States Meeting Transcript - 14/03/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 14TH MARCH 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumed)................................................................3

1. The States sat in committee to discuss "Composition and election of the States Assembly: options for change" (R.97/2007) (continued)..............................3

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.......................................................3

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................3
2. Senator L. Norman: ......................................................................6
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................7
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................9
5. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:..............................................11
6. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................14
7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................15
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................17
9. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................18 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:..........................................................19
10. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................20
11. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................21
12. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................21
13. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................22
14. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................23
15. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................24
16. Connétable M.J. Jackson of St. Brelade:................................................25
17. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................26
18. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................27
19. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................30

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................31 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................31 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :..............................................................31 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................31 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................31 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ............................................................31

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................32

20. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................32
21. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................34
22. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................35
23. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................38
24. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................40
25. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
26. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................41

27. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................43
28. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................44 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................45 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................45 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:.........................................................46 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................46 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................48 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................48
29. Connétable J.Le S. Gallichan of Trinity :................................................48
30. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................49
31. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................50 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................50 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................51
32. Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary:..................................................52
33. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................52
34. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondre of St. Lawrence : .............................................54 Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................55 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................55 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................55
35. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................55
36. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................56
37. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................57
38. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................58
39. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:..................................................59

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................59 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................59

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumed)

1. The States sat in committee to discuss "Composition and election of the States Assembly: options for change" (R.97/2007) (continued)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

As the Members know, the Assembly is sitting in committee to discuss the issue of the position of the States and I invite Deputy Le Hérissier to speak.

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

One of the interesting issues is always the subtext to these debates and when Deputy de Faye said he wanted a rigorous debate I was reminded of, I think it was, Harold Wilson 's phrase that politics is essentially the exchange of prejudices among people. I am guilty, of course, as anyone else. It is very interesting to give some historical context. In fact, it could be argued that the absence of political parties has been much shorter in Jersey's last couple of centuries than has the presence of political parties. If you read, for example, about 2 giants of the 19th century, one the Constable of St. Helier's favourite, Pierre Le Sueur , who was commemorated at the Broad Street Obelisk, and a chap called Francoise Godfrey. He was very interesting. He put himself forward as a classic Jerseyman. You know, do not give an inch; fight every inch of the way and do not let all these namby-pamby liberals, wets, radicals and pinko's get a word in edgeways; they were not quite the terms of abuse but we have obviously improved in recent years. Interestingly enough, he was a contradiction in terms and in some respects I think we all are. It was largely through his efforts, it was recorded in one article, that the Deputies were brought into the States as a strictly political office, not as a Parish representative office so to speak. It was quite interesting when they were brought in, and Deputy Hill referred to this a couple of weeks ago, that the bias towards the country remained. There were 14 Deputies: 3 for St. Helier and then one each for the outlying parishes. It was stated that Godfrey, in fact, knew where his support lay and he made sure that he was not going to destroy the trust that the rural system had in his ability. It was very interesting because he then clashed with Pierre Le Sueur in 1834 and they attempted - at a place called the Regent Road Theatre - to form a radical party. Basically, they wanted to adopt a more Anglicised form of government and we all know where that road has taken us. I am always reminded of the supreme paradox in Senator Syvret's views, and it is a pity he is not here, when he usually dismisses the Clothier Report as a warmed-over version of the English Local Government Act 2000 as a resonance of that kind of thinking. There was going to be political representation proportional to the town's share of population but, of course, Godfrey in no way was going to follow the more radical precepts of our friend Pierre Le Sueur . It was Le Sueur , for example, who pushed for the members of the public to be allowed into the States' debate; he raised the joining age of the militia from 14 to 18 and shortened the time prisoners were held before trial because he was a very active lawyer as well a very active politician. Very interestingly, it is Godfrey who is seen by some as the most powerful politician and - it is a side comment but a very interesting one - he died from apoplexy which some of us are always on the brink of. He died and in one of his obituaries it was

noticed: "He had a savage energy which made his life tempestuous and tormented." Again, I do not want to go too much down that road but it does demonstrate that we have visited these issues before. Senator Syvret again made a statement yesterday. He made a very brief statement about where power lay in the Island and said in 800 years it had never gone to the people. I think that was a slightly sweeping statement, if I may say so. Certainly, 1948 was the time when there were 2 very genuine political parties: the Progressives and the Jersey Democratic Movement. There was a total pent-up demand for reform that people who were here would remember, or who have read

about it. Of course, it was going to be the true demise of 2 of the 3 estates, possibly 3 of the 3 estates. The church and the judiciary were going to leave the States and they did bar the much respected presence of the Dean. They did leave the States after a great battle by the Constables. That was one of the great battles as was the battle over the Bailiff 's role. They were the 2 great battles and those battles were revisited on the debate on the Clothier Report. There was a moment when Jersey had a chance to reorient its politics as it had over the years. I do not agree, quite frankly, with the Senator's rather sweeping interpretation of history. There was only one democratic movement person elected and that was, as we know, a chap called Steven Venables. Jersey people voted for the centre line. The Progressive Party won massively and there was one democratic movement person and it led, as we all know, to the year of the Krichefskis, the Vibert s and the Le Marquands. The interesting other fact, as we bemoan reduced turnout, is in the first Senatorial election the average turnout was 57.8 for the Senators. It then went down in 1972 to 45.8 and it has not shifted much because in 2005 it is at 42.5. In 1948 the Deputies - and I was not able to get the fully accurate figures - had a turnout of 63.5 because obviously the rural areas were always much better at the turnout. In 1972 that had reduced to 43.4; the decline was much more rapid. Now, as I recall, it is hovering around 35. So there has been quite a radical decline in Deputies but a much steadier decline - if I may use the term - with Senators. So we go on and on about decline but oddly enough we have never been great voters. Guernsey was mentioned but oddly enough before it went into the large constituency model, Guernsey did have a high turnout hovering in the high 50s and sometimes the bottom 60s, and the turnout as you saw from P.P.C.s (Privileges and Procedures Committee) paper I think is around 62 per cent in the large constituencies. So, where does that leave us? Deputy de Faye gave the classic speech with his usual sense of brio about retaining the status quo. But he was a very naughty boy because if you analyse his speech rigorously - which he requires us to do by his very own words - he talked about, for example, that we need rolling elections because he said we might get the Red Party. I had not remembered him discussing the role of political parties and I had not remembered him discussing red parties which, if one excuses the Planning Minister's standard colour of his socks, denote a certain political affiliation. So he very naughtily moved the discussion along to panic stations that if you did not vote for elections every year and allow a very, very gradual change over of power we would be faced with the classic "reds in the beds" scenario which has always been the fear that is wheeled-out at elections - if you get too much democracy you will get too many reds or too many pinko's or left-wing types in the Assembly. That has always been the code language about essentially we cannot have a party system. I will come back to that later. I think what Deputy de Faye did say also, and Senator Syvret, is why are we looking for reform? Well, the public complain an awful lot about the calibre of people but I think a lot of that was misdirected. I think they were going on about the wrong type of people just as the B.B.C. (British Broadcasting Corporation) Radio Jersey goes on about perhaps the wrong type of people attending meetings; the wrong type of people in the sense that if you were elected for Constable you are elected to be head of a municipality. That takes an awful lot of time. It leads to a certain orientation and it does not make you into a broad-based politician, for example. I think that is what was meant. I think Clothier also drew attention to the lack of contested elections because contests do lead to vibrancy; they do lead to clashes; they do lead to healthy tension. That is what he was saying, so therefore in no way can I accept Deputy de Faye's view that everybody is terribly happy because of the absence of elections. I think the third thing that Clothier were trying to do was they were trying to raise the political game of this Island and they were trying to say there should be much more focus on policy. I was asked by someone the other day what does my Constable think about the finance issue. I said I did not know for a start: "I suggest you go and ask them. Because he has never been through an election and so forth, I suggest you go and have a chat with them and find out what they do think." Certainly, Clothier talked about the lack of focus on policy and I think that is a real issue. The issue is that the honorary system used to be - and I was discussing it with one or 2 yesterday because I am not sure this is so much the case now - very much a personality system: who you were, the kind of network you had in the Parish, whether you had done good works,

