States Meeting Transcript - 17/03/2011

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 17th MARCH 2011

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

1. Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.14/2011) - resumption................................................................................5

1. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):........5

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:......................................................5
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................5

3. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................6
4. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................6
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................6
6. The Connétable of St. Mary:.............................................................6

2. The Connétable of St. Mary:.............................................................7

1.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................8

3. The Connétable of St. Mary:.............................................................8

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................10
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................13
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................13
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................14
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................14
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................15
7. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................17
8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................17
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................19
10. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................19
11. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................20
12. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................22
13. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John:......................................................23
14. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter : ......................................................23
15. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................23
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................24
17. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................24 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................26 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................27 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................27 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................27 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................28

4. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................29
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................30

1.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30

6. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................31

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32

2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................32
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................32
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................32
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................32

7. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................34

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................34

8. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................35

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................35
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................36 The Attorney General:........................................................................36

9. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................36
10. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................36

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................36
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................37
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................37
4. The Deputy of St. Peter:.............................................................37
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................37
6. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................38
7. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................38

2. Importation of fireworks in 2007 for a charity event: investigation (P.21/2011)......39

2.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................40

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................41
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................41
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................42
4. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................42
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................43
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................43
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................43
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................43
9. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................43
10. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................44
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................44

3. Elected Members' access to information: media releases (P.22/2011).................46

3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................46

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................48
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................48
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................48
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................50
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................50

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................51

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................52

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................53
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................53
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
10. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................54
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................54

4. States of Jersey Development Company Limited: appointment of Chairman and Non- Executive Directors (P.32/2011).........................................................56

1. States of Jersey Development Company Limited: appointment of Chairman and Non- Executive Directors (P.32/2011) - proposal of the Deputy of St. John to debate in camera ...................................................................................57

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................57
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................57
3. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................58
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................58
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................58
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................58
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................58
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................59
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................59
11. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................59
12. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................59
13. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................60

2. States of Jersey Development Company Limited: appointment of Chairman and Non- Executive Directors (P.32/2011) - proposal of Deputy J.A. Martin to defer debate to 29th March 2011 ........................................................................61

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................61
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................61
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................62
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................62

5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................62
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................62
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................62
8. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................62
9. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................62
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
11. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................63
12. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................63
13. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................64
14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................64

3. States of Jersey Development Company Limited: appointment of Chairman and Non- Executive Directors (P.32/2011) - resumption..........................................67

1. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................67
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................69

4. States of Jersey Development Company Limited: appointment of Chairman and Non- Executive Directors (P.32/2011) - Scrutiny Panel to report back......................70

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................70
2. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................71
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................71
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................71
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................72
6. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................72
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73

8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................73
9. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................73
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................74
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................74
12. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................74
13. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................75
14. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................75
15. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................75
16. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................76
17. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................76

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................78

5. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......78

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................78
2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................79
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................79
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................79
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................80

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................80

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

[09:36]

1. Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.14/2011) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

Now, chairman, we had reached, in relation to the Public Elections (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law, as Article 12, reading that Law, Part (b) seems to make changes as a result of the adoption of Article 11 that we reached last night, and Part (a) makes changes, which are dependent upon the adoption of Part 7, the amended Part 7 under Article 15. In those circumstances, shall we leave over Article 12 and wait until we have completed Article 15 and then return to it?

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I am happy to accept your direction. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Alright, so we now resume the debate on Article 13 of the draft bill.

1. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

Article 13 amends Article 33 of the principal Law, which is concerned with how a person votes. The amendment merely requires that a ballot paper must be placed in the correct ballot box for the election in which it is cast when more than one ballot box is being used in the polling station. The Autorisé will nevertheless check for any missing ballot papers that may have been put in the wrong ballot box by mistake and it will not in any way invalidate a vote for it to be placed in the wrong ballot box. I propose Article 13.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Article 13 is proposed, seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

I am not against this article at all, but I would wonder if the chairman could just talk about, in the case where there are multiple districts within one Parish for the different elections of Deputies, are there different colours? Why I ask this is the reason why we have the different colours of paper is so that, if someone, for whatever reason, puts a Deputy 's vote into a Senator's box, then when they are all .. they must be taken to one place where they must all be counted, whereas at the moment, say in my particular District, usually the count for the Deputy happens at the polling station in my District, but obviously, going forward, it will have to happen at the Parish Hall , because if someone has put a Deputy vote in the Senator's box then obviously how are you going to tell which one it is if they are not all done at the same place. The reason why I ask this is, if you have multiple Deputies' elections going on in the same Parish, then presumably the colour the different Deputies are in - the different districts of the Parish - must therefore have to be different. Has the Committee considered this?

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I just would like to ask the chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) if there is some slight tension between Article 13 and Article 10 in that Article 10 says that there may be up to 3 ballot boxes in each polling station for the different types of ballots, but at the bottom of Article 13 it says that it will not in any way invalidate a vote for it to be placed in the wrong ballot box. I am just wondering if certain voters in certain polling stations will just take the easy option and drop all 3 ballot papers into the one box, because it seems to indicate under Article 13 that is a possibility now because those votes will not be invalidated. If she could just clarify that as she sums up. Thank you.

3. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

Perhaps I can I just help to clarify on this. Normally, with a poll like this, there would be an Adjoint attending alongside the ballot boxes and one of the things the Adjoint would do is to try and ensure that people put the right votes in the right boxes, and not all 3 into one. If there is a problem, going to Deputy Maçon's query, the voting - certainly as it would happen in St. Saviour, where there would possibly be 3 different polling stations - the votes for Senator would all be taken back to .. the ballot boxes would all be taken back to the Parish Hall , but the votes for Deputy would be done at each individual polling station, and therefore, when that ballot box is opened, if there is a Senatorial vote in it, it would be seen that there is a vote of the wrong colour and the Autorisé would be able to take that aside and deal with it. Similarly, if the reconciliation was wrong at the end, the Autorisé would be able to authorise the Senatorial boxes to be opened to check that there were no votes in that from the Deputies. So it is a problem, it complicates things, but it is not insurmountable and the Autorisés have the power to deal with it.

