Composition and Election of the States Assembly (P.133/2016): comments.

STATES OF JERSEY

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY (P.133/2016): COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 19th January 2017 by Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2016  P.133 Com.

COMMENTS

Background

Since the report of the Review Panel on the Machinery of Government in Jersey was published in 2000, numerous Propositions have been brought to the States to reform the way in which the States Assembly is composed and elected. A summary document, setting out the various proposals is shown in the Appendix.

In February 2015, the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC') established the Sub-Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly, of which the terms of reference were –

1. To seek to engage with all elected Members of the States Assembly on the issue of reform.
2. To consider whether all categories of elected States Members should be treated equally within the States of Jersey Law, as far as practicable.
3. To develop proposals in order to enhance voter equity through –

Reviewing constituency boundaries;

Reviewing the categories, numbers and distribution of elected States Members.

4. To consider the benefits and limitations of various voting systems.
5. To bring forward a proposal to the Assembly, by March 2016 at the latest,  which  could  be  acceptable  to  a  majority  of  elected  States Members.
6. To bring the process to a conclusion, with legislation passed into law, by Spring 2017 at the latest.

When considering various options for reform, the Privileges and Procedures Committee and its Sub-Committee has been limited by the outcome of the 2014 referendum when Islanders were asked whether the Connétable s should remain as Members of the States as an automatic right. 62.4% of those Islanders who voted were in favour of retaining the Connétable s.

The Sub-Committee ( Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement , Senator P.F.C. Ozouf , Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence and Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier ) supported by an officer group, comprising representatives from the States Greffe and the Community and Constitutional Affairs Department, held a number of workshops with States Members during 2015 and 2016. The sessions covered the number and categories of States Members; constituency boundaries; voter equity and voting systems. Various questions were put to those States Members that attended the workshops in order to provide the underlying principles, based upon majority responses, from which the Sub- Committee could begin to build proposals for reform.

However, the views that were expressed by States Members did not, in their entirety, demonstrate a desire to deviate from the current system in any significant way and were not sufficiently polarised to provide a clear steer on reform –

Over 74% agreed that it was very important or quite important to reform the current system.

Over 75% strongly agreed or slightly agreed with the outcome of the referendum on the role of the Connétable s (and over 80% strongly agreed or slightly agreed that the outcome should be adopted).

Over 64% felt it was very important or quite important to maintain the role of Senator.

Over 71% felt it was very important or quite important to maintain the role of Deputy .

Over 55% felt that the total number of States Members was about right.

Over 41% felt that the total number of Senators was about right and over 44% felt that the total number of Deputies was about right.

Over 69% felt that voters should be able to vote for the same number of representatives.

Over 61% felt it was very important or quite important to maintain parish-based constituencies for Deputies.

Over 51% indicated that their preference for calculating voter equity was on the basis of total population.

Over 70% felt that it was very important or quite important to have a reformed system which followed the guidelines as set out in the Venice Commission.

The Venice Commission guidelines provide that constituency boundaries should be drawn in order that seats are distributed equally among constituencies, in accordance with specific apportionment criterion, for example: the number of residents in the constituency, the number of resident nationals (including minors), or the number of registered electors (equality in voting power). They also provide that each voter should have the same number of votes (equality in voting rights).

Jersey's electoral map is curious in the sense that it has been divided along almost purely historical lines. Aside from the obvious parish boundaries, the electoral districts of St. Helier , St. Saviour and St. Brelade were drawn up by dividing and amalgamating Vingtaines.  As  the  statistics  will  later bear  out, there  is  significant imbalance in representation across parishes/districts.

The following table breaks down population, eligible voters and registered voters by parish.  The  figures  for  population  and  eligible  voters  are  based  upon  the 2014 Population Estimate, which was produced by the Statistics Unit using information from the 2011 Jersey Census and more recent data sources. The number of registered voters is a known number taken from the electoral roll of the 2014 General Election.

