PPC Minutes 24th January 2005

IC/KAK/48  10

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (35th Meeting)

24th January 2005

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en and 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 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 only.

Joint Working A1. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A2 of 20th October 2004, Party on recalled  that  it had requested the  Joint Working  Party  on Electoral  Reform to Electoral reconsider two of its recommendations, namely –

Reform.

424/2(13) (a) t hat polling station opening times should be revised to 10.00 a.m., and

A.G. (b) that  which  concerned  limitations  on  the  matter  of  facilitating, Clerk interfering  in  or  overseeing  the  postal  or  pre-poll  vote  of  another D.G.O.S. person.

Pub.Ed.

States (2) The Committee received an oral report from Deputy P.N. Troy , who advised that

the Joint Working Party had met on 12th January 2005 to reconsider its draft report.

On the matter of polling station opening times, statistical information concerning the Senatorial By-election held in March 2004 had been provided by the Judicial Greffe. The figures had indicated that less than 12 per cent of those voting had attended a polling station prior to 10.00 a.m. Having reviewed the said figures, the Working Party had concluded that they supported its belief that the level of interest in earlier opening times shown by the electorate was insufficient to justify the increased administrative burden which fell upon the Jurats and the parish authorities as a result. The Committee was therefore minded to agree that polling stations should open at 10.00 a.m. and not 8.00 a.m., as at present. This remained an improvement on the original position, whereby stations opened at 11.00 a.m.

With regard to the matter of postal or pre-poll voting, Deputy P.N. Troy advised that the Joint Working Party remained of the view that any person entitled to vote in an election should be entitled to apply to vote in this way and that candidates and their representatives should be prohibited from facilitating, interfering or overseeing in any way the postal or pre-poll vote of another person. The Committee noted that the latter proposal was not intended to prevent candidates or their representatives from providing voters with forms used to notify the Judicial Greffe of their request to be provided with a postal or pre-poll voting form. Furthermore, it was clarified that the Working Party had decided to amend the wording of its draft report in order to clarify the nature of the conduct that would be prohibited under its proposals.

Accordingly the Committee received a revised draft report of the Joint Working Party on Electoral Reform, prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States.

On a related matter, Senator P.V.F. Le Claire requested that the Committee consider the matter of whether permission might be given for the colours and logos of political parties to be printed on ballot papers. He explained that that he had raised the issue with the Joint Working Party on Electoral Reform and had been advised that it was open to any prospective member of a political party to write to the Privileges and Procedures Committee in connexion with proposals to amend the Public Elections (Jersey) Regulations 2002. However, it was not clear whether this could be achieved in time for the 2005 elections.

The Committee agreed that the aforementioned report of the Joint Working Party should be amended to include a reference to the fact that the issue of political party colours and logos on ballot papers had been raised. Further to the foregoing, the Committee requested that advice on any legal issues arising from  the  proposal  be  sought  from  the  Law  Officers' Department.  The Committee agreed that the amended report should then be presented to the States as an R.C. and that interested parties should be invited to comment upon the proposals, and any related matters, before the end of February 2005.

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

Draft A2. The Committee received a report and proposition, lodged by Deputy G.P. Amendment Southern of St. Helier , entitled, Draft Amendment (No. 28) of the Standing Orders (No. 28) of the of the States of Jersey'.

Standing Orders

of the States of The Committee noted that the purpose of the draft Amendment was to increase the Jersey: number of oral questions that any member could submit for each meeting from 2 to comments. 3 and also to increase the time allocated to oral questions from one hour to 1½ 1240/4(170) hours.

Clerk Deputy P.N. Troy reported that the Working Party on the Arrangement of Public G.O.S. Business in the States Assembly had considered the proposed Amendment at its

meeting on 11th January 2005. It noted that all oral questions submitted had been answered under the new rules. However, it considered that the Bailiff should be entitled to allow questions drawn at the lower end of the ballot to fall away if previous questions had proved to be of particular importance to the Assembly and required more time. The Working Party believed that the limiting of oral questions to 2 per Member had encouraged Members to be disciplined in submitting a high standard of important and topical question. Accordingly it had concluded that there were insufficient grounds to amend the current structure of question time.

