Machinery of Government Reform - composition and election of the States Assembly

STATES OF JERSEY

r

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT REFORM: COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY

Lodged au Greffe on 14th September 2004

by the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States  Assembly

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

(a ) to agree in principle that –

(i ) a l l m embers of the States should be elected on a single general election day and for a fixed

term of office of 4 years;

(i i) t h e g eneral election should be held in the Spring with effect from next set of elections after

2005;

(i i i) t h e 12 Parish Connétable s should no longer be members of the States by virtue of their

office;

(i v ) t h e p resent positions of Senator and Deputy should be abolished and replaced with a new

category of States member elected in 6 new constituencies as described in paragraph  7.5 of the report of the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly dated 2nd September 2004, with a total of 47  members elected in each of the new constituencies as follows –

1. St.  Helier West
2. St.  Helier East
3. St.  Clementand Grouville
4. St.  Saviour and St. Martin
5. St.  Brelade and St.  Peter
6. St.  Lawrence, St.  John,St. Mary, Trinity and St.  Ouen

8 members; 8 members; 7 members; 8 members; 8 members; 8 members.

(b  ) to agree that the proposals in paragraphs  (a) above should be considered by the electorate in a

referendum before they are implemented;

( c) to charge the Privileges and Procedures Committee, in conjunction with other Committees as

necessary, to take all necessary steps to implement the changes following the referendum and, in particular, to ensure that appropriate transitional arrangements are put in place to enable all of the proposals to come into effect no later than 2008.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY

REPORT

1. I n t roduction

1. T h e terms of reference for the SpecialCommitteearetoconsider –

(a ) w h ether there should be changes to the existing composition of the States Assembly; (b ) w h ether the constituencies of elected members should be amended and, if so, how;

(c ) w h ether the term of office of elected members should be amended and, if so, how;

(d ) h o w and when members should be elected to the States;

(e ) w h ether there should be a maximum level of election expenses for candidates standing for the

States;

(f ) w h ether all candidates standing for election to the States should be required to produce a policy

statement and, if so, how this should be defined and controlled;

(g ) w h ether a Chief Electoral Officer should be appointed by the States and, if so, what the duties of

such an Officer should be;

(h  ) w h ether there should be a central register of voters and, if so, how this should be defined and

managed.

2. O n 8th June 2004 the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly presented R.C.25/2004 to the States setting out, for consultationpurposes, various alternative proposals on the future composition ofthe States Assembly.TheCommitteewasdisappointed with the lackof response to the report andhasconcluded that themostappropriatewaytoprogress this issue is to lodge this report and proposition setting outfirmproposals for the Assemblyto debate.
3. A s members will beaware the Committee itself has struggled to reach agreementon the best wayforward and the Committee'swork has shown that there isunlikely to be any general consensus among members of the States on this issue.NeverthelesstheCommittee accepts that itwas appointed by the States to considerthe issues and bringforward proposals and, for that reason, it isappropriateto present definite ideas forchange that memberscanadopt, amend or reject as they see fit.TheCommitteehopes that members will accept that there is a need to change the present composition ofthe States which,asshown below,cannotbesaid to betrulyfair or representative. It should alsobe able to respondtochanging political and governmental realities. It is therefore important that an alternative, more equitable, system is put in place assoon as possible.
4. F o r convenience,and to avoid the need formembers to refer to different documents, the Committeehas repeated in this report much of the research and reasoningset out in R.C.25/2004 where that information is relevant to theseproposals.

2 T h e  need for change in the Constitution of the Assembly.

1. T h e Committeeshares many of the conclusions of the Clothier Panelon the need for change. As stated in the Foreword to R.C.25/2004 the Committee believes that –

(i ) t h e re is a perception that the system is no longer fully representative or, some argue, legitimate, as

reflected in declining turnout figures;

(i i) th e re are gross disparities between the representation afforded to different parish constituencies; (i ii ) t h e public is frustrated by an inability to bring about a change of government;

(i v ) t h ere is confusion as to how members derive their political mandates;

( v ) v o ters are confused as to the division of rôles for members between municipal and States'

functions.

