States Meeting Transcript - 7th March 2012

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 7th MARCH 2012

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4

1. Electoral Commission: composition and terms of reference (P.5/2012) - amendment (P.5/2012 Amd.) - Part 2 as amended....................................................4

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................4

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................5
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................6
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : .................................................................7
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................7
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................8
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................8
7. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................8
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................9
9. Senator L.J. Farnham :....................................................................9
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................10
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................10

2. Electoral Commission: composition and terms of reference (P.5/2012) - second amendment (P.5/2012 Amd.(2)).........................................................12

1. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................12
2. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................14
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................15
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................16

5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................16
6. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................18
7. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................19
8. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................19
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................20
10. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................20
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................21
12. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................21
13. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................22

3. Electoral Commission: composition and terms of reference (P.5/2012) - resumption.23

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................24
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................25
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................25
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................25
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................28

6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................29
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................30
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................30
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................31
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................32
11. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................33

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................36 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38

Senator I.J. Gorst :............................................................................38 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................38

4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................38

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................39
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................40
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................40
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................40
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................41
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................41
8. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................41
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................42
10. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................42
11. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................42
12. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................43
13. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................43
14. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................43
15. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................43
16. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................43
17. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................44
18. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................44

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................46
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................46
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................46
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................47
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................47
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................47
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................47
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48
10. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John:..................................................48
11. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................48
12. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................48
13. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................49
14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................49
15. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................49
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................49
17. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................50
18. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................50
19. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................50

20. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................50

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................51

6. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................52

2. Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of profits for 2011 (P.6/2012)....................52

2.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................52

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................53
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................53

3. Income Tax: individual tax assessments (P.11/2012)...................................54

3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................56
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................59
3. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................59
4. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................59
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................60
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................60

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................61

4. The Connétable of St. Helier (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......61

4.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................61

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................62

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

[9:35]

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Electoral Commission: composition and terms of reference (P.5/2012) - amendment (P.5/2012 Amd.) - Part 2 as amended

The Deputy Bailiff :

We return to Public Business. We have reached the stage where Deputy Le Hérissier is proposing part 2 of his amendments, as the States agreed last night, as amended by the amendment which he lodged to his own amendment. I will ask the Greffier to read the part as amended.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Number 2, page 2, paragraph (c), after the fourth bullet point insert the following bullet points - the functions of the electoral process, voting systems and re-number the paragraphs accordingly.

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

Sir, I am slightly confused again. I presume this is about the issue, at this point, of voter registration, is that correct, the whole lot?

The Deputy Bailiff :

This is your page 2, paragraph (c) - After the fourth bullet point insert the functions of the electoral process and voting systems and you are not including voter registration because your own amendment removes that and the States Assembly gave you permission yesterday to propose your amendment, as amended by yourself.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay. Thank you, Sir, for that clarification. I knew I was to blame somewhere along the way, I just did not know where.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That was done on the standing vote last night.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you. The point was made in the main debate that voting systems and the functions and the process are very important. This was a point introduced, of course, by the Deputy of St. Mary and I have to say I did take umbrage at Sir Philip's remark or inference that I was taking rather a long time because I was told by someone I gave an excellent executive summary of the Deputy of St. Mary's original speech; [Laughter] that was a bit rich unfortunately. But the reason I have included ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Refer to him as Senator Bailhache , thank you. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sorry, Sir, Senator Bailhache . The reason I have included it, I did make clear yesterday and I was very interested to note that one of the few people who responded to this point was the Dean when he said: "Well, you have only got to look at the U.S., the Senate and the Congress there and the Senate is based upon the structure of the States." But what I would say, why it is so important it is this issue, of course, of the value of the vote, that each vote should be of equal value and, of course, there are examples which show that importance much nearer home. You have only got to look at

Northern Ireland where there was, of course, the incredible evidence of gerrymandering for decades until that particular situation was remedied in the late 1960s where people were put in vast numbers into certain constituencies so that those numbers could not influence the vote for the other community and they could keep entrenched certain votes; in other words, the Protestant ascendancy in Northern Ireland. Of course, even nearer we then had the phenomena in Westminster where no less a person than Lady Porter decided that the large council estates in the borough had to be broken up because they were sending the wrong kind of person to the council. In a rather strange situation these people were then shipped out to other London boroughs in order that there would not be a certain bias in the voting and, of course, Lady Porter was brought to book but, by that time, I think she had resettled in Israel. That is why it is important. We have got the same issue here, a continuous theme that I alluded to; in fact the Constable of St. Saviour alluded to in 1892, as early as that, is the town versus country issue in the Jersey voting structure; that has been a continuous theme and, of course, as I have said, it has been excellently written up by one of those totally hoodwinked members of the Clothier Commission, Advocate Kelleher, the local representative who, as we know, were being totally hoodwinked by outsiders, as we were told yesterday. He wrote that issue up in considerable detail in his book called The Triumph of the Country. It is an issue that needs looking at, we cannot avoid it and that is why I have followed the former Deputy of St. Mary and included it. The reason I dropped voter registration was that it is being looked at by a sub-committee of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) of which I am a member and which is being chaired by Deputy Martin. There were a whole lot of issues to do with the mechanics of elections that are being looked at by that group and it seemed quite satisfactory that it be looked at by that group. Deputy Tadier and she have intimated in their minority report that they may not be totally happy with that and want to maybe speak on that issue. I would like to move the proposition. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Deputy Tadier .

