STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 1

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

1.2 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 2

1.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.3 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Schedule 1 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

1.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.3.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.3.3 Senator A. Breckon:

1.3.3 The Deputy of St. John:

1.3.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.4.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.5.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.5.2 The Deputy of St. John:

1.5.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.6.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

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

1.6.3 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

1.6.4 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

1.6.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.7 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 3

1.7.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.8 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 3 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

1.8.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.8.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.9 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Articles 4 and 5

1.9.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.10 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.11 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 5 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

1.11.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.12 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 6

1.12.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.13 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 6 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

1.13.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.14 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.14.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

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

1.14.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

1.14.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

1.14.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.15 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Articles 7-10

1.15.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.15.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

1.15.3 The Deputy of St. John:

1.15.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.15.5 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

1.15.6 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:

1.15.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

1.15.8 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

1.15.9 Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:

1.15.10 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

1.15.11 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.16 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 11

1.16.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.17 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 11 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

1.17.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.17.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.17.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

1.17.4 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

1.17.5 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

1.17.6 The Deputy of St. John:

1.17.7 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

1.17.8 The Deputy of St. Martin:

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

1.18 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.18.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.18.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.19 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Articles 12 to 23 and Schedule 2

1.19.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.19.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hèrissier:

1.19.3 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

1.19.4 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

1.20 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Third Reading

1.20.1 The Deputy of St. John:

1.20.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hèrissier:

1.20.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

1.20.4 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

1.20.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

1.20.6 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

1.20.7 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2. Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009)

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

2.1.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

2.1.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.1.3 The Deputy of St. John:

2.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

2.1.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.1.6 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The Deputy of Grouville (Vice-Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

2.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2.3 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2.4 Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009) - amendment to Regulation 3 (P.140/2009 (Amd.))

2.4.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.4.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.4.3 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

2.4.4 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

2.4.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.4.6 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2.4.7 The Deputy of St. John:

2.4.8 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.5 Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009) - Regulations 4 to 9

2.5.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2.5.2 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

2.5.3 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

2.5.4 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2.6 Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009) - Regulation 10

2.6.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

2.7 Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009) - amendment to Regulation 10 (P.140/2009 (Amd.))

2.7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.7.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

2.7.3 Senator A.J.H. Maclean.

2.7.4 The Deputy of St. John:

2.7.5 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

2.7.6 The Deputy of St. Mary:

2.7.7 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

2.7.8 Senator A. Breckon:

2.7.9 The Deputy of St. Martin:

2.8 Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009) - Regulations 11 and 12

2.8.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

3. Draft Gambling (2010 Fees) (Jersey) Regulations (P.141/2009)

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

3.1.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:

3.1.2 Senator A. Breckon:

3.1.3 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

3.1.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

3.1.5 The Deputy of St. John:

3.1.6 Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:

3.1.7 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

3.1.8 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

3.2 Draft Gambling (2010 Fees) (Jersey) Regulations (P.141/2009) - Regulation 1

3.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

3.3 Draft Gambling (2010 Fees) (Jersey) Regulations (P.141/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Regulation 1 (P.141/2009 (Amd.))

3.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin

3.3.2 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

3.3.3 The Deputy of St. John:

3.3.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

3.4 Draft Gambling (2010 Fees) (Jersey) Regulations (P.141/2009) - Regulation 2

3.4.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

3.5 Draft Gambling (2010 Fees) (Jersey) Regulations (P.141/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Regulation 2 (P.141/2009 (Amd.))

3.5.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

3.5.2 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

3.5.3 The Deputy of St. John:

3.5.4 Deputy A.K.F. Green:

3.5.5 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

3.5.6 Senator A. Breckon:

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

3.5.8 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

3.5.9 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

3.5.10 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

3.5.11 The Deputy of St. Mary:

3.5.12 Senator B.E. Shenton:

3.5.13 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

3.5.14 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

3.5.15 Deputy J.B. Fox:

3.5.16 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

3.5.17 Senator J.L. Perchard:

3.5.18 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

3.5.19 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

3.5.20 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:

4. Young Offenders: naming by the media (P.148/2009)

4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

4.2 Young Offenders: naming by the media (P.148/2009) - amendment (P.148/2009 (Amd.))

4.2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton

5.1.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire

5.1.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

5.1.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:

5.1.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

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

5.1.6 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

5.1.7 Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:

5.1.8 Deputy J.B. Fox:

ADJOURNMENT

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 1

The Bailiff:

We return then to Projet 139, the Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law.  The principles had been adopted.  Scrutiny had indicated they do not wish to have it referred to them, and therefore we move on to the individual Articles.  So, Minister, may I suggest that you move Article 1 as there is an amendment to Article 2.

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John:

I think there may be a point of order.  I am not sure if Members are aware that there is a second sound system now in place within the Chamber and it is on from prior to the debate and through to the end of the debate at the end of the day, so if Members are in the Chamber earlier and having a private conversation with Members people could pick up, or the microphones could pick up, what is being said.  Likewise at lunchtimes.  So, will there be some way that the system can be turned off until the House sits and when it rises at 12.45 p.m. and comes on at 2.15 p.m. because quite often Members in here do speak on confidential matters one to one and we would not necessarily require that to be recorded, Sir.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  Yes, I am sorry, I am not familiar with the position that there had been any changes.  I do not know whether the Greffier can assist.  I am advised that it is wiped at the end of every day.  It is just used as a backup if the microphones are not working, but perhaps you can take the point that you made up with the Greffier just to satisfy yourself, Deputy.  Very well, Minister, Article 1.

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

Article 1 is just containing interpretive provisions including a definition of gambling services.  I propose Article 1.

The Bailiff:

Article 1 seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on Article 1?  All those in favour of adopting Article 1 kindly show.  Those against?  Article 1 is adopted.  Now, in relation to Article 2 that incorporates Schedule 1 to which there are a number of amendments and I think the schedule and Article 2 must be taken together so I invite you, Minister, to propose Article 2 and Schedule 1 together.

1.2 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 2

1.2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Article 2 establishes the Commission as an independent body corporate, composed of 2 to 5 commissioners, including a chairman.  I would like to propose Article 2 and Schedule 1 together, Sir, if I may.

1.3 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Schedule 1 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

The Bailiff:

Seconded?  [Seconded]  Very well.  There are a number of amendments proposed to Schedule 1 by the Deputy of St. Martin and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

This is amendment 5, page 29, Schedule 1: (a) delete paragraph 2(3) and renumber the remaining sub-paragraphs accordingly; (b) in paragraph 4(2)(b)(i) for the words “6 consecutive months” substitute the words “2 consecutive months”; (c) delete paragraph 4(3)(f); (d) delete paragraph 5(3) and renumber the remaining sub-paragraphs, and alter internal cross-references, accordingly; (e) for paragraph 6(3)(c) substitute the following sub-paragraph “(c) if a vote is tied, it is to be taken to have been lost.”

The Bailiff:

Deputy, would it be of assistance if I were to seek from the Minister confirmation for all as to which, if any, he will be accepting?

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:

I think it will be.  I think Members may well find it difficult to follow as well, but I would be grateful.

The Bailiff:

Minister, would you be willing to do that?  I think it would help Members if they knew exactly which of these amendments, if any, you are prepared to accept.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir, indeed.  I can say that in general, not just in relation to this particular schedule, that the Deputy of St. Martin has been extremely helpful in the whole process and Members will note that I accept a great deal of his proposed amendments as we go through.  But with regard to these specifically I am prepared to accept (b) and (c).  I am afraid I do oppose (a), (d) and (e) with regard to this particular schedule. 

The Bailiff:

(a), (d) and (e)?  Correct?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, (a), (d) and (e).  They are on page 29, Schedule 1.

The Bailiff:

If I can assist Members, if one looks at the amendments of the Deputy of St. Martin it is paragraph 5 of his amendments.  It is headed page 29, Schedule 1 and you will see there are 5 sub-paragraphs there: (a) to (e).  What the Minister has said is that he will be accepting (b) and accepting (c), but he will not be accepting (a), (d) and (e).  So, I invite you then, Deputy, to propose your amendments.

1.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I may well have to ask your assistance as well to get where we are with these because unfortunately the way in which the Law is laid out they just do not follow and one has to go from one page to the next and I think it is helpful that so many have been accepted by the Minister.  The substance really is ensuring there is greater consultation and that will be within the Law, rather than within the spirit.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry to interrupt.  We are only doing Schedule 1 at the moment, which has nothing about consultation, as I recall.  I think that is on your other amendments. 

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, I understood that the first amendment would be Article 3 which ...

The Bailiff:

No, this is Article 2 and Schedule 1.  So, it is in fact the last of your amendments.  It is paragraph 5.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

This is to do with the appointment of the Commissioner?

The Bailiff:

Well, it is to do with Schedule 1 and so, for example, your first one relates to paragraph 2(3) which is about appointing the chairman in camera.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

That is it, yes.  This is where I believe that there are a certain number of appointments which are in camera and there are a certain number of appointments which are not in camera and I think generally the spirit of it is that if someone is in an honorary post it would normally be in camera, but if someone was being paid for it it could well be that it would not be in camera and I believe personally that there should be greater openness anyway.  I think the spirit should only be a presumption of openness with exceptions and what I am asking here is that there is this presumption of openness rather than having an exception, which is part of what the Minister is asking for, and I believe here that it is important that we are going to appoint a chairman, that the chairman is going to be paid, and in this particular occasion here I think it is important to know what the add-ons are as part of that job because as indeed the present chairman we know does not live in the Island.  At the moment we are told that his salary is £48,000 for 10 days work a month but we are not aware of what the additional costs are for bringing the gentleman over, and I do believe that States Members should be party to that information.  The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when the chairman is appointed he is not appointed in camera but in the open.  I make the amendment.

The Bailiff:

This is paragraph (a).  It probably will be simpler for Members if we take each one separately.  So, you propose paragraph (a).  Is paragraph (a) seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on paragraph (a)?

1.3.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

The Deputy of St. Martin proposes that the appointment of the chairman should not be in camera, but in open session.  I do not believe that is correct in this instance.  My major concern here is the ability to attract suitable candidates and there is a concern that, of course, candidates may be put off putting their name forward, should their credentials be discussed in open session.  It is a matter that I think is important if we want to ensure that we get the best possible quality of candidates.  It has been traditional historically and I think to oppose this amendment of part (a) is appropriate in this particular instance.  The Deputy of St. Martin has also mentioned, and seemed to be conflating issues about costs and so on, but whether or not we have a debate of the merits of a future chairman in camera or not, Members of course have the ability to vote so these matters are not of particular relevance, I do not think. 