4. Senator A. Breckon:

If I may just say, I think many people who have been involved with elections over the years know that in general terms the people who oversee it do so in a professional, but I would say friendly and common sense, manner and I think they will interpret this in the right way; that if something is put in the wrong box it is not going to be invalid, it will be put in the right place, and I do not think we need to make heavy weather of this and we need to respect those who do oversee the elections because many have years of experience and apply common sense, which is what this is about. [Approbation]

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Sorry, it was drowned by the foot stamping. Notwithstanding everything that Senator Breckon said, and it is in a similar vein to Deputy Power's comments, if Article 13 simply says that the ballot paper must be placed in the correct ballot box, so there is an imperative there, but if we are saying on the other hand that if you do not place it in the correct box then that will count anyway, it means that the ballot paper does not have to be placed in the correct box, so I am wondering why it was not drafted in the article to say that ballot papers should be placed in the corresponding box, but any ballot papers, which find themselves into other boxes, will be counted. So my question is, is this at the discretion of the returning officer or the Adjoint or whoever is overseeing it, and if it is at the discretion, is that something that we should be concerned about? I do not think it is, but if it is not, why was it not just put directly into this article?

The Deputy Bailiff

Does any Member wish to speak? Then, Chairman, I will ask you to reply.

6. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I think the first 2 points have been ably dealt with by the Constable of St. Saviour and I thank Senator Breckon for his common sense remarks. To answer the last point, the article will say: "A person who has recorded a vote shall fold his or her ballot paper and place it in a ballot box being used for the public election in which the vote is cast." The Autorisé has discretion in all matters and I think the Deputy must understand the Law has been drafted in such a way by experienced Law Draftsmen that I have no doubt that it encompasses what must be done, but allows the discretion of the Jurat. Having said that, I move Article 13

The Deputy Bailiff :

Article 13 is proposed. The appel is called for. I ask Members to return to their seats. The vote is on whether or not to adopt Article 13 of the Public Elections (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to Article 14.

2. The Connétable of St. Mary :

Article 14 amends Article 35 of the principal Law, which is concerned with the arrangements for taking the vote of a person who is  ill or  disabled. We will shortly come to debate revised arrangements  for  the taking of  votes  from persons  who  are sick  or  disabled  and  as a result Article 35 of the 2002 Law is amended to clarify that the taking of sick votes by the Autorisé is restricted to polling day. This mirrors the current arrangements but the matter is being put beyond doubt in view of the new arrangements, which I will shortly propose in relation to pre-poll voting, and I propose Article 14.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Article 14 is proposed, and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

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

Yes. The first question is why such a long gap? It seems to me that the number of votes taken in this way will not be that enormous that you should need to have .. Am I talking to the wrong bit again? I think I will stop.

[09:45]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then, I do not think, Chairman, you wish to reply to that. All Members in favour of adopting Article 14 to show? Those against? The Article is adopted.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come to Article 15, substituting Part 7, chairman, and this is one vote, one article, it is the whole of the part is being proposed.

3. The Connétable of St. Mary :

Article 15, this article substitutes the whole of Part 7 of the 2002 Law, which relates to postal and pre-poll voting procedures. The changes follow the recommendations of the Working Party, which was keen to ensure that voting is made as simple and accessible as possible to electors, who, for whatever reason, are unable to attend the polling station to cast their vote on polling day. Under the current law, in order to cast a pre-poll vote, the voter must be able to satisfy the Judicial Greffier that he or she will be out of the Island during the hours of polling or have some commitment or disability that would prevent him or her attending at the polling station. P.P.C. sees no reason to maintain these restrictions on pre-poll voting and believes, for example, that some voters, perhaps those who work everyday in St. Helier, may prefer to cast their vote at the Judicial Greffe before polling day and so the first significant change is that the pre-poll voting system is open to all electors through a substituted Article 38. In addition, the current pre-poll voting procedures are simplified in the law so that in practice an elector attending at the offices of the Judicial Greffe is treated almost in exactly the same way as a voter attending at a polling station. The voter will be asked to produce identity and then asked which elections he or she wishes to vote in. The elector will then be given the relevant ballot paper or papers to complete, which he or she will do in a private way, before placing the ballot paper in an envelope to ensure that the secrecy of the poll is maintained. P.P.C. considers that these procedures will simplify the pre-poll procedures for electors and will also reduce the work required by officers of the Judicial Greffe, which will go some way to offset the potential increase in the number of pre-poll voters following the lifting of the current restrictions on who may pre-poll. Another extremely important change to the pre-poll voting system is found in the inserted Article 42(11), which specifies that, in the case of a voter who is ill, disabled or illiterate, the Judicial Greffier shall take such measures as he or she considers appropriate for taking the voter's pre-poll vote. The wording of the new article mirrors the current sick vote procedure already in place on polling day, which is found in Article 35 of the 2002 Law. Following discussions with the Deputy Judicial Greffier, it has been agreed that the Judicial Greffe will take on temporary staffing who will be able to go out on request to voters who are unable to attend the polling station because of illness, disability or illiteracy, to take a vote from the person. The Working Party was extremely concerned that the current postal voting procedures that are in