2. A t a very simplelevel it is, in relation to (ii)above,clear that the present discrepancies in the sizes of the Deputies' constituencies lead to animbalancewhich the Committeebelieves is unsustainable and must be addressed.  As a  example  the  Parishes of   Grouville  and St.  Lawrence both  had, by  coincidence, an identical population in the 2001 census (4,702  inhabitants), yet the former is representedby only one Deputy whereas St.  Lawrence has 2. The Deputy of St.  Mary represents a Parish with a population o 1,591 in the 2001census, just over a third of the populationrepresentedby the Deputy of Grouville . The full breakdownofthepresent electoral districts for Deputy isasfollows –

T a b le 2.2

3. A l thoughitmightbe possible to rectify such discrepancies to a certain extent by redefining constituency boundaries, the Committee believes that more radical changeis required to reinvigorate the electoral process in the Island and to put in place anAssembly that will bemoreappropriate for the newsystemof government. In additionthe Committee believes that steps mustbetaken to address the current electoral apathy whichitbelieves is partly due to the current complex election process with elections occurringat different times for the 3 different categories ofmembers.
4. T h e issues that have inevitably dominated the work ofthe 3 Special Committees are –

• S h o u ld there be a general election' for all members of the States on one day?

• S h o u ld the present 3-year term of office be changed?

• S h o u ld Connétable s remain as members of the States by virtue of their office?[1]

• S h o u ld the Island-wide mandate be retained?

• S h o u ld the position of Deputy remain in its present form?

5. It has become clear throughout the Committee's deliberations that it is necessary toconsider the relative priority of proposals in relation to theabove matters and to consider the feasibility ofcombinationsof those proposalsinone overall package. Certain proposals, however attractive in isolation, are simplynot feasible if combined.Asan example the Committeedoesnot believe itwouldbe practical or desirable on a long-term basis to retain the positions of Senator and Deputy in their present form alongside the introduction of a commonelection day and identical term of office for both positions. In the Committee's view this would devalue the position of Senator, would lead to confusion with the electors, and would detract from theparochial and district campaignsbeingconductedbyprospective Deputies asmediaand public attention wouldalmost certainly bedominatedby the senatorial hustings roadshow'. In addition it is not clear whetherthepositionofSenatorwould continue to be attractive to sitting Deputies as a progression' to a more senior' position if the advantageof a longertermofofficewas lost.
6. T h e Committee isconfident that the combinationofproposals in this proposition is a package' that will work togetherwithout conflict.

3 A si ngle general election day held every 4 years – Paragraph (a)(i)

1. T h e Committee believes that the Island would best be served if allmembersoftheAssembly were elected at a singlegeneral election. TheCommitteenotes that this recommendation,whichwasmadeby the Clothier Panel,has received widespreadsupport in the various consultation processes undertaken since the publicationof that report although there have been concernsabout practical implementation. The concept of a general election also gained considerablesupportin the MORI poll commissionedby the Clothier Panel –

Q 2 2 .  States members are elected for varying terms of office. Do you think there should be –

Single general election for all members 62% Separate elections as at present 33% Other/don't know 5%

2. In theCommittee's view the current system of election, where 3 different categories of elected members are electedat different times, and, in the caseoftheSenators, for a different termof office, isunwieldy, leading to voter apathy and, in addition, frustration for the public whoface a prolonged period every 3  yearsduringwhichStates members' attention is divided between electioneeringand maintaining the normalbusinessof the States.
3. T h e Committeebelieves that the electorate should be able tomake an effective changein the composition of the Assembly should it wish to do so.Thepresent general elections' that take place every 3  yearsdo not involve over one third of the members of the Assembly(6 Senators and12 Connétable s)and th electorate are therefore entitled to believe that it is difficult to make any significant changeby taking the trouble to vote.This problem is, ofcourse,compounded with individual Connétable 's elections that are held at various timesthroughout the electoral cycle. The Committee is convinced that the ability to renew the entire membershipof the Assembly onone day would enhance the significance oftheoccasionand stimulate renewed interest in the electoral process.At present it would take many elections (2  senatorial elections, 12  Connétable s' elections and the Deputies' elections) to renew the entire membershipofthe Assembly over a 6-year period. TheCommittee'srecommendation that thereshould only be one category of memberintheAssemblyin the future will,of course, make it simpletoachieve the objectiveof a single general election.
4. In addition the Committeebelievesit would be desirable to ensure that the States didnotmeet during the election campaign period and this wouldbe more easily achievable with a single election date in the spring than in the present system when the election periodruns from SeptemberuntillateNovember.
5. In relation to the termof office theCommitteenotes that the Clothier Panelrecommended that thetermof

office for all elected members of the States should be between 4 and 5  years, which is the practice in most other

jurisdictions. The Committee agrees that the present 3-year term is not long enough to allow proper development of long-term policy within the electoral cycle.