whether you had come through certain kinds of organisations and so forth. To an extent that also applied, it has to be said, to the rural Deputies and even, perhaps, to some of the urban Deputies who made quite a good splash as personalities. So, how do we shift from personalities and get more policy? I think what had happened is Jersey had entered - and is still to an extent - into the politics of stagnation. We did get stagnated and there is no doubt there was not much of an impetus for change for the very simple reason that a lot of people had a very good life and have a very good life. A lot of the immigrants are people who are sweating away trying to get themselves established economically; they are trying to introduce themselves to the culture of Jersey and it will probably be a second or third generation process by which that is done. So you have vast numbers of people who were essentially, as long as we did not have a Communist revolution and who would have then felt impelled to rush out to vote, content to let the system carry on. Even if they did not have terribly much faith in our competence at least the thing was not falling apart and we were not having a revolution of the kind feared by Deputy de Faye. Then you had the core of activist people who we meet in the rural meetings and so forth who take a great interest and who, perhaps for other reasons, were getting terribly disillusioned with the system. Having said that - and that is some background - why did we need Clothier; and I do not think we should forget that. We are dancing a bit on the deck of the Titanic, playing around in a very limited way with some of these options. There is no doubt that we do need, in my view, real politics in this Island. We need mature politics. I was and still am a supporter of Ministerial government and I think, on the efficiency side, it has achieved some good things. I think it has rationalised resources, distribution in the States, and focused on the way overall we make policy; although we are still stuck in very general bland statements I think it is focused much more on that. Hopefully, at some point, it will focus on accountability although we still have, I am afraid, some way to go in that respect. There is no doubt it was a system that was designed to work with party politics; there is no doubt about that. That is the ghost at the banquet, so to speak, that we do not have party politics so we do not discuss issues in a mature way. We do descend - although our Westminster colleagues, quite frankly, are not that terribly over-mature compared to us - into personality factions very easily but, of course, we did in the 19th century with the Rose and the Laurels where people would not inter-marry as between those 2 parties, for example; where Parishes were divided on police and anti-police parties, basically on family names, and some Constables to this day wrestle with fractious honorary police organisations. I can see people smiling quietly on that regard. So we certainly have not got rid of that. We have got to raise our game and it has to be remembered that is what Clothier was after. The other thing we need to face is there is, quite frankly, a very effective spin machine put in place by the Council of Ministers. It is partly because Scrutiny is a much slower, deliberate, concerted process so it takes a bit of time to get running, plus we have our little family problems which we are working on in as amicable way as we can find. Having said that, if we have to take an option - and

I am quite reluctant to do this - I have been thinking about this a long time because I was identified as one of the wreckers by people like the Deputy of Grouville , as I recall, and so forth. I have not chosen to comment on amphibious affairs yet which could be the final straw but I will make my waves in other ways. [Laughter] Having said that, I am inclined, although I do not like doing it, to move to option 2 of the Committee in the sense but not with the low numbers. I think option 2 with the larger constituencies gives the chance for contested elections and that is what the public want. We struggled and struggled but we cannot find a way of having a Senatorial election for everybody, and I know a lot of people would want this because they feel people should be tested out in terms of answering on policy issues across the Island. I just do not see how the logistics of that could work although it is interesting that the recent Iraq election was done on an all-nation ticket, so to speak, which just boggles the mind. So maybe we are being a bit over-cautious in that regard. I think we need to raise our game. We need to focus much more on political issues. We need to be tested-out on those issues much more and we need to feel - particularly Deputies who feel as much as Constables may be accused of hiding in little hidy-holes in the semi-rural areas, we need to see non-contested elections as a thing of the past because the public clearly like them. There is no doubt part of option 2 is the role of the Constables and my view is in a pragmatic way, and I have spoken to a few of the people who have been pushing for reform. They were given the challenge of getting more involved in the Ministerial system and I must admit they, for the large part, have taken up that challenge. That challenge was posed. There were a lot of sceptics, myself included, who thought that they would not do it, they would stay buried in the Parishes, but they have risen to that challenge. They do provide the link to the Parish organisation and all feedback is saying that that is important. From that point of view I think that is the compromise to go forward. I am not prepared to have much of a smaller Assembly because I think that would exaggerate the voting bloc if such a thing does exist, and I think it exists probably on a crisis basis rather than on a regular basis, so I would see an Assembly of 47 to 48, partly in order to provide the kind of people needed for Scrutiny because it is proving to be an incredibly time-intensive business. So, option 2 in the sense of larger constituencies where people cannot hide as they do at the moment, where they, generally speaking, will have to face political contests and where there can be the retention of a Parish link. I think the people are tired of this debate. I think Members are tired of this debate and I am frightened that all we are going to do is just agree, as did our 2 friends at the back, on 4- year terms and a general election and not much more. That would be a terrible disappointment after all these years of pain; and we have to find a way of going forward. Quite clearly, there is not a perfect way; there is not theoretically an acceptable way and to me this is the best way forward.

