States Business Organisation Sub-Group: Report.

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES BUSINESS ORGANISATION SUB-GROUP: REPORT

Presented to the States on 24th May 2010 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: D  R.59

REPORT

Foreword

In November 2009 the Privileges and Procedures Committee established a small Sub- Group to look at the organisation of States business. The decision to set up the group came in response to concerns about the significant increase in the number of States meetings during 2009, and the associated increase in the number of questions and the length of debates.

On  18th  May  2010  the  Sub-Group  presented  its  Report  to  the  Privileges  and Procedures Committee.

The Sub-Group's Report indicates very clearly that, in its view the current system of government established in December 2005 should be reviewed and that the matters that gave rise to concern during 2009 such as the rise in the number of Questions or the length of States Sittings are, in fact merely, symptoms of a wider problem.

PPC has decided to present the Report to the States to stimulate discussion on this issue  and  welcomes  comments  from  members  of  the  States  and  others  on  the conclusions  of  the  Sub-Group.  PPC  believes  it  is  important  for  the  Council  of Ministers, the Chairmen's Committee and individual members to consider whether or not a review of the current system of government would be appropriate to overcome the perceived divisions and divisiveness that has been identified by the Sub-Group.

PPC  has  already  been  notified  that  2  States  members  who  recently  attended  a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in the Isle of Man wish to discuss the Isle of Man system of government with PPC as an example of how a more inclusive system can operate in a small jurisdiction.

Comments  on  the  Sub-Group's  Report  can  be  forwarded  to  the  Privileges  and Procedures Committee through the Committee Clerk, Anna Heuston, at the States Greffe, Morier House, St. Helier , JE1 1DD, or by e-mail to a.heuston@gov.je.

Introduction

The States Business Organisation Sub-Group recalled its work had arisen from the increasing concerns at the volumes of States business and the amount of time that States members were having to devote to it to the detriment of other responsibilities. The Privileges and Procedures Committee had announced a review in response to those increasing concerns and it had established this Sub-Group to review those parts of States' business that had particularly increased during the preceding year.

Modus Operandi

The Privileges and Procedures Committee did not agree specific terms of reference to cover the areas of this review, and it had accordingly considered whether any changes to Standing Orders might be required to address the increase in the volume of business considered  at  States'  meetings. The  States  Business  Organisation  Sub-Group  was established on 20th November 2009 to look into these matters, and it wrote to all States members on 25th November 2009 inviting them to attend hearings in early January to make submissions detailing how the efficiency of States Sittings could be improved.  The  Chairman  of  PPC  clarified  on  8th  December  2009  in  the  States Assembly  that  the  possible  areas  for  review  was  not  exhaustive  and  any  further suggestions on areas they considered should be reviewed were welcomed.

Review Research

The Sub-Group noted statistics for States meetings in 2009, Appendix A, which show very clearly the increase in –

• The number of meeting days;
• Total Sitting hours;
• Oral questions with notice answered during 90 minute/2 hour period;
• Written questions;
• Public Business – number and type of propositions debated;
• Public Business – time spent debating different types of proposition.

It also noted the number of speeches made by members in the Assembly during a sample  of  50 debates,  which  showed  an  average  of  17 speeches  per  debate  (see Appendix B). There are a number of actions which it might be possible to take in order to reduce the amount of time spent on Public Business, for example –

1. Limit the number of days the States can sit in a given period.
2. Limit the amount of business which comes before the States by –

1. setting  a  maximum  number  of  propositions  which  can  be lodged,  allocated  by  presenter:  Ministers/Committees/ Scrutiny Panels/individual members; or
2. setting  a  maximum  number  of  propositions  which  can  be lodged, allocated by type: private members' policy matters/ Ministers'  policy  matters/Scrutiny  Panel  policy  matters/

Regulations/Laws/no confidence/dismissal/censure/legislative Acts/appointments/Standing Orders/property matters.

3. Limit the length of debates by –

1. allocating a set period of time for all speeches made during items of public business;
2. allocating a set period of time for speeches made during items of public business, in accordance with debate type: private members'  policy  matters/Ministers'  policy  matters/Scrutiny Panel policy matters/Regulations/Laws/no confidence, etc.;
3. allocating a set period of time for speeches made during items of public business in accordance with the role of the speaker (proposer/Minister, etc.).
4. introducing  a  method  of  organising  the  day's  business  in advance, perhaps by sub-committee.

The Sub-Group noted the Standing Orders in other jurisdictions, to compare the rules relating to the asking of questions and the tabling of propositions; and it noted the practices of the following jurisdictions –

• Isle of Man
• UK House of Commons
• Scott ish Parliament
• National Assembly for Wales
• Canadian House of Commons
• Australia – House of Representatives.

The States Greffe carried out comparative research into the rules on some areas of business in other jurisdictions. Attached at  Appendix C are extracts detailing the provisions in the United Kingdom House of Commons, Scott ish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Canadian House of Commons and House of Representatives in Australia for time limits on speeches.

In all the aforementioned jurisdictions, time limits apply on speeches as follows –

In relation to the asking of questions, the following limits on the number of questions, the cost of answering written questions and the time allowed to answer oral questions are as follows –

The systems under other jurisdictions tend to limit the number of propositions an individual  or  private  member  might  lodge  and  this  is  compared  with  Jersey  as follows –

The Greffier made a submission to the Sub-Group, and this is reproduced in full at Appendix D. This set out a suggested 3 week cycle as follows –

"If the States were to meet on a three-weekly cycle rather than a fortnightly cycle the Sittings would be concentrated in a certain week and members would have to accept that they would sit for at least three, or possibly four, days in that particular week. There would nevertheless then be a full two week gap between Sittings which would give time to plan other meetings, Scrutiny hearings, etc. during this period. In addition, the Council of Ministers could meet in the first week which would mean that matters such as comments on propositions could be presented much earlier before debates than happens at present when the Council meets only two or three days before the scheduled Sitting. It is also the case at present that meetings are concentrated in the one week  between  Sittings  which  can  become  very  congested  with  numerous Scrutiny hearings, etc. day after day. Because of the pressure members are under  at  present  there  is  a  temptation  to  book  meetings  or  make  other commitments for the continuation Thursday in a States week which can then lead to absence from the Assembly and problems in maintaining a quorum."