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

First of all I hope the Assembly will not mind if I address us in English today; I know there are a lot of ultra conservatives here who are aware of Jersey's historical and cultural context and they will know that the language of the Assembly is French. But if they do not mind being a modernist, and a reformer myself, I would like to take the opportunity to address the Assembly in English, so do bear with me. Anybody who needs a translation later on I can provide that for Members. The first point here, I think this amendment, again, is not necessary. It is not necessary because we debated this less than 12 months ago and it was already included in the original proposition but, again, that does not stop new Members from bringing amendments or changing the principles of what previous States Members have agreed. There are 2 issues here: there is, first of all, the issue of whether it is valid for electoral systems to be looked at, including the functions of the electoral register. I think these arguments go without saying because I think the response from P.P.C. is that the reason we are not going to do this is because it has already been looked at. But in case there is any doubt in anybody's mind I would draw their attention to the minority report and I would like to read briefly from it, now that we have foregone with the independent Commission, what the point of having a comprehensive review would be. On page 5 if we look at verses 27 through to 31; let us start with 26. It says: "In adopting P.15/2011, the States agreed that an independent Electoral Commission should be established to investigate and report on all aspects of the composition of the elected membership of the States Assembly and the election and voting processes for such Members. In other words, the Electoral Commission was to be independent and it was to be comprehensive." We will move on: "If the States adopt P.5/2012, this will remove the requirement that the Electoral Commission should be independent." Okay, we are already in that position but we still have the opportunity to make sure that the Electoral Commission is comprehensive in its scope: "A decision to adopt the proposition would remove the last 3 bullet points" and this is what Deputy Le Hérissier is trying to redress, to make sure that we can consider the functions of the electoral process and the voting systems: "Voting systems such as first past the post, single transferable votes, et cetera, are an integral part of the electoral system. It is not sensible to suggest that they are considered by a sub-committee of P.P.C. distinct from the rest of electoral reforms." I think the important part and this is to quote the former Deputy of St. Mary, Deputy Wimberley, is that: "Elections have 2 main functions; the first is to enable the voters to decide who represents them in the representative assembly of their jurisdiction. This should be achieved by fair and equal representation." I think that is understood: "The second is to enable the electorate to cast a verdict on who they want in Government and to cast a verdict on the previous Government." This is why the Deputy goes on to say the 2 must be looked at in conjunction; the 2 are inextricably linked. The way that we vote for our electorate is directly linked to what we end up with in Government and it is the same in the House. We do not use the first past the post system, for example, for voting Ministers or for chairmen in this House because it is a ludicrous system to use because we know that in Assembly we need to have the confidence of the whole Assembly or the Ministers, the Chairmen, et cetera, need to have the confidence of the whole Assembly; that is why we have a system that allows people to make sure that they have got more than 50 per cent of the vote.

[9:45]

Now it may not be necessary for that system to be extended to the wider public but certainly there are merits in doing so and there are lots of various different systems that produce different outcomes. I think the argument, I am taking it, is understood that electoral systems are important, that they need to be looked at. The question is then, by whom should they be looked at? This is where the rub is, I think, because we have already got these pre-existing now before the Electoral Commission is even formed, if it is formed today; there is still a possibility that it could be rejected completely. We have got these pre-existing P.P.Cs. that are looking at 3 different aspects, all of which are kind of interrelated and all of which, to a certain extent, will encroach or certainly have to have a to and fro with any Electoral Commission. The first point is, how is that interaction going to work? That is perhaps a point that we will consider later on when considering the substantive proposition, whether amended or not. My issue here is that we will have, if we adopt the P.P.C. proposition, essentially a P.P.C. sub-committee. It will be chaired by a member of P.P.C. with some co-opted members of the public to look at this. I think it is absolutely important that the people who are looking at the Electoral Commission and the whole machinery of government, which, incidentally, is my sub-committee as well, should be able to look at the voting systems. I think it goes without saying if you are going to have an Electoral Commission it has to look at voting systems; it is completely nullified if it does not do that. I think that is all I have got to say on this particular amendment. I think, again, it is a question of who looks at it. I do not think this is sufficient to be left to a sub-committee. It needs to have the authority of the whole of States Assembly backing whoever that chairman might be, to look at the whole package. There are members of the public who have made submissions certainly to P.P.C. in the past about the inadequacy of the first past the post system and I think that will be something that should be extended to the wider public for submissions.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? The Chairman of P.P.C.

2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

The P.P.C. is not unanimous - we know that already - in its approach to the Electoral Commission and I just want to follow the Vice-Chairman and urge the States to reject this amendment. First of all, let me pick up the proposer's comments about that excellent book, The Triumph of the Country, which is, of course, really about the triumph of the town but we will let that pass. That was a Ph.D. thesis that took considerable amount of time to complete, as is the way with Ph.D. theses. I think the 2 key points P.P.C. are making here; one is that time is short. We set out in our report to the main proposition the ambitious timetable that the Electoral Commission needs to keep to if we are to deliver the promised reforms. Adding the possibility of a Ph.D. thesis on electoral systems to that body of work seems to me to be making their task even more difficult. The second argument P.P.C. would put, by a majority, is that if Members refer to the original proposition and paragraph (c): "The terms of reference for the Commission; the Electoral Commission shall consider all the following areas - classes of States Member, constituencies and mandates." That seems to me to come pretty close to what Deputy Le Hérissier is asking us to look at. Then it says, as a kind of catch up, at the capsule at the bottom of that section: "And all other issues arising in the course of the work of the Commission which are relevant to the needs stated above." It does seem to me that the Electoral Commission is perfectly entitled to look at all the areas raised by Deputy Le Hérissier in his amendment and indeed the excellent point I thought he made yesterday, and which Professor Lee made in his visit, hosted by the sub-committee of P.P.C., about the value of the vote. These are truly important things; they must be considered. I am sure the Electoral Commission has, within its terms of reference already, ample scope to consider them and that is why we would urge Members not to add more to the burden of the Commission.

3. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I would like to follow the Chairman of the P.P.C. very briefly by saying that I agree absolutely with what he has said. The terms of reference put forward by the Privileges and Procedures Committee seem to me to be broad enough to encompass voting systems, if that is relevant to the major part of the work that the Commission is going to have to consider. I hope that Members will reject this amendment principally because of the words "functions of an electoral system" which the Deputy invites the Assembly to add to the terms of reference. When the Privileges and Procedures Committee was discussing this issue - admittedly Deputy Tadier was not present - none of us could understand what it meant. I think it is important, if there are to be terms of reference that are binding upon a Commission, that it should be crystal clear what that Commission has to do. I did not understand, from the proposer's opening remarks, exactly what functions of an electoral system envisaged and I hope that he will clarify that perhaps when he replies to the debate. But if it does mean something, and it means that which the Chairman of the P.P.C. has identified in terms of the Ph.D. thesis of Mr. Kelleher, then it seems to me that that broadens the terms of reference too far. If Members are serious in allowing the Commission to produce recommendations for consideration by the Assembly and by the public within a relatively short timeframe, then we really ought not to complicate matters unnecessarily.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, can I make a point of clarification on the last speaker? The functions are included here on page 6 of the minority report, which are the words of the Deputy of St. Mary 's point 31, but that is where one can find the definition from the former Deputy of St. Mary .