6. T h e Committee accepts that a 5-yearterm of office would give members a significant period of certainty but hasconcluded that this mustbeweighed against the need to allow the public to express theirviews through the ballot box at regular intervals. The Committee has noted that although MPs are elected to the House ofCommonsfor a 5-yearterm it isalmost inevitably the practice of the U.K.Prime Minister to seek a dissolution before that full termand the actual termserved is usually therefore between 4 and 5  years.The Committee has therefore concluded that a fixed 4-year termof office for all memberswould be appropriatefor Jersey.

4. S p r ingElections – Paragraph (a)(ii)

1. T h e Special Committee supports the recommendationtomovecurrentautumn elections to the spring when there arelongerhoursof daylight and the weather is generally more favourable than inOctoberand November. It is mindful that this period, with moveable dates for Easter, a number of Bank Holidays and the potentialimpacton the budgetarytimetable,isnotwithout its difficulties in selecting a suitable date.
2. E a sterSunday can fallon any date between 22ndMarchand 25th April and itwill therefore be necessary to fix anelection date that does not conflict with that date whilst avoiding the schoolhalf-term holiday at the end ofMay.TheCommittee's view is that a date in the middle of Mayinevery 4th year would be suitable but accepts that further researchneeds to be undertaken to ensure that no unforeseenproblems would becausedby the choice of this date. A schedule of possible election dates from 2008 to 2060 showing the interaction with Easter (on the assumption that elections continue to be held on a Wednesday) is given inAppendix1.
3. It w ould not bepossiblefor the necessary legislative changestobe in place in time for a spring election in 2005 and the Committee therefore recommends that Spring elections shouldbe introduced from 2008.

5. C o nnétablestonolongerbemembersoftheStatesbyvirtueof their office – Paragraph (a)(iii)

1. T h e Special Committeeisawareof the high regardinwhich the Connétable s are held in the Island. Traditionally, Connétable shave represented the particular interests of their parishioners on any topic comingbefore the States. The suggestion by the Clothier Panel that they should cease to bemembersof the Statesby virtue of their office wasone of the most controversial of its recommendationsand the attempt by the Policy and Resources Committee to pushforward this reform as part of its report and proposition (P.179/2001)wasconsidered at the Parish meetingsthroughout the Island referred toabove with a strong movementofsupportfor retaining the rightof Connétable sto sit in theAssembly.
2. T h e original Special Committee recommended that the Connétable s should remain in the States to represent theviewsoftheirParishand to reinforce the current Parish system. It felt that it was premature at this stage to remove them from the States on the unproven assumption that it was impossible to combine the two roles of States member and head of the Parish'.
3. T h e Committee nevertheless considers that Connétable s have a significant workload in theirParishesand that this mayimpactontheir ability to participate fully in the new system in their ex-officiocapacityas membersofthe States. Recent experience in relation tothemembershipof the Shadow Scrutiny Panels has shown that some Connétable s have difficulty combining parish duties with active participation in committeework for the States. In addition very few majorPresidencieshave been held by Connétable s since 1966(seeTable 6.9below).The Committee is concerned that if the12  Connétable sare unable to participate fully in the Executive or in the scrutiny functionin the new system ofgovernment that new system will not operate effectively or with due accountability. It is of particular concern that thescrutiny function could be seriously weakenedifany Connétable s were unwilling toserveonthePanels.
4. T h e Special Committee pointed out in R.C.25/2004 that it was divided on this issue but it has now decide

to follow the recommendation in the Clothier report that Connétable s should no longer serve as members of the

States by virtue of their office so that there would only be one class of member elected. It has become apparent in recent years that the work of a States member, without additional parish duties, is effectively a full-time position and the Committee does not believe it is sustainable in the long term to have 12 members of the Assembly who cannot devote themselves entirely to the business of the States.

