Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – proposal 1 (P.93/2013) – second amendment.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 1 (P.93/2013) –

SECOND AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 22nd October 2013 by the Connétable of St. Mary

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: B  P.93 Amd.(2)

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 1 (P.93/2013) – SECOND AMENDMENT

PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (d) –

Delete paragraph (d) and replace it with a new paragraph (d) as follows –

(d)  that  the  proposed  new  4 large  areas  will  replace  the  current Schedule 1 to the States of Jersey Law 2005, as follows –

DEPUTIES' CONSTITUENCIES

CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY

REPORT Reform of the States Assembly must focus on 2 issues –

1. the number of States members, and
2. how those members are elected.

The propositions currently lodged give a range of options on the number of members – these are –

No. of States members  2013 Proposition

44  P.93; P.93 Amd.Amd.; P.94 Amd.Amd.; 45  P.93 Amd.; P.94 Amd.;

46  P.94;

47  P.116; P.117;

49  P.98.

They also propose a variety of methods for electing those members. Of these, four (P.93 Amd.; P.94 Amd.; P.116; P.117) propose the retention of Senators, which was not recommended by the Electoral Commission; and one (P.98) relates to the Clothier proposal and does not provide an equal number of votes for each elector (a principle of the Electoral Commission).

This leaves 2 propositions which are broadly in line with the Commission's proposals, but neither provides provide an equal number of votes for each elector. Both these alter the representation for each district in an attempt to address perceived issues of under-representation such as –

• P.93 " Town versus Country' divide"
• P.93 "there is a strongly held view that an unamended Option B means that St. Helier is under-represented in the new assembly"
• P.94 "give the third of the population that reside in St. Helier the equality of vote which is obviously their right"
• P.94 "democratic deficit that would be set against voters in St. Helier by retaining 12 Connétable s within 6 large districts".

But in doing so, both appear to be confusing different concepts.

Either every parish should have its own representatives – or none should.

Districts which cover several parishes do not mean that a parish has a representative or representatives.  There  is  no  reason  to  say  that  as   St. Helier  has  a  third  of  the population it – as a "parish" – should directly elect one-third of States members.

What is important is that every elector elects the same number of representatives.

As pointed out in the report to P.117/2013 – "most voters wanted to maintain some Parish traditions and direct Parish links within the States, and saw the retaining of the Parish  Constable  in  the  States  as  the  best  way  of  achieving  this."  Further,  "in attempting to correct one inequity (the under-representation of St. Helier ), PPC have

created an equally unacceptable new inequity ignoring the principle of each voter being able to cast the same number of votes."

The solution lies in the boundaries for the districts.

The propositions seem to support the principles set out by the Electoral Commission, namely –

• All electors should have the same number of votes
• Constituencies should as far as possible be of equal size
• A Candidate should generally require a significant number of votes in order to be elected to the Assembly
• The electoral system should be simple, fair and easy to understand.

However, there is one principle that should be added. There were nearly 100 responses to the Interim Report from individuals, groups or organisations. At least 47 people who signed those responses specifically reinforced the principles of this amendment, namely that if the Island is divided into districts for the election of members, then no one district should consist solely of one parish or a part of one parish.

This is what my amendment proposes.

It  is  worth  drawing  attention  to  the  Commission's  own  comments  on  the constituencies it proposed. The following indicates that the Commission accepts the format of its districts creates an anomaly (see final report: 5.34) –

"Both  of  these  models  would  also  ensure  that  all  parishes  (other  than St. Helier ) would be combined with at least one other parish, thereby avoiding the anomaly that would exist with some models whereby some parishes would be a single constituency while others would be combined."

The  Commission  was  also  keen  to  use  boundaries  which  are  familiar  (see  final report: 5.31) – my amendment does this by using the district divisions in St. Helier and St. Saviour based on Vingtaines which are currently used to elect Deputies.

The  Commission  (see  final  report:  5.9)  also  commented  on  a  benefit  of  large constituencies –

"This would seem to indicate that the creation of large constituencies moves the focus of debate, and the attention of election candidates, away from local issues towards Island-wide considerations. A States member's key rôle is as a member of the national parliament. His or her task is to debate legislation and major policies that impact upon the whole Island."

The make-up of the Assembly should ensure the election of members representing as wide a range of the electorate as possible – broad constituencies which are pan-Parish would remove the "unfairness of urban/country parish representation" (P.98/2013). The Parish' as a unit retains its representation through the Connétable .

To enable members to consider the size of the States Assembly, I am proposing amendments to both P.93/2013 and P.94/2013.

My  suggested  amendment  for  P.93/2013  retains  the  44 members  mooted  in  the original proposition; and makes changes to the districts so that there are 4 districts each electing 8 members. This is 32 Deputies, and with 12 Connétable s makes a total of 44 members.

Is it reasonable to elect 8 members?

If there is no further reform to the States, then all electors will be voting for 8 Senators in 2014. When moving to a single election day for all Senators, the States took the decision to reduce the number of Senators to 8, and in so doing accepted that it was a reasonable number to elect at a single time. The Electoral Commission itself proposes 7 Deputies elected at a single time under Option A.

The views expressed by the public are to be able to directly elect as many States members as possible – before the reduction in number of Senators all electors could elect as least 14 members (12 Senators, 1 Connétable and at least 1 Deputy , with some electing up to 4 Deputies).

This  amendment  enables  every  elector  to  vote  for  9 members  (1 Connétable  and 8 district representatives).

The districts have been arranged to maintain the Commission's preference not to amalgamate parishes into electoral districts when the parishes were not adjoining (see final report: 5.36).

Each district therefore represents a quarter of the electorate, and the deviations are well within the 15% maximum considered acceptable under the Venice Commission guidelines.

Further, every district includes either 3 or 4 parishes or parts of parishes.

During discussions on P.64/2013, it became clear that some members still did not appreciate that Connétable s represent their parish and not an electoral district. Whilst this  is  still  true,  those  concerned  about  the  perceived  democratic  deficit'  for St. Helier , for example, can take comfort as this amendment means that all St. Helier electors are part of a district which is associated with either 3 or 4 Connétable s.

However, the amendment still maintains the Commission's principle of equality of votes, a principle which is also, incidentally, underlined in the report to P.94/2013 which states – "surely equality of vote should be guaranteed for all and have no dependence at all on where one lives; country parish or urban?".

* small statistical variance from the figures used by the Electoral Commission

Financial and manpower implications

This amendment makes no changes to the financial or manpower implications stated in P.93/2013.

APPENDIX