States Meeting Transcript - 17/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 17th JULY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................5

1. Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.82/2008)................................................................................5

1.1 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ..........................................................................................5

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................6
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................7
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :.....................................................................9
4. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.......................................................9
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................11
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................11
7. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................12
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................14
9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................15
10. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................16
11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................17
12. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................18 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................18
13. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:......................................................19
14. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................21
15. Senator L. Norman:..................................................................22
16. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:................................................22
17. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:.......................................................23
18. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................23 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................26 Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ....................................................................26 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................26
19. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................26
20. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................27
21. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................28
22. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:....................................................28
23. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................28
24. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier:....................................................29
25. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................29
26. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................30
27. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................30 The Attorney General:........................................................................32 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................32 Deputy P.J.D Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):..........................33 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................33 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................33 Senator P.F. Routier:..........................................................................34 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................34 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................34 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................34 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ...................................................34 Deputy P.J.D Ryan: ..........................................................................34 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................35 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................35

2. Draft Food Costs (Offset of Average G.S.T.) Bonus (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.90/2008)...............................................................................35

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................35

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................36
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................36 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................37 Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity (Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):..................37

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................37

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
2. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................37
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................37 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................38

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................38

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
2. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................38
3. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................38
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................39 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................39
5. Senator P.V.F. Routier:.................................................................39 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................39
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................40

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................41

3. Brompton Villa, Belize House and Belize Cottage/Store, Great Union Road, St. Helier : proposed Deed of Arrangement (P92/2008)....................................41

3.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (Assistant Minister, Treasury and Resources Department - rapporteur):.............................................................................42

1. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................42
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................42
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................42 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................42

4. Tevielka, La Rue de la Haye du Puits, Grouville : proposed Deed of Arrangement for southwest boundary (P.93/2008)........................................................42

4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (Assistant Minister, Treasury and Resources Department- rapporteur):.............................................................................43 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................43

5. Draft Companies (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Law 2008 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.109/2008)..............................................................................43

5.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................43

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................44

6. Draft Referendum (Adoption of Central European Time) (Jersey) Act 200- (P.110/2008)..............................................................................44

6.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................44 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................44 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................44 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................44 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................45

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................45

7. Draft Howard Davis Farm (Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 200-. ............45

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (Assistant Minister, Treasury and Resources Department - rapporteur):.............................................................................45

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................46
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................46
3. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................46

4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................46 The Bailiff :...................................................................................46

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel)..........................47

2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................47
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................47

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................48
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................48
3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................48
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................49
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................50
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................50
7. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................50
8. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................51 The Bailiff :...................................................................................52

4. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................53

7.4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................53 The Bailiff :...................................................................................53

8. Draft European Communities Legislation (Implementation) (Bovine Semen) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.43/2008)............................................................53

8.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................54 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................60

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................60
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................61
3. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................65
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................67
5. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................70
6. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................71
7. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................73
8. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................74

9. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................75
10. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................76
11. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................77
12. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................77
13. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................80
14. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................82
15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................86 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................88 The Attorney General:........................................................................88 The Bailiff :...................................................................................89

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................89

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.82/2008)

The Deputy Bailiff :

The next matter of public business is the Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations - Projet 82 - lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of the Order in Council of 28th March 1771, have made the following Regulations.

1.1 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

There has never been any legislation in Jersey to regulate election expenses and this, if agreed, therefore will be the very first. This legislation is being brought forward as triennial Regulations for 2 main reasons. Firstly and most importantly it will allow the measures to be in place for this autumn's elections. Secondly, it will allow the next P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) to learn from the lessons of the operation of the Regulations this year and refine the permanent legislation as necessary. Triennial Regulations have some drawbacks; the most notable of which is that they cannot amend primary legislation. As a result it has not been possible, for example, to provide that a person who is found to have committed a serious breach of this legislation should be disqualified from office. These matters could be covered in future legislation. I should state that they will only apply to elections for Members of this Assembly and will not apply to elections for Procureurs or Centeniers. P.P.C. feel that these Regulations will provide a level playing field. Although there is no firm evidence that spending money can enable a person to be elected to the States, it is apparent to P.P.C. that the current absence of any control leads to the lack of a level playing field. For example, a wealthy Senatorial candidate who can afford to print an expensive, glossy leaflet and mail it to every elector at a cost of over £17,000 for postage alone is likely to become much better known than the candidate of more modest means who cannot afford to do this. Placing a monetary limit on how much a candidate can spend is a feature of many democratic systems. The aim of these Regulations is to limit candidates' expenditure and to know the source of funding. Concerns have been raised in the past about lack of transparency in election funding. There have been allegations - many of which are probably unfounded - that some candidates have received large sums of money for their campaign from individuals or corporate donors. Up to now there has been no way for the public to know what sums have been given to a candidate. The candidates will have to reveal from whom they have received donations. They will not be able to receive anonymous gifts. Third party campaigning is another issue that has never been regulated. Although third party campaigning is not common in Jersey, there are currently no restrictions in place if an individual organisation wants to spend significant amounts of money to favour one or more candidates or prejudice others. As I will explain when the individual Regulations are discussed, this was one of the most difficult areas to address in the legislation. It is part of the reason why the preparation of the legislation took longer than the Committee had hoped. In limiting the amount that can be spent by candidates, P.P.C. investigated the possibility of providing a free posting to all candidates. Jersey Post proposed 2 options; one was a package addressed to the occupier containing a manifesto of each candidate. Unfortunately weight restrictions meant if there were 15 or more candidates for the position of Senator then there would have to be 2 or 3 packages. We are also advised that these packages would be delivered over the course of the week and from our experience some electors for whatever reason would say they have not received some or all of the packages. The cost would be in the region of 83 pence per elector. With an electoral roll of 54,000 this would amount to over £44,000 and this is just for the Senatorial elections. This amount would not include cost of packing the items nor the cost of the leaflet the candidate would have to produce. However, the Committee is not convinced that this would be fair to candidates as the position of the leaflet or the sequence in which it was delivered would not provide a level playing field for them. The other option was for each candidate to post his or her election address to each elector. Jersey Post said that because of J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) Regulations they would not be able to offer a discount greater than that offered to other customers, which is about 10 per cent. With local postage at 35 pence this would be reduced to 3.15 pence after the discount. With a possibility of 15 candidates and 55,000 electors the cost would be prohibitive. Nevertheless we have approached the J.C.R.A. In their reply they said special rules would apply. P.P.C. have written to Jersey Post. In their reply they have indicated that they are unable to provide a cheaper service. I should point out that in the U.K.'s (United Kingdom) electoral legislation there is an obligation on the postal authority to provide each candidate with a free  mailing to  each elector.   There is of course a restriction on the weight of the package. Unfortunately triennial Regulations do not allow us to impose this requirement on Jersey Post but it needs to be considered by the next Committee. We felt that the fairest and most cost-effective way was to offer candidates a space in an electoral supplement contained within the Jersey Evening Post. Each candidate would be offered a standard space. Copies of the supplement would be made available at Morier House, Cyril Le Marquand House and at Parish Hall s. They would also be able to use the Election Jersey website to publish their material. This will also be a standard size. There are 2 amendments that will be addressed as the Assembly goes through the Regulations. No other amendments have been lodged and Members, therefore, have a simple choice today to approve the Regulations with or without amendments, or to reject them meaning that no control would be in place in this autumn's elections. P.P.C. believes that this would be an unacceptable way forward and even if the legislation might be refined and built on future elections, P.P.C. considers that these Regulations will be a significant step forward and a major contribution to a fairer system. I move