A  number  of  members  have  expressed  the  view  that  this  would  merit  further investigation and possibly a trial to see whether the hoped-for benefits would accrue.

Consultation with States members

Members were invited to submit their comments to the Sub-Group regarding the organisation of States business and its efficiency. The Sub-Group was disappointed that the Chief Minister and one Assistant Minister were the only members of the Executive to take part in the consultation. All submissions have been divided into a series  of  areas  and  the  number  of  members  who  suggested  or  endorsed  possible improvements is also detailed.

Speeches

Members considered that speeches were often long and rambling, and that this should be controlled more strongly by the Chair. It was suggested that members should be provided with training in speech-making and should avoid leaving the Chamber as this often resulted in repetition.

One member suggested that a limit of 20 minutes be imposed up the proposer of a proposition; with a limit of no more than 8 minutes for all other speakers1. Another

member had been considering bringing a proposition to the Assembly to limit the length of members' speeches, but had not done so to date due to the ongoing review of the Sub-Group2.

A number of those consulted felt that it was up to members themselves to monitor the length and quality of their speeches, and 4 members voiced their opposition to the suggestion that a time limit be imposed. It was considered that time limits for speeches could be appropriate under a party political system, as members could delegate areas to be discussed, however, this was not considered an effective way forward under the present form of ministerial government. It was thought to be the responsibility of members to keep their speeches concise and imposing a time limit was felt to be anti- democratic3.  The  Assembly  could  instead  adopt  the  approach  employed  by  the National Assembly for Wales and use a large digital clock to ensure that members were aware of the length of their speeches.

Repetition was another key element to ensuring that speeches did not unnecessarily lengthen the amount of time members spent in the Chamber. It was agreed by many members  that  rules  regarding  repetition  should  be  enforced  more  strongly,  but acknowledged  that  the  propensity  for  members  to simply  repeat  what  others  had already said was difficult to police. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier commented: "There has been a mechanism to limit debates – the Guillotine – but I have noticed that, when put to the vote, members are increasingly reluctant to apply it."  4 Deputy T.A. Vallois suggested that it was the role of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to address the problem of repetition, as follows –

1 Correspondence from Connétable K.P. Vibert , dated 9th February 2010.

2 Hearing with Deputy A.E. Jeune , 15th March 2010.

3 Hearing with Deputies T. Pitman and S. Pitman on 14th January 2010.

4 Correspondence from Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier, dated 13th January 2010.

"I have concerns that the reason for repetition in speeches is due to the following:

1. it is assumed that members have made their minds up before entering the Chamber
2. the collective deserting of members when certain other members stand to present their proposition
3. a lack of respect for all members in that people are more concentrated on what is happening on their blackberries rather then paying attention to the debate at hand.

Why do I believe this causes repetition? Purely because if there are groups of people within the Chamber that truly believe that the proposition is worth while then they will want to repeat the notion over and over again to ensure they are getting that message across.

There are a number of propositions that have come to the States which I truly believe should have been dealt with by PPC. I think PPC lacks the assertiveness required to address some of these issues."[5]

Questions

Concise and complete answers to properly researched questions could result in time saved in the Chamber.

Concern was expressed that Ministers were failing to be concise in answering the questions put to them:  "long waffling answers from Ministers are quite clearly aimed at just eating up question time."6 It was also suggested that the answers being provided were not satisfactory: "Answers to questions, propositions, and comments from Ministers frequently have misleading or deliberately incomplete information."7 One member suggested that unhelpful answers to questions had the result of alienating members, and could result in more questions being asked8.

The Chief Minister expressed the view that too many unnecessary questions were being asked: "One has to balance the absolute right to ask questions of legitimate public concern with the apparent careless frivolity with which numerous questions seem to be posed simply to keep a Minister on his toes'. I am confident that all Ministers have more than enough at this time to keep them alert, but the need to answer so many questions risks dragging them, and their officers, to their knees rather than keeping them on their toes."9

The suggestion was made by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire that questions should be put on a Monday morning, separately from the remainder of States' business. The quorum for such a question time would be 2 members (the questioner and the member answering the  question),  and,  while  all  members  would  be  welcome  to  attend  and  to  ask supplementary questions, they would not have a duty to be present unless asking or answering a question. Deputy Le Claire considered that this approach would reduce the number of unnecessary questions being asked in the Assembly. The Deputy also suggested that the answers to written questions should be circulated on the Friday or Saturday preceding the States Sitting in order to allow members more time to digest the information provided.

Propositions

The provision of comprehensive information would help members to make informed decisions in a timely manner.

6 Correspondence from Deputy T.M. Pitman, dated 25th November 2010.

7 Correspondence from Deputies D.J. De Sousa, S. Pitman, G.P. Southern . F.J. Hill,

T.M. Pitman, D.J.A. Wimberley, R.G. Le Hérissier, and Senator A. Breckon, dated 8th December 2009, page 1.

