STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 21st APRIL 2021

1. Draft Road Traffic (No. 66) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.15/2021)

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

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

1.1.2 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence:

1.1.3 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

1.1.4 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

1.2 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

1.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

1.3.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

1.3.2 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

2. Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Amendment – Disability and Rights in Performances) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.16/2021)

2.1 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):

2.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

2.2.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

2.2.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

2.3 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

3. Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021)

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

3.1.1 Senator L.J. Farnham:

3.1.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

3.1.3 Senator K.L. Moore:

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

3.1.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

3.1.6 Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:

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

3.1.8 Deputy J.A. Martin:

3.1.9 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

3.1.10 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

3.1.11 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

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

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

3.1.14 Deputy C.S. Alves:

3.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

3.3 Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021): Second Amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2))

3.3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst:

3.4 Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021): Second Amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2)) - amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2).Amd)

3.4.1 Senator L.J. Farnham:

3.4.2 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

3.4.3 Deputy R. Labey:

3.4.4 Deputy C.S. Alves:

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

3.4.6 Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary:

3.4.7 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier:

3.4.8 Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter:

3.4.9 Connétable A. Jehan of St. John:

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

3.4.10 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

3.4.11 The Deputy of St. Martin:

3.4.12 Senator S.W. Pallett:

3.4.13 Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade:

3.4.14 The Connétable of St. Helier:

3.4.15 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

3.4.16 Deputy R.J. Ward:

3.4.17 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

3.4.18 Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen:

3.4.19 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:

3.4.20 Deputy K.F. Morel:

3.4.21 Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity:

3.4.22 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

3.4.23 Senator L.J. Farnham:

3.5 Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021): Second Amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2)) - resumption

3.5.1 Deputy C.S. Alves:

3.5.2 The Connétable of St. Martin:

3.5.3 Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier:

3.5.4 The Deputy of St. Mary:

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

3.5.6 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

3.5.7 Deputy K.F. Morel:

3.5.8 Senator L.J. Farnham:

3.5.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:

3.5.10 Senator I.J. Gorst:

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Deputy R.J. Ward:

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

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Deputy C.S. Alves:

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement:

Deputy T. Pointon of St. John:

ADJOURNMENT

[9:32]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

The Bailiff:

Before we continue with Public Business, I was asked by Deputy Gardiner yesterday to review, pursuant to Standing Order 12(2)(a), the answer to Written Question 164.  The test that I apply is whether the answer is directly relevant to the question.  The question asked the Minister for Health and Social Services in connection with the costs and expenditure on the OpenCell COVID-19 laboratory from 18th August last year to the present time, and a number of categories were set out in the question.  The question deals with all of the categories, direct answers are given to subparagraphs (a) and (d) of the answer and general answers to parts (b) and (c).  Parts (b) and (c), the total sum is given and the daily increment is given but the individual costings are not on the grounds that they are commercially sensitive.  The test that I have to apply is, as I have said, whether or not the answer is directly relevant to the question and it seems to me that the question of commercial sensitivity is a question for the person answering the question and not something on which the Presiding Officer is capable of making a judgment.  In any event, in my judgment, the answer is directly relevant to the question and accordingly I rule it to be in order.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Road Traffic (No. 66) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.15/2021)

The Bailiff:

We now continue with Public Business, and the next item of Public Business is the Draft Road Traffic (No. 66) (Jersey) Regulations, P.15, lodged by the Minister for Infrastructure.  For the purposes of the debate the main respondent is the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Road Traffic (No. 66) (Jersey) Regulations 202-.  The States make these regulations under Order in Council of 26th December 1851 and Article 92 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

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

I would begin by noting that there is currently only one coastguard vehicle used for emergency purposes.  In the United Kingdom the search mission co-ordinators of the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres are permanently based at their respective operations rooms and are supported by teams of mobile coastguard officers.  The situation in Jersey is quite different in that the duty harbourmaster carries the search mission co-ordinator role 24/7, unsupported by other mobile assets and therefore may have to attend from home or elsewhere.  The search mission co-ordinator is under pressure to attend, at short notice, to emergencies being limited to certain speeds at which would increase response times, which has implications for the safety of life at sea.  Some time ago the Minister for Home Affairs approved the use of flashing warning lights on coastguard vehicles when on emergency callouts.  The decision was made subject to the proviso that the coastguard drivers were not to be subject to the exemption contained within the Traffic Signs Order 1968, nor to the exemptions under the Article in the Road Traffic Law 1956, which applied to other emergency vehicles.  The rationale for not extending these exemptions at the time was that the coastguard driver training level was not as high as other emergency services.  In 2015 it was confirmed that the coastguard drivers were qualified Institute of Advanced Motoring Advance Drivers and had undertaken and passed a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents accredited training blue light training course.  It was therefore decided that all exemptions applying to other emergency service vehicles should be extended to Jersey coastguard vehicles and the executive officer.  One of the reasons for the delay in progress since 2015 was that during the process of preparation of the amended legislation a defect in the existing legislation was found, which required an amendment of the Road Traffic Law 1956 to correct both the existing provision relating to traffic signals and emergency vehicles and consequently Road Traffic Order 1968.  The draft regulations would make the amendment, as well as making the changes necessary, to enable the application of the blue light exemptions to the coastguard.  In addition, the draft regulations will (a) insert a definition of Jersey coastguard service in the 1956 law, which refers to Article 2 of the Harbours Law 1961 and update the current references in the law to the fire service by inserting a definition of the fire and rescue service, which refers to the current legislation, namely Fire and Rescue Service Law 2011; (b) amend the provision in the 1956 law, which exempts vehicles used for fires, ambulance and police purposes from speed limits in emergency situations to include vehicles used by the Jersey coastguard; (c) amend the provision in the 1956 law which enables the Minister to make orders exempting drivers of vehicles used for fire, ambulance and police purposes from complying with road traffic signs so that the Minister can include vehicles used by the Jersey coastguard.

[9:45]

This also corrects the problem identified in 2015 by altering a cross reference so the reference in the order-making power to traffic signs includes traffic lights.  While the draft regulations have become law, changes can be made to the existing orders relating to the fitment and use of warning signs and the use of warning lights, which will be necessary if coastguard vehicles are allowed to exceed speed limits and overall traffic signs and signals in order to ensure, as far as possible, the safety of other road users and the public.  Other emergency service vehicles are already covered by such measures.  The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments – Coastguard Vehicles) (Jersey) Order 2021 would (a) amend the Motor Vehicle Order 1998 so that the prohibition in that order from fitment of a bell, gong, siren, two-tone horn to a motor vehicle does not apply to coastguard vehicles and (b) amend the Road Traffic Order 1998 so that coastguard vehicles are included in the definition of emergency vehicles.  That order allows emergency vehicles to be fitted with blue flashing lights; and (c) amends the Road Traffic (Signs) Order 1968 so that drivers of coastguard vehicles are not guilty of the penalties for failing to comply with traffic lights and traffic signs providing certain conditions are met.  I will conclude by thanking the transport officers who have worked in partnership with Justice and Home Affairs, and the Law Officers’ Department to undertake this work.  I trust these changes will assist the coastguard and harbourmaster to best protect lives at sea.  I urge Members to support this regulation.  I make the regulations.

The Bailiff:

Are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

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

This is a sensible move to regularise a position which has evolved as a result of governmental changes.  My personal experience as a Deputy launching authority with the R.N.L.I. (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) has proven to me that it is essential that the coastguard officials are enabled with training to attend emergency situations which may arise around the coast.  These situations arise very often as a result of calls from the public to the coastguard.  The coastguard cannot establish exactly what the situation is very often until they attend onsite.  Timing can very often be of the essence from a life-saving point of view.  In summary, I urge Members to support this proposition.

1.1.2 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence:

It was just to say that I know the Minister made reference to this in his speech but in the U.K. (United Kingdom) this has been the case for coastguard vehicles for some time.  I know in 1992, 1993 I was a member of the coastguard service in the U.K. and it was a coastguard service attached to a school where you had 18 year-olds alongside the teacher attending emergencies, and it was always a blue light emergency.  So it strikes me that if in 1992 it was possible the coastguard operated as a blue light service in the U. K. then it is about time that we did the same in Jersey.  I will be supporting the Minister on this one.

1.1.3 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

I am not going to add very much more to what the Minister, the Deputy and the Constable have said.  It is vital that coastguard, the co-ordinating person in charge of search and rescue, is able to access these areas quickly and blue lights on their vehicles will be essential so I am fully supportive of this.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?  No other Member wishes to speak on the principles, I close the debate and call upon the Minister to respond.

1.1.4 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I thank the Constable of St. Brelade, Deputy Morel and the Deputy of St. Martin for their kind words and comment and congratulate them on their public spiritedness in assisting the search and rescue in the past and present.  I make the regulations.

The Bailiff:

I ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat.  I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way.  Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted:

The Bailiff:

Does the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise the matter?

The Connétable of St. Brelade (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you.

The Bailiff:

How do you wish to propose the regulations, Minister, in Second Reading?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

En bloc please, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish to speak to them?

1.2 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I do not think there is much more I can add.  As Deputy Morel said, it is a long time coming but there was quite a bit of consequential work that needed doing.  I am delighted to bring it before the Assembly today.

The Bailiff:

Are the Regulations seconded in Second Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on any of the regulations in Second Reading?  No Member wishes to speak.  Then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat.  I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way.  Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The regulations have been adopted in Second Reading:

The Bailiff:

Do you propose the matter in Third Reading, Minister?

1.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Are they seconded for Third Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?

1.3.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Just to thank the Minister and his team for regularising this position, which I have to say has been out of sorts for some time.  I can assure Members that it will be to the benefit of the general public in ensuring safety at sea.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  No other Member wishes to speak in Third Reading then I close the debate and call upon the Minister to respond.

1.3.2 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I do not think there is much more I can add.  I thank Members for their comments and their support.  I make the regulations.

The Bailiff:

I ask the Greffier to place a link into the chat.  I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way.  Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes.  I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading:

2. Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Amendment – Disability and Rights in Performances) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.16/2021)

The Bailiff:

We now move to the Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Amendment – Disability and Rights in Performances) (Jersey) Regulations, P.16, lodged by the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services.  For the purposes of the debate the main respondent is the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Amendment – Disability and Rights in Performances) (Jersey) Regulations 202-.  The States make these Regulations under Articles 44, 243, 274, 401 and 409(1) of the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Jersey) Law 2011.

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations and Financial Services):

I would like to ask my Assistant Minister, the Connétable of St. Ouen, to act as rapporteur for this item please.

2.1 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister for External Relations and Financial Services - rapporteur):

On 18th November 2020 my Minister brought the Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Marrakesh Treaty) (Jersey) Regulations 2020, “the Marrakesh Regulations”, to the States as an opportunity arose to join the Marrakesh Treaty at short notice.  This was connected to the end of the Brexit transitional period on 31st December 2020.  As Members will recall, the Marrakesh Treaty is an international convention with a clear humanitarian and social development convention, which introduces mandatory exceptions to copyright for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired, otherwise print-disabled.  The treaty creates an international framework that allows for production and distribution for so-called accessible copies of works, such as braille or large print, for the benefit of people with vision-related disabilities.  The Marrakesh Regulations were adopted unanimously on 18th November last year.  Joining the Marrakesh family not only assists visually impaired people in Jersey but also people with such disabilities in other countries that have joined the treaty as it recognises the importance of exchanging accessible copies across national borders by organisations that serve visually impaired people.  Therefore joining the treaty also has an international social development dimension as the overall available supply of accessible copies around the world increases with each country joining the treaty.  However, the Marrakesh Treaty only sets out minimum standards for the benefit of people who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled and we are very grateful to the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel who raised an important point during a briefing on 21st October.  We completely agree with all the comments made by the previous chair of the panel giving all disabled people better access to cultural informative materials as the right thing to do.  During the debate on 18th November the Minister therefore informed Members that officers were being requested to prepare further legislative amendments to ensure that accessible copies of any type of copyright work or recording of performance can be made for the benefit of people with any type of disability.  In accordance with the Marrakesh Treaty, the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) Law 2011, “I.P.U.R.L.” currently includes exceptions that allow visually-impaired people and people and organisations acting on their behalf to make accessible versions of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works without infringement of copyright.

[10:00]

However, these exceptions do not include films for broadcast or sound recordings.  For example, this means that they do not permit the making of an audio description that enables a visually impaired person to access a film.  In addition, where a work contains a performance, the performer will also have rights on how the work is used.  The I.P.U.R.L. currently only contains very limited exception to performance rights, only allowing designated bodies to make subtitled copies to record as a broadcast for the benefit of people who are deaf or hard of hearing, physically or mentally handicapped in other ways.  This exception does not apply currently to other types of work.  As a result of these limitations some disabled people in Jersey have still been unable to access certain types of copyright work to record performances, which means that they may be unable to participate in our society, culture and economy as easily as other people.  Therefore I am now bringing the Draft Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Amendment – Disability and Rights in Performances) (Jersey) Regulations to the States which, if approved, would broaden the scope of the I.P.U.R.L. disability exceptions to give disabled people greater access to informative and creative content.  Specifically, the draft regulations would allow accessible copies to be made of any type, copyright work or recording of performance, for the benefit of people with an impairment if and to the extent the impairment prevents them accessing the work or recording.  Broadening the scope of the I.P.U.R.L. disability exceptions is also consistent with the evolving concept disability recognised in the preamble on the Convention on Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  This convention, which has been joined by 182 countries worldwide, enables that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments, latitude and environment barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.  Broadening the scope of the I.P.U.R.L. disability exceptions is therefore the right thing to do as it would give disabled people better access to cultural informative materials and more generally allow them to live a more fuller life.  Furthermore, the draft regulations are all about simplifying the processes and procedures related to the I.P.U.R.L. disability exceptions.  In addition the draft regulation contains a small number of changes to the I.P.U.R.L. for the purposes of removing any uncertainty regarding Jersey’s compliance with the Marrakesh Treaty.  I propose the principles.

