States Meeting Transcript - 21st July 2021

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 21st JULY 2021

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

1. Draft Elections (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law (P.56/2021) - resumption 4

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ......... 4
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ........................................................................ 4

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : .......................................................... 5
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ........................................................................ 5
   3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ........................................................................ 6

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : .................................................. 7
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ........................................................ 8
3. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : .............................................. 8
4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 8
5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : .................................................... 9
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 9
7. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : ........................................................ 9
8. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 10
9. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 10
10. Deputy C.S. Alves : .................................................................... 11

4. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 12
5. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 13

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ...................................................... 14
2. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 16
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 17 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 18
4. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ........................................................... 18
5. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier : .......................................................... 18
6. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 19
7. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 19
8. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 21

6. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 24

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 24
2. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 24
3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 24

7. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 26
8. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 26
9. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 27

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon: ...................................................................... 28
2. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 29
3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 30

10. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 32

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 32
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ............................................................. 32
3. The Connétable of St. Helier : .......................................................... 33
4. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 33
5. Deputy R. Labey : ...................................................................... 33
6. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................... 34
7. Deputy M. Tadier : ..................................................................... 34
8. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : .................................................. 36
9. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : .................................................. 38
10. Deputy R.J. Ward : .................................................................. 38
11. Deputy J.H. Young: ................................................................ 39
12. Deputy C.S. Alves :.................................................................. 40

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 42 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 42

2. Draft Discrimination (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.58/2021) .. 42

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier (The Minister for Social Security): .................... 42

1. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : .......................................................... 43
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 43
3. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 44
4. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 45
5. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 47 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 48 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : ................................................................ 49
6. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 49

2. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 52

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 52
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 53
   3. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 54

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 54
2. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 54
3. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................. 55
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 55

3. Draft Single-Use Plastics etc. (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law 202-. (P.61/2021) .......... 56

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Infrastructure): .................... 57

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 58
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 58
3. Deputy R.J Ward : ........................................................................ 59
4. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................... 60
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 61
6. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 61
7. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 62
8. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 63

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 67

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 67
2. Deputy I. Gardiner : ....................................................................... 68
3. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen : ................................................. 68
4. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 69
5. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 70

6. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 70
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 71

3. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 73

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 73
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 73

4. Draft Amendment (No. 52) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.62/2021) .............................................................................................. 74

4.1 Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...................... 74

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 75
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 75

5. Access to Justice (Jersey) Law 2019 (Appointed Day) Act (P.63/2021) ................ 76

5.1 The Connétable of St. Ouen (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur): ................... 76

1. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier : ......................................................... 78
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 79
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 80
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 80
5. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 81
6. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 81
7. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 81
8. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 82

6. Draft Amendment (No. 53) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.66/2021) .............................................................................................. 84

6.1 Deputy C.S. Alves (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...................... 84

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 85
2. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 86
3. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 86

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 88

[9:36]

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Elections (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law (P.56/2021) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

We return to the debate on the Draft Elections (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law. Chair, I believe we had reached Article 28.

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

That is correct. I would like to next propose Articles 28 to 36, please. Article 28 amends Article 30 of the 2002 law to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections. Article 29 amends Article 31 of the 2002 law to provide that it is the responsibility of the electoral administrator to arrange delivery of the ballot papers to the Autorisé in each electoral district. Articles 30 to 32 make minor amendments to Articles 32 to 34 of the 2002 law. These are to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections and the fact that the principal Autorisé is responsible for the return under Article 53. Article 33 amends Article 35 of the 2002 law, which relates to the power of an Autorisé or Adjoint to take measures for taking the vote of a person who is ill, disabled, illiterate or in custody, or the carer of a person who is ill or disabled. An Autorisé or Adjoint has the power under paragraph

1. to take such measures as he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances, but is not obliged to do so. The amendment removes the requirement under paragraph (2) for a request for assistance to be made at least 3 hours before the poll closes, so as to increase flexibility to deal with requests - for example, allowing the provision of minor assistance at a polling station shortly before polling closes. Article 33 makes a further minor amendment to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections; Article 35 of the 2002 law is relevant to both categories of election. Article 34 amends Article 36 of the 2002 law to make clear that references in the 2002 law to a "spoilt ballot paper" are references to a ballot paper that has been spoilt and subsequently exchanged by the voter for a fresh one; the original spoilt ballot paper being cancelled. Article 35 amends Article 37 of the 2002 law to remove a definition that is redundant as a result of other changes to part 7 of that law. Article 36 substitutes the provisions about entitlement to pre-poll and postal vote with a new Article 38. Under the current provisions, postal voting is only available in a limited range of circumstances, but new Article 38 provides that any person who is entitled to vote in a public election, and whose name is on the electoral register in force for that election, is entitled to a postal vote. The substance of the law about entitlement to pre-poll vote remains the same. I propose the Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are these Articles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 28 to 36 inclusive? Does any Member object to considering these Articles on a standing vote? Accordingly these Articles are adopted on a standing vote.

[9:45]

2. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I would like to propose Articles 37 to 45 next. Article 37 substitutes new Articles 40A to 40C, making provision about arrangements for and in connection with pre-poll voting. It provides that the J.E.A. (Jersey Electoral Authority) must determine the locations, days and times for pre-poll voting, and the Judicial Greffier - a member of the J.E.A. - is responsible for providing the facilities accordingly. It also required the J.E.A. to publicise arrangements for pre-poll voting. The draft provides that certain provisions of the 2002 law apply to locations at which facilities for pre-poll voting are provided as if they were polling stations and relates to voting booths, supervision and the offence of influencing a voter. Article 38 makes minor and consequential amendments to Article 42

of the 2002 law. Articles 39 and 40 provide for applications for postal voting, including that the J.E.A. must specify the closing date for postal voting applications, and must publicise arrangements for postal voting. Article 41 makes minor amendments to Article 46A of the 2002 law, reflecting the fact that the principal Autorisé is responsible for the return under Article 53. Article 42 amends Article 46D of the 2002 law to make clear that a candidate, or a candidate's representative, is not prohibited from providing a person with general information about postal voting, though it is an offence to complete or assist a person with completing an application to postal vote. Articles 43 and 44 amend Articles 47 and 48 of the 2002 law to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections. Article 45 amends Article 49 of the 2002 law to provide that an Autorisé may for the purposes of facilitating the count and maintaining secrecy in voting, give reasonable directions to candidates and their representatives who are present at the count, or take reasonable measures during the count. These may include directions or measures related to the distance from which candidates and  their  representatives  may  observe  the  count,  and  preventing  them  from  attempting  to communicate with the Autorisé or Adjoint during the count. Failure to comply with a direction given under this provision will be a criminal offence under the amended Article 66(1)(g). I propose the Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. Are the Articles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 37 to 45?

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John :

While it is disappointing that we cannot have online voting for 2022, in my view postal voting is the next best thing. The old anomalies will be and should be put into retirement. We need to do everything we can to make it easy for the public to vote. There are many examples of this being successful and the Guernsey recent election was good example of how this can work. There are, I believe, sufficient safeguards in place and I have absolutely confidence in the team at Jersey Post to deliver this for us in a safe and secure manner.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . Does any other Member wish to speak on these Articles? I call upon the chair to reply.

2. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I would like to thank the Connétable of St. John for his contributions there which were very positive and I completely agree with. Thank you and I propose those Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any Member object to considering these Articles on a standing vote? The appel has been called for. In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting. The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Articles have been adopted unanimously.

3. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank Members for their support on that and everything so far. The next tranche deals with the "none of the above" proposals, on which there was much discussion about yesterday. It is also relating to the recount. I would like to propose Articles 46 to 56 together, please. Article 46 amends Article 50 of the 2002 law to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections, and includes an amendment that is consequential on the inclusion of the "none of the above candidates" option in the ballot paper in certain circumstances in a public election. Article 47 amends Article 51 of the 2002 law to provide that a ballot paper for a public election which includes a "none of the candidates" option is invalid if it records a vote for that option and for another candidate. We will of course be

providing members of the public with lots of information about the new system and the use of the "none of the above" will be explained in detail. There are further minor amendments to Article 51 to reflect the fact that the principal Autorisé is responsible for the return. Articles 48 to 51 make minor and consequential amendments to the 2002 law, including changes to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections .. I think somebody's phone is going. Articles 53 to 55 make further consequential amendments to the 2002 law, to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections. Article 56 amends the 2002 law in consequence of the new provisions about the validation of nomination forms and the procedure for the J.E.A. to confirm that the form complies with the relevant requirements. This Article also inserts new paragraphs, which make provision in connection with cases where the "none of the above candidates" option is included in the ballot paper. In the event that none of the candidates standing for election obtains more valid votes than the "none of the above" option, the court must declare a casual vacancy or vacancies in the office in respect of which the election is held. This will in turn trigger the application of the relevant provisions for by- elections for Deputies or Connétable s. It also includes a further consequential amendment to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections. I propose Articles 46 to 56.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are these Articles seconded in Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on those Articles 46 to 56?

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

I speak as a member of the committee and I have expressed in the committee meetings my concern about this particular provision. I am hoping that it is going to be explained by the proposer of it at the original debate and that my questions will be responded to then. The objective, as I understand it, is to prevent what are often called unelected posts, where people, of course, often mean uncontested. A person who stands for election who is not contested is still elected by that process, as I think most Members know, although that is not always appreciated out there in the public. The main target for this provision that is being introduced in the law are the uncontested elections for Constables, although it has to be said there have been in recent times uncontested elections for Deputy , and in the Victorian period I understand that it was almost more common - the late Victorian period - for Deputies to be uncontested than Constables because the Constables position was extremely sought after and was often a stepping stone for the even more prestigious post in the States of the Jurat. Anyway back to the 21st century and we are in a situation now where we are proposing to include a provision which, although I supported it when it came as part of the principles that were debated earlier, when I have discussed it with friends they are quite confused as to its purpose. Surely they argue if you do not want the person who is standing you can spoil your paper, nothing is forcing you to vote for them. People have asked me, what happens if there is a person who is standing for election and on the day the voters look at the slip and they think, well I do not think much of this person and they decide to vote against that candidate? There is only one candidate. What happens if the "none of the above" option gets more votes than the candidate who has put themselves forward for election? Presumably there will be another election, a by-election for that position but the same thing could happen again. The same person can put themselves forward, no one else might want to take on that job and so you could have a repeat of the situation, which could, presumably, continue for some time. I find the logic of this provision difficult to understand. If it is indeed the purpose of this measure to make sure that all of the Connétable s' positions are contested, then surely it would be much better if we reverted to the system of electing the Constables on a different day from the rest of the Assembly. That would mean that anyone who wanted to have a pop at their Constable, I am thinking particularly here of Deputies, could do so without the risk of losing their seat. Indeed, that is what I did on 2 occasions when I ran against my predecessor, first in 1998 and then successfully in 2001. I had the luxury in 1998 of running for Constable of St. Helier as a Deputy , knowing that I did not risk losing my seat if I was unsuccessful. I think the reason this would be preferable is that

it would still give sufficient promotion to the election of Constables; it could be a day quite close to the general election. But we have to be honest about this, the main contenders for the seat of Constable are surely the Deputies. Most Constables can see their Deputies coming up behind them, as it were, in the mirrors. They know which Deputies are particularly keen to take on the larger responsibility, if you like, of being Constable, of being father or mother of the Parish. It does seem to me a pity that when we adopted a general election day we took away from Deputies the ability to challenge their Constable. I think this would be a much better route to explore than, frankly, the nonsensical provision of the "none of the above" and, accordingly, I will be voting against this provision.

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

It is the same thing, when we come to votes just to ask again these provisions, because I think the chair, when she said it, the provisions of these Articles cover 2 different areas and I would just like a separate vote on the "none of the above" tranches stuff. But if I have misunderstood I am sure the chair will clarify that in her closing speech and I have outlined my reasons yesterday.

3. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

I thought, as I brought forward this proposition, I should speak on it, so I also had quite a resounding win in the first place. I would like to just say that it would have to be a deeply cynical electorate to vote for "none of the above", rather than a candidate and I feel that the candidate would have to be so poor in the first place for that to happen. I kind of think ye of little faith; if you do not think you can win against N.O.T.A. (none of the above) really you should rethink whether you should stand or not. The other thing is that one could say that a healthy democracy is one that is willing to experiment and try new things and that the results play out, and this is used in multiple jurisdictions. It is not nonsensical; it does work. The other thing, I am speaking off the cuff, but the fundamental is that it places a demand on candidates running unopposed to campaign and actively engage with their district or Parish and work to win their support, rather than resting on simply being confirmed without any genuine challenge.

[10:00]

That was my point, that I was willing to actively engage, and I did, but I would not have had to to get in because I was elected unopposed. But if there is somebody who feels that they really do not want it, I feel I have done my job to get it this far. I do feel you must have no faith in yourself whatsoever if you think that the public are going to go and vote for N.O.T.A. rather than you. The public, on the whole, are a really intelligent bunch of people who will weigh it up. It just gives a choice and it also makes it that, for example, on my nomination night I then was sort of crowned Constable of St. Martin ; I did not have to face an election at all. This means that people have to go and campaign and be elected on the same day as everyone else. But it is completely up to the Assembly, it is a democracy; if people want to reject it so be it. But I do feel that if you feel you are a good candidate, go for it and if you really think N.O.T.A. is going to beat you, you should not be in the States.

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

I would urge Members, although the arguments voiced by the Connétable of St. Helier are very persuasive, I think we should not backtrack. I think the issue that we are seeking to deal with is to try and address the problem which nobody is happy with of uncontested elections, wherever they occur. I think, therefore, the measure, we have had that debate, the vote has been made, the law has been drafted, we should go with it. I think myself what will happen is that it is inevitable and that it is under the new system. We have dealt with the issue of Senators, thankfully; that has always been a real distortion in the system but that is gone. I think the issue about Connétable s' elections will evolve in the future because I think the requirements of the job are different and I think with that that means in the future Members will probably need to be open to the idea of separate elections on

different days. I think the arguments, the general election issue, probably was valid. The idea of having everybody elected on the same day was valid, when we had the awful business of Senators and Deputies that, effectively, gave people a second bite at the cherry, even though the general election meant that some candidates got dropped off the pile, as it were, did not make the cut. I had that experience but that is democracy. I see we have a candidate now in the elections for St. Clement who the same thing happened to. I think the issue of having a common election day was necessary when we had the Senators; they have gone now. I think there are arguments for the future of not having the elections for the Connétable s on the same day to deal with; the fair point that the Connétable of St. Helier makes. But the solution is absolutely not to backtrack on the issue of "none of the above". That is a really important safeguard and we should carry on and go with it and not be deflected.

5. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

I kind of agree with Deputy Young that we made this decision and it was hard for .. do I agree with the "none of the above"? I think it is a gimmick. I think that if we say that any candidate who thinks they might be beaten by "none of the above" should not run means it is pointless. It means that if there was an uncontested seat and they had to run against none of the above, why fear it? Why bother campaigning? It does not make anyone want to go out there and knock on doors for fear that "none of the above" will beat them because it is gimmickal and it weakens the perception of our democracy in this Island by saying you can vote for nobody. Who wants nobody to represent them? People go in to vote to elect somebody that they believe in, that they do not play gimmicks when it comes to election time; this is a gimmick. But saying that, it was won in the Assembly, P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) have gone away and considered the option and what the consequences would be, which was not clear when we first looked into this situation when it was first brought by the Constable of St. Martin . They have gone away, they have looked at how it could feasibly work and they have brought forward these propositions. I think it is a gimmick. I think it weakens our perception of our democracy but it was won in the Assembly and maybe we should move forward.

6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Very quickly, as Senator Mézec , I think, said yesterday, the fundamental issue here is that we have adopted a new system of multi-seat constituencies on the basis that multi-seat constituencies will give greater choice to the electorate and stop uncontested elections, yet we have not done it for all Members. Until that happens we are going to be left with an unsatisfactory situation where we try and contrive different solutions to uncontested elections, which are, let us face it, only ever going to affect the Constables from now on and that is the reason for this change. However, in favour of N.O.T.A., as it is being called, I think the one thing that can be said in its favour is that the Parish secretary cannot try and dissuade N.O.T.A. from standing for election. At least it means that where there are uncontested elections because where the usual Parish mafia, where it exists, has been successful in bullying other candidates wanting to stand for election by comments such as: "Are you sure you want to stand for election because we have got a very well-established candidate here and you have not got a public profile at all?" That does happen incidentally, I am not saying it happens in all Parishes. At least that will not happen to the "none of the above" candidate. The "none of the above candidate" will be on the ballot paper and will have an opportunity to oust the established candidate, whether that will happen in reality I think we all know the answer to that.

7. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement :

In theory it is a decent idea because it does allow an opposition of sorts. What I would like to address is the thought that none of the above could never win because I think a well-organised campaign for "none of the above", which can happen, it can happen and you look at other places where well- organised campaigns, I think back to Hart lepool where the local football mascot, Angus the Monkey, was elected because it was a well-organised campaign and it was pretty much "none of the above".

They would rather elect a football mascot monkey than someone else to the council and that happened. You also look back to the Labour Party when they thought it was a good idea to put the Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn forward as a bit of a joke by someone at the time and he went on to win, and that did not end up well for the Labour Party. Unlikely candidates can win at times if things are well-enough organised. It is a danger that I do not really think we run because I do not think it would make us look very good as a democracy should that occur; it would make us a sort of worldwide laughing stock but it is up to the Members.

8. Senator L.J. Farnham :

It is always a pleasure to follow Deputy Ash, although I am not sure I am brave enough to enter into his sphere of political commentary. It is ironic that we are talking about avoiding uncontested elections when we have just eliminated the office that probably, to my brief desktop research, never saw an uncontested election, certainly not in modern times, and I do not think even for by-elections, and that is the Island-wide mandate. For whatever spurious reasons the States have decided to remove that office I think we have probably scored an own goal in terms of democracy and accountability. But I would just urge Members to support this part of the Bill because, as other Members have said, the ramifications are, as described by, for example, the Constable of St. Helier , I think are highly unlikely to occur. The Constable of St. Martin outlined it eloquently and I just think we are probably going to be chasing shadows if we try and account for all eventualities, even the very, very rare or unlikely ones. Also, when Islanders are elected to the States, and I remember my second term as Deputy of St. Saviour No. 2, former Deputy Alan Breckon and myself were returned unopposed, which was welcome at the time because clearly it meant that we were let off the necessity of managing and financing a campaign. But we were still elected, although we were not contested we were still elected and I liked to say at the time that that was a vote of confidence in the electorate, the fact that we were not contested but I am not sure that many would subscribe to those views these days of course. But I return to my original point, we have just removed the most democratically- elected Member and those were always contested, which I think is a mistake still.

9. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Just to be very brief. I said yesterday that I did not have any particular enthusiasm for this proposal and that is because I tend to go by the philosophy of do not make a straight line crooked, which is something I think all too often we do in Jersey, in particular when it comes to electoral reform where rather than doing the obvious and democratic thing, which is to have one type of Member in equal- sized constituencies and proportional representation, we have to put these allowances in to satisfy those who just do not want a simple and fair system. That is why we end up where we are and have to keep the Constables in the Assembly, even though there is no rational reason to do that for a national Parliament like the States Assembly. In that situation, where we are having to pander to those who are determined to keep that as part of our system for some reason, and the unintended consequence of that is that we consistently have large numbers of people elected to this Assembly uncontested. But I think we have to do something about it to try to improve the democratic legitimacy of those Members. I would prefer we did not have to but in the absence of having a decent, fair electoral system across the board, this has surely got to be the next best thing that will require a candidate, even if they are the only candidate who comes forward, to be subject to at least some form of test at the ballot box. Because it simply is not the case that an uncontested election is an election or a vote of confidence in that candidate because nobody else came forward. The people who say they are living in some sort of dream world where a candidate somehow gets legitimacy because they had 10 people sign a nomination form and they went through the appropriate bureaucracy in a constituency where there are thousands of potential voters, many of whom will have had no idea who this candidate was, what their credentials were or what their policies were. It is totally unsatisfactory to have uncontested elections. Even if it is only to reaffirm the election of that candidate anyway, it would provide greater legitimacy for them. As I said, I would prefer it was not necessary but, as one

step to try to improve the democratic legitimacy of the Constables because, let us face it, those are the only Members that this will apply to in the next Assembly, then let us make them get out there and do their work to get elected like the rest of us have to every election time and work very hard for it and be challenged on the doorstep by those who will not agree with them. Help bring those candidates back to earth by encountering those people who may robustly agree with them. If you are beaten by "none of the above", then good riddance because you did not deserve to get into this Assembly in the first place then if that was the case. I will be supporting this.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Senator. Does any Member wish to speak on these Articles? I call upon the chair to reply.

10. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I thank all Members for their contributions. I think some interesting suggestions came up in there, specifically about election day and how we could separate those 2. I am just going to deal with what we have got here today. I think, essentially, this is about giving people a choice, so N.O.T.A. is designed to make the process more appealing to the public.

[10:15]

If the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of vacancies, then there is a provision for the "none of the above" to be included on the ballot papers. This is to allow people to use their voice without spoiling their vote. It is also to ensure no one is elected unopposed. Whatever your views on that it will give everyone the chance to fight an election and remove any stigma, which some Members have expressed they feel from not having faced an election. I think I stated it in my opening speech on the principles, there are provisions which addresses what happens if "none of the above" receives more votes than candidates. For example, if N.O.T.A. tops the poll, then a further by-election will be required and this can happen as many times as it takes. However, if N.O.T.A. is third, for example, and the remaining candidates are elected, then the votes cast for N.O.T.A. are considered as an abstention or a statement of position. I think it is essential that we allow voters the chance to express their opinion without spoiling their vote and these Articles will provide for the process to allow for N.O.T.A. to take place. I feel that this is about democracy. If people do not like the candidates and consider them not worthy of the voters, or a couple of speakers have raised they should be able to still have their voice heard. I think we do anticipate that it is very unlikely to happen. Having listened to what Deputy Maçon said about taking the Articles separately, on this occasion they all tie in together. You would have to kind of vote against all of them, even if they were separate, because they are consequential amendments. They will have to be proposed together. I think that if anyone is not supportive of this, then they should just vote against this whole section. I maintain the Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

In a moment the Greffier will put a vote into the chat channel of this meeting. He has done so and I invite Members to cast their votes. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Articles have been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

Members who voted contre were: Senator Gorst , Deputy Labey , the Deputy of St. Martin , Deputy Ash, Deputy Martin, Deputy Maçon, the Deputy of Grouville , the Deputy of St. Peter and Deputy Lewis and the abstention was the Constable of St. Helier .

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chair, how do you wish to proceed with the next batch of Articles?

4. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I would like to propose together Articles 57 to 65. Articles 57 to 60 make further consequential amendments to Articles 62 to 65 of the 2002 law to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections. Article 61 amends the 2002 law to introduce a reference to directions given by an Autorisé for the purpose of facilitating the count. It also creates a new offence of failure to comply with a direction of the chair or and an ordinary member of the J.E.A. corrects a cross-reference and makes further consequential amendments to reflect the new terminology of public and Parish elections, as does Article 62. Article 63 inserts a new paragraph to the 2002 law extending the provision and protecting certain officers from civil liability in connection with their functions to cover the J.E.A., its members and persons exercising functions on its behalf. Article 64 amends the 2002 law to include a power for the States to make provisions by regulations for automatic registration on a

central electoral register and the creation of electoral registers for each electoral district from information held on the central register. Regulations made in exercise of this power must include provision enabling a person to apply to opt out from inclusion in the electoral register for an electoral district. But the regulations may prevent an opt-out application being made in the run-up to an election. There is a further amendment to expressly provide that the power to make consequential, transitional, incidental or supplemental provision includes power to make provision amending, repealing or otherwise modifying the application of any other enactment. Article 65 amends the 2002 law to reflect the amended short title of the 2002 law, which in turn reflects the new distinction between public elections and Parish elections. I propose the Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. Are those Articles seconded?  [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 57 to 65? Is there any objection to those Articles being adopted on a standing vote? Those Articles are adopted.

5. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Parts 2 and 3, the second and third parts of the draft law, makes changes to the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the Connétable s (Jersey) Law 2008 to align the disqualification criteria for Deputies and Connétable s. This addresses the E.O.M. (Election Observers Mission) recommendation 7, so I would like to propose Articles 66 to 77 together. Article 66 provides that part 2 amends the States of Jersey Law 2005, the 2005 law. Article 67 amends Article 5 of the 2005 law to signpost the provisions about disqualification from the office of Deputy , which are relevant to the term of office provisions in Article 5. This provision also makes a consequential amendment to Article 5A of the 2005 law to update a cross-reference to Article 5. Article 68 substitutes Article 8 of the 2005 law, which makes provision about disqualification from election for or holding office as Deputy . The revised version of this provision is consistent with the revised provision about disqualification for Connétable . Article 69 amends Article 9 of the 2005 law, which makes provision about the declaration to be made when nominated for office as a Deputy . The declaration will be included in the nomination form and the requirement for it to be read out at the nomination meeting will now be redundant, as is the requirement for the form and content to be prescribed. Article 1A of Article 9 is also substituted to provide that there is no requirement to declare a conviction for an act which would not, by reference to Article 12 of the new repealed Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007, result in a conviction if it had been committed in Jersey on or after 12th January 2007, the date on which Article 12 of that law came into force. Article 70 makes consequential amendments to Article 13 of the 2005 law. Article 71 amends Article 33 of the 2005 law, so that an officer of the States Greffe is entitled to enter or remain in the precincts of the States and cannot be ordered to be withdrawn where the officer is passing through the parts of the States building giving access to the Chamber. Article 72 provides that part 3 amends the Connétable s (Jersey) Law 2008, which I will reference as the 2008 law. Article 73 amends Article 1 of the 2008 law to signpost the provisions in Article 4C of that law about disqualification from the office of Connétable . Article 74 makes a consequential amendment to Article 3 of the 2008 law. Article 75 amends Article 4A of the 2008 law, which makes provision about the declaration to be made when nominated for office as a Connétable . The declaration will be included in the nomination form and the requirement under paragraph (2) for it to be read out at the nomination meeting is now redundant. This Article also substitutes paragraph (1A) of Article 4A of the 2008 law to provide that there is no requirement to declare a conviction for an act which would not, by reference to Article 12 of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law, result in a conviction if it had been committed in Jersey on or after 12th January 2007, the date on which Article 12 of that law came into force. As with Article 69, these changes are to standardise the requirements related to the qualification and disqualification for election. Article 76 substitutes Article 4C of the 2008 law, making provision about disqualification from office as a Connétable . The circumstances in which disqualification will arise, disqualification conditions are unchanged, although some of the

terminology and legislative references have been updated. The revised version of Article 4C differs from its predecessor in providing not only for disqualification for election but also that a person elected as a Connétable will cease to hold office on meeting one of the disqualification conditions. The Royal Court retains supervisory jurisdiction for other purposes. The amended Article 4C also includes a signpost to Article 18(2) of the Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Law 2014, which makes provision for disqualification from office in the event of conviction for an offence under that law in connection with the person's election expenses. Article 77 deletes the schedule containing the form of declaration for a person proposed as a candidate for the office of Connétable . I propose the Articles.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. Are Parts 2 and 3 of the law Articles 66, 67 inclusive seconded? [Seconded] Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

I think this is a bit late, my question was really regarding Article 64, so we have moved on and I am quite happy to drop that.

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Can I just confirm, we are talking about Article 68 as well? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, thank you, Sir. I want to say a number of things about this. Unless I am mistaken, and I stand to be corrected by Deputy Alves , in her opening speech yesterday she mentioned the topic of bankruptcy and stated: "The election observers had stated that our existing law with regard to bankrupts standing for election did not conform with the U.N. (United Nations) Committee on Human Rights comment 25 provisions." Comment 25 is concerned with: "The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service." She also said: "Although P.P.C. were aware of this fact, they have decided, as evidenced in the legislation before us, not to amend the law." For a jurisdiction which prides itself on complying with the very best of international standards, I find it amazing and the justification for not doing so exceptionally weak and not compelling. I believe that P.P.C. must reconsider this matter quickly and if they do not do so I will bring a proposition to amend this law in September, as I believe they are making a serious mistake and cannot justify not taking any action. The U.N.'s comment 25 states: "Any conditions which apply to the exercise of the rights protected by Article 25 should be based on objective and reasonable criteria." They further state: "The exercise of these rights of citizens may not be suspended or excluded, except on grounds which are established by law which are objective and reasonable."

[10:30]

Although we may meet the first test, i.e. contained in law, it fails, in my view, the second test; it is not objective or reasonable. In fact our law is not based on objective assessment or standard, it is based on prejudice, animosity and revenge. Prejudice against people who have been declared bankrupt. I say this from knowledge, as I have researched this topic, and brought propositions to the States in the past to change the law in this area. From the research I conducted, the only jurisdiction that I found to, effectively, prevent bankrupts from standing for election to the legislative for 9 years, because that is how long the bankruptcy in the Island could last .. in fact we stand out as an exception, as most jurisdictions do not have laws preventing ex-bankrupts from standing at all; they leave it to the electorate to decide. The argument that Deputy Alves mentioned, that was put forward by the majority of P.P.C. members, was that bankrupts should not be entrusted with public money when

they cannot manage their own money. This, to my mind, is a stupid and fallacious argument, especially in the modern-day world. Firstly, as States Members, we do not handle public money. Yes, we may vote on it but we do not handle money and, therefore, there is no question of such a person dipping their hands in the till. Even Ministers do not handle money. We have a whole slew of financial regulations and accounting officers overseeing the process and a Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that the States finance laws are followed. If Ministers go ahead without following advice, they would expect to have to answer for it to the States and, ultimately, to Islanders at the next election. Secondly, many successful businessmen and individuals have come a cropper and been declared bankrupt through no fault of their own. The vast majority of individuals and families living in Britain, the United States and this Island are living from one pay day or cheque to another, with little or no reserves, especially here in the Island with the exceptionally high cost of living that we have to endure. Illness, reduced hours or job loss, divorce or separation, legal fees and housing problems can tip any of us over the edge, as can external shocks to the economy. Take 2008, for example, the subprime mortgage crisis in America led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and to liquidity problems in world markets, which caused interbank lending to dry up, which in turn led to bank lending to individuals and businesses drying up and to many individuals and businesses being forced into bankruptcy. I also wonder how many Islanders or businesses would have declared bankruptcy during the current pandemic, were it not for the various measures and packages brought in by the Island Government, the fixed cost support scheme or the payroll co-funding scheme, to name but 2. A very good friend of mine, who, unfortunately, is no longer with us, he died some 2 or 3 years ago, went bankrupt 3 times in his business career. His name was Robert Gaines-Cooper, a successful entrepreneur, businessman and philanthropist. He said: "Bankruptcy is one of the hazards of being an entrepreneur" and that after each failure he picked himself up, looked around for another opportunity and started again from scratch and built up a new business and he paid off all his creditors in full as soon as he was able. After his last bankruptcy he set up L.M.A. (laryngeal mask airway), the laryngeal mask company, whose head office was in St. Helier . The company may have installed worldwide the revolutionary laryngeal mask, which anaesthetists use to keep patients' airways open during operations and turned it into a successful international company, which he floated on the Singapore Stock Exchange. The share offering was oversubscribed by 7 or 8 times, making him a very wealthy multi-multi-millionaire. He was also a gentleman who I admired. Many of you may recognise his name, he was a major sponsor of the Jersey Air Display, putting almost £1 million into the event over the decade or so that we worked together. We never had a written contract for his air display sponsorship, as we both believed our word was our bond. He promised to fund the air display and I promised and kept the promises I gave him. His sponsorship only came to an end because a former Chief Officer and a former Minister at E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) doubted Robert's word and insisted he put in writing his commitment to the air display and to the Island and had also tried to take over control of the air display, which E.D.D. did not own, and give it to someone else. Bankruptcy should not be used as a ground for disqualifying someone who has been bankrupt, once the bankruptcy period has come to an end. To do so denies the Island some very capable people whose bankruptcy was no fault of their own and who could offer so much to the Island and its future prosperity. It should be the electorate who should decide who gets elected to the States or not, not us limiting their choices. I personally believe the bankruptcy laws in Jersey are onerous and outdated; dégrèvement, for example, where your property can be sold off to pay your creditors and you receive nothing from the sale, even if the property is sold for £1,000 or even £1 million more than the debt, needs to be abolished, as the Law Commission has recommended. We need to amend the provisions of Article 8 of the existing law that are listed on page 67 of this amendment. Currently people who cannot pay off their debt in full on or before the day on which the bankruptcy proceedings are concluded have a further 5 years added on to the bankruptcy period, which extends the bankruptcy period up to some 9 or 10 years. In England and Wales, since the coming into force of the Enterprise Act in 2004, bankruptcy will now normally last no more than 12 months, except in extreme cases where the bankrupt is considered to be particularly culpable for his or her insolvency and a

bankruptcy restriction order may be made to extend some of the restrictions of bankruptcy for up to 15 years. I have also heard that some members of P.P.C. felt that the bankruptcy provisions should not be amended as they would let the Pitmans .. that is former Deputy Trevor and Shona Pitman, who were made bankrupt some years ago, as it would enable them to stand again for the States. I have no idea where Trevor or Shona Pitman currently live or whether they would want to stand again for election to the States. But I happen to think that to decide whether or not to adopt new or amended laws should not be based on personalities, as this is what happens in banana republics and should certainly not be happening in Jersey, so shame on those members of P.P.C. To conclude, I believe P.P.C. should urgently amend the bankruptcy provisions and if they do not do so I will lodge an amendment in September to do so. I will, however, support this Article at present, only because it aligns the disqualification rules for both Constables and Deputies, something I brought a proposition to try to achieve in 2017.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , in the course of your speech you referred to 2 individuals by name, a former States Member and a former officer and in my judgment under Standing Order 104(2)(i) it was not unavoidable or necessary for you to do so. For the purposes of Hansard they will be identified as a former Minister and a former Chief Officer.

Deputy M.R. Higgins: Okay, thank you, Sir. Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I raise a point of order about the ruling on naming of former States Members? It seems to me that I understand the rationale for not naming members of the public but surely we can name former States Members because they have been instrumental in policy making.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , it depends on the context and in my judgment in the particular context of this provision and the points that were being made, use of the name was not unavoidable. But I accept your general point that there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to identify former States Members by name. Indeed, it was appropriate in one particular context, as has occurred in this debate. Does any Member wish to speak on these particular Articles in Second Reading?

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

I do see things very much in line with what has been outlined by the previous speaker, Deputy Higgins, so I will not repeat everything that he said. But I think it is important that I do put it on record, first of all, the fact that I think that there should be as few obstacles and encumbrances as possible to anybody in Jersey taking part in the democratic process, whether that is by voting in elections or by putting themselves forward. It really follows on from what we were debating just a moment ago about people putting themselves forward if they do not like what is on offer and about having maximum choice. I think that is probably something that we should all agree with, is that we want the electorate to have the maximum choice to allow free-flowing debate, both before elections, during the hustings and election process and then after elections when the Assembly has been constituted, so that there are, hopefully, divergent and vibrant views that will lead to discussion and perhaps more creative but also effective policy-making in the long term. I think when we put in or fail to remove obstacles that do not seem to serve any purpose, then I think we should question them. What I would like to ask the chair of P.P.C. is that I was of the understanding that the bankruptcy provisions were to be removed, yet what we are seeing here is what I would refer to as a levelling down rather than a levelling up. I know in a sense the provisions for Deputy are simply not being changed and so it might be difficult to vote against that because you cannot necessarily vote for something which is not in the provisions. But my concern is that we are extending these 40 provisions

to the office of Constable, and I am not comfortable to do that because I think we should be moving it the other way. If there is a problem in the law for the Deputies which needs to be removed, there is no point in putting that same problem into law so that it then applies to a different category of Member, only for it to need to be removed again later at a later date. I think the Article that I will need to vote against is the one to do with extending this to Constables, which I think is contained in Article 75 or 76 - I think it is 76 - and perhaps the chair can refer to that and also allow Article 76 to be taken separately. I know the argument has been made that we should vote for all of these so that there is consistency. But I do not want something that should not be there to be applied consistently. I think we should protect the fact that it is a good thing that this disqualification for bankruptcy does not apply to Constables and that in fact we should be then extending that to the office of Deputy . Perhaps slightly whimsically, I could say that if the word "bankruptcy" had been preceded by "moral", then I would see the purpose of it. We do not want people being elected to the States or standing for the States who might be morally bankrupt. But the point with bankruptcy is that presumably you have to have money in the first place to be made bankrupt and, secondly, you can be made bankrupt through absolutely no fault of your own. You might have invested money or even just put money away to be saved, as many people have done in the past, in something that they thought was a safe investment, only to find that that market has crashed and no fault of their own. Then you would say to them: "Because of that completely arbitrary act you are not allowed to stand for election for 9 years." I cannot see what the link is between an arbitrary event and then an arbitrary punishment, saying to people you cannot stand for election for 9 years because you are now bankrupt, whereas somebody who never had any money in the first place and who never had any money to lose can stand for election. I think it goes back to this point that at some point in the past, presumably, that there was a presumption that you needed to be a good businessman because it would have been then in order to be an effective States Member, and I do not think that holds true. But even if that were true, surely somebody who has been made bankrupt and perhaps been made bankrupt several times and rebuilt themselves is probably going to be much more effective than somebody who never had any money in the first place and never ran a business and never had any money to lose. I do think it raises lots of philosophical questions and there seems to be absolutely no logical basis for this provision being there in the first place, apart from the fact that maybe it was done to avoid somebody standing for election a long time ago, and I think that would be an interesting historical route of academic pursuit to find out why that was the case. But it certainly does not seem to have any bearing on amendments that we should be putting forward today in 2021.

[10:45]

3. Deputy J.H. Young:

I am grateful for Deputy Higgins focusing on this Article because the issues he has raised have been in my concern for a good number of years and of course I am not going to mention a name but I worked with individuals who have suffered under this and saw the punishment that our Jersey system dishes out to people who make mistakes, and mistakes in the way they run their personal affairs. I think that is harsh, and I certainly am concerned about whether it needs to be as harsh as what is being proposed. I can recall that we have had reports from the Citizens Advice Bureau that debts in Jersey, people's debts for ordinary people, the processes in Jersey under our law are well out of line or Dickensian almost and there needs to be more modern approaches to this. People are encouraged in all walks of life in Jersey to use, to borrow, to take credit and so on and things do go wrong. I do not know where we are with that but I think Deputy Higgins is right, that there needs to be reform. Of course if one can add to that as well is that there are also the deficiencies that I think do exist in people's access to justice, that when they are affected by these situations my expectation is there would be no legal aid probably and then where do you go then? Because civil matters are not covered under the legal aid rules, so, effectively, one is in practice and almost certainly required to leave the Island and go and try and make a new life somewhere else if you can. I think Jersey is a very, very harsh place and to have this enshrined in this law I think Deputy Higgins is right to raise it. I can see

Deputy Tadier 's point, that if that arrangement .. what we are doing in the Deputy 's position is already just carrying forward what already is does not make it right, if we are then extending that to another role where it does not apply but of course that raises its own question. If it does not apply to Constables and it applies to Deputies, why have we had that for so long? I pose that question. I think that is one issue, so I do not think it is enough to vote against this because there are lots of other absolutely valid disqualifications in this part of the Article that is being proposed, what one needs to have in a decent society. But this particular part, I think, really does raise major questions that this needs to be looked at post-haste, as soon as possible after this law, and I am sure it will be overseen. The other point I would like to raise is there is a reasonable exclusion for disqualification from office if somebody ceases to be resident in Jersey for 6 months. Of course that raises the question - and maybe I might ask the Attorney General to tell us - where is the definition of "residence"? My understanding is that residence is an issue that arises in our tax law. We have been told what our income tax law is; the position is currently totally unsatisfactory. My understanding is that if a person is treated under the tax law at the moment, one is ordinarily resident if you own a property in Jersey, so I would like some clarification on that. When we pass this it is inevitable, I think, that when we pass this sort of huge new law, and well done for P.P.C. for producing it, that some of the snags that are inherent in our current law, which we are carrying on, are going to come to light. My purpose of me speaking is to flag them up. But I would like to know - a comment, please, what does "residence" mean for the purpose of this law, please? Could I ask that, Sir, of the Attorney General?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, of course. Attorney General. Deputy J.H. Young:

Sorry for not giving notice, I do apologise. It is just that I have missed this one and apologies. If the A.G. (Attorney General) wants to defer them to later, I am happy with that.

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

I do not think I need to defer answering this question. I think it is a question that I have answered before in previous debates. Yes, residence is a concept that is linked to our tax law and it is a clearly understood concept. There are not cases that I have been able to find in the law reports which demonstrate there is any argument about what it means. Basically it means where a person's home is. I hope that is sufficient for the Deputy 's purposes. If he wants to have further information I would need to go back over and do further research but I hope that is sufficient for the purposes of this particular debate.

4. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

Deputy Higgins makes some very valid points on the bankruptcy issue and I was very interested to hear what he had to say. Maybe his proposition in September is a good idea and I am sure that on the P.P.C. subcommittee we would be happy to relook at that and his proposition would prompt that. We will listen to Members in this debate and see if we should do that anyway. The one thing I can say quite categorically, for the last 3 years from June 2018 to the present day I have never, ever had a conversation on the P.P.C. subcommittee or the P.P.C. main committee where the names of the 2 former Deputies that he mentioned ever came up. The scenario he paints is wrong. I do not know where he got that from. It is a really unfortunate accusation to make and he is quite categorically wrong on that.

5. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

It has been very interesting, this part of the debate, and there is a difficulty with bankruptcy. I will raise the point, I do not know if this is one of the points that was trying to be made. We live in changing times and so many people will face difficulty following COVID that we may have a lot more people entering into positions where their only option is to declare bankruptcy in order to

survive; to be quite frank and that could mean we risk people not standing. There is another point, and I am not sure how directly relevant this is but I think it needs to be looked at, and it may be in another part of the Articles; there are a lot of Articles here. But when it says about disqualification for somebody who is a member of the States of Jersey Police Force, for example, or holds any paid office under the Crown, that is clear and I can understand why that is. But there is, if you like, disqualification and there is disqualification because for some people who want to stand it will mean, for example, stepping away from their job and taking 6 weeks of unpaid leave, which for many who do not have private individual wealth, et cetera, that is a hugely significant amount of money that they will be missing out on to stand. It may act as a disqualification from standing simply because they, to put it bluntly, cannot afford to stand. I think that needs to be thought about as well, particularly if you are employed by the States in other capacities because it does happen and it puts people in a very difficult position. It means that we do not get good candidates from some areas, perhaps those who have worked in public service, for example, who really know the ins and outs of governance and the way that things work or have committed their life to public service previously but will not commit to this part of public service, which is what this role is because of those issues with income. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the bankruptcy area of this but because it is interwoven with so many other areas which make sense in here, voting against all of Article 76 would be very difficult to do. To some extent I hold my nose and vote for it, if that is what I decide to do, but I would like to see some addressing of the issues that have been raised here today. That is not to take away from the work that P.P.C. have done here because what has happened here .. and I want to congratulate Deputy Alves and the work that she is doing here and these hundreds of Articles that are being presented today in such an organised and appropriate way. It does not take away from that because this is a huge change and a huge amount of work that has had to be done. It is not going to be perfect. It does not mean that we cannot, if you like, tweak it later and improve on these things later on. I do not think this is a final version in some ways. We do need to address that issue of bankruptcy and I think if anyone brought a proposition forward I would certainly be supporting of that. I do agree with Deputy Higgins, if we can do that as quickly as possible that would be great. The final thing was in terms sorry, I have lost it now because, as I said, there were many, many pages of these things here about capacity laws. We need to be very careful about the use of capacity and self-determination laws. They need to be absolutely again this is cross- referenced into other laws, which come into this debate. We will see later on when we talk about other draft legislation that when laws are cross-referenced in this way it can be very difficult to understand the full implications of that. At the moment I am likely to vote for this but I would like to put those provisos on the record and voice my concern regards the bankruptcy issue as well.

6. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Very briefly, I just want to remind Members of paragraph 2.4 in the R.M.P. (Risk Management Plan) and in it it says: "Seems reasonable to expect that someone who will be responsible for public funds should demonstrate prudence in their own financial activities." I think that is the fundamental point behind this. Ultimately we do make decisions involving generally millions of pounds and that demonstration of prudence in one's own financial activity is relevant when one is talking about the level of bankruptcy. It may not be through the fault of the circumstances but that is the nature of what we deal with. If one took it to the extreme that if everyone - and this is an extreme view, of course - in the Assembly had been declared bankrupt that would not exactly bode terribly well for the Island. I just make those observations and I think it is relevant to keep it in. I accept all the points that have been made about it being difficult but I think the overriding interest and the public interest to the Island is that it is probably not appropriate, in my view, for someone who has been declared bankrupt to be a member. That is unfortunately the way of the world. I will obviously be supporting the work of P.P.C. on this matter.

7. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I am pleased to follow that previous contribution because it was very revealing, was it not? In the debate up until this point there have been some interesting contributions and some very good points made. I am one of those who think that this disqualification should not exist for all States Members. I was going to make the point that your ability to run for election and serve in this Assembly should be as open as possible so that the choice is for the public to make and that they have the widest choice available to them. If they do not want somebody to serve them in the Assembly because of their record before serving in the Assembly, whether that is in business or in financial affairs or what have you, that is a matter for them to decide and it may be the case that there is a prospective candidate out there who has had a range of successes in their life but perhaps in among those successes a failure that has included bankruptcy, which then disqualifies them from serving in the Assembly, which I think is inappropriate. I think it deprives them of the choice. I found it quite interesting that the Chief Minister takes a position basically of second guessing what is good for the public or not and supporting restrictions on who can stand for election based on what he thinks is appropriate rather than the public being given a choice, which I think shows an anti-democratic tendency, which is completely at odds with what I believe.

[11:00]

Your ruling before about being able to name former politicians is one I found very strange as well and I will make my next point without names then, which will be bizarre because everybody will know what I will be saying. The most recent event in history that we know where Members of this Assembly were disqualified for being made bankrupt, incidentally on the very same day that they were made bankrupt and expelled from this Assembly another notorious politician was made bankrupt, that was the then leader of the British National Party, a fascist party, who was a member of the European Parliament at that time, by coincidence he was made bankrupt on the same day as the 2 former Deputies of this Assembly and he was not expelled from the Parliament which he was serving in because it is a more modern Parliament with more modern rules in line with all the relevant international conventions, et cetera. He then was thrown out at the next election because the public were quite rightly sick of being represented by someone as reprehensible as him. But the choice was theirs to do that. The bankruptcy rules are clearly out of line with best practice, they are anti- democratic and they should be gotten rid of. The question about whether we equalise the situation now as proposed in this Article or look to scrap it entirely at the appropriate time is an annoying choice to make in the context. It would be better if we could decide these things in a more straightforward debate. That makes it difficult to decide how to vote on this particular Article but I would want to be on record as saying I reject the position that was outlined by the Chief Minister before and believe the public ought to have the choice over who represents them and not have rules restricting that in what is, I think, quite an overbearing way, given the nature of bankruptcy and how people can become bankrupt and it reflecting on their character or their suitability to serve in the Assembly. I would have preferred we could have dealt with this in a different way.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Senator. In view of what you said in your speech about the ruling I gave, I think I should explain it further. Standing Order 104(2)(i) says a Member of the States must not refer to any individual who is not a Member of the States by name unless use of the individual's name is unavoidable and of direct relevance to the business being discussed. This, of course, is debate on Articles in relation to circumstances in which persons may be disqualified from standing or from the States generally. The 2 individuals that were named by Deputy Higgins was in the context of his suggestion that those individuals, a former Member and an officer, were responsible for particular funding difficulties in relation to the air show. This is not a debate about the air show and, accordingly, to name those individuals was not unavoidable and of direct relevance to the business being discussed. Of course the identity and the names of previous States Members who have been made bankrupt is of direct relevance to the business being discussed and there is no difficulty in them being named. That was not meant to be an admonishment at all, Deputy Higgins, it was a question of Standing Orders which sometimes create difficulties for us all. Now, does any other Member wish to speak on these Articles? If not, then I call upon the chair to reply.

8. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Thank you. I would like to thank all Members for their contributions. It has been a very insightful debate on these Articles. I would just like to start off by echoing what Deputy Labey said in that the former States Members that Deputy Higgins mentioned in his speech were not discussed as part of the deliberations on this issue of bankruptcy. Personally I sympathise and agree a lot with what Deputy Higgins has said, especially now that we find ourselves in very different times with COVID, and I can imagine that a lot of people will find themselves in this position of possible bankruptcy, who in normal times never would have. As Deputy Ward kindly pointed out, this is a mammoth piece of work and it is a shame that this was not brought up during the consultation process. As Members are aware, we have changed some things from the original law that we lodged. For example, on the back of those consultations the number of nominees that were due to be on the nomination form. I would just like to also remind Members that disqualification on bankruptcy grounds  does  expire  after  5  years  and  that  these  particular  Articles  would  be addressing  the inconsistencies that currently exist between the Connétable s and the Deputies. However, I would welcome Deputy Higgins to bring forward a proposition. I am also happy to take this back to P.P.C. to review and to undertake to look into this further. Deputy Tadier mentioned taking Article 76 separately. I am also happy to do that, however I would just like to make the point that this would mean that  we  might  end  up  with  inconsistent  disqualification  provisions. So  although  I  am sympathetic and I do personally agree that the current bankruptcy rules - this is my personal view - are not ideal, these Articles simply just make it consistent across the board. I will take that Article separately as Deputy Tadier has asked for it. If we could take

The Deputy Bailiff : Articles 66 to 75 first? Deputy C.S. Alves : Yes, please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

In a moment the Greffier will put a vote into the chat channel of this meeting. The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Articles have been adopted.

Chair, you now wish to propose Article 76, is that right? Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The Greffier will need to prepare the vote. He has done so and the vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Article 76 has been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

Members who voted contre were Deputy Southern and in the chat the Constable of St. Mary . The abstention was Deputy Tadier .

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chair, that brings us on to Article 77. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes, please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any Member object to Article 77 being adopted on a standing vote? Thank you. Chair, do you want to proceed to part 4 of the law?

6. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Part 4 of the law, I would like to propose Articles 78 and 81 together. Part 4 is about political parties registration. Article 78 provides that part 4 amends the Political Parties (Registration) (Jersey) Law 2008; the Registration Law. Article 79 makes consequential amendment to Article 1 of the Registration Law. Article 80 makes a change to the terminology used in the Registration Law replacing the label "leader" with that of "Chair". Part 5, the Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Law 2014 as amended by the Comité. Article 81 provides that part 5 amends the Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Law 2014, the 2014 law. I propose Articles 78 to 81.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. Are those Articles seconded in Second Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on those Articles, that is 78 to 18 inclusive?

1. Deputy J.H. Young:

Can I just ask the chair to highlight and I apologise again, lack of preparation of my part, I did bring a proposition about publication of expenses openly on the website. If I could ask the chair to just highlight where this is within the new law because I think it is very important. I feel confident the committee would have picked it up but I could not find it.

2. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Just very briefly, the issue of replacing in the Political Parties (Registration) (Jersey) Law the word "leader" for "Chair" was something that I had recommended. I think it is a sensible way of making sure that parties are required to have good democratic structures within themselves. There is, I think, by nature a difference between being a chair of a party and being the political leader and figurehead of a party. To become a candidate officially for a party your nomination form has to be signed by the registered officeholders of the party, and those are officer holders that are registered with the Royal Courts. If those are all parliamentary party members then you are depriving your party of the accountability that comes with having a non-parliamentary membership.

[11:15]

In ours, we have formally split the roles of leader and chair and require it so that the chair of the party is a non-States Member so that brings extra accountability in there and cannot be used by a potential rogue leader in future to be the one who solely determines who gets to stand for election under their banner. It would have to be spread out and more democratically decided, which has to be a good thing. It is also a good thing to encourage people to join political parties so they could be part of that decision-making process. I am pleased that this is being proposed and it will, for me at least, mean my name coming off the record in the Royal Court and replaced by somebody who is not a States Member, which I think is a good thing so I would support that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Senator. Does any other Member wish to speak on these Articles? I call upon the chair to reply.

3. Deputy C.S. Alves :

In response to Deputy Young's point, it is going to come up in Article 98 and they will be published on the vote.je website. With that, I propose those Articles, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting. He has done so and I invite Members to cast their votes. If all Members have had an opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Articles have been adopted in Second Reading.

7. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Next I would like to propose Articles 82 to 85, which deal with expenses relating to political parties. Article 82 makes minor and consequential amendments to the list of definitions in Article 1 of the 2014 law. Article 83 inserts a new Article 1A in the 2014 law defining "regulated period" for the purposes of the election expenses rules by reference to the 4-month period leading up to an election. Presently only money spent from nomination night is counted. We feel this is unfair and that candidates could stockpile or purchase items well in advance which would not be counted towards their total. Article 84 amends Article 3 of the 2014 law, including substituting the definition of election expenses in paragraph 1 of that Article. Election expenses are defined as expenses incurred at any time before the poll for an election by the candidate or with the candidates express or implied consent for goods or services which are used during the regulated period to promote or procure the candidates election or to prejudice the electoral prospects of another candidate at that election. The substituted Article 3(1) catches expenses for goods and services used in the 4-month regulated period and not only those used after the person has legally become a candidate. This Article makes related consequential amendments to Article 3 of the 2014 law and also amends the provision about apportionment of expenses between candidates. Where election expenses are incurred in respect of 2 or more candidates, the presumption is that the expenses are of equal benefit and are therefore to be apportioned equally between them. However, this presumption can be displaced if one of the candidates proves to the satisfaction of the J.E.A. that the expenses should be apportioned on a different basis. Article 85 inserts a new Article 3A in the 2014 law to make provisions for expenses incurred by a political party during the regulated period for an election. The expenses are to be treated as election expenses in relation to each candidate standing at the election who is endorsed by the party and are to be apportioned between the candidates in accordance with Article 3(7) of the 2014 law. I propose the Articles 82 to 85, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are those Articles seconded? [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on those Articles, Articles 82 to 85 inclusive? If no Member wishes to speak on those Articles, is there any objection to those Articles being adopted on a standing vote? Chair, they are adopted.

8. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Next I would like to propose Articles 86 to 89. Article 86 amends Article 4 of the 2014 law to alter the limits on candidate's election expenses. The aggregate limit is £2,050 plus 13 pence for each person entitled to vote at the election. Article 87 amends Article 5 of the 2014 law to extend the period within which a candidate must send an anonymous donation to the Treasurer of the States from 10 working days to 4 weeks. It also alters the offence of failure to comply with that requirement so that no offence is committed if there is a reasonable excuse for the failure, building the element of reasonable excuse into the provision itself with a related amendment being made to the current defence provision in Article 15. Article 88 amends Article 6 of the 2014 law which makes provision requiring a candidate to make a declaration of election expenses and donations. The period within which the declaration must be made after an election is extended from 15 working days to 4 weeks. The amendments have the effect that the J.E.A. instead of the Judicial Greffier will be responsible for overseeing the process for expenses and donations declarations. A declaration must be delivered to the J.E.A. and be made using the forms supplied by it, and the J.E.A. will also remind candidates of their obligation to deliver a return at least 5 working days before it is due. The minimum amount of value of a donation that is required to be declared is increased from £120 to £145 and amendment is made to the offence of failure to comply with the requirement to deliver a return under the Article so that no offence is committed if there is a reasonable excuse for the failure. Article 89 amends Article 7 of the 2014 law so that it is the J.E.A. instead of the Judicial Greffier that will be responsible for the verification of expenses. A new paragraph is inserted so that the J.E.A. will also be able to require the treasurer of a political party to produce invoices, receipts or other proof of the parties'

campaign expenses in relation to one or more candidates. The period within which such a request must be complied with, in the case of a candidate or the treasurer of a political party is extended from 15 working days to 4 weeks. There is a further amendment to the offence under Article 7(3) of failure to comply with a request so that no offence is committed if there is a reasonable excuse for the failure. I propose Articles 86 to 89, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are those Articles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 86 to 89? Does any Member object to Articles 86 to 89 being adopted in a standing vote? Those Articles are adopted.

9. Deputy C.S. Alves :

Finally, I would like to propose Articles 90 to 106 and thank Members for their patience. Article 90 amends Article 8(2) under which it is an offence for a person who incurs or pays a candidate's election expenses to fail to provide a candidate with information and documents for the purposes of the candidate's reporting obligations under the law so that no offence is committed if there is reasonable excuse for the failure. Articles 91 to 93 amend the provisions about third party election expenses in Articles 9 to 13 of the 2014 law, bringing them into line with the amendments made to the provisions about candidate's election expenses, although there is no requirement for the J.E.A. to remind third parties of the obligation to deliver a return. Article 94 replaces the Judicial Greffier with the J.E.A. and extends the time period for submissions. Article 95 inserts a new part 3A in the 2014 law establishing a regime for political parties to report donations. The new provision requires the treasurer of a political party to deliver a written declaration to the J.E.A. of a reportable donation within 4 weeks of receiving it. A donation is reportable if its amount of value exceeds a certain threshold amount or if the total amount or value of that donation and any others made by the same donor with the preceding 3 months exceeds the threshold amount. The threshold amount will be specified in regulations made by the States. There is provision that it is an offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to deliver a declaration or to deliver a declaration knowing or believing it to be false in a material particular. A person who commits either offence is liable to a fine. A political party must not keep an anonymous donation, which is parallel to the provisions in the 2014 law prohibiting candidates and third parties from keeping anonymous donations. There also includes a requirement for the treasurer to declare the donation to the J.E.A. within 4 weeks of receiving it. For candidates and third parties, the sum of anonymous donations is declared in the post-election declaration to the J.E.A. A person who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements commits an offence and is liable to a fine. An officeholder of a political party, other than the treasurer, is required to notify the treasurer of any donations to the party, which the officeholder knows or believes to have been received and to provide any information held by the officeholder that is relevant for the purposes of compliance. A person who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply commits an offence and is liable to a fine. Articles 96 and 97 make consequential amendments to Articles 14 and 15 of the 2014 law. Article 98 substitutes Article 16 of the 2014 law requiring the J.E.A. to acknowledge receipt of declarations of expenses and donations and to publish those declarations. Article 99 inserts a new Article 16A in the 2014 law providing that the J.E.A. may make such arrangements for the audit of any declarations made under the law. The J.E.A. may select declarations for an audit at random or by reference to a particular criteria. Or may arrange for the audit of all declarations. Article 100 amends Article 18 of the 2014 law. It alters paragraph (1) to reflect the fact that the listed offences relate to both expenses and donations. The Article also inserts a new paragraph (1A) extending the application of Article 18 to a candidate who has been convicted an offence, in the person's capacity as an officeholder in relation to a political party, in respect of a failure to comply with any of those provisions during the regulated period. Article 101 inserts a new Article 18A in the 2014 law providing that the States may make further consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision by regulations, including provision amending,

