Home

Welcome to my website. If you wish to contact me you can e-mail me at

paulleclaire@psilink.co.uk or you can phone me at home on 632856

You can read what was said on any debate and how I voted together with all the other States members too by visiting the States website at http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/frame.asp and clicking on the heading titled "Hansard

(Incidently,  I voted Against GST, the Incinerator and the Compost site see for yourself about what we all said on these issues and more by going there and reading it for yourself! )

Congratulations!

Well done to the succesful candidates and unlucky to those who tried but did not suceed on this occassion .

The election was if nothing else interesting due to the diversity of the candidates and the referendum. I was very pleased to see Alan Breckon do so well as knowing him for many years as a hard working Deputy he has finally got the recognition island wide that he justly deserves. He allways helps me when I have an approach from someone who is about to be evicted. (usually happens at Christmas time) and I refer them to him and he helps them every time. I hate it when I see families getting evicted with little or no notice and usually nowhere to turn too! Alan has always sorted them out and got them through the crisis and I am indebted as they are to him. So thanks Alan once again and well done!

Now on to the Deputies Elctions and I can announce that I look forward to standing again for St Helier Number 1 District where I was brought up as a child and where my family lived until my Late Mother passed over in Nov 2003 and my Dad sold the house in 2004. All of us still live in St Helier today. 

I have been very happy and honoured to represent my constituents over the last three years there, in the way I have and I am looking forwards to hearing from you all again on the campaign trail.

Request

I would appreciatte any help in the election if anybody feels so inclined please give me a ring on 632856 or on my mobile 07797-714121 and I will fill you in on how and where etc you can help me to continue to be your Deputy.

Thanks  

In the meantime I would like to say a Big Thank You to the owners of the Hotel De Normandie for alowing me to meet there for the Friends of Havre Des Pas over the last 3 years. It shows a real commitment to the community when hoteliers get involved the way they do and  the owners of the Hotel De Normandie and the owner of the Omaroo continually demonstrate support for the district.

Just for the record in case you were wondering.

1. I voted AGAINST GST

2. I support its removal!

3. I voted against the Incinerator

4. I support it's removal

5. I voted against the Compost Site

6. I support its removal ..................and the latest news is, that the TTS Minister Deputy Guy De Faye has conceeded after I raised questions about it again recently in the States, that it is in the wrong place and they are once again searching for a new location.

If you wish to know more about what I have been doing for you and the District then please drop me a line. Either by e-mail or post and you can always call me on the numbers provided here on this site. I will also make sure you get my leaflet which details a little bit more about what I have been doing for you since you re-elected me to serve you.

I know it may seem like its not worth the effort to vote sometimes, but it really is about having someone there for you and your loved ones that you can believe you can trust and call on in the future should you ever need to.

I hope that you can help me to continue to be one of the Politicians that you can bank on being there for, if you ever are in need!

Thanks for the priveldge of being your Deputy!

Paul Le Claire

Older Posts

 The Senatorial Elections are now approaching their conclusion and I wish all Senatorial candidates good luck in their attempts to be elected to the States, (some more than others!) at what will prove to be a very important and chalenging time for Jersey.

                Some people have asked me why I did not seek re-election as a Senator at this time especially as I had not supported GST. I have told them and friends and family that my work for St Helier is not complete yet on some very important matters and apart from the fact that I am enjoying being a Deputy I have more to do to fight against the compost site and incinerator as I said I would when first re-elected. The news on that is not all bad as the Minister for TTS Deputy Guy De Faye has admitted the compost site is in need for being sited elsehere and the hunt is on again for an alternative site. Precisely what Deputy Rob Duhamel and I said when I wrote the compost report and Rob and I had come up with alternatives. Unfortunately as so often the case whatever is not a departments idea is generally a "Bad idea" Bad that is until they have let enough time pass for them to resurect it as their own! As for recycling which is a long over due desire of most town residents, me included. I can report that I was recently instumental in forwarding the Parishes needs for a recycling partner to the French company that the Constable and his team are now engaging with. Unfortunately for whatever reason the JEP did not mention this in their recent articles. Not the first time I have been airbrushed out of the picture with them though! More recycling is very important for us and it will mean less rubbish in the incinerator for us to have to put up with being taken there and burnt for a start! I continue to oppose the incinerator and will add a page later of my speach in this regard when it was debated. I also attended the first public planning meeting this year. This planning meeting was the one that gave TTS permission for the huge box that is planned for Havre Des Pas at La Collette. You may know the one I mean? It is the one that will be designed by award winning architects and then hidden as much as possible by a huge earth mound that wil surround it as much as possible constructed from the toxic ash from the old one.

              Importantly voters in Number 1 District have given me their trust and I have said I feel it would be wrong of me, not to continue to be loyal to them at this time. I still however do get calls for help from outside of St Helier in consituency matters and wherever possible I try to help. The argument made to me to justify that is from the thousands of people who have voted for me in the past they also deserve my loyalty. Difficult then for me not to continue to argue the importance of an island wide mandate. I am now of the opinion that more islanders would prefer one type of member than was the case in the past and I think  the recent fiasco of some of but not all of the Constables seeking election has driven that forwards.