8 Hearing with Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire, 29th April 2010.

9 Correspondence from the Chief Minister, dated 27th February 2009, page 2.

Members  considered  that  a  lack  of  information  resulted  in  a  longer  debate:  "A proposition was brought recently by a Minister with no supporting information at all, which resulted in a one and a half hour debate. Ten minutes would have sufficed, if the information had been provided in the first place."[6] Deputy T.M. Pitman commented: "Ministers' reports on important technical areas are little more than one could fit on a postage stamp"[7].  Concern was also raised that members had no choice but to elongate  proceedings  due  to  the  information  being  provided:  "Distortions  and inaccurate information [are] being used in debates, which forces other members to interrupt for the sake of their reputations or for the sake of the truth."[8]

It was also suggested that members were forced to bring propositions to the States which would not be necessary had the Council of Ministers taken action in respect of previous  commitments:  "Back-benchers  have  to  bring  propositions  to  force  the Council of Ministers to do what they have promised to do, but which somehow never happened."[9] The 8 States members who wrote collectively to the Sub-Group also advised that propositions were, on occasion, brought by Ministers too late in the day for effective debate, and cited the making of arrangements for Boxing Day in October as one such example.[10]

Comments and Amendments

Again, the timely and comprehensive nature of Comments and Amendments was considered essential to enable effective debate.

A submission signed by 8 States members commented that debate was being extended by the decision of Ministers not to accept amendments: "Ministers have refused to accept amendments which are no-brainers' resulting in unnecessary debate."15 The untimely nature of comments was also leading to extended debate: "Comments and explanations from Ministers routinely arrive the day before the debate or on the very day of the debate, clearly obstructing informed debate."16

Reports

Similar comments were received in respect of Reports.

A collective submission cited bias in reports as a particular problem: "Reports from consultants  purporting  to  be  independent'  should  be  comprehensive  and  even- handed. Instead they are biased towards the required solution."17

Strategic Plan and Business Plan

Members  felt  that  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  to  accept  or  reject amendments to the Business and Strategic Plans had an impact upon the amount of time spent in the Chamber debating these matters.

15 Correspondence from Deputies D.J. De Sousa, S. Pitman, G.P. Southern . F.J. Hill,

T.M. Pitman, D.J.A. Wimberley, R.G. Le Hérissier, and Senator A. Breckon, dated 8th December 2009, page 2.

16 Correspondence from Deputies D.J. De Sousa, S. Pitman, G.P. Southern . F.J. Hill,

T.M. Pitman, D.J.A. Wimberley, R.G. Le Hérissier, and Senator A. Breckon, dated 8th December 2009, page 2.

17 Correspondence from Deputies D.J. De Sousa, S. Pitman, G.P. Southern . F.J. Hill,

T.M. Pitman, D.J.A. Wimberley, R.G. Le Hérissier, and Senator A. Breckon, dated 8th December 2009, page 2.

Legislative programme

Concern was expressed that too much legislation was being brought to the Assembly, although another member commented that the Chamber should primarily be a seat of legislation. One member suggested that an additional body or Chamber could be introduced to scrutinise and review legislation.

Scrutiny

Information technology

Behaviour

It was considered to be the responsibility of the Privileges and Procedures Committee as well as the Chair to ensure that members' behaviour in the Chamber was kept under control.

"PPC really should be acting strongly upon the deliberate and quite frankly moronic discourtesy shown to a few backbenchers whenever they rise to speak by people just chatting  loudly  over  them  to  try  and  put  them  off,  or  disappearing  outside  for 30 minutes to discuss anything but politics seemingly – only to eventually return to vote contre' on something then often have not even heard being debated."18

Connétable K.P. Vibert felt members continually failed to adhere to the simplest of rules of conduct such as standing to address the Chair, not moving from their seats when in direct line of the speaker and the Chair and remaining in their seats until the Chair had left the Chamber19.

Attendance

Low attendance levels were attributed to members' tendency to leave the Chamber due to the length of speeches.

One member suggested that members should be required to clock in and out and another suggested that States Sittings should be video-streamed in order to encourage members to remain in their seats. Senator B.E. Shenton expressed the view that long speeches  were  having  an  impact  upon  members'  attendance  at  States  Sittings: "Speeches should be short, sharp and concise. There is absolutely no rationale for a long speech that wavers from the point. The Chair needs to be strong. If members continue to abuse the Chamber by wasting other members' time the structure of the Chamber will change. If members believe it is their democratic right to make 3 hour speeches it is the democratic right of others not to listen and leave the Chamber to undertake more productive matters. This is already happening."20

18 Correspondence from Deputy T.M. Pitman, 25th November 2009.

19 Correspondence from Connétable K.P. Vibert , 9th February 2010.

20 Correspondence from Senator B.E. Shenton, dated 16th February 2010.

Schedule of States meetings

Members normally meet on a constant 2 week cycle with one week spent in the States for a 2 or 3 day meeting and the next week catching up with Scrutiny meetings, Council  of Ministers  meetings, constituency  matters,  etc.  It was suggested that a 3 week cycle would allow a 2 week gap between Sittings providing members with time  to  plan  other  meetings  and  hearings.  Conversely,   Deputy  P.V.F.  Le  Claire suggested that the States should meet more frequently with the aim of improving communication between members.

One member also suggested that the business dealt with by the States should be divided up, and Assembly matters should be dealt with separately:  "The obvious example was the sandwiches debate which should have been decided by PPC."[11]

Underlying problems

Overall, a number of members considered that there were underlying problems with the current system which resulted in the difficulties being experienced in respect of the efficient running of States' business. This included workload, and the amount of time being spent in the States Chamber, and the structure of ministerial government.