It should be noted that the figures for population and eligible voters are estimates. The Statistics Unit has not received new parish-level population information since the 2011 Census. The 2014 Population Estimate assumed that the population of each parish

had increased by the same proportion, which is unlikely to be true. Likewise, the number of eligible voters has simply been uprated in line with the population figures.

Figure (1) – Population, Eligible Voters and Registered Voters by Parish/District

Population  

2014 Estimate

St. Mary St. John Trinity

1,805  2,999  3,251  

St. Brelade No. 1

3,485  

St. Saviour No. 3

3,751  3,876  4,220  

St. Martin

St. Ouen

St. Saviour No. 2 Grouville

5,010  5,012  5,153  

St. Peter

St. Saviour No. 1

5,247  5,581  

St. Lawrence

St. Brelade No. 2

7,410  

St. Helier No. 2

9,038  9,498  

St Clement

St. Helier No. 1

10,316  15,147  

St. Helier No. 3/4

TOTALS  100,800  Average

Examining the figures, there does not appear to be a material difference between eligibility rates across parishes and districts. St. Brelade No. 1 is thought to possess the highest percentage of eligible voters with 82.07% of its population estimated to be entitled to vote. Trinity is believed to hold the smallest percentage of eligible voters, at 75.10%. Based on these approximations and their minor variations, population and eligible voters would likely deliver similar results when used as the foundation for the redistribution of representatives.

However, there is a significant disparity between population/eligible voters and the registered electorate itself. Whilst St. Mary achieves near complete registration, only 65.19% of eligible St. Helier residents are on the electoral roll. Indeed, in the district of

St. Helier No. 2 only 48% of eligible residents are registered. Generally speaking, country parishes outperform their larger, urban counterparts in terms of registration.

Therefore, country parishes would have a stronger claim to further representation under a registered electorate basis than a population / eligible voters basis. The contrary would be true for urban parishes like St. Helier and St. Saviour .

This section breaks down the above figures further, to show for each parish/district the number of residents / eligible voters / registered voters per Deputy .

Figure (2) – Population versus Deputorial representation by Parish/District

Population  Current  Residents  Deviation 2014 Estimate  Deputies  per Deputy  from Average

St. Mary  1,805  1  1,805  93% St. Saviour No. 2  5,010  2  2,505  39% St. Saviour No. 1  5,247  2  2,624  32% St. Lawrence  5,581  2  2,790  25% St. John  2,999  1  2,999  16% St. Helier No. 2  9,038  3  3,013  15% Trinity  3,251  1  3,251  7% St. Helier No. 1  10,316  3  3,439  1% St. Brelade No. 1  3,485  1  3,485  0% St. Brelade No. 2  7,410  2  3,705  -6% St. Saviour No. 3  3,751  1  3,751  -7% St. Helier No. 3/4  15,147  4  3,787  -8% St. Martin  3,876  1  3,876  -10% St. Ouen  4,220  1  4,220  -18% St. Clement  9,498  2  4,749  -27% Grouville  5,012  1  5,012  -31% St. Peter  5,153  1  5,153  -33% TOTALS  100,800  29

Average  3,476

Under population, it is the larger country parishes that tend to encounter the least favourable ratio of residents per Deputy . St. Peter , Grouville and St. Ouen are all underrepresented by Venice Commission standards, wherein it was stated that "the permissible departure from the average should not be more than 10%, and should certainly not exceed 15% except in special circumstances (protection of a concentrated minority,  sparsely  populated  administrative  entity."  Compared  to  this  standard, St. Peter , Grouville and St. Ouen deviate from the average by 33%, 31% and 18% respectively.  The  urban  parish  of   St. Clement  also  faces  statistically  significant underrepresentation.

By  contrast  the  small  country  parishes  of   St. Mary  and   St. John  enjoy  relative overrepresentation. This also applies to the urban districts of St. Saviour No. 1 and 2. Both are represented by 2 Deputies each, despite maintaining a population equivalent to Grouville and St. Peter . The same can be said of St. Lawrence .

There  is  considerable  imbalance  in  representation  across  the  board.  Ten  out  of 17 parishes / districts exceed the maximum permissible departure from the average as outlined by the Venice Commission.