the principles, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

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

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

I think it is important that we do have legislation in this area so I congratulate the P.P.C. for coming forward with something. I appreciate in triennial Regulations this will probably need to be refined, as pointed out by the Chairman this morning. Two areas I think that need to be considered in the future have already been spoken about - well, one of them anyway - in relation to the delivering service and that which is available in the United Kingdom. I believe that there is now a competitor in the marketplace for deliveries in the postal sector and I believe a new company has just entered into the market. So it may be that in the future there will be another service that might be able to offer a cheaper delivery service than Jersey Post. I have heard some interesting stories as to why the rates of the Jersey Post increased over the year. I think that some of those stories - maybe we will leave them as stories - are quite interesting. It is very expensive to post out through Jersey Post. One of the problems I think with these current Regulations coming before us has been that many Members have found themselves extremely busy of late. I think that Members would have liked to have had an opportunity to perhaps bring more amendments if they had had a little bit more time but that is no fault of the P.P.C. One of the areas I would like to maybe disagree with is the area of not allowing there to be an opportunity to take an advert out in the Jersey Evening Post on the night before the election. In the last Senatorial elections I booked space with an advertising company and I reserved one page for the night before the election because I was running in a political party and there was a certain amount of competition, shall we say, from those that would not want to see political parties succeed. We saw a banner advertisement taken out with the names of those people who had supported States Members parking, encouraging the electorate not to vote for those Members who had supported it. Although I did support parking for States Members because I believe it is a necessity for those that come from outside of town, I do not use it because I have my own parking space in town.

Senator M.E. Vibert :

I hate to interrupt the Deputy but this comes under part 4 of the provisions which I thought we would be debating individually later on about advertising the day before and so on.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think he is addressing the principles at the moment which cover matters like that. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Rather than getting into a long-winded breakdown of each article, I thought it would have been best for me to take up this opportunity. There were not any Members flashing their lights to speak and the Deputy Bailiff was searching for a speaker so I have stood up to talk. [Laughter] Senator Ozouf was just about to rise when I pipped him to the post. The point I am trying to make here - and it is disappointing that I am being deflected because I think it is an important issue - is it is in the Regulations. What I would like when we get to that part of it is to not support that part of it. I am trying to explain why I believe it is not a good idea to support that kind of a restriction. On the night before the election, as I said, the advert was taken out identifying those States Members that had supported the parking but it did not clearly identify all of those that had supported the States parking. It encouraged the electorate to kick certain Members of this Assembly out. I found that to be pretty poor - another example of dirty tricks during that election - and I found it disappointing because in previous efforts of mine to identify how Members had voted, it was insisted upon by the people that I was trying to place the advert through to the Jersey Evening Post that it could not be an anonymous advert and it had to have the name of the person that was putting the advert in. I was written to and told that what did I expect as I was trying to influence the outcome of an election I should be identified. So I scratched my head when this advert appeared not identifying the person that had placed it in. The Jersey Evening Post said that it would review its practice of this because of the complaints that it received from those of us that had unfairly been identified in that way. I wrote a letter which was kindly put into the newspaper by the editor of the Jersey Evening Post identifying the other people that had supported the parking which had not been identified in this advert. I pointed out the reasons why I had supported States Members parking. But surprise, surprise, surprise having edited my letter, the names were removed so I used my advert on that last day to include those names and to state my case again. Had I not had the opportunity or had I been disallowed that opportunity then that dirty trick could have perhaps done me some serious damage and other candidates as well unfairly. Some Members who were identified by my advert were jolly cross at me and I think they still probably are. But I think that if we focus on the issue itself which is debarring Members from taking out adverts on the last day then those Members have no opportunity whatsoever to correct last minute dirty tricks that occur in elections in this Island. I know it is pathetic but I was not the one playing the dirty tricks. If we do

not have the opportunity to defend ourselves then we are just encouraging more of this nonsense. So I congratulate the P.P.C. for bringing forward this work but I would hope that we would be able to not approve that section in particular because I think this allows Members the opportunity of taking out an advert at an important time. Maybe they can tell us why they believe it should be removed but then are we restricting any political content or any particular printing in the Jersey Evening Post a week before the elections? Are we restricting any comments? Are we restricting any contributions and letters? Are we restricting any inserts that anybody would wish to put in there? We are. I am sure the Chairman will inform us as to why my concerns are reasonable or why they are not.