place for electors who are unable to attend the polling station because of illness, disability or illiteracy are extremely complex. Currently, an initial application must be made, followed by the completion of a complex procedure once the voting paper and associated envelopes and declaration of identity are received back from the Judicial Greffe. The Working Party was concerned to note from statistics produced by the Judicial Greffe that a significant percentage of postal votes that are sent out were never returned in some constituencies, indicating that voters found the process complex. The amendment allows for the introduction of a new system where independent officers can attend on request at a voter's home address. P.P.C. believes that this is a significant improvement on the current system and will have the added benefit of ensuring that the integrity of the voting system is in no way compromised. In practice P.P.C. considers that it is likely that the new system will be operated through a partnership between the Parishes and the Judicial Greffe, so that any voter who wishes to avail himself or herself of the new pre-poll voting system could contact the Parish Hall , which would in turn notify the Judicial Greffier, so that one of the dedicated officers could make arrangements to take the elector's vote. That is just one scenario, but the article opens-up the possibility. The Judicial Greffe is aware that there will be an additional resource requirement for staff with the new system, but the additional officers will only need to be in post for a short period in the lead-up to the poll and P.P.C. considers that the cost of these officers can be justified in view of the significant benefit for electors. Following on from the changes in the pre-poll voting mechanism, P.P.C. is recommending that the postal voting is restricted to 2 groups of people, those who are likely to be out of Jersey during the hours of polling and those whose names and addresses are omitted from the electoral register under the provisions of Article 9 of the Law. In practice, the majority of the postal votes requested are in relation to persons who will be out of the Island on polling day, either because they will be on holiday, or because they are studying or working temporarily out of the Island. P.P.C. is therefore satisfied that no one would be prejudiced by the removal of the right for the sick and disabled or illiterate in Jersey to use the postal voting system and is fully satisfied that the new change of pre-poll voting described above will more than compensate for the change. Two other small changes are made to the postal and pre-poll voting system by the revised Part 7. In the past there has been some criticism of the notices published in the Jersey Gazette in relation to elections. Previously the Judicial Greffier has had no discretion other than to publish a notice in the Jersey Gazette in accordance with the statutory requirements. P.P.C. believes that it is appropriate to give the Judicial Greffier greater discretion and revised Article 40 simplifies the requirement for the Judicial Greffier to publish a notice of the arrangements and allows for the possibility for the notices to be published in other ways. The second minor change relates to the closing time for pre-poll voting, which is fixed at 2.00 p.m. on the Monday before the poll. As can be seen from the Law, there are a number of procedures that the Judicial Greffier must complete in order to forward all necessary paperwork and ballot papers to the relevant Autorisé before polling day, and P.P.C. believes that it is therefore reasonable to allow one working afternoon and one full working day to complete these procedures following the closure of the pre-poll voting system. The current arrangements, I remind

Members, is that the opportunity to pre-poll closes on noon on the day before the poll. All of the sick or disabled people who have used the complex and complicated postal voting process before will be able to access the new sick vote procedure; that means that an independent officer will attend to take their vote without the complicated completion of complex paperwork. Pre-poll voting is being opened up to all and P.P.C. will ensure that this is well publicised in its voting campaign. It means that anyone who, for example, works in St. Helier, can vote at the Judicial Greffe in the lead-up to polling day, and the calls for one central voting office have effectively been met by this move. The only restriction is that you must do it before 2.00 p.m. on the Monday before the election. But, as I have said, P.P.C. will be making sure that this is well publicised. I think I have said enough and I move the article.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am quite happy to second it. Yes, can I just clarify with the chairman that I do not see any sign or remnant, vestige even, of dreaded Article 39A, which I think is behind the reason for changing this whole section. Is it the case that 39A has totally disappeared? For example, if I am canvassing and somebody says: "Oh, I will not be here on the day, I want a pre-poll vote", can I give them a lift down to the Judicial Greffe to cast their vote before the day, as I would be able to on the day, if they phoned me and said: "Can I have a lift down to vote"?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, would you like to continue your speech then, because I think you put points of clarification and then the Chairman will reply. [Aside] Can I just say something about a process here, it is a very inconvenient way of process because it would enable numbers of Members to put so-called points of clarification and then the chairman would be on her feet replying before there is a main speech. On this occasion, because there might have been some confusion, I will allow it, but in future it is not a process that ought to be adopted. Chairman, would you like to answer that particular point?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am happy to. As I said in introducing this, this article replaces the whole of Part 7 of the existing Law in its entirety, and Part 7 did include Article 39 and 39A, so yes.

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

I may be able to address part of Deputy Southern 's concerns anyway here. First of all, I decided to speak early because I think it is important that the Assembly know that these changes were not passed unanimously in the Election Working Group, and in fact I strongly objected in particular to this change, the part to do with removing or rolling-back the way in which the postal vote is used, and I will give the reasons for that because I did do a separate report, which was included as an appendix in R.94, which highlighted the issues. The vast majority I have to say of these proposals I agree with and they were thrashed-out, but there were contentious issues. But Members might also like to know that it is not simply I who object to this particular change here, but the Jurats also disagree with the recommendation with regard to the postal voting, and I will read the relevant part out from my report. My concern here is, and I thrashed it out with the other 2 members of the working group, that it seems to me that the postal voting system, as it currently stands, works perfectly well. I think that the changes have been predicated for the wrong reasons and I will basically just read from my report, if Members will indulge me, because it is more concise. It says: "Like the Jurats, I disagree with the report's recommendation that the sick vote should be expanded. In his letter on behalf of the Jurats dated 12th February 2012, Jurat Le Breton said: We are of the view that the sick vote is principally for the voter who had every intention of voting on election day but is prevented from doing so because of unexpected illness. We see no need to change the existing understanding of the sick vote.' The recommendation [this is my words now] comes hand in hand with the desire to reduce the number of people who use a postal vote, ostensibly on the grounds of wanting to safeguard the integrity of the poll, giving examples of widespread evidence of fraud in the U.K. (United Kingdom). However, this suggestion ignores the fact that first of all Jersey already has inbuilt safeguards with regard to the postal voting, following the insertion of the new Article 39A in the Law last year, which prevents candidates from interfering or ostensibly or perceivably interfering in the postal voting process." Something I also do not agree with, but there you go, it has been done. Number 2: "Unlike the U.K., there is no evidence of postal voting fraud to date in Jersey", and if there is I would like a Member to give evidence of that, but these changes are being done on the basis of no evidence currently, under our current system, in the way the postal vote is used leads to any kind of fraud. Number 3: "For many people, postal voting is a preferable and convenient choice", and this is the part I want to emphasise, it should not be up to us to dictate how people can or should vote, I think we saw that yesterday. The argument that won the day was, when people go to a voting booth or they go to the polling station, they should not automatically be given 3 papers, they should have a choice, and I think that extends to this; that we should be encouraging people in as many ways as possible, in ways that are convenient for them, which are also safe and secure, to be able to cast their vote, and I

