States Meeting Transcript - 10/09/2009

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 10th SEPTEMBER 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Composition and election of the States: single election day each year (P.109/2009)....3

1.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................3

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:.........................................................4
2. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:....................................................4
3. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:..................................................4
4. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................7
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................8

6. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................9
7. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................12
8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................13

9. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................14
10. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................15
11. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................15 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................15 The Attorney General:........................................................................15 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................15
12. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................16
13. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................16
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................17
15. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................18 The Attorney General:........................................................................20 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ................................................................21

The Attorney General:........................................................................21 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour : .....................................................21 The Attorney General:........................................................................21 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................22 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................22 The Attorney General:........................................................................22

16. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................22
17. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................23
18. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:...................................................25 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................27
19. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................28
20. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................28
21. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................28
22. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................29
23. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................29
24. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................29
25. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................29

26. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................30
27. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................30
28. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................30

2. Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme: revised Scheme (P.113/2009) ..............32

2.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................32

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................33
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................34
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................34
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................34
7. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................34

3. States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of members (P.116/2009) - deferred ...........................................................................................37

The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................37 4. Rôle of the unelected members of the States: review – appointment of chairman and members (P.118/2009) - withdrawn.....................................................37

4.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................37

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

5. Police Act 1997: extension of Part V to Jersey by Order in Council (P.121/2009) ....38

5.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................38

1. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................38
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................40
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................40
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................41
5. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................41
6. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................41
7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................42 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................44 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................45 Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:.........................................................45 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................46 Senator S.C. Ferguson: .......................................................................46 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:......................................................................46 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :..............................................................46

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................47

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

The Bailiff :

There is just one matter which I can mention to Members: a question was raised yesterday on the deadlines for question time if the Assembly were to sit on the Monday in 2 weeks' time. Written questions would have to be delivered by 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning; oral questions by Wednesday, 16th September at 12.00 noon, in other words, next Wednesday at 12.00 noon. In fact, I think it was agreed we would discuss that matter at the end of this morning.

1. Composition and election of the States: single election day each year (P.109/2009) The Bailiff :

So now we return to the Order Paper and Public Business and the next matter on the Order Paper is the composition and election of the States: single election day each year - P.109 - lodged by Deputy Le Fondré. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) to agree that, notwithstanding any other reforms relating to the actual composition of the elected membership of the States that may be agreed by the States, all elected Members of the States standing for election in any one year shall, with effect from 2011, be elected on one single election day in that year, with the exception of any casual vacancies arising that need to be filled through a by-election; (b) to charge the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for approval the necessary legislation to give effect to the proposal.

1.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

I think we have had a fairly long week so I shall try and keep this as short as possible. [Approbation] I hope I get a suitable response at the end of the speech as well. In the nearly 4 years that I have sat in the States, we have debated items relating to the composition and/or election of this Assembly on at least 7 occasions, excluding this week, and for those who have been in longer, it must be into double digits, I would imagine. As we have seen this week, it is very difficult to get a consensus as to what is the preferred route and I came to the conclusion that the only way to achieve change is in very small steps. I believe it is a case of evolution and not revolution as being the way forward. Personally, the reason for seeking change, I think, continues to be borne out by the fairly low turnouts that occur during elections; that has to be one of the fundamental starting points. I believe that the data included by P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) in their report does give indications as to what can concede relatively uncontentiously as regards the electoral process. P.P.C. state that there is a fall in voter turnout between the Senatorial elections and those for Deputy and that is clearly the case. Conversely, if Members look at the analysis of voting during the 2008 October elections which were votes for Senators, Connétable s and for the Referendum, it is noticeable that every Parish with a contested election for Connétable had an increase in turnout. That, I do not think, can be disputed. Now as I was completing this speech, I came across a quote, oddly enough, from the Los Angeles Times, about local elections and in 2007 their turnout was a paltry 11 per cent. One of the reasons cited, it stated, obviously this is a newspaper article: "City elections follow directly on the heels of far sexier general elections in November (in the U.S. (United States)) of even-numbered years." The result, in their words, and this is the point that struck home was: "Election season feels like hockey season. It never ends." That is the problem of voter fatigue of a perception that the election period was just too long and, in particular, people just switch off. I want to see some change, and I believe the public want to see some change, and that was made fairly clear to me during the elections but no one can agree on the specifics of that change. However, if Members look at the P.P.C. MORI polls, if Members speak to people, one consistent thread, in my view, is to have a single election day, ideally, for the whole Assembly. But, again, as we have seen, unless one starts to deal with the change in types of Members,  et cetera, that cannot easily be done. However, I believe my proposition is fairly close to what I believe the public wants, i.e. elections on the same day; not this present system whereby we have Senators and Connétable s on one day and then the Deputies, as the also-rans in a way, 6 weeks later. Interest falls, turnout falls and, in my view, democracy does suffer. Now I am not suggesting a radical monumental change. I am proposing something which I believe the public want and something that is consistent with my election platform. The proposition specifically does not interfere with the classes or categories of Member, the terms of office or the numbers of Members; it is one small step forward. It quite deliberately does not change the pattern of the rolling terms of office for Senator, i.e. electing 6 and then 3 years later electing a further 6. I would suggest that we need to get to the main principle adopted and implement it and if this is remaining an issue, we would come back and deal with that separately if that is still considered necessary. If Member support changed, they should not have any difficulties supporting this proposition, in my view; logistically it is not difficult to implement. It is not significantly different from the system we already have but I believe it will improve the interest in the electoral system. In 4 Parishes in 2008, the public have demonstrated their ability to deal with 3 separate votes on the same day: for Senators, for Connétable s and for the referendum and the Parish systems coped as well. This would be one day, once every 3 years. Our experience in St. Lawrence, I have to say, was of a system that worked well and it coped with 2 sets of hustings and it did increase voter turnout and the other Parishes had more success. As matters stand, we cannot agree on revolutionary change. We have tried it time and time again, particularly in the last 4 years, and I hope Members will recognise this proposition is what I would consider to be a sensible opportunity to take a step on the evolutionary road of reform and I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Yes, Deputy Hilton.

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

I just stand to say that I wholeheartedly support Deputy Le Fondré's proposition. I think it is what we need and I hope he is successful today. Thank you.

2. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

Hooray, hooray, one small step, one has to think of the famous words: "One giant leap." Now this may be a small, bite-sized chunk of what I think this ought to achieve; it is the mainstay of what we will be looking for for 3 or 4 years. I have a statutory concern with debates on reform but this is something which is achievable; this is something which is achievable here, now, this morning. Do not get bogged down by the numbers, we have dealt with multiple elections in the past, so if anybody stands up and says: "What about nomination days?" we have done it in the last election, it is feasible to have split electoral rolls, we have achieved it, the Parish Deputies have achieved this, it has to be successful; so stand behind this one, ladies and gentlemen, and vote. Let us get that 27 needed and I will support this right the way to the end. Thank you. [Approbation]

3. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

This proposition is superficially attractive, and I assure Members this will be brief. It is a simple proposition and it does not need long explanations. As I said, it is superficially attractive. He talks about some change which, of course, sounds nice. It is not radical, he tells us, and a single general election day is popular, which it is. But it does have ramifications and he admitted that in his speech, and P.P.C. correctly in their response point out that this is piecemeal reform; it is diddering away at the edges as if there are no consequences. So, the first point I want to make is that it is piecemeal and that does trouble me, and it should trouble us, that we are trying to do wholehearted reform of States electoral procedures by tinkering at one little thing at a time and I will show you what that is going to bring in a minute. The second question, and I ask this to the proposer, I would like him to tell the House whether this  is an unintended or an intended consequence of this proposition. I will put the consequences and then he can tell us later whether it is intended or unintended. This proposition, in my view, is a Trojan horse which will destroy the Island-wide mandate. That is what it is [Interruption] .. well, I am going to explain that; how this will work, how this will pan out. You see, this is the thing of thinking a little bit ahead as to how this will work. If Deputies and Senators are elected on the same day, which is the situation now, we have rejected all the amendments yesterday, we rejected ..

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

May I assist? The reason the Deputy is corrected is the Deputy said: "If Senators and Deputies are elected in the same day" but the position now is that Senators and Connétable s are elected on the same day.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Yes, I said correctly that this House rejected all the amendments yesterday; I do not think we approved any of them, did we, so I do not quite understand? We rejected all the amendments yesterday and we rejected the proposition. So the position as it now stands is that we are in the status quo and this proposition seeks to move that status quo and change it a little bit. The status quo would be, allied to this proposition, that Deputies and Senators would be elected on the same day. You then have removed the step-up option. Now I know that the step-up option is not popular when it happens in the same year, like, for instance, if Deputy Southern and Deputy Ferguson and Deputy whoever else there was on the hustings last year [Interruption] .. no, I am talking about last year. If Deputy Southern and Deputy Ferguson and Deputy Maclean had not had the option of standing for Senator then we would not have Senators Ferguson and Maclean because they would not have taken the chance. They would not have been able [Members: Oh!] to come back to the Deputy election. People do not get it; I will have to say it again, then. The way things are at the moment, what happened last year, and what will happen in 2011 if this proposition does not go through, and if none of the other propositions about electoral reform go through - which seems to be quite likely - if we stay as we are we will be in the situation of 2008. What will happen next time around is that Deputies will have the option of running for Senator as they did in 2008. [Interruption] I am quite happy to give way to clarify something.

Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

Just on a point of clarification, is the Deputy of St. Mary just trying to say to us that what it does not allow is 2 bites of a cherry? Thank you.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I thank you for that little speech. [Laughter] The situation, if we go ahead with the present situation in 2011, will be that Deputies will be able to stand for Senator as they did in 2008 and then if they do not manage to squeeze-in - Deputy Southern got seventh place - but 2 people did get in .. in fact, 3, Deputy Breckon, of course, so that is 3. Our Senatorial benches have been enhanced by 3 people choosing to attempt the Island-wide mandate. Now if we want to throw that away and say: "They are just the same as everybody else; they did not need to bother" then we are throwing away what the public want. I come back to this: that Island-wide mandate .. I see lots of nodding of heads which shows that there is something going on here; there is definitely something going on here. But the fact is that if we go for this, then we have removed the option of Deputies to stand for Senator. [Members: Oh!] Oh yes, we have. Well would somebody like to explain as a point of clarification as I go along, because it is much better to do it like that?

The Bailiff :

Members can explain any clarification in their own speeches later, I think. The Deputy of St. Mary , if you continue with your comments.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

So what happened last time was a number of Deputies stood for Senator - and I think that is quite right - and I think that the public want the 2-tone Assembly; they want the wider mandate. The way to ensure that is to have an option, a way of achieving this, and at present that is the fact that you can stand for Senator and then if you fail in your attempt to be Senator, then you can still stand for Deputy . Now I know that that is not particularly popular with the electorate, as Deputy Jeune pointed out; there is a gripe that in the same year people have "2 bites of the cherry" and that is seen as some kind of disadvantage of the system we have now. Which is why, in my proposition in a month's time, I have removed that 2 bites of the cherry in the same year because people do not like it, and there are other reasons for the way I have arranged my proposition. But as things stand, the effect of this proposition is to make all elections in 2011 on the same day. Now in principle that sounds attractive, as I said at the beginning. It sounds attractive. But what it will do is it will make the Senatorial elections very, very weak; it will only be newcomers. Very few Deputies will chance their arm. I can see Eddie Noel shaking so perhaps the Deputy of St. Lawrence, Deputy Noel, is going to try for Senatorial next time, knowing that he has no second chance. If he fails, he is out of the States. [Interruption] Well we shall see. I just do not think that is what the party want; I do not think it is desirable. It is not desirable but I can hear from the comments that this is very cleverly worked out and, as I said, I am going to ask the Deputy to explain whether this is an intended consequence or an unintended consequence. This is not what the public want.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Would the Deputy give way? I wonder if the Deputy could explain if that is not exactly the current situation that stands when one stands for the Deputorial office.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Can I also seek a point of clarification? I think it would help the Assembly at this point, because I have similar issues with this proposition, and it is really [Interruption] .. I think it would help the Assembly. I do not want to wait 10 minutes to .. and it is up to the Deputy of St. Mary whether he wants to ..

The Bailiff :

Is this a point of clarification, Deputy ? Deputy M. Tadier :

It is, Sir, and if people would bear with me. I think the issue really hinges on the question of not whether it is a single election date; it is really about the nomination dates and whether somebody can put their name on both the Deputies and the Senators' ballot paper because if that is the case, that is not a problem; technically that is perfectly possible. Is that the intention of Deputy Le Fondré in bringing forward this, or  is the intention that you will be mutually excluded from standing for both?

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy , but that is not seeking a point of clarification about the Deputy of St. Mary's speech.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Well maybe he would like to ask that. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Well I will add that ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy , just one moment. There is a tendency nowadays among Members to be popping up for ever making apparent [Approbation] points of clarification which are in fact just making a point. Now, it is difficult for the Chair because until the Member has spoken, one does not know whether it is a genuine point of clarification or not. But I must ask Members to remind themselves what a point of clarification is and that was not a point of clarification. Now, Deputy of St. Mary , have you finished your speech, or do you wish to carry on?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Well I think in view of those interruptions I would just repeat a final comment which is that I want the Deputy who is proposing this, Deputy Le Fondré, to explain whether this is an intended consequence - and I am quite clear that it is a consequence - or an unintended consequence. I also hope that the Chairman of P.P.C. will contribute to this debate. Thank you.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Could I suggest that if a Member stands up to make a point of clarification and it is not a point of clarification you take it that they have, in fact, spoken on that debate? [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

I certainly give notice that if Members continue to do it, I may do this sometime. But I wish to give Members the benefit of thinking about things first. Now Senator Breckon I see next.

