States Meeting Transcript - 19/05/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 19th MAY 2011

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

1. Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee: amendments (P.49/2011)..................................................................3

1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson (President, Chairmen's Committee):..............................3

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................3
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:......................................................4
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................4
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................5
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................5
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7

2. Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.51/2001)................................................................................9

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................10

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................10
2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................13
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................14
4. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................15
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................16

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................18
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................19
8. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................19 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................20 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................21 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Panel):................................22

2. The Connétable of St. Mary:..............................................................22

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................25 The Attorney General:........................................................................26 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................27 Deputy T.M.Pitman:.........................................................................27 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................28
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................29
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................31
4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................31 The Attorney General:........................................................................31
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................31
6. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................32

3. Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.51/2011): amendment (P.51/2011 (Amd.))...........................................37

2.3.1 The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................37

4. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................37
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................39

3. Draft Incorporated Limited Partnerships (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.54/2011).....40

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................40 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (Chairman, Economic Affairs Panel):.......................41
2. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................41

4. Draft Incorporated Limited Partnerships (Jersey) Law 2011 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.53/2011)..........................................................................42

4.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................42

5. Standing Orders: selection and appointment procedures (P.61/2011).................42

5.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................43

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................46
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................46
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................46
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................47
5. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................47
6. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................48
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................48
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................49
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................50
11. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................50

6. Jersey Appointments Commission: re-appointment of member (P.63/2011) ..........51

6.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................51

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................51

7. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................51 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................52 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................52 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:........................................................................52 The Connétable of St. Mary:..................................................................53

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................53

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee: amendments (P.49/2011)

The Bailiff :

The next matter on the Order Paper is the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and Public Accounts Committee Amendments - Projet 49 - lodged by the Chairmen's Committee and 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 to refer to their Act dated 12th March 2008 in which they approved the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee and to approve the following amendments to that Code in relation to the number of Members who can serve on Scrutiny Sub-Panels and to the role of rapporteur (a) in paragraph 4.21 after the words " Sub-Panel Chairman to report to the full panel on a regular basis." insert the words: "The minimum number of Members on a Sub-Panel is 3, a Chairman and 2 others."; (b) in paragraph 4.25, after the words "Rapporteurs will progress their investigations on their own initiative and direction" insert the words "through fact-finding visits, calls for public submissions but not hearings".

1.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson (President, Chairmen's Committee):

There is a saying in Yorkshire that the best committee is composed of 2 people, one of whom is ill. [Laughter] On the other hand, this is not appropriate for Scrutiny where we are spending the taxpayers' money. The job of Scrutiny is to review policy or the effectiveness of the application of policy and to report on this, based on the evidence. It has become apparent over the past year that there could be a situation where a sub-panel could consist of 2 members. The quorum established for Scrutiny Panels and Sub-Panels is half the membership. This could result in a review being conducted by a single member and obviously we would not want to cast aspersions on any member but it would be extremely difficult to produce a clear, unbiased report on this basis. Consider if you had perhaps Deputy Southern and I on a panel together, if one week Deputy Southern was the sole member conducting the hearings and if the following week, I was the sole member conducting the hearings. It is unlikely, with the greatest respect, that we well, it is highly possible, I would not say it is likely, it is possible that you would get 2 entirely different views of the same circumstances. So we feel that this is not a good situation to be in. In the circumstances, it would be quite possible for the main panel to refuse to accept this report if they felt it was not appropriate and this would put Scrutiny in danger of losing its reputation for solid evidence-based reports. The problem is that once you lose your reputation, it is extremely difficult to regain it. Scrutiny has spent nearly 9 years, including the shadow period, developing a reputation for good reports and it would be disastrous to lose the reputation. As a corollary to this, the role of the rapporteurs also needs to be clarified and part (b) of the amendment clarifies this. This is a piece of housekeeping for Scrutiny in order to tighten-up the rules and I ask the Assembly to support this.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

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

It is very rare for me to be mentioned in about the fourth line of a report supporting a proposition. Members will not be surprised to find that I objected to this move and what I am tempted to say: "If the cap fits, wear it." The dangers that are being pointed out by the Chairman are ones I believe

that anybody can fall temptation to, of being unable to put down political values when you walk into the role of Scrutiny and put your Scrutiny hat on and do a good job. That matters whether you are 3, 5, or one on any panel. I think it is in the Scott ish system they are quite content that individuals go off and beaver away and receive officer help to sift through the evidence to bring reports to their Chamber in order that they can hold policy to account and examine policy in a rational way. They trust their members. Why do we not trust ours? I wonder why that could be? As I say, it is perfectly possible to run a system where a single member goes away with an officer and produces a perfectly competent job without political bias. Unfortunately, I feel that with 3, 4 or 5 members, slowly we are seeing drift towards political bias. I am all too aware of the fact that once you lose your reputation for clinically and rationally looking at the balance of opinion and do not take political views on board automatically, one puts Scrutiny at risk. I am very aware of that. I am scrupulous to avoid the mudslinging that goes on from Ministers who are saying it is just biased material. It is easier when you have got 3, 4 and 5 members on a panel because you can take a sounding as I do, and unless you get total agreement on not only the content but the wording of what you come forward with, you do not come forward with anything. It is easier - but it is not by any means impossible for a single person - if 2 people were to work together to produce a balanced proper-evidenced examination of policy and where we are going. So I shall be voting against this because I think it shackles - in only a slight way but it is a shackle nonetheless. It limits the range and the scope and the ability of Scrutiny to get business done. Since we are there, I have thought about the numbers. Here we are. There are 28, 29 Members of this House who are not on the Executive. How many of them are active in Scrutiny Panels at the moment? I think we are down to 13 now, the magic number 13.  There are a lot of people not examining things and here we are saying you can only work if you have got 3 people. One person, 2 persons, cannot do that by themselves when hardly anyone, when less than half I think less than half of those available, are acting in Scrutiny. Come on. Why would we do this? I shall be voting against and I encourage all members of Scrutiny who are active to vote against this. It is a limit on what we can do and I believe that most Members of this House have the probity to do a good job and to sift the evidence in a proper manner rather than otherwise. We do not have to limit this capacity of Scrutiny in order to protect ourselves from those who might introduce political bias into the Scrutiny process. I will

be voting against it.