would emphasise at this point that there is nothing inherently insecure about the postal voting system, we know that there are certain countries that predominantly use postal votes or exclusively use postal votes, for example I have given the example of Oregon in the U.S. (United States) where it is only possible to vote by post, so there is nothing inherently insecure or insurmountable about security issues when it comes to postal voting. I go on to say that: "Many electors who currently vote by post would not necessarily bother to vote at all were this opportunity removed." So what this group is saying is essentially that we are only going to allow people who have a very good reason for not going to the polling station on the day, either because they are sick, we will give them a sick vote, or that they are out of the Island. This is another area of concern because I think the words were, by the Chairman of P.P.C., that they are likely to be out of the Island. Now, what does that mean when somebody asks for advice on whether they can have a postal vote, because someone may come up to me and say: "Look, I do not like going to the polling station; I do not like the fact that we have to run the gauntlet when we are down there; that there are 11 or 8 candidates." A lot of voters say that; they do not establish any eye contact, and it is a very intimidating process for certain members of the public, not all, because people are different, but for certain members of the public they do not like to face this daunting prospect, especially if it is the first time they may be voting.

[10:00]

They may well just wish to vote from home; they may not be likely to be away on holiday, but are we going to encourage respectable members of the public to lie because they would prefer to have a postal vote, so to say: "Yes, I will be out of the Island", and then what kind of evidence are they going to have to give to the Judicial Greffier to say that: "I am going to be out of the Island"? I think it is risking starting to make a mockery of the system. If I was inclined to want to vote from home, I would say: "Yes, I am likely to be out of the Island on that week" and then, if somebody comes around and says: "But you are not out of the Island", I would say: "No, my plans have changed." So I think this again is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, I really do not see the logic of it. There is no mention in the report of other jurisdictions where postal voting is either the sole or preferred method of voting, and I have given 2 examples of Oregon and Switzerland, another well- known example. There are real disadvantages from decreasing postal voting in favour of the sick vote. I think though at this point I have to flag-up something, which I think is misinformation on the part of the previous speaker, the whole idea that postal votes are not returned; that there is a significant number of postal votes that are not returned, is a complete myth, and let us look at the stats, they have been circulated from the chairman of P.P.C. here. They are limited to the Senatorial elections, but the trends are similar when it comes to the Deputies, so we are being told that there are vast amounts of postal votes, which are not being returned. All right, let us look for example at St. Brelade at the top. We had a total of 78 postal votes, which were sent out, 3 of them were because of prior commitments and 75 were to do with absence from the Island. Of those total, only 10 were not returned, so out of 78 postal votes that were sent out, 10 were not returned. That is not a vast amount that were not returned, and interestingly the ones that were not returned were to do with absence rather than to do with prior commitments, so the 3 people who said that they wanted a postal vote because of other commitments all sent their papers back and the 10, which were not returned, were due to absence from the Island. Again, we can look at these stats right the way through. Let us take St. Helier for example, 114 were sent out because of absence, 11 due to prior commitments, and those that were not returned were 15, so that is 15 out of 125 were not returned. Again, only one, which was sent out for prior commitments, was not returned out of 11, so that is less than 10 per cent of postal votes not being returned. Those are not bad stats at all. The statistics continue in every Parish like that, you have St. Saviour, which sent out a total of 67 plus 8, again 7 were not returned and those that were not returned were due to absence rather than

prior commitments. So those who asked for ballot papers to be done and sent by post because of prior commitments do have a very good track record of returning them.

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

Can I ask, this is a rather incomplete set of figures, why are there none for the Deputies? Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not know, there are stats for the Deputies, I have looked at them in the past and I looked certainly in my own District, and these were borne out by those who do go to the trouble to ask for a postal vote for whatever reason are committed enough to want to get the postal vote back, it stands to reason, and we have done everything we can in this Assembly to make it as difficult as possible for people to vote. We have removed the 39A, which said: "I want to get you a postal vote", even though, in my opinion, there is no harm there, and we are putting up barriers again and again to stop people using the postal vote, and I think the point I am trying to make is that the bottom line of this is that less people will vote, but that is the risk. There is not too much longer, Members will be thankful, but really these are .. I am so keen that this part does not get through that is why I am taking a moment. So, again, the Jurats have already said that the sick vote was really intended for those who get caught out on the day due to unexpected illness. Currently the Parishes seem able to cope with demand, but it is very unlikely that the increase in demand could very easily become unmanageable to what is already a very busy period for the Parish Hall s. I would like to know how the Parish Hall s, when they are handling for the first time potentially 3 elections on the same day, when they are going to be faced by people who have been refused postal votes because they have other commitments, they are neither ill nor they are not out of the Island, and they are going to be phoning up, are they perhaps, for postal votes on the day, due to illness, and are we going to be sending out lots of the available Parish staff who are there? They are all going to be tied-up at the Parish Hall . I mean this is a complete and utter nonsense, it is not even supported by the Jurats, it is not simply Deputy Tadier raising issues for the sake of it, it is not supported by the Jurats and I do not think that there is the infrastructure at the Parish. There is also another argument to say that people have enough time during the day, from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., we are proposing 9.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., even though that is another argument, so we are proposing to reduce the amount of time that the polling station is open ..

