PPC Minutes 10th January 2007

PH/vnl/22  127

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (34th Meeting)

10th January 2007

PART A

All members were present with the exception of Deputy G.C.L. Baudains from whom apologies had been received.

Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement - Chairman Senator S. Syvret

Senator M.E. Vibert

Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary

Deputy C.H. Egré

Deputy J. Gallichan

In attendance -

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

Mrs. A.H. Harris , Deputy Greffier of the States

Miss P. Horton, Clerk to the Privileges and Procedures Committee

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

Minutes. A1.  The Minutes of the meetings held on 15th November 2006 (Part B only) and

13th December 2006 (Part A and Part B), having been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Law Drafting A2.  The Committee received correspondence dated 20th December 2006, received Programme 2008. from the Policy Advisor, Chief Minister's Department, in connexion with the 2008 422/23/1(17) Law Drafting Programme.

The Committee agreed that it would require drafting time for amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 to allow for the formal registration and regulation of political parties in the Island and also to restrict the amount candidates standing for election could spend during an election campaign. The Committee requested that the appropriate Legislation Request Questionnaire be forwarded to the Chief Minister's Department prior to 31st January 2007.

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

Electoral Reform: A3.  The Committee considered a proposition entitled Electoral Reform' (P.4/2007 lowering age of lodged au Greffe' on 11th January 2007 by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier ) and voting and a proposition entitled Public Elections: Reduction in Voting Age to 16' (P.166/2006 registration of lodged au Greffe' on 5th December 2006 by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier). political parties.

424/2(39) The Committee noted that the purpose of Deputy Southern 's proposition was to lower the age at which a person would be entitled to vote in public elections from 18

to 17; that eligibility to register to vote in public elections should no longer be linked to length of residence in Jersey but should be an automatic entitlement to every resident as  soon as they were  registered in the population  register; a system of registration of political parties be created; a system of the regulation of election expenses  be  introduced;  and  details  of  the  party  affiliation  of  candidates  of  a registered  political  party  and  the  party  logo  be  permitted  on  ballot  papers.  The Committee further noted that the purpose of Deputy Le Claire's proposition was to lower the Island's voting age to 16.

The Committee was of the view that lowering the age of entitlement to vote was a matter for the States to decide however it was agreed that it could be beneficial to include in its comments information regarding the age people were entitled to vote in other jurisdictions. The Committee expressed concern with regard to allowing people the right to vote regardless of their length of residency as it was considered that there were various implications which had not been taken into account. The Committee advised  that  it  would  be  premature  to  agree  to  link  voting  registration  to  the population register as the latter was still in the process of development. With regard to the registration of political parties and the regulation of election expenses the Committee was actively working on proposals for change which would be brought to the States shortly.

The Committee noted that neither Deputy Southern or Deputy Le Claire had provided information regarding the views of the people within the age range who would be affected if the voting age was lowered and it was agreed that the Youth Council should be contacted in order to ascertain the opinions of young people between the ages of 16 and 19.

The Committee decided to present a comment to the States in the aforementioned terms. The Greffier of the States was directed to take the necessary action.

Draft Freedom of A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 20th September 2006, Information received  and  considered  a  report  prepared  by  the   Deputy  Greffier  of  the  States (Jersey) Law. together with the draft Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 200- and draft Freedom 670(1) of Information (Jersey) Regulations 200-.

The Committee noted that the Law Draftsman had prepared a simplified version of the draft Freedom of Information Law and the detailed matters were in the draft Regulations. The Committee recognised that it had been considering the Freedom of Information legislation for some time with little progress being made.

Senator Syvret reminded the Committee that he had requested that a public interest clause be included in the legislation and advised that he still had some concerns with regard to various exemptions in the proposed Law which had not been addressed in this simplified version of the draft legislation. The Committee agreed that Senator Syvret should arrange a meeting with the Deputy Greffier of the States to discuss his concerns at the earliest opportunity.

Recommended A5.  The  Committee  considered a  document  received  from  the Commonwealth benchmarks for Parliamentary Association on recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures. democratic

legislatures. The Committee recognised that under its terms of reference it was responsible for 1275(468) most of the matters listed in the document and was pleased to note that Jersey met Encl. most of the suggested benchmarks.

The Committee noted the position.

Composition and A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A8 of 13th December 2006, Election of the noted  the  responses  which  had  so  far  been  received  in  connexion  with  the States Assembly. Composition and Election of the States Assembly and also considered a draft leaflet 465/1(75) outlining the options.

The Committee recalled that it had agreed that a copy of the draft leaflet would be sent to every household in the Island in order to gauge the public's views of the options. A further survey of public opinion on the matter would be commissioned from MORI and the views of States members would be gauged by means of an In Committee' debate on the report in the States on 30th January 2007. The Committee approved the leaflet subject to some minor amendments.

The Committee decided that it would hold a series of public meetings in St. Helier , the West of the Island and the East of the Island. It was agreed that the meetings would be held over three evenings between 30th January and 1st February 2007 in order to gauge the public's views of the options.

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

Rôle of advisers A7.  The Committee received and considered correspondence dated 29th December at Scrutiny Panel 2006 from the President of the Chairmen's Committee in connexion with the rôle of hearings. advisers at Scrutiny Panel hearings.