                 The recent financial turmoil continues and it may be that current budgets and future projections will mean more work where that work had allready been concluded. That coupled with the work that the States generates on a daily basis and that which the financial crisis has developed in global terms means it will be "All Hands On Deck!"

 As you may be aware the Composition of the States Assembly is currently the subject of consultation. In order that you might wish to avail yourselves of what my contribution was in the recent in committee debate in the States on the 14th March 2007.  I have published here the transcript of my  submission. I hope this important area is one that you will find of interest and if you share my view that we need to be actively involved with these changes then please feel free to contact me with your ideas or concerns. These may also be submitted to the Priveldges and Proceedures Committee President Deputy Derek Gray the Connnetable of St. Clement whose contact details are in the telephone book and who may be e-mailed athe following address

 d.gray@gov.je

1....... The States sat in committee to discuss “Composition and election of the States Assembly: options for change” (R.97/2007

 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:

In researching the issue of the composition of the States Assembly I managed to compile about 17 volumes of material of which I have managed to condense down to about 4 pages.  Those pages are predominately drawn from the work of the Committee of the Privy Council on proposed reforms in the Channel Islands in March 1947.  Over 60 years ago by order of His Majesty in Council dated 4th June 1946 a Committee was formed on the instructions of the Privy Council to inquire into reforms and the constitution and procedures of the States of Jersey and Guernsey, and also into judicial reforms in both Islands and advise His Majesty thereon.  Over 60 years ago they stated in their report - which is available from Her Majesty’s stationery office - that: “We have found that despite a natural desire to adhere where possible to their traditional forms, public opinion has for some time passed felt a need for adaptations desired to tally with changing concepts of government.”  Now that is not that historical, but it is historical enough to say that for some time passed in March 1947 the Privy Council was of the view that the desire for change within the Island had been there for some time: “As the proposals affected the constitution of the Assemblies themselves, we thought it desirable to afford the fullest opportunity to all persons and organisations interested in reform, whether or not they held any office in the public life of the Islands to express their opinions to us.  Accordingly, by public notice all persons wishing to make representations were invited to communicate with the Committee.”  They made a public notice and they made it quite clear to people that they could come forward under certain headings and give their views: “They stayed in Jersey from 15th to 21st December and in Guernsey from 21st September to 29th September.  The authorities in each Island had placed the Royal Court Houses at their disposal for the public sessions.  Evidence was taken in public for 4 days in each Island.”  So, 4 days of public consultation in March 1947: “With an Island abuzz for reform in respect of the Deputies’ appointment to the States after the ending of the Island’s occupation by the German Armed Forces.  There was one evening session in each Island from 6.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. to accommodate those people who could not attend during the normal course of the day.”  They heard in Jersey 39 witnesses in 1947 many of which were off topic talking about bad Jersey laws and the lack of welfare, et cetera, and 29 representations were made in Guernsey.  I will skip through the issues to the heart of what we are talking about today as to what they found out then because it is still relevant: “The Constables: the States proposed that the position of the Constables were to be unchanged” and they say in their report: “We heard evidence from many witnesses both for and against the removal of the Constables from the States.  The arguments expressed to us in favour of their retention are that the Constable is a direct representative of his parishioners having been elected by popular vote.  That from the nature of his parochial duties he is in daily association with his electors and is, therefore, well acquainted with their views and wishes, but he brings to the States a valuable practical knowledge of municipal administration.  That the removal of the Constables would be contrary to public opinion and that the present system has always worked well in practice.”  Predominately relying heavily on the “he” in that paragraph because at the time women were not allowed to be Constables and there were no recommendations to change that at the time: “The arguments expressed against their retention are that the Constables are elected primarily for administrative duties in the Parish and no attention is paid to his capacity as a legislator.  That his parishioners would usually re-elect him provided he keeps the Parish rates low with the result that Parish relief may be inadequate.  That no one should be elected to the States by virtue of election to any other Island or parochial office.  That the Constable in his police capacity is subject to the directions and influence of the Attorney General and may, therefore, be influenced by the Attorney General’s views in the States.  That the inclusion of the Constables gives an unfair preponderance of country representation and that Constables in some cases do not in the States conform to the wishes of their parishioners, although those who oppose the retention of Constables in general rated their influence at a low level.  There were some who thought that Constables overawed newly elected Deputies from their Parish.”  There was no evidence to refute the suggestion that public opinion was in favour of their retention.  There was no evidence to say they should go from either of the 39 contributions.  They considered the position that the Island was being represented at the time with an over-preponderance of country representation.  And they established at that time that they thought it was right in view of the importance of agriculture and horticulture in the life of the Island that there should be a slight preponderance in favour of the rural areas.  So the Privy Council having established its view on the Island at that time established that given the weight of the agricultural and horticultural industries in its importance for Jersey at that time, there should be more representation in those areas.  So obviously if they were to come along today they would see all the banks and say: “Right, we should be putting that preponderance of legislative ability in the hands of the people in town because that is where the vast majority of people are making their daily wages and spending their daily time.”  