2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

Myself, Deputy Vallois and the Deputy of St. Peter some time ago were asked by the previous Chairman of the Chairmen's Committee to carry out a review of the Code of Practice. We had to write to the Scrutiny Panels on several occasions before we even got any replies back on views that they had and views that they thought needed changing within the Code of Practice. Each one of us also had 2 panels where we visited and asked the members of those panels to give us evidence and give us ideas on how they felt the Code of Practice could be improved. I am not quite sure where this comes from, this proposition, because it was not brought up in the course of that review.

[9:45]

I am very surprised that my colleague to the left of me missed one vital important fact of Scrutiny. Scrutiny is evidence-based. Regardless of who we are, we gather evidence and that evidence is put into a report. Therefore, this proposition is absolutely not needed. I was going to mention numbers but the Deputy did that and the fact is, if we cannot already get Members on panels, how in the world are we going to get sub-panels together? When I put forward to do the Dental Review, the first time that I put out for Members to join me on the sub-panel, I did not have a single reply. How in the world are we going to work to this when we are already struggling to get Members to take part in Scrutiny? I will be voting against this and I hope all other Members involved in Scrutiny will do so too.

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

I take obviously a slightly different view. The logic that Deputy De Sousa applied, that it is evidence-based, therefore if there is one person or 3 persons, as long as that person is operating to that philosophy, all is well. I do not see that. I think we all bring prejudices to the table. That is in the nature of the job. I think it was Harold Wilson who said that politics was the rearrangement of prejudices. What we do in Scrutiny, of course, is test ourselves out through the means of other people asking questions, spotting where we are biased and so forth and I think that is a healthy process and I think it is absolutely intrinsic to the process of Scrutiny. It is intrinsic to other processes where groups are integral to how they work, juries being another one, for example. I am well aware, obviously it depends on the balance that there is within a panel and I was thinking of that issue, for example, when we voted for a new member of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) yesterday. It is absolutely important because we do bring prejudices, biases, our own backgrounds, and whether we like it or not, those backgrounds have informed how we think. We pretend we are totally rational. I am not saying I am irrational although I have felt like that a lot over the last few days. [Laughter] We pretend we are totally rational but we need other people to stand up to us, to test us, to tease out our inconsistencies and our different views. That is what makes for a healthy group and I fully admit there is a real danger of going to the other extreme which of course is group-think where you have got a group of people who think very much alike and you have got no one on the panel who really stands up to them and asks them the solid, testing questions. I think a panel which has people like that is the healthiest panel and, by definition, to quote General De Gaulle: "L'Etat c'est moi; the State is me." I do not think one person can be everything and can be their own rational examiner and observer. They need other people to keep them on track, to keep them healthy. We all need that but the balance is vital and I would love to see a lot more of that in Scrutiny. Unlike other people, yes, it is at a crossroads - I do not doubt that for a moment. We do need to ask fundamental questions, some to do with the intrinsic workings of Scrutiny and some to do with Scrutiny in the bigger picture of Government where people feel it is being disregarded. Some people did feel it should be an opposition and they find the whole rather ponderous and tedious process of Scrutiny lacks political bite and they would much prefer to be involved in a much more edgy kind of process than this rather ponderous, bureaucratic one that sends me round the bend a lot of the time that does surround Scrutiny. But I simply cannot go with the notion. I can see there are cases where one person may have a special interest, may have

brought some special knowledge, some special background to an issue but even that can be a bias. I have got parts of my career where I was very involved and I know I will see issues through the prism of the biases, the history and the experiences I have had at that time. It means I can come

with a very informed view but it often means I come with a very biased view to the situation, as does the Deputy of St. John because he has got similar biases from his own background. So the whole process of Scrutiny is to test each other's biases out, to bring them out into the open and to get ultimately the best fact-finding process you can in place having done that. So I am all for this proposition on that basis.

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

An unintentional or maybe intentional consequence of adoption of these measures might well be further restrictions on the current accepted practice of the presentation of minority reports in this House. Should that be an intended fallout of this measure, I think it would be a reprehensible move and on that basis, because it has not been mentioned within the report, I think that perhaps it is an intended consequence and I will not be supporting the measure.

5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I have mentioned it before in the Assembly but clearly our Scrutiny model is not the same as that which operates in the U.K. (United Kingdom) for example, the Select Committees, insofar as its composition because in the U.K., of course, the Select Committee system mirrors pretty much on a proportional basis the way that the House of Commons at any one time is structured. So if you have a preponderance of any one Party at any one time, they will also have a majority on Scrutiny and it will be roughly proportional. However, we do not have that so I think the first thing to bear in mind is that Scrutiny is always going to have a majority, if you like, of what I would call opposition members. Necessarily, it will always have that because opposition members will not be in Government and they will become Scrutiny members. I know Members do not necessarily like the term "opposition" but I think we have to deal in perhaps simplistic terms sometimes. So Scrutiny  will have more  members who are not  in Government who perhaps do not have the ideological confidence of the rest of the House to be in government and so necessarily they will have to be in Scrutiny. So that is an issue already perhaps. I was going to save this point for later but I think it is worth saying it now. We talk about that Scrutiny must be evidence-based and it cannot be political, which are all very noble aspirations, but at the end of the day, if you do not want Scrutiny to be political or if you want to take the risk of any political bias from Scrutiny then just do not appoint politicians. We are all politicians and we have certain panels which we appoint from the States or which are appointed which must not be political in any way, and that is why we do not allow politicians on it. There is an ongoing debate, of course, about whether the Consumer Council should be headed by a politician. Of course, we know that the current incumbent does a very good job but there are certain things which should not necessarily be done by politicians. Of course, Scrutiny is a political body and there will always be this tension between politics and what should be the ideal of objectively dealing with evidence. One could even go the next step and say so long as one's biases are based on evidence, then that should be okay, should it not? For me it is not so much a question of political bias. It is just perhaps simple common sense dictates that if you have more than one or 2 pairs of eyes looking at an issue, you will see things which you would not necessarily have seen otherwise. So I think the point of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is very true when considering Scrutiny. That said, I am not 100 per cent convinced that this is necessarily the way forward or entirely necessary. One consideration is that we already have Scrutiny officers. Now, they do provide the non-political point of contact for Scrutiny members and a good Scrutiny officer should always be there to challenge Scrutiny members, whether that be on the main panel or on a sub-panel and if they think that the panel is going off in a direction which is inherently politically motivated rather than based on facts, they will say: "I do not think there is the evidence for that." So, for example, if we are conducting a review and I say: "I think that this evidence says that Jersey should stop private property and that all property should be owned by the State", and perhaps my 2 colleagues on that panel would agree with me because they have got