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will leap to the defence of Deputy Le Claire in some respects. He was absolutely quite right I think to address the Assembly in the preamble on the fact of we are debating the principles of these Regulations. I am happy for the avoidance of any doubt to be transparent. I will be one of those Members of the Assembly that will be standing obviously in the elections. For the avoidance of any doubt I am happy to disclose the amount of money that I have in my election campaign and of course the source of funds which, of course, are my own funds as most other Members of the Assembly. There is a view I think somewhere in the Assembly that somehow people are getting third party funds or third party assistance inappropriately. I am not sure where some of these suggestions come from. Nevertheless I confirm for the avoidance of any doubt that I am perfectly happy to disclose and it is all my money if I spend on elections. We are effectively being asked to pass a piece of legislation brought forward by P.P.C. in the form of triennial Regulations. P.P.C. are supposed to be the benchmark. They are supposed to be the guardians of good practice, good procedure and effectively setting the standards for this Assembly. Other Ministers and other Back- Benchers if they were to bring forward triennial Regulations would be given a very hard time. I do not think that P.P.C. have covered themselves in glory in relation to this. We are dealing with rushed legislation at the last minute in the last sitting of the States Assembly through the backdoor method [Approbation] of triennial Regulations which do not have the safeguards that other pieces of legislation brought. This is the P.P.C. that is supposed to be holding the standards. I can hear probably some comments from the Back-Benchers of the Ministerial Senatorial benches here. We are a coalition of independents in relation to the Council of Ministers but certainly the members of the Council of Ministers on this issue certainly have not represented my interests on this issue. I think that there should be a debate about whether or not we should be rushing triennial Regulations in the way in which we have. Who has audited, who has scrutinised this legislation? Any other Minister has the requirement of the calling at the principle stage of a Scrutiny Panel that has the ability to block the forward transition of that. Sometimes I do not like Deputy Southern 's or indeed Deputy Duhamel's ability to do that but it is an important safeguard and a control. Who has done this on this occasion? Who has scrutinised this legislation to ensure that all the best practice is there? This time we are really dealing with a fast-tracked piece of legislation I think  in an uncomfortable position. I am sorry but I do not have the confidence of some other Members of this Assembly in the way in which P.P.C. has been conducting its vital responsibilities. I would cite one example that I wrote to P.P.C. in relation to a matter. I think it was on 14th June. I received a letter yesterday, not even addressing me properly with my proper initials, 3 days after it is standards is it not, Sir? It is standards. You should behave in a manner I think that sets the standard and P.P.C. writing to me - a written letter not even an e-mail - a month after I have said effectively they seem to operate in a slow motion fashion. I think that that is not the P.P.C. that we need to ensure that this Assembly functions. They have important responsibilities. Sir, at the end of the day we are wanting to create an environment which has fair and transparent elections. We also want an election which has a policy rich environment. Not personality politics but policy issues. I am somewhat concerned that some of these arrangements could effectively mean that we mute the public debate on important issues on policies. Of course we should not have the issue of American elections where you are buying yourself into office. We, of course, want to put in place

controls to stop all that. I support all of that which is why I will be supporting the principles of this. But I do not want also an environment which mutes that policy-rich election situation. The question we have to ask ourselves is are the arrangements that are being put forward in these triennial Regulations - as rushed as they are - going to mean that we could mute a policy rich election? I will give Members, Sir, one example. As a Minister I am expected to speak to my brief in the discharging of my Ministerial duties. I have not in the last 3 to 6 years spoken on other policy issues relating to other areas of the States. In an election year it is right that I do so. It is right that we all do. It is right that we inform the electorate, we inform the people of Jersey what we think on individual issues and what we would do as an individual to try and change things. I am one of the Members that are going to stand in this election which will be commenting which will be putting ideas of how I think that we should be improving the Island, how we can improve the lives of everybody. We all will be doing that. Will the media report it in an election year? I am told by the media this morning that they will not report a speech that I gave last week in relation to Assembly reform. They will not do so because it is election year. Quite right, I should not be given any single advantage over somebody else but where does that leave me? Where does that leave me to communicate with the Island community about the things that I believe in? I want all people who stand for election to have the opportunity of communicating with their electors what they think. Is an insert in the J.E.P. - we have not been told how many words that is - going to be sufficient in order to communicate what our policies are? I want a policy-rich election process. The question that Members need to ask themselves is are these Regulations while well intentioned and while certainly needing to deal with some of the potential dark side of politics in terms of money, are they going to mute to such an extent that we do not have a policy-rich election? That I mean from whatever political perspective you have.

3. Senator M.E. Vibert :

Methinks the Senator doth protest too much. We look at the business, 32 items listed for the last day of business; one by P.P.C., 4 laws from Economic Development. [Aside] Exactly, laws with very little time to scrutinise them and to talk about them. In fact just the very minimum time to do that before, and all lodged after P.P.C.'s triennial Regulations. The advantage of the triennial Regulations of course is they are much easier to change if we need to readdress them. I would have preferred that we would have more time to deal with it as a member of P.P.C. but we are also dealing with another considerable item of business which was the review of Ministerial government which we produced a massive report on. I am afraid P.P.C. has nothing to do with the fact whether the media considers Senator Ozouf 's speech worthy of reporting or not. P.P.C. I am afraid does not influence that. The media decide their own rules about reporting. P.P.C. is not trying to limit in any way the policies that any Member standing for election wishes to promulgate. We are trying to help that by creating a level playing field by giving everybody, regardless of means - how much money, whether it is their own or third party can spend - by arranging an election supplement, something extra in the Jersey Evening Post. I would hope Members would appreciate that. We are trying to make it fair. We hope it is a very rich election, full of policies, and I hope we will be giving Members the opportunity but making sure that it is also a level playing field and fair, and then just because you may have deep pockets you cannot spend tens of thousands of pounds getting your message across where other people just do not have that money. That was certainly the message that came out from States Members when we discussed it in principle. If States Members have changed their minds they can say so when we discuss the individual Regulations but P.P.C. were doing the States' bidding. We have come forward with a suggestion that States Members have made and now we are going to discuss it but please do not shoot the messenger.

4. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

First of all I tried to get in before Senator Vibert but Senator Ozouf mentioned about funds and transparency. I wonder before I start, Sir, if he could tell the House how much he spent in the last election?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

It was listed in P.P.C. document if you want to look at it. Sorry, I think both were listed. Deputy A. Breckon:

The reason I say that, Sir, is because the word "rich" has been used by Senator Vibert about a rich election and Senator Ozouf mentioned being policy-rich but I am not going to address either of those areas of richness, Sir. But I am concerned about people who are better off and there are some issues I think that have emerged over the years where perhaps it has gone too far. In general principle, we are talking about expenditure on public elections. That has come in a number of ways, Sir. It is about advertising and spending and P.P.C. have looked at a distribution system; probably have not been able to get the best deal and perhaps it could have been done another way, but I personally think there should have been an envelope where anybody who was thinking of standing should have had free access to one piece of A4 double-sided and within reason put what they like on it. There have also been rumours about donations which are unsubstantiated. I think this will put down some markers about that, Sir, because what it should be about is if anybody out there is listening - anybody in the street thinking of standing - then money should not be an obstacle to them doing that. It might be somebody who is working in a shop or something like that. If they have a family where are they going to come up with thousands of pounds to compete with somebody who has thousands of pounds? That is what we must create, Sir, and I think we are heading that way about a level playing field because the question is then if somebody is allowed to do it, how does anybody else compete with that? I know, for example, in St. Helier 3 and 4 it is a big district. If somebody does a mail shot then it puts the other candidates who may or may not be able to afford to do it at a disadvantage. Some of these things, Sir, not that long ago, used to be done by a group of supporters who used to do the leg work and put them through doors and put posters up wherever. It was not done by advertising agencies or anything else. The other thing is, Sir, producing glossy catalogues and things like that is not what it should be about. It should be about - as Senator Ozouf said rightly - the policies and the principles of the candidate. There is also something that I think, Sir, will emerge is how would you do this physically if you wanted to communicate with the people? I think P.P.C.'s example is not the best one because if you go per household - you do not need to go per person - presumably you will catch everybody with the same thing. So although there might be 54,000 electors, they do not live in 54,000 different places, they live in 37,500 different places, so by doing that you would have the spread and you would get people that were not on the electoral roll. But I would say to the House, Sir, there is not another way because when nominations take place there is a period of time when candidates have to get their act together, find out who is on the list and distribute it. I would say in a Senatorial, Sir, unless you employ an agency to do that you would not be able to get an electoral roll, break it down, address it and send it. It would cost a terrific amount of money. I believe Senator Ozouf did that in the last election campaign or somebody did on his behalf. Now not everybody would be in the position to do that and I think that is an unfair advantage, and I think this is partly what this is about addressing. The other thing, Sir, that is the simple bit, but you have to print something, fold it, put it in an envelope and send it. It is not just about someone content doing that. It then becomes expensive so your distribution system for an individual you are talking a minimum of £20,000 and probably more than that if you add an agency; probably £30,000. That to me is getting to a ridiculous extent. When you think some people do not earn that in a year. That is the reality of it. That is what you might be asking candidates who are competing against each other to do. For me, Sir, that is an unfair advantage for somebody who can afford it. I think this attempt should I

say by P.P.C. is something that will go as a temporary measure. Now it is triennial Regulations. For me that is not really an issue because the makeup of P.P.C. is such it is from across the House if there is such a thing and Ministers are represented as well, so I would not necessarily say that their proposal should come under Scrutiny apart from all of us. We all have that opportunity to do that and amendments are before us, Sir, so there has been the opportunity. This was lodged on 30th May so there has been some time, Sir. The other thing, Sir, just generally I am not sure about deadlines before advertising. I mean something that is most effective would be fairly late but again if it is a case of buying this then perhaps there should be an interim period, bearing in mind that in some elections there will be hustings which are reported and they will be reported obviously close to the election depending when they are held. But in general terms I support this as it is unamended and I do that because I think it is the fairest way. It is not ideal. Something I believe needs to be in place for this election. If we do not approve this then nothing will be there and that does worry me, Sir, because I think we are back to the good old bad old days where I do not know where the spending will stop. That really does worry me. I do not think it is fair and I do not think we are sending the right message out to anybody who may wish to stand. I think we should be seen to be fair and even-handed and I think what P.P.C. are proposing does exactly that, Sir, and I will support it.

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

I support the regulation of election expenses and I suggest that this must be for a reasonable amount. I also support the limit of expenses by third parties of behalf of candidates. I do, Sir, believe that each candidate should be able to send one leaflet to their respective constituents. Like Senator Ozouf , Sir, I have also been cut-off in my prime by the J.E.P. several months ago when I wanted to put what was effectively a bad news story follow-up by the J.E.P. and I was told 3 months ago that it was an election year. I think it is important for people to have a chance to get their whole range of policies across in one fairly simple leaflet. Sir, therefore, it is important that there is a way that each candidate can have the funds to send a leaflet. It is all very well saying each person can go by hand-to-hand deliver but that is not always practical or even possible. I am concerned, as has been said, about the fact we are debating this late in the day in July but I do believe that if we get good Regulations, and obviously we need them in place this side of the election, but I am worried, Sir - this is a bit rushed.

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

Here we are on the third day of a very tiring session debating a piece of triennial regulation that has come forward from the P.P.C. Surprisingly I found myself unable to have almost anything good to say about this document. It has been described as a last minute, slightly rushed proposition. That is being extremely generous. If I were to call this a Mickey Mouse proposition, that would be to insult unnecessarily the name of Walt Disney. This if brought by a Back-Bencher or by any other Minister or body to this House I believe would be rejected within about 10 minutes. The key things to ask are; can it be made to work, how is it going to be made to work, who is going to make it work? Let us have a look at it. Can it be made to work? Who is going to make it work? What are the deterrents to breaking all the rules? We are told explicitly: "No, if you break these rules on election expenses, you will not be barred from taking office" and that is the ultimate deterrent. That is the thing that will work. You might be fined. You might be slapped on the wrist but you will not be barred from taking office. The deterrent built into this is absolutely negligible because that is the thing that really counts. If you can remove me from office if I break these rules then I am going to obey the rules. Who is going to police this? Who is going to catch me should I decide to break the rules? As if I can spend that sort of money on my election campaign. As if. Dream on. If I were to, who is going to catch me? It is completely self-reporting. I report my expenses. Third parties without my knowledge can join together - separately or together - and arrange to try and get me elected or somebody else unelected quite freely and they are not to spend more than half the amount that I can spend. Ha, ha, ha. How are we going to chase them? The Greffier is going to run around the Island chasing-up all the ads that have appeared or whatever, all the leaflets that appeared, trying to work out who spent what, who is responsible for them. The St. Helier Brass Band Appreciation Society which apparently called for my election - me being a great appreciator of brass bands - do we chase them up and find out how much they spent? Get real. Of course that will not happen. For example - I will obviously come back to it later - third party election expenses and donations. Without my knowledge Fred Bloggs says: "I am going to spend some money getting Geoff unelected." I say: "Nothing to do with me, Gov." How do you chase that up? You cannot. This is nominal only. We are apparently bringing in some Regulations that basically will not work. It is a joke. For example: "A third party shall not keep an anonymous donation." It is a funny thing that anonymous donations going to a third party unknown to the Greffier, and the third party receives an anonymous donation shall within 10 days of receiving it send it to the Treasurer of the States. The Treasurer of the States is going to be inundated with anonymous donations flooding in from people saying: "That is an anonymous donation for election expenses. I had better send it to the Treasurer so he can send it to a charity." Can you see it? I cannot. I cannot see it happening. Yet this is what we are being asked to put our faith in to legislate around election

expenses. Come off it. Come off it. This cannot be made to work. It is a last minute, cobbled together, nonsense piece of legislation that does not even deserve to see the light of day. I shall be voting against this if it does not get seriously amended. I urge other Members to as well because it simply is impractical. It cannot be made to work. It is half-cocked, half thought out and really should be rejected.

7. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :

Free market economy, Sir. That sounds like a good idea; the sort of thing that would wash pretty well in this Assembly. Free elections. That sounds like the right sort of thing to have; not just in Jersey but around the world. Free elections but not elections for free which appears to be the way that we are heading. How to reduce the price down so, as indeed Deputy Breckon indicated, somebody just in King Street can have a go; no problems. I am happy to debate the principles, Sir, if I could really find many. I do think there should be transparency in elections but I have to say I think I rather prefer going the direction of the razzamatazz of the types of elections you see in the United States rather than the dull worthiness that is being presented in this particular document. Level playing field. Deep pockets. We are hearing all sorts of riddles being trotted-out by, frankly so far, Members who have not really paid much attention it seems to me to the grim detail of what is in here, let alone what it appears to be taking us towards. I suspect in reality it is already far too easy to get involved in local elections. I would have been much more interested to see the P.P.C.'s view on deposits of perhaps £1,000 or £2,000 and if you failed to get so many votes, you lost your deposit because that just might make some candidates, who I believe have been completely frivolous in their approach in the past, think twice before bothering our electorate with their attentions. But any suggestion of that? No. So let us go back 30 years. I would like to take the Assembly to a reasonably-sized rural township in China; about 100,000 people. I would be reasonably certain that come election time - that is assuming if they were lucky enough to have any elections - there would probably be a large billboard put up in the township - probably around the main square - and everyone who fancied joining-up with the local Polit Bureau could have their one little sheet of A3 or A4 and they would all be dutifully put up on the notice board and everyone would be able to read about all the various candidates. Sir, I have to describe what is being put to the House today as worthy and encouraging. It is worthy of a small rural township in China of about 30 years ago under the communist regime of Mao Tse-Tung and it is encouraging. The reason it is encouraging, Members, is because candidates will not all be obliged to wear the same clothing because I am afraid this is all taking the concept of level playing field rather too far. What a dull bunch we have become. What a dull, dull bunch of people we have all become. I do occasionally like to wallow in that nostalgia that I hear from some of our more venerable elder statesmen particular on the Connétable s bench, Sir, who say that they used to get the horse and carriage out and go round the Parish. You used to have a band playing. You used to see lots of placards. Elections used to be - I hesitate to use this word now - fun. [Approbation] It used to be fun. I see nothing other than a recipe for grim, grim, boring dullness in this entire proposal. Would it stand Scrutiny? I think not. Let us just remind ourselves of one of the new and refreshing elements of our Government; Scrutiny. It is a process that relies on fact-finding. Yet what do I find here in paragraph 2 of the introduction to this report and what is clearly one of the big issues driving this vast monument of work? It says: "There is undoubtedly anecdotal evidence of candidates who have spent significant amounts without being elected." That is a fascinating piece of anecdotal evidence. Totally unsupported by any fact whatsoever but not enough to put P.P.C. off from writing 20 entire pages around a piece of anecdotal evidence and, let me remind Members, that says: "There are undoubtedly candidates who have spent significant amounts without being elected." What is the problem? What is the problem? We have established, have we, in this brilliant piece of investigation that you can spend large amounts of money and not be elected? So

why are we worried about people who spend large amounts of money and are elected? [Laughter] This is extraordinary logic being delivered to us by this extraordinary arm of our Government. I will just back-up what Deputy Southern says when we go down and look at some other areas of

these Regulations. What are candidates' election expenses? "Any expenditure incurred by a candidate at any time before a poll for the purpose of procuring the candidate's election or prejudicing the chances of other candidates." Does this mean I owe money already? How far back is "any"? What is "any"? Exactly how is this going to be policed? Who is going to go round to determine the difference between a normal market value of the provision of a website, for example, and the discounted price which is apparently treated as a donation, therefore, a notional expense that must be counted as part of the overall total? All right, I will tell you what. I will just get someone in the family to do it because that appears to get round those problems. So I can have a free website if I have someone in my family or apparently volunteers are exempted in some cases. But if I get a professional to do it, it counts. This is muddled thinking I suggest. I also wonder how some members of P.P.C. got elected because the amounts of money that are being put on offer here simply will not offer sensible election expenses. There are about 8,000 potential electors in the district that I represent, St. Helier No. 3. I am going to be allowed to spend - and it is extraordinary how precise this is but doubtless based on a latest headcount - £2,258.60. [Laughter] Let us not forget I get the extra 10 pence I get, do I not, on the headcount? [Aside] Oh, it is included. Sorry, I misread it. May I just remind Members who do everything by going round knocking on doors that 8,000 doors is an awful lot of doors to knock on. I did once do the calculation that if I started knocking on doors from the day I was elected in the hope that I might have the chance of running in an election in 3 years' time, I was going to have to knock on 8 doors a day to get round all my potential voters. I would suggest to Members that is really not a very helpful way forward and it is probably rather squandering time that my electors would rather see me spending carrying out States business - 8,000 doors to knock on. Surprisingly in both elections that I ran in St. Helier No. 3 I decided it might be useful if I just posted my manifesto to the electorate. I mean is there something wrong with this? This apparently is not a level playing field so that is just ruled-out now. Instead we are being told that is far more exciting and innovating to strive towards having pull-out supplements in the local printed media where you all get given what is it going to be; 500 words or 1,000 words? What are 8 or 9 candidates going to do with 500 or 1,000 words on a supplement with a nice photograph? They are going to say: "Of course I absolutely support health. Health is absolutely vital for our community and I want to see more money put into health. But let us not forget education. Education is critical for our young people who we all cherish and we want education to be the finest possible. But while we are looking at health and young people, let us not forget those people who work in our society and of course the elderly." I think Members are getting the drift. They should do because they write stuff like this every time the elections come round. [Laughter] I would like to say if you see 8 of these screeds in your pullout colour supplement, how exactly are you going to tell between the candidates other than like: "Well, he is

not really pretty. He has a beard. She is blonde. There is a redhead." What is the value in this? [Approbation] How is it taking us forward? How is this helping the electorate understand policies? But this is the sort of thing that we are going to get. Can I just tell P.P.C. about how to post a letter with a manifesto in it? The 10 pence that are bouncing around here barely cover the cost of the stamp which at last count I think was up to 35 pence a hit. Then you pay for the envelope. Then you have to pay for the paper. Then you have to pay to have the paper printed. Then if you have a very large and extended family, they can put all the bits of paper into the envelopes and stick the stamps on top. By the time you have gone through all this - assuming the free labour - we are talking about £1 a hit. So to just service electors in the constituency that I currently represent I think on the most mediocre and basic level I am straight into £8,000, but the worthies on P.P.C. say I am sorry I can only spend £2,258.60. So regrettably getting in the order of 6,000 of my voters are not going to know anything about me at all because they will not receive a manifesto thing. [Aside] Well, thanks for your confidence, Deputy of St. Martin [Laughter], but I would look to your own Parish if I were you. The further we plough into this extraordinary set of rules and regulations, and I do not know how often P.P.C. meet to come up with this sort of thing, but there must be something wrong with the tea or the biscuits. [Laughter] "Candidates should