5. C o nnétableswould, of course, befree to standalongside other candidates if they wished to sit in the States as a member in one of the new electoral districts as well as serving as Connétable s of their Parish. Any Connétable doingso would be giving a publiccommitment to the electorate that heorshecould undertake the full rangeof duties as a States member and, if a majority of the electorate were satisfied that the Connétable could undertake both rôles,heorshewouldno doubt stand a good chance ofbeing elected. Traditionally many Connétable shave been elected or, particularly, re-electedunopposedwhichis perhaps acceptable atParishlevelbutnot appropriate with widermandates.
6. T h e Committee does not believe that the adoption by the Stateson 25th May 2004 of the proposition of the Policy and Resources Committee on the relationship between the Parishes and the Executive (Machinery ofGovernment: relationship between the Parishesand the Executive – P.40/2004) affects the recommendation to remove the Connétable s from the States. In itself the decision to establish a Conseil des Connétable s is not an impediment to these changes proposed to the constitution of the States Assembly.Indeed, it can beargued that it provides a forum for Connétable s which,ifextended,can discuss matters of both Parish and Statesconcern.The principal changes set outin this proposition will take effect from 2008, and the Policy and Resources Committee has been charged to prepare the necessary legislative changes to enable the proposalson the future relationship betweentheParishesand the Executive to be implemented in time for the 2006/7accounting year.
7. A lthough it is not strictly relevant for this proposition the Special Committee has considered the recommendationmade in P.40/2004 that consideration should begiven to establishing a single election day for Connétable s, resulting in a new Conseil des Connétable sbeingelected every 3 years.The Special Committee agrees that the Connétable s should beelectedon the single general electionday even though, if they are not ex-officiomembersof the States, it wouldbe illogical for this to bethe same dayas the general election for all members.If this proposition were amended with the result that Connétable s were to remainasmembersofthe States by virtue of their office the Committeerecommends that they should be electedin the general election as all otherStatesmembers.

6. T h e abolition of the presentpositionsofSenatorand Deputy – Paragraph (a)(iv)

1. T h e Special Committee has concluded that the positionsof Senator and Deputy in their present form should beabolished and replaced with a new category ofStatesmemberas described in Section 7 below.

T h e  p  osition of Senator

2. T h e Committee accepts that in the various consultation processes that have taken place since the publication ofthe Clothier report, whichrecommended the abolition of thepositionof Senator, strong viewshave been expressedbysomemembersofthe States and membersof the public in favourof retaining the Island-wide mandate.
3. A l though the PolicyandResources Committee recommended that the positionofSenator should be abolished this recommendationwas,of course, withdrawnfollowing a series of public meetings held in early 2002 which produced nearly unanimousvotes in favourof the retention ofSenators.
4. S o meofthose against retaining the position of Senator have tried to claim that these public meetings were not representative of public opinion as a whole but it hasbecomecleartotheCommitteeduring its work that it is very difficult to know with any certainty what the general view of the electorate isonthese issues. The Clothier Panel itself commissioned a MORI poll whichwasconducted in a scientific manner from a sampleof1,000residentsby that polling organisation. The results from that poll on options for removing orreducing States members were –

Q 2 1  I f it were decided to reduce the number of States members, would you prefer to remove or reduce –

Deputies 37% Reduce 5% Remove

Constables 13% Reduce 17% Remove

O n th e issue of whether the overall numbers of members should be reduced the results were as follows – T h e I sland-wide mandate was considered in a question about constituencies –

Q 2 3 .  At present some members are elected by the whole island, while others are elected on a local basis.