However, they concluded that: “While there is some force in the objections to the retention of the Constables in the States they would not on the evidence that they had received be justified in recommending any interference with the present position.  At present, elections of Constables are held as offices become vacant.”  This is the crunch.  This is why I have gone back to this because this is why we are here where we are.  Over 60 years ago this is what they were saying: “We think consideration might be given to the possibility of all Constables retiring simultaneously; the vacant offices being filled by a general election at the same time as the elections for other offices, but we think that this is a matter which the States with their knowledge of local conditions should decide.”  Well, 60 years later and I am getting blamed for a 5-minute speech.  The reality of the general election which was thrown around during the Clothier times - and we have been criticised as turkeys voting for Christmas by Santa Claus who wants to promote it - that we should be getting rid of the Island-wide mandate, we should be getting rid of the Constables, we should be having a single category of Member and we should be having a Ministerial form of government put upon the people without their actual inclusion in those considerations which I think was absolutely disgusting.  I think that we should at least have put that in a referendum to them as they did in every other jurisdiction that was part of the Local Government Act reforms, but we never did.  We, therefore, are now getting pushed by the same corners to make radical changes in a government that has just barely sat down to understand the difficulties and the anomalies which we are currently feeding into the Chairman of the P.P.C. on the issues about Ministerial government.  We have not even sorted out the committees let alone the Scrutiny Committees, or the funding let alone the Scrutiny Committees themselves.  We are being asked whether we should consider one of 6 different methods to change the way we govern.  We are also being told that perhaps if we cut down on some Members we can spend that money, much to the public’s delight, on the pensions of the ones that are left.  I think what the public are saying, as they said about general elections, is something completely different.  They are not saying: “Spend your money in different ways.”  They are saying: “Spend less money.  Give us greater opportunity.  Give us greater representation.”  A general election - not Senators, Deputies and Constables - was mainly the critiques that were coming from people in quarters that spoke about the elections for Constables.  The preponderance of people in Jersey wish, as I believe, the Constables to remain in the States but they believed, as do I, that perhaps the Constables might wish to look at the issue of all being elected at the same time whether in a new system whereby they challenge for the Deputies positions within the Assembly, or whether by the same position but they just do it so that people are not caught unawares that there was an election last night at the Parish Assembly where Mr. Bloggs, who has been a good farmer, turned up with his wife and kids and a couple of his mates and sat there for half an hour and was duly elected to the States of Jersey.  It is just not on.  In the last issue of this March 1947 review by the Privy Council was election expenses and the preparations of voters lists: “We found in the course of evidence that there was no law relating to the expenses which may properly be incurred by persons seeking public election to the States whether for the offices of Deputy or Constable which are on a parishable district basis or for the office of Jurat which is on an Island-wide basis.  It appeared that candidates for public election provided refreshments for their supporters during the course of an election and paid for the cost of conveyances to take voters to the polls.  Practices such as these make the cost of elections unduly high and are on every ground undesirable.  We recommend that the States should consider legislation to limit and define election expenses.”  So now, as then, they were saying the same kinds of things that I have been saying and other Members have been saying and are saying again today.  Let us have a 4-year term.  Let us have a general election for the Constables.  How do we achieve that?  They agree to all resign en masse and stand in an election?  Right, they have agreed so we can do that.  The Constables should retain their positions within the States of Jersey Assembly in my view and I endorse their retention.  I also endorse the retention of the Island-wide mandate.  I think the P.P.C., although I did mention this in an email but I will mention it in the debate as well, should put quite firmly on paper proposals before us for our views in relation to, with background, the position of the unelected Members of the Assembly.  Because that will also go on for a few more years and has been going on since that time and before, and it is something that has been identified as a very complicated issue that does need addressing in some form at least in the debate for the future.  So I would request that P.P.C. puts that on a piece of paper and circulates it for comment as a consultative document with the background as to the different offices, what their functions are, and what the options for change might be necessarily if we were to do away with any of them.  I believe in a single transferable vote and I also believe that many Members, like the public who are not coming out in droves, recognise that much of what we do is working.  What the public are getting fed up with are being told that Clothier was what it wanted and what the public are getting fed up with in my view, which I think is the issue, is being given what they are not allowed to order.  They are not given a menu; they are getting given set courses.  You can have this or you can have that, what do you want?  Well, can we look at the menu?  No.  We have looked at the menu, we will decide.  If a referendum is difficult, if a single transferable vote is difficult, if a multiple choice question is difficult, if an open-ended or a closed question is difficult then why do we not trial it in the schools?  Trial it in the schools with the Education, Sport, and Culture Ministry where education, sport and culture rests and let us see if the younger people can manage to get it right.  Let us see if the preponderance of participation in those kinds of issues are able to handle a multiple choice question in a referendum.  If the evidence comes back that they are capable of doing it, then why would their parents not be capable also?

You can read the rest of the contributions of States memberes by visiting the States website at http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/frame.asp

and clicking on the Hansard heading. Once in that section go to the date of the debate which was the 14th March 2007