2. Senator L. Norman:

Deputy Le Hérissier mentioned that generally speaking you get a higher turnout of voting at elections in Guernsey, and this is true, but I think it is worth mentioning that it is my understanding that in Guernsey they do not have, as we have, compulsory voter registration. Therefore, people who register are the ones more likely to debate and therefore you get a higher percentage turnout. Having said that, the motivation for change is not, or at least should not be about improving voter turnout. It should be about creating better democratic legitimacy and accountability. A better election turnout would, I am sure, be a positive effect of reform provided that reform simplifies the election process making it more understandable and therefore encouraging more participation. In most mature democracies a general election is the norm - a given - and why is that? Why is a general election popular? Why are people saying: "We want to have a general election?" I think there is only one reason for that and it is because it is the only way that the voters can make a real change. In our current system that simply cannot happen. I do not need to explain why; we know why that cannot happen. I think some of us have a different idea of what a general election is or could be. To my mind it is not just having everyone elected on the same day but rather it is having all Members elected on the same day on the same terms for the same length of time and on the same basis. If that is a crude idea of a general election the question then arises: "How do we actually do it?" Do we have all Members elected on an all-Island vote? I think most of us recognise that simply is not practical, to have 150 names on a single ballot paper. That just simply would not work. We could have the super-constituencies recommended by Deputy Le Hérissier's Privileges and Procedures Committee. I do not think that is generally liked because in many ways it disenfranchises particularly the smaller Parishes. If you amalgamate 3 or 4 Parishes the smaller ones might never get a resident of theirs elected to the States again. It does run the risk of destroying the Parish system and I believe the Parish system is important because our whole social, cultural and political life and history is based on the Parish system. To my mind, that is what we are left with. We can have a general election, we do not want to see the constituencies, we cannot have the Island-wide vote so that leaves us with the Parish system with all Members being elected on Parish or Parish district basis as Deputies are now, with a number of seats being distributed according to populations in the various Parishes. Some members of the public have suggested that

the hybrid system we have - a part Island-wide vote/part Parish vote for the Deputies - should be maintained but with all elected on the same day and for the same length of time. If you stop and think about that, it simply cannot work. There would be some advantages in having the Senators and Deputies elected on the same day. It would stop, for example, the undignified spectacle of unsuccessful Senatorial candidates scurrying back to their Parishes for the Deputies election. The real problem is why would any Deputy bother to run for an Island-wide mandate? Currently they do have an incentive and many of us in the Senatorial benches have indeed moved across from the Deputies benches in the past because we have had an incentive. We had the benefit of a 6-year term. Not only that, we had the safety net that if we were not successful we could, a few weeks after the Senatorial election, go back to the Deputies election if we so wished. To have the election on the same day with the same length of term, plus the cost of running a Senatorial campaign which is a lot more than running a Deputies campaign, there is absolutely no incentive for a Deputy who feels he can get re-elected in his Parish to run for a Senatorial seat. If he does not believe that he or she can get elected in his Parish he or she is not going to think he is very likely to get elected on an Island-wide mandate. So in all likelihood the only, or the majority of candidates, if we retained the hybrid system and have them all on the same day for the same length of time, would be those new to the States - people who have never stood before. I cannot see any advantage in that unless, of course, a candidate could stand for both Deputy and Senator on the same day and chance that he might get one of those posts. That, I think, would be most unsatisfactory. So that is what I would have; all effectively Deputies. But where does that leave the Constables? As I have said before, in many ways the Constables are the most important people in this Chamber but they are elected to do jobs and clearly those currently in office - as indicated by Deputy Le Hérissier - are totally competent to do that. We should divorce the current individuals and personalities from the post of Constable because I know, and I think many of us know, that there are people who would like to run for Constable and could be very good Constables indeed but will not stand because they do not wish themselves to be in the States. The opposite is true; there are individuals who have stood for the Constable's office simply because they wish to be in the States. If the Constable had the option it would no doubt increase the number of candidates, improving the democratic legitimacy of the post. I believe that any Constable once elected should have the choice of whether or not they stand for the States. They should have that choice whether they are successful at being a Constable, whether they are successful in a Constable's election or not. Even more importantly, not only should they be able to exercise that choice, the electorate should have the right to choose whether they want their Constable in the States or not. The reverse should also be true, that any States Member, Deputy or whatever it might be should be able to stand for election as Constable in his

home Parish. That, I think, is a much more democratic way ahead. Should we have a referendum? It depends. I certainly would not want a referendum with 4 or 5 different options put for people to tick a box or whatever because that will only add to the confusion and the contradictions which have undoubtedly come over the many polls - both the formal ones and the informal ones - that we have had in the past. I believe a referendum is the right way forward if it is simply a yes or no vote on a States decision based on a recommendation of the Privileges and Procedures Committee of exactly the sort of reform that we want. Should we have a smaller States? Undoubtedly. Smaller, more manageable, more efficient and more cohesive; something between 42 and 45 would probably be about right. To be honest, unless we have the sort of reform on the basis that I have spoken about, I cannot see anything better than what we have and what we have is not particularly good.