Do you think that –

All members should be elected on an Island-wide basis 46% The present arrangements should continue 32% All members should be elected on a local basis 19% Other/don't know 3%

5. A n alternative, albeit unscientific, attempt tojudge public opinion wasconductedbythe Jersey Evening Post whopublishedthe results of a telephone poll on21st February 2001.Therelevant results of that poll, whichreceived 1,629  responses,wereas follows –

6. T h e Special Committee's conclusion is that there isno accurate way to state what the electorate really thinks onthese issues at the present time and it should not attempt tosecond-guess public opinion. The Committee believes that the appropriateway to proceed is forproposalswhich have been debated in principle' by the States to be put to the public in a referendum asdescribed below where,after a campaign in which all viewpoints can be expressed, all electors will be entitled to expresstheir views on the proposals before the finaldecisionsaretakenbythe States. The Committee believes that this willbe the only waytoassessthepublic'sviews in a systematic and accurate way.
7. A commonargumentused in favourof retaining the Island-wide mandate is that electors appreciate the ability to influence the election of a significant numberofmembersof the Assembly buttheCommittee

does not believe that this feature of the present system is sufficient in itself to retain the position of Senator.

Furthermore, while electors speak of their ability to vote for a large number of candidates, they also increasingly speak of their inability to influence the policy these candidates will pursue and their inability (in the absence of a general election and party politics) to fundamentally change the composition and therefore, by extension, the policies of the States. In addition, as shown by the recent J.E.P. analysis of the views expressed by senatorial candidates in 2002 on sales tax, there is no guarantee that statements made by candidates on the election platform are carried forward into policy development.

8. It h as been stated that theelectors in a small Parish suchasSt. Mary would be disadvantaged if they lost the ability to vote for several membersof the States. The Committeebelieves that this view mustbe considered alongside the fact that, in anisland-wide election, the total votes from a small Parish have very little, if any, influence onthe overall resultwhich is largely dependenton the results from largerParishes although each single vote castdoes,ofcourse, have the samevaluein the overall total. Theanalysisof the results of all senatorial general' elections since the present 6-yeartermwas introduced in 1966givenin R.C.25/2004 showed this very clearly. The figures in that report showed that no single result of a senatorial general election' had been affected since 1966 by the totalvotesin St.  Mary although the final order of the 6 successful candidateshas been influenced onmanyoccasionsby the St.  Helier total with the actual resultofthe 6th placed candidatebeing affected in 1993. In additionananalysisof senatorial results shows that the fact that a candidatehas received a largenumberofvotes because of the all island election  process  does  not necessarily  mean that  he or she  has received support from  a  significant percentageof voters. This can be shown most graphically from the results ofthe 6 successfulcandidates in the 1999 senatorial elections when only the top 2 candidatesreceivedvotes from more than half of those whovoted –

T a b le 6.8

9. In the Clothier report it was stated that the Senators nolongeroccupythemostseniorpositionsinthe States. TheCommittee's research has shown that this was in factanincorrect assertion although the years 1987, 1990 and 1993 show a  low  number of Senators  in  senior  Presidencies. Appendix 2 lists  the Presidents elected to the 12mostsenior presidencies (in the order they were appointed by the States) after each general election since 1966. TheAppendixshows that Senators have been appointed to the top2' Presidencies  on every single  occasion since 1966  and the breakdown between  the  3  categories  of membersforthetop12 presidencies is asfollows –

T a b le 6.9

1987 5 6 1 1984 6 5 1 1981 8 4 0 1978 9 3 0 1975 10 2 0 1972 7 5 0 1969 6 6 0 1966 7 5 0 Total 88 61 7 % 56.4 39.1 4.5

10. T heconclusion to bedrawn from the figures is clearly that Senators have been viewedasmore senior' when appointments have been made to presidencies. The Committeebelieves that it would nevertheless be incorrectto imply that this seniority comes solely from their island-wide mandate. The12 Senators have,onaverage,alwayshadconsiderably longer periods of office intheStates than Deputies and it is not therefore surprising that thosemembers with moreyears' service are appointed to seniorpositions by their colleagues. A snapshot at10-year intervals ofthe average length of service of all Senators and Deputies in the Stateson the given date shows the following results –

T a b le 6.10

11. T heCommitteebelieves that length ofservice,andconsequential seniority, goes someconsiderableway towards explaining why a higher proportion of Senators have risento positions of responsibility. Ithas always been accepted that Presidents areappointedby the States on the basisof a judgmentabout the suitability of a member for the position and there are many examples of Senators being appointedto presidencies they had already held asDeputies, for example –

D e p u t y R . R . Jeune – Education in 1969 – retained as Senator in 1972;