Workload and time spent in the States Chamber

"The view that some States Members are behaving in an irresponsible manner in the States is not just my view, but that of many outside the States with whom I have spoken. It is irresponsible in that it skews the amount of time spent within the States Chamber as compared with the other necessary activities of government. That view is in my opinion supported by the fact that whilst the Assembly is sitting for longer and longer the positive business of the States seems to be advancing more slowly than ever."[12]

All of those who submitted their comments to the Sub-Group expressed concern regarding the current lack of efficiency in the running of States' business due to the amount of time spent in the States Chamber, and the standard of debate. The Chief Minister  suggested that the  best  way  to  improve  States  performance  could be  to withdraw  radio  coverage:  "I  sometimes  feel  that  Members  speak  not  to  their 52 colleagues but rather to the wider audience listening in. If we fail to improve our performance within the States it may be that the media themselves decide that there is no point in wasting staff time covering us, unless it is to highlight our deficiencies."[13]

Deputy M. Tadier cited the difficulty in allocating sufficient time to each element of the role. "As a parish Deputy from a semi-urban district, it is currently increasingly difficult  to  find  time  to  balance  the  workloads  of  States,  Scrutiny,  PPC  and constituency  work.  Invariably,  it  is  the  latter  which  seems  to  suffer,  as  time  is invariably allocated fairly rigidly to the other areas."24 Deputy J.M. Maçon asked that the primary duty of members be examined and defined in order to enable members to identify whether their priority should be work carried out in the States Chamber or other duties25.

Senator Shenton expressed the view that: "In order to justify a salary bill in excess of £2,000,000, States members consider that more time should be spent in the States Chamber. The quality or importance of debate seems irrelevant to some."26

The Chief Minister commented: "At the end of the day it is up to States Members themselves to ensure that meetings are efficient. It is also up to States Members to ensure that they utilise their time in a productive manner. If Members consider that the present arrangements are acceptable, an increasing number will simply return to the Chamber just to vote."27 The Chief Minister also expressed the view that the current situation could not continue: "I do not feel that a continuation of the existing regime will do other than to deter future able candidates from wishing to put their names forward for election."28

Ministerial Government

During  the  Sub-Group's  review,  comparisons  were  drawn  between  the  current ministerial system of government and the former Committee system. While a diverse group of members would participate in each Committee, it was noted that fewer members were involved in each piece of work under ministerial government. This had resulted in the discussion and information-gathering stages of the Committee system being  transported  into  the  States  Chamber,  with  questions,  repetition  and misunderstanding in the Chamber being perceived as time-wasting. It was accordingly suggested  that  the  design  of  ministerial  government  was  more  suited  to  a  party political structure: "I feel that a lot of the efficiency is wasted – if you see it as being wasted – in the design of the ministerial structure. Because I feel perhaps it was more designed towards a party-political structure rather than a system where you officially have independent members."29

This view was echoed by Senator B.E Shenton: "Part of the problem is Ministerial Government. This ill-conceived proposal was not intelligently thought through and it has a number of what are likely to be terminal failings. In this case the splitting of the Chamber  into  the  executive'  and  the  non-executive'  was  always  going  to  be adversarial and only an idealistic dreamer would argue otherwise. No doubt we will persist in trying to make this concept work but eventually all the sticking plasters in the world won't keep it together."30 Senator Shenton suggested that the structure of

24 Correspondence from Deputy M. Tadier , dated 1st March 2010.

25 Hearing with Deputy J.M. Maçon, 15th January 2010

26 Correspondence from Senator B.E. Shenton dated 16th February 2010, page 1.

27 Correspondence from Senator B.E. Shenton dated 16th February 2010, page 3

28 Correspondence from the Chief Minister, Senator T.A. Le Sueur , dated 27th February 2010,

page 2.

29 Hearing with Deputy J.M. Maçon, 15th January 2010

30 Correspondence from Senator B.E. Shenton dated 16th February 2010, page 3. Ministerial government was flawed, in that the Chamber was divided, causing unnecessary friction and duplicating both work and costs. "Consultants are hired by both the Executive and Scrutiny to examine the same policy, Scrutiny members do not feel part of the Government and are frustrated by a lack of power, and the position of Minister lacks the checks and balances necessary for such a powerful role."[14]

Problems were also cited in respect of the role of Ministers. "Because of lack of understanding of their portfolios I do feel that, to a certain extent, Ministers do get led by the nose I think that perhaps there is a case whereby there's a perception that Ministers seem to be led by the civil servants and don't necessarily have as much understanding as they should"[15]

"When you attain the position of Minister you often rely on the advice of your Chief Officer and feel very isolated if you have concerns regarding their recommendations. There is no one to discuss the matter with, no one to input an alternative view, no one to provide some form of checks and balances. If we had a party system the party would help keep the Minister in line by ensuring that he sticks to agreed policy By electing independents into the role, in effect a party of one, there is no structure to keep the Minister in line or tie the whole Council of Ministers together,"[16]

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire considered that the move to Ministerial government had cut off the flow of information and had left some members without a function. He considered that the Council of Ministers did not run on collective responsibility and suggested that a smaller Committee system would have been preferable to the current arrangement, as more members would have been involved in the decision-making process, resulting in fewer questions and greater levels of trust between members.

The Deputy suggested that a 15 minute adjournment should be introduced to allow members to discuss matters arising during States Sittings. Deputy Le Claire also proposed that the number of States members should be reduced.

Senator Shenton suggested that a revised system be introduced as follows –

• Each Minister has a Deputy Minister and 3 Assistant Ministers
• Ministerial Decisions have to be signed by the Minister and at least 2 Assistant Ministers
• Any dissent from signing by any Assistant Minister would have to be reported
• A person may hold a maximum of 2 Assistant Minister positions
• Assistant Ministers may also sit on Scrutiny Panels providing this does not conflict with any Assistant Minister positions held
• Assistant Ministers would not be able to chair Scrutiny Panels or the Public Accounts Committee

Findings

The Sub-Group does not consider that making small adjustments around the number of propositions that may be lodged, time limits on speeches, the number of questions – to mention a few items – will make any appreciable difference without looking more deeply at why the increases in questions and individual members' propositions is occurring.