similar leanings - let us say for argument's sake - the officer should say: "Well, I do not think there is any evidence at all for that kind of statement. You have to really back that up." So a good officer, if you like, if we take the scenario where you have 2 members on a panel, your officer is your third member, if you like, in that sense. So I think there is an inbuilt safeguard already. Another possible solution is rather than having an obligatory 3 members on a sub-panel, why not just raise the quorum to 2, so say we can have a sub-panel composed of 2 members but the quorum must be 2 because what is the point in having 3 if only 2 are going to attend anyway. It is very strange. If only 2 are going to actively do the work, it seems strange not to just say the quorum must be 2 and leave it at that. That said, I think if I am being even-handed, common sense would dictate that 3 pairs of eyes are better than 2 because I think the dynamics of the group are better with 3 on there. So in an ideal world, you appoint 3 members to a sub-panel and all 3 should attend that sub-panel. I will give an example. Very early on in my Scrutiny experience, we conducted a review on the Board of Visitors at the prison. I am still yet to see any meaningful results back from the Minister for Home Affairs for that even though it was praised as an even-handed report by the media and we certainly benefited from the presence of the Constable of Trinity on that because he was able to provide a different perspective. He was older, certainly, and more experienced in political terms than Deputy Trevor Pitman and myself and he was able to provide some balance and we came up with some recommendations which reflected the different levels of experience but also the different drives perhaps which we all recognised were necessary in a modern society but were also taking into account traditions and principles of even-handedness. So I think this is really just a bit of housekeeping. I think we can go either way on this. I think the important thing is that the quorum should be 2 but we need to encourage as many Members to participate in Scrutiny as possible. But I would say that the underlying problem for Scrutiny for me, and I think for other Members, is sometimes we ask ourselves what is the point of Scrutiny if perfectly sensible and non- contentious recommendations are not taken on board? Now, of course, we know that not all recommendations and findings will be backed up by the department but we saw yesterday - and I have to mention this example - we conducted a political review, which was far-reaching. We went into many schools. We talked to the teachers; we saw the great progress that is being made in a coherent political programme to teach youngsters who can now vote from the age of 16 about the political system and we were very impressed by the work that has been going on in the schools so that is to be commended. One would have thought, coming up with a very what I would call non- contentious suggestion that perhaps registration forms should be made available to students in schools so they can register at which point the teachers can just send those to Parish Hall s, it does not seem like rocket science. That is not a politically biased move in any way. If it is politically biased, it is only because we want young people to vote in the same way that we want all members of society to take part in our democracy. Now, when these kinds of recommendations are met with complete obstinacy, one has to question what is the point in being on Scrutiny and how on earth are we going to get 3 members to join a sub-panel if we are having trouble getting people interested in Scrutiny in the first place? These are the bigger issues that need to be dealt with rather than necessarily 2s and 3s. So I will leave it at that. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference but I think of course the more people who participate on Scrutiny, the  more people that are involved and also involved in all aspects of the report, then of course you are going to get a better level of Scrutiny but only if Scrutiny's findings and recommendations which are evidence-based are taken on board. Otherwise, let us not bother. Let us move to a proper system of oppositional government and leave it at that.

[10:00]

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

I would just like to follow on from what is political about the education and not having registrations in schools, which was a question put to the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture and if it is not political I know which way this Minister for Education, Sport and Culture voted on 16 year-olds having the vote. He voted against. Is it political that he does not want them to have the registration? Well, we will leave that one there. I was very disturbed by the President's opening speech about there will be one if the President was listening to evidence, there would be one view and the next week maybe it be Deputy Southern , it may be Deputy Pitman, it may be Deputy De Sousa, there would be a different view. Well, to me, evidence was evidence and I worked in Scrutiny on 2 panels, the Health and Social Services Panel and Economic Development, and we had 5 members on each panel. If you do not think this is political, this is absolutely the final nail in Scrutiny's coffin. They do not like the reports. They do not want to do anything. You have heard that you have got 13 people participating. I am sad that Senator Breckon's proposition never went through. There are certain things nowhere going near my remit as Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services that I would love to get involved in and I am willing and able, which I could mention names but there are people in here who are not doing. They do constituency work and they bring private Members' Bills but they do not work on Scrutiny. I am very sorry. This is one step too far. You have one Minister as corporation sole but you cannot have one or 2 on a Scrutiny panel questioning them and doing a report. What is fair? Obviously this has come from one report or something that was absolutely somebody did not like and to me, if this goes through today, if I was on Scrutiny, do it. You have got 6 months to go to the elections or 16 weeks to the nominations. Resign and there will be no legislation going through this House [Approbation] because the Chair has to refer to the Head of Scrutiny. Obviously then you might get 4 or 5 Constables stepping forward just in the name of being there or just to be a "noddy". I am sorry, no, I am very sorry. Scrutiny are in their own hands. If I was on Scrutiny now and this goes through, I would not do any more Scrutiny work because you are taking away, you are saying if you cannot

it is political. Of course there is political. You will have a view but in Scrutiny at least if you question a report, you will have reams and folders I have still got them in my locker when I was on the Scrutiny of evidence, transcripts and everything. Yes, you can. You can present them one way or the other but if they are questioned, you have to have the evidence. You get a Minister in front of you, 2 officers either side, no papers, no anything, and just believe me, take my word on it. So I am very sorry and it is fine the way Deputy Vallois says and she has just crossed the void, as they say from being [Laughter] not politically.. Like me, I am the red in the bed', I suppose, because [Laughter] they well, I am often held up to be, we are inclusive because we have Deputy Martin in and she is an Assistant Minister. [Laughter] Well, that is great, is it not? Well, it is not just Scrutiny members. I really think if you really want to kill Scrutiny, vote for this. I will not vote for this. I just think it is another thing that really they cannot work with 13 people covering all those Ministers and they do not want to be covered. I do not care if it is one on one. I want one on one, at least one on one, and if you 3, no way. It is not going to work and that is exactly more power to the Executive. They do not want to be questioned. They do not want a report put together that is only one or 2 people. Got to be 3 people? No way. I am very sorry, this really is going too far and I really mean it. I am really serious. If people on Scrutiny .. if this goes through, give up. I am very sorry.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