D e p u t y W  .J . Morvan – Harbours and Airport in 1972 – retained as Senator in 1975;

D e p u t y T . A . Le Sueur – (Employment and) Social Security in 1993 and 1996 – retained as Senator

in 1999

an  d , conversely, well known examples of Deputies regaining presidencies they had held before defeat in a

senatorial election –

S e n a to r C  .S . Dupré – Tourism in 1966, 1969, 1972, 1975 – retained as Deputy in 1978;

S e n a to r C  .G  . Farley – Sewerage Board (RRB) 1966, 1969, 1972 – retained as Deputy in 1975

12. T heCommittee's research has shown very clearlythat, although Senators have held a higher percentage of Presidencies, there isno direct correlation between success in a senatorial election and appointment as a senior President. Appendix  3 shows the presidencies gainedby senatorial candidates immediately after each senatorial general election' since 1966. The figures show that of the 13 poll toppers' in this period only onehas ever been appointed to the mostsenior presidency immediately after his success (Senator Horsfall in 1996)whilst 5 did not receive a single presidency and 2  others gained minor presidencies that

do not even figure in the 12 most senior presidencies list shown in Appendix  2. A further difficulty that distances

the appointment of Presidents from the election process is that many Senators are appointed or re- appointed as Presidents at the halfway point in their term of office when their mandate' from the electorate is already over 3  years old.

13. H aving studied the evidence from the senatorial election results, the Committeehasconcluded that there is novalid reason tosuggest that theisland-widemandatemustberetained because it gives a greater democratic' mandate to senior Presidents. If this werethecasethe logical conclusion would be that no Deputy or Connétable shouldbe eligible for a seniorposition.
14. T heCommitteerecognises that therearesomememberswhoconsider that new procedures should be put in placetomake a link between electoral success andtheappointment to ministerial office inthe new system. The Committee does notshare this view and does not believe it wouldbe acceptable to a majority of membersof the public as the tradition in the States has always been that Presidents are appointedand, if necessary, dismissedon the basisof their experience, ability and conduct.TheCommitteeconsiders that this should continue in relation to the appointment of the Chief Minister andMinisters in the new system. There have been situations where Senators have clearly wononthebasisof popular policiesbut this does not necessarily guarantee that they possesstheexecutive skills to occupy a ministerialposition.
15. T heCommittee has heard and consideredviews from membersof the States, and from somemembersof the public who have attended its meetings on a regular basis, that the Island-wide mandateshouldbe retained and that allmembersof the States should be elected on that basis. This wouldundoubtedly give Islanders the ability to influence the election ofmembers in a very direct way and itwouldbe clear, both in Jersey and outside, that membershad a mandate from the whole electorate. TheCommittee can see merits in these arguments but hasnotbeenconvinced that there isany practical way to run elections inan orderly fashion with the numberof candidates that would standin such an election. As a result the Committee has rejected this option although itbelieves that the proposedlargerconstituency model will go someconsiderable way towards ensuring that all members have a wide popular mandate. Underthe 6 constituency model the mandatesof the new memberswillbe considerably larger than those held by the 29  Deputies at present even though the island-wide mandate of12 members will be lost.
16. T heCommitteehasconcluded that the advantages of holding a general election with onenew category of memberto replace the present positionsof Senators and Deputies outweigh any advantages of retaining the Island-wide mandate.

T h e  p  osition of Deputy

17. A s mentioned in paragraph 2.2above, the Committeehas serious concernsabout the discrepancies that exist between the currentDeputies' constituencies andbelieves that the presentsystem is unsustainable if the Island electoralsystem is tobe truly fairand representative. Inaddition the Committee believes that the present system, that allowssome electors tochooseupto 4  Deputies, whereas others only chooseone, is illogical and does not provide balanced representation. The present system inevitably means that there are  considerable differences  between the number of  votes received by candidates  because  of  the differences in the sizeofthe electoral districts. This has theundesirable result that manyunsuccessful candidates in large districts receive considerablymorevotes than successful candidates in smaller areas as shown from the 2002 results below –