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

Following on from Deputy Le Hérissier and Senator Norman, experienced politicians both and very wise in many ways, but, oh dear, the starting point is: "How did we get here and what are we doing here?" We are standing here in an in committee debate. I think we are largely wasting our time - the rehearsal of prejudices as Deputy Le Hérissier says. Having said that, it is fairly obvious where I stand. I have put my opinions and my way forward down in 2 propositions which I want to get on and debate and either win or lose at some stage. I want that to happen soon because what is clear, as Senator Walker was pointing out yesterday, is there is a clear mood for change in the Island. No action is not an option. Having said that, how did we get here? Well, Clothier said very clearly all those years ago: "Take it or leave it; do not cherry-pick" and what have we done? What have we got? We have cherry-picked. We did not even pick the best cherries, I do not think. What we have produced was this limp and tired and really quite sad document, I think, that until it was amended by adopting option 5 did not even address the question of the role of the Constables which is absolutely vital to be addressed. Like it or not, that has to be addressed and it has to be addressed this time around. Option 5 appears there, on the piece of paper: "49 States Members, no Constables." Clearly misleading. No Constables per se, ex officio, in their role as Constables but possibly between nought and 12 Constables having stood for Constable and been elected for Constable, whose standing is saying: "I want to be your representative in the States." So, not even clearly and precisely and accurately defined. I am tempted by an F word; I am tempted by the word "fix"; instead I will settle on "fudge". It is certainly a fudge, a mess, something that if you set a group of 14 year-olds to come up with a set of options to decide the future of politics in Jersey and they came up with this, they would not be getting many marks, would they? And the way forward? We have these options which have been put forward to people in a survey, a survey which was very badly conducted, where most of the people taking part said they did not have the faintest what you were talking about: "We have not read the document but we will answer your questions." Great, the blind leading the blind up a blind alley in the dark. Yes, this is a lamentable document and I do not see the way forward. What is proposed in here, for example, in option one is 42 Members, Constables included. Well, I have done some work in Scrutiny and from the Back Benches. Thankfully, with the numbers game that we saw on a piece of paper yesterday, there were some spaces, one or 2, for people just to be a Back-Bencher. Well, I will tell you what I will be doing if that happens, 42 Members and the Constables in. I will be on there, a Back-Bencher, just chipping away when I feel like it because I would stop doing all this work that I am doing on Scrutiny. Senator Walker yesterday said: "I think option one is probably the best one; 42 Members and the Constables." Well, he would say that, would he not, because he would not be getting effective scrutiny; he would not be getting held to account. He would not be getting any scrutiny and no accountability at all because it simply would not work: 42 Members in this House with, as currently constituted, Ministerial government in the first year of this change; we do not want to be doing that. That, I do not believe, can be made to work with the best will in the world. It simply will not work. Then we are told, after we have this fudge circulated around, some people were consulted with at a first meeting at which 10 people attended, a record only beaten by the Transport Minister himself who can only get 6 to a meeting to consult on something. [Laughter] It is ridiculous. Then we are told the way forward somewhere in the future is we are going to a referendum. Now, I will say this and I will say it only once: a referendum based on the current electoral register will be a joke, a sham and a shame. While it may well work, and you may have accurate electoral registers in the country Parishes, I guarantee that if you did the test in St. Helier in many areas you would be lucky if you found one in 3 people where they are supposed to be on the register. You would be lucky if you found them alive because I have done it. I have knocked on the doors in the estates and you say: "Is Mr. Harris ?" and they go: "Oh, no, it was Mrs. Brown before me and I think there was a Mrs. Le Seelleur before that", so that is going to be at least 4 moves behind. "Have not been here for years." You say: "Mr. Harris ?" and they say: "No, he died 3 years ago", but he is still on the electoral register. That is the reality of St. Helier 's electoral register. I know what it is like in St. Saviour. Absolutely meaningless. What sort of turnout are you going to get? We talked about turnout today. Turnout is higher in the country Parishes simply because their register is accurate

and people are keen to turn up. St. Helier electorate is different and the register is way off target. That is why we get completely pitiful turnouts; it is a completely inaccurate register. That is a fact; I know it to be true. If we have a referendum you will be lucky if you get whatever your threshold is, if you get anywhere near it. What is your threshold? A third of the people turnout and a third of those vote for one of the options. What does that do? Unless we have an accurate register and there is something come up; it is called the Population Register which is going to come into place, we hope, next year. Unless we had that register up and running, then is the time for referendum, when we might have a chance of getting something through that is accurate, getting the information to people and getting them to respond. So, I am afraid, I feel very disillusioned by the whole process. I do not know where we are going to go with it but if we do not get on with it in fairly short order, and I doubt whether we have time to get a referendum in and get things moving in time

for the next elections, we will be sadly letting down the electorate. We need to get on and debate these issues. I believe the Privileges and Procedures Committee should have taken a lead. They should have come up with a model and said: "This is what we propose", brought it to the House and said: "Either vote for it or do not; amend it, change it, bring your own model, let us decide." We should be deciding now not just having a friendly chat in committee; this is getting us nowhere.

4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

I hope what I have to say will be taken positively rather than negatively. How many ways are there to skin a rabbit? Quite a lot. In solving any problem - and I hope I am not teaching my grandmothers how to suck eggs - you start at the beginning. You address what it is you want to address. You write down a whole set of things that you are going to have as starting points and I think some of the starting points that have been considered are these. We are thinking about reducing overall numbers. It has been mentioned that there are too many Members in the House and it has been suggested that perhaps a reduction to more manageable proportions might be something that we should be looking at. I would agree. The second thing that has arisen is how do we balance or re-balance the representation that has got slightly out of alignment? A number of comments have been made. Is it fair - and I am not picking on the Constable of St. Mary as a person but he has been used as an example - that a person can be elected on St. Mary on a very small mandate and have the same rights, privileges, freedoms and have the same chances of going for particular jobs in the system? Some people think that there is an element of unfairness in that so balancing or re-balancing the representation to more manageable proportions and trying to equalise across all the electoral districts is something that we have put on our list of things that need to be looked at. The other thing that is very important to pick up on - the falling interest in people voting for us or for their political system - is to re-establish and bring back to the people an interest in their government. That is why we are doing it. We want to revitalise the system in some shape or form. One thing that I think has been missed, although it has been hinted at by a number of Members, is we would like to have some greater focus or emphasis on policy on re-establishing democratic legitimacy - we all want to feel loved and wanted and that is one of the things that keeps us in the job - and accountability; we want to be more accountable. So what are we doing? We are trying to re-establish how we go about all these things and I think we have allowed ourselves, unfortunately, to miss a lot of the points. There are very simple ways that we could apply to address nearly all of these questions in a much fairer way. In order to do that we have to start again at the beginning; not back to the days of the Ark or Noah, but go back to the 1948 election changes and consider why we set up Senators. We heard from Deputy de Faye that one of the ideas that he had was to have rolling elections in order re-establish a 20 per cent proportion on a regular basis. Why do we set up 6 elections for 6 Senators in the form that we have set it up? Why do we set up Members and call them Senators? They were the senior Members of the House and in essence the idea of the government changes at that time was to allow a number of Members to take the senior positions. What has happened in the intervening period is that if you go back over the records we have had eminent Constables, eminent Deputies and eminent Senators take over the reigns of the presidential positions and run committees; everybody has made a contribution but in essence the real reason for setting-up the Senators was not strictly enforced or applied. Part and parcel of establishing an Island-wide mandate was to take into account that particular function of the Senators. People at that time recognised that it was a different job and they felt that it was vitally important for those Members who were going to be heading up the senior positions in the House to go out to the public and explain to them in whatever detail the public demanded why they thought themselves suitable for that position. I think we have cherry-picked, people say we are where we are but we are missing this essential point. Clothier has moved us even further in the direction of establishing an accountability and a power system, if you like. We have moved responsibilities from individuals in this House to the Ministerial benches. In the main, for the first time we almost had a clean sweep,

all Senators being Ministers, all Ministers being Senators bar one. I think that is absolutely right in the context of Ministerial government because, as I say, it is still absolutely right that senior positions in government should be held by those Members of the House who are looked up to not just be other Members of the House but by the public at large as well. We are missing the point by talking about the elimination of the Constables' role or just concentrating on numbers. We are placing the wrong emphasis on the job. We could quite quite simply - and it does not require very much in terms of a change in the Law and it could happen very, very quickly - change the Law in terms of the elections. What we do at the moment - and I consider it is back to front - is that we vote for Senators to be leaders of the House, although we do not necessarily imply that there is going to be a Ministerial job for them, but perhaps times are changing. We then go out and populate the rest of the States Chamber with the Deputies. Now I think that is back to front. What we should be doing is saying to ourselves, right, well, let us vote for Members of this House first, which is logical. It does not really matter how we do it. The Constables could be elected not as Constables to this House, and it is the definition that counts. I think we should not get too hung up on our titles or descriptions: if we consider ourselves to be Members of this House first it does not really matter, it is a bit of side issue, as to whether or not the Constables are in as a Member of this House or not in as a Member of this House. The key issue is that we elect Members of this House to be Members first of all, so in that way I think the Deputies' election, with or without Constables automatically returned to this Chamber - it is another issue, it does not have to be sorted out as yet - is the first thing that we should be doing. Now all that is required is to change the electoral Law so that we hold the Deputies' elections first. What happens then? Well, having established a number, and I think there is room in the argument to reduce the numbers by being a little bit innovative about it, we have to ask ourselves, do we want to retain the Island-wide mandate? And for the reasons I have described before I think we do because we would like as many Islanders as possible to be party to the discussions as to what makes us tick. Now we heard from Deputy Le Hérissier and he was asked what made his Constable tick on finance matters. I think these are legitimate questions that are asked of individual Members that the general ideas that we hold are not widely

understood or even thought about or discussed by the general public, and I think they should be. They would be under a party political system because politics is about policies and that is the meat and drink of the job. But in Jersey we seem to have drifted a little bit away from that towards the personality side and I think it is about time that we brought it back to the centre. So what could we do? Well, do we want to retain an Island-wide mandate? I think the answer is yes. Do we want an Island-wide mandate to be put forward in a form that is totally unworkable? Obviously no. And I think, in essence, the Island-wide mandate, as I have said before, was set up in order to establish senior Members of this House to do a particular job, and I think that could still happen. So what would happen? We would vote for Deputies or Members - whatever you want to call them - of this House and I think with the current structure for the electoral system there would have to be a second election but we have got a second election so there is no change in that respect. But the second election would be run sensibly for those Members having been elected to this House to put themselves to the Island on an Island-wide platform to be considered to be a senior Member for a Ministry. Now that would not necessarily have to imply a particular Ministry but it might. It would be up to the individual preference of the Member wanting to put his or her name forward into the hat for consideration to be seen to be a senior Member capable of running a particular Ministry. So, as I say, it is quite a simple system. It could happen very, very quickly. We just turn the elections back to front, we redefine, and this is the sneaky part of it, the Senator's job to be something that is a title that we take on as a Member of this House. So at a stroke, if you think it through, we can knock out 12 jobs. We do not have to establish in their own right 12 Senatorial positions ostensibly to do the jobs, we just take over that mantle as Members of the House. So we can achieve the 42, if you want, or perhaps a few more because I think there are some real problems, certainly in terms of balanced representation, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in St. Clement and one or 2 of the other Parishes. I think by doing that we solve all the problems in one go and pretty neatly and pretty simply with the minimum of input. We do not need electoral

commissions, we do not need wider constituencies. We can retain the historical and the heritage aspects of voting for people within their parochial districts until such a time as we feel that a greater change or a need for a change is evident. Now I think by doing that we solve the problem in a fairly neat way. Let us be clear, we would not be getting rid of Senators or Constables, we are just redefining the roles. So Constables can still be Constables, Senators would be Senators but we would all be the one thing that binds us in this House, and that is Members of this House with other titles. I think that is the way that I would solve it and I would certainly recommend that it be solved. Just a quick word on democratic legitimacy. If we are going to stick with Ministerial government, and I am assuming that we probably are going to, there are some unanswered questions that really need to be looked at in terms of where the power resides, and this was alluded to by Senator Syvret but not in any great depth or detail. We were told, Sir, that in the run up to the debate for Ministerial change that the central decision-making powers of this House would remain unchanged. I think there are certain anomalies within the Law, as it stands, that need to be looked at but I think, Sir, if we do move in this direction of identifying ourselves first and foremost as Members of this House - as I said with the different titles within it to reflect the level of seniority that is conferred upon our membership in particular directions - then even some of those problems that are developing within the States of Jersey Law might well be able to be overcome. I think I have probably said enough, Sir, and will probably, in the intervening period, seeing as we have been afforded another opportunity to bring forward amendments, I think that I might well put forward what I have just suggested as an amendment for the debate that is to come.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I just say to Members, I am noting down the names of Members indicating they wish to speak. I have quite a long list so any Members who have indicated, I will not overlook you but I currently have 8 or 9 people waiting to speak.

5. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence :

Just some thoughts really about this thorny problem, if it is a problem. The first question is do we really need to change? Yes, there seems to be from the surveys and we see it in the media as well, there seems to be some dissatisfaction with us as a body in the way we operate. However, I think one should also bear in mind that 80 per cent of the people in this Island are satisfied or very satisfied with the Island and living here. That must have something to do with the way we operate as well, I would suggest. So I am wondering whether, in fact, the sort of changes we are talking about are really necessary but maybe they are. If there has been a suggestion that we should have one general election I think P.P.C. need to give some very serious thought, if that is going to be a proposal, as to how we would have one general election in practice. Now I am not saying we necessarily have to stick with the present arrangements but assuming we continue to have Senators, Connétable s and Deputies in the States, at present we have a nomination meeting for Senators at the Town Hall Island-wide . Then we have a nomination meeting for Deputies in the Parish Hall s, or whatever, at the appropriate centre; and we have the same with Connétable s. Right, that is as far as the nomination meetings are concerned. Now let us think about the actual campaigns where everybody has got their posters up advertising that they are going to do one thing or another, maybe they are knocking on doors, maybe they are advertising. Then we get to the question of what about hustings? At the moment we have hustings around the Island for the Senators, we have hustings around the Island for Deputies and we have hustings around the Island for Constables. Gosh, 3 lots of hustings. Now maybe we do not need that, maybe we could find a way round that. But nevertheless it is all getting very, very confusing in my mind and I am sure it will be even more so in people outside the States as to what are these meetings all about? Who is standing for what? Who do we vote for? It seems to me that the idea of an Island-wide election is very attractive but if you are talking about 3 different classes of States Member then it becomes very confusing. Not to mention the actual election itself: I will not mention that because I think everybody has more or less recognised that. But the lead-up to the election could be extremely confusing and I think a lot of thought needs to be given to that. That is the practical side of it and it is very easy to say: "Oh well, okay, let us just agree. We will have an across-the-Island election, Island-wide " but how is it going to work in practice without confusing the electorate. Now a lot of people have said: "Well, why change?" and they have said: "Well, because we need to encourage elector turnout." Unless we are extremely careful I think we could discourage elector turnout because unless we can find an effective way of doing all those things, having nominations, having hustings, et cetera, across the Island for 3 different classes of Member all at the same time without confusing the electorate I think there is an extreme danger that, in fact, we go the other way. We would turn people off. They would say: "Well, I do not understand what is going on; I am not going to vote." Now maybe I am seeing problems where there are not any but I really would like somebody - and I think it is P.P.C. - to sit down and think about how this would work in practice because I cannot see it myself. I have not sat down and put a cold towel on my head to work it out, but I am sure somebody needs to do that. Talking about the Connétable s, I have got a particular interest in being a Connétable , it is quite often mentioned that the Connétable s have a right to sit in the States and they are elected with the right to sit in the States: "Okay, well I am off, cheerio, carry on." That is not the case at all. I have an obligation to sit in the States. It is a different thing. It is not like a right where you can just pick and choose and say: "Well, maybe I can go sit in the States today, maybe I will not tomorrow." The Connétable is as much a States Member as anybody else. Has exactly the same responsibilities and has the same role to fulfill, in addition to running the Parish. But it can be described as 2 separate jobs and in some ways it is. The role in the States is very different to the role in the Parish, or is it? Actually, we are all representing our electorate. Now one of my Deputies mentioned that he was elected by 1,000 members of the electorate in St. Lawrence. So was I, first time round. I was not the second time round and I will admit that. I was called upon by a party who asked me to stand again, I was very flattered by it. Probably erroneously I said yes, but nevertheless there was nothing to stop somebody else standing if they wished to. Nobody was banned from standing. So I feel I have as much right to be in this Chamber as anybody else in a position, and there are Deputies, particularly - I do not think Senators - but there are Deputies in this House who have not faced an election last time round in the same way as Connétable s. There are Connétable s who will face elections, and my colleague on the right here is going to face an election, although he has been through an election already when he was re-elected without opposition, but he is facing an election next time round. So it does happen. So this is a myth that Connétable s do not have to face election from time to time. It is no different to certainly some of the Deputies. I think we should keep the Parish system. I think the Parish system, as Deputy Norman said, is basic to this Island. It is part of our heritage, there are so many aspects of Island life that are based on the Parish and the Connétable has a particular role and the Deputies have a particular role in their Parishes, or in their districts. They vary I am sure because everybody's approach is different. Some are more approachable than others and they will get involved in various aspects within parochial life or whatever. But I think there is nothing wrong with the present system and the way that that works. I think, just going back to a general election if I may say so, the only way it seems to me around this problem - unless P.P.C. can come up with a solution - is that whereas a general election across the Island in my view would work if we had one class of Member with exactly the same terms, I do not see that it is going to work terribly well in any other case. It has been suggested that we should make some small changes. I am not sure; it

depends on those changes. If, for example, we reduce the number of States Members from 53 to 49 do we really think that will stop people saying the number of States Members should be reduced? I think it will make no difference at all. Certainly if we do not need 53 and we can get away with 49, that is a different issue altogether. But if we are doing it just as a sop to the electorate then I think that is the wrong approach to take. On the other hand, if we do not just make small changes but we make extensive changes that is a much more high-risk strategy. In any business situation you keep changes to a manageable level so that you can see whether in fact those changes are effective or not. As I say, if we go down the road of a general election with 3 classes of States Members and we do not have the whole thing thought out properly upfront, we could go and shoot ourselves not

in one foot but in both feet. But maybe if we do think that there should be some sort of change, we should be seen to be doing something, then maybe we do look at 49 but I think we have got to do that for the right reason. Perhaps we can do as Senator Shenton suggests and reduce the number of Senators to 8. But we still have the problem about the Island-wide mandate and the parochial or district, even if you call it a district, one against the other you say: "Well, how are you going to handle that in practice so you do not confuse and turn off the electorate?" Talking about districts as opposed to Parishes, I think there are a number of downsides to that. There is an attraction to it. But if you are going to have districts why do you not just go for the whole hog and say Island-wide , everybody the same? Anybody in the Island can stand to represent the Island. Do they have to represent a district or a Parish for that matter? On the other hand, if you do that you lose a lot of value of the present Parish system whereby people can relate to individuals in their Parish who hopefully will understand more readily their particular problem and help them with it. So I am not in favour of the idea of new electoral districts. I think that is just creating a new situation, more bureaucracy and so on, and unless you end up with one class of States Member right across the Island then I think a general election is fraught with risk. But I am not saying we should not do it, but I think what we should do is be very sure before we do it that it is going to have the desired effect. I am not sure that any of this we are talking about is going to necessarily have the desired effect. We are told that the reason for doing it is voter turnout and we have got to improve that. We have got no proof that if we go down the road of any of these things that it will have that effect at all. There is no proof and I realise there cannot be. But it is not a given. I come back to this statistic shown in the M.O.R.I. (Market and Opinion Research International) poll of 80 per cent of people being satisfied. Then I look at the dissatisfaction with the States, now is anybody happy with their government anywhere in the world? I suspect very few people are. If they are asked the question: "On balance, no, I am not very happy." It is not helped by the media because the only way that the electorate really get a flavour of what is going on is by reading the newspapers, listening to the radio, looking at television. We all know that good things are not as interesting from a media point of view as bad things. It is just life. It is the way it is. No news is good news is the saying. But good news is no news. So there is a little bit of good news that is reported almost in a jocular sort of way. But does anybody go out of their way to report really good things that have happened? I think people tend to make interesting stories out of little things perhaps that have gone wrong, and nothing is going to go right all the time, that just is not reality. So dissatisfaction: I am not sure. The 2 do not go hand in hand, do they? Eighty per cent of people are happy to live in Jersey but something like I have forgotten what the percentage was now - but quite a large percent are dissatisfied with the States - it is about 50/50. Well, you know, they are not satisfied with the States because we are talking about introducing G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) - or whatever it might be - environmental taxes. But maybe the result of those environmental taxes will be a better environment, hopefully. It will be. Which improves the satisfaction with living in Jersey so we can look at statistics until the cows come home but I do not - that is perhaps an unfortunate phrase at the moment - nevertheless I think statistics can be misinterpreted or relied upon too much, and after all at the end of the day the feedback is from a very small percentage of the population. Where does that leave us? Well, maybe we reduce the number of States Members to 49, perhaps. But why are we doing it? Does it really achieve anything? Yes, it could achieve the saving of 4 lots of Members' pay no doubt, so that is perhaps worth considering from that point of view, but it has got to be for the right reason. We could have one Island-wide election for Senators, Deputies and Connétable s. I have the feeling that it would be a lot easier if we had an Island-wide election for Connétable s but at a different time. It would help the problem of having

