have a referendum of all Swiss voters and there has to be a majority and that is legally binding. Then that is followed by a vote from the Canton representatives and unless both agree, the constitutional change cannot be made. If we had this sort of protection, there would be no need for Senator Farnham 's proposition. But, we have clearly shown, as I have said, in the past to totally ignore the will of the people and the outcome of referendums. So, once again, I say for those reasons I will support the proposition and urge others to do so.

8. Deputy M. Tadier :

There have been some remarkable things that have been said all, I would say, under the guise of protecting our constitution. The first question: if the constitution is so important to some Members, why do they not write a constitution, so that we can all see it and we can present it to the public of Jersey, so we all understand it and we can all refer to it, before we decide on what rules we have in order to change that constitution, which does not exist in written form? Perhaps that could be something that the Comité des Connétable s could do. Secondly, I heard a remarkable statement from Deputy Guida. Remarkable, because I do not think it can possibly be true, certainly not categorically so. He said that if you can get a two-thirds majority for something in this Assembly, then that must mean if it went to a referendum it would also win a referendum. Is that true? Let us apply that to the House of Commons. You could probably get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons in a free vote, certainly pre-referendum for Brexit, to remain in the E.U.; you would probably get more than two-thirds, you would probably get a three-quarters, or a four-fifths majority in the House of Commons to remain, but yet if you put that to the public, you would get a different result and that is because the public and the Parliament do not mirror each other. We like to think that we are the microcosm of wisdom in this House, in this Assembly, because we have all come here in some ways, through various different routes, some through whatever system. I do not cast any aspersions on that, because once we are all here, we are all equal even if the power that we have and the representation we have is not equal. There was a remarkable vote the other day where I noted it was an amendment

- I cannot remember off-hand which one it was - and we had 10 Constables who voted one way and

we had 2 Constables who voted the other way. Who were those Constables? So, the 2 Constables that voted against, or for, were the Constables of St. Helier and St. Saviour and the other 10 voted against, let us say. But, yes, that is half the Island, because the Constable of St. Helier and the Constable of St. Saviour represent half of the Island and the other 10, who today are getting to their feet in order to support this proposition, saying: "We do not want any change." So, that is the basis that we have and this amendment, which I am sure has been lodged for the right reasons, has to be put into the current context. It was not lodged a year, or 2 ago, when we were not necessarily talking about electoral reform, it has been lodged clearly in reaction to something to make it even harder for the much-needed change that we have. If you put the question to the public which says: "Do you think that the States Assembly is constituted and composed in a democratic and fit-for-purpose sense for the 21st century?" You would not need to worry about a two-thirds majority, because you would probably get a 90 per cent resounding: "No, absolutely we do not." Do you think that the numbers stack up and that there is fair representation given the example I have said that 2 Constables, representing half of the Island, can be outvoted by the 10 who represent the other half? It simply does not stack up. The analogy here .. do not get involved in legal questions. I literally did not want to speak in this debate. I know that is a cliché which is given. I genuinely do not think that this debate has the legitimacy; I would not want to legitimise this debate, but I have been brought to my feet by some of the specious comments that I have heard from speakers saying that they want to protect democracy. In fact, what they want to do is inhibit the democratic process, so that we have a truly fit-for-purpose system by saying: "Let us have a two-thirds majority." It would be bad enough if we said you have to have an absolute majority, that is what some areas do. If there were 49 Members in the Assembly, you need 25 irrespective. That is what we do, we already do that, so there is an in-built mechanism, so in the case that there would only be 43 Members, some out of the Island on States business, you would still need that 25. So, the arguments surely should be won on their merit. If Members are so confident that they are right, why not just use the simple system which says you have to convince the majority of your peers, in order to effect change and if it is a constitutional issue, by all means put it to a referendum. But, that is a completely different area. Do not fabricate these new ways and mechanisms to obfuscate progress, which is exactly .. if it is not designed to do that, that is certainly the consequence of what happens. I think the analogy is that you have a football team who is already winning the league. So, they have been winning all of their games anyway, because they have the best team, if you like, they have the numbers, they have the best pick of the bunch. You have got one team, which can only have a limited scope for picking their candidates and their players. The other team gets access to all the best players and gets first pick. So, they are already winning and they say: "But we want to change the rules even further, so that in order to beat us at this game, you need to score 4 goals, but we only need to score 2 goals." That is exactly what we are talking about today. You need to get two-thirds of the goals; we only need to score one-third of the goals to succeed in maintaining the status quo. The public will be looking at this, thinking: "OK, there are lots of other issues that can be debated" and that is a completely weasel argument, which I have heard being used and put out there in the media saying: "Are there not other important issues to debate?" Let us face it, there are so many important issues, some are minor some are major, and we have to deal with all of those things in the Assembly. It is not valid to say that one thing is more important, because people, being diverse, will have their pet projects, et cetera. Everything we debate here is legitimate. We decide how much time we spend to it and, frankly, we should not be spending that much time debating a proposition which makes electoral reform and so-called constitutional reform so much harder to achieve. Let us stick to what are the basic democratic principles. We are here to make the decisions on behalf of people. If we can convince half of the people in the Assembly, who have been elected to represent, that change is necessary - it is already difficult enough under this new system we have - let us stick with that. Let us not make it any more difficult.