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

As someone who has had plenty of experiences at drafting terms of reference, in order to give myself the greatest scope possible, I am very much aware of the difference between a permissive paragraph; I may look at something else or I may look at anything I see fit to look at but I do not have to, no obligation. This issue of a vote having equal value is central to our or any democracy. To be told we have to look at this area is very different from: "And you may if you choose." Already I can hear a hint of: "In the timescale maybe we will not be able to do everything." As

soon as you allow a permissive term of reference then you allow the future Chair, whoever it is, to not necessarily go there, whereas if you tell them then they have got to go there and they have got to produce something which you can then judge; a world of difference.

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

Yes, briefly because Senator Bailhache is totally right. Around the table, when I was listening to the: "Extra, let us take out this, this and this because we are covering it" and I am looking at the mechanics of the voting system and is it entirely, when I got speaking to Deputy Tadier and re-read P.15, understood that what I am looking at and what this is asking the Commission to look at, is 2 totally different things; mechanics and this? That is why when doing the minority report I was quite happy to put this back in, having thought about, well, if this is the system you are going to have you have to make sure it is representative of the public and there may be some changes. I would like to sort of say to the Constable of St. Helier, the Chair of P.P.C. and Senator Bailhache and the rest of the people who do not want to support this, if it is so innocuous, it is already in there, why do you not just accept it? What is the fear? Because, as Deputy Southern just said, there is already a paragraph that says you can go anywhere. This just adds a bit of meat on the bone to me and it will come back in the next debate about why it is not wanted because when a system comes back it will need to be externally or internally validated. If you cannot move the electoral boundaries, if you cannot change the voting system, you will never validate the proportion of people who can vote and who are elected in this Chamber. That is where it comes back; it is tying the hands of the Commission even further. I think it is straightforward. If it is already in the P.P.C.'s P.5, what is the rest of the debate about? Go for it. Thank you.

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

Following on from the last speaker I notice that both the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee and Senator Bailhache , if I understood them correctly, believe that the issues that Deputy Le Hérissier is wishing to include would be covered by the Commission anyway; then following on from the previous speaker, then what is the problem of having them in there? I really cannot wrap my head around the fact that they are saying: "Well, they will be in there anyway but let us vote against it." To me it just does not add up. But taking them at their word that these issues will be covered, why is it that they would wish to vote against Deputy Le Hérissier's amendment unless it is that really they do not intend going into these matters? [Approbation] I think we need to include those issues that Deputy Le Hérissier brings in his amendment because otherwise there is a danger that in fact they will not be covered. Thank you.

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

Much in the theme of Deputy Martin and Deputy Baudains; if they are going to be included, why would we vote against this? I think yesterday was a great day to be a democrat and I would urge all Members, probably 2 votes against this now, because I think we should let the public see what a complete shambles this is going to be. How on earth can you look at changing the composition of the States and you are not going to look at something that is absolutely intrinsically interwoven with it about fairness and representation? I think really that the speeches we have heard from the Chairman of P.P.C. and Senator Bailhache really shows what is really going on here. This is not about achieving something good; this is about getting something done in haste. It is about achieving a certain result and, as a certain Senator said to me today: "I think really probably the best thing to do now is move for a rescindment of the Electoral Commission" because this is truly farcical. I fully support Deputy Le Hérissier; an excellent speech yesterday. He was really passionate. I do not know if it is because he has moved his seat; he seems to have got a new rush of blood, not to the head, but he spoke very, very well yesterday. This has got to be included and, as the last 2 speakers said, if it is so innocuous and it is going to be done anyway then what message

are we sending out to the public? We are telling them we are going to do it but we are going to vote against something which ensures that we do it. Is there any credibility left in this House? That is what I would ask Members to think on. What is this Electoral Commission becoming? We are just chipping away. It seems all this is about and you can only conclude this, this is about producing a set of numbers, it is about pushing this country/town imbalance even further. It is about what I said yesterday, making square pegs fit into round holes or the other way. If we do not accept this amendment it is going to be a complete and utter shambles. I would urge Members to vote with your conscience. If you want something good, support Deputy Le Hérissier. If Members do not want something good, then go the other way. This Government really gets more and more embarrassing; sorry, Sir.

8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I really do not think that Deputy Pitman does himself any justice when he berates other Members. I would encourage Members to look at page 2 of the original proposition and to cast their eyes over the bullet points that we are being asked to amend. Part (c) of the proposition clearly says: "The Electoral Commission shall consider all the following areas; classes of States Member, constituents and mandates, number of States Members, terms of office and all other issues arising in the course of the work and the Commission which are relevant to the needs stated above." If we then look at what Deputy Le Hérissier is asking us to add to this; he is asking us first to add the functions of the electoral process. I do not really understand what that means but I certainly think that the last part of the original P.P.C. proposition covers that. Voting system seems to be .. I do not know what he means by that; it is not clearly set out in his report but clearly if there are issues in terms of voting systems of first past the post versus multi-seat constituencies versus a possibility of having a list of first, second and third preference, that seems to me adequately covered in the terms of reference. The area that I think would be a mistake in order to extend the functions of the Electoral Commission is the issue of voter registration. Voter registration is really, really ..

[10:00]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator, that is not in the amendment any longer. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am sorry. I think all of the issues that are relevant can be covered without tying the hands of the Electoral Commission. There does not seem to be any strong arguments and Deputy Le Hérissier is going to have to explain what he means by the functions of the electoral process and voter systems because they are covered in the terms of reference and why should they have bullet points? What do they mean and what are we signing up to?

9. Senator L.J. Farnham :

One thing the Assembly seems to be agreed on is the sentence under the bullet point which said: "And all other issues arising in the course of the work of the Commission which are relevant to the needs above." In which case, as Senator Ozouf just said, why have any bullet points? Why not just have that as a sentence and then it encompasses everything? As Deputy Martin said, if that sentence is all-encompassing, what is the problem with accepting these 2 points? The argument could be turned around, why do we need them? But I would like to ask Deputy Le Hérissier, when he responds to the debate, if he agrees with the sentence at the end of the bullet points that is a caveat and put anything in that may be missed out, why he feels a need for the additional to the functions of the electoral process and the voting systems. But while I am standing I would just like, briefly, to say how disappointed I am with this Electoral Commission because it might be an Electoral Commission in name only. We are not setting up a real Electoral Commission; we are

setting a committee or a body to move us to the next step of the process. If you look at other jurisdictions and a true Electoral Commission is a permanent body with its own organisation and its own staff and its own website and communication and it is a permanent fixture to protect democracy moving forward and I think that is what we really should have at some time in the future.

10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I find myself very confused about what is going on in this House. Normally when a Back-Bencher brings an amendment to a proposition of a Minister or a committee there is an opportunity for that committee to either, during the course of the debate, accept the amendment or keep quiet. This morning we have heard from the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and also another member of this P.P.C., if you can call it a committee, who all speak in favour of the amendment of Deputy Le Hérissier. To my mind there is only one member of the P.P.C. who has spoken so far against the proposition and therefore in normal terms you would say that the P.P.C. should accept this amendment because 3 of them have spoken in favour of it; the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, in particular, have spoken in favour. What we have here is a P.P.C. totally divided quite clearly, really not fit for purpose and if this debate goes on much further I would be minded to bring the vote of no confidence in the P.P.C..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call on Deputy Le Hérissier to reply.

11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

People have said, what do I mean? This could lead me into strange territory; I mean what the former Deputy of St. Mary meant but we will get into that. I have to say a lot of hares have been set running and, as Senator Le Gresley and other people have said, if you had a self-respecting Electoral Commission - and I think it is still being confused with the Boundaries Commission, as Senator Le Marquand said - this would be an inevitable terms of reference. All I am saying is make it explicit. The whole idea, as Deputy Southern said, that it can be permissive and therefore it can be dropped, is unconscionable. If you are going to take a proper look at the whole area of how people are voted in, why they are voted in, the function of the electoral process; as the Deputy of St. Mary said and it is quoted on page 6, as Deputy Tadier has reminded us, are they voted in simply to represent people or do people, when they go to vote, vote on the past record of the Government? Do they vote on who they think will be in Government? There has been a big debate, it has not surfaced in this Chamber, but a lot of people talk to me: "Why can I not have a vote on who will be a Minister?" or they put another proposition forward, as was, of course, originally discussed and in fact tried: "Why can the Ministers not just come from the Senatorial benches so I know when I vote for a Senator I am voting for a possible Minister?" There are these debates going on and that particular thing, the functions of the election process, that is what it is meant to address, a complex issue, a subtle issue but that is what it is meant to address. When you go into that ballot box, what, not what personally you voted for but what purpose? As I said yesterday there is also that other issue, that when you vote in Jersey there is absolutely no guarantee that that vote will have any impact on policy because we do not have a party system. You vote for jolly nice people, they are a jolly nice person, they impress us in various ways because they have got a nice pedigree or whatever and that is it. It is a difficult debate but that is what I am asking the Commission. This idea that is surfacing that the whole of its work can be done on the back of a fag packet and it can be done in a couple of weeks is absolutely unconscionable. But this idea also - and here I have to move to the fence - of the Constable of St. Helier that we are writing a Ph.D. thesis on voting systems is equally unconscionable. There are people who can give you very good, quick, to the point summaries of what different systems do and they can advise the Committee. We do not need people writing 400 pages about voting systems, that is unbelievably ridiculous. They can say: "This is what the Jersey system does. This is where it works. This is where it does not work and if you want to improve it these are the places you could look at." At that seminar quoted by the Constable of St. Helier there was much play made of Bermuda, for example, when they revamped their boundaries and, oddly enough, they have a Parish system there, as you may know; they revamped their boundaries. We have got the Guernsey coast as well where they have moved to similar constituencies and are even contemplating, although it never got through the Legislature a couple of months ago, an all-Island system, which a lot of people here want; they want an all- Island system, so there you have another system to debate. Those are the sorts of issues that have to be debated but I would find it unbelievable if people were asking for 400/500-page reports on different voting systems to make up their mind on what would be an appropriate system for Jersey. If they cannot be sharper and more analytical and more to the point than that then I am afraid we are in deep, deep trouble, as a lot of people think we are already. That is a total hare that, again, as with yesterday, another hare that has been set running we should be able to get to it. As to the point that Deputy Baudains has made and several people; P.P.C. is speaking out of both sides of the mouth. They are saying: "Yes, we can do that because we have got the right under this caveat to do it." What I am saying is if you are going to do a coherent complete review of the system you need it there explicitly. You cannot avoid major parts of the system and pretend that they are not issues because it is an issue in Jersey; there is a massive imbalance. Quite honestly, if the Commission were to conclude, as the Dean mentioned yesterday when he did mention the Senate, that the Parish boundaries are all important and we have to accept some imbalances, that is a legitimate conclusion to reach, as long as it is well-reasoned. I have got no problem if they were to reach that but it has to be reached after a consideration of all the main strands of opinion on the Island. It has to be put against a background of how different election systems work and what is or is not suitable; that is the point. This idea of the way in which the former Deputy of St. Mary's proposals were dropped, betwixt cup and lip, when P.P.C.'s paper emerged, that is what worries me. They were dropped for a reason and I imagine they were dropped because people thought they could bury the issues and that is wrong. We have had lecture after lecture yesterday that internal people .. although all the local members of Carswell and Clothier, as we know, they were all totally hoodwinked, as we were told yesterday but apparently at the same time internal people can do the job. To do the job they have got to show that they will go into areas that are uncomfortable, into areas that may not fit in with their particular biases and prejudices and preconceived view; that is what they have got to show and that is why this is included. Quite frankly it is not revolutionary. Anybody looking at the whole system would say: "You have to consider election systems. You have to consider the size of constituencies, et cetera". There is nothing revolutionary about it and if you try and limit it you

will be giving a very, very bad message to the public. Thank you. I ask for the appel. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I ask for a point of clarity from the speaker, Sir? I think it is important that we do not misrepresent what Professor Lee has said and I think what the Deputy has put across may mislead people. What he said about Bermuda was they did have a Parish system, et cetera, and they were able to have proportionality but that is because they did not have a Mayor or the Constable; is that not correct, I think?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, that is correct. When they reformed they did not reform according to the Parish boundaries but, of course, you could reform; you can go either way.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, the appel has been called for and I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on whether to adopt part 2 of Deputy Le Hérissier's amendment, as amended by himself, and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

There are insufficient votes in favour of the proposition for it to be adopted: 22 votes in favour and 22 votes against.

2. Electoral  Commission:  composition  and  terms  of  reference  (P.5/2012)  - second amendment (P.5/2012 Amd.(2))

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we now come to the amendment of Deputy Young and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (c), after paragraph (c) insert the following new paragraph – "(d) to agree that an external group of experts should be established by the Privileges and Procedures Committee to be available to advise the Commission and validate its work as necessary" and re-number the existing paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).

[10:15]

1. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

In my speech yesterday I advised the House that I had not been aware, as a new Member, of the blow-by-blow history of this but on receiving the proposition of the P.P.C. I did take the time to read through the report of the former Deputy of St. Mary and look through the Hansard accounts of debates to try and follow what had happened. I ended up feeling very, very impressed by that report and its thoroughness in addressing this very difficult task. I think the fact that that debate took place earlier in the year and that was still effectively on the table until the end of the year and that we went into the elections believing there would be an Electoral Commission on those lines, really, I think, gives that report more than a passing credibility. Looking through the former Deputy 's report he identified several elements that were necessary for success in getting the task done and it is worth briefly reminding ourselves. Those were independence - we still have within the P.P.C. an amendment that is under consideration, so it is a P.P.C. proposition - independent members; acceptability of the recommendations to the Jersey public, absolutely essential, as we heard yesterday; focus on getting the job done and this is where we rely on the team but sufficient knowledge and expertise to complete it and to do so in a way that meets public scrutiny when the referendum questions are presented. My amendment is, to me, I thought very simple; really I quite expected it would be benign and there would not be a debate about it, so I was quite surprised that questions would be posed. [Laughter] I confess the naivety but Members have put a number of questions to me, which clearly influence some of the opinions I have heard why this should not be approved. My amendment is intended to ensure the Electoral Commission has available sufficient expert advice, but here is the point, without compromising the make up of the Electoral Commission and without losing the balance and independence of its membership. That is why I did not say: "Let us have an advisory panel", as the former Deputy of St. Mary had put forward to the previous P.P.C. The proposition that I put talks about an external group of experts to support the review. I think such a proposal has good credentials, not only from the former Deputy of St. Mary and his thorough analytical report, the suggestion was also made by the previous Council of Ministers because in their proposal for the review of machinery of government, which did not see the final light of day, they said that they thought an advisory panel should be formed; that was in 2011. The former Deputy proposed a panel to P.P.C. in the dying days of the old States, although the former P.P.C. then decided that the experts should be panel members but of course they did not act on it and I assume that if they had acted on it we would not be having this debate today. What is the proposal? I cannot do better and this is plagiarism, I have to admit; it is a quote from the former Deputy of St. Mary's proposition; I put that in italics on page 4 in my report. He says and I may read it: ".. all-local Commission [which we have still got] assisted by an advisory panel of experts from outside Jersey. In this way there would hopefully be greater acceptance of the Commission's membership with the Island but no concerns about a solution being imposed by outsiders." I will return to that point in a minute: ".. but the local members would, nevertheless, be able to draw on advice and guidance from panel experts. The experts do not decide anything, they do not dictate anything but they do ensure that the local members of the Electoral Commission are fully aware of the issues and they provide an independent check and balance to the process." Not the answer, the process. More pragmatically my amendment, I think, achieves a number of practical advantages; firstly, it creates an arm's length arrangement for the expert advice being provided to the Commission and I think that is important because I listened carefully to the exchange between the Chief Minister and Deputy Le Hérissier about the role of external experts in

the Clothier Panel. All I can say is that I did attend on that panel when it was in existence and gave evidence and felt the power across the table. For me it certainly felt as if the independent experts were strong and dominating. I do not know whether they bamboozled or whether they intimidated or what, their local membership but they may have been in a minority but, my word, were they powerful. I think I certainly bought into the Chief Minister's comments that we do not need a U.K. (United Kingdom)-centric approach here; we need local. But it is right that to do the job properly we have to be able to seek advice. It does not have to be U.K.; could it be, dare I say it, Isle of Man, other constituencies? I will not use the sister island but we should not be narrow in our thinking about that. There is another practical advantage; not being members of the Commission but apart from it means that the delays from experts that would certainly arise, not being able to attend all the Commission meetings, that must aid the logistics and the practicalities of doing the job. You do not have to have the whole panel of experts there on every occasion to attend on every thing. These days emails, what have you and so on, and video-conferencing; be absolutely practical about it. I think having people there who are able to assist within a subordinate role is important. P.P.C., I turn to this issue of independence; if I understood P.P.C.'s report, and I think here I looked at page 7, the third paragraph on the page there, where they say that the expert advisers will be appointed on the Commission but they are obviously looking for local experts. They say if one with suitable local connection applies they will consider being appointed to the panel but though they will not actively seek them. What I worry about there is that I think we should be clear; when we are appointing the non-3 local persons to this panel I think their task is going to be tough. We have now reduced the independence from a greater number but to 3, so we have 3 independent members with 3 States Members. They are going to have, in my view, to create that counterbalance between the 2 sides of the picture. It is really important that that is not diluted by one of those or more having to do expert advice; you cannot wear 2 hats. I think the proposal of the P.P.C., as it is written in the report, is flawed in that respect. I think putting experts or half an expert, somebody who is a local but also happens to be an expert as well, I do not think is a good idea. Another thing I picked up on P.P.C.'s report it says that we want people who can be absolutely objective. I think we are going to find big trouble with that. I think people care about democracy; they have views. I do not think we should fight shy of finding people with opinions and standing in those 3 Members and they will be helped by having the expertise outside of it. A couple of things that I think, reading the comments, and Members, validation has quite clearly caused some upset, with validation I included. I did have some mind in there, however, to put that but I thought partly the validation really comes at the end because people will turn and say: "Did this go well? Can we trust what we have got here? Is it sound?" I think it is for that reason we might just as well accept we need not have the benefit of the group. The validation says .. Thesaurus offers us: "verify, establish, authenticate, corroborate, back up, endorse, attest, give seal of approval." I think, hopefully, in those words you will see what I am intending to convey and

those are not the same words as supervise, control and oversee or even scrutiny; it is a lower level. The other words, I thought while I am doing that I will check the other words; what does support mean because I am proposing that the external group of experts should be available to support? Support is: "encourage, help, assist, hearten and involve them and available as necessary." That is deliberate, that I really want this to be under the P.P.C. and in co-operation with the Commission under their control. To me, maybe I am too naïve and I accept that but who could disagree with such common sense? Finally, I will just close on the P.P.C.'s comments: "Experts might be required to attend some meetings." I find this puzzling; there might be meetings you want to go to, what is wrong with that? They will not have to attend every one. Delay; I really do not think that my proposal would cause delay. The timetable says the Commission will start work on 1st May 2012. I would not personally see any problem of getting that up and running by building up a

group of experts now, so there will be a cost. I have not proposed the terms of reference. I heard Senator Bailhache 's comments how it is very important we have terms of reference. I think the terms of reference for the project, we have got that; I am not changing those. It is for the P.P.C. to decide what the terms of reference, in consultation with the Commission, what this group would do. I have not even suggested how many experts they have, probably are going to have more than one. I am sorry to have gone on at length but I propose the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? The Connétable of Grouville .

2. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

I am extremely suspicious of this word "validate". I understand exactly what it means and I understand it has to be checked and these things do have to be checked, and I really have no objection at all the Commission having the power to bring in an advisory panel, however, not a validation panel. What happens if they decide they will not validate the work of the Commission? I think that word is over the top, and I will say something else about the excellent speech from Deputy Young and that is he kept referring to non-local members. The actual proposition says nothing whatsoever about non-local members; it says: "There shall be 3 other persons with appropriate skills and experience who are not Members of the States." It says nothing about non- local members and I am a bit suspicious about that one as well. Perhaps he would care to answer those points when he sums up. Thank you.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

Sometimes it is difficult to find analogies for Jersey or for how the States Assembly works. I think a good analogy that I just came up with, which sprang to my mind, is from quite a cult and slightly, perhaps, subversive TV comedy show called The League of Gentlemen, which is set in the small northern town of Royston Vasey, which I see the Chief Minister is nodding because he probably is from around that area, even though I think it is a fictitious town, which I think many people in the world think Jersey is fictitious as well. It reminds me of the time when they go to the shop and they say: "This is a local shop for local people; we will not have your kind here", except if it was in Jersey it would be: "This is a local Commission for local people; we do not want any of those foreigners around there because we do not like their type interfering in local procedures." I am in a slightly delicate position here because I support, certainly, the thrust of where Deputy Young is coming from. He is a much welcomed new member of the St. Brelade hierarchy, if I can call it that, although we are all finding that we are very low down when it comes to the real power structures in the Parish and in the Island of course. The issue here is that I would be quite happy to support this proposition if we had a worthwhile Electoral Commission to validate in the first place. I think there is a phrase that sounds like the nationalities of Polish and Turk which come to mind, and that is the expression that I will be thinking of, the relationship between how does one Polish a Turk?

[10:30]

You cannot do it. The issue here is that I do not want to give this Electoral Commission any credibility or legitimacy, because it does not have any legitimacy or credibility with the public. This is going to be an internal hatchet job, whether we like it or not. Simply, I do not see even how the Electoral Commission would even want to have an external panel looking over their shoulder, a panel of experts, who are going to say: "Well, that is not logical. You have kept this position in here, even though you know one of the basic principles and one of the functions of democracy .. oh, sorry, you are not looking at the functions of democracy, are you, because the Ministers themselves, very tellingly, have only just told us they do not understand what the functions of democracy are?" I think the public could have told us that a long time ago. The Ministers clearly do not understand what the functions of a democracy are. That is why we do not have a functioning democracy in Jersey. So, how on earth will you get experts, whether they are local or not, looking over the shoulder of this panel who are going to no doubt conduct most of their hearings in private, because we know that we need to have free and open discussions? You cannot do that if the public are looking in. How on earth are you going to get a group looking over your shoulder and saying: "Well, I do not agree with that."? I think the answer will be: "We do not like your type here. This is a local Electoral Commission for local people. We will have none of your nonsense here." So, I think I am minded logically to abstain or simply to vote against this proposition. Although I may yet vote for it simply out of solidarity with my St. Brelade colleagues. I think that now it is purely academic. We may not even have an Electoral Commission. I think

there is a case to be made in the next substantive debate about throwing this whole thing out and leaving it, because we are looking at the whole machinery of government, the whole voting systems and the whole internal procedures anyway. How on earth do we know how those are going to interact? Lastly, I was half expecting the Dean to quote from Revelation 3:16 yesterday, which talks about being lukewarm, when the Lord says: "Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." I think that is how the analogy could be extended to how the States Assembly feels on electoral reform: "We are neither hot nor cold. Oh, yeah, I will support electoral reform, an independent 12 months ago, simply as a stalling tactic, because I do not really care about electoral reform." I know one of the outgoing Senators, who I will not name, who I have respect for, told me: "I do not think the States needs to be reformed at all. I think it works fine as it is. People do not vote, but that is their problem. If they want to vote, they can come out and vote." That is partly true. Again, that is a debate for the next part of the proposition. So, I would simply say good luck to Deputy Young. I am more cynical that he is. He has probably got a brighter future than I have [Laughter], if he holds on to his naivety, because that is quite a rare commodity in politics. Let us see how that goes.

4. The Connétable of St. Helier :

I could just say as an aside, I think Members may be cynical or they may not be, but they should leave their cynicism outside the debating chamber. I want to really follow the Vice-Chairman of P.P.C. as I did before and I can hopefully explain for Senator Le Gresley, who did not seem to follow my comments last time round. I want to reiterate the fact that P.P.C. is unanimous in its approach to the Electoral Commission. We have made no secret of that. The phrase "by majority" has been used in all of our comments. Indeed in the main proposition. He seems to feel this is a cause for a no confidence vote. That is up to him, of course. But, I would say that committees do not always agree. It shows a healthy committee, I believe, that we have managed to bring this forward. We have a difference of views in many areas. Indeed, those who do not agree with the majority have been able to lodge an extremely well researched minority report, which we do not see very often in the States. I am very grateful to them for putting in all that work. I think the P.P.C.'s position on each aspect of this Commission is entirely level-headed and balanced. It just happens a majority of Members feel one way and a minority feel the other. That does not mean that the whole thing must be thrown out or that it is, to quote the Vice-Chairman: "An internal hatchet job is likely." Indeed, in a previous debate, Members were unhappy with this whole idea of a permissive situation. Clearly what the Electoral Commission can do in respect of Deputy Young's amendment is they can use expertise. I am sure they will bring in expertise to assist them, to validate their work. They will, of course, be doing something else which is perhaps more important, they will be consulting the public. That is really important. They will be doing lots of things. I fully expect them to make more use of the excellent non-local expertise of Professor Lee, who seems to know more about Jersey politics than most local people. So, this is going to happen anyway. I do not believe the Electoral Commission needs this amendment to tell them what to do. Personally, I do not belong to the paranoid political party. That is to say, the Members who feel that anything which is done which is not in agreement with their approach will in some way be tainted, will be weak or will be insincere. I believe the Electoral Commission will get on with this job and they will do it with a will. They will involve outside expertise. They will involve the kind of experts that Deputy Young has spoken about. Hopefully, with a fair wind, they will get a good result,

which we will be able to consider in this Assembly in the not too distant future. Thank you, Sir.

5. Deputy J.A. Martin:

It is good to follow the Chairman of P.P.C., because on P.P.C., the minority report, yes it was a lot of hard work. Just for information, it was work between myself and Deputy Tadier . Even though it was a minority report of P.P.C. we were, maybe rightly so, denied officer time. Which is an aside, but we did have to do this on our own. We did have a problem, myself and Deputy Tadier , when suddenly appeared, last week, the comments of P.P.C. We do not know who met. We know we were not included. Obviously we were not going to get an agreement, but I thought out of courtesy on a Commission .. and Deputy Tadier asked the officer: "When was the meeting?" We have had no reply. The President has already spoken. So, hopefully, one of the other Members who agreed these comments will explain.

The Connétable of St. Helier : Would the Member give way? Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, Sir.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I could clarify that. Comments were circulated to all Members by email. Some Members did not agree with them. A majority of Members did agree with the comments and those are the ones we decided to go with.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sorry, the Chairman, my Constable, is a very intelligent man. I said: "These comments appeared." The report was discussed, we dissented. The comments were never sat round a table and put together. So, I am just saying, of course, the comments appeared and we were allowed to then comment on the comments. But who put them together? Not the officers. I have never known a committee work that the officers put the comments together; never. But, we are where we are, as they say, so I will let that one go. But, to be completely where we are with the comments, and I agree with Deputy Tadier , when I saw this proposition lodged late by Deputy Young, I thought: "Well, anyone who was sitting on the fence, thought, Well we will keep it in-house'." This validated that, because it was .. I am sorry the Constable of Grouville has a problem with validation. He does not like the word. He does not want any work validated.

The Connétable of Grouville : Sorry, Sir, would the .. Deputy J.A. Martin:

No, I am not going to give way. It is not a point of order. The Constable has completely made it clear he does not like the word "validate". Deputy Young explained exactly what it is. Before the comments came, and this was added by a Member of P.P.C. and agreed to by the other majority, it did not use the part that it ended at: "Validated where necessary by appointed experts." Then it was added: "It is not clear what validation means in this context." I think Deputy Young has explained what it means. You go along a process and somebody with expertise, as Professor Adrian Lee. What he did say, for the Constable of St. Helier, is: "If you were designing a representative body for Jersey, you would not start where you are. Because you have 3 boxes; you have Constables, Deputies and Senators. It is very hard to change that." So, that is what he said. We are where we are with the Commission. But, as I say, I really feel now that I cannot even support this, because it has been so watered down. Again, would it be so terrible if the experts wanted to come and meet the Commission and sit in some of their meetings? I do not think so. The original comments from P.P.C., again making such a big deal of it, said: "Having taken into account the above points, the committee believes it is a matter for Members to decide whether or not it should appoint an external group to form an advisory panel of experts to the Electoral Commission." Which was changed to: "Having taken into account the majority of the committee would oppose the formal appointment of an external group." It was completely taken out of your hands again; completely. So, I did not just dissent from them. Myself and Deputy Tadier could not even comment on them. We had no say in them. Do I support this? Do I want the work validated and explained? Does the public want the work validated and explained? I know we are where we are, as the former Chief Minister kept saying and reminding us. I know exactly where we are. In the next debate I am going to vote against the P.P.C., because I know exactly where we are. We have a Chairman who, round the P.P.C. table, has said: "We may elect a Chairman who is starting at a position of 42 Members, 12 of those Constables, and if (to paraphrase) he hears enough evidence that he is convinced this is not the way to go, he will consider changing his mind." I have a very good memory for Hansard and how people say things. This was in open public, with other States Members, the media there and this was not picked up. Because the media are very good scrutineers of our system, are they not? Excellent. So, I am where I am. We are where we are. The Constable says we should not be cynical. Well, I am very sorry, it goes back to, I think, what the Dean was saying yesterday. It is in the Dean's right to speak, his right to make moral speeches. Yesterday he made quite a political speech. He said (gasp, gasp): "There are some people in this House who want change and that change would be a dictatorship." The emphasis there would be myself and the likes of Deputy Pitman, whoever voted, want 53 Judy Martins of the same ilk. Not at all. Not at all. I want the 100,000 - remember there are 100,000 people - represented by people in the House and people who have to go every 3 or 4 years, whatever it is, and explain why they did this. Not one of the Constables called a meeting on this; not one. Members of the public did. It goes back to the Deputy of Grouville 's understanding of why we are supposed to have 3 separate Members; because they are supposed to consult. St. Helier consulted, the Constable. Not even all the St. Helier Deputies who were at the Parish meeting could support the independence. Let us hope it does not come back to haunt them. To be honest, I am torn with this. I think I will do as Deputy Tadier says, because if it goes through the advisory validation panel, experts, whatever you want to call them .. just for the Constable of Grouville , P.P.C.'s proposition is not saying that they only want people internally. P.P.C. is determined to the work of the Electoral Commission: "3 States Members will enable the Commission to maintain close liaison with other Members. The committee considers the involvement the 3 non-States Members will bring useful outside

perspective."  [10:45]

They will not go outside for expertise, but they will not be discounted. If you are going to get people like the excellent Professor Adrian Lee, who know about electoral systems. If you start, you start with the population. You start with where they live and then you make sure they have total representation. I will reserve my judgment for when the Deputy sums up, but at this point in time I do not know if I can support his proposition. Thank you, Sir.

6. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I do not have to say too much, because I think Deputy Martin made an excellent speech. I, for one, would like a House of Deputy Martins, I think. The first thing I would like to know if Deputy Tadier has been reading my emails. Because the Royston Vasey I was thinking exactly the same thing: "A local Electoral Commission for local people." How right he is. I have to comment, I think that Deputy Young is proving himself an excellent new addition to the States. I would commend him for that. I did not support him bringing this, because I thought, and I did say to him, that I thought it might distract from Deputy Le Hérissier - as I think Deputy Martin said - it might have given some people the chance to say: "Well, we will reject that, because we could go for this." I am in the same position really, I do not know if I can support it, because I think it will be legitimising clearly what has no legitimacy. Clearly the more we hear it is going to be, what I have been saying all along, trying to make square pegs fit into round holes or whatever. The Chairman of P.P.C., my Constable, said we should not be cynical. Well, I am probably like Deputy Tadier , I only become a cynic when I come in here. I am not a naturally cynical person. I will tell you who is right about being cynical, because I will predict right now that when we get to selecting the States Members to be on the Commission, probably with Senator Bailhache , I will tell you the token leftie who will be nominated to give a veneer of credibility to it, it will Deputy Judy Martin. It will. He is probably scribbling out her name now, but there we go. All I think you can say on this really is that if people are going to go with it, I say to all the public listening, when you make your submissions send them in triplicate. Please send a copy of what you are sending to me, so things do not start disappearing. Because we have obviously already decided what is going to happen. It is going to be a rush job. As I say, it seems to me that the timescale is all that is important here. Deputy Young really is trying to make the best of a bad job. Yes, I will listen to his summing-up. I should support him, out of solidarity and because what he is trying to do is right. But my big concern is this is just legitimising something which is a complete and utter mess. I think we should get on, reject the whole proposition and then we can let P.P.C. look at it all. Thank you, Sir.

7. Senator L.J. Farnham :

On studying the process that is taking place here, the States have delegated this to P.P.C., who have in the meantime formed 2 sub-committees. One of them is to look at the machinery of government. Then we have the Electoral Sub-Committee. Now, we are looking at having another panel of experts. I think it is just in danger of becoming too top heavy here. Deputy Tadier made a point about saying: "This is Jersey. We do not want them here." I would not quite phrase it like that. What is wrong with us sorting this out ourselves? I am going to nail my colours to the mast; I do not want to see a panel of U.K. or any other experts coming into our Island and advising us on how to set up and change our machinery of government. I think a few other States Members should be brave enough to say the same thing. This is a local thing. Let us sort it out ourselves. I am sure we are capable of doing this. Deputy Young's amendment talks about validation and while he said he is not prescriptive in how P.P.C. would address the panel of experts, he does need to explain clearly what he understands validation to be, because whether P.P.C. prescribes for it or not it is an amendment. If the States accept this amendment I see it as the Electoral Commission's work will have to be validated by the panel of experts. He needs to elucidate on that. I predict these hurdles keep being put in the way by way of amendments. We have a sensible way forward. Ultimately the States will decide. Ultimately the people of Jersey will decide - which will be a first - in a referendum. No doubt P.5, when we come to debate it, there will be torpedoes fired from all aspects of the Assembly to try and sink it then. I sincerely hope they do not succeed.

8. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I am sorry that I am not able to support the amendment of Deputy Young, because some parts of it are good. It is a bit like the curate's egg; part of it is bad, but part of it is good. Insofar as it recommends that the Commission should seek expert advice, that seems to me to be entirely correct. The Commission certainly should seek expert advice. It should go to the Boundary Commission perhaps in the United Kingdom. It should go to the Electoral Reform Society. There may be other bodies that it should consult. It should go to Guernsey and the Isle of Man, to see how they do things there. It should consult with Professor Lee, who has a great interest in this. There may be many other experts whom the Commission should consult. But setting up a panel is a different matter. A panel has an existence in itself; presumably it will have a chairman and a secretary. It just seems to me, as Senator Farnham rightly said, to be over the top. The real problem lies in this word "validation". What does validation mean in this context? It somehow implies that there are things that the Commission might do that the panel of experts will be able to invalidate. There will be a sort of clog around the activities of the Commission. Now, rightly or wrongly, the Assembly has agreed to set up a Commission composed of Members and people outside the States. It seems to me that the Assembly has to trust that Commission to do the job fairly and objectively. I find it rather a pity that some Members seem to be unable to accept the