The Bailiff:

Are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?  If no Member wishes to speak on the principles, then the debate is closed and I ask the Greffier to put a voting link on the principles into the chat.  I open the voting and I ask Members to vote in the normal way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The principles have been adopted:

The Bailiff:

Does the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise this matter?

Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

No, Sir.  As the Assistant Minister advised, we have had the benefit of the presentation and we are very happy with the result.  Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Assistant Minister, how do you wish to propose the regulations in Second Reading?

2.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

There are quite a lot of regulations but they only achieve what I set out when I proposed the principles, so with Members’ indulgence, I would like to propose them en bloc.  I am happy to take questions about any particular regulation but if Members are happy to take them en bloc I am happy to propose it in that format.

The Bailiff:

Yes, and you do not wish to speak to them, you just propose them en bloc?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Please, yes.

The Bailiff:

Very well, are the regulations seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on any of the regulations?

2.2.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Just very briefly, I am more than happy to support all the regulations in their entirety.  I am a governor of the Jersey Blind Society, EYECAN, and I fully support this and congratulate the whole team on the work they have done.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the regulations?  If no other Member wishes to speak in Second Reading, then I close the debate and call upon the Assistant Minister to respond.

2.2.2 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Firstly, I would like to thank Deputy Lewis for his expressions of support which is greatly appreciated and I would also like to thank the chair of the Scrutiny Panel for their input which, to some extent, has resulted in this further proposal coming to the Assembly.  They have been supportive and helpful all the way through.  Thank you and I propose the regulations.

The Bailiff:

I ask the Greffier to put a voting link into the chat.  I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The regulations have been adopted:

The Bailiff:

Do you propose the matter in Third Reading, Assistant Minister?

2.3 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Yes, I do.  I would like to thank Members for their support so far on this important bit of legislation which will mean a lot to people with disabilities and their ability to access entertainment and cultural matters.  I propose in the Third Reading.

The Bailiff:

Are the regulations seconded for Third Reading?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading?  If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading, the debate is closed and I ask the Greffier to place a voting link.  I open the voting and I ask Members to vote.  If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  The regulations have been adopted in Third Reading:

3. Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021)

The Bailiff:

The next item is the Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections Law, P.17, lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.  For the purposes of the debate, the main respondents will be the chair of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Senator Moore, and the Chief Minister and Senator Gorst, and the chair of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) in relation to the amendments of Senators Gorst and Farnham.  Before I ask the Greffier to read out the citation, Members have had the benefit of a running order prepared by the Greffe and approved by me and a further update of that has been circulated containing in the notes section those parts of the propositions and amendments where a qualified majority is required, in other words, 25 votes are needed.  The purpose for that is, of course, that anything that changes the constitution of the Assembly, the duration of anyone’s term of office, those kinds of things, pursuant to Article 89A require the majority of elected Members to pass it and so those will have 25 votes.  Hopefully Members have received the updated running order with those in the notes set out in full.  I ask the Greffier to read ...

Male Speaker:

Could I declare an interest which is the same for every States Member?  It may seem obvious but if we extend our term of office we will get an extra month’s salary.  That cannot stop us debating it, and I am sure that would not be a reason for people voting for an extension, but it is nonetheless the case and I think it should be mentioned.

The Bailiff:

Thank you for mentioning it, Connétable.  It is, I suppose, arguably a direct interest but it is an interest shared by everybody within the Assembly and it makes, to my mind, no difference.  It clearly has to be debated and it does not disqualify anyone from voting in connection with this.  Thank you very much indeed though.  I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202-.  A law to amend the constitution of the States and make provision about the election of Deputies and Connétables, and for connected purposes.  The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

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

The Assembly stands on the threshold today of delivering some long overdue change to our electoral system.  It is a change demanded of us by the people we serve.  Every time we ask them, their message is clear.  It is a change recommended to us time and time again by every review panel, commission and observers’ mission we have invited to evaluate our system.  Despite this, it is change for over 20 years that has been put off and pleaded, blocked or wrecked by successive Assemblies to the disappointment and despair of the public we serve.  Our figures for civic engagement, among the worst in the world, is a manifestation and reflection of this.  In December last year came a breakthrough, the strongest vote in support of real electoral change the Assembly has seen in decades.  It is now within our grasp to demonstrate that we are listening.  We can put the voter first by offering a fairer, simpler system and we will repair the damage done to this Assembly’s relationship with its people when the referendum vote was ignored.  Today what I am proposing is a legislation to enact that decision.  Today we can cement into law paragraph (a) of P.139, an Assembly of 49 Members, 37 elected from 9 districts, each choosing a number of representatives based on population plus the 12 Parish Connétables.  The remaining amendments to the legislation which underpins the election process addressing all of the proposed improvements, including the “none of the above” option, are currently being drafted and will return to the Assembly very soon.  The change to the composition of the Assembly and the electoral districts represents a significant shift.  International standards and best practice dictates such change should be implemented no later than 12 months before the date of the next election which we can possibly do at this sitting.  The reason for this standalone first tranche of enactment is to give clarity and certainty one year ahead of election time.  P.P.C. is poised to launch a campaign informing the electorate of what the changes mean to them and how the new system will work.  We want to reach out to potential candidates well before the election to let them know what is involved so they are prepared as soon as possible.  We want to urge all those who have given up on us after the 2013 referendum to come back into the fold.

[10:15]

We want to explain the new simplicity to those who found the old system confusing and off-putting.  At the allotted time, we want to encourage everyone to do their duty and vote.  No one likes to feel stupid but whether trying to select the right cycle on a washing machine or the right candidate in an election, simplicity is key.  It is not clever to be complex.  I wish to pay tribute to the law drafters and law officers who have been incredibly helpful.  We are in new territory here; it is tricky and exhaustive work being undertaken with great care and diligence.  I have just noticed somebody has commented there is quite a bad echo.

The Bailiff:

There is a bad echo.  Speaking personally, I can hear you, Deputy, so I had not interrupted you.  But if anyone is indicating that they cannot hear, notwithstanding the echo, could they indicate to me now?  Well it looks like even though there is something of an echo, and there is, you can still be heard, so if you would like to continue, Deputy.

Deputy C.S. Alves:

I might just sit back a little bit from the mike.  Can you still hear me now?

The Bailiff:

Yes, we can.  Or I can, anyway.

Deputy C.S. Alves:

I will just repeat that last paragraph.  I wish to pay tribute to the law drafters and law officers who have been incredibly helpful.  We are in new territory here; it is tricky and exhaustive work being undertaken with great care and diligence.  We offer our heartfelt thanks to them.  From them, we learnt in moving from the old electoral system to the new, there has to be a day upon which one ceases to exist and the other becomes law.  The best day for that transition is election day, hence the date appearing in this legislation.  I am just going to try something else, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Yes, as Deputy Labey has suggested in the chat, if everyone could make sure that their own microphones are muted to ensure that we do not have any unnecessary reverberation and echo.

Deputy C.S. Alves:

Can you still hear me?

The Bailiff:

Yes, we can, thank you, or I can.

Deputy C.S. Alves:

I can still hear the echo a little bit as well.  From them, we learnt that in moving from the old electoral system to the new there has to be a day upon which one ceases to exist and the other becomes law.  The best day for that transition is election day, hence the date appearing in this legislation.  I must admit, this came as a late surprise.  We had hoped to continue our consultations on the date of the next election before bringing our proposal to the Assembly.  However, it had to be part of this proposal and with the lodging deadline fast approaching to ensure a debate this week, this curtailed that process.  I had hoped for a meeting with the Scrutiny Liaison Committee and a Teams briefing for all Members but this did not happen.  Deputy Labey and I would like to apologise to Senator Moore, the Scrutiny Liaison Committee and to Members for this, no slight was intended.  The S.L.C. (Scrutiny Liaison Committee) comments are very much noted and out of respect for them P.P.C. adopt a neutral stance in proposing the reduced lodging period amendment.  There is precedent for a reduction in the lodging period for the Government Plan and P.P.C.’s amendment to this effect was meant to be helpful.  Members are of course entitled to reject that and to opt for a June election.  The next Council of Ministers will have to adapt and overcome accordingly.  It is unusual to have a debate in the Assembly on the date of the election.  Historically, the Greffe have worked out the most suitable day, passed this on and with no questions asked, so I want to make it absolutely clear, P.P.C. will make the election work on whichever day the Assembly chooses.  I also want to make it clear that a 22nd June election date does not extend the life of this parliamentary term.  We were all elected or re-elected on 16th May 2018 for a 4-year term of office.  The nearest Wednesday to that date in 2022 is Wednesday, 18th May.  That is the date we have scheduled for nomination night, the firing pistol for the election campaign.  The parliamentary term ends there and the election begins.  Because of the Assembly’s unanimous approval of Article (f) on P.88/2018 on 26th June 2018, the Assembly will properly prorogue or enter a period of dormancy.  There will be a new distinction that when the election is called, our term of office is over.  Ministers will only retain their authority to sign off on routine or emergency orders.  If Ministers are struggling with this concept, then I am afraid that is tough.  The Assembly was resolute in the aftermath of the last election when debating P.88.  Clinging to visible power during an election is not acceptable.  Gone will be the days of ministerial decisions announcing new policies, grabbing J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) headlines while the campaign is in train.  In practice and perception, the term of office will cease when an election begins and an election begins on nomination night.  P.P.C. also does not consider it to be appropriate for outgoing Members to maintain their ministerial positions after election day.  Again, with P.88 very much in mind, we propose the Ministers cease to hold office after election day.  The Chief Minister will remain in post to cover any emergencies until the swearing-in of a new council.  We are tightening up as far as possible the time between the election result and the election of Chief Minister and Ministers while allowing for necessary negotiation time.  This can be done in 15 working days.  In a second tranche of legislative amendments which are due to come forward for debate before the summer recess, P.P.C. will be bringing forward changes to that.  Newly-elected Members take their oath as soon as practicable after the election to ensure that Members leaving the Assembly do not retain powers once the electorate have chosen others to take their place.  The next election could also avoid Liberation Day and the Easter holidays with the nomination on Wednesday, 18th May.  Five clear weeks of election will take us to 22nd June 2022 which has a nice ring to it and we can have Chief Minister, Ministers and Scrutiny chairs in place by the third week of July when we traditionally recess.  As with electoral reform, the date of an election will be subject to 49 different views on the best choice but, just as with electoral reform, to make progress there must be compromise.  What should not be compromised is the optimum day for an election which best suits the public, not one that is personal preference of politicians or because of parliamentary procedure.  This is definitely the tail wagging the dog.  Soon after the last election, Deputy Labey, unhappy with attending Liberation Day as both a States Member and a candidate for election, reopened the debate on the best time to hold our general election.  Inevitably, the notion of returning to autumn resurfaced.  In reality, this would mean a mid-October election at the earliest.  The overwhelming consensus from Members was a preference for spring or early summer when the evenings are lighter and coupled with a desire for Liberation Day not to fall within the election period.  It was me who suggested the date of 22nd June.  The last election clashed with my own students’ crucial G.C.S.E. (General Certificate of Secondary Education) and A-level exams.  This struck me at the time as counterproductive in terms of increasing turnout among the younger demographic, especially since the Assembly lowered the voting age to 16, which is something we should be proud of, especially as very few jurisdictions around the world have been brave enough to do this.  If we want to empower our young people to vote, we also have a duty to make it as accessible as possible for them.  On the issue of Liberation Day, former Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, sums up the dilemma in the 2018 States Assembly Annual Report and I quote: “As the chairman of P.P.C. says, sitting Members who are standing for re-election have a slightly uncomfortable day on Liberation Day which is a time when all States Members should be on parade to celebrate our national day.  The concern here is for new candidates.  How must they feel days before polling day seeing those they are challenging in the prominent public gaze on our national day.”  The Comité des Connétables were consulted once a June date was being considered and because of a clash with Parish accounting and future budgeting, the Connétables voiced their preference for an autumn election.  The committee did, however, give its blessing for the 2022 election to be held in June but stated they would like a conversation as soon as possible on a return to autumn for the 2026 election.  This is a conversation P.P.C. will facilitate.  The Deputy Greffier, Deputy Labey and myself attended the Council of Ministers.  The June date was well received and gained implicit approval.  Concerns over preparation for the Government Plan and a so-called extension of the term of office were not voiced then and appeared many weeks later.  If the election were to return to the autumn in 2026, as a number of Members seem to prefer again, Government arrangements for the preparation of their Common Strategic Plan would have to find ways to overcome this.  The point is, we can overcome and we always do.  I want to finish my speech with this observation.  An election date is of fundamental importance to our democracy.  P.P.C. is striving to hold the next election at the optimum time for the greatest voter turnout.  We are not playing politics, we believe this consideration trumps any other.  Nevertheless, the Assembly has the opportunity to reject that and stick to the May date.  Either way, we will respect the Assembly’s decision.  Changes to our electoral system enacted here again are driven by what is best, simplest and most fair from the voters’ perspective, not the politicians’ perspective.  That has been our guiding principle.  The December debate still rings in our ears with 5 amendments attempting to alter P.P.C.’s proposed changes to the Assembly.  It ran into 3 days.  In truth, by the time we reached Senators Farnham’s and Gorst’s amendments, both attempted to restore the Senators, we all knew the Assembly had made up its mind.  Nevertheless, we listened to the Senators and their supporters.  All were given the opportunity to have their say and they did so repeatedly.  Do we really need to re-rehearse those arguments today?  This Assembly resolved to make real change, to mend our broken system, to repair the damage done when a referendum was ignored, to build a better, more meaningful, fairer and simpler future for democracy in Jersey.  We want to restore confidence in this Assembly so, Members, for just one more debate on electoral reform before we close this chapter, I urge you to maintain your resolve and stand by the decision you made just 4 months ago.  Let us move forward.  I propose the principles. 

The Bailiff:

Are the principles seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? 