Figure (3) – Eligible voters versus Deputorial representation by parish/district

Eligible voters  Current  Residents  Deviation 2014 Estimate  Deputies  per Deputy  From Average

St. Mary  1,380  1  1,380  100% St. Saviour No. 2  3,930  2  1,965  40% St. Saviour No. 1  4,150  2  2,075  33% St. Lawrence  4,409  2  2,204  25% St John  2,349  1  2,349  17% St. Helier No. 2  7,310  3  2,437  13% Trinity  2,441  1  2,441  13% St. Helier No. 1  8,260  3  2,753  0% St. Saviour No. 3  2,830  1  2,830  -3% St. Brelade No. 1  2,860  1  2,860  -4% St. Brelade No. 2  5,990  2  2,995  -8% St. Helier No. 3/4  12,110  4  3,028  -9% St. Martin  3,059  1  3,059  -10% St. Ouen  3,296  1  3,296  -16% St. Clement  7,386  2  3,693  -25% Grouville  3,986  1  3,986  -31% St. Peter  4,131  1  4,131  -33% TOTALS  79,877  29

Average  2,754

It was previously observed in Figure (1) that there did not appear to be a material difference between eligibility rates across parishes. As such, the base factor of eligible voters' delivers similar results to those experienced under population (Figure (2)).

It remains  the case  under eligible voters that the larger country parishes  tend to encounter the least favourable ratio of residents per Deputy . St. Clement again faces a statistically significant level of underrepresentation. Once more this is contrasted by St. Mary , St. Saviour No. 1 and 2, St. Lawrence and St. John , all of whom enjoy relative overrepresentation.

There remains significant imbalance in representation across the map under the eligible voters metric. Nine out of 17 parishes / districts exceed the maximum permissible departure from the average as outlined by the Venice Commission.

Figure (4) – Registered voters versus Deputorial representation by parish/district

Registered voters  Current  Residents  Deviation 2014 Estimate  Deputies  per Deputy  from Average

St. Mary  1,378  1  1,378  57% St. Helier No. 2  4,338  3  1,446  49% St. Saviour No. 2  2,923  2  1,462  48% St. Saviour No. 1  3,061  2  1,531  41% St. Helier No. 1  5,333  3  1,778  21% St. Lawrence  3,693  2  1,847  17% St. Helier No. 3/4  8,382  4  2,096  3% Trinity  2,127  1  2,127  1% St. John  2,158  1  2,158  0% St. Saviour No. 3  2,384  1  2,384  -10% St. Brelade No. 1  2,418  1  2,418  -11% St. Brelade No. 2  5,165  2  2,583  -16% St. Martin  2,767  1  2,767  -22% St. Ouen  3,100  1  3,100  -30% St. Clement  6,244  2  3,122  -31% Grouville  3,478  1  3,478  -38% St. Peter  3,608  1  3,608  -40% TOTALS  62,557  29

Average  2,157

It was previously observed in Figure (1) that there is a disparity between population / eligible voters and the registered electorate itself. Rates of registration vary across parishes, with country parishes generally outperforming their larger, urban counterparts.

As  such,  when  registered  voters  is  applied  as  the  base  factor  for  comparing representation by parish / district, different results are generated. The 3 St. Helier districts,  which  experienced  a  statistically  normal  level  of  representation  under population/eligible voters, appear to be overrepresented under the registered voters metric.  Indeed,  under  this  measure,   St. Helier  No. 1  and  2  enjoy  a  level  of overrepresentation beyond the permissible amount stated by the Venice Commission. Likewise, the magnitude of overrepresentation in St. Saviour No. 1 and 2 heightens. This phenomenon can be explained by the lower registration rates in St. Helier and St. Saviour , which stand at 65.19% and 76.72% of the eligible population respectively.

Meanwhile, due to their healthier registration rates, the country parishes appear to be less well represented under registered voters than population / eligible voters. Because of its near 100% registration rate, the scale of St. Mary 's overrepresentation decreases substantially under this metric. Elsewhere, St. John , which was previously deemed to be  overrepresented  under  population  /  eligible  voters,  now  achieves  a  level  of representation in line  with  the  average.   St. Martin ,  which  was  within the Venice Commission's  permissible  departure  range  under  population  /  eligible  voters,  is underrepresented to a statistically significant level under registered electors.