Island-wide elections and how we handle them. But, you know, that is more to be thought about. Referendum: bit worried about that because referenda depend very much on the questions that are asked and how they are framed and one can read all sorts of things. We have got these M.O.R.I. polls and we have all tried to read meanings into the results already without going as far as a referendum. We, in this Chamber, have a fair idea about what is required in this Chamber. We do not necessarily do everything the best way, the most efficient way that we could, and that is

something that perhaps as a separate issue we ought to look at. Do we operate in the most effective and efficient way? One of the reasons for Ministerial government was to improve that and to become more effective and efficient. It is anybody's view as to whether that is being achieved or not, but that was the reason for doing that. Is reducing the number of States Members going to achieve that? I cannot speak for everybody in this Chamber but I know that I am pretty busy and I have a boat in the harbour which I went out on 4 times last year, I have not been out on it at all this year. I used to go out at least once every 2 weeks through the year. Now that is just my own sad little story, but nevertheless that, I am sure, applies to a lot of us - if not all of us - in this Chamber. The idea of a referendum, let us just come back to that. Can we honestly say - any one of us - that we knew exactly what was involved when we stood to be a Member of this House? Twenty hours a week says a certain Deputy over there. I was talking to a new Member of this House - if you can still talk about a new Member of this House, somebody who came in at the last election only the other day - and he said to me: "I had no idea the amount of work that was involved and the commitment that was required." I can say the same. I am sure we can all say the same. Now are we then going to just say to people in the street, who generally I have found - this is my own personal experience - have very little clue in reality about what we do in this Chamber, the amount of time it takes, the commitment that is required. Are we going to say to these people who, with the best will in the world, will do their best I am sure to answer any questions correctly as far as they are aware, are they going to decide how best to run this Chamber when they have never had the experience of sitting in it. I think that is a very, again, high risk strategy. So one other thing that has been mentioned is terms of 3 years, or 4-year terms. Yes, that could easily be introduced as a one-off. I do not have any particular views on that but maybe we could do that. But that really is not achieving a great deal. So all in all (a) I am not really convinced that we keep regurgitating this issue time and time and time again. I have been in the House now for something like 4 and a bit years and I cannot remember how many times we have debated it. Each time it seems like we have dealt with it but no it keeps rearing its head again. I think one way or the other, what we need to do is if we are going to change let us get on and do it or decide that we are not going to and forget it, and let us get on with the job we were elected to do instead of fluffing around on this

particular subject as we have time and time and time again.

6. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

We have had people who have suggested to this Assembly that there is a clear mood for change. I offer a word of caution. There cannot be very many people in this Assembly or out there who cannot realise that we have just had one of the most major changes in reform of this States since the Second World War. We have moved to a Ministerial system. It appears to be moving forward but not without its teething problems, both in the Executive and in Scrutiny. We need to think very, very carefully in the way we move forward in any other major changes at this time. I might add I am putting forward my own views at the moment and not the general views of our Committee. We look for increase in representation of the electorate in this Island. As the previous speaker has mentioned, the majority - the vast majority - of people on this Island are happy with their lot. The difficulty with being happy with your lot is sometimes you become complacent and you do not take political moves any further forward. We have also a problem I believe in the way that the society of our Island has changed over the last 25/30 years. We have seen a huge influx of people from England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Portugal, Poland. All these people are recent arrivals in Jersey. And I say recent: over the last 25 years or so. The political heartland of these people still rests in their home countries. There are people, I am sure, from Scotland who are far more interested in Scott ish evolution than they are in what happens in this Chamber. It would appear that more than 50 per cent of our Island are made up of such people. If the Island has this 80 per cent pure satisfaction they are not going to come to the voting table. Senator Kinnard yesterday mentioned the fact we were trying to get more women into this House. Well, when I came back to the Island some 11 years ago I attended a group called Profile in Politics whose role was to encourage women - I have to say there were a few men that attended the course, it was not just women - to encourage them to join the States. I completed the full number of courses and at the end the whole group were asked who would stand for the States? Two people put their hand up, I was one and the other was a gentleman also. Efforts were made but you cannot force people to take up the role. If I can just move on to what we have been talking about today and the various reforms. I think it is at our peril if we interfere with the parochial system as it stands at the moment. The parochial system is the heart of Jersey. The running of the municipality via the Constable is the lifeblood of Jersey. It is our history, it is our culture. There are people I am sure who have come in from other countries who find it difficult to understand what we do in Jersey - this rather unique system. But I think it is unique and I think there is a lot to say for it. I am certainly a person who believes that when I vote for my Constable I vote for him as a Member of the States of Jersey and I would not want to see that tinkered with in any way at all. I see possibly the need for a 4-year term of office because as new Members will have found out it takes at least a year to settle into the environment that you are operating in and a 4-year term of office would help better continuity within the States. The Island itself, I believe - the people of this Island - still feel that there is a large place for the Island-wide mandate and I would agree with them. The actual democratic representation that we have via the Constable who you can vote for, via the Deputy that you can vote for, and by the Senator you can vote for gives you more democratic viability in some cases than England. Sir, to sum up, I again offer a caution to this house not to go for a radical change when we have already made that radical change. It needs time to bed-in.

7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Being one of the newer Members of the Assembly I have listened with interest to the clamour - sometimes vociferous - of a group of people that want to change everything literally overnight. Can I say that in the 15-odd months that I have been a States Member I have not had one phone call about reform of the States and I have not had one letter about reform of the States, so I do not know whether it is me out of sync or whatever but I have not had much interest. Can I get back to the work of the Privileges and Procedures Committee and we are told by their M.O.R.I. poll that 75 per cent of the public are very interested in the States. I find that a really significant statistic. It means there are a lot of people out there who are very interested in the work we do. What we have to do is convert the satisfaction factor of that interest into an improved statistic. It might be useful in the next few minutes that I speak to you, to look at some of the reasons why the public may be disaffected or may be disinterested or maybe not impressed with what we do. Can I say at the outset that when we reform the States and when we talk about the reform of the States we try and stay away within the context of this in committee debate on what I would call - with all respect to Deputy Troy - the Troy Rule because nothing will turn the public off faster than us discussing the relationship and the ratios between Executive and non-Executive because I think it is too complex at the moment to deal with that. Let us deal with how we reform this Chamber and how move on afterwards. One of the reasons the public criticise us is that sometimes we change things too quickly and sometimes we change things too slowly. As the previous speaker has just said, we are probably the only jurisdiction in Western Europe that has switched to Ministerial government in a very short period of time, abandoned its old income tax system - about to change it for a new income tax system - change its corporate tax system and, as we know, a system of direct tax to indirect tax over a very short period of time. Somebody said yesterday - I think it was Deputy Gorst - that we should have evolution and not revolution and I therefore think that we should be extremely careful about how we dismantle and change the electoral system. I think one of the things we can do to make it easier for people to get in contact with us or get in touch with us is make it easier to vote, and within the parameters of what P.P.C. has done so far I would suggest that P.P.C. look at making it easier to vote - online registration perhaps, online voting and smart voting. I also think that we should have a general election on a single day, and I would advocate an election day for 2 types of States Members; Deputies and Constables. I also think an election day should be in the summer. I do not know why we have elections in October and November,