T a b le 6.17

18. T he Committee has serious concerns, particularly with the move to the ministerial system, that the mandates ofsome Deputies are very small. It iswellknown that inby elections inurban areas Deputies can be elected with very few votes and as can beseenabove 3  candidates wereelected with 500  votes o less in 2002 and, perhapsof greater concern,4, through nofaultoftheirown, were electedunopposed although that figurewas significantly less than the 9  Deputieselectedunopposed in 1999, oneofwhom had neverpreviouslybeenelected to the Assembly).
19. T heCommitteehasconsideredthesuggestionmadebythe Clothier report and put forward byothers (including the Deputy of St.  Martin in P.115/2004) that there should be a sole classofStatesmember elected on a parochial basis with a reallocation ofthenumberof candidates perParish to correct someof the present anomalies referred toinparagraph 2.2. TheCommittee does not accept that this system would be adequate if the Island-wide mandateis abolished. In an Island with a population ofsome 88,000  people and 48,761 registered electors it would be difficult to claim that a person with less than 500 votescould be said to represent the overall interests of the Island when conductingdealingson the international stage. Although it is, ofcourse,thecase in other jurisdictions that a Prime Minister can beelected by oneoutof, say, 600 constituencies it is importanttorecognise that in the majority ofthose jurisdictions this personis a member of a party and electors in other constituencies can, effectively, influence the election of the Prime Minister bydecidingwhetherornot to support the relevant partyin their own constituency. Some members believe that a party systemmaydevelop in the Island in future years but the Committee hashad to put forward proposalswhich are consistent with the presentnon-partysystemand therefore believes that larger constituenciesarenecessary.The Committee believes that without larger constituencies being introduced a sitting Deputy withstrong parish connections whowasin a seniorposition in the new system could be re-elected on a regular basis because of those local connections even if his orherpolicieswere unpopularacrossthe Island and this couldenablemembersto hide' from the electorate in small districts.
20. A nother argumentagainsttheintroductionofan all Deputies system' on a parish constituency basis is that the discrepancies identified in the table above draw attention to thefact that districts should,asfaras practicable, beof similar sizes andthe option of dividing the Island into a large numberof single member constituencies, (with perhaps10 to 12 electoral districts inSt. Helier) wouldbe extremely confusing.
21. I f the position ofSenator is tobe abolished as recommendedabove, the Committee believes that the position of Deputy in its present form should also be abolished, with the creation of a new category of memberto replace both positionsas described below. The Committee does not have strongviewsonwhat the new members should be called although it notes that the suggestion of the Clothier Panel that membersshouldbeknownas MSJs' has notmet with widespread support. Some have suggested that it would be logical to call all members Deputies' whereas others, includingthe Deputy of St.  Martin in P.115/2004 have proposed retaining the title of Senator'. The Committee believes that this detail can be resolved followingconsultationanddiscussionif the general principleof a single category ofmemberis accepted.

7. S i x new electoral districts – Paragraph (a)(iv)

1. H a vingconcluded that there should be a single categoryofmembers and that all members should be elected onone day, the Committee has given careful consideration to the mannerinwhich this new category ofStatesmembersshould be electedin future.
2. T h e Committee recognises that many electors value the ability to vote for a numberof candidates and believes that there wouldbe considerable merit in retaining this facility in somewayifpossible.In

addition the Committee recognises that candidates will obtain a greater democratic mandate if elected in a larger

constituency.

3. H a vingtaken these 2  matters into account the Committeehasconcluded that theappropriate way forward is the division of the Island into a numberof new electoral districts. Thesewould,as far as possible, have a similar population and wouldeach elect a similar numberofmembers to the States. TheCommittee believes that, for practical reasons, the new constituencies must bebasedon existing Parish boundaries and it is therefore impossibletodesignanycombination that leadstoanexactequalityofrepresentation across the Island, although the proposed division in Table 7.5 below is a vast improvement on the inequity of the current system.TheCommitteehasconcluded that itis preferable to base its calculations principally on population figures and not on the numberof registered electorsasthere are significant discrepancies across the Island on the percentage of residents registered and theCommittee is hopeful that steps canbetaken,as part of overall reform, to address thesediscrepancies.Thefollowingtablegivesan illustration of the discrepancies (albeit based on total population and not just those eligible to register) –

T a b le 7.3