PPC Minutes 13th January 2005

IC/KAK/31  3

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (34th Meeting)

13th January 2005

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy J-A. Bridge, from whom apologies had been received.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier Senator P.V.F. Le Claire Connétable D.F. Gray Deputy P.N. Troy Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en Deputy J.A. Bernstein

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Greffier of the States

Mrs. A.H. Harris , Deputy Greffier of the States I. Clarkson, Committee Clerk

Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A and Part B.

Minutes. A1.  The Minutes of the meetings held on 23rd September (Part A only), 20th

October (Parts A and B), 4th November (Parts A and B), 17th November (Part A only),  25th  November  (Parts  A  and  B),  6th  December  (Part  A  only)  and  13th December 2004 (Part A only), having been circulated previously, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Matters arising. A2.  The Committee noted the following matters arising from the Minutes of its

meetings held on 23rd September (Part A only), 20th October (Parts A and B), 4th November (Parts A and B), 17th November (Part A only), 25th November (Parts A and B), 6th December (Part A only) and 13th December 2004 (Part A only) –

1. A ct No. A2 of 25th November 2004 - the Committee noted that the Policy  and Resources and  Finance and  Economics Committees continued  to  consider their positions  regarding  the proposed arrangementsforBudget Scrutiny in the forthcoming ministerialsystem of government;
2. A ct No. A7 of 25th November 2004 – the Committeeacknowledged that  it had  received  concerns from  several  members regarding the restricted availability of parking for members in Sand Street Car Park. Deputy  C.J.  Scott   Warr en undertook to  make enquiries with  the President of the Environmentand Public ServicesCommittee regarding the anticipatedlevelofdemand for such spaces;
3. A ct No. B1 of 25th November 2004 - the Committee  recalled that the Code ofConductWorkingPartywasunable to proceed with an effective review ofthe draft CodeofConductfor Elected Members of the States

until such time as the Law Officers' Department had issued advice in respect

of the States of Jersey Law 200- and the matter of the disciplinary provisions for members;

4. A ct No. A8 of 6th December 2004 - it was reported that Deputy J.A. Hilton was due to clarifyher position as a memberofShadow Scrutiny once  the new  Chairmen of the Shadow Scrutiny  Panels had been elected; and,
5. A ct No. B2 of 6th December 2004 – the Committeeexpressed its thanks to MrD.C.G. Filipponi, Assistant Greffier of the States, for his efficient handling of transitional arrangements for Statesmembers' remuneration.

Simultaneous A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Acts No. A4 of 6th December 2004, electronic voting. recalled that it had invited the Bailiff to consider formulating an appropriate policy in 1240/22(8) connexion with the application of Standing Order 31B (3).

The Committee welcomed Sir Philip Bailhache , Bailiff .

The Bailiff  explained that  he had met with the   Deputy   Bailiff , Senator J.A. Le Maistre and the Greffier and Deputy Greffier of the States to discuss the application of Standing Order 31B (3). Those present had agreed that they were minded to continue to give time for those members present on the first floor of the States Building to return to their designated seats. Votes taken after closing speeches were, however, considered to be an exception, as it was thought that members should by then have returned to the Chamber in any event.

The Committee agreed with the approach suggested by the Bailiff .

On a related matter, it was clarified that the President of the Assembly would ensure that members, once in the Chamber, were given sufficient time to their seat in a dignified manner.

Propositions for A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A5 of 6th December 2004, closure of debate. recalled that it had referred to the Working Party on the Arrangement of Public 1240/4(168) Business in the States Assembly the matter of whether the procedure associated with

propositions for closure of a debate should be refined.

Bailiff

Clerk The Committee welcomed Sir Philip Bailhache , Bailiff . G.O.S.

Deputy P.N. Troy advised the Committee that the Working Party had agreed with the view held by the Committee that members should give ten to fifteen minutes notice of their intention to propose the closure motion. Further to the foregoing, it suggested that notice could be given to the President by written note. Finally, and in connexion with complaints received from certain members that the President had, on occasion, failed to notice that they wished to speak during a debate, the Working Party had decided to recommend that consideration be given to the installation of an electronic notification system in front of the Bailiff 's seat.

The Bailiff advised that, whilst a number of members waited to be called before proposing that the question be put, others had a tendency to call out across the Chamber without regard for the good order of the Assembly. He suggested that the latter approach should be ignored by the Chair. With regard to the matter of members being seen by the Chair, the Bailiff repeated his previous advice to the Committee that he did not consider that the Royal Mace obstructed his field of vision. Moreover, he informed the Committee that he tended to keep an informal list of those members who had indicated a desire to speak and that both the Deputy Bailiff and the Greffier of the States did likewise. He invited members to accept that there would inevitably be occasions when they would not be at the top of the relevant list, as others were waiting to speak.

