Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – proposal 1.

STATES OF JERSEY

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 1

Lodged au Greffe on 2nd August 2013 by Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: B  P.93

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. that the Assembly should be comprised of 44 members, comprising 12 Connétable s and 32 Deputies;
2. that the office of Senator should be abolished;
3. that the Deputies would, under the new structure, have a much more wide-ranging role than Deputies in the current Assembly;
4. that the proposed new 6 large areas will replace the current Schedule 1 to the States of Jersey Law 2005, as follows –

DEPUTIES' CONSTITUENCIES

Page - 2

5. that the Connétable s should be placed on the same legal basis as Deputies if they remain in a reformed Assembly;
6. that  in an  Assembly  of  44 members,  the  maximum  number  of Ministers and Assistant Ministers shall be 19;
7. to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for debate legislative changes to enable the foregoing in time for the 2014 elections with the new structure of 44 members being effective from the date of the swearing-in of the new members elected in these elections.

SENATOR P.F.C. OZOUF

REPORT

Over the past 12 years there have been numerous proposals to reform the membership of the States.

The latest proposal, put by the Electoral Commission, was put to an Island-wide Referendum.

Across the Island, 16,624 people cast their vote for one of the 3 options. In the first round of the ballot –

• 39.59% voted for Option A
• 40.93% voted for Option B
• 19.48% voted for Option C.

First round by parish

Because none of the options received more than half the votes cast, the ballot papers from Option C (which received the fewest votes across the Island) were redistributed between Option A and Option B where voters had indicated a second choice on their ballot paper.

With Option C's ballot papers redistributed –

• 45.02% voted for Option A
• 54.98% voted for Option B.

Page - 4

Second round by parish (with second choices added)

Whilst the Referendum was won by Option B, when the States voted to enact the option preferred by the majority of voting Islanders, the States voted against the principles of the proposed legislation, effectively cutting short a debate that could have occurred on alternatives.

This is how members voted –

POUR: 21  CONTRE: 28

Senator P.F. Routier  Senator A. Breckon Senator P.F.C. Ozouf  Senator S.C. Ferguson Senator A.J.H. Maclean  Senator B.I. Le Marquand Senator I.J. Gorst  Senator F. du H. Le Gresley Senator P.M. Bailhache  Senator L.J. Farnham

Connétable of St. Helier   Connétable of St. John Connétable of Trinity

Connétable of St. Peter   Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Connétable of St. Lawrence   Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Connétable of St. Mary   Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Connétable of St. Ouen   Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Connétable of St. Brelade   Deputy of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Martin   Deputy of Grouville Connétable of St. Saviour   Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)

POUR: 21 cont'd.

Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy E.J. Noel (L) Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H) Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) Deputy of St. Martin Deputy R.G. Bryans (H) Deputy of St. Peter

ABSTAIN: 1

Connétable of St. Clement

CONTRE: 28 cont'd.

Deputy of Trinity

Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy M. Tadier (B) Deputy T.M. Pitman (H) Deputy T.A. Vallois (S) Deputy M.R. Higgins (H) Deputy A.K.F. Green (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C) Deputy of St. John

Deputy J.H. Young (B) Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)

ABSENT DUE TO ILLNESS: 1 Connétable of Grouville

To achieve a majority, at least 26 members are required to vote in favour of an option.

Clearly, whilst it would be desirable to get a proposition that would be acceptable to all States members, that is unlikely to be achievable.

Why is reform needed?

Many Islanders have expressed to me that the Referendum result should not have been ignored.

There is frustration and exasperation with the time and expense taken up by States reform debates, instead of tacking the important political issues such as the economy, jobs, health and housing, and many Islanders are of the view that doing nothing is equally unacceptable.

However, neither can we afford to sleep-walk' into the October 2014 election with an unformed system.

Some reforms have been achieved. However, each of these reforms taken separately have consequences.

– Reducing the importance of the senatorial mandate by reducing the number of Senators to 8 from 12.With voters using on average 4.5 votes for a 6 seat senatorial election, there is real concern over the democratic legitimacy of the Senators elected in positions 7 and 8.

– Moving to a 4 year term, which meant it is impractical to elect 6 Senators every 3 years.Many of the voters who supported Option C have expressed the view that they actually want a return to 12 Island-wide seats. However, this is not what is going to happen.

Page - 6

P.93/2013

– Moving  to  a  single  Election  Day  which  attempts  to  elect  8 Senators, 29 Deputies and 12 Connétable s all on one day. The focus will be on the 8 Senators, and with so many elections and candidates, this runs the risk that other candidates will not face a proper test.

– Leaving the current system of electing 29 Deputies in the existing districts unchanged. The current distribution of deputorial seats is unchanged from 1947, and this is unfair. Amongst other things, it is wrong that some people have 4 votes when others have only one.

A further window exists to agree reform before next year's elections

The  States could  agree  reforms  before  the  end  of the  year.  After  that it  will  be legislatively and practically impossible to achieve change.

A constructive way forward is needed. Both sides of the middle ground of States members need to come together and find a solution.

I believe that we need to do all we can to heal the visceral Town versus Country' divide.

Deputies A.K.F. Green and T. Pitman of St. Helier both put forward amendments in the last debate – which were never debated. Deputy Green added a whole extra 5 seat St. Helier constituency and Deputy Pitman proposed 7 seats St. Helier districts.

Whilst it is possible to argue against the integrity of the mathematics used, there is a strongly  held  view  that  an  unamended  Option B  means  that   St. Helier  is  under- represented in the new Assembly.

A compromise, designed to bring both sides together, which respects the wishes of the vast majority of Island voters who wanted Option B in 11 Parishes, but also respects the concern of St. Helier residents who voted against Option B, is to add an extra Deputy in each of the St. Helier districts.

This proposition attempts to achieve all that 11 out of the 12 Parishes wanted, and also a constructive way forward for St. Helier .

I will provide further analysis on the arguments for the extra Deputies in a further addendum to this report.

Financial and manpower implications

If the size of the Assembly is reduced by 7 members, there could be a financial saving of just over £310,000 per annum as less remuneration would be payable. There are no direct  manpower  implications  arising  from  these  changes,  although  the  Electoral Commission  expressed  the  view  that  a  smaller  Assembly  would  operate  more effectively  and  this  could  lead  to  indirect  savings  of  officer  time  across  public administration.