3.1.1 Senator L.J. Farnham:

It is difficult for a number of Members, I think, well it is difficult for me, because there are some elements of the principles I support and some that I wholeheartedly cannot support.  But what I think is clear is that we are all committed to the continued change that we have seen over the last 20 years.  In fact, since Clothier, all elements of the change have been introduced in stages.  A lot of what I want to say in relation to the Island-wide mandate I will keep, I think, for the debate on the amendments but I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that the chair of P.P.C. made in her very good presentation of the principles.  The first one is that I think Islanders do want continued change but I am concerned about the fact that we are proposing to remove the Island-wide mandate, clearly against public opinion, if Members cast their minds back to the Parish roadshows that were carried out - we call them roadshows - by the chair and a team from P.P.C.  I attended a number of those but I remember particularly the one I attended in St. Ouen was wholeheartedly against the removal of the Island-wide mandate by a very large majority.  As I believe, all, perhaps with the exception of St. Helier - I am not sure, I cannot remember - were not in favour of removing the Island-wide mandate.

[10:30]

The chair also talked about wrecking this.  There is certainly no intention to try and wreck anything.  A healthy difference of view and opinion is nothing to be concerned about, it is why we have these debates.  I also want to just touch on the issue of the claim that our current system is confusing and I do not think that is right.  I think it is underestimating our electorate to say that they do not understand the current system.  All of my life, and I have been interested in politics since I can remember, since a very young age, because my family always voted and we were always encouraged to take an interest, I have never witnessed any of my peers or friends or family or other Islanders saying the system confuses them.  I believe we have made it a little bit easier moving forward with the single true election day, although that I think unwittingly started to cause a demise of the office of Senator because the Assembly at the time felt it was not possible to elect more than 6 or 8 Senators on a single ballot paper.  Well of course Guernsey have since proved us wrong.  So to make progress, we must all compromise, as Deputy Alves said, and I think the amendments, or some of the amendments proposed today are exactly that, a compromise, and I look forward to speaking to them.  Whatever happens today, whatever the results, I hope the whole Assembly will embrace the way forward, whatever that may be.

3.1.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I just wish to make comment on a reference the chair of P.P.C. made to the necessity of this further debate.  In this context, I refer back to the so-called hospital debate some months ago when there was disappointment among the public that it was so short.  It is the case obviously that Members had the benefit of internal debates on the matter and I can see why the public were disappointed that it was not aired more fully at that time.  I appreciate too that this subject has been debated to death over the last few years.  Members can be forgiven for saying it is not too similar in the sense that the public should be well aware of it but I respectfully suggest that therein lies the problem.  The matter has been debated so often and the status quo has been retained so often that, on the last occasion, many of my constituents certainly believed that it would make the same fate and were not particularly incentivised to join in.  Now that they are facing the reality of the situation, there appears to be greater interest by the public in what is now before us and I therefore do reject the idea that this is some form of wrecking motion.  I would ask that, whatever point of view Members have, we do continue with this in the spirit that the public deserve with a further full debate no matter that there are a few items that will not have been rehearsed before.  I urge Members to continue with this debate in that vein. 

3.1.3 Senator K.L. Moore:

I too will maintain the majority of my comments to speak on the amendment but I did wish to respond to comments by the chair of P.P.C. in relation to conversations about this matter.  While I am grateful and members of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee and the various panels, I am sure, will also be grateful for the apologies of the Privileges and Procedures Committee in relation to the moving of the election date, it is rather disappointing to note that the Council of Ministers were not indeed consulted on this important matter.  This is not a petty matter.  It is of fundamental importance and I think Senator Gorst in his amendment identifies that issue very clearly about the moving of the date of an election and the fundamental message that that can hold for the community, Members and also those wishing to stand for a future election.  It was well-known to the Privileges and Procedures Committee after the previous election that the move from October to the spring did cause issues in terms of preparing for the Government Plan and preparing also for the common strategic priorities process and all of the implications that has both for the Executive and for the non-Executive Members.  It is simply for that purpose that we feel somewhat disappointed by the approach of the Privileges and Procedures Committee in terms of not taking into regard the impact that this move will have on the fundamental principle but, secondly, on the good functioning of the Assembly and its internal work.  The Scrutiny Liaison Committee have, on a number of occasions, had to highlight the difficulties that we have in conducting important business over the summer period where it is very difficult to achieve hearings with both civil servants and Ministers who wish to take a period of holiday.  It was somewhat amusing to hear the chair mention that, with the Council of Ministers, et cetera, all appointments will be made by 3rd June just in time for the summer recess.  I really would hope and counsel the Privileges and Procedures Committee to give greater consideration.  There had been a rumour some time ago that they had considered bringing the election date forward to an October election again, as the chair mentioned in her speech, and I was somewhat disappointed that they did not take that step and do that.  I simply wish to note the Scrutiny Liaison Committee’s majority view in this regard and to thank the chair for the apology but I would like to state at this time that greater consideration does need to be given to that particular matter.  I hope that, going forward, we can have greater engagement between the Privileges and Procedures Committee and the Scrutiny Liaison Committee when considering the organisation of important business in the future. 

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

I, first of all, put down to speak because I wanted to congratulate the chairman on P.P.C. with what I thought was a very masterly speech very, very clearly setting out the whole rationale as to why we really have come to this point and we must see it through.  Of course, I think the overall position is that what we have here today is as close as we can get to the referendum decision in the referendum that was taken in 2012 or whenever it was.  Of course, I was a Member of the States.  I have said this before and I will say it again.  I regret voting against those changes at that time and I think with everything that has gone on since then indicates that was the wrong decision, that we need to make progress and this proposal we have on the table finally achieves that within one year of our election.  I think that absolutely must not be underestimated.  On the issues that the chairman spoke of, in particular the issue about the rush - and we had that debate before and I will not go into the details of it - I think the way the transition was done between the Council of Ministers that held office between 2014 and 2018 and now was not good.  We had absolute embarrassment after embarrassment of ministerial decisions which really set the whole structure of our ministerial government and so on that was rushed through.  We are only really now seeing the full consequences of this all within that period and further and so I am really, really, really pleased that the arrangements we have here will absolutely rule that out.  Now of course it is well-known that I do not intend to stand again at my age and I can say I am absolutely delighted that, on the election day, I will not hold any ministerial responsibility but I will deliver it up until then as my obligation to my electorate requires.  I can assure you there is no personal interest.  I do feel that Liberation Day was spoiled by having that election around the time of the Liberation Day and I remember feeling all those things that the chairman describes.  The public must be very, very confused and so I think we should allow ourselves to celebrate and mark Liberation Day without all that tension and political goings on.  Then after that, we are into a proper democratic process.  I think the complications that have been mentioned about the Common Strategic Policy and the Government Plan and so on can be sorted.  You start with the democratic processes and then we modify those that are bureaucratic processes to suit.  As the chairman said, it can be sorted so we should not see that as a bar.  Ultimately, I think there is merit in the longer term in an autumn election but I think that will come in time.  One thing I would like the chairman, in her reply, to pick up on please is this issue which I had hoped we would also see in time for the next elections, which is changes to the Election Law.  The particular thing I wanted to see happen - which I always thought was very unsatisfactory as it is now - is that we do have a common system for access to the register of electors and we do have a single nomination timetable where we do not have this situation where particular Members or candidates can manipulate which consistency they stand for by turning up on different dates and surprise everybody and so on.  I recall we had a debate about that and I would like to know where that sits in the scheme of things.  Is that now too late to happen because of the fact that it is within a year of an election and, therefore, is that for the future?  I would like please if the chairman could pick that up.  I am absolutely delighted with where we are.  There is really only one issue for me on the amendment and that is the question of whether we have enough Members because the restrictions to reduce the number of Members has caused problems but that is an issue for the amendment when we come to it. 

3.1.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Following on from Senator Moore’s comments, I feel for the new chair of P.P.C. because I think she has been given a difficult task with regard to the decision we made 4 months ago but to hear that Scrutiny have not been consulted, for me, is a massive problem particularly with regard to the date.  To be honest, there are elements when you look at the way this has gone through - and, strangely, this is not me speaking against it but criticising it - which is that P.P.C. have not covered themselves in glory upon this.  They are a body that is meant to maintain a kind of equilibrium with the Assembly itself but we see that they have not consulted Scrutiny.  We know that when this was passed at the end of last year that it was opportunistic in itself.  I can handle that opportunism, if the process afterwards is spotless and flawless but we hear today that it is not.  I personally do not think apologies are enough.  I have spent a lot of time in this Assembly criticising the Government for ignoring Scrutiny.  I now have to criticise P.P.C. for ignoring Scrutiny and that saddens me enormously.  Certainly, with regard to the date, it makes me strongly question whether I could support that and I would ask, when it comes to it, that part is taken separately.

[10:45]

In terms of the date itself, I just do not see how an election on 22nd June works with the calendar.  I cast my mind back to 2018.  We had the election on 18th May or 16th May but thereabouts and we were sworn in at the very beginning of June.  We then had a process which lasted about 3 to 4 weeks electing the Council of Ministers and then from a Scrutiny perspective, there were many new Members who are very eager - as all new Members are - who wanted to get down to work.  What happened?  The Government went on holiday and that was with an election date in May.  With an election date towards the end of June, we will have the Council of Ministers elected towards the end of July and then I promise you the Government will then go on holiday.  There will be no discussion of the Common Strategic Policy and there will be no discussion of the Government Plan until September.  There will be many new Members kicking their heels and wondering: “Why did we stand for election again because nothing seems to happen because everyone has gone on holiday?”  For me, this 22nd June date is an entirely unworkable issue.  It is not against the principles.  It is against that particular element of these principles.  It does not work.  You will have the media standing there saying: “We have a new Government.  Where have they gone?”  They are in the Costa Del Sol or somewhere else.  I urge Members to really think hard about that because, in my view, it is entirely unworkable and that is the reality of the situation.  We can theorise and we can say: “Well, does everyone have to go on holiday?”  No, of course they do not but they will.  That is just the reality of the situation.  I want to register my disappointment with P.P.C. not taking this to Scrutiny.  As good as their reasons for that may be, it is not good enough especially on the back of a level of opportunism that was there in November and December.  Certainly, for me, that date just does not and cannot work. 

3.1.6 Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:

I was not going to speak in this part of the debate but I do to repeat the apology to Senator Moore that the chairman of P.P.C. gave on behalf of both of us in her speech.  Yes, I have to accept also the criticism from Deputy Morel and I apologise.  To Deputy Morel, we will be having a debate on the date because of Senator Gorst’s statement so we will be able to debate the whys and wherefores of the change.  I think at this stage I will point out that what we took into consideration when proposing a change to the date is we have to look to Article 3 of the first protocol to the E.C.H.R.  (European Convention on Human Rights) given effect by the Humans Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 which states that: “The high contracting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”  We also take into consideration the Venice Commission’s code of good practice in electoral matters June 2002 which says that with regard to frequency of elections, elections must be held at regular intervals at the Municipal Assembly’s new office and must not exceed 5 years.  We are well within the 5 years.  It was the view of the law officers that we are entitled to change the date of the election by regulation.  We can do that.  At the moment, it has to be within 7 days of 16th May because that was the date of the last election so there is a 7-day leeway.  If we want to keep it on a Wednesday, we move it to 18th May 2022.  I did talk to the law officers about an autumn date.  Senator Moore is absolutely right.  It would have to be mid-October really, once recess is finished, when people are back off their holidays and then the nomination process can start in early September.  If we want a 4 or 5-week election, it probably would be mid-October.  Now I did float this with Members.  We had many discussions and I think we talked about it in a Team’s meeting in 2018 and 2019 and the overwhelming opinion was that most people preferred the light evenings that a spring or early summer election would benefit from rather than an October election where the evenings are getting darker earlier.  That is a very important consideration for many Members.  Of course, I had to have a discussion with law officers as to whether a move to October for 2022 was reasonable and with the amount of months, there was a question as to whether it was reasonable to extend the term from May to October.  We decided it was not and any discussion for an autumn election would have to be taken now by the time we set the date for the next elections.  That is what we will do.  We will have that conversation and I am very happy to give that assurance that we will do that and properly consult this time with everybody on that for 2026.  We were not sworn in until 1st June, we first sat on 4th June and it was the view of the law officers that it was perfectly reasonable.  The law allows in the human rights legislation for us to move the election date to 22nd June.  The catalyst for this was being on parade on Liberation Day, not wanting to be too visible because of being a candidate in an election and the sense that we were there in the public gaze and the gaze of the media in the middle of a campaign.  I found it cringe-worthy and as I was walking into the Square for the liberation ceremony, I wondered how it must feel for candidates challenging me to see me there on parade in such a way on Liberation Day.  It is a shame because you want to be able to enjoy Liberation Day.  It is our national day.  That was a prime catalyst for opening the debate on a change to the election.  Also of course, with a May election generally, you will have the Easter holidays in the middle of the election campaign and that is not wise and of course, as the chairman of P.P.C. mentioned, the fact that it is not great for people taking exams.  I hope that is helpful and no doubt we will talk about this more specifically when Senator Gorst’s amendment to the election day comes along. 