Generally speaking then, country parishes would have a stronger claim to further representation under a registered electorate basis than a population / eligible voters basis. The contrary is true for urban parishes like St. Helier and St. Saviour .

The scale of imbalance is greater under registered electors than population / eligible voters. Twelve out of 17 parishes/districts exceed the maximum permissible departure from the average as outlined by the Venice Commission.

The findings of the Sub-Committee

Over the course of 2016, the Sub-Committee considered proposals for reform which aimed, as far as possible, to reflect the outcomes of the workshops. They also sought to achieve greater equality in voting power by re-allocating the Deputy seats in order to balance the inequality that arises from the retention of the Connétable s in the States. The Sub-Committee subsequently agreed that 3 proposals should be put forward for the consideration of all States Members. All the proposals were independently assessed by a Professor of Politics at Oxford University and were deemed to be an improvement on the status quo.

A further workshop took place on 13th July 2016, which was attended by 26 States Members who provided feedback on their preferred option using voting buttons. 36% favoured the option which allowed for 8 Senators to be elected on an Island wide basis and 1 Connétable for each Parish. It divided the 29 Deputy seats across the 6 electoral districts, of near equal size, based on total population, with the intention of offsetting' the inequality in voting power, which was generated through having the Connétable s automatically in the States Assembly. Parish boundaries were respected and each district was  represented,  as  far  as  possible,  by  an  equal  total  number  of  Deputies  and Connétable s.

Of the 3 options that were proposed at the workshop, this was the most compliant with the recommendations of the Venice Commission. 81.9% of the population are currently in non-compliant districts. This option reduces that number significantly to 14.4%. The 12 Connétable s would continue to be elected from within the current Parish boundaries and the 29 Deputies would be elected from the following 6 large districts –

District 1 – Vingtaine du Mont Cochon, Vingtaine du Mont à l'Abbé, Vingtaine de Haut du Mont au Prêtre and Vingtaine de Bas du Mont au Prêtre ( St. Helier ) (6 Deputies);

District 2 – Cantons de Bas et de Haut de la Vingtaine de la Ville and Vingtaine du Rouge Bouillon ( St. Helier ) (6 Deputies);

District 3 – St. Brelade and St. Peter (5 Deputies);

District 4 – St. Ouen , St. Mary , St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity (2 Deputies);

District 5 – St. Martin and St. Saviour (5 Deputies);

District 6 – St. Clement and Grouville (5 Deputies).

______ Denotes Electoral District Boundary for Deputies ______ Denotes Parish Boundary for the election of Connétable s

At its meeting on 12th October 2016, the Sub-Committee favoured this proposal (hereinafter referred to as Option A'), which retains the current number of States Members. It also asked the officer group to explore a reduction in the number of States Members to 43 (by effectively removing one Deputy from each district) (hereinafter referred to as Option A1'); and a reduction in the number of States Members to 44 (by removing one Deputy from each district except District 4) (hereinafter referred to as Option A2').

Professor Iain Maclean, from Oxford University, who analysed the various proposals put forward in 2013, confirmed that all of these 3 options are more compliant with the recommendations  of  the  Venice  Commission  than  the  current  system.  The  most compliant is Option A.

Mindful of the so-called Troy Rule', which ensures that the Executive are always in a minority, Option A1 would limit the maximum number of Ministers and Assistant Ministers in an Assembly of 43 to 18, and Option A2 would limit the maximum number of Ministers and Assistant Ministers in an Assembly of 44 to 19.

However, all 3 options were poorly received by the main Committee and no clear consensus amongst the 7 members could be reached.