The Sub-Group is of the view that the exclusivity of the ministerial system of government, which provides that only a small number of people have real insight into government, means that most do not have access to the decision-making process or to the information on which it is based. Consequently, contrary to the expectations of the public, few members of the States are able to answer their queries on the many issues that concern them.

The Sub-Group believes that the number of questions has increased so much because members, and Scrutiny, are unable to access the information in a timely fashion, in any other way. In addition, given that many decisions are being made in relation to States activity by just 10 people out of 53 members, asking questions gives an opportunity to members to bring checks and balances to the decisions made and to hold the Ministers to account. The Group felt that Ministers might also be overwhelmed by the amount of business within the department, the complexity and depth of the detail, and, realistically, would be unable to interrogate and verify the draft proposals put to them by officers. Such a situation leads to the supposition that senior civil servants are running the show'.

The Sub-Group also considers that the reason why the number of propositions proposed by individual members has increased is because this is the only way in which members are able to influence policy and ensure that their suggestions are adopted, in a climate where Ministers are reluctant to be diverted from their own programmes and plans.

By contrast, in the former Committee system of government, draft policy was thrashed out by up to 7 people on a Committee, and they were able together to think through in more depth all the proposals and recommendations. That element of discussion or even thinking aloud', while mulling over the best way forward, has disappeared. Members on a Committee might each have taken an area of specialism from the department, and developed a greater understanding of that area, with the ability to lead discussions on that item. While some Assistant Ministers have specialised areas of responsibility, there is no evidence that this occurs in all departments, and there is still a lot of ground to cover between 2 or 3 members.

The Group is of the view that there are fundamental questions about the ministerial system of government that require review, as the new system of government, which may be good in parts, is not working as a whole as it was intended. Members of the Group received many comments from members, both formally and informally, indicating that the theoretical benefits of the ministerial system as set out by the Clothier Panel were not being realized in practice because many members felt totally unable to make the positive contribution to government in the Island that they had hoped to make when elected. The Sub-Group was particularly struck by the following extract from a submission made by Senator B.E. Shenton –

"When  Members  are  elected  they  are,  in the  eyes  of  the  public  and themselves, members of Government. They expect to have influence in the decisions of State and the fascinating mixture of political views in the Chamber should provide a diverse and encompassing Government. The weakness of the system is that the Troy rule divides the  Chamber,  causes  unnecessary  friction,  and  duplicates  both  work  and  costs. Consultants are hired by both the Executive and Scrutiny to examine the same policy, Scrutiny members do not feel part of the Government and are frustrated by a lack of power, and the position of Minister lacks the checks and balances necessary for such a powerful role."

The Group does not feel that any amendments to the way States Business is organised would be useful until a review of the current system has been completed. Although some changes, for example limiting the length of speeches, might appear superficially attractive as a way of reducing the amount of time members spend in the Chamber, the Sub-Group  believes  very  strongly  that  forcing  a  change  of  this  type  through  the Assembly  against  the  wishes  of  a  minority  would  simply  exacerbate  the  current division that is perceived between Ministers and other members and the Sub-Group does not believe that changes of this type would improve the manner in which Jersey is governed.

Recommendation

The Sub-Group accordingly recommends to the Privileges and Procedures Committee that it consider whether to conduct a review into the machinery of government to establish  the  efficiency  of  the  system  and  the  effects  on  the  conduct  of  States' business, and if so –

1. Whether to conduct a short review so as to be ready before the end of the current term of office;
2. Whether to conduct an in depth' review;
3. The membership of any review;
4. How to fund and staff the review.

If a review is approved, the Sub-Group recommends that no piece meal amendments to Standing Orders are made in advance of such a group reporting back.

APPENDIX A

STATES ASSEMBLY FOR 2009

1. Number of meeting days

Note – there is normally a 3 year cycle relating to the number of States days, whereby the year immediately after an election usually has the fewest meeting, steadily increasing to the year of the next election when significant amounts of work are being completed and debated. This trend would indicate that 2009 should have a low number of meetings.

2. Total Sitting hours (including Liberation Day)

3. Oral questions with notice answered during 90 minute/2 hour period

In addition there were 51 oral questions with notice listed that were not reached during the 90 minute period allocated before September 2009 (no oral questions with notice remained unanswered after the period was increased to 2 hours).

4. Written questions

5. Public Business – number and type of propositions debated

6. Public Business – time spent debating different types of proposition

APPENDIX B

The following table shows the number of speeches made in the Assembly during a sample of 50 debates:

APPENDIX C

COMPARISON IN RELATION TO LENGTH OF SPEECHES, TIME LIMITS ON QUESTIONS, AND LODGINGS

Time limits on speeches Other jurisdictions

Attached  are  extracts  detailing  the  provisions  in  the  United  Kingdom  House  of Commons  (Item 1),  the   Scott ish  Parliament  (Item 2),  the  National  Assembly  for Wales  (Item 3),  the  Canadian  House  of  Commons  (Item 4)  and  the  House  of Representatives in Australia (Item 5) for time limits on speeches.

In all the aforementioned jurisdictions, time limits apply on speeches as follows –

Jersey

Under the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, time limits apply in the following areas –

63  Questions with notice to be answered orally

(1)  Up to 2 hours shall be allowed during a meeting for questions of which notice has been given to be asked and answered.

64  Questions without notice to be answered by Ministers

(1)  Up to 30 minutes shall be allowed during a meeting for members of the States  to  ask  Ministers  questions  without  giving  prior  notice  of  the question.

66  Duration of periods for questions without notice

1. The 1st question period shall be 15 minutes or, if shorter, the time needed for all members of the States wishing to ask a question to have spoken and for those questions to have been answered.
2. The 2nd question period shall be the balance of the 30 minutes remaining after the conclusion of the 1st question period, or, if shorter, the time needed for all members of the States wishing to ask a question to have spoken and for those questions to have been answered.