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

After a very good opening speech by the chair of P.P.C. setting out the grounds of this historic debate or historic moment in the States’ evolution, it has been disappointing that a sideshow is being setup outside the main event.  Several Members have been criticising the P.P.C., on which I sit, in terms of consultation or a lack of it with Scrutiny over the impact of the different election dates.  I think it is a sideshow because this is a historic opportunity for the States to stop being what is essentially - and I have said this in the past without being challenged - a gerrymandered parliament.  We have a chance to stop that being the case today.  To hear Members criticising P.P.C. and accusing P.P.C. of opportunism is really quite extraordinary.  I have been a chair myself and I know that the current chair has a thick skin but the P.P.C. has struggled through the years to try to end the fact that some people have more power over Government in Jersey than others and it depends entirely on where they live.  That is so wrong and it is quite extraordinary it is still happening in a western democracy in the 21st century.  Instead, the first few Members to speak have by and large criticised P.P.C. around the detail of the proposed election day.  Let us be clear.  The chair said very clearly that P.P.C. will work with whatever date is set for the election so let us not spend a lot of time on this matter because P.P.C. will work with whatever is chosen.  The reason the committee has come up with the preferred date was explained very well not only by Deputy Alves but by Deputy Young.  Deputy Young in particular I think drew our attention to the fact that Liberation Day is the national day of the Island.  Post pandemic, having effectively been denied the opportunity to commemorate and celebrate Liberation Day for 2 consecutive years, the Island will really want to commemorate it next year.  I think the last thing they will want, and the last thing Members will want, is questions about self-interest and promotion ahead of an impending election and an election which is effectively already running.  It will spoil that day and we do not want that.  We do not want politics in Liberation Day next year and that is why the proposed date has been chosen.  It gives us sufficient distance away from it and of course again, as the chair of P.P.C. explained, the expiry of the current term of office will neatly soak away into a nomination meeting and that will be sufficiently far away from Liberation Day to allow people to concentrate on the new election.  I think the debate needs to focus on the principles that we are here to debate.  We are here to make our Parliament work in a way that is fair to every elector of the Island no matter where they live.  I am concerned but I would not perhaps go as far as call them “wrecking motions” but, as I say, there does seem to be some diversionary tactics being employed at the start of this debate.  Those side issues, if you like, are going to be the subject of amendments.  Let us deal with them then but let us use our opening speeches to mark the fact that we are really trying to ensure that every person in Jersey has the same power at the ballot box as their neighbours. 

3.1.8 Deputy J.A. Martin:

I absolutely agree with everything Constable Crowcroft has just said.  I did want to speak because I think a lot has been said and I agree with some of the speakers but not all.  I think the principle of the principles is fantastic.  It was delivered exceptionally well with a really good explanation by Deputy Alves.  I do have a question and I do not need the Deputy to answer it but I am going to be asking her a more detailed question when we come to the nomination process.  I give her a warning there that that Article I want clarified because of all the hoo-ha that went on last time and it was absolutely a good recommendation from the election of servers.

[11:00]

I like to give people warning if I am going to ask them maybe something they have not covered in their original speech so I put that there.  I just do not really want to get into a political argument with Deputy Morel but the pandemic did one thing.  You can be sure nobody will ever be on holiday again and we have Teams.  I understand we cannot sit in the Assembly from the Costa del anywhere but we can do every other meeting and we do.  I think for newer Members, they need a little bit longer.  They have all said it to me: “It was sort of rabbit in the headlights.  I need a bit more information.”  Some people who have watched politics for years are not so surprised.  You would hope that someone standing for the Assembly knows what goes on and they have listened to debates like I did.  I have met Members who were elected and never listened to a States sitting in their life but, then again, we are where we are.  I have told the chair of P.P.C. I am supporting everything she has put forward.  I am not supporting any amendment and I absolutely agree with my Constable that this is where we should be going.  We had the big debate last year.  I probably should not have spoken but I just get annoyed when people put it out there that we have 10 week’s holiday.  Really? 

3.1.9 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just briefly, and I may reserve other comments for other debates, but to pick up on the comments from the last 2 speakers, I was slightly, I suppose “disappointed” is the expression, at the comments that some Members were disappointed that the Council of Ministers was not consulted on the date.  We have had some discussions.  We do need to have some more discussions with P.P.C. on some of the mechanics going forward.  We were asked about the issue of the Government Plan and I think the only comment I would make is that whatever the date will be next time around on whether it is May or June, there will be difficulties because it will be the first time that a Government Plan will have to be produced by the end of that year.  If Members recall in 2018, taking the principle rather than the detail, the previous Medium Term Financial Plan extended into and to the end of 2019.  We had to have transitional arrangements, et cetera.  So, to an extent, our hands were relatively tied.  The view we took as Council of Ministers, we made some observations around the mechanics, which P.P.C. have taken on board.  The date will be the date.  But we did not really feel it appropriate to challenge the date.  From memory, the majority of the Council of Ministers supported the date that P.P.C. are proposing because of the issues that have been eloquently laid out, both by the chair of P.P.C., by Deputy Russell Labey and others, including the Connétable of St. Helier.  For example, the conflicts with Liberation Day.  Next year will be the 77th anniversary and is likely to be the first time that we will have been able to celebrate Liberation Day for the past 2 years.  So there will be events I expect and I would have thought it was therefore appropriate for Members to be able to participate in them without fear of being seen to be electioneering.  From that perspective, Deputy Russell Labey and the chair of P.P.C. have thought about it appropriately.  Certainly, I will be supporting the date they have proposed.  It is not without its difficulties, neither of the dates are without their difficulties, and it will be with a different set of challenges to those that we experienced in 2018.  Government work does carry on at various points, including during the August period.  That is all I am going to say on that matter.  But we will have other debates around amendments and we will see how those pan out.  But, in terms of the date, P.P.C. have considered it appropriately and I will be supporting that.

3.1.10 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

On this issue of the election date, those who have spoken in favour of moving it, Deputy Alves and the Constable of St. Helier in particular, have made an extremely good case.  But, likewise, Senator Moore and Deputy Morel have raised some absolutely valid concerns that are worth discussing.  But there is of course going to be an amendment on that very issue and that really ought to be the place for the substantive debate on that.  I certainly pledge to respect whatever decision the Assembly makes at the end of that.  What this part of the debate is, is on the principles, and so I wanted to try to bring it back to the bigger picture here.  Partly I guess because I have spoken to just a handful of members of the public who were a little bit surprised this was coming back again after December.  Because they do not necessarily understand how the parliamentary workings go on for these sorts of things.  So we are in a position where we are redebating something that we debated just a short while ago as well as a couple of amendments, which go completely against the decision that we made by a substantial majority.  So I am hoping that this part of the debate at least can be about rubberstamping that decision we made in December.  In the runup to this debate, I tried to remember what happened in that debate in December and how we arrived at such a conclusive result.  How the momentum took us there.  But most importantly that sense of pure euphoria I felt at the end of that debate, and which I hope other Members felt too and can perhaps draw upon for the remainder of this debate.  Euphoria is the right way to feel because that debate, and hopefully this one too, comes after 20 years of undignified wrangling of election after election of poor voter turnout.  A clear growing dissatisfaction among the public in our democratic process.  Even the rejection of a referendum result.  But finally we came together to take our democracy forward on terms that in December almost a super-majority of this Assembly felt able to get behind.  What a feeling that inspired in me and hopefully others as well.  Progress that we ought to be proud of and a real sense of excitement I hope we can feel for the future about a reinvigorated system and what that could deliver for our democracy.  The reason we were able to do that was because those of us with a genuine desire for change, even when we did not completely agree with each other on what the perfect solution would be, were willing to listen to what the other side had to say to try to work together to focus on what we could unite around.  Rather than digging our heels in the sand and holding entrenched positions, which ultimately would leave nobody happy at the end of it.  I remember how I felt at the end of that and hope that we can feel it again at the end of this day and be able to say that we resolved this issue.  That we provided the foundations for a better election next time around, which will engage more people and end 20 years of deadlock.  That will hopefully, in the future, turn this into a non-issue where, because the fundamental issue of unfairness has been resolved, it no longer needs to constantly be raised.  Instead we can focus on the business of governing the Island, tackling the big issues that people care about, which I believe will restore a lot of faith in politics.  Let us not forget how much time and resources that would save as well.  But of course there were some Members who did not share in the euphoria who voted against it last time.  I get it.  I have seen versions of electoral reform presented in the past, which have made me uncomfortable, and may well have put me in the against-change bloc.  But I say to those Members who were against in December, do not be afraid of change.  This change is a huge opportunity and it will be better to get on board to help positively determine where we move together, rather than being an obstacle and end up risking being side-lined.  I went back and looked at the Hansard from December to remind myself of what those principal objections were.  One that I think ought to be treated most seriously is the charge that this proposal would somehow damage the Parish system.  It is sad that some have that impression of this proposal because nothing could be further from the truth.  This proposal is specifically put together to take into account those concerns that were expressed the first time around about the Parish link and try to match those people up with those who are concerned about the unfairness in our current system and show that the 2 principles do not have to be opposed to one another.  I was really pleased in that last debate that several Constables understood this and spoke very powerfully in support and outlined what they thought needed to be done on top of this to help take our Parish system forward.  It feels like there are a newer generation of Constables who have the will to make this happen and do not want the current electoral system to be responsible for maintaining unfairness in our voting system and holding back progress.  All in the name of essentially retaining 7 out of 12 Parishes having a sole Parish Deputy and a Senatorial election process to distract from that Deputy being held to account on Island-wide issues, which they should be.  That issue is resolved by this legislation.  The Parish system will not just survive, but it will thrive as long as there are people in the system who are willing to make that happen.  People who understand that it has to look to the future, be prepared to move with the times, and be open to respond to the issues that matter to their parishioners.  That system will always be relevant so long as they do that.  So I ask Members in this debate to accept the principles that we accepted by an almost super-majority in December, to get behind this, to make it work.  To, I hope, offer the public the opportunity to take part in an election, whatever day it ends up being on, and we will get to that point.  But to offer for them to take part in an election where their vote will be worth an equal amount, where we will have a robust discussion about the future of the Island, and the population of Jersey will get what it deserves in the outcome of that election.  I hope we will stop a further deadlock from occurring, which is what will happen if this proposition is rejected or if the amendments from Senator Gorst and Senator Farnham are accepted.  Where we will simply end up going back to the drawing board.  We have been back to the drawing board countless times before with no guarantee that it is just the next attempt that will finally be the one.  That clearly has never been the case before and would certainly not be guaranteed to be the case this time.  Now is the time.  We have an excellent proposition in front of us that takes us so much further forward in delivering voter equity, which is at really the heart of democracy, while also maintaining that Parish link that is considered so important to many Islanders.  Finding a unique Jersey balance there.  Not having us as an outlier among all of the other jurisdictions we often compare ourselves to in the international community as being a jurisdiction that has a broken voting system, which is unfair and undemocratic.  We will be able to say, no, we have a fair system.  It does not look like what any other jurisdiction has, it has not been imposed upon us by anything.  We chose it ourselves based on our own tradition and history and a desire for a fairer electoral system.  So I ask Members to draw upon that sense of euphoria that many of us felt in December, to endorse the principles of this legislation.  We will have a good debate I am sure on the date of the election and may the best side win in that debate.  Let us move forward and enhance our democracy and that is at the heart of what the principles of this legislation are all about.  So I ask Members to support the principles.

3.1.11 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I do object to comments of the P.P.C. chair referring to the propositions relating to electoral change.  Most propositions are brought with good intent and the chair must understand that in a democracy all views must be considered and Members vote thereon.  We all have various networks in our societies and receive differing views on matters before the Assembly.  All representations to me have been in favour of retaining Senators and I shall in turn be supporting the amendments to achieve this.  We have had Parish roadshows in our Parishes.  They were not well supported and sadly P.P.C. have chosen to ignore these.  We have seen them move from autumn to spring elections.  My observation is that it has not been as great a success as was anticipated and that the election time needs a review with the benefit of our experience.  I do, however, agree with the parameters proposed with regard to purdah and a dormant period, so would support any proposal to achieve a result that will overcome this in a fair and equitable manner.

[11:15]

I want to see more P.P.C. effort going into making it easier for people to vote.  That is the area that is unnecessarily complicated, in my view, and needs bringing up to date using available technology.  P.P.C. I believe have got themselves totally entrenched in the principles of voting weight and power.  I would contend that this is simply not an issue that affects our Government in any way.  I would ask that they may wish to demonstrate whether P.P.C. have any evidence of any member of the public in Jersey having been affected.  My experience is that one receives representations from residents throughout the Island via emails, through the Greffe, through telephone calls and correspondence.  One tries to respond or refer those to those who can give a better response.  This would normally be a Minister or governmental department.  There is no particular linkage to an electoral district.  Ministers represent the whole Island.  Scrutiny, through its various panels, represents the whole Island.  So I do not consider the repeated P.P.C. argument to be valid in our situation.  I believe that one should interpret the term “international best practice” according to the local situation.  That was certainly my understanding when I attended a C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) conference on the subject.  I would urge P.P.C. to take a broader view, which is suitable for our situation in Jersey.  I am supportive of change for the good but I am yet to be convinced that P.17 achieves this.  I do not wish to repeat previous arguments at this point in the debate but it is important that I express my views on the principles because I do not agree with them as presented and will not be supporting them unamended.

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

I would like to start by thanking Constable Crowcroft.  We have not always agreed on things over this term but he was spot on in something he said in terms of, he referred to them as “side shows”, I would not quite call them that, in terms of the date of the election.  That is something but it is separate and can be debated separately.  I think there will be a genuine debate on that in terms of its pros and cons and I look forward to that debate.  But we are talking about the principles that we voted for in P.139.  We have been here.  For many, this is a very surprising debate because, as I was speaking to people in my constituency, the question was: “I thought you had already voted for that.”  I had to explain the system.  There are many, particularly in St. Helier and districts around St. Helier, who feel that they are not represented equally in terms of their voting rights.  So this is a real step forward.  The positive feeling that came out of the vote from P.139, at a time where we were in a very difficult situation with COVID and a very difficult situation for this Assembly, I hope that Members remember that and they look back at that and think: “I am not going to change my approach over the principles now.  I am not going to change my approach in the final vote and take a step backwards with the amendments.  I will stick to what was said before so that we do not have to yet again go back to the electorate and say: ‘At the final hurdle we failed again.’”  So I urge Members to support the principles and to support them as they voted for in P.139 without the amendments.  I look forward to the debate on the minutiae and the detail of the electoral date.  As P.P.C. have said, they can accommodate whatever date we vote for, so that is a separate issue.