A point of order. In view of the unexpected furore of this particular bit of housekeeping and consideration of human nature, the Chairmen's Committee will withdraw this at this time. [Approbation] It may come back in a different form but I would ask the permission of the House to withdraw it.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Can I ask you a question? How can the Chairman of the Chairmen's Committee say it has been withdrawn by the Chair but it is from the committee? Has she asked the other members?

The Bailiff :

It is a matter for the Assembly. The proposer of any proposition is entitled to ask for it to be withdrawn at any stage but after the debate has opened, as it now has, it requires the view of the Assembly so what the President is saying is: "Does the Assembly agree to this matter being withdrawn?"

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

I am sorry, can I bring a point of order with Deputy Martin's speech just now, when she referred to Constables as "Noddys". Is that unparliamentary language and certainly it is untrue as far as I am concerned so perhaps she would like to apologise?

The Bailiff :

Yes, I am sure that she does not mean all Constables are "Noddys". [Laughter] Deputy J.A. Martin:

No, some are Big Ears. Noddy, Big Ears, whatever you like.

The Bailiff :

Or that any other Member is a Noddy.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

It was not unparliamentary I can assure you.

The Connétable of Grouville :

I am sorry, I did not hear that because there was so much noise. Did she apologise?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

No, I said if I offended you with Noddy, it could be Big Ears. [Laughter] There is nothing .. I am very sorry. I did say I am very sorry if that offended you.

The Bailiff :

Very well. So the matter before the Assembly is whether the Assembly agrees to this proposition being withdrawn. The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. If you wish it to be withdrawn, you vote pour. If you do not, you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.

2. Draft  Public  Elections  (Expenditure  and  Donations)  (Jersey)  Regulations  201- (P.51/2001)

The Bailiff :

Then we move next to the Draft Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Regulations 201-, Projet 51, lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

The States, in pursuance of the Order in Council of 14th April 1884, have made the following regulations.

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

I hope this can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible because, in fact, these triennial regulations simply renew the very minor modifications, the rules that were put in place for the 2008 elections and the 2010 by-election. P.P.C. hopes that all Members share the view that it is important that election expenditure is regulated to ensure that there is a level playing field between candidates. Before 2008, the absence of any controls clearly led to the lack of such a level playing field. For example, a wealthy Senatorial candidate, who could afford to print an expensive glossy leaflet and email it to every elector, was likely to have become much better known than a candidate of more modest means who could not afford to do that. Placing a monetary limit on how much a candidate can spend to create a level playing field is a feature of many democratic systems. Before 2008, concerns had also been raised about a lack of transparency in election funding in Jersey. There had been allegations, which hopefully were unfounded, that some candidates had received large sums of money for their campaign from individual or corporate donors. Before 2008, there was no restriction on this type of donation and no way for the public to know what sums may have been given to a candidate. Third party campaigning was another issue that was not regulated in Jersey before 2008. Although third party campaigning is not common in Jersey, it is nevertheless important to ensure that restrictions are in place to prevent an individual or organisation from spending significant amounts of money to favour one or more candidates or to prejudice others. As I have mentioned, these regulations are almost identical to those already in place and although the regulations are, by their nature, relatively complicated, experience in 2008 showed that the restrictions appeared to work very well and they certainly achieved the main objective of preventing any candidate spending excessive amounts of money on their campaign. Members who stood in 2008 elections may recall that a helpful guide explaining the regulations was circulated to all candidates and it is P.P.C.'s intention to update and to circulate that guide to all candidates in the forthcoming elections this year as well. Having said that, I propose the principles of the

regulations.

The Bailiff :

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

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

Obviously very important legislation and I congratulate P.P.C. for continuing to make sure that we have this sort of protection in elections and also for the facilitation of newspaper leaflets and also the new introduction this year of the website which will be not the Chairman is shaking her head but I have just read that in the report so maybe I can ask for some clarification before I proceed, please.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am sorry, it was just an involuntary shake of the head. We had the website for the last elections as well.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I do not remember that; getting old probably. I do remember that there was Senator Ben Shenton who was initiator, if I am correct, of this legislation and I think we all owe him a great debt of gratitude for that because it does help us retain some sort of level playing field. Now, the more you are in politics, obviously the less of a level playing field there is for the opposition so I am as guilty as any candidate that is standing that has been known for a while in having that advantage. Some of the propositions I have been tabling recently and some of the amendments I have been accused of electioneering it is quite sad because some of the propositions that have been coming lately are over a year and a half late and had I been making amendments to them at the time they were meant to be in the Assembly, it would not have been an accusation at all. However, there is actual activity that occurs in the Assembly on a regular basis which could be construed as an advantage for somebody in an election which I think P.P.C. needs to think further on in the coming years and also in relation to the exposure that Members have in relation to their portfolios in the coming years and how those exposures may be limited or curtailed during an election period and I give, for example, Harbours and Airports. We have television screens emblazoned with the names of the Ministers and the work that they are doing. We have Harbours and Airport magazines with glossy photographs of the Ministers who are running their portfolios. We have Constables, with the greatest of respect, because I share in this, I am guilty as anybody, I share in the glory of having had an opportunity to put my 5 questions out into the public domain through the Parish magazine and quite rightly the Constable of St. Helier has allowed all Deputies in St. Helier to benefit from that but that does give us all an unfair advantage, it could be said, against those who would wish to stand in the elections who have not been known so far this year. So I think there needs to be some consideration about the money that is used from States coffers in relation to the ongoing work that is necessary for the work of, for example, Harbours and Airport but also minded in relation to the fact that it could be advantageous to the political representative that is just doing their job if it was seen that during that election period, magazines and television screens, et cetera, were giving somebody an unfair advantage. Now, the world is a changing beast and Senator Ozouf has brought us into the modern world with the tweeting that is occurring. I do not know if he is tweeting during this debate but he certainly [Aside] [Laughter] .. aside from doing a tremendous job right now, the Minister for Treasury and Resources is no, he is not tweeting right now and he is not saying I am giving a great speech. He has done in the past but I do not think he [Laughter] when I agreed with the proposition that he was bringing.

