Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – proposal 2 (P.94/2013) – second amendment

STATES OF JERSEY

r

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 2 (P.94/2013) –

SECOND AMENDMENT

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

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: B  P.94 Amd.(2)(re-issue)

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 2 (P.94/2013) – SECOND AMENDMENT

1  PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (a) –

Delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following –

"(a)  that the Assembly should be comprised of 47 members, comprising

12 Connétable s and 35 Deputies;".

2  PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (d) –

Delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following –

"(d)  that  the  proposed  new  5 large  areas  will  replace  the  current

Schedule 1 to the States of Jersey Law 2005, as follows –

DEPUTIES' CONSTITUENCIES

"

3  PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH (f) –

For the words "46 members" substitute the words "47 members" and for the figure "20" substitute the figure "21".

4  PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH (g) –

For the words "46 members" substitute the words "47 members".

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 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.

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, which is also key to P.94/2013 as in his report, Deputy T. Pitman of St. Helier states – "surely equality of vote should be guaranteed for all and have no dependence at all on where one lives; country parish or urban?". However, Deputy T. Pitman's proposition does not achieve the equality of votes he supports, due to the number of members and the number of districts proposed (34 Deputies does not divide equally into 6 districts). By increasing the number of Deputies by one and redefining the boundaries into 5 districts, it is possible to achieve the principle of equality of votes and enable all electors to vote for 7 Deputies. This is the number Deputy T. Pitman is proposing should be elected in 2 of his 6 districts and also the same number proposed by the Commission in Option A.

Each district covers one-fifth of the electorate and all districts cover parts of or the whole of at least 3 parishes; and one has 4 parishes.

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

Financial and manpower implications

This amendment would result in one additional States Member over and above the 46 proposed in P.94/2013, and so would initially reduce the estimated savings made by  that  proposal  by  up  to  £46,600  per  annum  (figure  subject  to  review  by  the SMRRB).

APPENDIX

_____________________________________________________________________ Re-issue Note

This  proposition is being  re-issued  as  the Table  on  page 7  of the report showed incorrect numbering for Districts 3 and 5, and also contained errors in relation to the number of eligible voters in the Vingtaines of Mont Cochon and Mont à l'Abbé ( St. Helier )  and  Sous  l'Eglise,  Sous  La  Hougue  and  Pigneaux  ( St. Saviour ). In addition, the map on page 8 showed incorrect numbering for Districts 3 and 5.