68  Statement on a matter of official responsibility

3. After the member of the States has made the statement, the presiding officer shall allow a period of up to 10 minutes for other members of the States to ask him or her questions regarding the contents of the statement.

Time  limits  also  apply  in  respect  of  the  selection  process  for  members  of  the Executive and Scrutiny.

In respect of the selection of the Chief Minister (Standing Order 116), the presiding officer invites each candidate to speak for up to 10 minutes and, after a candidate has spoken, allows up to 40 minutes for elected members to question the candidate.

In the case of the selection of Ministers (S.O. 117); Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures  Committee  (S.O. 118)  Chairman  of  the  Public  Accounts  Committee (S.O. 119), Chairman of a Scrutiny Panel (S.O. 120) and President of the Chairmen's Committee (S.O. 121), the presiding officer invites each candidate to speak for up to 10 minutes, and, after a candidate has spoken, allows up to 20 minutes for elected members to question the candidate.

Limited number of propositions Other jurisdictions

In other jurisdictions where a system of party politics operates, there are, in effect, limits on the number of proposals from individual members which can be considered by parliament.

In the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, for example, members are generally limited by the amount of time available for their consideration. In Scotland, members are  also  limited  by  the  number  of  Members'  Bills  they  can  bring  per  session (see Items 6 to 9).

Jersey

At present there is no limit on the number of propositions a Minister, Committee, Scrutiny Panel or individual member can lodge for debate.

ITEM 1 – United Kingdom House of Commons

ITEM 2 – Scott ish Parliament

ITEM 3 – National Assembly for Wales

ITEM 4 – Canadian House of Commons

ITEM 5 – Australia House of Representatives

ITEM 6 – United Kingdom House of Commons

Private Members' Bills

1. Private Members' Bills are Public Bills introduced by MPs and Lords who are not  government  ministers.  As  with  other  Public  Bills  their  purpose  is  to change the law. A minority of Private Members' Bills become law.
2. Like Public Bills, Private Members' Bills can be introduced in either House and must go through the same set stages. However, as less time is allocated to these Bills, it is less likely that they will proceed through all the stages.
3. To introduce a Bill a Member needs to provide its short title (by which it is known) and its long title (which describes briefly what it does). Complete texts are not necessary and some Private Members' Bills are never published in full.
4. There are three ways of introducing Private Members' Bills in the House of Commons: the Ballot, the Ten Minute Rule and Presentation.

The Ballot (Standing Order 14):

5. Ballot Bills have the best chance of becoming law, as they get priority for the limited  amount  of  debating  time  available  (13 Fridays).  The  names  of Members applying for a Bill are drawn in a ballot held at the beginning of the parliamentary year. Normally, the first seven ballot Bills get a day's debate.

Ten Minute Rule (Standing Order 23):

6. Ten Minute Rule Bills are often an opportunity for Members to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing legislation, rather than a serious attempt  to get  a  Bill  passed.  Members  make  speeches  of  no  more  than 10 minutes outlining their position, which another Member may oppose in a similar short statement.

Presentation (Standing Order 57):

7. Any Member may introduce a Bill in this way as long as he or she has previously  given  notice  of  their  intention  to do  so.  Members  formally introduce the title of the Bill but do not speak in support of it – they rarely become law.

Private Members' Bills from the Lords

8. Private Members' Bills introduced in the Lords go through the same stages as any other Public Bill. Once completed, and if an MP supports the Bill, it continues in the Commons. Lords Private Members' Bills are treated like other Private Members' Bills, but do not have priority over Bills introduced in the Commons. They are therefore unlikely to have much, if any, time devoted to them.

9. Private Bills are usually promoted by organisations, like local authorities or private companies. Private Bills only change the law as it applies to specific individuals or organisations, rather than the general public.
10. Bills can start in either House. The formal stages of Private Bills are broadly the same as Public Bills.
11. Parliament  requires  that  Private  Bills  are  publicised  through  newspaper adverts, official gazettes of local areas, and in writing to all interested parties. People directly affected by a Private Bill should also be informed.

Hybrid Bills

12. These mix the characteristics of Public and Private Bills. The changes to the law proposed by a Hybrid Bill would affect the general public but would also have a significant impact for specific individuals or groups. The Bills passed concerning the construction of the Channel Tunnel are examples of Hybrid Bills.
13. The Public Bill Offices decide whether a Bill falls into the Hybrid category. Both Houses debate these Bills and they go through a longer parliamentary process than Public Bills.

ITEM 7 – The Scott ish Parliament

Members' Bills

1. Any MSP who is not a member of the Executive may seek to introduce a Bill, by one of two ways. The first is by encouraging a committee to make a proposal for a Committee Bill, the other is by proposing a Member's Bill under Rule 9.14. Members have the right to lodge up to two Members' Bills per session.
2. The first  formal  step  in  introducing  a  Member's  Bill  is to lodge  a  draft proposal for a Bill which consists of the proposed short title and a brief explanation of its proposed purposes. With the proposal must also be lodged either a document consulting on the policy objectives of the draft proposal, or a written statement explaining why the member thinks that a case for the Bill has already been established and that consultation is unnecessary.
3. Standing  Orders  require  consultation  to last  12 weeks  or  more.  Where  a member  lodges  a  statement  of  reasons,  the  committee  to which  the Parliamentary Bureau refers the proposal has one month to determine whether the statement is adequate justification for not consulting. If the committee decides it is not satisfied with the statement, the proposal will fall unless the member then lodges a consultation document within two months.
4. The next formal step is the member lodging a final proposal for the Bill.