4. Senator A. Breckon:

I do not know if I can follow that; I am not sure what I am following now. But I can say before the Clothier Report, the review of the machinery of government came out, I had a proposition lodged for a 4-year term for Deputies and Senators and a single election day. As Clothier emerged, I was approached: my proposition, because nobody else could do anything similar because mine was in the way, would I withdraw it because Clothier was going to be all-singing/all-dancing reform. So, we all know what has happened to that and those that do not I am sure Deputy Le Hérissier will give you the background in relation to that. I remember Deputies' election day last year and meeting Deputy Le Fondré at St. Lawrence Parish Hall and to say he looked as sick as a parrot is a bit of an understatement because he was well fed-up; it was a case of spot the voter. What he said to me when I went into vote was: "You were right, single election day is what we should do" because the voters were trickling in few and far between because I think there had been a bit of exhaustion and a hangover from the Senatorial vote; I will touch on that in a minute. The reason why - and I have had this in the past when I have gone around and knocked on doors in St. Saviour - people say: "Not you lot again." Well until the last Senatorial election, I had not been in a Senatorial election before, so it was not me, it was somebody else. But they were absolutely fed up with life-size posters, leaflets, media, now websites, and there were exhaustive supplements in the paper, and it was played out. When it came to the Deputies - and I know because I have been there a number of times - we were in a hangover situation where your first job was to convince people to stay interested because obviously then you would have the Senatorial result and it may or may not have been what they wanted but they were exhausted, usually by a large number of candidates. Now other people have mentioned having 2 bites at the cherry and the Deputy of St. Mary mentioned Senator Maclean, Senator Ferguson and I who stood, being Deputies before that. But can I remind the House that the Deputy of St. Mary then was also a candidate in that Senatorial, as indeed was Deputy Maçon, Deputy Trevor Pitman, Deputy Southern , Deputy Tadier and Deputy Higgins. In the past, Deputy Le Hérissier stood before he was elected as a Deputy , Deputy Le

Claire has done the revolving door; I think he has done both, as indeed has Senator Le Main. Deputy Lewis has stood in both, for 3 political parties on one occasion, I think. [Laughter] The Constable of St. Mary also stood in a by-election for Senator, I believe. So, the Deputy of St. Mary said perhaps the House is richer because of 3 people on this row, but maybe it is even richer because of that and I will not express another opinion; I will just say maybe it is. Now the question

is then should we allow a process to continue that does that? Because, to be honest, if you want to stand for Senator, you need not spend tuppence, you can just do all the media stuff. You need not do leaflets, get loads of publicity, run for a district and there you go, you have thousands of pounds worth of stuff; you could not buy some of that stuff. So what are we going to do about that? It is not just about the people in the positions, it is about who is pulling the stunts, as it were, to do this. Now that is what is behind that. If we have a single election day, what we do is we give the public a choice. When I stood, rightly or wrongly, for Senator, I said if I did not get elected that was it. The public had made a decision and I would abide by that. [Approbation] So what happened, happened. But if I had not been elected, that is what I would have done and Senator Ozouf said the same. If we had not been elected we would not have stood anywhere; that was it. I think it has happened before and it is up to our members of the public at the time. But I think what this does for me, it clears that particular hurdle. As Senator Ozouf said, and I said, we were not going to stand again if we did not get elected. Now as it happened, we did, but if Members said that then that is up to the public to decide. If a Member of this House is a Deputy and they seek this promotion; I do not see it that way, it is a 6-year term. But as we sit and stand here we have the same voice, the same function, the same vote and the workload is spread across the House; across the Connétable s, the Deputies and the Senators, so when we are in here it is, not necessarily I would argue an elevated status, we are on the same status. But I think the public would enjoy a single election day because they would then believe it would make a difference. They would see that as a general election. I know it is a bite-sized chunk, but it is the only way we are going to do this because the difficulty is with P.P.C. - they have my sympathy - it goes back not just to the present P.P.C., the previous one and the one before that. When you put together a composite of things to do, it is a bit like, and I mentioned it to the Connétable of Trinity yesterday, Sunday trading. Everybody says: "You must change it." But when you suggest what to do: "Oh, but do not do that." I think the electoral reform thing is very similar from that aspect and this, although it is one small step, I think we need to take it and we need to take it now. There are pros and cons and I have the greatest respect for everybody that stood in that Senatorial election and what they did after that, because people worked hard and everybody who is here at the moment is here on merit and there have been revolving doors and people have come and gone. But having said that, I believe this is a small step, but a very important one, and one I think the public will appreciate and hopefully it will generate enough interest so that we do get a bigger turnout, and I do not think for one that it will erode the Island-wide mandate. People still want that. If people stand, whether they have been former Members or existing Members and they are standing again, or they are standing for the very first time, then I think that is good and healthy if we have that mix. If people do not get in, then they will go away and do something else because there must be a life after this, especially

when we have debates like yesterday. Thank you.

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

All the times that I have been in the States since 1999, I have been listening to proposals for changing things, to improve things and every time we come back to concessions or rather successions of piecemeal proposals that come up. P.P.C. have been charged and in this last session I am a member of P.P.C. I was hoping that we were going to have a comprehensive discussion, which we did, but with only 10 votes yesterday to 38, it is clear that this is not going to move forward in this session in a comprehensive manner and I very much doubt in the foreseeable future that we are going to ever achieve anything other than debate. I do not like piecemeal, I will be honest with you, but I recognise that we have to get it out of the system and therefore I would vote for this proposition to come back to P.P.C. and give it, I think, probably this proposal because it is popular with the public; the 4-year proposal which is popular with the Members and some of the public, and see if we cannot bring something forward. Yes, there will be drawbacks. It will not stop the people that want a soapbox. They will still be able to stand on the Senatorial election and voice whatever their chosen subject or subjects are and the same with the Deputies. The drawback, as already been said, is you will not have 2 bites of the cherry. Well the Deputies do not have 2

bites of the cherry and maybe if people know that they do not get 2 bites of a cherry, they might have the opportunity of putting a little more into it or recognising that maybe it is not for them as far as the public is concerned. I am going to leave it at that. Thank you.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

Thank you for allowing me my second speech. This House makes me sick. That got people's attentions, did it not? Now the reason I asked for what I believed to be a very valid point of clarification was because we are all going around in circles with the speaker before me - and that is no disrespect to the Deputy of St. Mary - and I think we needed clarification. Now whether Standing Orders allow me to do that or not, I guess is a problem of the system and it was quite a genuine intervention on my part. The reason I wanted to know is because I believe that the accusation that this is a Trojan horse is, in fact, correct. I had written it separately from the Deputy of St. Mary on my sheet and so it is quite apt that he brought that up. What we need to know before we go on, and I will ask this as a point of clarification, and hopefully I can carry on with my speech after that if Deputy Le Fondré is willing to answer it: is this proposition going to stop people from standing for Deputy and Senator? Is it intended to that? Because it was presented on the guise of simply ..