[10:15]

So seriously, while I welcome the legislation, P.P.C. needs to be - I think - mindful and perhaps in dialogue with the Constables and the Ministers in relation to the subliminal advertising that goes on. If you take, for example, a Formula One racing car and you take an advert on a Formula racing car which goes past you at 600, 700 miles an hour or however fast they go - certainly too fast and noisy for me - you will spend £1.5 million for a couple of inches of advertising on a Formula One car because the power of advertising in those mediums is significant. We need to recognise the fact that a Parish magazine, especially in St. Helier, goes into every household and if the Constable is there every month of the year in the Parish magazine saying: "And another word from the Constable", "And another word from the Constable", "And another word from the Constable", on top of the fact that the Constable has great opportunity through the course of the year to promote Parish issues and address States issues, you are basically cementing into place and in the minds of the electorate what a wonderful job the Constable is doing. Now, our Constable, in my belief, in my opinion

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt. These regulations are dealing with the limitations on finance. They are not dealing with the matter which you are discussing.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I thought it was in relation to third party expenditure and whether or not this would be appropriate. The Bailiff :

It is not dealing with the fact that sitting Members who inevitably have a certain advantage because the media report on what they say.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

The Parish magazines are sponsored by the Parishes themselves in some respects. The Bailiff :

Well, I do not think it is covered in these regulations unless the Chairman says otherwise. I do not think it is covered and so really you are making a proposition that you would like the regulations to do something else.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Well, as it was a preamble, I was saying what I would like to see in the future from them. The Bailiff :

Right, but what we are debating is what is before the Assembly now.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Right, Sir.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Just for clarity, I cannot speak for other Parishes but certainly the wonderful magazine in the Parish of St. Clement is totally self-funding. It is not supported financially or politically by the Parish at all.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

If I may, on a point of clarification and to compliment the Constable of St. Clement's words in terms of St. Brelade's La Baguette, our Parish magazine, the editor makes a point of avoiding political comment, particularly for this reason.

The Bailiff :

All this goes to show is that we are getting away from the point of these particular regulations. Now, does any Member wish to speak?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was still speaking, Sir.

The Bailiff :

I am so sorry, Deputy . I beg your pardon.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was probably speaking incorrectly but I was still trying. I am off track, Sir. The Bailiff :

Yes, carry on.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

So let us just park the Parish magazines as good contributions and not appropriate for this debate. I have got it wrong. Publicity, sponsored publicity and the amount that somebody can spend in an election and the attribution and the ability for third parties to influence collectively expenditure is outlined within the regulations and it has been deemed appropriate that if third parties are able to spend money in support of a candidate or to the detriment of a candidate, that has been looked at in light of European Human Rights legislation and it has been deemed appropriate by the P.P.C. Committee, through no doubt Her Majesty's Attorney General's Office, that it would curtail the rights and freedoms of individuals if there was not allowed to be a certain amount of third party opportunity in free elections. So we have the opportunity for third parties to influence elections by spending a certain amount of money in favour and also we have a reasonable argument to say that that should be tempered somewhat in respect of negative advertising also. That has been rounded off in these regulations to the maximum half of an Island-wide election, I believe, somewhere in the region of about £4,200-odd. That is an awful lot of money really, £4,200, if you are going to run a campaign and it mentions people running campaigns and there has been a call in the media for business people to step forward and I agree, business people should step forward. But also people from all walks of life should step forward and, in my view, more women should step forward in this Assembly if possible and challenge for seats because I certainly do feel that we have got a predominance of people in the Assembly that have managed to achieve political position because of their abilities as businessmen rather than unfortunately in my view a broader sprinkling of our community. No doubt, there is great benefit in having able business people and businessmen in the Assembly but I think it would be much better if we had a better sprinkling myself. I think it is a bit too top-heavy. So I am a bit concerned recently and I do not know how this would be addressed but perhaps the Chairman of P.P.C. can let me know whether or not this would be cause in these regulations. But I have been chatting recently about elections with people, as no doubt other people have, and I have been told - and it is the Jersey rumour mill no doubt- so-and-so is preparing 21 business candidates and they have all signed to a Code of Conduct and they are standing in elections against Deputy Pitman and the Deputy of St. Martin and they are targeting these districts and this is what they are doing. Now, if that is correct, if there are 21 business people who are forming a loose collective through a Code of Conduct to target elections, I want to know what protection we have as individuals trying to serve our community against that kind of an onslaught.

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

I am pleased to follow Deputy Le Claire. I was horrified to hear that he could even be accused of electioneering. That never ever crossed my mind in all the time I have known him. But it is quite interesting talking about money because I thought I had finally arrived or crossed over to the dark side the other day because I received an envelope and when I opened it, it had some money in it. Yes, sadly it was only 3 pesos from Cuba so [Laughter] and it was just a souvenir from Deputy Le Hérissier's holiday so it looks like I have not been invited to the dark side yet. But this issue of money in envelopes.. Now, I was for many years a staff representative and a union representative. When I stood, I received a small sum from the union and it is in the register. What these regulations, I am afraid, will never do is do anything about the situation where some third party, probably a wealthy individual, is going to support someone else with a nicer envelope than the one I got with an awful lot more money in it because how will it be traceable? It will not be and that is the reality. I really welcomed when we did move to election expenses because I did not stand in 2005 but we saw the really appalling stuff that came out of a really, I have to say, revolting group called Elect Jersey who were really set up to smear anyone who was, as I say, often to the left of Attila the Hun. Now, they offered certain people nice glossy very expensive videos because I know the gentleman who filmed them. He did have some problems getting a few of the candidates to speak coherently, I am told, but that was all done free of charge. They had a website which specialised really in attacking other candidates. How will we ever really stop that? Now, what Deputy Le Claire is touching on is very relevant and it is quite sinister. We are seeing very vociferous minorities who it is almost like the Sark situation where they want democracy but only if it suits them. I just say it is very difficult for P.P.C., I appreciate that being on there, but some of these things really will be little more than tokenism. It is doing the best that we can. I am on P.P.C. now and I realise how difficult it is. We are talking about newspapers. Well, it can be so subtle or perhaps unsubtle. How are we going to do anything at all about the media coverage and the way they portray us? Someone said that they report on everyone. Well, yes, they do but they certainly report in different ways and you know I am going to say it, but the wonderful Jersey Evening Post will be in court later this year for defamation. Am I going to get a fair crack of the whip come the election? What can I do with that? What can P.P.C. do about that with election expenses? Deputy Shona Pitman - just lies - and it is quite shocking and appalling and yet only yesterday, we heard that websites that any one of you – us - may wish to set up, young people