declare in full details of any donations received with a value over £100." Ha, ha, ha. All my supporters are sending me cheques for £99 this year. [Laughter] There are 1,000 of them. [Laughter] I do feel desperately sorry, Sir, for the Judicial Greffier. How on earth he is going to cover all this. Apart from requiring candidates to produce invoices, receipts or other: "I am sorry, Greffier, I seem to have lost them. I should have had them. Perhaps I can get some copies made." But as if that is not enough, Deputy Southern has already gone through this extraordinary charade of anonymous people giving anonymously in the third party way and thereby breaching electoral regulations. Who on earth is going to police that? How is it going to be done? Leaflets are scattered around the Parish by who? It is just an absolutely hopeless start as a candidate. They all appear. Just scattered down at the local pub, at the Parish Hall , the stuff just arrives overnight. Just bits of paper printed out: "Do not vote so-and-so." How on earth is that going to be regulated? By the time it is policed and regulated the damage is done anyway. Sir, I am sorry, I will not keep Members much longer because the more you go through this the grimmer it gets. With great regret I have to say to P.P.C. please just pull this thing now. [Approbation] When you have a ship with holes below the water line in about 50 places it is pointless sending the sailors down to try and patch it up. So I do not see the amendments that we will all be delightedly trawling through for the rest of the morning having fascinating discussions are going to make any serious difference to what I am afraid is something that has got off to such a bad start, and I do not believe has any hope of recovery. I appeal to P.P.C. if you can see the billboard, read the writing on the wall and please take this thing away as soon as possible.

8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

We have had some interesting speeches so far this morning. I have to admit I have been lost by most of them. The speeches of Deputy Le Claire and Senator Ozouf were among them, Sir. It appears to me so far only Deputy Breckon has hit the nail on the head. We have just had the entertaining lecture from Chairman de Faye quoting from his little red book, Sir. If he really does want more fun instead of policies I dare say he could employ a band or dancers for the sum allowed. Of course he would not need to employ a comedian. [Laughter] He criticised the amount of money allowed by the proposition, Sir, and in so doing ignored the fact that it was based on Members' previous expenses as declared to P.P.C. and I am wondering if he is suggesting that Members deliberately misled P.P.C. so they only have themselves to blame. It is more fun no policies. If he does have so many good ideas on the subject, Sir, I cannot imagine why he had not given those to P.P.C. previously so that they could be incorporated in the proposition. As I said, I had difficulty following 2 Members to start with, Sir. Deputy Scott Warr en, if I understood her correctly, appears to misunderstand the issue. She said she wanted each candidate to be able to send a leaflet to constituents. Well, for a Senator, that would cost £20,000 to £30,000 by post so I am not sure whether she is supporting spending that amount of money or whether she is supporting P.P.C.'s plan for leaflets to be published free. I did not quite follow that, Sir. To address Senator Ozouf 's comments, well, as Deputy Breckon said, this is all about creating a level playing field. Do we really want people who have £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, £50,000 to spend to be able to gain an advantage over people of more modest means? Senator Ozouf and others may be able to afford those large sums. Not everyone is and yet later on in his speech, he said that he wanted to put in place a level playing field, and so I was somewhat confused because the latter part of his speech appeared to contradict the earlier part. Does he want a level playing field by limiting expenditure or not because this proposal will not only create an equitable situation but it also will allay public concerns expressed on many occasions that some people in this Assembly have bought their way into office. This would be one way of obviating that. I did mention Deputy Le Claire, Sir. I hope I do not do him an injustice. I think he was somewhat confused about the advertisement which appeared in a previous election which was placed by a member of the public which was misleading because it suggested that only a handful of States Members had approved parking  for States Members when, in fact, of course, the majority had approved it and therefore it was designed to be misleading. The point is that the advertisement was placed the night before the election. Now, in the United Kingdom, there is a 48-hour period during which you cannot place such electoral

advertisements and the whole point of what we are proposing today is that that would not be possible. What happened on that particular occasion was because the advertisement was placed immediately before the election, no States Member or person mentioned in there was able to correct the misinformation. This would allow a correction to take place.  P.P.C. have discussed this and while advertisements would not be allowed, asking the J.E.P. to publish a correction does not fall into a definition of advertisement or election campaign. Some people, Sir, have said that this has been rushed. Well, not more than the many other pieces of legislation that have come across our desks in the last few weeks but, of course, there is a reason why we need to act quickly because if we do not, it will not be in place in time for the next elections. Do we want this or do we not? That is why it has been brought in the form that it is. I would conclude, Sir, by saying that, in my view, it will be interesting to see whether those opposing this proposition are those who plan on spending loads of money on their election campaigns or otherwise.