The Committee noted the comments made by the Bailiff and deferred further consideration of the matter to a subsequent meeting.

Standing Orders: A5.  The  Committee, with  reference to  its  Act  No. A1  of  18th October  2004, proposed recalled that amendments had been made to the Standing Orders of the States of amendment: Jersey in respect of question time.

question time.

1240/4(170) The Committee received a report and proposition, brought by Deputy G.P. Southern

of St. Helier, entitled Amendment (No. 28) of the Standing Orders of the States of Bailiff Jersey (Projet No. P.5/2005 refers). It noted that the purpose of the said report and Clerk proposition was –

G.O.S.

1. t o increasethenumberof oral questions that a memberwas permitted to submitper sitting  from two tothree,and
2. t o increase the duration of question time from 60 to 90 minutes.

The Committee welcomed Sir Philip Bailhache , Bailiff .

The   Bailiff  observed  that,  under  the  existing  system,  the  total  number  of  oral questions  submitted  for  an  individual  sitting  had  yet  to  exceed  12.  He  further observed that there had yet to be an occasion where an approved question had not been put due to a lack of available time. However, the Bailiff acknowledged that the Assembly might, on occasion, have preferred to explore certain topical and important questions in greater detail. Having recalled that the order in which questions were asked  was  determined  by  ballot,  the   Bailiff  invited  the  Committee  to  consider whether it might be preferable for the Chair to allow one or more questions further down the list to fall away so that the Assembly was able to explore a matter of particular importance or interest in greater detail. The Working Party had expressed the  view  that  in  the  interests  of  covering  individual  questions  properly,  some questions should fall from the bottom of the list if they could not be reached.

The Committee expressed reservations in connexion with the proposal to increase the permitted number of oral questions per member. It agreed to formulate a suitable comment at a subsequent meeting.

Absence from the A6.  The Committee was advised that the Working Party on the Arrangement of States Assembly. Public Business in the States Assembly had met on 11th January 2005 and that the 1240/9/1(132) issue of members' absence from the Assembly had been raised at that meeting.

Bailiff The Committee welcomed Sir Philip Bailhache , Bailiff .

Clerk

G.O.S. Deputy P.N. Troy advised that the Working Party was of the view that the existing

system of recording absence from the States Assembly was inequitable and outdated and  that,  in  particular,  the  excuse  of  being  out  of  the  Island  was  no  longer appropriate. It was further reported that the Working Party was keen to establish whether the Bailiff was prepared to exercise discretion on the matter of whether an individual member could be declared as legitimately absent on States business. In addition, the views of the Bailiff were sought on the matter of whether a member should be declared en défaut' for having left the Island to take a family holiday. The   Bailiff  advised  that  he  would  be  prepared  to  exercise  discretion  on  the understanding that the necessary parameters were defined clearly. With regard to the matter of members taking a family holiday, the Bailiff considered that it might be appropriate to amend the relevant provision so that a member would be declared en défaut' in such circumstances.

The Committee deferred further consideration of the matter to a subsequent meeting.

A People's A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A6 of 25th November 2004, Advocate: recalled that it had planned to comment upon the report and proposition brought by comments. Senator S. Syvret, entitled A People's Advocate' (Projet No. P.202/2004 refers). 1240(175)

The Committee received the comments of H.M. Attorney General in connexion with A.G. Projet No. P.202/2004.

Clerk

G.O.S. The Committee welcomed H.M. Attorney General.

H.M. Attorney General advised that, in his opinion, the States Assembly was ill- suited  to  a  debate  on  legal  opinion,  a  situation  that  might  well  become  a comparatively  regular  occurrence  in  the  event  that  a  People's  Advocate  was appointed. He reminded the Committee that the advice which emanated from his department should be treated as impartial and objective, and that such advice was intended to be for the benefit of the Assembly, its Committees and Scrutiny Panels, and for individual members.

The Committee reiterated its view that there was a need for an inquiry into the rôle of the unelected members of the Assembly, including that of H.M. Attorney General and H.M. Solicitor General.

A discussion ensued regarding the practicality of electing an Attorney General. The Committee considered that the Assembly would inevitably seek to appoint a lawyer of considerable experience. It was acknowledged that potential candidates would probably have established themselves as partners in the private sector and that the financial insecurity of a relatively short term elected position might prove to be less than  attractive.  The  Committee  further  acknowledged  that  an  elected  Attorney General might be expected to benefit from voting rights in the Assembly.

Other matters considered by the Committee included allegations of bias in recent contributions made by H.M. Attorney General to the Assembly and the question of whether the funding required for a People's Advocate might actually be better spent within the Law Officers Department.

H.M. Attorney General, having been thanked by the Committee for his attendance, withdrew from the meeting.