The Bailiff :

It is entirely a matter for the Deputy . Normally he would deal with it in his response. Deputy M. Tadier :

But I think it will be helpful for Members now.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I think I better do it in summing-up. Thank you.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

I really think it would be helpful if the Deputy could explain now [Approbation] because the report and proposition is silent as to whether a candidate can put his name forward for one, 2 or 3 posts and I think it would help the debate if we knew what the intention was.

The Bailiff :

It is a matter for Deputy Le Fondré entirely. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The short answer is, as with pretty well any other reform that P.P.C. have brought forward which mentioned anything about general elections days, I would imagine that it would be the same position as the Senators and Connétable s at the moment. To refer, particularly members of P.P.C., to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002,  Article 18(2), that Article applies to Senators and Connétable s and I would assume that Article would be applied to Deputies as well. The provision, if I remember correctly, is that a candidate standing for Senator or Constable can stand for one position but not both. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is not a conspiracy or anything on those lines, I think  it has to be a consequence of having elections on the same day because otherwise it would be pretty obviously chaos; people must know who they are voting for. Does that clarify matters? Thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do thank the Member for the clarification and I think that is also a logical conclusion that one would have to come to. That is why I asked for it at the beginning because we made several speeches and there was no clarity about that point and I think it is more sensible to have more information at the beginning rather than having it come out at the end when nobody can make speeches any more. I do not appreciate the petty interventions from the Senator Back-Benchers

about not being able to speak twice. I would remind people that I am a relatively new Member; I do not do these things on purpose. I am a pragmatist and if I can stand up and try and help the Assembly in any way, I will, and I am fed up with this school-ground politics. That is no disrespect to the Chair because I know the Chair is impartial and I do have the utmost respect for him. Let us move away from the double-standards and the group thing. When I talk of double-standards, we hear one of the Constables stand up saying: "We must all get behind this" but there was no will to change anything yesterday, but today we must all accept this. Why is this a Trojan horse? Let us look at the current system. It is not to do with voter turnout. If it were to do with voter turnout, then Deputy Le Fondré would be proposing that the Council of Ministers inspire people to vote and that they do not waste millions of pounds as we heard yesterday; that is what puts people off from voting. It is their sheer incompetence and the fact that this system we have bears no resemblance to the way in which people vote. So you vote for one person, they get in all on minorities in their own district; they vote for somebody. We vote for Ministers, a Chief Minister, and they have absolutely no real say in who gets into government. That is the real reason that there is no turnout, so this is a completely spurious argument that this would increase voter turnout in any significant way. What we need is fundamental change in our system, we need representative politics if we are going to get people to come out and vote. Nobody in here is nodding their heads but people on the radio at home, they are nodding their heads, but you cannot see them. That is because we do not represent the public any more; we are simply representing our vested interests, apart from the 14 or 18 of us who try and do what is right for the people of Jersey. [Members: Oh!] Of course, we all try and do what is right for the people of Jersey but we all represent different interest groups, do we not? Why is it important to have 2 bites of the cherry? But, in fact, it is not 2 bites of the cherry; it is a single bite of 2 different cherries, is it not? Because yesterday we decided that we are not all equal. We need Constables, we need Senators and we need Deputies, so presumably if we have argued that we do not need one kind of States Member, that means that there is a difference between all 3 of the roles, is there not? There must be. So, therefore, these are 2 different jobs. Now if you were in the private sector or, indeed, in the public sector, applying for a job and you went for one job to get into, let us say, Immigration, and you wanted to become the manager of a department and they said: "No, I am sorry, your application has been refused" it would be completely stupid then 3 weeks later if there was another job opening, would it not, for assistant manager to come up and they said: "No, I am afraid you cannot apply for this job because you are having 2 bites of the cherry." That means people would not ever go for managerial positions. This is exactly what is happening here and it is not because people are having 2 bites of the cherry, so to speak, it is those who get in as Deputy after they have stood for Senator. It is the fact that these are progressives, these are people who do not worship at the Altar of Mammon like our Council of Ministers; that they want to represent the people. There have been occasions in the past when, indeed, Senators here have tried for Senator and not got in. I think of Senators Le Main and Le Claire, I believe that is correct; you have both attempted Senators in the past, you did not make it and you went back to

your seats ..

The Bailiff :

Through the Chair, please, Deputy . No remarks directly to Senators. Deputy M. Tadier :

Quite correct. These Senators, they have stood for Senator in the past, not got in, gone back to their seats as Deputy and it was Deputy Le Claire, sorry, who used to be a Senator. So, in fact, what this proposition does in a very underhanded way is it stops any interchange. Now I think the Deputy of St. Mary, with due respect, had some difficulty conveying his ideas to the House but put simply what it will do, it will stop members of the public who have not been States Members before, or who are not currently States Members, from going for the position of Senator because there is no chance of going for Deputy afterwards. What it will allow is very wealthy individuals or people with very high profiles to stand for Senator because they do not need a fallback position, but ordinary members of society who do not have vast amounts of wealth or who do not have vast amounts of public profile, if I can put it like that, have no choice but to go through the system like that. Some will call that cynical but ultimately it provides a healthy changeover in our system.

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Could I ask the Deputy to allow me to intervene? Can you just tell me what wealth has to do with standing for Senator?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Let me explain, because perhaps it is a difficult concept for the wealthy Members in this Assembly. An election campaign costs you, perhaps, £8,000 to run.

The Connétable of Grouville : Sorry, it is all limited and capped. Deputy M. Tadier :

You can spend up to £8,000 .. can P.P.C. give some clarification? What is the current expenditure limits for Senatorial elections?

The Connétable of Grouville :

If you do not know what you are saying, you should not say it. The Bailiff :

Sorry, we cannot now have a little mini debate. Can you get on with your speech, Deputy ? By all means answer the question to the extent you wish to on ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

I did try to give way so that I can provide clarification. The point is, if you have a lot of money, elections cost thousands of pounds and if you want to put big posters up all around the Island to get elected, that costs money. I think that is a given, is it not?