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Point of clarification; the Deputy I think is mistaken with that. Deputy M. Tadier :

All right, if I am mistaken I apologise; that was certainly one of the considerations, which I thought was put forward by the election Working Party. But, anyway, let us get back on track. The issue is that there are many people who cannot vote from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. for whatever reason, because it is inconvenient for them to do so, and that is why they use the postal votes. There is a concern that by restricting postal votes to those who will be out of the Island on election day and presumably requiring individuals to prove that they need a postal vote, this will be seen as overly intrusive and do little to encourage people to vote, and similarly postal votes, whether one is able- bodied or not, allow a greater element of independence and autonomy, which is seen by many as a very private affair. Currently, many individuals with mobility issues make use of the postal votes, it allows them to put a cross in the box in the privacy of their own homes without anyone there to watch, so it is not simply those who may just choose it for convenience, many people who might not want to use the sick vote because they do not want somebody coming around from the Parish with the ballot paper, prefer to use a postal vote and do not want to have to say why they are doing that, and I think that is correct. This can then be posted in a nearby letterbox without any fuss, it is quite conceivable that if individuals were instead required to phone the Parish Hall and arrange for a sick vote that this would be seen as either too much of an intrusion or an inconvenience for both parties and they might simply say: "Well I am not going to bother doing that and I will not vote." So my point is I think the current system works well as it is, the Jurats do not have a problem with it, I am very concerned about the hard-working members of the Parish and those who volunteer that they are going to be put under increased pressure and I do not think we need this change so I would ask that members seriously consider for the democratic process that this does not be changed.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chairman, I perhaps wrongly permitted Deputy Southern to put a question to you about Article 39A.

Deputy G.P. Southern : I have not asked it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

But I wonder whether it is right that what used to be 39A now comes back to 46D and whether Members should be advised of that.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am grateful for that opportunity you are giving me just to clarify that. I would draw Deputy Southern 's attention to Article 46D, which does contain some of the provisions, it largely re-enacts 39A, but it clearly defines what the candidate can and cannot do, so I think that is the important thing.

2. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Mine are in the form of 2 questions really; my first question to the chairman, and may be picked up when she sums up, but my first question to the chairman was regarding some sort of system where people might require assistance to complete their postal vote, and I did send a suggested form through, unfortunately I missed the amendment date by one day, and I just wondered if the chairman had given any consideration to that system. My other question - perhaps more general - is, with the post the way it is, are we going to do something to improve the service before we allow people to postal vote. I recently celebrated a birthday and a card took a fortnight, 2 weeks, to get from First Tower to Grosnez.

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

On reading the proposition and the detail contained in Article 15, postal voting aside, I believe that the idea of extending pre-poll voting to electors is an absolutely brilliant idea. Anything that encourages or makes it easier for people to vote has to be applauded, so the fact that anybody who works in St. Helier or wants to vote at the Judicial Greffier, can do so before 2.00 p.m. on the Monday before the election is a fantastic idea. A word of warning, I think it may become so popular that the Judicial Greffier might require more assistance than they might initially think. One of the questions I wanted to ask the rapporteur was whether .. it says that a person who wishes to vote with the Judicial Greffier has to do so before 2.00 p.m., but at what stage up until 2.00 p.m., is it the week leading up to the 1½ days before, because I cannot see anywhere in the proposition where that is made clear, so if she could clarify that point. There is one other thing that I would like to mention in response to Deputy Tadier 's speech about postal voting and that he did not believe that there was a very high number of postal votes that were not returned. He referred to the Senators' poll because that was the only information we have on our desk, but if my memory serves me correctly, certainly in the Deputies' elections, from what I recall there was a Parish and a District in St. Helier that recorded a high number of postal votes not returned, so I think it would be interesting to balance the argument if we could have those statistics relating to the Deputies' poll as well. Thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I just clarify? I will go and seek some information now and if there is time I will circulate it to Members.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You have made your speech, Deputy , and, once you have made your speech, you have made your speech. Deputy Maçon.

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I am very supportive of these measures. I personally think that, if you are sick or disabled, having someone to be able to come around to your home and take your vote and not have to worry about all the form-filling, because a lot of .. I know in my District from my experience, a lot of elderly people or sick people do not like having to do all the form-filling and if they can make a phone call and someone will come around to their house and collect it, on the other side of the coin, I think they will quite like that that provision is there. My only question under Article 42(11), it makes the provision for someone who is ill, disabled or illiterate, but my question is, has the committee considered perhaps the spouse or the carer maybe of that individual because a lot of people would want, if they are caring for someone, to be able to cast their vote at the same time and I would like, if the chairman could just clarify what the situation is there, because, as I read the law, at the moment it does not seem to make that provision, but I will be happy for that to be clarified. But, overall, on balance, I think it is more sensible to have the provision where someone can come around after a phone call and collect someone's vote, rather than have to worry about all these different forms that you have to fill in, and I will be supportive of these articles. Thank you.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I was going to be almost totally supportive of this particular part of the measures, however, as has been pointed out, 46D contains some of the more absurd strictures around voting that were contained in 39A, so, for example, I cannot as a candidate, or my agent, help somebody fill in a form to apply for a postal vote because they are not here on the day. I can give them the form, but I cannot then help them to do it. Not that there is any connection between the ballot paper and that application for a vote, any connection whatsoever, but we still have this ludicrous and ill-founded piece of legislation in here, and, given the fact that the P.P.C. attempted to revise the whole of Part 7, I find that absolutely absurd, so I am really tempted to vote against it. But, on other matters, why I was saying that I was about to give my whole-hearted support to this was this Article 38: "Persons entitled to pre-poll vote. Every voter is entitled to pre-poll vote in accordance with this part." As I saw that, my heart leapt, and I thought: "Good, at last." Here we have an option of voting, you go down on the day to the polling station, facing the barrage of candidates, et cetera, or you choose to say: "I wish to vote from home", and for people who are disabled or the illiterate, who often would prefer to vote in absolute secrecy, they do not want to go to somebody and say: "By the way, I cannot read or write", and what arrangements for those who are literally illiterate, what about the person who asks for somebody to come around and deliver their ballot paper and says: "Can you show me the name", for the sake of argument: " Southern ; where is it? Is it that box? Alright." Is that preserving the secrecy of the ballot?