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

The saga of elections and expenses and how one can best do it and get the message across and allow other people to do the same in a positive but transparent way; I doubt we will ever find a solution. We have left it too late. We have argued about methods, et cetera, but I am pleased to see this proposition today. I am pleased because at least it is allowing us to discuss and to move forward with some semblance of order. Being one of 4 Deputies in No. 3 and No. 4 District of St. Helier, I have a very large district. It is a large area with a large population and it has a huge amount of residents in it who are in multi-occupancy houses, and if you do not have the opportunity of getting a leaflet into the hands of the person that is the elector then it makes it very difficult. You cannot just put a leaflet in a doorway of a house. It could have 20 people in it and if one person puts it in the rubbish bin, the rest of the house does not get to see it. So there are a lot of good reasons and, yes, we have, in our particular districts, different characters that are well-known to the electors and that produces some entertainment, though I must admit I used to enjoy all the bands and all the horses and carriages and so on. Unfortunately that, at the moment, has gone by the wayside. We have a comedian. We have already heard from him today and on his first election he stood with an oar and a notice on it. Now, everybody saw it and it stood out so you do not have to spend huge amounts of money to draw attention to yourself. I still do it the old-fashioned way. I had to post 48 at the last election because I could not find the houses or the premises concerned. In the election before, it was 78, so I have improved. I hope this time that I will not have to post any, but I do it the old-fashioned way and I have my wife and a very good friend who gives me support, especially when we are trying to do the very long roads. You cannot carry everything and you cannot walk everywhere so you need to have some transport support and you have to avoid getting run over in the soaking wet freezing cold which is part of election. But, no, you cannot physically go and knock on every door and talk to people nowadays as (a) they are not in in many cases and (b) they are watching their favourite soap and the last thing they want to do is talk to you. Then, if you are as well known as I have been from my previous life, they want you to come in and have coffee and talk to you and so you manage about 4 in an afternoon. It makes a very interesting time and I enjoy it very much. It drains me, but it is the one time I can lose weight and that is an advantage, of course, but I think that realistically, things have to change. In the last set of elections, we had billboards that were about 4 feet wide by 8 feet long straddling every roundabout there was. They are very effective. They work but they also fly and they can become very dangerous if they are not secured properly.  Then, of course, you have the other entertainment we have now. We have the totem poles where you see the poor candidate, who is the last of 9, trying to get to the top of this advantaged lamppost or other sign to be able to do it. Then you have somebody else who does not like it up there and wants to take it down and get his or hers up there. Then you have people taking pictures and making all sorts of accusations, so it can be quite entertaining. Then, of course, you get the signs that you are saving money but you are going to mass the area so you have a lot of hardboard with a lot of photocopied black and white leaflets that have been pasted on and they go off on every side lamppost or whatever and you just mass the area. The problem is if you

are a tall person like our Greffier, you spend most of your time, I would suspect, on the road because you are too tall to go underneath the signs. They are supposed to be 6 feet 6 inches but often they fall down. Then, of course, you get the other thing. Because of the weather, these lovely posters drop on to the ground so then you have what every kid dreams of, pavement painting. It does not last for long but it does provide some entertainment and the kids going to school with their crayons put all sorts of little entertaining things and mottos on it. Depending on how active their parents are in their political awareness, you might also get some scripted comments as well as what they think about the candidate. This also can go on to any posters that they can reach standing on nearby walls, et cetera. Then you have the souvenir hunters. Now, the souvenir hunters remove posters and if you happen to be glamorous enough or you have a message on your poster that provides a worthy collection, then you start seeing them appear within the homes, and I was interested to hear one woman describing her son's bedroom of the collection of posters that he had collected and he was quite knowledgeable. The leaflet is another thing. You must have a leaflet that is sustainable so when it is said that it cannot be robust or anything and it costs more, et cetera, believe you me, the object of the exercise is to get it into the hands of the person that you want to read it. Now, do not forget it is raining and you are not going to post it because you are not able to afford it or you choose not to do so but you want it to go to the right place, so you put the sticker on it with the name that you have paid all the legal fees for and you have managed to have a very supporting wife, like I have, who understands a computer sufficiently enough to be able to give you all these lovely labels that you stick on to the leaflet. So everybody knows that when it goes to that door, that is to go to the named person and it also has the little bonus that it has their election number which is also very useful and you go round and you knock on the door. Now, you get some people that say: "Thank you very much, that is very useful. I have got a number and I at least now have a very simple record of what you have been doing for the last 3 years, although you have done this and this that I have heard on the media" or whatever and you get some other people that say: "I do not want anything going through my letterbox other than what is posted" and so that is their democratic right, and they are not going to vote for you because you put a leaflet without having it in an envelope and put through the postal system which, under this rule, we will not be able to do for them, so we lose one or 2, but that is the way it goes. Hopefully they change their minds and they at least go and vote and that is very important. So to me, the answer at the end of the day is that I gain a lot of entertainment, support and knowledge by doing it the old-fashioned way. No, you might not get to see everybody but you can rest assured that if you are out and about in a large

area like I am, people always know that you have been. You always know which other candidates have been there as well because..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , this insight into electioneering is most interesting but is it relevant to the principles? Deputy J.B. Fox:

I was just coming to the point, Sir, but you are quite right. The whole point of the issue is that you cannot do everything for every person, and I was just describing how these principles here allow me to do everything that I can do and still be able to get my message across. More to the point, it allows the other candidates, who may not be in the States but are seeking re-election, the opportunity to be able to fight an election with the nearest thing that one can get to a level playing field. It is difficult, it is not perfect, but at least there are still opportunities and I think I had best leave it at that.

10. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

A couple of points of clarification from the proposer, if I may ask. Have P.P.C. considered the advantages and benefits which may accrue to a candidate who fails in a Senatorial election and subsequently stands for Deputy ? The added media exposure is not tangible but is certainly significant. Are we not, Sir, underestimating the public? They are not stupid and are quite capable of seeing through the spin which seems these days to be the norm. I am inclined to suggest that the best person ought to be left to win by their own devices. I would suggest that excessive expenditure has doubtful benefit and it is more likely to be the policies and attributes of a candidate that will ensure success in an election. I really think that the proposals, while being well intended, are totally unworkable and I am yet unconvinced that I should give them support.

11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Well, what a surprise we have here today. I was in the coffee room earlier this morning with a younger candidate and also a candidate who has not been in the States as long as me and he said: "How do you think this will go, Jude, it will go through, will it not? I mean you are having a laugh." I said: "You will see people stand up today and you will find they will find an allegiance with each other after not having agreed in this House over the last 6 years" and here we have it. [Laughter] We have Deputy Southern and Senator Ozouf sitting there and telling us why they cannot possibly support P.P.C. Well, I will agree, I think Deputy Southern raised a few points that were possibly not going to be right. Now, let me deal with Senator Ozouf 's objection. He wants people to know his policies. He has been in this House 6 years. I think people have a very good idea of what his policies are and not only on Economic Affairs. [Approbation] Then we have