The right to introduce a Member's Bill

5. The final proposal is then published in the Business Bulletin for one month, whilst the consultation summary or statement of reasons is made available via the "Proposals for Members' Bills" page of the Parliament website. During this  period,  any  member  may  notify  support  for  the  proposal,  this  being recorded in the bulletin. If, at the end of the month, at least 18 other members, drawn from at least half the parties or groups represented on the Parliamentary Bureau, have indicated their support, the member has the right to introduce a Member's Bill. This is unless a Minister has indicated either:

• that the Executive will introduce legislation to give effect to the proposal within the same session, or
• that  Her  Majesty's  Government  will  introduce  such  legislation  within  the same or next session.

Introduction of Members' Bills

8.  While there is no limit to the number of proposals that each member may lodge (but he or she cannot have more than two – whether draft or final – in progress simultaneously (Rule 9.14.17), the member may only introduce two Members' Bills in any session. This includes any Committee Bills that result from draft proposals submitted by that member (Rule 9.14.2).

Stage 1 of Members' Bills

10.  Stage 1  consideration  of  a  Member's  Bill  is  no  different  to  that  for  an Executive Bill with one important exception. This is that the lead committee has the option, under Rule 9.14.18, of recommending to the Parliament that the general principles be not agreed to, on one of three grounds:

• the consultation on the draft proposal, or the published material referred to in the statement of reasons, does not demonstrate a reasonable case for the policy objectives of the proposal or does not demonstrate that legislation is necessary to realise those objectives;
• the Bill appears to be clearly outside the Parliament's legislative competence and it is unlikely that this could be rectified by amendment;
• the Bill has deficiencies of drafting that make it unfit to be passed and which are  so  serious  that  they  would  be  difficult  or  impractical  to  resolve  by amendment at Stage 2 or 3.

If the motion is agreed to, the Bill falls.

Congruence between draft proposal, final proposal, and Bill

12. The Standing Orders require that a member's final proposal must be broadly similar to, but not necessarily the same as, the draft proposal (Rule 9.14.8). By contrast, by the time a final proposal is lodged, the assumption is that the member's policy will be reasonably well developed.

Committee Bills

13. Rule 9.15.4,  which  allows  any  MSP  to submit  a  draft  proposal  for  a Committee Bill to the Parliamentary Bureau. This is the mechanism used where the MSP concerned is not a member of a committee within whose remit the Bill would fall. A draft proposal is not printed in the Business Bulletin, but is referred by the Bureau to an appropriate committee. The committee is required to consider a draft proposal referred toitin this way (Rule 9.15.4). In doing so, the committee may (but need not) conduct an inquiry on the merits of the draft proposal before reaching a decision on whether to propose a Bill.

ITEM 8 – Parliament of Canada

Private Bills

1. Private bills are considered during the time provided for Private Members' Business.
2. Private Members are generally defined as Members of the House of Commons who are not part of the Ministry. Each sitting day, one hour is set aside for Private Members' Business, that is, for the consideration of bills and motions presented and sponsored by private Members. Private Members may use the time allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business to put forth their own legislative and policy proposals, and express their views on a variety of issues. Private Members' proposals can take the form of a bill (either public or private), a motion, or a notice of motion for the production of papers.
3. A private Member's bill is the text of a legislative initiative sponsored by a private Member. Based on private Members' own ideas and drafted with the aid of legislative counsel, such bills are brought forward by the sponsoring Member. Like government bills, private Members' bills become statutes once they  receive  Royal  Assent.  Most  private  Members'  bills  are  public  bills originating in the Commons, but some public bills, and occasionally private bills, sponsored by private Members come to the Commons from the Senate.
4. A private Member's motion typically proposes that the House declare its opinion on some topic or that the House order a certain course of action to be taken, either by the House itself, or by one of its committees or officers.

ITEM 9 – Australia

1. For  the  purposes  of  private  Members'  business  in the  House  of Representatives, a private Member is defined as any Member of the House other  than  the  Prime  Minister,  the  Speaker,  a  Minister  or  Parliamentary Secretary.
2. About one third of the House's time is spent on matters raised by private Members, parliamentary committee business and other matters not sponsored by the Government.

Private Members' Mondays

3. Each sitting Monday, time is allocated for non-government business in both the House and Main Committee (the House's second debating chamber). The sequence of business in the House is as follows:

Petitions

Committee and delegation reports and

Private Members' business (bills and motions).

4. In the Main Committee the sequence is:

90 second statements

Committee and delegation reports Private Members' business and Grievance debate.

Petitions

5. Petitions lodged for presentation to the House are presented on Mondays. The announcement gives a brief summary of the action sought and of the number of petitioners. The time taken for this announcement is between about five and ten minutes. Petitions may also be presented by a Member during Members' statements in the Main Committee (Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays), adjournment debates in the House (each sitting day) or the Main Committee (Thursdays),  and  during  the  grievance  debate  on  Mondays  in the  Main Committee.
6. Members who present petitions in person may take the opportunity to discuss them  in the  time  allowed  for  the  statement  or  adjournment  debate.  The Petitions Committee responds to petitions on behalf of the House whether they are presented during the period allocated for the purpose on Monday or by a Member during statements, adjournment debates or grievance debate.

Committee and delegation reports

7. The period  from  8.40 p.m.  to 9.30 p.m.  on  Mondays  is reserved  for presentation  and  debate  on  reports  of  parliamentary  committees  and delegations on which private Members serve. Statements on reports are also made in the Main Committee on Mondays from 6.55 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. and on Wednesdays and Thursdays as arranged by the Whips. The objective of all

committee inquiries is the presentation of a report to the House, setting out the committee's conclusions and recommendations.