1.3.3 Senator A. Breckon:

Just a couple of points, while I am not necessarily a fan of debating things in camera unless it is necessary I think a point I raised about 6 or 7 weeks ago was if, what are in fact, members of the general public are putting their names forward then it is difficult when it comes to this House if they get maligned in some way and it is not doing a great deal, I do not think, to encourage people to put their names forward.  We do have a process where the chairman would be nominated in a public arena.  The background to that appointment would be available to Members, how they were been arrived at, along with their C.V. (curriculum vitae), but we have had instances in the past, I think it was an issue with a Committee of Inquiry into a planning matter where somebody had a particular problem with one of the members and it is difficult if someone wants to go into that detail in a public arena because we have certain privileges within this House which must not be abused.  I am not saying that will be the case here, but in this instance I think we have a safeguard which allows us to look at who is being appointed, why, what their credentials are, and we could vote at the end of it.  If Members are not happy with it at the end of that then they can do that.  So, I will not be supporting this amendment because generally I am not in favour of much being discussed in camera, but in instances where individuals who are members of the public, or people who are putting themselves forward, I do not think it does our case any good if we are trying to recruit people and encourage them if within this Chamber we have the opportunity to give them what could be a good slagging, which perhaps they have walked into because somebody may have got something wrong, or maybe not quite right.  So, in this instance I will not be supporting this amendment.

1.3.3 The Deputy of St. John:

I can well understand where the Minister is coming from, given we use a similar procedure when we put in position a new Police Chief.  Given that the type of regulatory authority that we are putting in place, I believe that the Minister is absolutely right in wanting to do that in camera. 

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, I call upon the Deputy to reply.

1.3.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I do not think there is much more to add.  I think it is just a matter of opinion.  I believe in openness.  I do not believe there will be people put off the job.  If they want the job then we go as part of the task but there should be this openness.  I maintain the proposition, and ask the appel.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  The appel is called for then in relation to paragraph (a) of the amendment of the Deputy of Martin, paragraph 5, and that is concerned with whether the appointment of the chairman of this Commission should take place in camera or not.  If you think it should be in camera you oppose it.  If you think it should be open you vote for it.  So, I invite the Greffier to [Interruption] ...  Did I misstate it?  If you wish the appointment to be in camera you should oppose this amendment.

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

Can I ask for a point of clarification, Sir?  The text as it is now says: “must take place in camera.”  Can you clarify that if we vote against this so that the default position is that it is open, not in camera, we are still at liberty, faced with a particular appointment, somebody may say: “I have matters to bring up” and so on.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, you have had your chance, I am sorry.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

No, Sir, I am just asking whether we are ...

The Bailiff:

Well, you should have asked it during the debate.  We cannot have Members popping up after the end of a debate to raise some point they wish they had thought of earlier.  Very well, I am sorry if I misspoke earlier.  I hope Members are clear which way they should vote.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish to move on to paragraph (b), Deputy?  This is one which the Minister is accepting, but perhaps you could propose it briefly.

1.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

This is when a Commissioner ceases to want to carry on working.  He has to give 6 months.  I am saying all we really need is 2 months.  So, as I said, I am surprised a Commissioner, who may be in receipt of public money, may be absent from a meeting for as long as 6 months without having to inform the Commissioner and it did seem rather strange of that length of time and I believe the time should be 2 months and I think that has been accepted by the Minister.  I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded?  [Seconded] 

1.4.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just very quickly.  No reason to oppose this.  It seems perfectly sensible.  The only point I would make is just for Members to be aware that if somebody is absent then during the period of absence at 2 months, as we have just agreed hopefully, then they would not get paid.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Do you wish to reply, Deputy?  Very well, all those in favour of adopting paragraph (b) of the Deputy’s amendments kindly show.  Those against?  Paragraph (b) is adopted.

The Bailiff:

Then do you move paragraph (c), Deputy?

1.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, again, I was rather surprised at this one here.  It is just about ageism.  I do not believe that one at 73 is past anything and [Laughter] for that reason I believe that it should be open, and again I am grateful to the Minister.  The Minister and I are in agreement with this, so I will ask that Members approve this and I make the proposal.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposal seconded?  [Seconded]

1.5.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just very briefly, Sir.  Yes, happy to accept this.  I think Members will agree that the nearer we all get to that age the more supportive we are of this particular proposition.  [Laughter]

1.5.2 The Deputy of St. John:

I would oppose this because if we look at our police, our judiciary, et cetera, they all have to retire at 72 and the police much earlier, and we are talking about basically a policing role in some respects in this particular position and therefore I will ask for the appel when the time comes because I will be voting against accepting this particular one.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, I call upon the Deputy to reply.

1.5.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will be interested to hear from the Deputy of St. John as to what age he does consider to be past it, whatever “it” is, but I do not think we need to dwell too much on this one.  I am grateful again for the Minister’s support.  The appel is called for and I make the proposition again.

The Bailiff:

Very well, the appel is called for in relation to amendment (c), which is to delete paragraph 4(3)(f), which contains the age limit.  The appel is called for.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  Deputy, amendment (d) raises the same issue about in camera, although this time it is termination.  Do you want to proceed with that in the view of the previous debate?

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will not pursue it, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  So, you withdraw that amendment?

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I withdraw it, yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

So, then we come finally to paragraph (e).  So, would you like to propose that?

1.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, thank you, Sir.  It is purely coincidental, had we had the debate before the one on the States Employment Board no doubt we would have had a ‘suck-it-and-see’ by this particular amendment, but Members may well recall a couple of weeks ago that I had a proposition to ask Members about the tied vote of the States Employment Board.  There was a tied vote there and there was quite a debate there.  What I believe again is openness and I believe again that if people are having a vote they should only have the one vote.  Again, it is unlikely… I agree, that if you only have a commissioner and 2 assistants there is every possibility they will have agreement, but there will be times when there may only well be 2, and again I am not of the belief that anyone should have a second casting vote and again I would remind Members that when we had the debate on the States Employment Board the States voted that there should not be a second casting vote and they also said when they had the Appointments Commission there should not be a second casting vote, so I am saying here there should not be a second casting vote for my proposition, and I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on paragraph (e)? 

1.6.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Of course if the vote is tied then it is taken to have been lost.  I do oppose this.  With a board of only 3 this would effectively take the chair’s casting vote and give it to the opposing member.  In my view this is not good business practice and something that I would encourage Members to reject.  Thank you.

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

The obvious point which the Deputy was alluding to is the disproportionate power given to the chairman.  The second thing I would point out in reference to the last debate, Deputy Duhamel is totally committed to recycling.  What about the recycling of former States Members and other members of the community? 

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to follow that? 

1.6.3 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

Just a quick question for the Minister.  Could he confirm - and it is probably written here but I do not have it to hand at the moment - what the quorum is for meetings?

1.6.4 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

Could the Deputy, when he is summing up, just indicate what precedent there is for his proposal?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just from a clarity point of view I would be happy to answer the Deputy’s question there.  It is 2.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  No other Members wish to speak, I call upon the Deputy of St. Martin to reply.

1.6.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Again, there is not really much more to add.  I know the Constable of St. Brelade asked what the precedent was.  I think the precedent was set when we had the last debate 2 weeks ago.  I think the House on both occasions of the 2 votes were that there should not be a second casting vote and if the States are going to be consistent one would assume they would be consistent again, that no one should have a casting vote.  We have heard the Minister say the quorum is 2.  There are only 3 members anyway.  Again, these things are not a rare ... well, they could be rare, but they happen, and all I am asking is if we believe in openness and we believe in only one vote we should support what I am proposing.  So, the precedent was set 2 weeks ago on 2 occasions and I am asking on this occasion that we make it 3 in a row and I make the proposition and ask for the appel.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Sir, if I may just before that, I answered a question for the Deputy of Grouville a moment ago and I gave the answer as 2.  Of course that is correct when there are 3 commissioners.  Of course the law does allow provision for up to 5, so in the future if there were 5 commissioners it would be a majority.  It is in fact a majority which was what I was alluding to with 2.

The Bailiff:

Very well, the appel is called for then in relation to paragraph (e) of the Deputy’s amendments.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Greffier of the States:

Very well, so then we return to Article 2 and Schedule 1.  Does any Member wish to speak on Article 2 and Schedule 1 as amended?  Very well, all those in favour of adopting Article 2 and Schedule 1 kindly show.  Those against?  They are adopted.

1.7 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 3

The Bailiff:

Now, do you propose Article 3, Minister?

1.7.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I would, Sir, thank you.  Article 3 gives the Commission the general function of supervising gambling, along with other functions conferred on, or transferred to it by any enactment.  Schedule 2 transfers various functions under existing gambling legislation.  The Article also ensures the Commission can do anything reasonably necessary or expedient for an incident with regard to any of the functions such as the supervision of gambling services, issuing of licenses and permits, the Judicial Greffier and the Treasury role and the Gambling Licensing Authority role.  I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is Article 3 seconded?  [Seconded] 

1.8 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 3 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

The Bailiff:

There is an amendment to Article 3 lodged by the Deputy of St. Martin and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Amendment 1, Page 15, Article 3: After paragraph (4) add the following paragraph: “(5) The Commission must ensure that it carries out its functions in a way that does not give rise to, or maintain, unnecessary burdens.”

The Bailiff:

Again, Minister, perhaps I can ask you to indicate in advance whether this is a matter you will be accepting?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir, I can confirm that I will be accepting this.

1.8.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Again, I am grateful to the Minister.  Again, I stress this is all about accountability and consultation.  What this will be, it will be enshrined in law and I do not think there is much more to add and I make the amendment.

The Bailiff:

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

1.8.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just briefly, Sir.  As I have already said, I have to accept it.  It is in line with the policy that has been published with regard to this and I would encourage Members to also accept the amendment.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, all those in favour of adopting the amendment kindly show.  Those against?  The amendment is adopted.  Does any Member then wish to speak on Article 3 as amended?  Very well, all those in favour of adopting Article 3 kindly show.  Those against?  Article 3 is adopted. 

1.9 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Articles 4 and 5

The Bailiff:

Do you propose Article 4, Minister? 

1.9.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.  Article 4 sets out the guiding principles to which the Commission must have regard in carrying out its functions.  They include the need for safeguards for vulnerable people to avoid crime and to be fair to consumers.  Sir, I propose Article 4. 

The Bailiff:

Is the proposal seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on Article 4?  All those in favour of adopting Article 4 kindly show.  Those against?  Article 4 is adopted.  Then we come to Article 5 where there is also an amendment.  So, do you propose Article 5, Minister?

1.10 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.  Article 5 allows the Minister to give guidance and general directions to be followed by the Commission.  The Minister may not give guidance or directions in relation to any particular person such as an investigation into or license application from an individual or as to how or when any social responsibility levy, as contained in Article 11, is to be applied by the Commission.  The Minister must also avoid unduly affecting the Commission’s independence.  Sir, I maintain Article 5.

The Bailiff:

Is Article 5 seconded?  [Seconded]  Very well. 

1.11 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 5 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

The Bailiff:

Now, there is an amendment to Article 5 and so I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Amendment 2, page 15, Article 5: (a) after paragraph (1) insert the following paragraph: “(2) The Minister may give to the Commission, in writing, specific directions as to the determination under Article 11(4)(c) of the manner in which gross win is to be calculated” and renumber the remaining paragraphs accordingly; (b) in paragraph (2) (renumbered as (3)), after “under paragraph (1)” insert “and any specific directions given under paragraph (2).”

The Bailiff:

Again, Minister, can you assist us on whether you will be accepting this one?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir, I am accepting this one.

The Bailiff:

Very well, do you propose your amendment then, Deputy?

1.11.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, sir.  The Minister mentioned about the policy statement for regulation of gambling in Jersey which was presented to the States on 16th November - R.126.  In actual fact it was lodged after my amendments and I think what has happened now is that I would possibly think that the Minister, having read my amendments, then incorporated part of his policy.  I do not think there is much more to add.  The Minister is accepting my amendment and I make the proposition, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?  Very well, all those in favour of adopting the amendment kindly show.  Those against?  The amendment is adopted.  Does any Member wish to speak on Article 5 as amended?  Very well, all those in favour of adopting Article 5 kindly show.  Those against?  Article 5 is adopted. 

1.12 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 6

The Bailiff:

We come then to Article 6 where there are also amendments.  Do you propose Article 6, Minister?

1.12.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Thank you, Sir.  Article 6 requires the Commission to promote good practice and observance of the law on gambling and enables the Commission to issue, or approve, codes of practice including technical standards.  A breach of a code is not an offence in itself.  There may be evidence in proceedings to, for example, revoke a license. 

The Bailiff:

Is that seconded?  [Seconded]  Very well. 

1.13 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 6 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

The Bailiff:

Now, there is an amendment to Article 6 and therefore I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Amendment 3, page 17, Article 6: (a) for paragraph (12) substitute the following paragraph: “(12) The Minister (a) must by Order require the Commission to consult in a specified manner before it approves a code; and (b) may by Order (i) prescribe any aspect of the manner in which an approved code must be published, and (ii) impose any other requirement on the Commission in relation to approval of codes”; (b) after paragraph (13) add the following paragraph: “(14) The Commission must (a) in exercising its powers under this Article and performing its duty under Article 3(5) in relation to those powers, particularly take account of any burden that may be caused by any unnecessary inconsistency between a provision of an approved code and any similar provision in any other jurisdiction in which providers of gambling services also operate; (b) keep under review its exercise of its powers under this Article, and in particular keep under review the provisions of any approved code or of any technical standards referred to in such a code; and (c) specify, in its report on its operations prepared under Article 18(1)(b), the results of action taken under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).”

The Bailiff:

Minister, are you able to assist on whether you will be accepting all or part of this amendment? 

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir.  I will certainly be accepting all bar (c).

The Bailiff:

You will be accepting paragraph (a) of the amendment?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Paragraph (a), yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

That changes paragraph 12, so you are going to be accepting that.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes.

The Bailiff:

In relation to paragraph (b) you accept 14(a) and (b), but not 14(c), is that right?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That is correct, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  What I suggest then is that the Deputy proposes and votes on paragraph (a) first of all… Deputy, because that seems to be agreed.  In relation to (b) I suggest you propose it all as one and then if Members wish they can vote separately on paragraph (c).  So, Deputy, would you like to propose sub-paragraph (a) of your amendment?  That is the one that puts in a new paragraph 12.

1.13.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Again, the spirit of openness, the spirit of consultation, that is what it is.  It has now been enshrined within R.126.  The Minister accepts it.  I will not speak on the other piece until we get there, but I make the proposition, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak?  All those in favour of adopting paragraph (a) of the amendment kindly show.  Those against?  Paragraph (a) is adopted.  Do you wish to propose paragraph (b) Deputy?

1.14 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, Sir.  This is an additional paragraph and again the rationale was yet again that if we are going to have this Regulation it should be enshrined in law and not only that, when it comes out in a report, if Members will have a look at it, it is overleaf on the top of page 4.  I am saying that when the annual report is produced it should also be included in the report.  It seems a bit inconsistent.  We heard yesterday how important this particular law was and yet here we have the Minister saying today: “Well, that was yesterday, today is another day and we do not really need to be that concerned.”  But all I am asking for is consistency.  We want consultation.  We want it enshrined in law and I am asking that it now be enshrined in law under an additional paragraph as sub-paragraph 14.  I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on paragraph (b) of the amendment?

1.14.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I do not accept this, or rather I feel it is unnecessary, but I am not going to oppose it.  I understand the principles of what the Deputy is saying, so I am very happy with that.  I will speak separately on (c) when we come to that.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, what is being proposed at the moment is paragraph (b) of the amendment.  That is a new paragraph 14 which has within it an (a), (b) and (c), so that is what is being proposed at the moment.  So, if you oppose part of it, namely (c), you should speak on it now.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Is that the one relating to ...

The Bailiff:

“Specify in its report on its operations prepared under Article 18(1)(b).”  Now, as I understand it you are accepting the first 2 sub-paragraphs; (a) and (b) you are happy with.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am indeed, Sir, but not (c).

The Bailiff:

But you do not want (c), so I think you must speak to that.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Very briefly then, Sir.  It is to do with the annual report.  It talks about how codes were considered and will be reviewed over the past year, but what happens of course when the Commission has perhaps 20 or 30 codes in the future the Annual Report would be in a position where it could be the size of a Bible or 2 Bibles.  It becomes a very cumbersome document and in that respect we do not think it is particularly necessary for such a document to be of that size.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment?

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

I am somewhat concerned by (a) of the proposed Article 14: “In exercising its powers under this Article and performing its duty under Article 3(5) in relation to those powers, particularly take account of any burden that may be caused by any unnecessary inconsistency between a provision of an approved code and any similar provision in any other jurisdiction in which providers of gambling services also operate.”  It strikes me that in gambling, as in many other activities, many jurisdictions have perhaps lower standards than we might particularly want to have and it strikes me that you get a race to the bottom.  We see it in financial services; one centre is played off against another and in many areas of operation we are always looking to the lowest common denominator.  I can imagine in gambling international groups can cite many examples of what we would consider very poor standards and say that we should be adopting that type of thing.  I think this is totally unnecessary and I oppose this particular provision.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  

1.14.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I was somewhat surprised.  The Minister was clearly hesitant when he said he was accepting this and came around to it in a way and I would fully endorse what Deputy Higgins has just said.  This gives carte blanche to a race to the bottom.  What it implies is that Jersey could be in a position where because another jurisdiction has certain provisions, or certain lack of provisions, then the Commission is in a very difficult position to say: “No, we are not going there.  Jersey is going to be different in this regard” and I think we are talking about the right of Jersey to have possibly different standards, possibly higher standards then elsewhere and I regard this amendment as quite dangerous and I do question exactly to what extent the Minister agreed with it and his hesitancy and I do urge Members to think very deeply about this one.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak? 

1.14.4 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

If you look at the operation of paragraph (c) what it refers to is the keeping of proper accounts and proper records - no problem - and include a report on its operations during the year.  Well, I would expect, if they have closed down an operation, if they have taken an operation to court, I would expect it to be mentioned in the report at the year end.  So, I am not quite sure why the Minister has problems with that one, but perhaps the proposer could explain exactly what he had in mind when he drafted this amendment.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well.  I call upon the Deputy of St. Martin to reply.

1.14.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will start off with the 2 gentlemen who were on the Scrutiny Panel, who would have had the opportunity of scrutinising it.  When we look about the lower standards, I think what we have here is that we have heard yesterday that we have a gentleman of the highest integrity that is being appointed to be the chairman.  A man who is well-versed in it and what we are looking for here is to ensure that no doubt if there are inconsistencies they will be addressed and we will be looking at the highest standard.  That is what the whole purpose of having this particular law is.  What we are saying here is: “Let us enshrine it in law.”  I believe the Minister accepts this because it is logical and I would have thought really Deputy Higgins and the Deputy of St. Mary would also have considered it to be logical.  So, I do not see a problem with it and I hope Members will support it.  Now, if Members look at page 26 of their report, at the top of the page under (b) this is where Senator Ferguson was mentioning that what I am asking for, and again it is very complicated because we also must look at page 4 of my amendment.  At the top of the page it says: “(c) specify, in its report on its operations prepared under Article 18(1)(b), the results of action taken under subparagraphs (a) and (b).”  In other words, what I am saying is that if indeed the report is produced it should show what action is taken.  I disagree with the Minister; I do not think it is going to take pages and pages.  It may be just a few lines saying: “We have checked this out and we are happy with it” and that is basically all I am asking for.  This is what this particular amendment is about.  So, just for clarity, the Minister is accepting parts (a) and (b) back on page 3 of my amendment, but does not accept, although I think he could be lukewarm about it, the Article (c)which again says: “when the report is produced it will specify what action is taken.”  I do not know if there is much more to add.  I would ask that Members support what I am asking in full; (a), (b) and (c) and I ask for the appel.

The Bailiff:

Now, in relation to the vote; Minister, are you asking for a separate vote on the separate divisions, or as a whole?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Separate on (c) please, Sir.  Sorry, separate.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  So, the first vote then is on paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new paragraph 14 which the Deputy wishes to put in.  Are Members clear about that?  (a) and (b).  So, all Members in favour of adopting paragraphs (a) and (b)?  The appel is called for then in relation to subparagraphs (a) and (b).  I would like Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff:

Very well.  So, then the Greffier will reset the voting.  Is the appel called for in relation to paragraph (c)? So, now the matter before the Assembly is subparagraph (c) of the proposed new paragraph 14.  The Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff:

Does any Member then wish to speak on Article 6 as amended?  All those in favour of adopting Article 6 as amended kindly show.  Those against?  Article 6 is adopted. 

1.15 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Articles 7-10

The Bailiff:

Now, Minister, there are no amendments until Article 11, so do you wish to propose Article 7 to 10 inclusive?

1.15.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, if I could, Sir, thank you.  Article 7 requires the Commission to publicise information and advice and to give advice to the Minister.  It also requires the Minister to consult the Commission in respect of changes to legislation relating to gambling.  Article 8 enables the Commission to co-operate with overseas authorities that perform similar functions, or investigate offences relating to gambling.  It enables the Commission to co-operate with overseas activities by either an article of this law or approval from the Attorney General, even though low legislation is being contravened in Jersey and even though there will be no direct benefit to the Commission’s own functions.  The Commission and the Attorney General in relation to approval can take account of whether the assistance is likely to be reciprocated and must be satisfied that the request is for legitimate purposes.  Article 9 imposes a social responsibility function on the Commission to avoid problems from gambling, particularly for children and other vulnerable people and to assist those with problems.  The Commission can exercise the function directly or by funding others.  Article 10 requires the Commission to establish a social responsibility fund accounted for separately from its other funds and be used solely for its social responsibility function.  Sir, I propose Articles 7 to 10.

The Bailiff:

Is the proposition seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 7 to 10? 

1.15.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I have had some exchanges with the Minister on this because in a way this is the toughest part of the Law, but by the same token it is one of the means I suppose by which the more reluctant among us are being persuaded, or may be persuaded.  All I would say is that I hope this will be reported on because, as the Minister himself graciously accepted, the evidence on how people get into addiction, whether people who get into addiction or whether people who become serious gamblers, are doing so as part of a multi-problem approach, so to speak, or whether there is a way of isolating the gambling.  These are all major issues which have never really by research been fully wrestled to the ground and I hope the Minister will agree that he has to report fully on this because in a way this is a balance to the Law, and it is frightfully important and we have to go beyond general statements of trying to help people and trying to deal with the inevitable social problems.  I am sceptical of the figure of 0.06 which strikes me as being a very, very tight definition of what a problem gambler is.  I am very sceptical of that because I think the problem does exceed that.  But that said, I do think using the word “responsibility”… this is a responsible approach but I do not think we ought to run away with the facts, that having inserted this into the Law, having heard some very well-meaning comments from the Minister, that this is going to be the solution.  This is going to be an ongoing issue and it is one that has to be monitored carefully.  As they say in terms of research and where this is going, the jury is probably still out.

1.15.3 The Deputy of St. John:

Under Article 10 the establishment of a social responsibility fund, I sincerely hope that this fund will be of a considerable figure because if we do have social responsibility it has to be there to be able to fund the necessary problems that may arise, and let us hope we do not have problems, but in the law of averages it will be there somewhere along the way and I would hate to think that the funding that we put aside, shall we say, for S.S.I.s (Sites of Special Interest) and the like, which are just a token funding, and it will not be of that nature.  It will be something that will be a percentage of, I would say, a gaming tax that should be given serious consideration by the Minister for Treasury and Resources and a percentage of that, shall we say, maybe 10 per cent, put aside annually to look after anything that may arise in this particular area.  I would expect a social fund to be running probably in millions, not in hundreds of thousands, once it has been established and be held at that figure and topped-up annually, depending on any course that may occur. 

1.15.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am glad I am speaking after the Deputy of St. John rather than before, and probably I can help the Minister out on this one as well, because quite clearly the Deputy of St. John has not read paragraph 11 and all that goes on with it because there are a number of amendments which will show there.  But I think everyone welcomes a social responsibility fund.  The industry welcomes it and indeed there are amendments to it which I think again are being accepted by the Minister because again it should be compatible with what the problem is in Jersey, and I heard about the figures yesterday saying that we probably could have 400 on the balance of what you may have in the U.K. but bear in mind in the U.K. you have casinos and commercial bingos.  In Jersey we do not and I did take the trouble of checking out with the Samaritans.  I also checked out with the Salvation Army.  I also checked out the Citizens Advice Bureau and in fact Senator Le Main will concur with me that there are certainly ... he may not concur with me about the Samaritans and Salvation Army, but as far as those 2 bodies are concerned, they are not aware of any major problems.  There will always be people who will gamble more and people who drink more, but generally speaking in Jersey we are very, very fortunate.  There are the odd people who will get it.  As far as the Citizens Advice Bureau, again, they said that they were not aware of anyone falling foul of it, except the fact - and I have to go on this with what Senator Le Main says - that there were concerns about credit card gambling, but that was because that was through e-gaming and, bearing in mind, as we heard yesterday, it is very much a cash business.  So, people go in with their cash and they come out, hopefully with their cash, or they do not.  So, we do not have a major problem, but what we are going to have in place is a social responsibility fund which later on we will be told about the sort of figures that are required.  The one thing I think should be borne in mind is that it is quite interesting that the industry is going to pay for a social responsibility fund and yet possibly the greatest responsibility we should be having are those people who drink alcohol, and yet there is no social responsibility fund there and when one looks, indeed we will come to it when we debate on P.141, but when one looks at the fees that are for licensing like large supermarkets, when one pays £114 for their permit, and yet there is no social responsibility fund there.  So, this is one up again to the gaming industry, Members should support it.  I know they are going to and we will look at Article 11 where we have some amendments to it, but certainly I would hope Members will support it.

1.15.5 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

Yes, I am supportive, but as along the lines of Deputy Le Hèrissier, I am sceptical of the numbers as I know in Jersey there are people, for whatever reason, we have slightly more addictive personalities over here and so I do think that figure will perhaps be slightly larger than whatever average it has been taken from, but I think Members should just bear that in mind.

1.15.6 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:

I would just like the Minister to elaborate on Article 9(2)(b) where it says that: “The action that may be taken would be by way of research, education, information, prevention, treatment, counselling or other measures” whether he could give examples of how that would be approached.  Also whether this would mean that there would be more advertising and such of gambling because we have seen, as in Europe, they have removed advertising for such things as alcohol which in turn has reduced, but if we were to advertise - not meaning that we were doing it on purpose, but just for more information - but it gave the message out there to go and do it, it would not really be that “social responsibility”.  So, if the Minister could just elaborate on exactly how those measures would be taken in.

1.15.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, just to clarify on the figures to begin with.  Deputy Le Hèrissier queried the 0.6 per cent.  Now, yesterday I said that 350,000, according to this magazine I was reading, were ensnared by gambling, whatever that meant, and the Minister queried that and produced ostensibly his own figures of 0.6 per cent.  In fact they are the same figure and the source given in my magazine was government research.  So, I think we are talking about the same issue; 0.6 per cent in the U.K. (United Kingdom) is 350,000 and it corresponds to 450 in Jersey.  Now we hear from the Deputy of St. Martin that he has been to various sources of information - the Salvation Army and so on - and said there is no major problem in Jersey and what we must do is we must be compatible with the problem.  But that is the very issue, is it not?  The Deputy of St. Martin is claiming that there is a very small problem in Jersey and yet the statistics show that the likelihood is that there are 450 people out there, give or take, who are affected by gambling.  So, we then come to Article 7(2) and: “The Commission must give advice to the Minister about (a) the incidents of gambling and (c) the effects of gambling.”  Well, amen to that, but my question to the Minister is can you give an absolute commitment - and someone else has mentioned this in terms of the money involved - that the funding will be adequate to do the research because I do not think this research is very easy.  To get at the incidents and to get at the effects may not be easy and the Commission cannot do what it must do without the funds to do it.  So, I just want to hear that commitment from the Minister that the funding will be adequate.  Because what I do not want to do is be in the position in this House of hearing about the problems after they have happened and hearing about some disaster or disasters in people’s family lives and find that they have been wrecked because we did not pick it up because the research had not been done.  So, I do want to hear that commitment from the Minister.  Compatible with the problem; well, we do not know what the problem is.  So, please, the funding must be adequate and I want the Minister to say that.

Deputy R.G. Le Hèrissier:

Sorry, Sir, just a point of clarification and the Minister may confirm it; it is 0.06?

1.15.8 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Just very briefly, I do not know how the Deputy of St. Martin comes to the conclusion that he does not think that there is necessarily a problem in Jersey.  I think that we have to be honest and say that we do not know the extent of addictive behaviour and gambling problems in Jersey and I suspect that there is probably more than we would think.  Now, I was very struck by a visit that I made to Stopford Road to the Drug and Alcohol Service, and I saw a number of individuals there who were being cared for and looked after and assisted by the service.  I would encourage all Members who have not been to see them to understand the work that they do to meet them and to understand.  We do not have the research on the incidents of gambling addiction.  I have had experience of knowing somebody who had a parent that was addicted to gambling.  It was hidden; it was certainly stigmatised if it was hidden.  The gentleman concerned had an individual collecting the amount of money that he owed for the betting shop for his addictive gambling on horse races for a number of years.  This was a problem to the family, but it was something that it should have been hidden; it was stigmatised.  I think that we should not.  I think we have to accept that there are going to be some people who are going to be affected by gambling, and they should be given every single assistance to do so and they should not be stigmatised.  We should be accepting that there is probably a bigger problem and it is a hidden problem than we know about.  Just from a taxation point of view, I heard the comment of the Deputy of St. John about reviewing tax.  As far as I am concerned, while the levy is an issue for levy to dealing with social responsibility, from a taxation point of view I fully intend to review all of the gambling activities in Jersey as part of the fiscal strategy review and where there is inappropriate or low levels of taxation in gambling activity I will have no hesitation in having that reviewed and bringing proposals forward as part of the fiscal strategy review.

The Bailiff:

Yes, can I just remind Members this is beginning to sound like a debate on the principles, but we are simply debating Article 7 and the other Articles about whether the Commission should give advice to the Minister on these matters.

1.15.9 Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:

Just briefly, my interpretation of what is in front of us here is that this Law does not exacerbate any problem of addiction, but what we are looking at here does give some address to any of those issues and I think we should welcome it.  Having attended some of the presentations I think it is very evident that the Commissioners do take this social responsibility very, very seriously.

1.15.10 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:

From my experience of life when discussions such as this and new laws and new regulations, et cetera, come to light usually one - through either a person with a problem or through relatives or through some other means - brings it to the attention of politicians or people who deal with such concerns.  We have heard from the Deputy of St. Martin that he has already been and done some checks.  I have heard nothing untoward at this moment in time.  That does not mean to say there will not be people out there, and there will always be a small percentage that slip through any net, and it does not mean to say that we must not be concerned and we should be endeavouring to do something about it.  However I was very heartened at one of the pre-meetings at the intentions and what I believe to be a very capable Commission chairman who clearly has a tremendous amount of knowledge in this field and we should be very lucky to have such a person on board.  I have no doubt that this piece of legislation and the subsequent work that will be done by the Commission will ensure that at least Jersey has every opportunity of ensuring that these people come within the net.  If there is a question of financial shortage in dealing with it, it does not stop any Member of this House from returning to the House and bringing this to the attention of the House and for the House to make a decision to make any improvements that might be necessary.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on Articles 7 to 10?  Very well, I call upon the Minister to reply.

1.15.11 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I thank all Members for their comments.  I will try and address some of the queries that have been raised.  Deputy Le Hèrissier asked about a number of issues.  I know he has a concern about addiction and rightly so; I think every Member in the Assembly has a concern in that area.  He was interested to know the level of information available and showed some scepticism to, I believe, the U.K. prevalent study that was carried out.  Just to confirm that the incidents from that study as far as problem gamblers are concerned is 0.06 per cent.  That is the identified level of problem gambling from that U.K. prevalent study.  If you extrapolate that to Jersey it shows potentially the level of problem gamblers in the Island is running into a couple of hundred; something of that order.  But nevertheless if it is one person with a problem they have to be looked after and we have to make certain, and I am confident that the introduction of this Gambling Commission will improve significantly the position for local people who have addictions to gambling.  Whereas there was nothing in place before, there is now.  I would also say that, as I mentioned yesterday, I attended an international summit laid on by the U.K. Government and it was clear from representation there that governments around the world are taking very seriously the issue of social responsibility with regard to gambling.  It is very high on the agenda and that is absolutely right that it should be.  The Deputy of St. John - a similar subject about social responsibility - quite rightly just to extend that he was asking about the size of the fund.  The answer to the question is that it will be proportionate to the needs.  I have already mentioned, I think I referred yesterday to TAC Aid(?) who have been to the Island; they have been to Highlands.  They are an educational charity and they would certainly be keen to set up appropriate courses locally.  Of course that needs funding and the funding would come from this particular fund.  The Gordon Moody Association: we have a website already as an opening point and the intention is to extend that and eventually - and we are working with Health and Social Services in the Island - to allow trained local individuals to be able to dispense appropriate advice to those who have addiction problems with gambling.  I would make one comment about one point the Deputy of St. Martin made which was he referred to the Citizens Advice Bureau.  We of course have also spoken to Citizens Advice and other agencies to assess ongoing monitoring perspective, the problem gambling issue.  They did point out that they did not seem to have a great deal of understanding that there was very much debt that they could identify.  It does not mean it is not happening; it is just we are not identifying it.  But the Deputy did talk about credit cards in relation to the Citizens Advice Bureau.  I think their comments, if I am correct, are related to general debt which is a problem with credit cards, but not specific to gambling or indeed for that matter to e-gaming.  It is a general debt issue.  I have more or less covered, I think, Deputy Vallois’ point.  She was asking about research.  Yes, ongoing research will be undertaken by academics to look at Jersey specifically and will be funded and co-ordinated from the Commission.  The other issues with regard to that are education, schools; the Commission will be arranging for schools, better information for students and so on and, as I have already said, working with Health and Social Services.  The Deputy did raise a good point about advertising.  Advertising is not currently allowed.  The new gambling laws will be brought back to the Assembly next year and the issue of gambling will be addressed within those, so that will be another matter to be addressed.  It is a sensitive subject.  The U.K. is now more liberal than they were; we certainly are not, at this stage.  With regard to advertising within licensed betting offices - and this is an important point and this is where the Commission has done some very good work - they have ensured that the licensed betting offices are publicised with appropriate advertisements, help lines and so on for gamblers so that they can get assistance, if they need, on machines and other areas and that is important.  I think I have covered just about all the points.  Deputy Jeune was right, this is a positive step; it is going to help people.  The Deputy of St. Mary wants some reassurance.  I think I have hopefully given that, that the funding for the Social Responsibility Fund will be proportionate to allow us to discharge and ensure that individuals who have problems with gambling are appropriately looked after, so I can give him that assurance.  It is central to everything that we are trying to do with the introduction of this new Commission.  So, I maintain the Articles.

The Bailiff:

Very well, all those in favour of adopting Articles 7 to 10 inclusive, kindly show?  Those against?  Those Articles are adopted. 

1.16 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Article 11

The Bailiff:

Now, there are amendments to Article 11 and therefore, Minister, I invite you to propose Article 11.

1.16.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Article 11 allows the Commission to fund its social responsibility function by raising in any year in which it is appropriate a social responsibility levy which must be paid into the Social Responsibility Fund and gambling service providers holding specified licences from gambling service providers.  The Commission must publicise any levy and persons who hold or should hold specified licences will then have to declare their gambling turnover to which a percentage rate is applied to produce the levy.  The rate may be not more than 2 per cent unless the States sets a higher percentage by regulations.”  So, I propose Article 11.

The Bailiff:

Is it seconded?  [Seconded] 

1.17 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin to Article 11 (P.139/2009 (Amd.))

Now, there is an amendment to Article 11 by the Deputy of St. Martin and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Amendment 4, page 24, Article 11: (a) in paragraph (1) after the word “may” insert the words “after complying with an order under paragraph 14”; (b) in paragraphs 4(c), 4(d)(i), 8(a) and (b), 9(a) and (b) and 10 for the word “turnover” wherever it occurs, substitute the words “gross win”; (c) in paragraph 4(d)(iii) for the words “2 per cent” substitute the words “1 per cent”; (d) after paragraph 13 add the following paragraph: “14. The Minister must by order require the Commission before it makes a determination under paragraph (1), (a) to consult in a specified manner with those from whom the Commission proposes to raise the levy and (b) to give an opportunity in a specified manner for donations to be made to the Social Responsibility Fund to such an extent as to render the proposed levy unnecessary.”

The Bailiff:

Minister, could you indicate which, if any, of these you are accepting?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, Sir, I am accepting (b) and (c).

The Bailiff:

Well, (a) is consequential, so not (d) in other words?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Correct, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well then, Deputy, (a) and (d) go together because (a) is consequential on (d), so is the best thing for you to propose (b) and (c)?

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Which are accepted and then propose (a) and (d) separately?

1.17.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, Sir.  Again, I am grateful for the Minister accepting, but I think in his comments it says that this will correct an error in drafting instructions and substitute the “turnover” for “gross win” and what we will have now will be “gross win” rather than “turnover”.  It was, as I said, an error in the draft in the print.  Likewise, after discussion - the Deputy of St. Martin and the commercial operators - it says: “An amendment to the maximum levy of 1 per cent gross win is also acceptable.”  So, really I do not think there is much more to add on that.  Shall we leave it at that, Sir, and I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Are paragraphs (b) and (c) seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on paragraphs (b) and (c)?

1.17.2 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Just very briefly, Sir, yes, just to thank the Deputy of St. Martin.  It has been helpful, these amendments, and as I have said we accept them.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?

1.17.3 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Sorry to be a bore, but I do feel very strongly about this and I am just very surprised.  We had the original saying it must not be more than 2 per cent, the rate of the levy must not be more than 2 per cent and this is already the levy after the failure of the voluntary levy.  This is if we move to the statutory levy and where the original proposal was not more than 2 per cent, and now we are dropping it to not more than 1 per cent in the original legislation.  So, we are saying that we know now already that we do not need more than 1 per cent and I would like to know the basis - any research basis - of what the level of money would be when it comes in at 1 per cent and whether that is adequate to do the research which the Minister has just promised us will happen, the mitigation which will happen, the harm reduction, the education which will all be funded.  We have been told it will be funded and now we suddenly limit and go down from 2 per cent to 1 per cent and I would just like to have some figures as to whether this is viable and what other jurisdictions and I would just like some justification for this reduction.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on paragraphs (b) and (c)?

1.17.4 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:

I would just like the proposer in his summing up to give a clear explanation of why there is a difference between “gross win” and “turnover” and if there is any difference and whether that difference relates to financial matters.

1.17.5 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Yes, just picking up a point of the Deputy of St. Mary, I think we need to have some figures here because 1 per cent or 2 per cent are quite meaningless unless we know what the calculations are.  So, I would ask the proposer of the amendment if he is able to tell us how much 1 per cent is or how much 2 per cent is, then we can, I think, make an informed decision.

1.17.6 The Deputy of St. John:

I come from the same corner as the Deputy of St. Mary basically and also Senator Le Marquand because without the actual figures - the previous figure - I noted the comments of the proposer of the amendment saying that I had not read this, but I had read it and came up with different things in my mind which are obviously different to what the proposer is saying.  Possibly if he had spent some time on Scrutiny in the last year he might have been able to take this into a Scrutiny Panel and had it scrutinised, but it is all well and good for him to criticise other people, but can he give us what the difference is between one and 2 per cent in actual pounds and pence.

1.17.7 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Just a quick one to follow the Deputy of St. Ouen; if the Deputy of St. Martin would explain if we are looking at a set of accounts for the betting concern is the “gross win” a lower figure than “turnover” and if so how do you get from “turnover” to “gross win” or vice versa.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, I call upon the Deputy of St. Martin to reply.

1.17.8 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I think it is very important for Members to understand at the moment we are starting from zero.  It is not me starting from zero, but this fund.  People do not know - this is the whole thing about it - but it is very important to remember that what is happening is that this money is going to be “ring fenced”.  It is part of a collection, a gathering of funds which will go into a pot and then from that pot one will have to find out what the concerns are at the moment because again we do not know.  I have said that I have done a bit of homework and I have no reason to believe it, but I think this could be said there are a lot of secret gamblers that people are not aware of, like the secret drinkers people do not know about, and secret drugs.  We do not know… and I am speaking here now - indeed it probably should come from the Minister - but the figures, I do not know what the figures are because people do not know.  This is the whole thing about it, but again what is the point of taking a lot of money out of people before you know you need it.  There has been that bit of consultation which was done some months ago before this was all put together where I gather from the conversations - because I was not party to it - that it was agreed that a set fee would be probably… I think the Minister wants to help me out on this one.  I think it was a set fee, but I will let the Minister interject, if I could.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

If it is helpful to Members, we do not know the amounts because we do not have access to the bookmakers’ books, but what we can do, we can estimate from G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) returns to give us a rough estimate of the turnover in the industry as a whole and I think I indicated yesterday that we believe that is something in the region of about £10 million.  In consultation with the Shadow Commission the belief is that 1 per cent is a very reasonable starting point for this particular levy.  I should add that we can increase that if necessary by Regulations in due course if it does not prove to be appropriate.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

On a point of clarification, the amendment is going to bring in “gross win” which the Minister has accepted rather than “turnover”, so what is the difference?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

“Gross win” amounts roughly to profit whereas “turnover” is exactly as it states.  The point that I am making with regard to the 1 per cent levy is that the 1 per cent levy is appropriate, we believe, as we see it at the moment.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I can tell you again one of the difficulties that the Minister had, and indeed I did when we had to look at these figures, was we were looking at the unknown.  One does not know, it has never been done in Jersey before and we have got to start from somewhere and it was considered that this was a way to start.  We have said before the money will be “ring fenced”; it is there.  Those Members who may have got their copy of the licensed betting shop industry, remember I circulated these by email on Monday night and it makes it clear here the industry contributes about £2.8 million to the Jersey economy and these are their figures.  I do not know whether they are right or wrong.  I have no reason to disbelieve them any more than what the Minister would, but again this is very much a starting point and I think we said earlier that there was an error in drafting.  It was intended to be as it is now and not as it is drafted and my amendment now will clarify the situation.  This is “gross win” rather than gross “turnover”.  If one thinks about it, obviously that is the profit they make - the gross win - rather than the turnover.  So, I do not know if there are many other questions I can answer, other than just repeating myself.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:

Sorry, I wonder if the Deputy would give way and perhaps I am at fault here for not listening closely, but I wonder if he could just confirm what the Minister said that the “gross win” is the profit of the undertaker of the gambling business - it just seems, I am probably getting confused - and not the “gross win” as in the payout win, but I wonder if some clarification could be given.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

Yes, I would have thought really it was the “gross win” is what you make.  Sorry, the Attorney General is going to make it...

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

I hesitate to stand, but this is not really a matter of legal advice, but as I have the opportunity of a computer I have researched “gross win” [Laughter] and to assist, the definition is: “In a gambling business this is the amount the company has won and its customers have lost over a given period.”

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Sir, perhaps I should have used my BlackBerry; sorry.  [Laughter]

The Bailiff:

Very well, so then the matter before the Assembly is paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment of the Deputy of St. Martin.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

The appel please, Sir.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for in relation to those 2 subparagraphs.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff:

Very well, then, now, Deputy, do you propose subparagraphs (a) and (d)?  It is really (d); (a) is simply consequential upon it.

1.18 The Deputy of St. Martin:

This really is a new paragraph and again in the comments the Minister thinks they are not necessary.  We did discuss it yesterday and we also discussed it with the Attorney General and I will maintain that this is a necessary part of it.  The Minister is of the view that Article 14 is already encompassed within Article 10(2)(c).  If Members would like to look at page 21 of P.139 it talks about: “Any donation or grant that it believes was intended wholly or primary to assist in the discharge of the Social Responsibility Fund.”  There is no mention whatsoever of consultation and what I am asking for is when anything is going to be considered there should be consultation.  Again I am back again to where I started - the spirit of openness and consultation - and Article 14 says that in future there will be this consultation, and again we have accepted the principle that there should be this consultation and that is what I am asking for.  There may well be the need to seek clarification from the Attorney General, but I maintain that it is a very important part if we want to be consistent, we want the Law to say what it is, it is going to be open and it is going to be transparent, but you need that consultation.  I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on paragraphs (a) and (d)?

1.18.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

On (d), the need for a fund stems from the requirement that the industry needs to meet its social debt as we have discussed.  Although the overwhelming majority of people gamble responsibly, there are a small, but nevertheless, important minority who get into difficulties.  The amendment would require the Minister to specify the manner in which the Commission would consult on the matter of raising a levy and also provide first for a voluntary route for donation.  This is already provided for in Article 10(2)(c).  Ensuring that the Minister makes an Order to do what the Commission would have it do in any event seems unnecessary and the draft Law does make provision for donations.  To that extent I believe that this part of the amendment is not required as I have already stated.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak?  Very well, I call upon the Deputy to reply.

1.18.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted this.  Again I will just read out to Members what it says.  I am asking that in future the Commission: “to have the opportunity in a specified manner for donations to be made.”  This is going to affect the industry.  They should be entitled to be consulted about it.  You cannot have an Order just made on people and say the whole spirit of this we have accepted.  There should be a spirit of consultation and this just endorses where we are.  The Minister has not accepted it in the first place and Members have supported my proposition or my amendment to it.  I would ask they again support my amendment.  This is all about consultation.  I make the amendment and call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

Very well, the appel is called for in relation to paragraphs (a) and (d) of the amendment.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

The Bailiff:

Very well, then we return to the debate upon Article 11 as amended.  Does any Member wish to speak on Article 11?  All those in favour of adopting Article 11, kindly show?  Those against?  Article 11 is adopted. 

1.19 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Articles 12 to 23 and Schedule 2

The Bailiff:

Now, I think there are no further amendments, Minister, so if you are happy would you wish to propose the remaining Articles together at one time?

1.19.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Indeed, Articles 12 and 13.  This gives the right of appeal against the levy and gives a power to the Commission to enforce the payment of the levy, so I maintain those Articles 12 and 13.

The Bailiff:

Well, I was inviting you to propose all the remaining Articles and the schedule and then Members can ask and obviously if Members want a separate vote on any Article they can.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That is fine, Sir; I am happy to do that.  Article 14 provides a power for the States to set by Regulations a supplementary payment that will be collected on behalf of the States by the Commission and paid to the Treasurer.  It can be collected when a person submits specified applications or documents to the Commission such as gambling licence renewal or take some other specified action.  No supplementary payment can be imposed during the first 5 years of operation of the Commission in the same way that the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission) applies supplementary charges for the States.  Article 15 allows the Commission to charge for providing services and materials and to accept donations and grants if its independence can be maintained.  It also enables the Commission to borrow money, but allows the Minister by an Order to prescribe a limit on borrowing and a procedure for approval to borrow.  Article 16 enables the Commission to accumulate and invest a reserve under guidelines set by the Minister for Treasury and Resources.  Article 17 exempts the Commission from the requirement to pay income tax, if you refer to Article 7.  Article 18 requires the Commission to keep appropriate financial records and accounts.  The accounts are to be audited by a person appointed by the Minister and must be laid before the States by the Minister and must separately account for the Social Responsibility Fund.  The Minister may by Order impose additional accounting requirements.  Article 19 allows the States to make certain amendments by regulation.  Article 20 amends provisions on declaration of spent convictions to reflect the new Law for commissioners, staffing and persons applying to positions requiring certification and licensing.  Article 21 is transitional and schedule 2 contains transitional provisions.  Article 22 makes general provision in relation to Regulations and Orders.  Article 23 sets out the title to this Law and provides that it comes into force 28 days after it is registered.  I propose Articles 12 to 23.

The Bailiff:

It is now seconded.  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on any of Articles 12 to 23?

1.19.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hèrissier:

Just 14 and 15 which our ‘one man Scrutiny Panel’ appears to have overlooked despite his formidable work.  I would just like to ask, are there any limitations to the collection of these supplementary payments and to these fees; are there any limitations?  It strikes me that it is giving enormous power to the Commission to make all sorts of charges and despite the way the amendments have tried to control the kind of charges the Commission can make, this could well be fairly heavy open-ended charging via the back door and I would just like the Minister’s assurance that there is some kind of control or there is some kind of balance on how the powers in 14 and 15 are exercised.

1.19.3 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

I just have a question for the Minister on this one.  In what event would the Commission need to borrow?  What do they foresee as being the reason for putting borrowing into this?

The Deputy of St. Martin:

I do not think I have got anything to add now.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on any of those Articles?  Very well, I call upon the Minister to reply.

1.19.4 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Limitations on fees: the States would set any supplementary fee of requirement.  So, yes, there would be a suitable check and balance in that respect.  The other question was Deputy Jeune with regard to borrowing.  It would only be, I would understand, a short-term borrowing facility with regard to the financing requirements should there be a delay in collecting levies and so on, but it would purely be from an accounting perspective to allow them to collect levies from a cash flow perspective and that would be the only reason under which circumstances would allow that to happen.  It is just a general provision basically.

Deputy R.G. Le Hèrissier:

Just clarification; the Minister referred to fees under 15, but 14 - supplementary payments - what precisely is that?  Is that so when the States require, for example, a document or whatever that they will therefore charge a gambling operation to pay for its provision?  I cannot quite work it out.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That is my understanding, yes, that there is the ability to charge if necessary from a supplementary perspective.

Deputy A.E. Jeune:

Could I just ask who would the Commission borrow from?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Most likely from the department, I would imagine.

The Bailiff:

Very well, all those in favour of adopting Articles 12 to 23 and schedule 2, kindly show?  Those against?  They are adopted. 

1.20 Draft Gambling Commission (Jersey) Law 200- (P.139/2009) - Third Reading

The Bailiff:

Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading then, Minister?  Is the Third Reading seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?

1.20.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Can I say how I am pleased to see these new Regulations in with the exception that I am very disappointed that the levy has been reduced from 2 per cent to 1 per cent, therefore I am speaking so that I can ask for the appel when the time comes.  I am going to vote against the whole proposition - although I have been very supportive of it - because I thought the Minister had it right in bringing 2 per cent, because I thought that was the kind of money hopefully that will never be needed, but that should be put aside.

1.20.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hèrissier:

Two things; just to congratulate Deputy Hill who can be a pain in the proverbial - and has been - and I think he needs to be congratulated for the excellent amount of work, and the Minister who responded very adroitly and quickly to the concerns of Members and I think has put up a very formidable case, and has been very sensitive to the requirements of Members.  I think both need full congratulations.  [Approbation]

1.20.3 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Just to add, I am grateful to Deputy Le Hèrissier, but we have got 2 more propositions yet; 2 more amendments so there is more pain to come.  But I would like to bring Members back to yesterday when we were discussing about the actual formation - the preamble - and I think it is rather unfortunate that remarks were made about the integrity and the way in which the local betting shops are operating and I think really they were somewhat restrained a bit more in the summing up by the Minister yesterday.  But I think it would be fair that it goes on record that the allegations that were made have never been substantiated and in fact they were just “loose talk”, so to speak - and we had again yesterday - because there have been no prosecutions against the betting offices.  So, any smirching or the smirching of their name and their integrity I think was uncalled for.  The industry has been well regulated.  They are welcoming what is being proposed.  They realise there is a Law; the Social Responsibility Fund, they have acting in a good way and no doubt it will continue.  It will now have the enforcement of the Law.  It will have a Commission in place.  This is a good Law now.  I think what we have got to do now is move forward with it and let us get going, see what the problems are; there could be some areas.  We do not know what the problems are, but these things will be found.  So, what we will have I would hope that the Deputy of St. John might be persuaded to go back in favour of it because if we did not have it where would we be?  So, it is a good Law.  I commend it to the States and again I commend the good working relationship I have had with E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) because we would not have got this far without it and I think we have got a good Law now and I would commend Members to vote for it.

1.20.4 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

Just very briefly, to address the comments of the Deputy of St. John and say that I hope he will not vote against as the Deputy of St. Martin called it, this very good, very appropriate and very necessary Law, simply because he does not like the 1 per cent figure rather than the 2 per cent figure because, as was said during the debate on that particular Article, that percentage can be amended by Regulation very, very easily if it is necessary.  I can assure the Deputy that the Minister will not hesitate to bring forward an amendment to that figure if it proved necessary.  The problem is we do not know what the problem is and therefore it is almost picking a figure out of the air at the moment.  If it needs to be amended it will be amended, but please do not vote against, as I said, this excellent Law, this necessary Law, a Law which is going to increase Jersey’s reputation for that minor purpose.

1.20.5 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I would just like to respond to that last comment and support what the Deputy of St. John said.  We are talking about a maximum figure.  It is not a figure that would be drawn.  It is saying what the upper limit might be.  What we have done by dropping to 1 per cent is going down to £100,000 as if £100,000 is enough to do everything the Minister absolutely promised that would happen and yet we took down the funding; we agreed to take down the sealing on the funding to £100,000.  It is a ceiling - it is not even a figure - and we said £100,000 give or take because it is “gross win” - we have changed that as well - without quite knowing what that takes it down to is probably below £100,000 instead of keeping the ceiling of 2 per cent which would be £200,000 under the “turnover” rule and we do not know what under the “gross win” rule.  So, I am very, very unhappy that the Assembly once again has said: “We will do this and by the way we are not committed to funding it.”  So, I am afraid I have to go with the Deputy of St. John and I do urge people again to just take into their conscience what is being done here.  We have been told this will happen, the research will be adequate, the mitigation will be there, the training in the schools will happen and then we take down the ceiling to something below £100,000.

The Connètable of St. Clement:

Just a point of clarification, if we vote the Law down of course there would be no Social Responsibility Fund whatsoever.

1.20.6 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Very briefly I must just respond to that.  I think it is well known that I have not always had a happy relationship with Economic Development over the gambling portfolio that it is seeing its way to modernising, and have at points felt that this particular Law was perhaps on the heavy-handed side for the provision that we have in the Island now.  However I did support the Deputy of St. Martin’s amendment, although as the Connètable of St. Clement has said we cannot be certain of what the current problem is, but we suspect that this will probably go a reasonable way to dealing with what the current problem is as the Minister, I think, has given the undertaking.  Should we as a House decide to approve e-gaming at a later date then I have no doubt that we will need to increase that number.  But this is appropriate and I believe we have now got an appropriate Law for the gambling that we have taking place in the Island now, and therefore I will be supporting this again in the Third Reading and I would urge other Members to do so because it is important that we have an appropriate Commission for the gambling that we currently have.  We must deal with the other issues on another day.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  Very well, I call upon the Minister to reply.

1.20.7 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I would like to, if I may, thank a number of people in relation to what I consider to be a major step forward for the Island with the introduction of a Statutory Gambling Commission.  It is absolutely right for the reputation of the Island and it is absolutely right to ensure proper protection of residents and particularly those who have issues and problems with addiction and gambling.  So, I would like to offer my thanks particularly to the team at Economic Development.  A considerable amount of work has gone into this.  I would specifically like to single out - not wishing to save his blushes - both my Assistant Ministers, but in particular the Constable of St. Clement who has done a considerable amount of work on this and also with the Deputy of St. Martin, he has worked closely with him and I would like to thank him for his support and hard work, together with all the officers.  The Deputy of St. Martin has been what one might describe as a ‘one man scrutiny machine’ and I would like to thank him for his input.  It has been valuable and certainly he has picked up some items where there have been opportunities to improve the Law that we have brought forward and Members have supported today.  That, I think, is a very positive thing, so my thanks to him.  Most of all I would like to thank all Members for their forbearance through this process.  I appreciate there has been a considerable amount of literature fired at them over the last 2 weeks since the reference back.  It is in many respects quite unprecedented to bring some legislation back as quickly as this.  I do accept that, but I do thank Members for recognising the importance of this Gambling Law.  It is the right decision and I am really very thankful to them for supporting it.  The only other point that I would like to raise is a point that the Deputy of St. Martin made in relation to comments that have been made, particularly yesterday, about licensed betting offices and the suggestion that he made that perhaps their reputation or integrity had been called into question.  I would say that that is not the case at all.  The comments that were made - that I made - in relation to that debate talked about the fact that there were some shortcomings in procedures in some licensed betting offices, but the operators themselves have worked in co-operation with the Shadow Gambling Commission as it was and officers from the department have worked to improve their procedures and take on board the modernisation requirements that are coming forward in this Law.  I think that is positive.  I thank the industry for their co-operation.  I think both the industry and the Island are going to be very much stronger for this Law.

The Bailiff:

Very well, all those in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading, kindly show?  Those against?  The Bill is adopted in Third Reading.

The Deputy of St. John:

When I spoke, I did, Sir, I asked for the appel.

The Bailiff:

Very well, you had asked for it.  Then the appel is called for in relation to the Third Reading.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

2. Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.140/2009)

The Bailiff:

We move next to the Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations - P.140 - lodged by the Minister for Economic Development and I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Gambling (Gaming and Lotteries) (Amendment No. 15) (Jersey) Regulations 200-.  The States, in pursuance of Article 3 of the Gambling (Jersey) Law 1964, have made the following Regulations.

The Bailiff:

Very well, I invite the Minister to propose the principles.

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

Gaming machines - or to some, fruit machines - have operated only in licensed betting offices in Jersey since 2002.  Since then both licence fees and conditions governing these machines, including stakes, prizes and manner of play have remained exactly the same.  The current legislation is out of date.  It prescribes a set of definitions which were fit for purpose several years ago with the first introduction of machines, but that is no longer the case.  Now, as technology continues to develop, this legislation has become restrictive and creates a negative commercial impact on the industry.  While machines play as an established offering in betting offices in other jurisdictions, technology advances and Jersey’s restricted legislation mean that sadly we now only have old and outdated machines that are virtually obsolete.  The Regulations are not technologically neutral; far from it.  They create specific requirements in law relating to specific machine playing and were clearly borrowed from the old Gaming Act 1968, so much so that they have aged badly, especially following the speed of advances in technology.  They are now unresponsive and restrictive in terms of measures.  Both our bookmakers and the Island-based machine suppliers have stated that these machines are now effectively obsolete.  For example, the type of machine is prescribed, its stake, the prize, method of play and operation and this only applies to a range of devices that are no longer being manufactured.  We must not forget the machines offered for play in Jersey are manufactured in the U.K. and are designed to reflect what is permitted in the U.K.  Accordingly cabinets are designed to carry statements of U.K. stakes and prizes.  Manufacturers do not produce bespoke cabinets especially for Jersey.  This proposition introduces a broader definition which takes into account technical changes in machines and removes those mechanical provisions that anchor the gaming machine to what is swiftly becoming a redundant device.  The purpose of this proposition is to introduce a broader definition that takes into account technical changes in machines and removes the outdated mechanical provisions.  The definition permits machines which differ from current models and of the new generation are purely software driven terminals.  Users may bet on a variety of events, the outcome of which is driven by a random number generator which may be operated by an independent third party and it may be located remotely.  The terminal accepts a customer’s bet and displays the event and result on the screen in a format that varies in accordance with the type of event chosen.  Now, an important point to consider is that server-based gaming is already offered in licensed betting offices in Jersey in the form of virtual racing events.  These are computer generated races which can be seen on screens as opposed to the machines proposed in this amendment.  Bets for virtual racing are transacted over the counter and the event is open to all wishing to gamble on the outcome.  The result is still based on a result generated remotely.  I also think it is important for Members to know that the terminals we are proposing in this amendment operated in Jersey back in 2004.  They operated without any negative impact on the gaming public, but were removed because the manner of play was not compatible with that prescribed format set under the Machine Regulations.  The amendment mandates the Minister to produce written controls in the form of guidance, codes of practice and technical standards.  Compliance will be a licensed condition with cancellation of the licence, the swift and effective penalty for failure to comply.  The Codes of Practice will detail a limitation on the number of machines, stakes and prizes and among other requirements set to pay out percentages, play cycles and play processes.  However the broader definition does not mean and should not be understood to imply any lessening of control.  If anything the proposition increases regulatory controls by introducing stringent compliance to Code of Practice and to licence conditions.  Operators and suppliers will be subject to approvals and the latter subject to independent certification by accredited testing houses.  What will these Codes of Practice contain?  Well, among other technical requirements, the code will ensure the operation is in a manner that will not bring Jersey or indeed the industry into disrepute.  The code will maintain strict security controls over all pertinent hardware and software to ensure the number generation is entirely random and that no third party, including the bookmaker, has access to it.  Operators must ensure and prove that all betting office staff are adequately trained in the operation, maintenance and control of machines as is appropriate.  All employees of suppliers must be made aware of fair and responsible gaming requirements and all regulatory responsibilities in respect of these machines.  While the amendment strictly limits supply to licensed bookmakers, Codes of Practice will ensure and guarantee through third party certification that all games are fit to be offered by the machines.  Any terminal or machine offered to play by an operator must be connected to a monitoring system capable of recording, retaining and replaying information regarding all game play on that machine.  This will include all interaction as well as events such as power failures and so on.  This monitoring system will be fully open and accessible to the Minister and designated officials and the Minister shall have the right to determine the type of monitoring system that operators must install and use.  While this may sound expensive for the industry and an onerous regulatory imposition, on the whole I do not believe that this is the case.  The majority of operators in Jersey, the brands with overseas operations which own over two-thirds of the industry, already have installed monitoring systems and are happy to provide the Minister unlimited access to this data.  There will also be a requirement for random number communication to be independently audited by a third party.  All gaming betting products offered by the gaming machine must be certified by an approved independent software testing house and the Minister will approve testing houses, laboratories for this purpose and publish technical standards.  Suppliers of these products must be registered with and approved by the Minister.  Licensed betting offices cannot offer these products from a supplier who is not registered.  Indeed suppliers must enter into an undertaking to guarantee compliance with Codes of Practice, technical standards and further guidance.  It will be a licensed condition that a licensed betting office cannot offer events or games from an unregistered supplier and equally a registered supplier who breaches the terms of the undertaking and regulatory requirements must cease supply.  In line with the statement of key licensing principles operators will adhere to a responsible gambling code and ensure information must be present on all machines including contact information for help providers.  The code will insist warnings of excessive gambling that must also be displayed.  The machine should also provide help pages accessed by use of icon or button.  These pages must be accessible at all times.  Responsible gambling and literature from approved help providers must be prominently displayed adjacent to these machines.  Promotional material for these terminals may only be internally displayed and the content should be in no way there to encourage excessive play.  The majority of licensed betting offices have adopted a “think 21” approach which requires their staff to seek proof of age from any customer who appears to them to be under 21.  In collaboration with the Shadow Gambling Commission a Code of Practice has been introduced to provide a facility for individuals to self-exclude from identified licensed betting offices for a period of no less than 6 months and up to 5 years.  Customers who wish to resume business at the end of their chosen self-exclusion period are required to complete a further 24-hour cooling-off period before they will be permitted to resume use of any gambling facilities.  It is an agreement that the licensed betting office employees receive training, giving them an overall awareness of the industry’s commitment to social responsibility.  Members will note that the proposed fee for gaming machines under this amendment is £4,000 per terminal.  While substantially higher than the current amusement with prizes machine fee, £4,000 is, I believe, proportionate for ensuring that the regulatory standards to be applied to the operation of these machines are of the highest quality.  It is also now broadly in line with other jurisdictions.  This amendment, however, does not force the industry to adopt these new machines although it is very clear from meetings with the bookmakers that these machines are both necessary and wanted.  The amendment creates a transitional option for those bookmakers wishing to continue with the current machines and some may wish to do so primarily on the grounds that they have renewed their machine licences within the last 6 months.  To conclude, there are a few facts to keep in mind when considering this amendment.  Firstly, the Law already allows regulated machines in a controlled environment.  Secondly, the Law is outdated and working against the industry and against the player.  Thirdly, a broader category of machines were once operated in Jersey for a period of approximately 18 months, around 2004, without any known or reported adverse impact.  They were removed solely on the basis that they did not concur with the description of play in the Regulations.  While this amendment creates flexibility to meet changes in technology it also places a far stricter regulatory regime on to the industry.  It also requires operators not only to offer gambling that is visibly fair and free from criminal activity but which is increasingly subject to responsible gambling requirements.  I propose the principles.

The Bailiff:

Are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

2.1.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I had not intended to speak quite so quickly so I am not quite as well prepared as I normally am before speaking on these matters.  I must confess I am not at all enthusiastic about these machines particularly because I think it is a knowledge that the new generations of machines are potentially more addictive than the previous generation of machines.  But I recognise that machines of this nature of the earlier generation have been with us for some time and it is not unreasonable that, as we have been told, that parts cannot be obtained any more for the maintenance of these and so on, that there be some provision for replacement.  My concerns are in relation to issues like the numbers of machines and the size of stakes and prizes, and things of that nature.  My background in relation to the gambling issues of course, and my concerns, comes out of my professional background because both as a young advocate, and also when I was the Judicial Greffier and also when I was Magistrate, I came across cases of people who got in very serious trouble with the law in terms of dishonesty cases, very often stealing from their employers or moneys out of trust funds or things of that nature to pay for their addiction.  Those were very serious issues for the individuals involved and for the employers and so on.  I acknowledge that standards have now improved in the finance industry in terms of checking and numbers of pairs of eyes and so on.  But nevertheless my concerns remain.  Here we are dealing with machines which will be in betting shops locally and, frankly, I would want to have the highest levels of guarantees and controls in order to be sure that this will not be allowed to extend by a process of gradual increase or gradual liberalisation.  The difficulty I suppose that we have here is that having set up the Gambling Commission, the decisions on the ground and much of the work in relation to this will fall to them, although of course the Minister has the ability to give directions and so on.  My big concern here is this.  That I know that we are going to be facing financial shortfalls.  I know that there are going to be increasing pressures for user pays types of things for self-financing and there is clearly a pressure in this particular area.  It is going to be terribly tempting in terms of self-financing to give a few more licences, particularly when they are paying back at £4,000 a machine per year.  We do have a policy statement which has been put out by the Minister, which is helpful, but I note that that policy statement indicates the maximum of 2 machines per licensed betting office.  My understanding is currently that very few have 2 machines.  I believe the generality have one but I would ask the Minister in dealing with the principles of this matter to clarify how many machines there are at present and what would be the effect of there being 2 machines per office, which I believe would be 58 in fact, although Honest Nev probably will not want one; so that is probably 56, in reality.  But there are other matters also dealt out in here.  There are issues of payout percentage, the maximum stakes and prizes and other details of this sort of nature, which are extremely important because the amount of money that people are putting in per go, as it were, which is we are told under this policy statement will be a maximum of £15 per bet, but if it is a multiple horsey-type of thing there could be up to £100 per virtual event and prize money up to £500.  My concern is this, in very simple terms.  I wish that the safeguards which are represented by this policy statement were in the Regulations because frankly if we pass this in its present form, only upon the basis of the policy statement, there are all sorts of dangers for the future.  What if, in the future, a future Minister has a much more liberal approach to the whole issue than the present Minister?  What if the Commission drifts towards being pro-expansion of gambling generally as a nice earner for tax or whatever?  Where are the safeguards going to be?  My hope was that the Minister would give an undertaking to the House which would satisfy my concerns in this, and in particular I want to see an undertaking which was not just binding on the present Minister but also upon his successive Ministers, and of course a Minister is a corporation sole and therefore can give such an undertaking, which will be binding into the future.  But, in my view, such an undertaking would need to cover the issue of maximum numbers of machines.  As I say, I am concerned that this is already going up to 2, whereas I understand most only have one at the moment.  It would need to cover payout percentages, it would need to cover stakes and prizes and possibly some of the other things.  My personal stance is that unless ... because I would have liked to have had the safeguards with me into the Regulations.  My personal stance is that unless the Minister is able to satisfy me by means of an undertaking binding not just upon him but on his successors that we are not going to see a stealth growth, as it were, over a period of years, then I would have to vote against.  If I do so, I do so with regret because I never like voting against my colleagues unless I feel very strongly on the matter, as I clearly do on this matter, but my purpose in so doing would be to force the Minister to go back and to write the safeguards into the Regulations for the future.  So I wait to hear with bated breath from the Minister as to what undertakings binding not only on himself but on his successors he feels able to give.

2.1.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

Just a short point about the financial and manpower implications statement that we are given in these Regulations.  The Minister says there are no manpower implications but if we look at page 4: “It will be a requirement for random number communication to be independently audited by a third party, all gaming/betting products offered by the gaming machine must be certificated by an approved independent software testing house, the Minister will approve testing houses/laboratories for this purpose and publish technical standards” and there are other things here as well about publishing codes of practice and technical standards.  There is no doubt that there is a manpower implication and I am somewhat surprised that the Minister has said that there are not any.  Financially the effect of introducing these Regulations he says will increase revenue to the States by approximately £124,000 but I was under the impression that the purpose of raising the fees was cost recovery effectively and that the increased fees - and we will obviously get to that under the amendments - the purpose of them is to raise the money to pay for what I have just been talking about, which is the extra manpower to do the regulation of these more complicated machines.  So, I just find this statement of the financial and manpower implications fairly misleading and would like the Minister to enlarge on this fairly minimalist statement.  There is a wider point too, of course, that in promoting and moving forward technologically to something more complicated requiring more regulation we are into some kind of job creation scheme really and the Island can do without extra population to regulate gambling.  But I know we are where we are, people do gamble, et cetera, it is an issue which goes into many other areas as well about regulating behaviour, which really should be discouraged.  Therefore I would just like him to comment on financial and manpower implications because it seems to be a bit of a muddle.

2.1.3 The Deputy of St. John:

I will need some comfort from the Minister.  We heard the Minister say yesterday that betting shops had in fact a number of on-licence machines within their premises and they had to be removed.  That immediately sends out the message to me that the licence operators, the betting shops, and some of these come from big conglomerates from outside the Island who found a way of getting around our laws.  That is a real concern.  Before I can support this I will need some comfort from the Minister to the effect that this is going to be properly policed.  I am supportive that we have to move forward and gaming machines have gone forward.  It is like motor cars.  We know that motor cars historically used to let off a lot of emissions.  Those have been controlled by emission systems within the vehicles not by taxing gas guzzlers.  So they are controlled in a different way.  But I have in the back of my mind suspicion that if these companies that are operating our betting shops have already found a way of usurping the law by bringing in machines which had to be removed how are we going to police this.  Before I will vote and support it I really need the Minister to give me some comfort and Members comfort that the new board that we are putting in place will have the teeth to be able to revoke a licence at very short notice, but please give us some comfort.

2.1.4 Deputy A.E. Jeune:

In my younger days I remember these machines and calling them one-armed bandits because I certainly thought of them as bandits.  You put your money in but you did not get it back.  [Laughter]  Well, in my case anyway.  So I rapidly went off the idea of the use of such machines.  But I have seen people enjoy using these machines responsibly and I have seen people using these machines possibly irresponsibly in an addictive type of way.  But what I feel is these Regulations, as I see them, will allow to bring these machines into the 21st century and, at the same time, raising the fees associated with them.  In the comments to P.140 (amendment) I notice that it says in the last paragraph that this has been agreed with the majority of the industry.  So, I believe I will be supporting this proposition.

2.1.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

In a funny sort of way this proposition should have come first because this is one of the key factors in raising the funds for the Gambling Commission because, as we heard yesterday, we are looking somewhere around £350,000-£400,000 to run the Commission.  It has got to come in from fees from somewhere.  The industry feels that ... not cheated but left out a little because these machines were operating, as the Minister said, way back in August 2003 and they were taken out in December 2004 when it was discovered that possibly the legislation which we thought had been put in place by this House in 2001 catered for it, as indeed it did not they were then withdrawn.  It is unfortunate really, it has taken 5 years for the industry to get these back and they are desperately needing them.  At the moment, just to help the Deputy of St. John, we were given a Green Sheet 2 weeks ago, we gave the breakdown of the number of machines and indeed there are 29 of the old style, which bring in a revenue of £58,000.  It is quite likely that very few of these machines will remain; they will not need the 29 because they will come on to the new ones because, as Deputy Jeune said, we are moving into a new age, the industry is looking for them and indeed the punters are looking for them.  I would hope that Members will support it.  I am grateful also to the Deputy of St. Mary, he stole my thunder because indeed he mentions about the financial implications and that would be one of my thrusts for saying there is no need for £4,000 when there is no additional manpower or financial implications so what do they want the extra money for if there are no financial implications, but we will come to that when we deal with my amendment.  But I would hope that Members will support this in principle what we are doing.  We are, as Deputy Jeune said, bringing the machines into the newer age but bearing in mind they were there already.  They were there 5, 6 years ago and what we are doing, the Regulations now will make them legal and we have got to assume that all the safeguards will be there, because that is why we are having this new Gambling Commission.  But one goes with the other.  I would ask that Members will give their support.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?  I call upon the Minister to reply.

2.1.6 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I clearly understand the concerns of some Members and I clearly understand the concerns in particular of my good friend and colleague, Senator Le Marquand.  He is right about the risk to addiction for gambling.  We have discussed over the last day or so the introduction of a Gambling Commission in order to try and ensure that such issues are dealt with as appropriately as possible.  He raises, understandably, concerns about the old machines versus new and numbers of machines but there are, in most bookmaker shops… I have not got the exact total figure in front of me, but most of them have 2 of the existing ones in place and they are looking to replace effectively like for like.  That was an undertaking that I gave when I had a discussion with colleagues at the Council of Ministers that we would replace within the policy statement like for like old new machines in terms of numbers and that is exactly what the policy seeks to do.  It certainly is not seeking, as I think the Senator is concerned, gradual liberalisation in this area.  We have, as I mentioned in my opening comments, already got server-based virtual racing in the licensed betting officers.  These are very similar in many respects.  In fact from an addiction point of view one could argue that they are probably more of a problem because, of course, somebody choosing to use them can then go to the counter and stake whatever they so choose.  But it does demonstrate the importance of having proper controls in place and having an effective regulator to ensure that both the operators operate responsibly and, indeed, there are provisions in place for those individuals who find themselves getting into trouble.  I would hope that Senator Le Marquand would accept that the safeguards in place should be delivered by the Commission.  There is a direction available from the Minister should that be necessary and, of course, the ultimate sanction would be indeed this Assembly in the future should any individual Members be concerned that the progression of this particular issue or the way in which gambling was being dealt with was not appropriate.  I hope the Senator feels that the strong regulatory position that we have now introduced with the Commission will improve the situation and give him the necessary peace of mind to allow the industry to modernise the outdated machines they have got and use the more modern ones, which in themselves have a great deal more safety mechanisms in place than the old machines had, and I will come on to that in just a moment.  I would like to just touch, if I may, on the Deputy of St. Mary.  He talked about the provisions with no manpower and costs, financial implications.  Of course, the manpower aspect is dealt with in-house; the resourcing of any support required for the Commission is allocated from Economic Development.  We have already talked about the 4 staff that are allocated to support it at the moment.  As far as financial implications are concerned well, of course, it would be a matter for the Commission themselves and ultimately their ability to raise additional revenue if that were necessary.  But they are resourced currently to be able to discharge their obligations in an appropriate fashion.  The Deputy of St. John… I am always delighted to comfort him, if at all possible.  He quite rightly and on a similar note is concerned about lack of compliance.  He was drawing comparisons to discussions yesterday with regard to what he described as unlicensed machines.  In fact, it was more a case that the bookmakers did not feel they were breaking the law, that it was a misinterpretation, as my understanding of the situation, that these machines which of course are allowed in the U.K. and they thought they were bringing in machines which were acceptable.  That was picked up and it was dealt with appropriately.  That is why strong action was taken and the machines were removed once the position was understood.  As far as policing is concerned, as I have said before, it is a role for the Commission and the department to ensure that they are properly policed, and this goes back to one of the concerns of Senator Le Marquand about safeguards.  These new machines are server-based machines.  As such they can be accessed remotely.  The department and the Commission can access them on a regular basis remotely, they can follow the patterns of play and they can ensure that they are being operated appropriately.  Of course they have rights to attend upon the individual premises but there is that additional safeguard from these more modern machines that they can be and will be monitored online on a regular basis.  Data of course is available.  Deputy Jeune talked about her experiences with one-armed bandits, and I must admit my very limited experience in this area whenever I put 10 pence into a machine I never seem to see it again, however the payout percentages are very high and I am delighted that Deputy Jeune has dealt with the machine in a similar way to I did and I hope others do.  It is a recreational tool.  Some people get a great deal of enjoyment.  The issue is knowing when to stop and, of course, that indeed I accept and recognise can lead to problems which is the reason why we have put in place the Commission and all the work that it is going to do to help those who have addiction issues.  I would like to thank all Members that have spoken and all those that have showed support.  I do think this is a sensible and pragmatic way forward.  It does allow the industry to modernise outdated machines.  I think that is important.  It does provide more provisions for safety and security for both players and those that might get themselves into trouble, and I would hope that Members will support this pragmatic proposition.  I maintain the principles.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for in relation to the principles of Projet 140.  I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.