The Connétable of Grouville :

Could I ask if the President of P.P.C. could please tell us exactly what the rules are? The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Connétable , we cannot have everyone popping up for their one minute .. [Approbation] Each Member must make his speech subject to any proper interventions from others.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Thank you for that clarification. This is another example of the double-standards that we have in that I would be shouted down if I make these kinds of interventions, and I am. That is fair enough; that is all the rough and tumble of politics, I guess. Also, it would stop, as we have seen at the moment, Deputies who quite fancy their chances going for Senator, and I am happy to embarrass them. People like Deputy Le Hérissier and the Deputy of St. Martin could have stood for Senator, they could have got in very easily but there may have been other reasons they did not wish to. There may be Members who think they have a 50, 60, 70 per cent chance even of getting in as Senator. They know they have a 100 per cent chance of retaining their Deputy seat and there is no incentive for them, if there is a single election date, to step up to the platform to have promotion in the system, if indeed it is promotion, to do that because they might as well just stick with their safe seat, even more so if we have a single election day. The problem, of course, as I have said, is not the single election day, there would be ways to get around it: you could stand for both positions. Really, we have failed to grab the bull by the horns here. We could have instituted a comprehensive change; now we are going to try and do it piecemeal which may be inevitable. I would suggest the 4-year term is the first thing we need to get sorted before we go for any general election. You would still have the anomalies of the Senators; that has not been proposed now to get rid of the anomaly. You have 6 Senators who are there for another 3 years without even facing a general election, so this is not a general election by any means. You have this legacy which does not get elected in any 3-year period. Usually the Chief Minister will be appointed from those 3, so he or she does not have to face a general election, and this is completely unsatisfactory. So the Deputy of St. Mary is quite right: this is a Trojan horse; it is not about voter turnouts, it is about vested interests, it is about the fact that too many progressives slip in for what is erroneously called the 2 bites of the cherry which I have said is a bite of 2 different cherries. In fact, we should scrap this and let us all get behind the 4-year term, I think, which will come in the next 3 or 4 weeks. That seems to be the one thing we can all agree on, and let us try and build consensus on that and then I think we do need to throw this out for the reasons I have said. No doubt we will be hearing from the Minister for Treasury and Resources again, who thinks it is completely wrong that dirty working class people like myself get elected not in the correct order. Just one last thing: I think this speech will have lost me a lot of votes but that is the way it works in here; it is school-ground politics. Yesterday I was told simply because I stood up and asked to lift Standing Orders lost me some votes. It was not really my proposition anyway as such, only by virtue of being on P.P.C. Now if this is the mentality that we have of experienced and so-called professional States Members that they do not vote on the principle, they vote because somebody has ruffled their feathers, then that does not bode very well for Jersey.

7. The Connétable of St. Clement :

I hope Deputy Tadier gets over his paranoia quickly because it is .. Yesterday, we debated having a general election in the amendment that I brought. Deputy Tadier and the Deputy of St. Mary spoke in support of a general election in my amendment and voted for a general election in my amendment. I just wonder what has happened overnight that they no longer feel that a general election is appropriate. I supported a general election, I always have done, and I believe that if I voted against having a general election now, I would be a hypocrite and that is one thing I am not and I will not be. Admittedly, the system is not perfect, there would be 6 Members who would not be part of that general election but that, I am sure, will come when Deputy Tadier 's proposals for a 4-year term is brought and, I hope, is successful. But what this will do, and I think it was proven when we had the duel elections for Constables and Senators last year, it encourages and excites the population more than having 3 elections at very odd periods. [Approbation] This will excite the population, I am sure, and it will create far greater interest and a far greater turnout at the polls. It is a no-brainer, it is a simple proposition, an advancement on our present system and I urge the States to support it overwhelmingly.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I seek to defend myself? I believe that I have been called a hypocrite. [Interruption] The Bailiff :

One moment, it is the Chair that rules on these matters; not other Members. Now, Deputy , you must understand, you cannot defend yourself. People make one speech and then other people comment on your speech and that is part of politics. It is part of the debating procedure; you have to take the criticism. It is only if there is a genuine point of clarification, in other words, because of ambiguity. Now there was no point of clarification, the Connétable was simply commenting on your speech.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I ask for a point of order and it is ..? The Bailiff :

Well if it is a point of order, what is your point of order? Deputy M. Tadier :

I believe that it has been inferred that the Deputy of St. Mary and I are hypocrites because the Constable of St. Clement said that he had to vote for this because he is not a hypocrite and the fact that we are not voting for it implied that we are hypocrites. Now I can explain very briefly ..

The Bailiff :

Well, I do not consider he implied that at all, Deputy . Deputy Martin.

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

Now Deputy Tadier says that this will kill people coming in straight off the streets. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I am very sorry; you cannot have it both ways. Do we want people in this House who do an apprenticeship through the Deputy seats and then go on to Senators? This system, having a general election, does not stop it. The Deputy of St. Mary keeps whispering in my ear: "This is it. This is it, they are trying to kill Senators, trying to kill the Island-wide mandate" because who would leave their safe seat? There is Senator Ozouf who sat next to me for, I think, one term as a Deputy and then he went on to stand as Senator. Deputy Breckon did many, many years; I think he should have gone for Senator sooner. I think we have one from last time, a Senator who came straight in 3 years ago, which was Senator Shenton and Senator Perchard - oh, and Senator Cohen - which I do not agree with. At the time we did not have limits on expenses and none of them needed to go for the second bite of the cherry. All right, it might be a different cherry as Deputy Tadier says, but it did not do many of them any harm standing in a very, very - as Senator Breckon has already said - well publicised Senatorial. About voter turnout, I have stood now for 4 elections in St. Helier and I duly went down to many of the Senatorial hustings and I was helping Senator Breckon and quite clearly giving out leaflets; I have no intention of denying that. At 2 places, and even at my own Parish, I was locked out. I arrived there at 7.00 a.m. and it was so full because so many people were in there, I could not get into the Town Hall where I represent. I should have arrived there early, obviously, but I was there half an hour early, but because of the previous turnout in the 3 years before, I should have known better; I should have been there at 6.00 a.m., again, where I was locked out. Six weeks later, the St. Helier No. 1 Districts Deputies were having their hustings in exactly the same place. If we attracted 40 people I think we were lucky. Very lucky. It is absolutely ridiculous. Many people who stood in the Senatorials who already had the publicity then can go for Deputy . Now the Deputy of St. Mary is absolutely adamant this will kill it off; that people will not leave so-called safe seats. There are a few safe seats; there are many - and they are always St. Helier , St. Clement , St. Brelade, St. Lawrence - who normally have a contested election. Now if you feel that you have more to offer and you want to go, and it does always seem to pan out, Senator Breckon being the exception, that if you are elected as a Senator, especially with a high majority, you will be considered for ministerial government. I think Senator Le Marquand said all that yesterday that you may not be suitable for people in here. That is another thing we definitely have to look at because we are not elected to elect us; we are elected by people to elect the right people that they want but that is another story. So I cannot see it absolutely killing off Senatorials Island-wide like the 2 Deputies say - one behind me and one still mumbling in my ear to the left - which I fully appreciate. We are all apprentices here; some people have been here a year and we have a new Bailiff sitting in the Chair. You took your apprenticeship through as Deputy Bailiff and sat in the Chair and you always - if the Bailiff had made a ruling - said that the Bailiff has made a ruling and you would not change it. I am certainly not trying to discourage debate, and I sat in this House for at least 6 months before I did more than a couple of speeches, and learnt exactly the procedure. The Deputy next to me, I respect entirely, he works very hard. But when you are having a debate in the House, it is not because people are disagreeing with you, that you have done something wrong, they are disagreeing with your politics; you just carry on. You will always have people disagreeing with your politics. I often have; I just carry on,