The Committee noted the views of the Working Party on the Arrangement of Public Business and agreed that increasing the number of questions per member would have a negative effect on the quality of question time and on the overall efficiency of proceedings in the States. However, it expressed some sympathy for the view that the 60 minute time limit had, on certain occasions, unduly restricted the length of time allocated to the asking of supplementary questions. It therefore agreed that question time would be improved by extending the time limit to 90 minutes.

The  Committee  decided  to  present  a  comment  to  the  States  in  the aforementioned terms.

Connétable D.F. Gray and Deputy P.N. Troy requested that their dissent to the Committee decision to support the extension of question time to a period of 90 minutes be recorded in the Minutes.

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

Standing Orders A3. The Committee, with reference to its Acts Nos. A8 of 4th November 2004 of the States of and A5 of 25th November 2004, recalled that, following the adoption of the States Jersey: revision. of Jersey Law 200- on 16th November 2004, work on the revised Standing Orders CP/PPC/1/ 05 of the States of Jersey could continue.

1240/4(171)

Accordingly the  Committee  received  a report,  prepared  by  the  Greffier  of the Clerk States,  entitled, Revised  Standing  Orders – Law  Drafting  Brief', designated G.O.S. Committee  Paper  CP/PPC/1/05,  together  with  an  additional  report  concerning L.D. proposals for change regarding the recording of absence of Members from Meetings

of the States. The Committee made a number of decisions on key matters of policy.

Meetings of the States

The Committee agreed that the States should not meet for a period of at least two weeks prior to the date of an election.

Procedure at Meetings of the States

The Committee agreed that States sittings should continue to commence at 09.30 a.m., although it was of the view that lunch should be taken between 1 p.m. and 2.15  p.m.  Although  the  Committee  was  content  to  specify  a  provisional adjournment time of 5.30 p.m., it concluded that States Members should be given the  flexibility  to  determine  when  to  adjourn.  Consideration  was  given  to  the introduction  of  short  mid-morning  and  mid-afternoon  adjournments,  so  as  to provide Members with specified periods in which to conduct business and take a refreshment break. However, the Committee concluded that they were unlikely to have a positive effect upon the efficiency of proceedings in the States.

On the matter of absence from the States Assembly, the Committee concluded that Members who were not present should be recorded in the Minutes as being either défaut' or excused'. A Member who was on holiday would be marked as défaut', while a Member on States business could be excused, as could a Member who was ill. Further to the foregoing, the Committee decided to propose that an individual Member's time of arrival should be recorded in the Minutes whenever the Member concerned arrived after the commencement of the sitting.

In the interests of saving time, the Committee decided to propose that the tabling of subordinate  legislation  and  details  of  matters  presented  and  lodged  since  the previous meeting be taken as read'.

With regard to the order of business, the Committee agreed that matters should be taken in the following order –

1. F ormal entry of the Presiding Officer,
2. R oll call of Members,
3. P rayers,
4. C ompletion of roll call,
5. C ommunications by the Presiding Officer,
6. T abling of subordinate legislation,
7. P resentation of matters to the States,
8. N  otification of matters presented and lodged au Greffe' since the previous meeting,
9. L odging au Greffe',

10. A ppointments to Committees, Panels, etc.,
11. P etitions,
12. Q uestions,
13. P  ersonal Explanations,
14. Mi  nisterial and Committee Statements,
15. P ublic Business, and
16. A rrangement of Business for future meetings.

Lodging au Greffe' of propositions

The Committee decided that a Member should be entitled to lodge a proposition au Greffe' on any day and that a list of propositions lodged during the previous week should be published on a Monday. On the matter of minimum lodging periods, the Committee determined that the following would be appropriate –

Further to the foregoing, the Committee agreed that a Member who had lodged a private proposition should be entitled to secure a date for debate within 6 months of the date of lodging.

Questions

It was acknowledged by the Committee that the outcome of the forthcoming debate on Draft Amendment (No.28) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (Projet No. P.5/2005 refers) would give an indication of Members' views in connexion with the future development of question time.

Petitions

The Committee considered that a person wishing to petition the States should be entitled to present their petition in either English or French. It was further agreed that any Minister to whom a petition had been referred should be obliged to produce a report within 8 weeks. In the event that a petition was referred to a Scrutiny Panel, the Committee concluded that it would be appropriate to require the said Panel to produce a report within 6 months.

On the matter of public petitions, the Committee expressed the view that a Petitions Committee system of the type operated in Scotland and within the United Kingdom local government system might prove useful in Jersey. The Committee Clerk was instructed to produce a report on the matter.

Behaviour of Members Not Speaking

The Committee supported the retention of rules to prohibit the consumption of food and drink in the Chamber (with the exception of the provision of water for a Member making a speech) and the reading of books and newspapers whenever the content was not directly relevant to the business of the States.

Manner of Debating Propositions

The Committee was of the view that rules prohibiting the consumption of food and drink in the Chamber (with the exception of the provision of water for a Member making a speech), and the reading of books and newspapers whenever the content was not directly relevant to the business of the States, should be retained. It further agreed that the new Standing Orders should continue to stipulate that Members were not permitted to converse noisily or generally act in a way which disturbed proceedings, but that the reading of typed speeches should be permitted.

Procedural Propositions

The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A4  of  13th  January  2005, acknowledged  that  the  States  Assembly  had  recently  voted  to  incorporate  the closure  motion  within  the  existing  Standing  Orders  on  a  permanent  basis.  It therefore considered that it would be appropriate to incorporate similar rules within the new Standing Orders.

Appointment of Chief Minister

The Committee agreed that it was not necessary to define a process for managing a tied vote between two remaining candidates for the office of Chief Minister in the event that neither obtained more than half of the votes cast.

The Committee requested the Greffier of the States to produce revised drafting instructions,  incorporating  the  aforementioned  policy  decisions,  for consideration at a future meeting.

Senator P.V.F. Le Claire requested that his dissent to the Committee decision to include the closure motion within the draft Standing Orders be recorded in the Minutes.

A People's A4. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7 of 13th January 2005, Advocate: recalled that it was due to consider a comment to the report and proposition brought comments. by  Senator  S.  Syvret  entitled, A  People's  Advocate' (Projet  No.  P.202/2004 1240(175) refers).

A.G. The Committee agreed that the proposition highlighted the need for a full review of Clerk the  rôle  and  functions  of  the  unelected  members  of  the  States  Assembly.  It G.O.S. considered that such a review would need to address the following matters -

1. t he breadth of the present rôle of the Attorney General and Solicitor General;
2. t he present rules on the absolute right of speech on any issue presently available to the Law Officers as members of the States;
3. t he manner in which legal advice given to the executive' could be

made available to Scrutiny Panels and individual members (linked possibly

to new rules on confidentiality requirements as part of the code of conduct); and,

4. w  hether it remained appropriate for the Crown to be responsible for making the appointments.

As such a review fell outside its own terms of reference, the Committee considered that it would be appropriate for either the Policy and Resources Committee or a new Special Committee to take the matter forward.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee expressed reservations in connexion with  the  proposition  brought  by  Senator  Syvret.  It  noted  that  the  financial implications of the proposal were likely to be significant and that, as the alternative legal adviser would be employed by those to whom he or she would be required to advise, the objectivity of the post holder could be called into question.

The  Committee  noted  the  reference  in  the  aforementioned  proposition  to  the requirement for Scrutiny Panels to receive independent legal advice. However, it recalled that it had previously addressed the matter in the report accompanying P.79/2003 (Machinery of Government: establishment of Scrutiny Panels and Public Accounts Committee) which had been approved by the States on 24th July 2003.

The Greffier of the States was requested to arrange for a draft comment to Projet P.202/2004  in  the  aforementioned  terms  to  be  prepared  for  the  Committee's consideration.

Shadow Scrutiny A5. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A8 of 6th December 2004, Panels: agreed  to  propose  that   Deputy  J.A.  Bernstein  be  made  a  member  of  Shadow vacancies. Scrutiny.

502/1(12)

The Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary steps for a D.G.O.S. proposition on this matter to be presented to the States for consideration on 1st Clerk February 2005.The Committee approved a report and proposition giving effect Scrutiny to this decision and agreed to seek debate at the earliest opportunity.

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