Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – proposal 4.

STATES OF JERSEY

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 4

Lodged au Greffe on 30th September 2013 by Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: B  P.117

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to agree that, from October 2014, the Assembly should be comprised of  47 members,  comprising  12 Connétable s,  7 Senators  and 28 Deputies;
2. to agree that the 28 Deputies should be elected in 7 constituencies comprising  a  combination  of  whole  parishes  or,  in the  case  of St. Helier , a district within the parish, as set out below –

DEPUTIES' CONSTITUENCIES

3. to agree  that  in an  Assembly  of  47 members,  the  maximum  number  of Ministers and Assistant Ministers shall be 21;
4. to request  the  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  to bring  forward  for debate legislative changes to enable the revised composition to be in place in time  for  the  2014  elections  with  the  new  structure  of  47 members  being effective from the date of the swearing-in of the new members elected in those elections;
5. to agree that a referendum under the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 should be held on the day of the 2014 elections with a single Yes/No question to ask voters whether they agree that the Constables should remain as members of States  Assembly  as  an  automatic  right  and  to request  the  Privileges  and Procedures  Committee  to  bring  forward  for  approval  the  necessary Referendum Act to enable the referendum to take place.

DEPUTY A.K.F. GREEN OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

When  the  Electoral  Commission  issued  its  interim  report  R.110/2011  (Electoral Commission:  proposed  structure),  it  stated  that  it  would  consider,  amongst  other matters –

• Classes of States Member
• Constituencies and Mandates
• Number of States Members.

Discussions took place at the meeting when this report was presented to interested parties in the Town Hall and there seemed to be a strong consensus –

1. That all voters should be able to vote for the same number of representatives.
2. That the value of each vote should be, so far as is possible, similar, in line with the Venice Commission's recommendations.
3. That the number of States Members should be reduced.
4. That the Island should be divided into super-constituencies known as districts.

I believe with that no right-thinking person who supports democracy could argue that these objectives were anything other than fair and equitable. There could, of course, be debate on the precise number of States members and the type of member, but the principle of reduction is, I believe, accepted by the majority of Islanders and States Members.

However, when the final report was produced, the principle of equal value of votes was largely ignored in relation to St. Helier (it is accepted that St. Mary will always be the exception to this due to the low number of Parish residents).

PPC's proposition P.116/2013 (Composition of the States Assembly: interim reform for 2014 and referendum on further reform), whilst broadly correcting this, totally ignores the principle that all voters should be able to vote for the same number of representatives: this is equally wrong.

The Referendum

Islanders were asked by way of referendum their preferred make-up of the States: the choices were –

A  Parish Constables will no longer be part of the States of Jersey. B  Parish Constables will continue to be part of the States of Jersey. C  No change, the current system will remain.

In  both  Options  A  and  B,  the  Island  is  to  be  divided  into  6  large  districts,  but unfortunately the make-up of these districts under Option B, for the electorate of St. Helier , fundamentally went against one of the main principles of fairness that the value of each vote should, so far as is possible, be similar, in line with the Venice

Commission's recommendations. The result of the referendum shows a clear divide between St. Helier and the country Parishes, which is hardly surprising given that Option B solved the inequity in the number of votes a voter can place for the country Parishes, but created a new disadvantage to the electorate of St. Helier of greater under-representation.

My own research informs me that most voters who took part wanted to maintain some Parish traditions and direct Parish links within the States, and saw the retaining of the Parish  Constable  in  the  States as the best  way  of achieving  this.  Furthermore, a considerable number in the smaller Parishes felt aggrieved at what they saw as the reduction in the value of their vote, which was in their view made worse by the previous reduction and subsequent total loss of the Senator. This view is supported by PPC in P.116/2013, where they state on page 4 of the report that "58% of those making  submissions  to  the  Commission  wished  to maintain  or  even  enhance  the number of members elected on an Island-wide basis", i.e. the Senators.

PPC's Proposal: P.116/2013

As indicated in my report above, it is clear that in attempting to correct one inequity (the under-representation of St. Helier ), PPC have created an equally unacceptable new inequity ignoring the principle of each voter being able to cast the same number of votes.

It is clear that PPC are trying to position the make-up of the States into a place where further reform may take place in the future; and I believe that my proposal does this in a much more transparent and pragmatic way. Under my proposal, every voter will cast the same number of votes. Every district will have the same number of representatives and the Island mandate is maintained (Senators). However, from this platform reform will be so much easier to achieve: for example, the number of States members could be reduced simply by removing one representative from each district, be that Deputy or Constable (should that be desired), and any change in the number of Senators would be equally easy to achieve if required.

PPC's proposed referendum, as in the last referendum, really fails to ask the right question: the question  of one  category  of  member  should  in  my  view  follow  (if needed) after the fundamental question: "Should the Constables remain as members of the States?" Failure to ask this question clearly and outright will mean that no reform will ever happen. If the answer is yes to Constables remaining as members of the States, then reform can be developed around this; if the answer is no, then it is legitimate to ask: Is this the time to move to a single category of States member?

Conclusion

This proposal in my view maintains all the principles of the Commission's work: it respects the results of the referendum and other research, it is equitable to all, and allows for further easy reform in the future.

The Commission in my view attempted to rush their otherwise excellent work: they failed to put to bed' once and for all the question of Constables in the States. One could argue that Option B showed that the majority of voters wanted Constables in the States: this could be why B was successful, but the truth is, we don't really know. Therefore the referendum question must be "Should Constables remain as members of the States? YES or NO".

Financial and manpower implications

The reduction to 47 members would lead to a saving in members' remuneration of some £92,000 per annum compared to the proposed structure of 49 members already agreed for 2014. PPC has stated in P.116/2013 that a referendum held on the 2014 general election day would cost some £30,000.