I do not, as you say, keep sitting up [Interruption] .. it will not be a point of clarification. I think if this does in any way stop people just being able to come in off the street and not do an apprenticeship as Deputy , all well and good; people not having 2 bites of the cherry which absolutely does get up voters' noses. If you are really confident that you have done a good job even in one, 2 or 3 terms and you feel that you want to go to the Senatorial benches, you will go. I do believe Senator Breckon and I do believe Senator Ozouf , if they had not been elected last time around, they would not have stood as Deputy . It was not the job they wanted and I do believe that and I think that is a fair way to go. I really feel it is the way that we need to go; one election. We did not get anything else but I will support this. P.P.C. have said in their comments: "Put it back to P.P.C. and we will get it managed." It will not be that people can stand for 3 categories on one day; it will be for one category on the same day and you take your choice and you take your chance, and if the people do not want you, they do not want you under either or any category. Thank you.

9. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Long before any Member here was elected and, unfortunately, Senator Breckon is not here, but in fact I stood for Senator back in 1975 probably before some Members were even born. [Laughter] I stood against what I call the "giants" of politics: Senator Le Marquand, Ralph Vibert , Dick Shenton, Clarrie Farley, Senator Dupré, Jane Sandeman and John Riley. Needless to say, I came last. But I was not deterred but I did say at the time I would not take again for the Deputy seats. I took 3 years later against, in fact, probably the senior Member of the House - he is the eldest serving Member - Deputy Le Main, that he became then, and I lost to him by 4 votes. But that was all a good learning curve. I did not take again until 1994 in an election in St. John for Deputy of which, in fact, I came in and there was an 87 per cent turnout. So you can talk about turnouts of 30-odd per cent. When we do it in the country, we may not always stand and have an election every 3 years, but when there is an election there are big turnouts and we do fill up our Parish Hall s. That said, I followed the Senatorial elections and having the most recent election at St. Peter 's Community Hall , I saw the 21 candidates standing for office for the 6 seats and unfortunately I did not believe that that particular hustings that I attended, and also the one at St. John , gave the office the time it deserved because each candidate had X number of Ministers to speak and it was a very, very soft election. I think if we are putting people into this House, Senators, even having stood all those years ago, I believe, need an apprenticeship, although I know that we have Members who have not served an apprenticeship on the Senators' benches but those people who are Ministers are very able. Very able. But they stood and they knew full well that if they did not get in they probably would not have gone for Deputy ; they would have taken their chance there and then. I think that calibre of person knows when he or she does not make it on that occasion they will step from the frame, because they have been around in life sufficiently to know that there are certain things you do at the right time. That said, I do understand the comments being made by some Members about the 2 bites of the cherry, because a lot of people could not afford the publicity they do get at a Senatorial election. But now that we have a fixed amount that each person can spend on an election, whether it is the Senatorial or the Deputies, it is more of a level playing field. You will not have those people with a lot of money that can afford the big publicity, so it is Hobson's choice. You take your chance: you either go for Deputy , you go for Constable or you go for Senator but in my mind, and I believe this strongly the longer I have been in the House, the people I like to see on the Senatorial Benches, whether they have been a Constable or Deputy , I like to think they have done their apprenticeship prior to getting there. As I say, with the odd exception, as we have seen in the last election when we saw Senator Le Marquand come forward, I believe he did his apprenticeship from within the position he held; that he knew a lot about how the Island worked. Therefore, I was more than happy to support him during his campaign because he was of the calibre of person who knew sufficient about the Island and the way it ran because of his profession and his previous post as a Magistrate. Therefore, I am very pleased to support this proposition of the Deputy of St. Lawrence because it is the way forward and I think P.P.C. will do good to support this. I hope they do because it is only a very small step as has been said by the Constable of St. Martin but a step that is well worth taking.

10. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Very quickly. The public are not stupid and they are perfectly well aware that this particular amendment removes the bolt-hole. In fact I have been lobbied about this, the latest being on the taxi rank this morning as I came in, very much in favour of one election day. In the U.S. elections they have them on one day. On that day you vote for a Senator or 2 Senators, Congressmen and the municipality. If you do not make it in the Senatorials, that is it. You do not have the Congressmen bolt-hole. It is nice to be able to have a fallback position but life is not like that. One small rider to the debate, if this goes through please can P.P.C. look at having it at the weekend? [Approbation] Hopefully we can bring back the brass bands. At least in St. Brelade we have the Les Quennevais school band so perhaps we are one jump ahead. The only other comment, I would comment on Deputy Tadier 's comment on voting for Ministers and so on. In the United States, nobody votes for the Ministerial positions. They are appointed by the President. So that in fact if this House has the ability to propose and vote for Ministers, we are possibly one step ahead of the U.S. which is possibly one of the oldest democracies. I think this is an excellent proposition and I will certainly support it.

11. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I hope the Deputy of St. Lawrence will not think I am not trusting what he has told me but I would if I could like to ask Her Majesty's Attorney General can he clarify, please, whether there is any impediment to restricting the number of offices that people can stand for? I know that it is done currently with the Constables and the Senators. But I seem to recall that there was some concern expressed as to how that could be achieved. That it was not necessarily straightforward. I would be grateful if the Attorney General could refresh my memory and confirm the legal position, Sir.

Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Can I just ask the Chairman of P.P.C. for the precise question, please? The Connétable of St. Mary :

Is it possible to say, if this proposition is passed, that candidates can only stand in one of the elections for Senator, for Deputy or for Constable, which will be held on the same day or whether they can in fact stand for multiple office? Having had that, I would like to carry my speech on after, Sir.

Senator S. Syvret:

May I add to that question before the Attorney speaks? Presumably it would a legal absurdity if a candidate were to run for 2 or 3 candidates and perhaps get elected as a Senator and a Constable. That could be the outcome of the election presumably. Then what would occur?

The Attorney General:

Sir, I am sorry that I am not able to give immediate help on this. This is a matter where I know that we have given advice in the past. We cannot at the moment immediately lay our hands on it. I have some of my staff looking for the relevant advice at the moment. What I do recall from the occasion is that it is not nearly as easy as it may seem. I want to be quite sure that I do not mislead the Assembly. If I could be given a few minutes I hope to be able to come back with some rather better answers than an on the hoof answer which it will be at the moment.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I appreciate the Attorney's candour and of course I am always willing to wait for the right advice. I just think that that might be a particularly important consideration for Members when they decide how to vote. Sir, may I park my speech and come back to it when the advice is known or should I continue now?