notwithstanding the election of Constables. I would advocate an election day in May or June when there are no school holidays, no half terms and no obvious clashes - you get more people out. One election day in May or June must be easy to find. In St. Brelade between October 2005 and February 2006 we had 4 elections. There was a 47 per cent turnout for Senators. A few weeks later it was a 40 per cent turnout for Deputies. There was a 30 per cent for the contested elections for Constable in St. Brelade and then, finally, we had Procurers elections and we had a turnout of 19 per cent. I think in that short period of time it is too much to expect voters to go out and vote 4 times. It simply does not work. I was elected a short 15 months ago and I have to go to the polls again next year if I decide to stand again. I do believe that 3 years is too short and I do believe that it should be a 4-year term for all States Members. We definitely need more women in this Assembly and I would like to have some more women [Laugher] sorry, I would definitely like to have more women in this Assembly. Senator Kinnard suggested that there are not enough women and I agree. Can I go down memory lane for a minute and remind current Members of some of the great former female Members of the Senate that were here, and I mention briefly - and some of them I hope will forgive me if I left them out - former Senators Jane Sandeman, Betty Brooke, Anne Baal, Gwyneth Huelin, Corrie Stein, to name a few. In St. Brelade and St. Lawrence 2 special ladies broke the mould and became Constables; Enid. Quénault and Iris Le Feuvre. Former Constable Mrs. Quénault served for 24 years in this Assembly, 12 years as a Deputy and 12 years as a Constable, and that is a pretty awesome reputation. We tamper with the Parish system at our peril, and why do I say that? I was not born here, as you know. I have been here 25 years and I have had no honorary service, but for hundreds of years the Parish and the honorary system has served this Island well. If I may be allowed to say this, the Parish system is part of the rich tapestry of Island life and if we were to consider dismantling this great system we are talking about peeling- off and abandoning part of the culture, the fabric and, indeed, part of what was the very stability and is the stability of Island and Parish life. If you were to tell any self-respecting Frenchman that they would have to abandon the system of the Mairie in any bourg, in any town or any city in France I would expect that you would have another French Revolution in the sixth republic pretty quickly, and that is how important I regard the Jersey system to this Island. It would be like telling Irishman that you would have to abandon the Irish language and the Irish music and Irish culture, it simply would not be acceptable - and the Guinness. One of the things that I notice that has been said to me - not recently - is the issue of Members that have been returned unopposed. I would like to deal with this for a couple of minutes, and this is an observation and not a criticism of Members who have been returned unopposed. In November 2005 in the election for Deputies, 6 Deputies were returned unopposed and they were - lucky for them - in St. Ouen, Trinity , St. Martin, Grouville , St. Peter and, of course, St. Saviour No. 3, the great orator of the Chamber. And since October 2005 there have been 7 elections for Constables in this Assembly. There were contested elections in St. Martin and St. Brelade but 5 Constables were elected unopposed; and they were Trinity , St. Ouen, St. Mary, St. Lawrence and St. John. If you look at the statistics therefore: 11 Members have been returned unopposed out of an election of 36 Members since November 2005. Eleven out of 36 is 30.5 per cent and I think that may be one of the reasons why there is a perception of discontent with this Assembly. Now I am absolutely certain that the residents of those Parishes who proposed and seconded those Members who are unopposed are very happy with their elected Members, and there has not been an issue about that, but inevitably Parishes do return Deputies unopposed and they do it if they are happy with the incumbent Deputy . However, the high rate of return of Constables unopposed is probably due to a number of factors. Number one, they do 2 jobs. They sit in this Chamber and they run a Parish. Number 2, it is probably unattractive for a lot of Parish people to become a Constable and the role of a Constable involves an enormous amount of Parish work and is demanding. Constables have traditionally worked their way up within the honorary system and the Parish system, although that is now changing. I believe that the perception of the role of the Constable is misunderstood in some of the urban Parishes, and I believe that is a communications issue that the Comité des Connétable s could probably look at. The cumulative effect of Members being returned unopposed is an Island-wide issue. It does not

do Jersey politics and a perceived role of the States any good, and I think it is an issue we have to deal with, and I will deal with that in a few minutes. Moving on then, if we look at the election for Deputies. At the moment we have got 17 districts and 12 Parishes. We have an extra district in St. Brelade, we have got 2 extra in St. Helier and 2 extra in St. Saviour . In my view there are too many districts. My recommendation on this, therefore, to P.P.C., would be to simplify the constituencies in St. Brelade, St. Saviour and St. Helier and initially get back to 12 districts. Many have said that Parish representation is not representative. If we look at the combined representation of Constable and Deputy in the Parishes we see there is very little difference in statistical representation between St. Clement , St. Helier and St. Brelade , which is on your sheets in R.97. However, I do believe that you cannot take the figure for St. Helier on its own because I do believe that St. Helier No. 3 and No. 4 is under-represented and I do believe that St. Helier No. 1 and No. 2 are over-represented. So I believe there should be one constituency in St. Helier. In the elections in the Parishes if you look at the pattern of voting for Deputies; in St. Helier No. 3 and No. 4, Deputies Hilton, Huet and Fox all comfortably topped over 1,100 votes; Deputy Hilton had 1,400 and Deputy Fox had 1,100. If you look at what has happened in St. Saviour and St. Helier in other parts of that conurbation, whereas those 3 names - Hilton, Huet and Fox - had well over 1,100/1,200 votes down at the other end there were Members who were elected with 300, 400 and 500 votes. So I think there needs to be a major revision of the way the constituencies and the districts are done in St. Helier and St. Saviour. I would like now to deal with the role of the Parish Deputy with a 4-year term and how that Deputy would deal with Island-wide issues. I do not think it is an issue and I think there are good examples of Parish Deputies who carry out Island mandates and Island responsibilities. The first one that springs to mind is Deputy de Faye who is a Minister. I think he carries out his role as the Island Minister for Transport and Technical Services as a Parish Deputy . The Deputy of Grouville has Island-wide responsibility for arts and culture and she does that well. The Deputy of St. Peter is acknowledged as being an expert in emergency management. Deputy Gorst is in the Chief Minister's Office. I, myself, have been associated with sea routes, links with France and