8. Reports may be presented by a member of the committee or by the Speaker on behalf  of  the  committee.  Reports  are  also  presented  from  delegations  of Members who have taken part in fact-finding visits overseas or who have attended  parliamentary  conferences.  The Member  presenting  a  report  and other Members may make statements about it. The Member presenting the report may also move a motion in connection with it, for example, that the House take note of the report'. Debate on the motion is normally adjourned until  a  future  day  and  the  resumption  of  debate  is  usually  in the  Main Committee.  Following  the  presentation  of  reports  proceedings  may  be resumed on reports presented on an earlier occasion.
9. The Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip decide the order of  presentation  and  allot  time  for  the  consideration  of  committee  and delegation reports.

Private Members' business

10. After the presentation of committee and delegation reports in the House on Mondays debate takes place on private Members' business, that is, bills and motions sponsored by private Members. Debate on private Members' business also takes place in the Main Committee on Mondays following debate on committee reports.
11. A private Member wishing to move a motion or introduce a bill gives notice in writing to the Clerk. Those not selected by the Whips for debate within eight sitting weeks are dropped from the Notice Paper.
12. The arrangement of private Members' business is the responsibility of the Whips. When the House is sitting the Whips meet to look at the notices lodged by  private  Members.  They  then  report  to  the  House,  listing  the  matters recommended for debate on the Monday. The Whips ensure that all Members have a fair chance of having matters debated and also take into account the nature of the subject, for example, its importance and topicality.

Private Members' motions

13. Private Members' motions are generally used as a vehicle for debating an issue rather than to commit the House to an opinion or bind itto action, so the majority of motions considered as private Members' business are not voted on. At the end of the time allotted they are placed on the Notice Paper for a subsequent private Members' Monday.

Private Members' bills

14. The introduction of a private Members' bill is given priority over other private Members' business. When the notice for a private Members' bill is called on by the Clerk, the Member presents the bill and may speak in support of it for up to five minutes. It is then read a first time, the second reading of the bill automatically becoming an eligible item of business for the next Monday in

the House or Main Committee. The Whips may allocate time for debate on the principles of the bill (second reading debate). If the second reading is agreed to by the House, further consideration of the bill takes precedence over other private Members' business.

15. Under the procedures of the House, private Members have great freedom in the  introduction  of  bills,  with  the  important  exception  that  only  the Government may initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or money. Private Members' bills are unlikely to become law unless they gain the support of the Government. Since they are prepared either by an opposition Member or by a government Member outside the party's formalised approval mechanisms this does not happen often.
16. Procedures in operation since 1988 have seen an increase in the number of private Members' bills although bills initiated by private Members are still a small proportion of legislation dealt with by the House. Between 1901 and 1988,  103 private  Members'  bills  were  introduced  into  the  House –  by September 2007 this figure had risen to 313. Since Federation only 19 non- government bills have passed into law – 15 introduced by private Members or private Senators and four by the Speaker.

Members' statements in the Main Committee

17. Members may make short statements in the Main Committee on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays, 15 minutes are allocated (6.40 p.m. to 6.55 p.m.)  for  any  Member  other  than  a  Minister  or  a  Parliamentary Secretary to seek the call of the Chair to make a statement of up to 90 seconds in duration. The call is alternated between non-government and government Members. If no other Member seeks to speak, a Member who has already spoken  may  make  up  to  two  additional  statements.  Members  may  make statements on any topic of concern to them. They may also use the occasion to present a petition.
18. A similar opportunity occurs on Tuesdays (if the Main Committee is sitting), Wednesdays and Thursdays except that the period for constituency statements is 30 minutes, individual statements may be up to three minutes long and all Members are able to participate. 30 minutes is allocated irrespective of any interruptions caused by suspensions or by divisions in the House.

Grievance debate

19. At 8.30 p.m. in the Main Committee on Mondays the Chair proposes the question That grievances be noted'. Debate on the question is practically unlimited in scope, giving Members the opportunity, in 10 minute speeches, to raise matters in which they have a particular interest or to discuss complaints of constituents. It would be unusual for two or more Members participating in the debate  to speak  on the  same  subject.  Members  may  present  petitions during the grievance debate and may also speak about the petition for all or part of their 10 minute speech.

APPENDIX D

MEMORANDUM

TO:  Chairman  and  members  of  the  FROM:  Greffier of the States

States Business Organisation Sub-

Group

cc:   Deputy Greffier of the States  Our Ref: 465/1(136) Assistant Greffier of the States Anna Heuston, Committee Clerk

SCHEDULE OF STATES MEETINGS 22nd February 2010

It may appear somewhat unusual for me to be making a submission to your Sub-Group as I have attended your meetings and assisted your review but I have a suggestion for your consideration that I believe it is appropriate to bring to your attention. I do hope that I do not inadvertently tread on any matters that are more properly for political consideration in making this suggestion.

I  note  that  your  review  has  already  identified  that  many  of  the  issues  you  are considering are interrelated and there is clearly no easy solution to the matters you are dealing with that will be acceptable to all States members. I would offer the view that what  everyone  is  seeking  is  a  way  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  what  might  be described as the overall government machine' in Jersey. I would include in that definition the meetings of the States Assembly itself, the meetings and operation of the Council of Ministers, work undertaken by Ministers, the work of Scrutiny Panels and the  Public  Accounts  Committee  and  just  as  importantly  the  work  that  individual members do in their own right. This could include their constituency work, general research and other matters such as lodging propositions for debate. I believe it is therefore important that any proposals to increase efficiency' in the Assembly are designed  so  that  they  lead  to  an  improvement  in  the  performance  of  the  whole operation of the government machine' in Jersey. I appreciate that your Sub-Group is only looking at the efficiency of the work of the Assembly itself and cannot consider wider machinery of government issues and I am simply drawing attention to the many other responsibilities that members have in order to point out that a correct balance needs to be found between members' work in the Assembly and their other duties.