cannot even access those, websites which are just at the end of the day about opinion because that is what politics is. It is your opinion, your interpretation of the facts. Yet the Jersey Evening Post or the other channels, the BBC, Channel 104, young people can access all of that. So it is all very interlinked. We talked about glossy images being available. Deputy Le Claire has. Well, I have not noticed those I must admit on TV screens and things but the Scrutiny magazine.. gone, is it not; or going? I thought it was a good magazine. I do not think anyone could accuse it of being a really promotional thing because you did not exactly get a lot of coverage to put your personal views because it was about the evidence that you had come up with. Maybe you read it possibly but we have got rid of that, yes, as we are saying, with the Council of Ministers, lovely glossy pictures everywhere. They get all the interviews with the media. It does not really matter what they say, how vacuous it might be or might not be. It might be very good but by nature of the system we have got, some people will get more coverage by nature of the prejudice of certain businesses. For instance, the Jersey Evening Post, they will be in there with another businessman for the smears on myself and my wife. So I think P.P.C., as Deputy Le Claire says, we need, difficult as it is, to take this further on. We do not want to see the days when people could pay £40,000 for an election campaign and it is good that we have made these steps. People should be there on merit and I do hope that we I know that we have tackled this late in P.P.C. but

hopefully we can get when all of us can have the same leaflet put out across the Island rather than perhaps relying on the paper. Hopefully, we can come up with a way, probably very difficult with our postal service under threat where all those leaflets, manifestos, can go out the same day, arrive and be guaranteed to arrive at the same day and then the public can make their decision. You might say I have got an advantage because I am one of those people who knock on doors so I get seen but then I put the work in like a lot of Deputies in St. Helier do. That probably is the real reason why we had Article 3(9)(a) to stop people like that getting in. So I think I will leave it there. I just do want to see a level field. For instance, I do not want to see like we did have with Article 3(9)(a) where some people were prosecuted, some people were not. I will be publishing some documents later this year. Jersey has got to a just, democratic system and, in an election year, more so than ever.

3. Senator A. Breckon:

I welcome this and I welcome the fact that it is an update of where P.P.C. started from. I say that for a number of reasons because I have experienced living through this when election expenses were not accountable and people could spend as much as they wanted. It was a worrying thing because some people had very deep pockets. There were massive signs, there were glossy brochures, there were posters all over the place and it was to the detriment of the ordinary person wanting to stand. It was a bit of an insult. If we look now at what a postal mail drop would cost across the Island, you are probably talking £15,000. This is set at a level which was fixed at and that is where we should be because the old campaigns, if you look at that, it was about a team of helpers. I am looking I cannot see him, but I am looking at the back of Senator Le Marquand when I say that because he knows how valuable that is if you have friends and colleagues from different organisations that are willing to take 200 or 300 leaflets and do a certain area. That is really what it should be about and they are doing that not because you have press-ganged them into it or not because you have given £20 for doing it. They are doing it because they believe in some of the things you want to do and they are helping. Now, it is difficult to quantify that because people want to do that and I hope P.P.C. will say well .. because Senator Le Marquand would testify, I am sure, because I know because I have seen it myself, people will say: "Well, I will take 200 leaflets and I will do this estate" or "I will do this area" and that happens. They do not want anything for doing it but how do you quantify that as time? It is difficult to do that and I hope P.P.C. are not going to do that because that is part of the old tradition I think that we should not lose. The other thing that happened - and if you think of a Senatorial election - is professional people were hired to break down databases of electors and put that into a mail drop and address things to electors individually. Now, that is a substantial expense and again by putting the base where we are, we have taken that out. There have been rumours of some serious money spent on campaigns and this is pitched at the right area because people, whether it is if you look at the Parish of St. Mary, for example, you could probably give everybody £5 and ask them to vote for somebody because the amount of money that is there and the amount of electors, you are probably at that level.

[10:30]

Put your money firstly on a £5 note and say: "Please bring this back to the Parish Hall ." So that might be the easiest way to cure that particular one. The other thing is I have noted it on here and I am not sure how this could be done because we are talking about P.P.C. is keen to regulate excessive negative campaigning. But then as sitting Members, if somebody wants to publish how we voted on a particular thing, if you go back, say take something contentious like Queen's Valley, there was nobody left in that particular debate but how did people vote on that? Well, somebody - and there might be, say, a group-like concern - might want to publish that and take a page out of the paper and say: "This is how people voted; they have done it in the past." What we do not want to do is squash enlightened debate about some of the issues because as sitting Members, I am afraid, we have to be accountable for the way we voted on certain things. If somebody wants to publish that and put it on a leaflet and put it through people's doors or put it on Members' doors or .. The other thing, I am not sure how far P.P.C. are with this, probably ahead of me, is how do you put a price on technology and social networking? Especially a lot of younger people now, stuff whizzes around and it does not cost anything. If somebody has put a message on, people join in and the cost of that is virtually nothing. Advertisers of all descriptions have cottoned on to this and they are doing that. I am not sure how P.P.C. could quantify any of that and if somebody put a message on it saying: "Do you agree with me?" how do you actually do that? If somebody has already got a blog site, they need not be a sitting States Member, they could be just active in the community doing things and I know there is somebody particularly active say in the Isle of Man and it is over: "It is your Government, look what they are doing" and they do that in the U.K. as well, so you are under a bit of a microscope. We have an excellent website that shows our voting records but maybe we should link some of this and do this on nobody's behalf and just say: "We are the sitting Members. This is the information about us." But generally I welcome this but I am interested as well in how P.P.C. might do this because they talk about there is a balance between the human rights, freedom of expression and somebody not being able to say something for or against a candidate or a number of candidates. I think there may be some tension there and what we do not want to do is get bogged down with it because we want to have fair and proper elections where we discuss the issues and have the debates. We need to be encouraging people, not discouraging them, and to do that they need quality information. They need to be able to challenge what we have said, what we have done, what we put in manifestos, previous promises; things like that need to come

under the microscope and the media certainly will do some of that. But perhaps other people in the community; organisations, business organisations, community organisations, might want to do the same thing but we do not want to bog them down with red tape so I think there is a balance. The expenses thing, in my mind, is right and personally I would not spend anything like that; I would not even bother because where this is for a lot of Members is with the legwork. It is not about producing glossy stuff and this really is about getting out there and meeting the community because if you want them to vote for you they have to feel that if they have a problem or an issue they want to talk to you about they can come back to you and say: "I remember when you said this or you were at a meeting or you knocked on my door" that is what it is about. We need to get back, I think, to some of the basics and it is good that P.P.C. have done this. What they have done is they have halted a flow that was going in a dangerous direction because there was too, too much money being spent. I notice the last time there were a number of candidates, who did or did not get elected, who have not complied with filling in that, so maybe they should look at the sanctions as well to make sure that everybody did; I think it was 3 or 4 who did not. Thank you.

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

Yes, I think this is, on the whole, a good proposition and P.P.C. are to be commended. There are some big steps forward here; the transparency surrounding expenses, all donations over £100 will have to be declared and publicly available and, as I understand it from the regulations, I hope the Chairman will correct me if I am wrong in making these assertions, all expenses will be listed and, again, available for the public to see. That is all good and a big step forward. I have just got a few comments really; the  J.E.P. supplement is indeed money well spent. It is the views of the candidates in their own words and so cannot be spun or whatever in one way or the other. That is an essential part of P.P.C.'s role. They say it costs I think around £10,000 and that is money well spent. Also they say that they are committed to setting up an election website and presumably that too would have all those manifestos there for all time, if you like, or for any member of the public to go online and find what the candidates are saying about themselves. That is good if P.P.C. stick with that and I hope they do because I think it is just written in here as a we intend to do that and I hope they do do that and, again, it is a good step forward. My only observation really and it follows on really from what Senator Breckon said about quality information and from what Deputy Le Claire said about the advantage and, of course, what we all know which is the advantage that sitting Members have simply by virtue of their extra knowledge of how the system works, the fact that they have sat here for 3 years or 6 years or 20 years, they have an advantage. That is fairly obvious; they get reported in the media, they are on the front page of their departmental magazine or whatever it is. The corrective to that would be to have a section in the gov.je website or within the new election website, where members of the public could first of all have easy access to the manifestos and the statements that candidates made at the last election so the voters can see: "Ah, that is what they said last time" and ideally, as the website progresses through the years to come, what they said at the time before that. Also, what we need on that website is easy access for the voter to the story behind the candidate; what they do or what they did in the last 3 years. They want to be able to get at the voting record. They want to be able then to go from the proposition about G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) or about the Millennium Town Park. They want then to be able to go to the Hansard, if they so desire. There are voters who want to check to that level; what we said, what we did and which way we voted and why. They will not read the collective words of

Deputy Duhamel or Deputy Pitman or Deputy Wimberley or the Constable of St. Clement, of course they will not but they will dip into what interests them and they will find out what was said by that person they are interested in, whether or not they want to vote for them. I think that should be available and to all intents and purposes it is not available now. You try finding a specific debate on a specific topic on the States Assembly website, you just try and the average voter would simply not know where to begin. I hope that the new election website will tackle some of those issues; will  enable  the  voter to  navigate the voting record,  will enable them to  find specific propositions on topics that interest them and be able to find the Hansard and how they can find the Hansard of the debate on those propositions. At the moment I reckon that those things would be absolutely impossible. There is no index to propositions; if you typed in Millennium Town Park or Town Park or Gas Place, I do not know what you would find. You certainly would not get dates of debates, you would not get voting results immediately; in fact it would be impossible. I do hope that P.P.C. take that on board. If voters are interested or even half-interested they should be encouraged to find out. They should be enabled to find out and not have obstacles put in their way and, as I say, it is the only corrective to the advantage that sitting Members have is that the public can find out what we did and what we said. Thank you.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Three words to start off with: electioneering, electioneering. Okay, we will carry on now but I think that reference is probably more appropriate slightly earlier during the speeches. I can explain that later on, by the way, if anyone did not get why it is 3 words; it sounds like 2 words. Senator Breckon I think touched on the issue that there is a problem, first of all, with websites. If you have a pre-existing website or blog site, which some of us already do and which other candidates who maybe were not successful still have up and running, how does P.P.C. deal with that issue? For a start the website may have been free to set up; certain websites, certainly if their blogs are free and if you are doing it yourself there is no labour cost involved. We talk about a notional cost for certain expenses on page 18, so even if things are free, because perhaps you know a friend in printing and he or she does some printing for you, you will still be charged for that or that will be put down as an allocation of your expenses but how does one judge that for a website, which you can do yourself, which is free anyway? Which leads me on to the next point, which I did bring up in the working party on elections and I am not sure if it has been taken into consideration, is that it is not simply sufficient to say that everybody should make a declaration. We need receipts; we cannot work on a trust basis. That is not to say that candidates are disreputable but it is important that surely if you are allowed to spend, let us say, £8,000 roughly you should have to account for every single penny of that. It is not simply satisfactory to make a declaration because one will tend to put things down: "I think I paid £100 for these posters. I think I paid £2,000 to print these leaflets." Exactly, get a receipt, that is right and that receipt should be submitted to P.P.C. or to the Judicial Greffe and that should be published on the website, right down to the final penny because how does one estimate? I know the arguments have been had that well you can tell roughly if people have been spending £8,000 or £15,000; you just look at how many big posters they have and then you work out how much those posters cost but of course that is impossible. First of all that is not going to happen; people do not go around counting leaflets, they do not go around counting posters, measuring the size and then working out what they would cost. I would like to know why P.P.C. have not gone down the road of demanding receipts for every piece of expenditure that happens and making sure that people do submit it. Maybe this is something which needs to be brought in over a period of time. I know that elections, certainly for new candidates, are very traumatic times and neither do we want to be overburdening them but there has to be a certain level of probity I think. Deputy Le Claire's interesting comments about the exposure that either certain high profile members of society or States Members indeed get is a valid one; perhaps not immediately part of the considerations for this. I think the issue about Parish newsletters is one