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

I am just basically saying that I support the principles that have been put forward.  I support the changes that are being put forward by P.P.C.  I may not speak in each of the individual debates because in one sense we are regurgitating things that I have heard over the last 13 years in this Assembly.  I know there are entrenched views.  I hope that Members will refrain from going over old ground, as we have done.  The comment that I will make, however, is that when I first came into the States over 13 years ago, former Deputy Roy Le Hérissier said to me 2 things that have stuck in my mind, he said (1) you will be frustrated and (2) you will have no real friends.  I can attest to the first.  I have been frustrated with repeated States Assemblies for the number of times we have debated these issues and heard the same arguments.  The same goes for other topics.  Rather than grasping the nettle and doing things, we repeatedly go around in circles.  This particular debate I thought last year, at the end, we had finally got somewhere.  I remember in that debate I was opposed to the proposals that had been put forward by P.P.C. at that time.  I was really digging my heels in.  I can remember being told we were expected or being asked to make a compromise.  On that particular occasion, I did compromise and I voted in the end to support something that I was not 100 per cent sure of.  I was really pleased, by the way, that we had made progress.  For the first time in 13 years we had made progress on this issue.  My feelings at the moment are one of despair.  Because we are going to go back again.  Part of my reasoning why we are going back on this again is some Members, the Senators in particular, have suddenly realised it is a totally different ballgame for them and that they are going to have to stand for election in districts.  Then they have looked at who is in those districts and they think: “I may not be successful this time.”  In the same way a number of Deputies, who have never faced election before, are now thinking: “In the bigger districts I am going to face opposition.”  That is democracy.  By trying to put the clock back to try to retain the existing system, all we are doing is retaining the existing faults in the States.  I wonder if we will ever, ever be able to deal with the problems in this Island when we have a States that cannot make the decisions and Members are looking at their own electoral prospects rather than the interests of the Island.  So I will stick to what I agreed last year when I compromised and went along with this new system.  I hope other Members will also, in the spirit of the compromises we have made, and to try to make progress, will do so also.  With that I will stop.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?  If no other Member wishes to speak on the principles, then I close the debate and call upon Deputy Alves to respond.

3.1.14 Deputy C.S. Alves:

I would just like to thank all Members for their contributions.  A lot of the things that were brought up I will address in more detail in the amendments.  I did want to start off by thanking Deputy Labey, Constable Crowcroft, Deputy Martin, Senator Mézec and Deputy Ward, who addressed a lot of the points that have already been raised.  I wanted to start off with Deputy Young and Deputy Martin, who mentioned nominations.  The nominations process and detail will be coming in the second tranche of amendments and legislation that we will bring forward.  There is still time to do that.  So there will be discussions with the Assembly and with Members prior to lodging these.  So I hope that answers your queries.  With regard to people mentioning that I had said that there were wrecking motions, I just want to make it clear that was not my intention.  I completely respect and agree that we do need to hear all views.  However, it was just really to reiterate the point that we did debate this quite extensively in December.  I also wanted to address the statement that was made about this having been opportunist.  This was something that was lodged for 6 weeks.  It was something that we had also debated in 2020 with P.126.  The original proposition was lodged in October, so Members did have 6 weeks to lodge amendments and several amendments were lodged.  We then debated it for 3 days.  It was not my intention to come across as if I was saying that what has happened with the amendments for today’s debate were wrecking motions, I just wanted to reiterate that a lot of these things that are in the amendments that we will debate today had already been covered during that debate.  A couple of Members mentioned the Parish roadshows.  Those Parish roadshows were for the previous proposal, which took the Constables out.  This is why we listened to what was said in those roadshows and came back with the proposition that we debated in December.  I also want to raise the point that, I think it was Senator Farnham who mentioned that his family and friends have never been confused by our system, which I understand.  However, they are not representative of the whole population.  We did a massive body of work in P.P.C. where we hired 4insight and the results from the focus groups and the surveys that we did was also included with our proposition in December.  Also, all you have to do is look at our voter turnout, 34 per cent.  It was ComRes, they completed some market research in 2019 as well, and they said that 60 per cent of the population found it difficult to understand the system.  So that just proves that it is not as easy as certain Members might think.  To clarify, there will be separate votes, obviously because of the Articles, this is the principles that we are debating, so I do hope that Members will be supportive of that so that we can have the debate on the amendments.  I also wanted to address the points that were made regarding there not being consultation with Scrutiny.  I agree with Senator Moore that, you are right, there should have been greater consideration.  I am not sure if it was due to the echo, but I did state in my speech that we were not expecting to bring the election day with this body of work that we are bringing forward today.  But, because of the advice that we then got, we had to bring it forward.  So it was premature and I do apologise again for that.  The Chief Minister is absolutely correct.  The third amendment that P.P.C. has brought forward in relation to dealing with the timings with the C.S.P. (Common Strategic Policy) and the Government Plan, these will have to be changed regardless of the election date.  So there will be a vote separately on that as well.  Whether the Assembly chooses to keep the election date in May, we will still have to have a debate on that amendment and a vote.  So I hope that I have dealt with everybody’s queries.  Obviously, what we achieved in December was a compromise and so we recognise that compromise is key and, as I stated in my main speech, we will go with whatever the Assembly decides with regard to the date and everything else.  I just would like to hope, and I urge Members that they will support these principles.  That we can have the debate on the details in these amendments.  So I maintain the principles and call for the appel please.

The Bailiff:

I will ask the Greffier to place a link into the chat.  The vote is on the principles of P.17.  I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way.

[11:30]

Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes.  I ask the Greffier to close the voting.  While the machine is processing, I express the gratitude of the Assembly to the Connétable of St. Mary for his contribution to the fund.  The fine applies in the normal way.  The principles have been adopted:

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre in the link: the Connétable of Grouville, Deputy Guida, the Connétable of St. Lawrence, the Connétable of St. Brelade, the Deputy of Trinity, the Connétable of Trinity, the Connétable of St. Saviour and the Connétable of St. Mary.  Those voting pour: the Deputy of St. Martin, Deputy Ward, Le Hegarat, Lewis and Gardner, the Deputy of Grouville, Deputy Ahier, Deputy Martin, Pinel, Young, Wickenden, Senator Moore, the Deputy of St. Ouen, Senator Gorst, the Connétable of St. John, Deputy Doublet, Alves, Labey, Senator Pallett, Senator Mézec, Deputy Truscott, Morel, the Connétable of St. Ouen, the Connétable of St. Peter, Senator Vallois, Deputy Southern, the Connétable of St. Helier, Deputy Pamplin, the Connétable of St. Martin, Deputy Ash, Senator Farnham and the Deputy of St. John.  Deputy Higgins voted in the chat.

The Bailiff:

Does the Corporate Service Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise the matter, Senator Moore?

Senator K.L. Moore (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you.

The Bailiff:

We move now to Second Reading.  There are a number of amendments, Deputy Alves.  Do you accept any of them?

Deputy C.S. Alves:

No, thank you.

The Bailiff:

Then do you propose Article 1?

3.2 Deputy C.S. Alves:

Yes.  Article 1 removes the reference to the 8 Senators and provides for the number of Deputies to be increased from 29 to 37.  This amendment comes into force on the day that will be fixed by law for the next ordinary election.  Article 1 also substitutes Schedule 1 to the 2005 law, replacing the current list of Deputies’ constituencies and specifying the number of Deputies to be elected in respect of each constituency.  This implemented the decision made by this Assembly in December and I ask Members to maintain that decision.  I propose the Article.

The Bailiff:

Is Article 1 seconded?  [Seconded]

3.3 Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021): Second Amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2))

The Bailiff:

There is an amendment lodged by Senator Gorst.  Could I ask the Greffier to read that amendment?

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 15, Article 1.  For Article 1(2) substitute “(2) In Article 2(1) (constitution of the States) for “29 Deputies” there is substituted “28 Deputies.”  Page 15, Part 2.  In the heading to Part 2, after “ELECTION OF” insert “SENATORS AND”.

The Bailiff:

Would Members object to taking this as read?  It is a very significant document.  Senator Gorst, are you content that we take this as read?

3.3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst:

Indeed I am, yes.  The question that the Assembly is facing today, and it is fair to say that it has faced this question on a number of previous occasions, is one of compromise.  We have heard a number of Members, and indeed the chair in her moving of the principles, said that for her, I assume she was speaking on behalf of P.P.C. as well, what had been proposed was a compromise.  That is of course a fair representation because there are Members of the Assembly who, without a doubt, would like to follow either the Clothier recommendation and have one category of Member, or follow up from the electoral observers and simplify our system to have one category of Member.  I have little doubt that for those Members who see what P.P.C. have brought forward as a compromise, they would like to see the office of Deputy being that single office where simplicity is at the heart of our system.  The chair also said, and one of the issues with this debate is there is a lot of agreement, it is where we draw the line of compromise.  Because the chair said in her opening remarks that she and P.P.C., and she is absolutely right to say this, wants the simplest system and the best system for voters.  We know that electoral turnout in Jersey is woefully low.  We all wish to see greater engagement in our Island’s political process.  Because we see throughout the pandemic year that Governments and Parliaments make life-changing decisions.  Therefore, we do want to see as many Islanders as possible involved in that process.  No doubt we will come back and talk in due course about the referendum and other matters as well.  There is a school of thought that says that once one has made the principal decision, which was made and supported with over 30 votes in December, and I supported that vote, because I do believe that there needs to be some change to our electoral system.  But once one has made that principal vote, one should stop making the argument.  Yet all Members know that in reality, if one feels something strongly, if one has been consulted by the electorate and lobbied by the electorate, it is important to continue to make that argument.  Whether this amendment and Senator Farnham’s amendment stand or fall today, I do think it has been the right thing to have this debate and to have this conversation in our community.  Because there has been more involvement and I have been approached by more Islanders on this matter than I have on a number of them.  You know that when you are as long in the tooth as I am, it is not very often that you get Islanders telling you that they agree with what you are doing.  Often making difficult decisions it can be the other way around.  But it is right that, as we are debating the legislation to change our electoral system, Members should have the opportunity to firmly either vote to retain the Senators, because that is where their compromise lies, or vote to remove them.  This is the piece of legislation that, dependent on the decisions that we make today, that will be the implication.  We have seen, and again the chair said in her opening comments, that people in Jersey care about their representation in this Assembly.  I would make the case that Islanders care about retaining the Senators.  So this is not, as some have suggested, a smash and grab or a wrecking amendment, and I am grateful that nobody today in the Assembly has made that accusation.  It is right that we, as the democratically elected Parliament, the States Assembly, make these decisions on behalf of Islanders with their interests at heart and what is best for voters.  So I think that it is a majority view, within our community, that Islanders wish to keep the Senators.  I do not just base that on the contact that I have had over the last number of days.  But if we go back and look at some of the work that has been undertaken over the years, I remember being on a P.P.C. with the then Constable of St. Clement when I was a very green Deputy of St. Clement and we undertook there an Ipsos MORI poll in 2006.  That showed that there was a majority of support for keeping the Senators.  Even in 2012, the Electoral Commission found that the majority favoured keeping the Senators.  But we will come back to why the referendum was held in the way that it was.  Then in 2017 the Scrutiny Panel, I think it was chaired by the now Chief Minister, undertook again an Ipsos MORI poll and it showed support for the Senators.

[11:45]

So it is right that we are having this debate today.  For me, the case for retaining the Senators is a clear one.  It has been said over the past few weeks, and I do not think it has ever stopped being true, that the Senators are the fairest and most equitable way of electing Members to this Assembly.  In fact, I do not think in any of the discourse throughout these days and throughout the years that we have considered these matters, has that been doubted or has that been argued against.  Eight votes, which every single elector is able to cast equally, for 8 seats.  You cannot get any more equal than that.  The Senatorial elections also of course give voters a greater say over the makeup of their Assembly.  That is undeniable as well.  If we were to proceed with this reform without the Senators, the ability of every voter in Jersey to shape the makeup of our Assembly, of their States Assembly, of Jersey’s Parliament, will be reduced.  In turn, Islanders’ ability to determine who might hold the role of Chief Minister and other senior roles in Government and Scrutiny are also diminished.  I cannot believe that is good for democracy.  So it is quite clear to me, and I have fought now a number of Senatorial elections, the electorate have spoken clearly.  Sometimes I have liked what they have said about me in the way that they have positioned me in that poll.  Other times it has been more difficult.  But I have had to accept, and it is right in a democracy that those who are elected to the States Assembly are democratically accountable to the public.  I, for one, think that those who hold the very highest office in our Government should be accountable to the entire Island.  The Senatorial election also of course allows Islanders to come together every 4 years and collectively discuss matters that are of interest to all members of our community, not just our issues or district issues.  This is important because, if we look to our sister island, one of the reasons presented to move from the district system that P.P.C. are now simply saying that we should move to, was that those districts and the politicians in those districts became too focused simply on parochial issues rather than Island-wide issue.  It is one of the reasons why they made the change to the all Island-wide mandate.  Because the issues that face us as a community are not going away.  They are difficult.  We find it difficult as a Government and as an Assembly to sometimes bring forward meaningful change.  But they must be focused on, particularly as we hope to come out of this pandemic period, we will have to pull together right across our community to deliver and secure jobs and a prosperous future for all Islanders.  A decision to remove the Senators risks our collective consideration of these issues and risks reducing the voice of the electorate in shaping our response to them.  Of course that is possible in some parts of the Island more than others.  The principles of this electoral reform, which I support, are to boost public engagement in politics, increase voter turnout, and achieve greater equity.  I do not think any Member today can disagree with those objectives.  But, if we step back for a moment, they all point to keeping the Senators.  Senatorial elections boost engagement.  They are traditionally more popular among the electorate.  Recently, certainly as popular as any other election.  They are the pinnacle of equity.  Again, if we look at our sister island, we saw that their electoral turnout went up and, goodness me, what would we not give to have the electoral turnout they had under their district system?  But it went up when they moved from a district system, which we are proposing to go to, to the all Island-wide system.  So I do not see how we can make the argument that, by removing the office of Senator, we will increase voter turnout.  If we are talking about complexity and how difficult our system is to understand, perhaps importantly the office of Senator is the easiest political office to understand.  So it does not seem logical in any effort to simplify the system that we should remove Senators.  Because the simplest, easiest to understand, is the office that we would be removing.  So we would remove the most straightforward, the simplest office to understand, in order to make the overall system less complex.  The more I have thought about that, because, like others, as we heard during the principles debate, I have changed my mind.  It seems to me illogical that we take the simplest, most-democratic office, out of our constitutional makeup in order to make the rest of the system seem more simple and increase the voter equity.  Of course, it is not my job today to set out what I believe to be the case against the Senators.  That is for others to do and P.P.C. have done so in their comments.  I know other Members will do so.  But I have come to the conclusion that it is not an especially strong case.  Because arguing that we should not have 3 types of Members because it is complicated is not a case against the Senators.  Arguing about the nature of hustings meetings, the length of the ballot papers and the number of manifestos is not a case against the Senators.  Arguing about a single election day is not a case against the Senators.  So one of the reasons that I have previously accepted that we could remove the Senators and why I have changed my mind is because I had always accepted the argument that you could not run an all-Island-wide system and therefore you had to try to recreate that in a district system.  So I know we do not like looking to Guernsey, and I least of all like looking to Guernsey.  But they have, in their process of their last election, where many of us thought that it would fail, fundamentally undermined all of the arguments that have been put forward for why we should remove the office of Senator.  So, for me, and I know this will not be every Member who I hope votes in favour of retaining the Senatorial office, for me the balance of compromise today is maintaining the Senatorial office, having large district Deputorial seats, maintaining the office of Constable, and going to the election in 2022.  We will come back and we will talk about the election day and that is the right thing to do.  But it is a second issue; it is not this issue.  For me, that is where the balance of the compromise should be.  Not taking that extra step to remove the office of Senator.  This amendment upholds democracy in our Island, maintains the influence of the electorate to shape the character of our States Assembly, and by implication our Government and our Scrutiny function.  It has kept the balance and stability of our Assembly.  That has served us well since 1948.  We do not have to be like everyone else all around us.  It maintains the most democratic political office.  It is, without doubt, the easiest office for the electorate to understand.  That is why I bring forward my amendment today.  I ask Members to very, very carefully consider where for them the balance of compromise sits, while meeting all of those aims and whether today is the day that they are going to vote to remove the office of Senator from Jersey’s electoral system.

The Bailiff:

Is the second amendment seconded?  [Seconded]  I have not noted anyone saying they wish to speak because it seems to me we now have to look at the amendment to the second amendment and then people will indicate what they want to speak on and we will deal with it in that way, in an ordered way.  Deputy Young, clearly we are at this point debating the second amendment and we will come back to debating it after Senator Farnham’s amendment to that second amendment has been dealt with.  It deals with all of the things contained within the second amendment and therefore any Articles affected by it.  If the second amendment were, for example, to be adopted by the Assembly, then Articles 1, 2 and 3, of the main proposition would have to be moved by the chair of P.P.C. as amended.  But the Assembly will have decided to accept those amendments.  I am not sure if that is any clearer.  It is difficult to be clearer than is contained within the draft running order that has been prepared.  But if any issues come up again I will do my best to address them.

3.4 Draft Constitution of the States and Public Elections (Jersey) Law 202- (P.17/2021): Second Amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2)) - amendment (P.17/2021 Amd.(2).Amd)

The Bailiff:

There is an amendment lodged by Senator Farnham to this amendment and I ask the Greffier to read that amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 3, amendment 1.  In Amendment 1, in the substituted paragraph, for “28” substitute “31”.  Page 4, Amendment 6.  In Amendment 6, delete paragraphs (c), (h) and (i).  Page 6, Amendment 22.  In Amendment 22, for “28” substitute “31”.

[12:00]

3.4.1 Senator L.J. Farnham:

This amendment seeks to fully support Senator Gorst’s amendment to retain the Island-wide mandate.  While at the same time just changing the makeup of some of the districts where they could be a little underrepresented by removing one Deputy from each of them, as suggested in Senator Gorst’s amendment.  My amendment to that amendment asks that one Deputy is added to District 3, St. Helier North, one Deputy is added to District 8, which is St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity, and one Deputy added to District 9, which is Grouville and St. Martin.  I have included a table as part of the report in my amendment, which emulates the table that was used in the debate in December.  So it follows on that example but just shows the variance from average in relation to the 9 districts.  No doubt some Members will try to challenge that in relation to the Constables, but I maintain that the Constables are elected by Parish and we know the equity is vastly different as we have one Constable representing St. Helier and one Constable representing St. Mary, so the difference between that is substantial.  So whenever you add that to any equation it throws it out.  Of course adding Senators makes absolutely no difference because they are voted by the whole Island.  I do not need to go on any further.  The amendment is fairly straightforward and I am pleased to propose it.

The Bailiff:

Is the amendment to the amendment seconded?  [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment? 

3.4.2 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I want to start by commending Senator Farnham because he is consistent.  There can be no doubt about that.  He wants to keep the Senators and every time he has an opportunity to bring an amendment to shoehorn them in, in some fashion, he takes the opportunity.  So I commend him for his consistency.  I would also like to castigate him for his consistency because every time he does this he ends up coming up with a proposal that simply does not make sense.  That is what this proposal is.  Considering it, not as an amendment to this proposition but as a departure from the status quo that we have in our current system, this undoubtedly makes things worse.  It increases the number of politicians in Jersey.  Good luck squaring that with your constituents.  Most people in the Island would shriek in horror at the idea of more politicians.  It is simply not necessary in our system.  He has his numbers completely wrong when it comes to voter equity.  If you look at the distribution of Deputies, which he is suggesting, he is short-changing St. Saviour.  St. Saviour is the one Parish that is represented almost perfectly in terms of the number of representatives it has under the current system.  It now goes to being under-represented.  St. Clement is under-represented in the current system.  With an increase in Members it becomes even more under-represented.  St. Helier, true, it gains one representative, but with the increase in Members still leaves St. Helier vastly under-represented and distributing further representatives to the country Parishes while the Constables remain in the States has an extremely distorting effect, which puts Jersey into a position where we cannot claim we have made any progress on the issue of fairness.  So the onus has to be on Senator Farnham to explain just why on earth what he is proposing is an advancement on the current system.  Because it is extremely difficult to see how maintaining 3 tiers in the Assembly, which will not make the system simpler, in fact arguably it makes the system more complicated because of changing districts, to have the distribution of Deputy seats be done in a way that is out of line with population and therefore not addressing the fundamental issue of unfairness.  How can he possibly call this a step forward?  Does he not understand that those of us who care about fairness in the system are not going to be shut up by this?  We are going to keep arguing and saying this is not fair on large numbers of the people of Jersey, his constituents as an elected Senator, who live in parts of the Island where the power of their vote is diminished.  Because they do not have the level of representation that is universally recognised in every democracy to be based on having a relatively equal number of voters in those districts.  Senator Farnham cannot be criticised for his consistency in wanting to keep the Senators; absolutely right.  But, if he wants to do that, he should maintain the position that he held in the December debate, which is to just vote against all of this.  Nobody will be able to criticise him and say he has not acted according to his conscience because it will clearly be the case that he has done so.  But if he wants to advance an argument for change he needs to advance a much better argument than what he has come up with here, which is worse voter equity than the current system, no progress on simplicity, and increasing the number of politicians in an Island that does not need it.  I urge Members to reject this amendment.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Senator.  Could I just mention to Members in the Chamber that any communication requesting to speak or raising any points need to be made through the chat so that they are visible to all Members.  I have noted however, Connétable of St. Mary, you wish to speak.  I have listed you to speak after the Connétable of St. Martin and before Deputy Gardiner.  Because that is when I noted it.  But, in future, if Members could indicate in the chat whether they wish to raise any points or speak so that all other participating Members can be aware of it.

3.4.3 Deputy R. Labey:

I will speak to both amendments.  The fundamental claim in Senator Gorst’s amendment is that the office of Senator is the most democratic of all the elected offices in Jersey, therefore it is perverse for it to be lost.  This is untrue.  Senators are not more democratic.  Having democratic Senators is not worth much if the democratic costs of accommodating them are too great.  The central case against reintroducing the role of Senator is what it does to the electoral system as a whole.  Senator Gorst’s case for the Senators refuses to acknowledge the central reason for reform.  The current system is broken, it has failed.  The fact that it has been in place since 1948 is precisely the point.  We have kept the same system and, unsurprisingly, we have therefore kept the same problems.  Making a small tweak to the Deputy elections is not a significant reform.  It barely shifts the dial as far as most voters are concerned.  In St. Brelade, for example, instead of voting for 3 Deputies across 2 electoral districts, as at present, Senator Gorst’s proposal would see 3 Deputies in one electoral district plus the Senators.  Most voters will barely recognise the difference.  We need change, not a tweak.  If P.P.C. had brought as a proposition what Senator Gorst wants us to end up with today, we would have been laughed out of course.  It is a Jersey fudge.  He argues that the election of Senators is the fairest and most equal way of electing Members of the States.  The office is simply unchallengeable, he says on that point.  He is wrong.  What he means is that there is no malapportionment with an Island-wide mandate.  Correct.  But meaningless when it comes to judging fairness and equality.  Fairness is not only measured by malapportionment.  There are plenty of ways in which the Senatorial election could be considered less fair or less equal.  For example, the barrier to entry in the Senatorial election is high.  It costs a lot more to launch a campaign with a chance of success, especially if you do not have a profile, i.e. you are not a sitting Member.  This is a deterrent to stand.  Deputy elections have lower spending limits and therefore are more accessible.  A key consideration when measuring democracy.  On this measure, Deputy elections are fairer.  But much worse than that is the effect the Senators have on the rest of the Assembly.  You cannot consider the Senators’ alleged fairness without considering the whole system.  This amendment is presented as if it is a minor add-on to the decision taken before Christmas.  The best of both worlds.  The new larger districts and the Senators as well.  I quote Senator Gorst: “Without impacting on the fundamental principles of what is achieved through this electoral reform.”  This is nonsense.  The price of reintroducing the Senators is to effectively sabotage the P.P.C. reforms.  It does undermine their fundamental principles.  Arbitrarily lopping a Deputy off each district results in unfairness.  Just look at St. Saviour, which is diminished by both this amendment and the amendment to the amendment.  Look at Grouville.  Look at the old St. Helier 3 and 4.  It returns us to an unnecessarily complex system.  Correcting these issues was the whole point of P.P.C.’s reforms.  This is what you get when one approaches electoral reform from one’s own particular perspective.  Senator Gorst has botched it.  Now we have Senator Farnham as Tonto riding to the rescue of beleaguered Lone Ranger with 3 extra seats in his saddlebags to partially correct the unfairness.  The trouble is, we now suddenly increase the total number of States Members.  Something that was tried and failed in December and for which there is absolutely no popular support in the Island at all.  This is the price of trying to save the Senators, distortion everywhere.  It is not a coherent, thought-through proposal.  Mr. Gorst dismisses the complexity of the current system by arguing that we have had it since 1948.  He refuses to acknowledge the disastrous level of voter engagement that we have today.  It is a head-in-the-sand, everything is basically fine, just make a small tweak, argument.  Ignoring the fact that our system is ruinously broken.  Over and over again we have been told the public finds it complex.  Complexity is exclusionary.  It must end if our central goal is to increase voter participation.  Another way in which reintroducing the Senators sabotages P.P.C.’s reforms is the idea that the Senators’ election is the appropriate forum in which to discuss Island-wide issues and provides an elite of just 8 Members who are the qualified ones to discuss the big issues of the day.  I have participated in and watched Deputies’ elections, Deputies’ hustings, at the last election and the one before where every single question from the floor has been on an Island-wide issue.  You get a lot more questions at a Deputy hustings and they come around quick, proper scrutiny.  The Senatorial election is a forum for the consideration of Island-wide issues but the truth is it is not an effective forum.  Because 8 Senators are elected together, it is difficult to scrutinise their policies.  Hustings can involve up to 20 candidates and are widely seen, even by the participants, as a joke.  In an evening meeting, you can have a maximum of 3 questions and 20 2-minute answers to them.  It is excruciating.  What is more, few voters will scrutinise the policies of all 20 candidates.  The Senator is claiming superiority with Senators over other States Members.  But this elite position is a fiction.  It has no basis in any rule or law.  Once elected, all States Members have the same votes, rights and privileges.  All Mr. Gorst is talking about is recent convention, such as the convention that the Chief Minister is a Senator.  These are flimsy foundations on which to build an entire electoral system.  There are many circumstances in which these conventions are likely to collapse.  Take, for example, the rise of political parties.  Imagine a situation where a political party wins the largest number of seats but its leader is a Deputy.  They would no doubt nominate that Deputy as the next Chief Minister.  The other big claim that having the Senators in the States increases the total number of votes that a voter is able to cast and that this is more democratic, well it is certainly true that the Senatorial election means there are more votes to be cast by individual voters.  But, once again, there is no basis for describing this as an improvement in democracy.  It is a myth.  The issue is that the Senatorial vote is highly diluted.  You get 8 votes, but so does everyone else in the Island.  Therefore, your vote has proportionately less significance than in a smaller constituency where there are fewer people voting for their candidates.  Look at it this way, currently 8 Senators are spread between 106,000 people.  That is around one candidate for every 30,000.  In a Deputy district, under the P.P.C. proposals, by contract there is about one candidate for every 3,000 people.  Having a tiny say in electing a large number of representatives is no more democratic than having a larger say in electing a smaller number of representatives.