Given that it had set out in its Terms of Reference to seek to achieve a proposal which could be acceptable to a majority of elected States Members', the Committee does not feel that it can present any of the options as a plausible alternative to the status quo. This has been brought into focus by Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier lodging his proposition P.133/2016. The Committee recognises that this is essentially Option B' from the 2013 Referendum,  with  a  slight  modification.  The  Privileges  and  Procedures Committee of the time put forward Option B for implementation in 2013, but this

proposition was defeated and the Chairman of the Committee, the Connétable of St. Helier , resigned as a consequence.

In his election speech on 7th November 2014 the Chairman maintained, in relation to the Referendum outcome that "We must respect that decision. We must build on that decision and work together to find the solution which has evaded us for so long. With one issue resolved we now need to tackle the future of the other roles: Senator and Deputy , and also how we will resolve the issue of proportionality and equality of representation in the light of the referendum result I will work with a grand coalition of Members, including the Chief Minister and officers from his department to seek out the solution which is fair, understandable, and meets the aspirations of the Members of this Assembly, but more importantly of the public.".

This was repeated at each of the workshops, where the main focus of each session was to help the Sub-Committee to arrive at a position which a majority of States Members could support and to produce a Reform proposal which would be designed not by the Sub-Committee itself, but by the Assembly as a whole.

Unfortunately this has proven unattainable.

The current Committee has exhausted the consultation process and no clear direction was identified – the views of those members who participated were so strongly polarised that it was impossible to gain a steer from the responses given. The Committee is of the view that there would be no benefit in lodging any of the options which came out of the consultation. This view was validated by the results of the final workshop in July 2016 when 58% of those present indicated that they could not support any one of the options presented without amendment. In fact many members expressed a view that had they known what the outcome of the consultation would be, they would have given different responses to the questions in the beginning!

The Committee does not consider that it would be sensible to lodge something which is not  reflective  of  the  research  results  –  not  only  would  that undermine  the  work undertaken but it would also ignore the contributions of members who participated in all of the sessions.

The Committee does not believe that it should lodge an amendment or a stand-alone proposition simply for the sake of it.

The Committee also recognises that were it to lodge a proposal or indeed an amendment to Deputy Lewis ' proposition, there would be a strong likelihood that others would join the wave of amendments which would inevitably ensue. Members can see from the list attached at the Appendix that every time there has been a chance of a proposition which could make some improvements being adopted, a raft of amendments or alternatives have been lodged which have only served to dilute the strength of the original.

The Committee feels that the Assembly should have the chance to consider Deputy Lewis ' proposition and any amendments on their own merit and does not wish to complicate and confuse the situation by putting forward something which has received only lukewarm support from within its number. It has no particular view on the main proposition itself, save as to note that it is very closely aligned with what the public who voted in the 2013 Referendum chose as their preferred option. The decision of the Assembly not to implement the result of that Referendum has led to a  sense  of

disaffection between the electorate and States Members, with many committed voters choosing not to vote in the 2014 since they considered that the States don't listen' to the public.

The Privileges and Procedures Committee asked Professor Iain Maclean to evaluate its own options, Deputy Lewis ' proposal for a new districting system for elections to the States Assembly of Jersey and the amendment of Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (P.133/2016 Amd.) with particular reference to their proportionality.

The advisory limits recommended by the Venice Commission is a maximum tolerance of +/- 15% from the average district size. None of the options fall within the Venice Commission's advisory limits, apart from Option A, which was rejected by the Sub- Committee and the main Committee.

Table: The Schemes Rank-Ordered

Rank Order  % of population outside Venice limits Best: Option A  14.4

Option A1  48.6

Option A2  48.6

Lewis  48.7

Ozouf  65.8

Worst: Current system  81.9

Standard Deviation

In statistics the standard deviation is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be close to the mean (average), while a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a wider range of values.

In this case the mean is the average number of residents per representative. Each representative has been given equal weighting irrespective of whether they are Senator, Connétable or Deputy . In nearly all of the options apart from rejected Option A, St. Helier remains under represented.

Rank Order  Standard Deviation from the mean Best: Option A  213

Option A1  258

Option A2  268

Lewis  347

Ozouf  581

Worst: Current system  642

APPENDIX

Proposals on Electoral Reform