[10:15]

Normally those persons, they might they have done in the past, they would use someone in their family, because they do not let it out of the family, but if a stranger arrives on your doorstep and just says: "Here is your ballot paper", and you start .. oh, I can just see the panic rising in some of my constituents. It is an awkward situation, which takes me on to the practicalities of how this is going to work. So that catchall: "Every voter is entitled to a pre-poll vote in accordance with this part." But then in 42(11) we get: "In the case of a person entitled to vote who is ill, disabled or illiterate, the Judicial Greffier shall take such measures as he or she considers appropriate for taking that person's pre-poll vote before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), providing secrecy in voting is maintained." So the secrecy in voting is already perhaps in some cases the blind person, visually impaired, and again I have seen it, cannot even spot which is the box. Not a problem, we are told, because not a problem, so not everyone .. everyone is entitled to a pre-poll vote providing you can

get down to the pre-poll station, but what is the mechanism by which you are going to prove, in some way or other, the slightly old form for a postal vote, that you are ill, disabled, illiterate or whatever? No requirement whatsoever, just now, what is the mechanism, you simply phone-up the number, which is in big letters all over the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) and on every piece of literature: "You need to vote from home, just call us and we will come around, we will make arrangements and we will come around." As simple as that. On sick votes, on the day. But this is applying for, again, the question was asked: "How long beforehand?" but that will be done. These people who are going to be recruited will be recruited from where and what skills-base will they have for handling such a sensitive issue, and how will they be vetted to make sure that they are not fervent supporters of one or more candidates who are taking part in the election and may thus try and sway particular votes? The reality is will it be a simple phone call? Could I make that phone call if I am canvassing? I just want to make sure because I do not want to make calls again, doing the wrong thing. That would not be influence; I make a phone call to say this person wants to vote from home. I want to make sure that it is absolutely nailed down because what is in the amendment is one thing and the sentiments contained in the report are another. The sentiments that are contained in the report seem to say everything is safe and hunky-dory and we have it nailed down; the content of the amendment is not quite the same I do not think. So where are these extra staff going to come from? How are they going to be trained? How are they going to be vetted? Are we sure we can do this, is the question, and will that process be as simple as possible? So the question is, there will be no need to prove that you need to vote from home and not just want to vote from home, because that is the essential thing that I think, if we are going to get people voting in any particular circumstances that is what we have to do and it has to be as comfortable as possible for the voter to vote in the manner in which they so choose. Then finally, so we have this system that runs until 2.00 p.m. on the Monday before the Wednesday, we have the hiatus, presumably the sick vote can be .. so that is the pre-poll vote from home, we will send somebody to you, and then what takes over is what was the old sick vote, and that would run from 2.00 p.m. on Monday through until .. you would not send anybody out, but you could .. in the past, I have been able to register, as soon as what was postal voting closed, I then went on to .. I had my list as I went around knocking on doors, and it was a sick vote, I will phone through a sick vote, and on the day we will have somebody come out to you and you can vote from home at your convenience, or from wherever you are. So that gap, so that sick vote will be, as in the past, covers the gap from 2.00 p.m. until close of play on voting day. If I have assurance that training, selection, vetting and numbers of these people will be covered, and that the interval from 2.00 p.m. to the close of play on voting day will be covered, and that this procedure will be as simple as possible and as widely advertised as possible, then I may well be able to find myself able to support this with the proviso that in an ideal world I would like to vote against 46D out of principle, but perhaps I will come back and try and strike that from the record because it is rubbish.

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

Over the years I have seen the States end up in some pickles, because complex laws come to the Assembly, important laws, and Members who have been concentrating on other matters have not perhaps given as much thought to particular articles in laws that may concern them, and I have said in the past the legislative scrutiny side of things needs to be beefed-up. I met this week with the Comptroller and Auditor General and I discussed with him the processes by which we are holding the Executive to account, and how we can hold Scrutiny to account, in holding them to account. Having discussed his previous experience and that in Whitehall, sub-panels of Back-Bench Members get together, not necessarily with any resources, but they do on a regular basis form sub- panels regarding items of interest that concern them and members of the public, and they get together to help to focus in on some of the more finite detail in some of these areas and thrash-out some of the arguments. In this particular area of consideration, the ease of voting, I was discussing yesterday with the Greffier whether it would be possible to introduce a single electoral roll, a single list. It is not going to be possible before the elections, because that was one of the

recommendations that came out of Clothier and also in P.179 of 2001 that there be a single list, and what it is all about and what these things are all about, which P.P.C. is trying to do, and in some regards has done a very good job in, they are about making voting as easy as possible for people while ensuring that the democratic process is secure and that there is no interference of the process by over-zealous or over-eager or non-focusing candidates that might inadvertently or on purpose, maybe in the future, abuse the system, which has been put in place to protect the process and the outcome. So I am listening intently this morning at these issues that are surfacing and I listened to the speech of Deputy Tadier and Deputy Southern , unfortunately they are both not in the Chamber at the moment, but what I think I can echo is that it was not so long ago, in my memory at least - maybe it is faulty, but it seems to be in my memory - that we changed the law to enable there to be a reason .. for there to be no reason necessary to postal vote in order to encourage people to vote, and it was a progressive move that I believe we took at the time, and I was going to ask Deputy Le Hérissier, but he is not here either, to confirm that we took, in order to increase the opportunity for

