THE last-minute U-turn by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel which allowed a debate on election expenses to go ahead means that the States can be accused of legislating in haste in a matter which undoubtedly deserved careful consideration.

However, even if that charge can be made to stick, the decision that the House reached was – certainly in principle and quite probably in practice – the right one.

As a result of Friday afternoon’s debate, the maximum that any election candidate can now spend on a campaign is limited to £8,000. That figure applies to Senators, who seek an Island-wide mandate. The limits for potential Deputies and Constables are considerably lower and depend on the number of voters in the constituencies that they hope to represent.

That caps should be applied to election spending clearly makes sense. As proponents of the measure pointed out, there must be no question of anyone buying his or her way into office.

In the absence of legislation, this could be a particularly acute problem in Jersey, where personalities – as opposed to policies or parties – play a disproportionately important part in government elections. Indeed, merely being widely recognised offers a considerable advantage at the polls – as politicians who try by any and every means to raise their public profile in the run-up to polling understand full well.

Friday’s decision also means that advertising will be prohibited in the two days before polling day and that anonymous donations of more than £100 will be barred. These measures are less significant than the expenses cap, but they will contribute to levelling the terms on which candidates compete for votes.

But there was a further very practical reason why it was necessary to press ahead with the expenses debate at the end of last week. Had there been no delay, the elections which will be upon us in a matter of weeks would have proceeded with no limitations on candidates’ spending.

In any circumstances that would have amounted to a highly regrettable and undemocratic state of affairs. In the case of elections which, by common consent will be the most important for more than half a century, it would have been completely unacceptable.