Senator Vibert saying we want a rich election. We have Deputy de Faye. I think he said this will take the fun out of the election. Well, no .. we have heard from Deputy Fox. When he did not spend a lot of money on his first Deputy election, he did have fun. As he said, he was stood on a roundabout with something that rows a boat [Laughter] and he got noticed. He did not spend a lot of money. What I am saying, Sir, we have policy-rich, election rich and now it is just bloody rich. I am telling you now ..and it is parliamentary, Sir, I checked that with Deputy Fox. It is. [Laughter] I am telling you now you have been calling, I have been calling, I have never spent more than £1,000 in .. I will admit in the year 2000 in November elections, we were sat in here up till 7.00 p.m. 4 nights. I went out lunch times and I had to go out after and I did have to post some election material out that year. Last year, I spent about £200. As Deputy Fox says, in No. 1 District like we have in St. Helier, we have loads of bed-sit lounges and then the addresses change. Whether they get to the right people, I do not know. We would not suffer by trying to knock in different areas. Not only to add to that, when are we sitting this year? We have about 4 days in September, 4 in October and we are not sitting at all in November so no one has any time to go and do their elections the old-fashioned way? We have Senatorials, all right, we know you cannot knock the doors but you get 12 coverages in the J.E.P, most of you are known. Even with this third party you can spend about £12,000 on your campaign. Well, I am very sorry, you have all been calling for it but I really love .. I mean, I cannot believe it, I just cannot believe - well, I can - as I say, I can believe it. I know the Deputy that I was speaking to this morning will hopefully .. and, I mean, it was Deputy Gorst so I mean maybe a little .. a very, very good politician obviously he today he has learned that he is politically naïve when it comes to this, very good in principle but this is not the right one. So we are not going to do this and, of course, we cannot do it, what are we, July, last sitting of the session. We will be back in September just before the nominations for Senatorials. Oh, my God, no, we cannot do that. Now, I would say my electorate .. I am not stupid. I do knock doors and so I think do .. and we had a very close election last year for sitting States Members and one had to go. By the law of mathematics there was only about 20 votes from top to bottom and a few .. all right I will get back to the subject. We are talking about elections.

[Laughter] Yes, no, I am very sorry, Sir. It is not perfect. I do understand, it might not be policed perfectly well but it is a start and, as you say, Deputy de Faye wants .. what about people wasting people's time. Who is to say he is not wasting people's time. If he wants to put up a deposit or some money to charity so he can stand on the roundabout, let him do it but he has brought nothing better and nor has anybody in the last 3 years. This has been .. since before Ministerial government this is going to all be sorted out and here we are 2 months away from the Senatorial nominations and nobody likes it. It will get about 6 or 7 votes. It will go through in principle and then you know what everybody will do? Everybody will vote for Senator Norman's amendment and we are back exactly where we are. I am going to vote for this, I am going to vote against the amendments and let the public choose. The public are not silly. They know who spends a lot of money on their elections. Some were fooled, as I say, 6 years ago when it was done the first time by Senator Ozouf . They thought they had all been written to individually. They did not realise that he had put thousands and thousands of pounds and employed a company to do it. It was personalised. They all had their voting number on it and people were coming into No. 1: "Oh, this lovely little man sent me this" and I said: "Yes, I see, okay, fine", whatever. [Laughter] "Yes, very good", I said, and that was fine because I was not standing on the polls for him, I was standing on the polls for Senator Kinnard at the time but I did not interfere for just pointing to him we had the vote for the nice little man, and he topped the polls. It was done once and it .. but the people are not silly. I do not think it should be allowed to be done again and I think this will start it. If

Deputy Southern is worrying about policing, well, come on, we can all do basic maths. If everybody who can have a vote gets a postal vote, we know someone has spent too much and although they cannot be policed, well, I am sure enough they would be embarrassed. So, as I say, Sir, here we go again and let us see who else can agree with Senator Ozouf and Deputy Southern today. Normally not on the same side but funnily enough they can dig holes in this one. I would say support this and go back to the old-fashioned way of electioneering when you really have to deal with your public and, like Deputy Fox says, walk your district and do not go back every 3 years and they say: "Oh, it is you again." Then this time they might want a new face because they do know it is you again. [Laughter] I really am going to support this but I really do not think P.P.C. have much chance because we have already heard the thunders from very, very funny quarters and allegiances.

12. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I will start by saying that I will try and cheer up P.P.C. and say I am minded to support them [Approbation] but I do have some specific questions that I would like the Chairman of P.P.C. to answer. I can go back to where I was at the end of 2005. I spent, I think, £2,200 on my campaign and looking at the rules that are available now, this morning, this proposition, P.82, for St. Brelade, I would be allowed as a Deputy £1,500 plus, I think, £470, given the number of candidates in St. Brelade No. 2 which allows me £1,980. So my first question to the Chairman is what would be the penalty to me for spending over and above my allocated amount and how would that be dealt with? Likewise, if a candidate spent £2,500 as a Deputy or £3,000 as a Deputy in the same district, how would they propose to deal with that; so it is a specific question. In my campaign in that district, I had volunteers who helped me distribute my election material. I did not use the post. I spent all of that money on posters and brochures so it was delivered by volunteers and by myself, and so how do I factor that in, as it was a non-financial cost. I would also like to outline the following situation. If a candidate were to run as a Senator and had a very slick campaign and that campaign involved mail shots, colour brochures, a website, posters, signage, perhaps balloons, t-shirts, music, a van, rosettes and whatever, and that candidate was successful and post-election declared that that candidate had spent say £10,000 and it was very, very clear that the campaign had cost more than that perhaps £25,000 or £30,000, how does the mechanism deal with that? That was my next question. My third question is if a slick campaign is run by a successful candidate for Senator on an Island-wide basis and gets in on a high budgeted campaign that ignores the rules and defeats a candidate who spends less than that and obeys the rules, how do the mechanics of the situation deal with that? In other words, if a candidate who obeys the rules is defeated by a candidate who does not obey the rules, how is that dealt with? My final question is on page 22 under section 15, offences in general: "Section 1. A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence under these Regulations shall be guilty of the offence and liable in the same manner as the principal offender to be tried for the offence." The question is where and where do I find the

penalties?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Can I give my intention to propose closure on this debate on the principles? With the greatest respect, Sir, I think you have allowed the debate to extend into the detail and I intend to propose in half an hour the closure on the principles.

13. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :

I do not wish to be rude in the slightest about P.P.C. here because they have only done really what the Assembly agreed that they should do and that is bring forward a proposal to do something about this issue. I fully support the issue of transparency, for example, but I did take it upon myself to write to P.P.C. on 22nd April last year giving my own thoughts, and I am going to mention some of them to the Assembly today. I never had a reply to that letter and there is no acknowledgement in anything that I have seen from P.P.C. about other communications they may have received on the subject if, indeed, they did. If they did not receive such communications, they should have perhaps sought them, particularly from maybe communications experts, the media and so on, on their views. I would be interested to know what the Chairman and his Committee did about canvassing professional opinion on this from the media and other areas. I do not see it in the report but I do agree that there should be some controls in place so there are not accusations of people buying their way into office. I do firmly believe, however, that the Jersey electorate should not be underestimated and it would frankly be insulting to their intelligence to suggest that they can simply be won over by a clever high profile advertising campaign. The public are cleverer than that, they can see through it.