consideration; what about Parish newsletters that get sent out perhaps a month before the election? Presumably most Constables would not do that because it is not seen as a good thing or if they did issue Parish newsletters during an election period I hope that they would make sure that there was no obvious preponderance of large photographs of themselves or articles written by themselves or about themselves in those newsletters. But I think currently, if we are honest about it, Parish newsletters do feature what the Constables are doing in their Parish and that is quite rightly but they are also States Members, so that is an issue there. I know that, similarly, those who publish the newsletter in St. Brelade they are very careful not to give any political bias to the Deputies but it often seems to me that the work that the Deputies do or the issues that they have raised in the Parish are included in the newsletter but they are not attributed to the Deputies themselves and there is a foreword by the Constable saying: "These things are going on in the Parish and these things I am mindful of." It can perhaps give an impression to the electorate which is not complete, shall we say in diplomatic speak. There is also the issue about how does one deal with leaflets which perhaps get distributed before election time? If I speak to potential candidates now and what I would say to them is, if they are a viable candidate, I say: "You want to get your information out to your constituency as soon as possible." Hypothetically speaking, if there was a candidate wanted to run for Constable in St. Brelade I would tell her: "You need to go and distribute as many leaflets as you can on some random issue, it does not really matter what, saying there is this issue going on in the Parish" or perhaps be more frank saying: "I am going to be standing for Constable in 2011 in October.  I want to let you know that now."

[10:45]

Is that provided for? That is great but if that is provided for in here how does one differentiate between what is an election leaflet, let us say, now or if it is just a newsletter, where somebody is raising an issue and they can spend perhaps £20,000 if they want to distributing a newsletter for themselves to that Parish and then later declare perhaps 2 weeks later that they are going to stand as a candidate? These are issues which I think need to be considered. That is not to say that of course any regulations that are brought forward by the Committee will cover all these loopholes but they

certainly, I hope, would have been considered at some point. I am also concerned about the comments or I would like it explained that a newsletter going to each and every home is not a good use of taxpayers' money because certainly we have had a Scrutiny newsletter in the past and I know that has been scrapped but certainly that went to everybody's home and it was a leaflet which you could put the information about the whole of the happenings of Scrutiny. I do not see why a leaflet, with every candidate in the elections, certainly that is relevant for that particular district, could not be done in a leaflet. To say that it is a bad use of taxpayers' money I find that outstanding because surely that is the best use of taxpayers' money; they want to know exactly who is standing for election. I know the argument will come back that we have J.E.P. inserts; the trouble is not everyone buys the J.E.P. and once you have opened the J.E.P. to find the insert you will already be tainted by the J.E.P., so you have that issue. People would want, I think, an objective centrally- distributed leaflet from Government, which is not necessarily alongside some other political statements in the same newspaper, which may or may not be biased to one or more candidates. I think those are just the points I have to make. Of course I commend the rest of the good work. It is important that we have a level playing field for expenses but it is only limited to expenses, I think that is the issue. Of course there will always be those who have advantages in politics and those who do not because they may have a high level of exposure. They may be politically more astute than others of course and it would be nonsense to have a level playing field in all of those areas because that does not allow for the human nature and fair competition. Certainly, when it comes to expenses, I think we are all agreed now that simply just because one is wealthier than another that should not provide an unfair advantage. I do commend the work but I would still like to know if these points have been considered.

The Bailiff :

Yes, can I just remind Members this is a re-enactment of existing regulations which governed the last election. Deputy Le Hérissier?

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, I support Deputy Tadier 's support of the proposition. In terms of the amendment I would just make a point that where it talks of distribution on the Island as opposed to distribution through an English language newspaper, I think that is necessary. Members may have forgotten that some years ago there was a proposition put through to liberalise the public Gazette. It never led to the results that were expected; in other words if somebody wished, through another medium, to set up their public Gazette or wished to compete with States recruitment advertising, for example, which of course has been much reduced in recent years, but if they wish to that possibility now exists. Similarly, if a Constable wished to announce a tea party through the Gazette they could do it through another means; that was the intention. The reform has never really materialised into the freedom and the competitive informal postal environment that was envisaged but at least this does give the possibility of that occurring; at least it does give the possibility. The other thing I would say, Sir, and I will negate your admonishment to us, is yes, it is great to have a level playing field but I think what people do miss are elections with a bit of spark, elections with a bit of life. The irony was, of course, such elections did take place in the 19th century. They were accompanied by enormous bouts of litigation as well where people were suing each other from here to kingdom come. They were incredibly exciting; they were often unbelievably personality-based. There was very little policy involved in all this disputation that was occurring. The one thing we lack and I know we have struggled with it, I am sure P.P.C. struggles with it, is how can we come up with an election format that livens up the whole process where there is some real edge to the proceedings, there is some real ding-dong, so to speak, and people are really having passionate, difficult debates with each other? We know the Senatorials; if you want to kill off excitement you could not have come up .. and it is very difficult, we realise that, we have all struggled with it but it does need to spark and I am not quite sure how that can be done; certainly not with the kind of numbers, for example, that appear on a Senatorial campaign. That may be as phase 2 of the reform but how you legislate for that is a very different matter.

7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

It is just really to ask for a piece of clarification and hopefully the Chairman, in her summing-up will do that. It was intimated in Senator Breckon's speech; social media, will this be covered under these regulations?

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Chairman to reply.