people to vote, and this morning it has been suggested by some remark, not in a speech, but in the background, that if you cannot vote between 8.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. then what are you doing. Well, today's society is a very, very busy society. We know that we have more working women in our community than anywhere else in the world. We also know that the elderly are beginning to work more and more and more, and in Jersey there is a number recently that has been analysed that there are more elderly people working in our community than there are in other communities. So, overall, we have, even though we have a recession we have people working many, many

different tasks, perhaps 2 or 3 jobs, in order to make ends meet. If you are working parents and you are out the door at 7.30 a.m. in the morning on your way to work at the other side of the Island, and you have to come back at tea time to take over while your partner goes to work, are you necessarily going to have the time to get in, or the inclination to get in, to take part in the democratic process, when you have just had a particularly difficult day and you might have to come home and look after children, or perhaps the babysitter is sick. So I think, while we can congratulate P.P.C. on extending certain areas, I think there is a body of work that has yet to be done in relation to these considerations about making sure people can have the greatest opportunity to vote, and Deputy Le Hérissier is back with us now, so I will just go over that little bit very quickly, because I would like for him to confirm it if he is going to speak. I thought we extended the postal vote for anybody to be able to vote for anybody to be able to vote for any reason to achieve greater .. We did not? No. We certainly should have done. It certainly has been discussed on P.P.C., when I was on P.P.C. it was discussed. Then we look at today's reasons that have been mentioned about people who may be sick or ill or frail, to get somebody to come along and take their votes. What if we have swine flu all over the Island or some other pandemic? What kind of situation are we going to be in then? Highly unlikely, Members would say, yet we have just spent millions of pounds on the issue, millions of pounds, and the community has been subjected to many people suffering from that illness. Now, just to finish off, I will be seeing if I can get some support from Back-Bench Members to look at this issue like it has been done in Whitehall, Back-Bench Members get together and look at particular issues, and I am going to see if there are some Back-Bench Members that want to come together with me and see if we can maybe focus in on this a bit more, maybe not in time for this election, but certainly for the future, making sure there is a single electoral list so that anybody anywhere in the Island, on election day, can vote at any polling station. If you are living in St. Ouen and you are spending most of your day in Grouville , then why should you not be able to vote, or in town, and that is something we need to work on. I am not going to criticise P.P.C. because I think they have done a good job in relation to many of the aspects of work that they have been working on, but they can only do so much. Finally, I went around to help a lady this week who has a significant difficulty in terms of her health and she is stuck indoors and she wanted to take part in the census. I am looking to the Chief Minister but he has gone now, the Minister for Treasury and Resources is in India. She wanted somebody to help her take part in the census and I sent an email, I have not had a response from that, she cannot fill in the forms, and she wants somebody to take her to the polling station, and I told her: "You can have a sick vote." Now she is

not in my District, although she lives close to where I live, I live 2 minutes outside of the District I represent, but she lives in Number 2 District, but she lives just down the street from me, and she is unable to fill in a form, she cannot write.

[10:30]

The best thing she could do in order for me to try to help her at the moment was make her signature, and that took her 3 attempts. So I think we have some work to do, and rather than criticising P.P.C. I think we should all take a leaf out of the book of what they do in the United Kingdom and start holding small sub-panels of Back-Bench Members in areas that we do not think are being progressed fast enough or in-depth enough, because at the moment what we have done is we have left all of this over to P.P.C. and whoever is monitoring P.P.C. as to the work they are doing who is shadowing P.P.C.? Scrutiny Panels; just the States in general? We cannot blame P.P.C. for areas that may have yet to be completely addressed to all of our satisfaction, but we can get together .. I do not know whether I can get together with any of these States Members soon, none of them are listening to me, but I am hoping in the future that we can get together with some States Members and work on these issues collectively as Backbench Members and stop thinking about ourselves.

7. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

Just a short comment really. I do think we are moving forward, making it slightly easier for people to vote. I would very much like to see the day when people can go to their Parish Hall and vote before, rather than having to come to town, because there are some people saying: "I do not really want to come to town, why can I not go to the Parish Hall ?" But maybe that is for the future, but that is an option. In answer to Deputy Tadier saying about why some of the forms are not returned, and I can say from my own personal experience we did a postal vote about 3 years ago for a Senators' election where we were out of the Island and it was quite complicated, I thought, to read, you also had to get someone to sign, so that was one of the problems, having to find maybe .. it is all right if you are husband and wife, there are 2 in the family, but if you are on your own you have to wait for the postman or someone to say who you are, so we could probably tidy-up there. But my main concern really is to see that we are moving forward for the last day or the time for the pre- poll votes being moved forward to the Monday afternoon rather than it was the day before, and I think that is a shame. There are a number of people who like to go away .. who are away on holiday but they cannot get their .. do their pre-poll vote before they go, simply because quite often I would hope that this will be expedited this year, ensure that we speed-up the process, because there is always the delay from when the nomination, the day or the evening of the nomination, until the printing of the ballot form, there can be 3 or 4 days, and people who want to go away on holiday cannot come into town and do their pre-poll vote, so what they have to do, they have to leave their form with someone for them, for the postal vote to be posted out maybe to America, and again, with the post being as it is, if we are shortening the time for when the pre-poll vote has to be returned, I think again it is unfortunate, so I would ask, probably I would be told, no discretion could be allowed, but it seems a bit annoying for people's votes to be somewhere in the return to Morier House or wherever, and they are dead votes simply because they are a day late by post, through no fault of their own. So maybe the chairman in summing up could emphasise why we really need to bring it forward for 2.00 p.m. on the Monday rather than as it was the day before, and

what allowance will be made for those postal votes who do arrive on .. the chairman is nodding, saying: "Tough", so those people who are caught out by the slowness of the return of the letters, maybe through no fault of their own, probably through the mail, those votes are lost, and I feel that is a shame and I really am disappointed that it takes extra time to get these pre-poll votes to the Parish Hall s.