The Committee deferred further consideration of the matter to a subsequent meeting,  once  members  had  had  the  opportunity  to  consider  the  comments presented to the States by the Law Officers' Department in more detail.

Composition and A8.  The  Committee  recalled  that  a  number  of  private  members' propositions election of the concerning composition and election issues had been lodged au Greffe' in recent States Assembly: weeks. In the absence of a Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the establishment of States  Assembly,  several  such  propositions  had  already  been  referred  to  the new Special Committee for comment. Moreover, it was considered likely that others would be Committee. referred in due course.

1240/22/1(13)

The  Committee  considered  that  some  members  of  the  Assembly  had  become Clerk frustrated with the relative lack of progress on certain composition and electoral G.O.S. reform related matters, including –

P.R.C.C.

P.R.E.O. (a)  t he rôle of the unelected members,

2. t he overall numberofmembers,
3. t he date andfrequencyof elections,
4. a common election day for Connétable s,and
5. t hetermof office ofmembers.

It agreed that the resignation of the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly on 24th November 2004 had left these important issues outstanding. Therefore, the Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to consider whether a new Special Committee should be established.

The Committee received a report, dated 4th January 2005, prepared by the Greffier of the States, in connexion with the possible establishment of either a new Special Committee or an outside body charged with making recommendations to the States.

It was explained that the formation of a new Special Committee might curtail the prevailing tendency of members to bring forward important matters concerning the constitution and election of the Assembly on an ad hoc basis. However, this could not be guaranteed, particularly as States' members were acknowledged to hold a wide range of strong views on the relevant issues. It was acknowledged that terms of reference  more  precise  than  those  of  the  previous  Special  Committee  would  be required,  so  as  to  encourage  a  more  focussed  approach  to  the  aforementioned outstanding issues.

On the matter of establishing an outside body, the Committee considered that such an exercise would be perceived by some as a repeat of work carried out four years previously for the Policy and Resources Committee by the panel chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier.

Ultimately  the  Committee  considered  that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  defer further consideration of issues in connexion with the composition and election of the  States  Assembly  until  2006  and  after  the  commencement  of  ministerial government. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee acknowledged that it was due to receive the final report of the Joint Working Party on Electoral Reform in connexion with a review of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.

With regard to the matter of current propositions on composition and election issues which had been referred to the Committee for comment, the Committee agreed that such matters tended to fall outside of its terms of reference. Furthermore, it recalled that the recommendations of the Special Committee on such matters had been firmly rejected by the States in November 2004, which had, in turn, led to the resignation of the Special Committee. The constitution of the Special Committee at the time of its resignation  was  identical  to  that  of  the  Committee. Therefore,  the  Committee concluded that its mandate to address such matters was clearly compromised and that it should refrain from commenting or making recommendations in connexion with matters directly related to the composition and election of the States Assembly with immediate effect. Further to the foregoing, the Committee agreed that the President should make a Committee Statement explaining its decision to the States.

The Greffier of the States was requested to send a copy of this Act to the Policy and Resources Committee for information.

Shadow Scrutiny A9.  The Committee recalled that the States had adopted Projet No. P.186/2003, review: entitled Shadow Scrutiny: Arrangements and Approval of Chairmen and Members', Responding to on 27th January 2004. Draft guidelines for the Shadow Scrutiny Panels had been Drug Use. included as a part of that report and proposition and those guidelines had indicated 502/5/6(1) that each Shadow Scrutiny review should be evaluated objectively by the Panel, the

relevant Scrutiny Officers and those departmental officers that had taken an active D.G.O.S. part in the review.

Clerk

Scrutiny Accordingly the Committee received a report, prepared by the Committee Clerk, in Encl. connexion with a process review of the Shadow Scrutiny report entitled Responding

to Drug Use'. It noted that the report included an evaluation by the Shadow Scrutiny Panel chaired by Deputy J.L. Dorey, a separate evaluation produced by Deputy G.P. Southern in his capacity as a former member of the Panel, and a record of feedback received from officers involved with the review.

The Committee noted the contents of the report and acknowledged that the Shadow  Scrutiny  Panels  and their officers  would  continue  to  evaluate their operational practices and procedures during the course of 2005.

With regard to the matter of publication, the Committee decided as this was the first such report, and as such of public interest, that it would be appropriate to release the officer report on this occasion so as to demonstrate that the Shadow Scrutiny  process  was  being  evaluated  appropriately.  However,  and  having acknowledged  that  certain  comments  included  within  the  appendices  to  the report contained sensitive information, which had been expressed in confidence, the  Committee  agreed  that  the  three  appendices,  together  with  the corresponding references to the appendices in the officer report, were exempt from disclosure in accordance with exemptions 3.2(a)(i) and 3.2(b) of the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information.

The Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary action