Official Report - 25th June 2025

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 25th JUNE 2025

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 4

1.1  Welcome to Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham ....................................... 4 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 4

2. Draft Elections (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.28/2025) - resumption .............. 4

1. Connétable K.S. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................ 4 Mr. M. Jowitt., H.M. Solicitor General: .......................................................... 4

1. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 5
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :.......................................................... 5
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ........................................... 6 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier South : ........................................................... 7 The Solicitor General: ............................................................................ 7 Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity ........................................ 8 Deputy R.J. Ward : ................................................................................ 8 Deputy M. Tadier : ................................................................................ 9
4. Deputy R.J. Ward :.......................................................................... 9
5. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 11
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ................................... 12
7. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 13
8. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 13

2. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 15

1. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : ...................................................... 17
2. Deputy J. Renouf : ........................................................................ 18
3. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 18

3. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 21

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :........................................................................ 21
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 22
3. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : .......................................... 22
4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 22
5. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 22
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 23 The Solicitor General: .......................................................................... 23 The Connétable of St. Brelade : ................................................................. 23
7. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 24

4. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 27

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :........................................................................ 27
2. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 28
3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :......................................................... 28

4. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 29

3. Draft Single-Use Plastics Etc. (Restrictions) Law (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.37/2025) ............................................................................ 31

1. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John (The Minister for Infrastructure): ................... 31

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 32
2. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 32
3. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : .................................................. 32
4. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :....................................................... 33
5. Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South : .................................................... 33
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 33

2. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 35
3. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 36

4. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.39/2025) ......... 37

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter (The Minister for External Relations): ................................................................................ 38

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 38
2. Deputy P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .................................................. 38
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................... 38

2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................... 40
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................... 42

5. Non-Elected Members on Scrutiny Panels and Change in the Troy Rule (P.46/2025) 43

5.1   Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 44

1. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 47
2. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 48
3. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : .................................................. 48
4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 50
5. Connétable M. Labey of Grouville : ...................................................... 51
6. Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ................................................... 51
7. Deputy H.M. Miles of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 52
8. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 53
9. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 54
10. Deputy M.R. Scott :.................................................................... 56

PERSONAL STATEMENT ....................................................................... 61

6. The Chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee will make a personal statement.................................................................................... 61

6.1   Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .............................................................................. 62

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.................... 63

7. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central (Vice-Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .............................................................................. 63

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 63
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 63

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 64

[9.30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. Deputy K.F. Morel St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

Just to say, I am going to have to take leave of the Assembly if they are okay. I have an important family appointment. My daughter's leaving ceremony for school is taking place in about 40 minutes, so if I may.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you very much for letting us know. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER 1.1  Welcome to Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham

I would like to welcome to the gallery this morning Sarah Champion and her assistant. Sarah Champion is the Member of Parliament for Rotherham and is chair of the Channel Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group. As Members may know, the purpose of that group is to promote a better understanding of the constitutional position of the Channel Islands and the issues facing our islands and to foster a better relationship with the U.K. (United Kingdom). So I would like the Members to give her a warm welcome in the usual way. [Approbation] Thank you.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. Draft Elections (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.28/2025) - resumption The Deputy Bailiff :

We now return to the debates, the Second Reading of the Draft Elections (Jersey) Amendment Law, Articles 5 to 17.

1. Connétable K.S. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

Having considered Deputy Scott 's request for a reference back and comments made by Deputy Bailhache in the debate yesterday, and having sought advice, P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) would like to withdraw Article 5. This will enable P.P.C. and the J.E.A. (Jersey Electoral Authority) to consider this Article more fully. Withdrawing Article 5 will not affect the Assembly being able to vote for the rest of the Articles. Before I close, I will be voting for the withdrawal of Article 5 but I would like to ask the advice of the S.G. (Solicitor General) as to the consequences of keeping Article 5 would be.

Mr. M. Jowitt., H.M. Solicitor General:

The first point is that if it were rejected it would not have any knock-on effect on the other Articles in the Amendment Law. If it is adopted then I would repeat the two points that I think Deputy Bailhache made in yesterday's debate, which I thought had real force to them. The first point he made was that in amending Article 13D(1) of the Elections Law to create a right for the public to complain, Article 5 as presently drafted does not amend Article 13D(3) to empower the Assembly to make regulations to govern the manner in which the J.E.A. might handle complaints by the public. So one would have a strange contradiction in the law in which complaints by candidates would be governed by regulations made by the Assembly, whereas complaints by the public would not be. In the context of the advice I gave yesterday, which was that it is foreseeable that the way in which the J.E.A. handles a complaint by a member of the public might result in judicial review proceedings in the Royal Court. That, in my view, is a legal lacuna of some potential significance. The second point Deputy Bailhache made is rather more fundamental. I think he said something to the effect of if you give people the right to complain you must expect that people will do so, and he described it colourfully as are we opening a Pandora's box? So Article 5 is widely drawn in terms of who the

public can complain about. We read at 5(b) that the public can, if it is enacted, complain against the conduct of a person carrying out functions in connection with a public election under this or any other law. We rely to a significant extent on volunteers to staff and run our polling stations on election day, whether that is a Jurat volunteering to be an Autorisé, or whether it is a member of the public volunteering to sit at a table and dispense ballot papers and tick people's names off on the list, whether it is volunteers who count the votes at the end of the process or anyone else involved, would be, as it were, in the frame to be complained about by members of the public. It may be that Members would want to reflect in this debate on the extent to which that might have a chilling effect on volunteers wishing in future to assist in running our polling stations on election day. My own experience as an Autorisé in the last general election is that the system relies, as I say, very substantially on volunteers in carrying out simply a civic duty. Those are the points that Deputy Bailhache made yesterday. I echo them. In my view, they have considerable substance to them and that is, I hope, helpful.

The Deputy Bailiff :

So the proposal made by the chair is that she should have leave of the Assembly to withdraw Article 5. Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Connétable 's proposition to seek leave of the Assembly to withdraw Article 5?

1. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

I very much thank the Privileges and Procedures Committee for considering the email that I sent to States Members last night in which I discussed the content of a possible proposition to refer back and also thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to draft the content of that email. I do think that we often perhaps leap before we look and sometimes we just need to do work, and many hands make light work. Could this situation have been avoided if there had been more engagement with the Corporate Scrutiny Panel? I do not know but I do think that as we progress during this debate understanding the value of having early scrutiny is something I would point out to all States Members. Thank you very much.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

We finished yesterday quite unsatisfactorily and we have started this morning very unsatisfactorily. We seem to have the worst of both worlds here. A reference back basically would have asked for an Article or many Articles which the mover thought she had a problem with to go back and look for clarification about inaccuracies or ambiguities rather in the law. That is what a reference back is for. I noticed, my reading of the email that was circulated by the Member last night, did not have any inaccuracies that it wanted to be clarified. It simply had, I think, political differences, if I can put it that way and concerns. It is not for P.P.C. to do a reference back and then come back with concerns, and I think that is why ultimately the reference back would not have succeeded. In withdrawing Article 5, what the chair of P.P.C. is doing is withdrawing our rights as an elected Assembly to make a consideration of Article 5 and its merits and have a proper debate on that. She, I think, unfortunately, is capitulating to the threat of a spurious reference back, which I suspect would not have passed, and at the same time has made, I would say, the knee-jerk reaction to deprive us of our say on Article 5. I think that Article 5, as we have heard from the Solicitor General, its removal is highly problematic, and it seems that it would put us in a very strange position. If that is not what he said, then I am happy to ..

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Just a point of clarification, please. Just perhaps Deputy Tadier would clarify, that is not what the Solicitor-General said.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think that is what he thinks he said.

Deputy M. Tadier :

No, that is fine.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Just carry on, Deputy .

Deputy M. Tadier :

Okay, that is not what the Solicitor General said. [9:45]

I think nonetheless, with the contribution of the Solicitor General perhaps to the opposite side of the argument, is that I think we should still be considering Article 5 and actually just rejecting it or considering its merits and telling P.P.C. what or how it should be amended. I think that there is a good case for the J.E.A. clearly to be accepting and considering complaints, and not only complaints from candidates who may have an axe to grind with another candidate about something they said, something which likely is difficult to prove, but actually something potentially much more egregious that has happened to a member of the public against a candidate, or indeed the other way around. It could be a candidate who has received some kind of malicious threat or behaviour that is unacceptable from a member of the public. It seems that all of those things need to be capably conceived of by the Electoral Authority. I do not know if this is the place to say it, but I will simply say also, that in considering the wider objective of what the Jersey Electoral Authority is there to do, I think it should be given more powers in fact. It should be empowered to actually not just look at how the technical nature of the voting process works but the fairness of our voting system. I think it is probably correct to say at this point, while we have got a welcome visitor from the U.K. with responsibility for the Channel Islands, to say that this Assembly, by a narrow margin, has voted to make our electoral system even more of a postcode lottery than it is already. We know that in Jersey we have a postcode lottery whereby if you live in the urban areas you are already disenfranchised .. your power of vote rather, I should say, is much less than it should be than the wealthy who live in the country. "Same as it ever was", to quote David Byrne and Talking Heads, and it has only just got worse for political reasons and for gerrymandering purposes. Whether it is at the Ministry of Justice level or whether it is done at the Privy Council level because we know of course since 1771 ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

We are debating whether or not to [Laughter] ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

I know, Sir. But I am minded to channel Mastermind and say, I have started so I will finish. The Deputy Bailiff :

It is important to focus on the issue at hand.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Getting back to Article 5 and perhaps why we should maintain it is that I think we should be empowering the Jersey Electoral Authority to give them proper powers to look at the fairness of our system so that the U.K. do not need to intervene in the same way that they did in 1771, because we need to show that we are a proper self-governing democracy, that we do not need the U.K. Government to intervene, but if we continue to make our electoral processes less fair, whether it is through the removal of Article 5, the redress, or in fact through the gerrymandering of our system, that we may actually need the U.K. to step in and do something for us to help.

3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I am not sure that I am pleased to follow Deputy Tadier because I think I lost the gist of what he was trying to say. Has the chairman of P.P.C. capitulated or has she made a considered decision and come to the Assembly, as is her right, to ask for permission to withdraw this Article? We will decide when we vote upon it. My concern, I was thinking about this last night and of course the Solicitor General just mentioned the volunteers who help with elections, and that has been my concern since reading this proposed new Article. We rely so heavily on volunteers to help to run the elections that my feeling is that if they were aware that the J.E.A. could investigate complaints against them I think it would be difficult to encourage people to come forward to undertake this important voluntary role. At the moment, if there are any complaints on the day of an election, they are dealt with by the Jurat as Autorisé. The ultimate decision rests with the Jurat and I, who have been involved with elections for many years, do not recall any situations where maybe there have been minor quibbles where they have not been resolved satisfactorily to all parties. So my concern is volunteers, but also Parish staff. They are employees. If there are complaints made against them then the Parish deals with those complaints under the contract of employment. We have disciplinary procedures that we follow. My concern is that if authority is handed to the J.E.A. to deal with complaints against members of staff, I do not know how that could be managed, and it is something that I urge P.P.C. to consider if this Article is withdrawn, and further consideration is given to implementing a formal complaints procedure. My view is that we do not have a formal complaints procedure but things work and if it ain't broke why should we be looking to change it?

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

Could I ask a question of the Solicitor General please? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, you may.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

In the current system that was just suggested, if somebody makes a complaint to a Jurat who is the ultimate end of that complaint, what happens if the person does not agree with the outcome or sees a wider issue? Do they have any outcome from, for example, our election laws, which I believe we have an Election Law, and what would that mean in terms of the complaints process or have we simply got the end of a complaints process for an individual who can be both judge and jury on that complaint?

The Solicitor General:

I think there is only a limited redress to the Royal Court in respect of disputed elections and procedure and examination papers. It is dealt with in part 10 of the Election Law. If I can just have a moment. Yes, I think it is limited to every case of a disputed public election or Parish election shall be dealt with by the Royal Court. I do not think there is any higher redress if there is simply a complaint on the day to the Autorisé about, for example, the layout of voting booths, whether someone has had sufficient time to cast their vote or whether someone should or should not have received a home vote, I do not see there is any higher redress.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

May I just add to the question? So in our current situation, is there no way at all to make a complaint about an individual's conduct or is there a way of making a complaint about an individual's conduct that could theoretically go to the Royal Court to be followed up if the outcome was not satisfactory on the day?

The Solicitor General:

At the moment it is only a candidate who can complain under the existing law about either the conduct of another candidate at the election or the conduct of any person carrying out functions in connection with the election under this or any other law. That is a complaint that would be dealt with under the existing law by the J.E.A. The law makes no provision for an appeal against a decision by the J.E.A. in respect of such a complaint, which is why I gave the advice I gave yesterday, that if there were to be a legal challenge it would in all likelihood lie by way of an application for leave to seek judicial review.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Jeune , is that a question for the Solicitor General? Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity

Yes. By adding on to that question by Deputy Ward . Also of course volunteers should be allowed to complain and so is there any provision within the law and do we feel that going to the Royal Court is justification for maybe complaining about unsafe working conditions like long hours or access to toilets or harassment and bullying or lack of support. These are maybe low-level complaints and I am wondering if going to the Royal Courts is the right place to do it and can they do that at this moment?

The Solicitor General:

No, volunteers are not able, as a matter of law, to make a complaint that the J.E.A. can consider under what is presently 13D of the Elections (Jersey) Law. It is candidates who can complain about one another or can complain about the conduct of any person carrying out functions in connection with the elections under this or any other law. The reference to the Royal Court is only where the J.E.A. makes a decision and a person who is dissatisfied with that decision may be able to challenge it on the usual judicial review grounds that the decision made by the J.E.A. was unlawful, was irrational or was procedurally irregular. But the sort of minor complaints that the Deputy speaks of are just that, they are minor complaints which are not susceptible to legal challenge or resolution through the law.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

May I ask another question? I did have a follow-up, but thanks to Deputy Jeune for giving me a moment to think about that. I suppose my question is, it is a what-if question, if a member of the public or a volunteer sees something happen in the election process, which they see as significant, where do they go to make a complaint and what redress do they have if they make that complaint in the current situation?

The Solicitor General:

I think I have already answered that question. The complaint is made to the Autorisé who deals with it on the day. There is no further redress to the Royal Court other than that which I have mentioned under part 10. I am not sure I can help the Deputy any further.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sorry, what I am trying to get to is if that outcome on the day over a significant process in our election process is seen by the Autorisés - I have dealt with that - but the person does not agree with that, is there any redress after that the person can take because it could be a significant impact on our election. We have to think about these things when we think about democracy because it is such an important thing to get right.

The Solicitor General:

Well, if the Deputy is referring to a complaint which is so significant that it gives rise to a dispute about the outcome of an election, then that is amenable to review by the Royal Court under part 10 of the Elections Law: it is a case about a disputed public election or Parish election. If it really were the case that something had happened at a polling station which called into serious question the validity of the result, then the buck, as it were, would not stop with the Autorisé, it could be taken further to the Royal Court.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

One final point, would that include an individual that is volunteering to do that work? So if a complaint was made towards an individual.

The Solicitor General:

The law says Article 57: "Any person, whether or not a candidate in an election, may dispute a public election or Parish election by making application to the Royal Court, being an application on oath, setting out the grounds for the dispute and made before the end of the period of 12 months following the day that has been fixed for delivering returns to the Royal Court", so any person.

Deputy M. Tadier : A question?

The Deputy Bailiff : Yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Given the fact that in this instance the J.E.A. would be removed from the equation and it would be the Autorisé making a judgment on any complaints, is the fact that the Autorisé is a Jurat - so a Jurat is elected by an electoral college of both the Advocates and Members of this Assembly - could that be used as a motive for somebody who was not satisfied with the outcome of the judgment to then complain to the Royal Court because of course one of the potential candidates in that election could be somebody who has voted for the Jurat to have that particular position. Then it gets referred to the Royal Court where Jurats are also members of the Royal Court, so I am afraid it does get very feudal. Is that likely to be grounds for complaint and is that in fact why legally the J.E.A. was perhaps put in here to give some wiggle room to not compromise the role of perhaps Jurats in this whole process?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Solicitor General, is that a question you can respond to? The Solicitor General:

We are starting to stray into the realms of the speculative. [Interruption] Starting. The proposition, Article 5 is not about removing the role of the Jersey Electoral Authority, it is about in fact extending its remit. By removing it, or if Members vote against it, does not remove the remit of the J.E.A. as presently enacted, it simply means it will not be extended.

[10:00]

I am not sure for the purposes of this debate that it would be helpful for me to venture a highly- speculative answer to a highly-speculative question.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The next person to speak was Deputy Rob Ward . Do you want to speak now or later or not at all?

4. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, let us give it a go; thank you. I do not think this should be withdrawn, I think we should debate it and we should vote on it. I think we should debate it and we vote on it because there is a choice to be made. I am afraid that I always have concerns whenever we hear the phrase: "Well if it ain't broke, don't fix it." You do not need to improve it, it has not been a problem, so let us not go near it. With election processes you have to look at your processes and you have to look at them

consistently. It happens around the world. There is international best practice; this Assembly has ignored it recently by making a change within the year of an election. That is a fact, factual information for us, we have decided to ignore best practice around the world. Just to say "it ain't broke" I think is a very tenuous approach to what we are doing. We have a situation where we have a Jersey Electoral Authority which I think should oversee all aspects of the election process; it should be independent of the judiciary. It should be very clearly set out as to its terms of reference, it should be clearly set out in terms of its processes and what it can and cannot do, the ways in which you can make complaints and, also, which complaints will be ignored. We get it all the time. There were lots of complaints made about us, they were ignored by the commissioner because they are not proper complaints, they are just personal attacks sometimes. Now you need that process in place. This Article 5 is an enabling law to allow that to happen in the future, that is all it is. Article 5 says, yes, go away and work out and get the Jersey Electoral Authority its ability to deal with complaints in a constructive, independent, neutral way away from candidates, away from the Parish structures. Because there are Constable elections going on at the same time, there are other elections going on, and I think we need that credibility in that complaints system. It takes it away from an individual. Individuals, therefore, are exposed to review in their decision-making. There is nothing now that does not expose individuals or a volunteer in the election process if somebody makes a formal complaint and wants to take it further. What we do have is an immediate move, it seems, to a much higher authority than the Jersey Electoral Authority who could make a valued, independent judgment on these complaints. This is something that is needed, it is constructive, it is useful, and it is something we should not just be throwing out because of the pressures being put on. I have to say, I am afraid, that I am incredibly disappointed in the use of Standing Orders yesterday when a term of reference if that is the process we are going to have a terms of reference, fabulous; I look forward to using it myself. Sorry, a reference back. To say I have a reference back and then be given overnight so that we can receive emails with an argument for a reference back, that is not a process of a reference back I have ever seen before in this Assembly. I do not know if anyone else - and there are some very experienced Members of this Assembly - have ever seen the process used in that way. That has clouded this judgment we are making here, which will be a poor judgment just to remove it. We will forego our rights, our ability and our duty to make decisions on this because of, I think, a very misplaced use of a reference back.

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Can I ask a point of clarification?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well only if you are prepared to give way. Deputy R.J. Ward :

No, I have got to finish my speech; I will do it at the end. I am happy to but let me finish because I get thrown; I have now been thrown. So, the reference back I thought was used. We have got ourselves in a situation in this Assembly that we get ourselves into so many times. We are not going down rabbit holes, we have gone through an entire warren of rabbit holes here. We will end up there again and again and again and again because we take something that is simple, is clear and gives us a way forward and say: "Oh no, we cannot do that" for some dubious reasons which are raised constantly about it. Now if you do not like the way the Electoral Authority is working when it comes back, bring changes to the Electoral Authority to this Assembly. At the moment we will have nothing there in terms of complaints apart from something where we have said: "Oh, well there are no complaints and they are dealt with very easily", so something that should not be a problem has suddenly become a problem. I am afraid I think it is fundamentally wrong to make judgments, particularly legal advice, on the notion of a Pandora's box, something that is created, a straw person to be stood there to go and argue with. It does not exist. Just because we think it does not happen

does not mean it is there. I think we have got ourselves in a really poor position here. I think the best thing that we can do is debate this, vote on it. If it is rejected at least we go out to the electorate and say: "We made this decision on Article 5, we do not want you to have your complaints go to the Jersey Electoral Authority. We are happy to have an individual judge on them" and then that is the end of it. That is as far as your complaints can go; if you do not like it, move on. I urge people to reject the removal of Article 5 today. Let us debate it and let us go through it properly because this is not the correct way, I believe, to proceed with this process.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Scott , your point of clarification?

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Yes, please. I just wanted the Deputy to clarify his understanding in terms of the history or the novelty of the reference back. Because earlier in this States sitting we debated P.27/2025 regarding the Draft Elections (Electoral Registers) Law. That was referred back to the P.P.C. in the context of the proposal that was in it regarding the actual availability of registers and the people on it. Then the P.P.C. considered it and brought an amendment, so is it that different?

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think a point of clarification needs to be limited to seeking clarification of what a Member said. Deputy M.R. Scott :

I just want to clarify if really this reference back I was considering was that different.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, I do believe it is fundamentally different because the previous reference back was dealt with on the same day at the time because the person referring back had a very clear idea in their head before they put their button on to say: "I would like to reference back" as to what that reference back was. Whereas the reference back yesterday seemed to stop and be given overnight to decide on what the reference back would be. That is why I think it was a fundamentally different application of our Standing Orders and I am very disappointed in it.

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Another point of clarification. Does the Deputy not recall I said I was willing to give the details at the time?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well I believe what you have said, Deputy , I do not think this is

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Well can I just say, I do remember that but it did not happen, and it is about reality in this Assembly.

5. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

I too am going to speak against the withdrawal of this because I think that the reasons advanced for withdrawing this cannot be remedied by a reference back. The reasons advanced are so fundamental that they are not amenable to a little compromise, they are a fundamental

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Sorry, Sir

Deputy J. Renouf :

I am not going to accept a point of intervention.

Deputy M.R. Scott :

Okay, but it is not a reference back. Deputy J. Renouf :

We are debating whether this is withdrawn and, if it is withdrawn, then the consequence of it will be that it will go back to P.P.C. to bring forward further proposals in the future. It may not be a reference back; it has the same effect. It will be for the P.P.C. to bring those proposals forward. I am not going to take further points of intervention. Those points are fundamental. They are about whether or not the J.E.A. is involved in this process. The logical response, it seems to me, for people who do not want that is to vote against it, which we can do today. We can move to that today. I do think that Members need to think very carefully about what they are considering here because, as the Solicitor General has made clear, there is already a process in place to involve the J.E.A. in complaints. That is accessible to candidates and candidates only. What we are saying if we do not pass Article 5 is that is what is good enough for us as candidates, we are going to deny to members of the public. When members of the public come to us and say: "We wanted to complain" we will be saying: "Well, tough, because we voted not to let you complain using that process which was good enough for us. Good enough for us, we are happy with it. We have been using it already, it has already been in place, but we are not going to extend it to you, members of the public. You can use an old-fashioned process that is already in existence" and so on. I do not think that this Assembly should be going down that route. I think we should be voting now, very clearly, in the knowledge of the issues. This proposition was first lodged at the beginning of April. Members have had 2½ months, more than 2½ months, to examine all the implications of it and some Members have. Comité des Connétable s has brought amendments to it, detailed amendments. Deputy Jeune brought an amendment to it. The Assembly referred it back once to Corporate Services. Corporate Services have looked at it. Members have had ample opportunity to ask questions. The Assembly raised a great big flag saying: "Look more closely at this proposition" when it referenced it back. If Members wished to raise issues around Article 5 they have had huge amounts of time available to do so. Our job is to come to this Assembly prepared. If Members had problems with that, then they should have raised them. They could have spoken to the chair of P.P.C., they could have sought clarification elsewhere, they could have brought amendments to this. So I think we have had ample time to discuss this, we have had ample time to look at it. We are in danger of denying to the members of the public, some in my view we should support. We should accept Article 5 but Members may disagree; that is fine. In my view, we should move to the vote to vote on Article 5, make the decision now. The issues are simple, they are not going to be resolved by further consideration by P.P.C. because you cannot resolve the fundamental issue by further tinkering. It is a basic point which everybody can see and vote on now, there is no further clarification of that necessary. I think we should move ahead. We should accept that the issues are clear, that the issues that were raised by Deputy Bailhache and amplified by the Solicitor General were basically political objections to a change in the process that may or may not have validity. Members are entirely entitled to their own opinions on those but we should vote on them now and not waste any further time on this. If this goes back, we will still be debating it in September or October and that is just ridiculous.

6. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

Well, I perhaps am going against the tide and I support the chair of P.P.C.'s wish to seek leave of the Assembly to withdraw Article 5. Members will recall yesterday in moving the Article, one of the things that the chair said was that people would be able to complain about what was said at hustings as part of this potential process. The reason I raise that is because one of my colleagues this morning has made a most outrageous contribution to this Assembly talking about "constitutional nonsense". The reality is that at a hustings candidates can articulate their platform. We may not agree with it but I fundamentally disagree that a Member of this Assembly would stand up and say that a legitimate in-principle decision of this Assembly, approved by the majority, should be submitted to either the

Ministry of Justice or the Privy Council to have it overturned. That to my mind is a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional position. I, for one, will not stand for it, particularly when of course we are going to argue about the role of Senator; of course we are. To some extent the Deputy was playing to the crowd which is no longer there [Laughter] but the Senatorial office can only be described as the most democratic office. It is a constitutional nonsense to suggest that it shows we cannot govern ourselves and that the U.K. should intervene in something that has been democratically decided by this Assembly of democratically-elected Members.

[10:15]

The Deputy that made that assertion, and his party, that could be their legitimate position in their manifesto, they could espouse such matters from a hustings. Should people be able to complain about that to the J.E.A. or is that legitimate political dialogue? I absolutely accept that there needs to be an improved process for dealing with complaints. We currently have a limited complaint process where candidates complain about other candidates but, as other contributors said yesterday, particularly Deputy Bailhache , it would not be like for like. In regard to complaints between candidates there are regulations moved in this Assembly; that is how it should be dealt with. What is being currently proposed here would mean that it was a different process for other complaints. That to me seems to be at best confusing and inherently unfair. I do think it is right that P.P.C. are allowed to withdraw Article 5 to consider what complaints process might be required. It might be that they arrive at the very eminent common-sense approach which has made this Island what it is that "if it ain't broke, don't bother fixing it". We seem to have moved into a world of "even if it is not broke, we will bring in some legislation and try to do something differently" and we have got to guard against that. We could very easily, by accepting this, I think, bring the whole electoral process into disrepute. P.P.C. have said they would like to give it more thought, they will do some more work on it and bring it back. I think they should be supported in that process to take it back and to give it further consideration because of all of the issues which other Members have referred to, not least of which the Solicitor General.

7. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

If I can just draw Members' attention to a comment from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, page 7, paragraph 36, which is very helpful and basically suggests that the panel is concerned about the process and urges the P.P.C. to look into it, which is what the chair is proposing. Before sitting down I would reinforce the point that we must look after our asseoirs, the helpers in the elections, they are exceedingly important. I will be supporting the P.P.C. proposal.

The Deputy Bailiff :

If no other Member wishes to speak, I call upon the chair of P.P.C. to reply.

8. The Connétable of St. Martin :

I would like to thank everyone for speaking. I would just like to add that I do believe that the reference back should have been debated during the sitting yesterday and then we would not be where we are today. I was told that it was a knee-jerk reaction. It is absolutely not a knee-jerk reaction nor a capitulation but it is more of a pragmatic response. The issues raised by Deputy Bailhache are valid and there would need to be an amendment to the legislation to remedy them. The J.E.A. has only just been re-established and it is only right that the chair and members of that body have an opportunity to have a part in the discussions which will ultimately dictate the parameters of their work. I am very for a level playing field, that the public and those of us elected, or standing for election, should all have the same rights to the complaints. At the moment the way Article 5 stands that is not the case and so I would ask Members to allow P.P.C. to withdraw this.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the appel called for? The appel has been called for. I invite Members to return to their seats.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just confirm what the vote is for? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, it is whether or not P.P.C. have leave of the Assembly to withdraw Article 5 of the draft law. I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce the proposition has been adopted.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now resume the debate on Articles 6 to 17 inclusive in Second Reading. Does any other Member wish to speak on those Articles?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think I did put my light on yesterday.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, you did.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

But I am glad to have had a little bit of a break and to have some clarity about where we are going. There is no reference back and that is helpful. No Article 5; that is also helpful. I want to start my observations talking about inclusion in the electoral process and how we perhaps cater or do not cater for inclusion. I was at a B.I.M.R. (British Islands and Mediterranean Region) conference recently with the Constable of St. Brelade and Deputy Doublet . There was a lot of ground covered but one of the key things for me was around disability. Something that struck me was the fact that, the correct name I think is one of the labels, if you like, that we use is to talk about disabled people. The speaker said that it is correct to call them disabled but they are not disabled by their afflictions or rather their impairments, they are disabled by society and what society does not allow them to do. I would like to apply that kind of critical thinking to our electoral processes. One of the questions I would have for the chair of P.P.C. when it comes to the ballot papers that we talk about in these Articles and how they are issued is how do we ensure the secrecy and privacy of the ballot box for blind people? For example, it may well be that you say: "Well of course a blind person would be expected to get a postal vote to be able to vote at home" but then again the question arises, how do we ensure the secrecy of the ballot for those individuals? I think the secrecy of the ballot is something that many of us take for granted. I think many in our community would even say it is sacrosanct. The ability to be able to vote without anybody else knowing how you voted is something, as I say, that we all take for granted. I would first of all question P.P.C. - and perhaps the chair can come up with the answer in the summing up or at least agree to give it consideration - if, as a blind person, you were to turn up to any polling station, would you be given a ballot paper with braille on it if you were able to read braille? If not, why not? These are the kind of questions that we should be thinking about. We are at least 10 years on now from our Discrimination Law, yet if we are not leading by example in this, then we have to think about those things. Are all polling stations accessible and does the person who wants to vote with a disability have to go out of their way to make the point that they need some kind of assistance? I think these are things that we need to think about. How are complaints made by those disabled people now? If they want to make a complaint about the electoral process, is that still going to be covered? The second point is perhaps slightly more rarified but I think something that needs to be given consideration is that when a new candidate is elected, if they are neither of a Christian faith nor are they an atheist or a humanist, what option do they have when they take the oath of office? In the U.K. in the House of Commons the process is that the clerk will ask whether you want to swear an oath or to affirm, which is of course what we want to do. Then if you do want to swear, you will be asked which holy book you wish to swear on. I do not know what would happen in Jersey if a Muslim or a Sikh or a Hindu, the list could go on, or anyone else, was elected, would we simply say to that person: "It is the Bible or nothing else. You have to take an affirmation"? It seems to me that those kind of considerations which are also considerations for the Royal Court of course because you have your own people that you swear in for different reasons. In the 21st century in 2025, when we have just celebrated Pride this week, is it only the Bible or is it only basically a non-religious affirmation? While we are on that point, could I ask for consideration to be given - whether it arises from these Articles - about the swearing-in process? Why do elected States Members who are elected to this Assembly, to this Parliament, have to swear an oath of office in the Royal Court which has absolutely nothing to do with this Assembly? It would make just as much sense for Jurats to have to take their oath of office in this Assembly, as it would for newly- elected States Members to take an oath in the Royal Court. It does not say much for the separation of powers in Jersey. I will make those points about perhaps modernisation and inclusion, whether or not they go down well and fall on I was going to say "deaf ears" but that would not be entirely appropriate, given the context of my speech earlier. I would like to turn my attention to the role of the Jersey Electoral Authority now perhaps in co-ordinating elections. The choice I think that we

were faced with is that it should be the Jersey Electoral Authority who organise hustings - did I say "hustings" earlier rather than elections? - and not the candidate. Now the reality is, certainly in some elections, it is theoretically the candidates who would arrange the hustings for themselves. Certainly in the Senatorial elections - and if we have Senatorial elections coming back - I think that is perhaps where the most consideration of organisation of hustings, how many hustings in particular, needs to be given real consideration because the only time that I stood for Senator was back in 2008. The nomination evening was Tuesday, 16th September at the Town Hall . There were 21 candidates and then when all the nominations had been made, it was said that the candidates had to choose where the hustings would be. But, as if by magic, the chair of the Comité des Connétable s - it was Connétable Vibert at the time from St. Ouen - pulls out a little piece of paper from his pocket and says: "But if it is helpful, these are all the dates from the Parish Hall s when the Parish Hall s are available and would the candidates like to do this?" There was some discussion but the majority basically went in favour of the prescribed list and the pre-booked dates for all of the Parish Hall s. Now I would hope that if we do have Senators back - and it is by no means a given, there is still time for Members to change their mind and see the light - that certainly there should not be 12 hustings plus another 3 perhaps, one for the Chamber of Commerce, one for the R.J.A. and H.S. (Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society) and one wherever we might get pulled in, or they might get pulled in, I should say; that was not a Freudian slip. It should be maybe done in a more sensible way. If it is for the Jersey Electoral Authority to decide when and how the hustings take place I think first of all. They should probably think about streamlining the process, think about how many people turn up to hustings, think about how big the Island is. If it is truly an Island-wide vote then you do not need to have each one in each Parish. So it may well be that the Electoral Authority think: "We will have one in the west", it is a very good school, by the way, around Les Quennevais, "one in the east and one in the centre somewhere." I think that is probably perfectly sufficient. The Senatorial candidates, there will probably be quite a few of them, can spend their time perhaps engaging in other novel ways; I am sure they will have their time stretched anyway in that process. Changes to the ballot paper. This is just a small remark and I do not think it is one that is necessarily fundamental but it is just an observation. I have some comment to make and perhaps some reservations on the changing of the name of a "spoilt" paper to a "cancelled" paper.

[10:30]

The reason for that is I think it changes the emphasis and the way that we look at the purpose of what is still a spoilt paper. I think it is entirely possible of course that spoilt papers may end up in the ballot box because somebody has made a mistake on the ballot paper. Usually a spoilt paper could be considered a form of protest. It is where somebody goes down, rather than casting a vote for the candidates that are available, for whatever reason, they may wish to make a protest. It is an opportunity to explore some of their best artwork or graffiti or poetry that they may wish to write on the ballot paper; therefore, it is called a spoilt ballot paper. I think that in changing the word to "cancelled" it perhaps just makes it quite bland. I think perhaps a better word would have been "void" because - let me get back to the point - a spoilt paper is an active effort that the voter has taken. A cancelled paper is what happens to a spoilt paper, so it gets cancelled.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , the word chosen in the draft law is "annulled". Deputy M. Tadier :

Annulled. I just heard "cancelled" earlier but annulled, thank you, Sir. So annulled is the same as cancelled, so the same point applies; it has been annulled. I would have probably preferred the word "void" because you can void your paper and then a paper can become void because it has been spoilt but I am not going to necessarily ask for that to be taken separately. It is just an observation about how perhaps language matters and how the perception might change because I think protest is an

important part of the democratic process as well. I think that the reason the J.E.A. is going to have such an important job in the next election is that there are likely to be many more complaints, not necessarily about conduct during hustings, but things like posters. We know that posters were creating a massive problem for candidates. It was really difficult to know where posters should go. Unlike in Europe where there are designated areas to be able to put up posters, they are often put up for you and that there is a formula whereby a guaranteed exposure and a fairness is included. In Jersey it is very much a free-for-all. We are going to see, not just this time Deputies' posters and Constables' posters being put up, but Senators' posters will be put up as well. There could be 20 Senatorial candidates standing for the 9 seats, maybe even more. There is going to be an awful lot of clutter, and I think serious consideration needs to be given to dealing with that in a democratic society, a society which is increasingly used in digital forum. The Tourism industry in Jersey recently got rid of its visitors centre because it said that people did not want to have drop-in and they were not valuing paper leaflets anymore. Clearly, they have had to go back on that but there is some debate to be had about to what extent posters, not least because of the environmental impact that they have, should be featuring in an election in the 21st century. I personally would favour probably a ban on posters but that is perhaps more extreme. There is of course the counterargument that it would hinder new candidates who perhaps need to get their faces out there and more well known. I will leave those thoughts, perhaps not necessarily for the chair of the P.P.C., but for the chair of the J.E.A. With those comments, I will sit down.

1. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John :

I generally welcome these changes and in particular the review of polling stations. This is a subject that I have written about, and we have spoken about many times in this Assembly. There are many improvement opportunities in this respect. For example, hopefully a polling station will be placed in the La Mare area of St. Clement , something I know the Constable of St. Clement has also been keen to see. In answer to Deputy Tadier 's question about accessibility of polling stations, I believe that all polling stations were audited before the last general election to ensure accessibility and, in some cases, significant investment was made to ensure compliance. The proposal is for the J.E.A., in consultation with the Autorisé, to decide on location of polling stations. I would ask my colleague the chair of P.P.C. to confirm that the electoral administrators will also be included in these discussions. It is the electoral administrators, in many cases, who possess a lot of experience around elections and, importantly, local knowledge. These people are also tasked with recruiting volunteers for polling day. I would also ask for clarification on the hustings. In terms of the hustings, in my experience candidates can never win an election at a hustings but, again, my experience tells me that candidates can lose an election at a hustings. Three years after the last Deputies' hustings in St. John people still laugh about the candidate who said the new hospital will be free: "I tell you, free" and people still laugh about that today. I presume the pre-selected dates are for the filmed hustings and that there will be no constraint on candidates to hold additional meetings if candidates agree to them. Also, if interest groups want to invite candidates to speak on specific subjects at a hustings, as they have in the past, then they will be free to do so. It is all of our responsibilities to encourage participations in an election. Hustings should be encouraged as part of that engagement. In terms of postal votes, we have in this debate been reminded that many Islanders participate in overseas elections. Often this is done through postal voting. There appears to be a nervousness in Jersey around postal voting. The public needs to be encouraged to do this early. The recent election in Guernsey allowed members of the public, if they had missed the postal deadline, to drop off their completed postal votes right up until the polls closed at 8.00 p.m. on election day at Frossard House. Currently, our postal votes are low, despite the changes made in 2021: just 6 per cent of electors in St. John who participated in 2022 compared to around 18 per cent in the U.K. In Guernsey it was reported that around 9,000 Islanders had opted for a postal vote; that is approximately a third of their electorate and around half of those who exercised their right, or should I say duty, to vote. They did so by postal vote. I would also encourage P.P.C. to look at how we can further promote postal voting

as part of the engagement piece and perhaps give clear instructions to candidates as to what they can and cannot do in relation to this. I mentioned the Guernsey election. In that recent election some 12 per cent of Guernsey voters took advantage of pre-polling and, again, in St. John it was just 4 per cent in 2022. I think this is an area that P.P.C. can also promote around engagement. While I have asked these questions, I would like to thank the P.P.C. for taking on board the feedback from the last time we debated this subject, and I will be supporting their proposals.

2. Deputy J. Renouf :

I just want to make a small point because I think it is worth remembering that the substantial thrust of these proposals that remain, and indeed the one that we have removed, for P.P.C. to consider further is to give more power to the Jersey Electoral Authority. I want to make it very clear that I am completely in favour of that move, that this represents a significant professionalisation, if you like, of the process. I think that we should be profoundly grateful for the work that the Jersey Electoral Authority did around the previous election. They made clear and sensible points about that election which are reflected in some of these recommendations. I think the views that have been expressed that express nervousness around, for example, the fact that we would be giving the J.E.A. the right to set guidance and so on, do not cause me the concern that this seems to cause other people. I would expect guidance and the work that they do in collaboration with the electoral authorities in each Parish, which is mandated in the question around where the polling stations are, and so on, that these people who put themselves forward for these roles in my experience are exceptionally committed, they are very responsible, they care deeply about their roles and they have a vested interest in ensuring that the recommendations they make, the decisions that they come to, the guidance that they issue are sensible because they are the ones who are going to live with the consequences if they are not. They are the ones who will have to deal with the complaints and so on, should we eventually get to that stage, which I hope we do. I would simply draw attention to that fact. The consequence of this passing is that we do have a more significant role for the J.E.A. I think that is to be welcomed, notwithstanding the fact that of course they need to co-operate with the existing structures that are in place. I welcome these changes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

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

3. The Connétable of St. Martin :

I thank everybody who has spoken. I have made notes so forgive me if they are not all in order. I would just like to start by saying that I am really grateful to the J.E.A. We have got an absolutely excellent chair and members of that committee are very well qualified to carry out their roles and they are very responsible and committed individuals. I would like to assure my colleague that P.P.C. will be promoting postal voting and pre-poll voting. It has been the tenet of my chairmanship that we have got the A.V.R. (automatic voter registration) in, we have got Sunday voting in, and I really want to get people out voting, so we will be doing everything we can to promote these things. As for postal voting, there is a date stated but there is discretion; there will be discretion for the receiving of postal votes. I would also like to say, the J.E.A. will be responsible for arranging the hustings, and that was done to try and help Members, not hinder Members. Hustings are incredibly important. It was just that some of us - well most of us, all of us - were pulled in all sorts of directions at last one and we could not be in 3, 4 places at once. There will not be a ban on having extra hustings, I would like to assure people of that. I do not know but I will look into what happens if somebody is blind and they are voting. As Connétable Jehan said, Parishes and the authorities, we do take disability access very, very seriously, and all the Parishes were audited, had a disability audit before the last election. In my own Parish we then set up a disability and inclusion fund. We had a special ramp built, which we have stored for the next year. We have got special voting booths and we all try to

enhance things even more. Bearing in mind that the elections will be on a Sunday next year, schools will probably be utilised where a lot of disability and inclusion is taken into consideration. The oath of office, I am not certain, I will look at the Deputy Bailiff for this but I do believe it already happens. If you are non-religious you can take an affirmation oath in the

Deputy M. Tadier :

So a clarification, would the chair give way? The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is just to say it is not a question of whether you can affirm or take an oath on the Bible, it is the fact that you cannot take an oath on a different religious book. If you are Muslim, you would have to affirm rather than swear on the Bible. I think consideration needs to be given to being able to vote on a different book. Not vote, swear, sorry.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes, this is something that I think had not been brought up with P.P.C. before but it is something that P.P.C. can look at. Electoral administrators will be included in discussions. It would be rather foolish to leave them out because I agree they do have a lot of knowledge, they do have an ongoing role, they have been discussing it. I think I have answered everybody's questions. It has been a very good discussion. Thank you, all, very much.

Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :

A point of clarification?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, do you give way for a point of clarification?

The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes, I do.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

If the chair can indicate if the new people will be appointed or any change in the membership. The Connétable of St. Martin :

We have already got a new committee constituted, so they have had their first meeting. It came to the States. If you look it up they

The Deputy Bailiff :

Through the Chair. If the Member looks it up. The Connétable of St. Martin :

Through the Chair, sorry. If the Deputy would like to look up the composition of the J.E.A., they are an excellent group of chair and members; they have had one meeting already. I hope that Members will support these administrative changes to the Elections Law and I call for the appel. Thank you.

[10:45]

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return their seats. We are considering the adoption of Articles 6 to 17 inclusive in Second Reading, and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the Articles 6 to 17 have been adopted unanimously in Second Reading.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Chair, we now turn to the balance of the Articles, Articles 18 to 30, do you propose them en bloc? The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes, Sir. I propose the law in Third Reading. I wish to place

The Deputy Bailiff :

We are not in Third Reading.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

Oh sorry, no we are not.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, it is the balance of the Articles.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

The balance of the Articles, yes. Sorry, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The balance of the Articles, Articles 18 to 30 inclusive. Do you propose those Articles?

3. The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes, please; I propose them en bloc.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you want to make any remarks in support of those Articles?

The Connétable of St. Martin :

I would just be very grateful if everybody would support these Articles. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are Articles 18 to 30 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 18 to 30 of the Draft Law?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I am sorry no, I am not sorry, I should be speaking [Laughter] because I think recently with all these numbers, it is not going to stop me speaking. I am a bit concerned over the postal vote. I do not think it should be 3 days before the poll that postal votes are accepted. I think any given practice should be on the closing of the poll on that day. I have seen a number of elections around the world, I have seen this happen, it is certainly possible in much, much, much larger jurisdictions like the U.S. (United States) who have accepted postal votes on the day and then do not open until on the day. The argument is that postal votes should not be counted until the day. There is no reason, therefore, to have postal votes having to arrive 3 days beforehand unless they are going to be counted beforehand, which I do not think is good practice, personally, for an election. Therefore, they need to be accepted right up until the end of the close of poll on polling day, in my view. I am afraid I would ask for Article 20 to be taken separately, which is no later than the day, if possible, even if it is my own little protest vote. I do want to make the point that I am very keen on observing elections around the world. My name is on a report that is about to go out on one of them and I cannot stand here and say that I think it is the right thing to have 3 days before a poll when I firmly do not believe that is the case, so just that.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You seek a separate vote on Article 44, Deputy Rob Ward ? Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Which is your right.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Article 20 not 44.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am sorry, Article 20, which amends Article 44.

2. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

I just wanted to stand to support Deputy Rob Ward 's proposal, also because I think that this is concerning. I understand that it was probably put in because of the Sunday vote but I believe there is post received on a Saturday. I would be worried that this really does put restrictions on being able to receive the postal votes. I also would be supportive of that.

3. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin :

I, too, want to stand up and support the sentiments. I was a little bit surprised that chair of P.P.C. did not reference the speech of the Constable of St. John , given that he spoke about the Guernsey postal vote situation. I do understand that our election will be on a Sunday, it is going to make postal vote delivery a challenge; in fact, postal vote delivery on the Saturday might be a challenge. We need to look at this to make sure that as many people who want to vote by post can do so and get their votes registered. We need to accept at the same time that the change of a voting general election date to a Sunday is going to give us some challenges as to how this is done. We do seem to be going from noon on polling day to 3 days before. That is a big change and I would like P.P.C. to go away and have a look to see whether they can improve on that. I think we might need to accept that accepting postal votes on the election day, if it is a Sunday, could prove to be a problem.

4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

I wanted to thank Deputy Ward for raising this; I believe Deputy Tadier mentioned in his speech about people with disabilities being able to access voting. Indeed, Islanders who want to access postal voting, for some people it will be convenience, but for many Islanders it will be those who have disabilities or who are caring for people. I think we risk disenfranchising people and it is putting additional barriers in. I am also going to vote against Article 20. I would urge the Assembly to do so because, having reflected on some of the previous speeches, I find myself feeling quite strongly about this, that we should be able to accept those postal votes on the day. If there is a Minister in the Assembly who has responsibility for communicating with Jersey Post on this because other times of the year they do operate outside their normal days. Given the importance of a democratic election, there might be something that could be done there. I do not know if there are any Ministers present who can comment on that before we go to the vote.

5. The Connétable of St. John :

I do not have responsibility but I can speak with a little bit of knowledge. It would be far too costly to operate a postal service on a Sunday just for an election. It would be possible for the public, if they have missed the postal vote through the postal service, to use Union Street as a receptacle for postal votes, just as I mentioned in my earlier speech that Frossard House is used in Guernsey. You can go to the polling station with some identity and hand in your postal vote if you have missed the vote. I would also urge Members to reject this change. I think it is not a good way of encouraging people to vote, I think it is a way of putting people off. We should be making it easier, not harder, and I would encourage colleagues to reject this item.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

Also on the subject of postal voting, I would like clarity, first of all, from the Solicitor General, if possible, and if not from the chair of P.P.C., as to what the consequences of withdrawing Article 20 - not withdrawing it but not voting for it - would be. Would that leave some kind of lacuna or would it simply mean that a new process would have to be in place? While I share the general concerns about a deadline, if we look at the wording of Article 20 as proposed, it is saying that: "No later than noon on the day of the poll there is substituted before the end of the third working day before the day of the poll." Can I just clarify that is for the arrival of the postal vote, so the postal vote must reach where it has got to get to before the end of the third working day before the day of the poll? If my maths is correct, the third working day before the end of the poll, if we take Wednesday, Thursday, Friday as the working days, not Saturday and Sunday, it has got to arrive by the end of Wednesday, is that correct? It seems like a lot of time is being put there, the logical thing would at least be to make it the Friday, the last working day before the poll. I would also make the point that Saturday and Sunday in terms of the election are working days because there will be people working on the elections and Sunday there will be staff around. It does seem like a complete mess, this Article. It does not make sense by any stretch of the imagination. I apologise if I have misinterpreted that, but I presume I am correct in saying it is the arrival of the ballot paper, not the last date of which the ballot papers can be sent out. I do have concerns though about members of the public being able to drop a ballot paper in, a postal ballot themselves or giving it to somebody, delivering it to a government building. That seems potentially wholly inappropriate. The reason we trust Jersey Post is because they have set confidentiality and very professional standards that they have to adhere to. I do not know if we were to how do we know if you give your postal ballot to somebody else: "Can you drop that in for me?" that seems very problematic that it might not be tampered with. We know postal voting is one of the areas that needs to be very secure and it is one of the areas which often most suspicion is directed towards in terms of potential for voter fraud. I think I would need some serious clarification on what the process is for receiving those. At the moment, like those who have already spoken, I cannot support Article 20. I think that is a much bigger problem that would have merited a reference back than some of the others that we have heard about.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , do you want to ask the Solicitor now about the consequence of the Assembly rejecting Article 20?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Please; thank you for the reminder. The Solicitor General:

Well the procedure will remain as it is at present under the Elections Law for postal voting, which involves sending your postal vote in a pre-marked envelope provided by the judicial Greffier to the Judicial Greffier's address by no later than noon. It must be received, forgive me, no later than noon on the day of the poll, so that would be the position that would remain.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

May I just explore a bit further the comment from the Solicitor General by asking for the interpretation of postal? Does "postal" mean delivered by Jersey Post or can it encompass a person putting it in a letterbox at a predetermined place?

The Solicitor General:

I do not think that is defined but to give the statute its purpose of interpretation, if you delivered it as an elector by hand through the letterbox that would fit the bill.

The Deputy Bailiff :

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

7. The Connétable of St. Martin :

I am happy to take Article 20 separately. I would just like to say that if you are really late with your postal vote and you were thinking of handing it in on the day of the election, you can take your postal vote with you to the polling station. But you would have to vote with your postal vote, if that makes sense, and not as a vote in case you are perceived to be voting twice. But, yes, I am happy to take Article 20 separately.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, chair, in terms of voting, would you like the Assembly to consider 18 and 19 first and then Article 20 and then Articles 21 to 30?

The Connétable of St. Martin : Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The first voting will be on Articles 18 and 19 only. Then we will have a separate vote on the postal voting amendment Article 20. The first vote is on Articles 18 and 19 only and I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier to open the voting on Articles 18 and 19. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Articles 18 and 19 have been adopted unanimously.

I move on to a separate vote on Article 20, it proposes an amendment in respect of postal voting. I invite the Greffier to open the voting. It is Article 20, yes.

[11:00]

If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that Article 20 has been rejected.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those Members voting pour: the Connétable s of St. Helier , St. Lawrence , St. Brelade , St. Peter , St. Martin , Grouville and St. Ouen and Deputy Bailhache .

The Deputy Bailiff :

I move on to Articles 21 to 30 and I ask the Greffier to open the voting on Articles 21 to 30. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the balance of the Articles have been adopted unanimously.

Chair, do you wish to propose the draft law in Third Reading?

4. The Connétable of St. Martin :

Yes, please, Sir. I would like to thank all Members again and I propose the law in Third Reading. I wish to place on record P.P.C.'s gratitude to the 22 election observers, former Jersey Electoral Authority and Parish administrators, for the recommendations they made following the last elections and hope that the amendments we have chosen to bring forward will enhance the existing electoral process. Thank you. I ask the Members to adopt this law in Third Reading and I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the matter seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

A few points I want to make which are very important about our electoral process. I mentioned before about opening up electoral polling stations. We need to encourage young people to vote. We are incredibly progressive on this Island by having 16 year-olds being able to vote. We need to promote that and we need to make sure that young people are encouraged to vote because it is their future they are voting for. One way to do this is through our pre-polls right in the centre of where those young people go every day. Because we have a concentration of 16- and-above year-olds in one area of our Island around Highlands and the top there, which is a 5-minute walk from every other

institution where most people can vote at that age. I think a pre-poll there would be an extremely good idea. I will do everything I can, as Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, to enable that. Whoever is arranging polling stations, please read this part of the Hansard. The next thing is to ensure access to polling stations, I think, is in every single electoral report around the world. It is always reported on and I think it is something we need to take very, very seriously. There are lots of ways to mitigate sight impairment, hearing impairment, physical impairment, also issues around religious belief. In the U.K., when I observed their elections, there were private areas for those who wore the veil to vote, for example, and that was about inclusivity and accessibility to the vote. We need to be considering those important things as well. The final couple of things, and I am trying to go as fast as I can, this is a really important point for us in terms of postal ballots. I just want to ensure that postal ballots are counted at the same time as other ballots; that is good practice. We should not be encouraging postal ballots before the ballot is finished. They can be influential in the outcome of the ballot and that has been an issue for many jurisdictions around the world as to how those ballots are handled. The final thing as well, we probably do not do that and that is great, but I just want to reiterate that. But I want to make the point as well that whatever change we have to make, be that an extra delivery by Jersey Post on a Saturday or Sunday of envelopes that are clearly election envelopes because they are easily found, to how we staff polling stations, it is not about convenience to do it, and I recognise the hard work that people put into polling day to enable our democracy; they are very important people. But this is about the promotion of a democratic system that everyone has access to. We have a history of fighting for that democracy, therefore, we have to keep it here. It cannot be the convenience of anybody. The only convenience can be that we have a democratic right that can be shown very, very clearly. I support all of these in Third Reading and just with those points to make.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, got to keep the word count up. I will not be long. I said to a colleague that we will look back on this in a few years' time when electronic voting is the norm and think how much of a waste of time a lot of what we have been debating here today is. Because we are debating the intricacies and vagaries of a very cumbersome paper-based analogue system. We may well look back on it but members of the public are looking at us now thinking, it is the 21st century, it is 2025. I can pick up my phone, I can go to my banking app, press a button and it already knows from my face who I am and I can transfer. I cannot but, theoretically, somebody could transfer tens of thousands or millions of pounds, potentially, with just an examination no, I am saying hypothetically. I could not but I am sure there are Members in the Assembly who could do that. The system is perfectly secure, let us not pretend about that. At what point do we have a P.P.C. or at what point do we have an Assembly that says we will make it our goal to bring this democracy into the 20th century but, no .. let us say the 21st century. Let us be fair and aspire to just allow people to vote with the press of a button or, yes, press of a screen because that is how simple it can be. The actual mechanisms of why people do not vote are of course complex but technology should not be one of them. We cannot simply have the answer given that it is not secure enough. Jersey is an international finance centre and we know that online banking, as I have said, other things are done perfectly securely. It is now time for this Assembly to take up the challenge and a future Assembly, to take up the challenge of electronic voting which will render a lot of these amendments redundant in the future. That said, I do also acknowledge the work that is being done by this P.P.C., and it is not an easy job. I know in the future whichever P.P.C., whichever iteration is in place, will have some tough decisions to make. But if we always keep in mind the accessibility of the vote and improving our system, I think that P.P.C. will not go far wrong.

3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I just wanted to pick up on what the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning said. It absolutely is incumbent upon us to encourage the younger generation to be aware of politics and to take part in

decision-making by casting their vote. I remember, I think, when Deputy Labey brought the proposition to allow voting at the age of 16, how proud I was that she had done that and how proud I felt to be able to vote for that at the time to encourage our young people to be aware and to participate. Of course the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning will be aware that when the elections were held on a normal weekday I think probably every Parish Hall had a visit from children from their local primary school. Certainly in St. Lawrence we welcomed members of St. Lawrence Primary School. They rocked up from next door, some of them were there very early to see the ballot box being checked and sealed. They were aware from the outset of what was happening. They watched the electors coming in, giving their names, being identified, receiving their papers, et cetera, and then going to vote. Of course now with the election being on a Sunday we will not have that happening because the schools will be closed. I think it is incumbent upon us to encourage families to come to the polling station, rather than just the electors themselves. Of course we do see parents coming with their children, with their younger children during the day on a normal weekday when we voted on the Wednesdays. I think if we can just encourage families to come now. Let us make it a family event. We have tried to encourage people to turn out because it is on a Sunday. Hopefully, the weather will not stop them from coming out on 7th June next year but I think it is incumbent upon us all to encourage everyone to participate by bringing their children, particularly, I think, primary schoolchildren with them to vote next year.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading? I call upon the Chair to reply.

4. The Connétable of St. Martin :

Thank you, again, to everybody who has spoken. I am sorry to disappoint Deputy Tadier but it was one of my dearest wishes and ambitions to get electronic voting for 2026. We have looked into it but it is not secure enough. It has to be absolutely ironclad and not be vulnerable to cyberattacks or malware or whatever. We have really looked into it. It is very costly but then the ease of access if you could get a good system would counteract the cost of it. I might be a bit of a luddite myself but for over 30 years - I have never mentioned my husband in this Assembly before - but he is an absolute genius with computing. He really is highly thought of and highly skilled. Not only have I discussed it with the committee but the thought of having electronic voting here was one of my ambitions for this Assembly. I am really sorry that we could not do it but it is just not secure. To Deputy Ward , the fact that it has been mentioned before, we hopefully will be using schools as polling stations. As has been said before, young people are used to schools, they are not so used to Parish Hall s or community centres or whatever. Hopefully, they will be more than happy to go and vote on a Sunday. As the Constable of St. Lawrence said, we are hoping that it might be a bit of a family day out. When you are on your way to the beach, if it is a really hot day, or you are away to wherever you are going or on your way out of church or whatever, on a Sunday we hope that people will come out and vote. I have made some other notes but I cannot read them. I would just like to thank Members for their forbearance, it has been a very long sitting getting all these Articles and the A.V.R. through. I would like to thank all the Members for their forbearance and I would ask Members to adopt this law in Third Reading. I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting in Third Reading. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the law has been adopted unanimously in Third Reading.