repealing or modifying any enactment. Article 102 as amended by the Comité amends paragraph 1 of the schedule to the 2014 law to include a broader definition of "donation", in the context of financial gifts, for political parties in keeping with the ongoing requirement for the treasurer of a political party to report donations of a certain amount or value received by the party. Any gift of money to a political party is a donation but only those above the threshold amount will be reportable. Article 103, as amended by the Comité, amends paragraph (2) of the schedule to the 2014 law to include a broader definition of "donation", in the context of the supply of free or discounted goods or services, in keeping with the ongoing requirement for the treasurer of a political party to report donations of a certain amount or value received by the party. Article 104 amends paragraph 4 of the schedule to the 2014 law, which makes provision about what constitutes an anonymous donation. The inserted paragraph (2) provides that the States may by regulations provide that the requirements of the law do not apply in relation to anonymous donations of an amount of value below that specified in the regulations.

[11:30]

The power could be exercised to set different limits for different cases, for example, a different limit for candidates and third parties to that set for political parties. Article 105 introduced schedule 2, which makes consequential amendments to other legislation. Finally, Article 106 provides that the law may be cited as the Elections (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 202- and makes provision for it to come into force on a day or days specified by the States by Act. I propose Articles 90 to 106.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are you proposing schedule 2 as well at this time? Deputy C.S. Alves :

Yes please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You are proposing Articles 90 to 106 and schedule 2. Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the balance of the Articles and schedule 2?

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Yes, just briefly to say congratulations to the chair and to her committee. I have been here and had to bring tranches of the Public Elections Law to the States Assembly. I know how much work goes in behind the scenes in preparation for these debates. Also to thank all the officers behind the scenes who have also assisted the committee in their work. Well done to the chair for bringing this omnibus of legislation forward. She has done incredibly well and that is all I wanted to say.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak on the remaining Articles and schedule 2 of the law? The Deputy of St. Martin . We cannot hear you, Deputy of St. Martin . Do you want to start again; we did not hear what you said?

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

I have turned my camera off. Can you hear me now? The Deputy Bailiff :

I can hear you now, yes.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I apologise to Members and yourself for that. I have a point I would like to clarify about an Article that was raised yesterday that we discussed yesterday. Before we get to the Third Reading I just wanted to seek guidance as to when I might be best to do that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The debate in Third Reading is confined to the contents of the draft adopted. If you have something else to say about an earlier part of the Law then you best raise that in Third Reading.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I will do that in the Third Reading. Thank you.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

I would like to echo first of all Deputy Maçon's comment that we know that P.P.C., and the chair, would have put a lot of work into this. I will not repeat these in Third Reading, but we know that a lot of work goes into this and it is probably an area where all States Members feel passionate about the subject matter. Because everyone has an experience of going through an electoral process and has aspirations about how we could engage more people. So first of all, well done. The comments are just to note that it is going to be important to be vigilant in the future, especially with the changes that are occurring, not just in the larger districts, but perhaps with the advent of a mature party political system, that we look for the unintended consequences and unfair advantages that may exist. Something that springs to mind is that there is clearly a difference between electoral expenditure that occurs during an election period and expenditure that can occur before that, but which nonetheless may have the consequence of building up the profile of individual candidates or indeed individual parties. Something that needs to be flagged up now, and this would apply to whoever ends up in Government, but it is perhaps more relevant for us because it has never happened in recent times, is that what happens if you have a governing party? We have that at the moment; we have a Council of Ministers who have just formed a party effectively, although they say they are not party members until 2022. First of all that does not stack up. A party has been formed. It has been registered with the Royal Court. We know that several Ministers are party officeholders. That is the case now. It is not the case just in 2 years' time, even though they may have a slate of candidates. What safeguards will there be put in place to make sure and to differentiate between Government spending and the promotion of the governing party's policy platform? It is the case in point because we have had, in the last few days, the launch of the Alliance Party's manifesto. They are the governing party at the moment, which has decided to form a party halfway or three-quarters during an election term, which is their right. They are saying that: "Our manifesto is the Government Plan." But the Government Plan of course has been written by independent civil servants and the first question is how does that expenditure get accounted for when they are saying: "This document is now our policy platform that we have created"? But it has been drafted by independent civil servants who are paid for from across the Island by taxpayers who may or may not have any interest in politics or may not share the views of any given political party or indeed the governing party. That kind of question needs to be looked at and I would be interested to hear the chair's views on what discussions have happened at the political table in that kind of scenario. There is also the issue I guess of advertising. It is commonplace to see banners and posters put up during an election period but of course now we are seeing posters and banners being put up outside of an election period. I am not saying that is wrong. That is part of the natural process. But clearly it is easier for a political party to be able to put banners up at any time during the 4-year cycle to promote either the party generally or to promote a particular campaign they are focusing on. It is not clear how some individual or independent Members might be able to do that. But similarly we also know that Parishes are able to send out Parish magazines with their photos and columns given to certain Members. For example, it is not uncommon, and I am not suggesting it is wrong, but it does nevertheless give an advantage to incumbents that the Constable will often write a column. I like to play a game with the different Parish magazines to see

how many photos of the Constable you can see and how many photos of the Deputy you can see. It is often the case in some country Parishes where there is a single Deputy they are given quite a lot of magazine space. Whereas in some other Parish magazines they have a rule that Deputies are not allowed to write in the magazine and it is not allowed to be political. Even though some other magazines give completely free rein to the Deputies to be as political and self-promotorial as they want to be. These are the kind of issues, which are not easily captured in any kind of electoral law, which need to be flagged. Perhaps one last thought is that I get the idea of notional expenses, for example, if your leaflets should cost you £1,500 and you know the person who is printing it for you, either does it for free or at a heavy discount, that should be counted. But what about the things that are not easily quantifiable? Political activists, for example, are what all parties and perhaps independents rely on to get out and do the work for them. There is not and should never be any question of that being quantified. But what if you have a campaign manager as an independent? I have seen campaign managers being used very effectively for independent senatorial candidates, for example, who effectively have somebody running their campaign. Does that need to be quantified in terms of an election expense? The last question that I would have, if it is not possible to answer it can be treated as a rhetorical question, but it is an important one. There is this concept in electoral expenditure law that it is not just your direct expenditure. If somebody campaigns for you, or indeed if somebody campaigns against you that expenditure has to be quantified and accounted for. But it is very difficult to do that of course if you do not know who the person is that might be campaigning against you. If somebody produces a leaflet and sends it to every household in the Island saying: "Do not vote for whatever party," how do you find out who that is or how much they spent on it? But the most critical point is that if somebody decides they want to spend £10,000 on your campaign and you have not given them any authority to do so that could easily take you over your expenditure limit and who would be liable for that breach of expenditure? Some of these issues may already have a solution or not be an issue. But those are just some thoughts about the fact that it is going to be really important to be vigilant about the current problems that we may have and also how it is going to pan out into the future.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on these Articles? I call upon the Chair to reply.

3. Deputy C.S. Alves :

I would like to start off by thanking Deputy Maçon for his kind words. I appreciate it and also the approbation that has been shown by other Members. To address some of the points that Deputy Tadier has brought up, which are very valid points and interesting and things that need looking into. This draft does not go as far as to require a separate declaration of political party expenses. Maybe this is one for the future. There is already a provision for free or discounted supplies of services, which might be professional services connected to a campaign, which would be treated as a candidate's expenses. A lot of the things that Deputy Tadier has brought up there would be something for the J.E.A. to look into in consultation with P.P.C. The point about third parties, the money spent without consent is a third-party expenditure and subject to limits as well, so it is separate. I hope that addresses all of the points. That part is now in law. The J.E.A. will have a lot of things to consider and this will extend the breadth of things that they are going to be working on. I would like to propose Articles 90 to 106 and thank Members for their contributions.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Chair. In a moment the Greffier will add a vote into the chat channel of this meeting in respect of Articles 90 to 106 inclusive and schedule 2 to the law. The vote is now open. I ask Members to cast their votes. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

[11:45]

I can announce that the balance of the Articles and schedule 2 have been adopted unanimously in Second Reading.