The Bailiff :

It is up to you. I would suggest you press on with any arguments you wish to make for or against the proposition as a matter of politics and principle and then we will hear what the Attorney General has to say as a matter of law later on.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am grateful, Sir, thank you. I would just like to clarify when Privileges and Procedures issued its comments on this proposition I have to say I think that the committee was perhaps a little hopeful that we would never get to debate it. Obviously we were very intent that our proposition, P.72, should be debated first. In the light of the lack of support for the reforms in the round, obviously it is a political matter for Members to consider whether they can support this. There will be significant changes required in the election administration procedure if this goes ahead. But as has been admirably pointed out by the Constable of St. Martin, these are not insurmountable. I am quite convinced the Parish staff can rise to them. There are much greater procedural issues concerning perhaps the timing of elections. They are not specifically addressed in here but of course if all Members - not all Members but the 6 continuing Members - were elected on the same day they would validly expect I think to be sworn in as soon as possible after the elections. Of course we would then need to revisit the timing of the election. The ideal time that we have looked at under previous proposals for bringing the elections forward to all be on the date of the current Senatorial election. However, then of course the budget et cetera has to be debated later on. There are major changes that would need to be brought in line. If Members were elected in October they would not I think reasonably expect .. if the majority were elected then they would want to be sworn in and start work. There are really quite major implications there. Again I think this will undoubtedly fall at the feet of P.P.C. to manage. I am sure that it can be managed in one way or another. In the course of that consideration of course weekend elections - whether to time at the weekend - could also be considered. I believe that really it is down to a political decision. There is no resistance from P.P.C. to undertake this work if charged. Of course we are happy to see reform. But I do believe the concern of some Members about whether all 3 offices could be stood for is very valid and I think we will need to colour the vote.

12. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

It was raised by the Connétable of St. Mary but I think what has to be spoken about is the timing of elections. I think one of the differences that I have seen in the voter turnout between Senators and Deputies is the fact that the election is held in November where it is cold, where it is wet. We know that human behaviour, as humans are creatures darkness, as dampness, does have an effect on our behaviour. It does make us stay more inside. My concern is is the proposal for an October election or is it to be in November because that does depend on my vote. I presume it would be in October but I will wait for the speaker to clarify that for me.

13. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I brought a proposal to the States which included an everyone on one day election a few years back and it was narrowly thrown out. The part of the proposition that did go through was the limit on election expenses which I feel was a very important part of equalising the process and making sure that you could not throw money at an election. Deputy Tadier was slightly annoyed at my response with regard to the point of the order and the clarification. But I think too often in this House we do have points of order and people standing up for clarification. Yesterday's debate was more like a conversation in a coffee house at times than it was a debate in Chamber. Certainly the quality of speeches yesterday in places was quite appalling. Some of them I do not even think you could call them speeches. They were just sort of random thoughts conversed across the Chamber. With

regard to the Chairman of Privileges and Procedures, I would like to see more of a can do' attitude than a cannot do attitude. This is possible. I think an election on one day is what the public want. It may not be what certain Deputies want but it is what the public want. A number of members of the public have approached me over the years to say that they are not happy with the system. Certainly the Senatorial elections do capture the public imagination far more than the Deputies elections simply I think because there is an element of election fatigue in place afterwards. Finally, because I was not going to speak, I would just ask Deputy Tadier to change his mind and support this proposition because I do think it is time for change.

14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think that there are issues and I have been concerned about issues in previous discussions about elections of the problem that individuals - voters - for example, in St. Helier No. 3 are going to have to assimilate. They are going to have to choose multiple individuals from multiple elections. In St. Helier No. 3, if you keep 6 Senatorial positions which this proposal I think does, is going to have to choose 11 people in one single election. I am mindful of the fact that in Senatorial elections I think that voters on average do not even choose their 6 Senators. They choose - I think on the last statistics I saw - was 4.5. I think that that shows that there are real issues that we need to be mindful of in having one election on one single day. I mean no disrespect to anybody but we are aware of all the personalities involved in politics. I could choose quite happily if I was a voter in St. Helier No. 3 who I wanted. But members of the general public are not that engaged with individuals. I am afraid we cannot say that there is a real test of candidates in terms of elections. I think that, therefore, we need to give consideration as to how we are going to handle such elections. I do not think it is insurmountable but I think we certainly need to give consideration and some more research is going to need to be done. I think also there are some parallel issues that, if this proposition goes ahead, also need to be researched by P.P.C. The timing of the election needs to be considered. The Greffier has pointed out to me that there will be issues about the timing of the Business Plan and budget if Members expect an October election day not a November day. It seems unacceptable to hold off the swearing of successful candidates for 6 weeks as happens now. If we put it to November there are going to be issues with the budget. I personally think that the whole issue of the Business Plan and budget may need to be reviewed. Maybe that is something positive that we can review in parallel. Maybe we do need to revisit the separation of spending and taxation. That is something I know that Corporate Affairs is looking at. Moreover, I continue to believe that there is a problem in relation to the old Assembly with Members that have lost their seat passing the budget for the year in which we are going to govern. In a 3-year cycle there is a real issue that in fact, a new Assembly, what does it mean? You are making a vote in an election in October and November and what does it mean? The budget is going to be set which of course all the big political debates are about money. Effectively you cannot do anything for at least 18 months. I think that that perhaps goes to explain why some people do not understand and rightly that they do not understand - I mean Islanders - what the connection is between their vote and a policy direction for Jersey. Maybe that is going to mean that in time there is going to be a move towards formalised groupings or parties. Perhaps it can be achieved in other ways. I say all these things because I think that with all things there needs to be proper research and consideration given to quite important changes in our election system. I want also to say that the point about changing the Deputorial boundaries I think also could be taken in parallel with P.P.C.'s review of all of these issues if this proposition is supported. I think that it has to be an objective to have a more testing, a more representative Deputorial election. I think that I would like to see the role of Deputies enhanced and there to be really a view that Deputies have had to really struggle across the Island to get elected. I think that it has to be said that some elections for Deputies in some areas of the Island are more testing and more difficult than others. I am going to say it is controversial but the Senators' election is an Island-wide test of public opinion. It is I think more difficult to get elected as a Senator than as a Deputy . I think that speaks for the fact that failed Senatorial candidates get in as Deputies. I think that there has to be an issue about the Senatorial elections themselves. Not all

is perfect with the Senatorial elections. With a field of 20 candidates and I hope I am not treading on too many toes here when I say that there are always going to be potential no-hopers standing in the Senatorial elections in order to get in as Deputies. That is fine for the individuals but I think it crowds-out the proper discussion and the proper debate that needs to happen on the Senatorial elections. I have sat in Senatorial elections with 20 people on a platform where 6 or 7 people, with the greatest of respect, are never going to get elected. That means that the people who are more likely to get elected are not tested to the extent that they should be within a narrower field. I do not want to take anything away from anybody's right to stand for elections but we also need to be giving consideration to making elections difficult and making elections a difficult and a policy-rich environment. So in supporting this proposition I think maybe we can consider perhaps like other places have done. They have considered non-refundable deposits to discourage those no-hopers, if I may say. But perhaps running an election in parallel might help because people will concentrate on either the election for Senators, Deputies or Constable. I think that there are real issues about this choice of so many candidates. Perhaps a reform system of Deputies where there would be 2 or 3 Deputorial seats across the Island, re-organised and fairly representative across all Islanders to make the voters of St. Mary have the same voice as the voters of St. Helier No. 3 with a redistribution of Deputies. Maybe that is all going to be able to be dealt with by P.P.C. if the signal is given that we want one single election. I think the Constables and P.P.C., if this proposition is passed, are going to have to really work hard to make sure that the elections are informed elections for voters. There has been resistance. The Constable of St. Helier and I, I think are 2 Members of this Assembly that have called for voting or polling cards. I think every elector needs to be sent a clear, plain English explanation of what the elections are. It has to be the case that with a significant percentage of our community not being born here and not having gone through the recent education system of orientation of what our election system is about, I think people do need

explanation in a plain English way about what the elections are. I think people's rights need to be clearly given to them. I think that polling cards with all of the candidates, perhaps with a picture, perhaps with a clear explanation of what the different positions are needs to be done. That is going to be even more important if we are going to have the more complex system of lots of votes in one individual election. This is not easy. There are going to be all sorts of parallel issues that are going to have to be worked upon. Perhaps also long term consideration given to I think the long term objective of having a 4-year electoral term if one gets the single election right at the right time. I know we are not debating this now but there are going to be consequential issues to consider about whether or not we do eventually do something with the number of Senators and perhaps the changes which I think are going to be required in the longer term for the constitutional changes that I think an evolving Island democracy is going to have to deal with. At the end of the day there is one thing that I think the public are concerned about. I hear Deputy Tadier and he says that he does not think that other Members represent the Island. Maybe he is right. I know and I hear the constant refrain that the people that I talk to, the people that I think voted for me want to see - and this is difficult to say - a raising of standards of the Members of this Assembly. They want to see the Assembly become more representative because I do not think it is. I do not think this Assembly is representative of our community. I think the public is confused by the signals that we send out about what the States Assembly is, what the Government is, what the role of Scrutiny is. I do not think we are giving anything like the opportunity for other people in other parts of the community to stand for elections. This is not about wealthy and non-wealthy. This is the middle ground of Jersey which I have to say I do not think feel that this Assembly represents their interests. I think we have got a lot of work to do in order to improve that. I plead guilty as well in having not spent enough time on these issues. I am going to support this proposition because I think it is the right long term objective for the Island but I think the devil is in the detail. There is a great deal of work that is going to have to be done by P.P.C. in order to make it work and make the election process

work.

15. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

The first thing I would like to say is that I very much welcomed the speeches of Senator Breckon and Deputy Martin because they reflect very much my views on this subject. I would like to say to Deputy Le Fondré thank him for bringing this proposition. I will enthusiastically support this proposition and would like to tell Members why. At the end of 2005 I decided to stand for Deputy . I did not consider any other role in this Chamber; any other position in this Chamber. I was comfortable with my decision in 2005. I stood for election. I am comfortable with my role as a Deputy and I have now done it twice. I never for a minute thought when I stood for Deputy that I would need a safety net or a fallback position. That is why I stood for Deputy and did not stand for Senator on the hope that I would get name recognition and then stand for Deputy . I think coming from it from a slightly a different angle I feel that this business of having a fallback position is unsustainable. It is entirely up to Deputy Le Fondré in his summing up whether or not he thought of that. I certainly did not when I stood. I am glad that this proposition clarifies and simplifies some part of our election process. I am comfortable that if we have one election on one day for the 3 positions in this Chamber that there will be no fallback position. It is not the only reason I like this. I pick up on one point Deputy Tadier said which I have to disagree with even though he is my colleague in St. Brelade. That is that he made a number of general comments about people who stand for Senator. He implied that the role of finance and money in being elected as a Senator is somehow relevant. I am looking at Senator Syvret to my right and I am looking at Senator Breckon to my right. I have never seen in my active interest in politics in the Island, the Island awash in Senator Syvret posters or the Island awash in Senator Breckon posters. I do not think there was one Senator Breckon poster and yet he was second last year. I think that it is a matter of public perception. I think somebody else used this phrase that if the public respect you, if the public trust you, if the public want you, you will be elected. I think those examples of those 2 Senators are a case in point where money is not relevant. They were elected on their track record. The other relevant thing that Senator Breckon said - and I think he quoted Senator Ozouf - is that had he not been successful as Senator, he would not have stood as Deputy . I think that is a profoundly important and honest thing to do and an important, honest thing to say. That is probably why Senator Breckon was second and in previous elections Senator Syvret was first. Having decided to stand for Deputy in 2005, one of the reasons I was glad I did not contemplate standing for Senator is I regard the Senatorial elections now, unless we do something about them, as an absolute cavalry charge across the finish line. You had 15 or 16 candidates for Senator in 2005 and you had 21 in 2008. I attended one Senatorial hustings in 2005 and one in 2008. The system simply is not working. As Senator Shenton said, it does engender a lot of public excitement and a lot of public interest but really it demeans the role of the position of Senator and I think it damages the election process for Senator. That is something that if this proposition has any benefit it will stop this. But I know that that is not the only reason Deputy Le Fondré has brought this to the Assembly. Moving on. I agree with 2 other speakers who have said that the public want one election, a general election on one day and that should be a spring or early summer day at the weekend. I think Deputy Maçon said it and somebody else said it. We have got to get away from these dark October and wet November days. In 2005 in St. Brelade we asked the electors of St. Brelade to vote 4 times: for Senators in early October, for a Constables' election I think it was the beginning of November 2005, for Deputies at the end of November 2005 and then we had a contested Procureur election in February 2006. It is an electoral process that I hope is changed because it is simply asking too much of people to come out on these dark evenings and/or wet days. I can vouch for the fact that having spent 3 times in my life standing outside Communicare for 12 hours, it is not a pleasant prospect when it is windy and wet. So we standing outside there is one thing. Asking people to come in and vote in the dark, in the wet, with Zimmer frames, with wheelchairs is just simply wrong. We have got to move to a spring or an early summer day. I agree with Senator Shenton, it is up to P.P.C. to make it happen. It is up to P.P.C. to say we can do this. We can improve the way we get people to vote. We can make it easier to vote. Let us not hear we can do it