8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

I have enjoyed my short time on the P.P.C., it might be coming to an end, who knows. I have been looking for what I can support, and I have not been able to support much so far, chairman, sorry. My feelings are very much like Deputy Southern , anything we do to improve things for people will get my support. If it is all going to be as absolutely rosy with 3 votes, brilliant. It is a shame we could not do it before. What I do have to highlight, as Deputy Southern has said, and some of the Deputies behind me, 46D, well I think it is already pretty shameful that the diabolical treatment of Deputy Southern and Deputy S. Pitman a couple of years ago has already been featured in the best- selling economics book by Nicholas Shaxson of the Guardian, and through my contacts I know that it is going to be covered at length in a book due out in May 2012. How we ever got ourselves into this, we are always hearing that, if it is not broken, why fix it; it has never been a problem and all, the research I have done, with any interference in the postal votes, and I am glad to see we have a different J.E.P. reporter today, because hopefully she can persuade her editor to do some accurate reporting, because the problems were .. was it once, twice, 3, 4 times, I cannot remember now, there was inference in the media that some people had put crosses by their names. Now of course we all know that is impossible, the law that was broken was in helping people to apply to then get registered for a postal vote; what a heinous crime. Now I try not to regret a lot of things in life, but I have to say, and it is relevant, my big regret is that I stopped Deputy Shona Pitman from going to prison and I did that because she is my wife, she wanted to for the power of her convictions, and I really regret that and I apologise to her now, she was totally right. This will be a big issue because, come the election, I can say that I will be releasing a couple of documents, which will be quite fascinating, quite fascinating, and I know why Deputy Southern he is a principled man. I do not agree with him on everything, as people have probably worked out by now, but when you are charged with an offence with another candidate's name on, and then that is withdrawn, and that candidate is never prosecuted, I think it is quite understandable why you should get a bit angry.

Some of the documents I have seen, police documents, when they were looking for a certain other individual, not prosecuted, yet 2 people have criminal records and now we are making things better. How absurd is it that, in research done by lawyers, this equivalent could not be found anywhere in the democratic world, how shocking, how embarrassing for Jersey, how awful, and I do .. I am pleased that we go out live on the radio because I do wonder if it will be reported accurately, when I have had to read about people interfering with votes, which is completely untrue. My experiences of the election, I helped a lady - an old lady in hospital - to complete her form, she signed it, she is very concerned, she had come back to the Island just after the 1940s, the Occupation, desperate to vote, always had voted, she was very concerned, I mean she was under a lot of medication, she had a serious operation, she was in her late 70s, was very concerned that she would not get to fulfil what she always did, to vote, I helped her do that. Would I be a criminal? Now that lady, as I say, she was on some drugs, she really wanted to vote for Deputy Gorst ; perhaps that explains something, but she thought he was a great person, really wanted to be able to vote for him, so I helped her do it. Perhaps I should be a criminal. Take me away, we all make mistakes, but that lady .. so I was an agent for him really, I might not have wanted to vote for him, but then it was not my choice, but I did it, the lady signed it, there was nothing untoward with it. That lady was my mum. That lady was my mum. Do I care if I would be seen by the Island's legal authorities as a criminal? Not a bit. Do I care if the police want to come and arrest me? Not a bit. Principles are important and this Government, and I am afraid all of us are just human, we make mistakes, and how we got ourselves into this pickle laughable. I was discussing it with a person from Westminster only a couple of weeks back, this .. the fact that this 46D can stay in here when all you are doing is assisting someone to apply to get registered, nothing to do with the vote, for those of us who work in St. Helier, you will find regularly we have to do a lot more for people that have problems with social security, income support. Would we not want to do that? I spoke to a gentleman during the election, he could not read or write, and he was in a stress because he thought what had arrived was his rates, so I had to try and sort that out for him as well. There are these people who need assistance and this, I am afraid, came out of a P.P.C., and it was not under this Chairman, I know, but I think .. and I do like her now. Just remember, this came out from a committee who also wanted to make it law that if you are a member of a political party you had to give in a list with your name on it. I wonder how that would have been used. Suddenly, Mr. Bloggs could not get a job anymore. That came out of the same committee, and I highlight this, because this is some of the flawed thinking involved in this. These issues should be about helping people to vote. If there is a problem, all right, fix it, but there had never been a problem with postal votes being tampered with in Jersey, never had, never was. I hope the editors of the J.E.P. can get it right this time. I want to support this, I applaud the P.P.C., I was not on it then but I applaud them for some of the work they have done. It is a difficult area but this 46D should certainly not be there. I would have amended it but Deputy Green told me he was going to so I will bring back something. I have been in discussions with the Minister already. It is wrong, it is in my opinion and I know, Sir, you will tell us that opinions from lawyers are just opinions. It is not human rights compliant according to the lawyers I have spoken to. It will be a long route to change that so I will try and change that so I will try and change it through routes of common sense. But I think the big danger is when we have certain individuals who try to make political gain, people who probably could not get elected without smearing others, as we saw at the last election. It is very interesting that one of the documents I will be releasing refers to a certain individual who very strangely was not prosecuted. This 46D should go. I will support the rest of it but I will be bringing something back because it is time this Island grew up and put those politically motivated reporting of things aside from this process, because it was meant to be about getting everyone to engage. That is what P.P.C. are trying to do. I do think they have failed with this 46D and I will always go by my principles. Again, I applaud Deputy Southern and Deputy Pitman for standing up for what they believed. It is a shame that the other 7 people that I know of did not do the same.