[12:15]

The real irony to which Senator Gorst refers is his proposals will reduce the greater fairness in our electoral system, which P.P.C.’s proposals represent.  Here is another thing, Senators also have historically made up a large proportion of the senior roles in Government.  Not at the moment they do not.  The saddest element to this is that, in performing his U-turn, Senator Gorst has joined the ranks of the Trumpian referendum result deniers.  This is what he said in the December debate: “I supported option B and option B, whether we like it or not, won that referendum.  Every time one talks about election reform and talks of either the need for the status quo or the need for change, quite rightly members of the public turn around and say: ‘We voted in the referendum’”.  He went on to say: “There is a fundamental belief that when you have asked the public a question and you have had their answer, you must enact it.”  So who are we to believe?  Are we to believe the Senator Gorst of December or the Senator Gorst of April?  It really does not matter because the facts are these, given a choice between large electoral districts and keeping the Senators, the public chose large electoral districts, 80 per cent to 20 per cent.  Given the choice between no change or big change, they chose big change.  We know they also want simplicity.  Yes, there is some passionate support for the Senators.  But we also know that is a minority support.  To date, the Save the Senators e-petition launched in December has attracted a total of 144 signatures.  Where do these Senators, Farnham and Gorst, get the idea that the majority of the population want their retention?  That is not borne out by the research that we have done.  That is not borne out by the focus groups.  That is not borne out by the referendum result, which is the best thing we have to gauge public opinion at the moment.  It is a myth.  By the way, there was no clamour for retention of the Senators in the election road shows.  There was in the country Parishes a very evident clamour for the retention of the Constables.  Think back to the aftermath of that December debate.  It was a stunning result.  It stunned some people into silence.  We were turncoats no longer, we put self-interest aside and voted for the good of the Island.  The Assembly gains some much welcome respect after that decision in December.  It gave people hope and faith.  Are we going to throw that all away 4 months later?  What will the Island make of that?  The Assembly is being taken for fools by this amendment and foolish we will look if either of these amendments go through.  I urge Members to vote against the amendment to the amendment and vote against the amendment itself.  As Senator Gorst once said himself on the floor of the Assembly, in one of these debates, it is time to say farewell to the Senators.  This is described as a last ditch to save the Senators and a ditch is where this amendment and the amendment to the amendment belongs.  Do we not want a clean bill of health for our democracy and for our reputation?  Please reject these amendments. 

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Deputy.  I did not want to interrupt you in full flow but on 2 occasions you referred to Senator Gorst as Mr. Gorst.  It is important to maintain the appropriate titles and description of Members provided for within Standing Orders.

Deputy R. Labey:

My apologies, Sir.

The Bailiff:

As I say, I did not want to interrupt the flow of your contribution. 

3.4.4 Deputy C.S. Alves:

I am just going to talk on this particular amendment, to Senator Farnham’s amendment, I will talk again when we come to debating whether it will be amended or not, Senator Gorst’s amendment.  Senator Farnham’s amendment recognises the negative impact on voter equity which Senator Gorst’s second amendment would have on P.P.C.’s proposals, if adopted by this Assembly and he seeks to remedy it.  In order to do this, Senator Farnham’s amendment to the second amendment seeks to increase the membership of the Assembly by 3 through the addition of extra Deputies in 3 of the proposed districts, as well as the retention of Senators.  The public are not supportive of an increase in our numbers.  In December 2020 Deputy Maçon of St. Saviour brought an amendment to P.139, which advocated 52 Deputies across 9 districts.  This was rejected 29 votes to 17, despite the fact that it achieved the closest to perfect equity and equality of any reform proposal to date.  If the Assembly really wanted to increase its membership and create a far fairer system, then it should have adopted that amendment rather than considering this version which leaves some districts with disparities in their representation.  The Assembly will see a reduction in representation for those living in areas which are currently overrepresented, which will result in them becoming underrepresented.  For example, the districts of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter and the district of St. Brelade will become 15 per cent and 12 per cent respectively underrepresented if this amendment is adopted compared to 3 per cent and 0 per cent under the P.P.C. proposals.  I therefore urge Members not to support this amendment. 

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

I will speak to Senator Farnham’s amendment now and Senator Gorst’s amendment later.  As pleased as I am that Senator Farnham is proposing to grant St. Martin and Grouville an extra Deputy, it is impossible for me to vote in favour of this amendment.  Having already agreed the size of the districts I believe that we should step away from the questions of districts and the number of representatives we propose they should have.  As part of P.139/2020 we agreed to establish an independent Boundaries Commission to ensure that the districts remain compliant with the principles cited in paragraph (a).  This is the body that should be responsible for recommending changes to the districts and the numbers of Deputies elected.  The legislation to establish this body is not yet with the Assembly.  If the Senator were indeed concerned about the equity of the next Assembly he always can bring a request to establish the commission before 2022.  Indeed we have just had the 2021 Island-wide census.  This will provide us with the best possible population data for a decade, which will tell us almost exactly how many people there are in the Island and in tandem in each district.  We should not make changes to the composition until we have the best possible information.  This information is being processed as we speak.  If we are concerned about the new districts, we request that the census is used to check for the size of the districts and the number of Members be returned, and have it independently confirmed whether they are satisfactory.  I wish to recommend that Members of this Assembly should not, on principle, seek to further alter the number of Deputies in this Assembly without strong reasoning from independent, reliable sources.  The Senator has not provided this.  If there is indeed a deficit in St. Martin and Grouville it is essential that the commission addresses this but it is not for me to decide.  It is only good practice that we allow the debate on this subject to transfer to this commission otherwise we risk realigning this Assembly as we please without sustained evidence.  I would urge Members to reject this proposition.

3.4.6 Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary:

I was elected to be the voice of my electorate in the Parish of St. Mary.  I try my best to do that whenever the occasion requires.  My electorate are aggrieved and I would imagine that the electorate of the other 11 Parishes are also aggrieved because they are losing their representation.  They are losing the most democratic representation that the whole Island has, the Senators.  The Islanders recently lost 4 Senators from the original 12 and we have an element who would like to see them removed completely.  The removal of 4 Senators was not the electorate’s choice, they were not consulted on the matter.  The removal of 4 Senators was accomplished by an element in this Assembly who believe that they know better than the electorate who they never consulted.  The electorate of St. Mary, though small in terms of population, are extremely astute when it comes to democracy.  It is not democratic that 4 Senators have been removed from their voting representation without consultation.  This is regarded as a dictatorship.  There should be no further decrease in the position of Senator, in fact the Senator position should be restored to 12.  There are those who maintain that all of the States Assembly should be elected Island-wide, no need to have Parish based Deputies or have large constituencies.  Of course there is a merit in that belief.  People are aggrieved that our Island constitution can be altered without a democratic vote.  The next change will be to encourage the formation of political parties.  Jersey is too small to have political parties in the Parishes as Parish officials and, indeed, the Constable must remain neutral in order to represent the electorate fairly.  The present Deputy of the Parish, elected by the Parish electorate, has no authority in that Parish, something that the electorate of the Parish who elected that Deputy find very strange and unfair.  Therefore candidates elected Island-wide would provide a greater representation of the electorate and would also dismiss the inequality votes.  These elected people would not need to be called Senators or Deputies, they could be called something different.  They very often are called something different now, not always complimentary.  We need to restore the respect in our elected representatives.  That will not happen until we listen to our electorate, the people who we promised to represent.  The people who enabled us to represent them.  If we did have all-Island representation then political parties could be possible.  They may, of course, not be elected.  That would leave the 12 Constables who already have a very responsible remit in looking after their Parish.  There are many options which have not yet been explored.  For instance, we could retain 12 Senators with a criteria to stand as Senator being a previously elected Member of the States, which would make voting, and indeed the hustings in each Parish, far simpler as each candidate would have a political background and reputation.  Maybe there should be conditions imposed on Constables, for example, not being able to be a Minister, Assistant Minister or Scrutiny chair, or supporting a political party.  This would ensure that they remain totally unbiased in support of their Parish.  The people of this Island deserve to be listened to on all changes to the constitution.  Please listen to them on this very important issue of Senators by supporting the proposition by Senator Farnham, which echoes the retention of the Senators as proposed by Senator Gorst.  This and other propositions do not offer a perfect solution and it may be that if the Clothier report was debated today it would be accepted.  Until a better system is devised, we need to accept that this is the best we can achieve at the moment.  Any future changes should not be dismissed on logistical notions.  Logics can be made to work as is evident by the Guernsey elections in which all politicians were elected on the same day.

3.4.7 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier:

Listening to the previous speaker, I agree on the one point that we need to restore respect and trust from the public.  One of the ways of doing it is to stick with our decisions and not to have endless debates with our decisions and changing decisions all the time because this debate has been done in December we all thought that the decision was made.

[12:30]

I commend and respect Senator Gorst and Senator Farnham and applaud their persistence in fighting until the last moment to retain the Senators by lodging these amendments.  I will speak once on both amendments.  Even though there were only 3 votes supporting retention of the Senators at the previous debate, I do agree with Senator Gorst that Islanders care about Senators.  I agree, they do.  But they are much more unhappy with inequality of their votes; at least in my district.  Electoral reform is always resisted by some.  In USSR, those in power fought tooth and nail to retain their power.  Only a fair and equal democracy cannot claim that a system that favour some over others is better.  It is ridiculous.  To put tradition over democracy or habit or convenience is again ridiculous.  The States Members with an equal size electorate and equal power is a perfect democracy.  We are all compromised, and the compromise of keeping Constables is closer to a perfect democracy that we were before.  It is a good compromise.  My previous decision has not changed.  I will be consistent in my voting and support the original P.P.C. proposition.  Thank you.

3.4.8 Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter:

Firstly, we really all must acknowledge the initial work by P.P.C. in bringing P.126, it seems like an eternity ago, early last year.  It took up the reins of the recommendations of the C.P.A. Election Observer’s Mission that oversaw those elections we all stood in in 2018.  The headline recommendations, and this is well-rehearsed, were voter equality, reduced complexity and voter engagement.  In fairness, it was a great and well-researched study ensconced in the proposition.  It did not, however, meet with, among others, the approval of the country Parishes.  They liked their dedicated Deputies, but most of all there was strong desire to maintain the Constables taking their seat in the Assembly.  It also did not meet the fairest and most equitable of all Members, Senatorial elections are mathematically perfect and I cannot understand any challenge to that statement.  Senators also give the whole Island their chance to elect a Member who is likely, I know not always, likely to seek high office.  All past Chief Ministers have come from the Senatorial ranks.  What I fear happened last year was lacking in 2 fundamental ways.  One was timing.  P.139 was debated on 1st December 2020.  This was the sitting after the vote of no confidence and around the time of the hospital site selection, including the constant attention duly and rightly given to COVID it is hardly surprising that in the eyes of the public this, shall we say, was sneaked in under the radar.  This has been borne out by the many recent letters in the J.E.P. and the numerous calls from concerned parishioners that I have received.  The second was compromise.  It is clear for all to see that the only way to get this through was to secure the Constables’ vote.  Ironically the most inequitable of all our Members.  I say this as a supporter of keeping the Constables in the Assembly, however I did not support this change.  Why?  Quite simply, as has already been rehearsed, this is one of the most important decisions we will make.  Is it easy?  Obviously not, otherwise the ideal situation would have been presented and adopted years ago.  However, shall we just accept something because it is merely a bit easier but nowhere near ideal?  I suggest not.  In business you would go back to the drawing board, taking with you the lessons learnt and return having acknowledged and addressed those concerns in completion.  Yes, it can be an iterative loop but it is a process that is proven to work.  A real valid question is: has the Island ever been asked the direct question: “Do we want to do away with Senators?”  I sense when asked bluntly the answer is no.  In exactly the same way that we are here today supporting Constables in the Assembly.  When push came to shove it was clear the Island wants them.  In summary, I am in support of these amendments.  I will vote for both, however I am inclined to prefer the amendment lodged by Senator Gorst mainly because I do not feel, and nor do the Island, that we need more elected representatives.  So where is my compromise?  I stood in 2018 to represent my Parish, the Parish where I have close connections going back for generations.  Should, after the amendment, we vote to keep Senators I will support the change to large constituencies and vote accordingly.  I will then, if invited at the 2022 elections, share my role and passion with the wonderful residents of St. Mary and St. Ouen and fully engage in the spirit of change. 

3.4.9 Connétable A. Jehan of St. John:

Thank you.  Well, here you go again, or should I say “we go again”.  While this is my first debate on this subject in the Assembly, just how many times has the subject been discussed?  Who could have thought that after the votes had been counted and the results declared on the eve of 24th April 2013 that this Assembly would still be discussing the way forward?  About implementing the results some 8 years and 2 general elections later.  Having been heavily engaged in the campaign for option B I have first-hand experience of just how much effort was put in by each of the campaign teams, especially the A and B teams who both wanted a fairer system and worked extremely hard to achieve it.  While new to this Chamber, I have been involved in many, many election campaigns spanning almost 40 years.  What I heard from apathetic voters on that campaign trail in 2013, and indeed on numerous campaigns that I have been a part of, will no doubt be familiar to Members.  When asking voters why they have chosen not to vote, why they do not want to get engaged, you always hear the same responses: “My vote does not matter.  They[meaning us] never listen.”  We have seen in our Island dwindling turnouts at elections and the levels of apathy far above most comparable jurisdictions.  The campaign with the highest turnout that I have been involved with being almost 80 per cent in St. John in 1994.  We need to get back to that level of engagement to be able to say we have succeeded.  It is all well and good for those of us who are engaged in the political process to respond to such sentiments by explaining that their votes do matter, by saying every citizen has a responsibility to vote but I would ask Members to take a moment and stand in the shoes of those who are apathetic towards our democracy.  How are their votes on election day transformed into policies pursued by this Assembly?  How, when over 80 per cent of voters supported either A or B in that 2013 referendum, only for the Assembly to do nothing?  Worse than doing nothing, this amendment and previous proposals like it have gone completely against what the electors said.  Electors who took the time and trouble to vote and tell us what they wanted.  We should not forget that option C in 2013 was to retain the role of Senator but that only polled 19 per cent of votes.  These results are very different to Senator Farnham’s protestation that removing Senators is against public opinion: 19 per cent in 2013.  It also confirmed that we should have fewer Members and not more as suggested by the amendment to the amendment.  How, when time and again politicians are elected, promising electoral reform only not to deliver.  As Deputy Alves said earlier, it is within our grasp to demonstrate we are listening.  There are always tweaks or improvements that can be made to any electoral system, the original Queen amendment, as it was called, was a slight tweak on the original but in my view improved things.  This amendment goes against what the public was asked.  We could look into online voting, increased support for candidates or a whole range of other suggestions but none of these will promote greater turnout on their own.  Fundamentally the only way we can increase turnout is to prove to those would be voters that their choice at election time does matter.  That manifestos are not just empty promises, that we as elected Members will follow through on the public’s wishes.  The public have voted to keep the Constables in the States, they have voted to redraw electoral districts and increase the fairness in the representation.  It is time we finally deliver on those wishes.  The loss of trust is not just from those who voted in favour of the proposal before us, people who voted A to remove the Constables and people who voted C and did not want change have also lost trust, all because this Assembly continuously failed to carry out the result of the referendum.  There are numerous examples of where trust has been broken in recent years between the electors and this Assembly, examples too numerous to list today.  In my experience trust is hard won and easily lost.  We have an opportunity to start rebuilding that trust today.  This amendment, well-intentioned I am sure, should be rejected soundly.  A look at the current 8 Senators sees just 3 - yes, 3 - who are Members of the Council of Ministers.  That is not what I and many Islanders signed up for in 2018 when going to the polls.  An Island mandate should have given you a seat around the Council of Ministers table.  We have Scrutiny Panels with the same amount of Senators on a panel and yet we are told how Senators hold senior positions.  Really?  As mentioned before by Deputy Labey, the online gov.je petition launched just over 100 days ago on 8th January, and despite having Members of the Government as some of its first signatories, has gained 144 signatures at the start of today’s debate.  This compares with 3,780 for a petition to introduce Freddie’s Law launched on a similar date.  Does that tell you the public want to retain Senators?  Senator Gorst says Islanders care about the role of Senator.  It tells me the public have lost interest and want to see us finally take action, action that should have been taken for the last 8 years.  I believe that this proposal can and will strengthen the Parish system.  Constables have a role to play in this and I will be working my hardest to make a difference and to ensure the role of Constable is and remains relevant as the vital Parish link to this Assembly.  Senator Gorst referred to Guernsey.  Recently 119 candidates stood for the first all-Island election.  People thought it could not be done, people thought it would be a circus.  The paper would be too big, et cetera, et cetera.  Having managed one of the successful Deputy’s campaigns in that election, I can tell you it was not a circus and there were very few issues with the voting paper.  Postal votes got used extensively and technology was used to good effect in the counting, something proven with their recount.  We can learn from this ahead of next year’s election.  Hustings events got held and importantly voter turnout increased.  The new election system saw an 8 per cent rise in turnout in Guernsey, almost 80 per cent of those on the electoral role voted.  As I mentioned earlier, something we have not seen since around 1994.  If the Senator and those who support this amendment are so keen on the Island-wide mandate then why not an amendment to have 36 Senators and no Deputies?  This would have achieved voter equality in the same way the proposed districts achieve voter equality.  I have not joined this Assembly to waste time.  I want to work with colleagues to find solutions and focus on the real issues.  As a keen observer for many years I can tell fellow Members that the public are right to think the Assembly spends far too much time speaking about itself, it has to stop.  In closing, if I can take Members back to where I started, back to 24th April 2013.  On that day over 80 per cent of Islanders who went to the polls voted for change with just 19 per cent supporting the retention of Senator.  Importantly for me on that day over 75 per cent of the St. John parishioners who went to the polls actually voted for change.  They supported option B with as many votes being gained in St. John for B as there were for A and C combined.  I have no hesitation in rejecting this amendment and I would urge Members to do the same.  [Approbation].

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Connétable.  I see that the adjournment is proposed.  We have only a minute to go before the normal time of the adjournment.  The adjournment is proposed, any Member opposed?  Very well, the Assembly stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m.

[12:44]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:15]

The Bailiff:

The debate continues on Senator Farnham’s amendment to the second amendment brought by Senator Gorst.  Next listed to speak I have the Connétable of St. Ouen.

3.4.10 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

We have had a number of debates on the subject of electoral reform during my time in the Assembly.  I too was pleased when we finally agreed the change we did last December.  However, I have consistently supported the role of Senator on each occasion and spoken on this subject, and I do so today.  I think however if the Assembly rejects the position on Senator on this occasion that we must accept that and put this matter to bed.  However, like the Connétable of St. Brelade, I have had a number of representations from parishioners and feel duty bound to represent these today in this debate.  Under the current system of ministerial government the office of Senator has an all-Island mandate to undertake the very senior roles in Government, such as Chief Minister, and indeed other ministerial roles.  Indeed senior chairs within Scrutiny by their nature are all full-time and leave very little time to deal with individual Islander’s concerns.  I am not suggesting that Senators do not get involved in individual issues because they do.  The point is that electors realise that in voting for Senator they are probably voting for a potential member of the Government at a senior level who will be fully occupied with their role and have very little time to be involved in issues that should rightly be the remit of the Connétable or the Parish Deputy under the current system and the new district Deputy under the new system, which I am confident we will vote through today.  Conversely these new Deputies will have to pick up a great deal more local issues in their district that would undoubtedly eat into their time and ability to take on senior Government Scrutiny roles, which will require fulfilling.  Furthermore, when the Chief Minister speaks about Island-wide policies, he speaks in the knowledge that he has a mandate for the whole Island.  This is true of all Ministers who are Senators.  However, our system is not perfect.  I accept we have both Deputies and indeed Connétables who are Ministers too, which in the purer sense of course is flawed.  My argument about Senators could be countered by pointing to the U.K. and highlighting that M.P.s (Members of Parliament) are elected by constituency and one of their number goes on to be Prime Minister.  Indeed all Government roles are filled by M.P.s.  My counter to this is the U.K. has party politics so when you vote for an M.P., aside from the individual’s policies, you know the national mandate you are supporting.  We know apart from the 2 new parties ... when I say “new”, one of them is new and Reform, we do not really have party politics yet in Jersey.  This brings me to another issue.  Much has been made of voter apathy and I have accepted this proposition will at a stroke resolve this issue.  As I have said before, and this is not my view, I am convinced that part of the reason for voter apathy is the voters are not sure what they are supporting when they vote for a candidate and whether they can achieve what is in their mandate, if they do actually read the mandate and support it.  Our current Government is made up of independent Members, quite aside from the 2 parties, one of which of course is embryonic, which in a number of cases have widely diverse views on the way forward.  In my view and short experience this is not a rescue for quick progress.  Common agreed approach from the Government with pre-agreed party policies could achieve much more progress in a shorter period of time.  The States has a reputation for underachieving, which in turn breeds apathy.  For example, why vote as most people think that nothing is actually going to change anyway.  For example, whether you support Reform’s views, which as they know I do not, or largely, all their candidates have the same mandate and they are consistent in trying to achieve it and support each other in doing so.  In short, voters know exactly what they are going to get for their vote and they know that they will all be working together to achieve this.  To me, this is a point for the future of Island politics.  I hope more Members are inspired by the Reform example and grasp the nettle of forming parties and getting to the stage where we have a party-led Government.  This may well in turn help with the uncontested election issue, which is not entirely confined to Constables as 3 Deputies returned unopposed at the last election.  However, hopefully the new Deputy system will stop this as to be successful any party is going to need to maximise its return on elected Members and contest every single seat that is available.  Anyway, I digress.  Back to Senators.  I believe we need some Members with an all-Island mandate to take the top Government role and the issues which this great amendment can, in my view, be fixed in other ways; babies and bathwater comes to mind.  I am acutely aware that we have settled this issue the last time round, however since I received many representations from my Parish urging me to keep Senators and the only reason which keeps coming up is how can we have a Chief Minister who is only elected by a district rather than an all-Island mandate.  I also add that at the P.P.C. Parish meeting that was held at St. Ouen it was made very clear to all present that the Parish strongly supported the role of Senator.  Indeed it was a very strong majority when the vote was taken and they would like to see their ranks restored to 12.  From a St. Ouen’s perspective you can see their point.  Under the original system, St. Ouen’s parishioners had the choice of voting for 14 Members of the Assembly: 12 Senators, one Deputy and of course the Connétable.  Under the current system they can vote for 10.  Under the proposed new system, if Senators are not included in this, this falls to 4 with the prospect that in the new districts that 3 of this number could not have direct links with the Parish.  Of course their question is: is that actually an improvement in their representation?  This proposition, in my view, retains the benefit of what we have already agreed and I wholeheartedly support but with the small addition of Senators, it keeps our Senators too.  I do not think it wrecks the proposition, it clearly enhances it and it has my support.

3.4.11 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I have always said that if there was to be a single representative from my Parish then that should be the Constable and that I would vote myself out of office in order that my Constable could continue to represent me as my Parish representative, and I think Islanders value that Parish representation hugely.  I think they also think that the Constable should be the person who takes the view forward.  I say to the Constables, those who would wish to retain the Senators, Islanders want you to keep up that Parish representation but we have to make progress and we need more equality.  I hope that we are going to make some progress today but in order to do that, as has already been said by some, we need to compromise.  We all have to give up something.  We all have to give up something we cherish, something we value, and we have to put the fear of change behind us.  What I have heard in some of the recent speeches is the fear of change.  But we must not fear change.  We must make progress and we must try much harder to get better equality for Islanders when it comes to voting.  Those words are quoted directly from Hansard in a speech I made back in December.  I say to Members I am not one for changing my mind, I am determined my Constable will represent me as my Parish representative.  I do not fear super-constituencies or to make progress on voter equality and I will not be voting for either of the amendments.

3.4.12 Senator S.W. Pallett:

As Members might expect from someone who carefully considers decisions that he takes, and is not someone who changes his mind in a whim, I am not going to support either the amendment of Senator Gorst or Senator Farnham.  I understand both Senators’ passion but I would have thought that both, especially Senator Farnham, would have looked back at the debate on P.139/2020 and realised that this Assembly wanted change.  Part of that change was the move to 2 types of Member from 3.  As has been said, Senator Farnham’s amendment in December was heavily defeated 43 votes to 3.  During this debate at times I have been dismayed, disappointed and frankly at times annoyed by some of the comments made by some Members as they try to justify overturning a decision this States Assembly made in December last year.  Did any Member not understand what we were debating with P.139/2020?  I certainly hope not, as I do not believe the media, including social media, who covered the debate, and the run-up to the debate, were in any doubt as to what was being proposed within P.139.  Are we really to believe that the public were in some way hoodwinked or sidestepped in regards to the electoral changes put forward in P.139?  I do not believe that is the case.  To even suggest that proposals agreed within P.139 were sneaked in under the radar.  It is just not true and frankly it is absurd.  It is quite often said that the future of this Island lies in the hands of our younger generation.  Those that are either currently in education, learning about life, our political system, those that are in the workplace may be building businesses or careers, considering starting a family, bringing up children of their own, or just trying to survive in an Island where housing is so expensive and the cost of living crippling.  Are our younger generation engaged in politics?  Do they understand our political system?  What about our electoral system?  Do young people find it mystifying?  Are we listening to young people?  What can we do to encourage more young people to take an interest and particularly stand for election?  Are we dealing with these issues?  I suggest the answer to that is no.  Einstein is widely credited with saying: “The definition of insanity [and I am sure most of you will know the quote] is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”  We cannot carry on with the same electoral system in Jersey and expect better results.  It is insane not to change.  Young people, if you talk to them, find our system too complex and in their eyes far too difficult to break into.  We have to break that mould.  There should be fair opportunity for all when it comes to standing for election, irrespective of the position you stand for.  Can anyone stand for Senator?  Yes, they can at present although the Constable of St. Mary believes we should discriminate against the vast majority of the electorate on the grounds they are not already a States Member.  From someone who stood as a Senator at the last election I have no doubt that financially standing as a Senator is beyond the reach of many.  Spending £8,000, £9,000 on an election campaign rules out many and, frankly, if you are not prepared to commit you are not going to get elected.  That is unfair.  Moving to smaller equal-sized districts levels up the playing field and does not take away 8 seats in this Assembly that many simply could not afford to stand for.  I do not know how many times I have been asked what does a Connétable do.  Generally it is from younger people including those in their 30s and 40s.  This is not a dig at the Constables because I think they do a fantastic job.  I was one.  But those people simply do not understand that the role is a dual role, both within the States and outside within the Parish.  We have heard party politics mentioned several times today.  There are now 2 parties in this Island: the Progress Party is the new party and the endeavour is, in coming weeks and months, to take away any myths around standing for election as a Connétable.  We simply should not have 10 or 11 uncontested Constables elections next year.  To avoid this I and others will clearly try to explain that dual role and clearly set out how many in our community, both men and women, are perfectly capable of running a Parish, any Parish.  Being part of the States Assembly should be no different if you are a Connétable, a Deputy or a Senator, so what exactly holds back Islanders from standing as Connétable in their Parish?  I can assure the Connétable of St. Mary that political parties are here to stay and again the Progress Party will clearly show the public that any scaremongering around being a Connétable, and a member of a political party, is totally unfounded and needs to be dismissed.  Returning to young people and Islanders more generally.  If we truly want an Assembly that is representative of our community then we have to reduce the hurdles in the way of progress if we really cannot alleviate them altogether.  To start this process we must support the changes put forward within P.139, and again we are discussing today, as it simplifies the system that many do not understand and, frankly, are suspicious of and will provide an opportunity for more Islanders to stand for election which hopefully will address uncontested elections.  This Assembly is not and should not be seen as a select club that only an elite few can join.  As a party, and as its interim leader, we desperately need to engage the public more widely in the run-up to next year’s election and convince every Islander that their vote matters.  I have met so many people recently that have said to me that they will not vote again as politicians never do what they say and never deliver on manifesto promises.