465/1(84)

Encl. The Committee noted that the Chairmen of the Scrutiny Panels had found that when

they were questioning witnesses on technical issues it would be advantageous to allow a technical expert or adviser to put questions on the Panel's behalf. However, the Committee was advised that only States Members were protected by immunity from  proceedings  by  the  States  of  Jersey  (Powers,  Privileges  and  Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006, although the States could make  regulations  to  confer  immunity  on  members  of  Committees  and  persons appearing  before  any  Committee  or  Panel  who  were  not  States  Members.  The Committee was requested to bring forward the relevant amendments to legislation to enable appropriate non States Members to put questions on behalf of the Scrutiny Panel to witnesses in a hearing.

The Committee agreed that it would be prepared to bring forward the necessary amendments provided there was a protocol implemented requiring that the Chairman of the Panel would have to approve the line of questioning prior to the hearing and that there would not be an automatic right for the adviser to put questions. It would also be necessary to ensure that witnesses were aware that questions could be put to them by an adviser as well as by members of the Panel.

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

Standing Order A8.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 11th November 2006, 26: Minimum received  and  considered  correspondence  dated  29th  December  2006  from  the Lodging Period President of the Chairmen's Committee in connexion with the minimum lodging for Scrutiny period for Scrutiny Propositions.

Propositions.

1240/4(178) The Committee recalled that the current period of time that a Scrutiny Panel could Encl. have to scrutinise a matter was four States meetings (normally eight weeks). The Economic  Affairs  Panel  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  not  feasible  within  that

timescale for a Scrutiny Panel to lodge a stand alone proposition relating to the matter under consideration with a six week lodging period. In order to allow the Scrutiny  Panel  an  additional  month  to  carry  out  its  review  prior  to  considering whether a standalone proposition needed to be lodged or not, it was requested that Standing Order 26(3) be amended to include "a proposition lodged by a Scrutiny Panel upon a matter currently being scrutinised by the Panel" to provide that such a

proposition should have a lodging period of two weeks only.

The Committee further recalled that the Council of Ministers had suggested that it would be a little early to take a decision of this nature, relatively soon after the introduction of Ministerial government, and that it would be better if the matter were considered as part of the proposed review of Ministerial government ("Ministerial government: review of the first 12 months" - P.77/2006), which would enable the proposal  to  be  considered  in  the  wider  context  of  the  Executive  and  Scrutiny functions.

The Committee, having considered the proposal, reasoned that the rôle of Scrutiny was to prepare a report on matters it had scrutinised, with recommendations, or an amendment when a proposition had already been lodged, but it was not appropriate for  Scrutiny  to  propose  stand  alone  propositions  which  were  likely  to  present alternative policy. The Committee recognised that the States could defer debate on a matter that was being considered by Scrutiny, and if a standalone proposition was imminent, then the States could decide to consider the two matters together at a forthcoming meeting. The Committee decided not to propose this amendment and reiterated its previous decision that the matter should be considered as part of the proposed review of Ministerial Government.

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

Standing Order A9.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 9th August 2006, 72: Minimum received  and  considered  correspondence  dated  29th  December  2006  from  the Lodging Period President of the Chairmen's Committee in connexion with increasing the period of for Scrutiny time  allowed  by  Standing  Orders  for  a  Panel  to  review  a  draft  law  or  draft Propositions. regulations.

1240/4(178)

Encl. The Committee recalled that the Economic Affairs Panel had requested that the

period of time allowed by Standing Orders for a Panel to review a draft law or draft regulations be increased. The Panel considered that the period of time currently allowed by Standing Order 72(6) was insufficient. This Standing Order required that if  a  draft  law  or  regulation  was  referred  to  Scrutiny  following  approval  of  the principles then the debate must resume not later than the 4th meeting following that debate which could be as little as eight weeks. The Panel had recommended that this be  extended to the  6th  meeting  day  or twelve weeks  after  the debate upon  the principle.

The Committee further recalled that it had agreed that it could support the matter provided the period of review did not extend beyond twelve weeks, however, prior to making a decision the Council of Ministers had been consulted. The Council of Ministers had suggested that it would be a little early to take a decision of this nature, relatively soon after the introduction of Ministerial government, and that it would be better if the matter were considered as part of the proposed review of Ministerial government ("Ministerial government: review of the first 12 months" - P.77/2006), which  would  enable  the  proposal  to  be  considered  in  the  wider  context  of  the Executive and Scrutiny functions.

Having considered the abovementioned the Committee agreed that the matter should be considered as part of the proposed review of Ministerial government.

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

Budget - Year A10.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. 4 of 15th November 2006, end 2006 and received and considered a report dated 9th January 2007, prepared by the Deputy carry forwards to Greffier of the States in connexion with the budget for the year ending 2006 and the 2007. carry forwards to 2007.

422/10/1(81)

Encl. The Committee noted that the balances on the budget of the States Assembly and its

services managed by the Committee amounted to an anticipated underspend in the sum of £549,475. Having further noted the details of the predicted underspend, the Committee recognised that the functions covered by the budget had gone through a significant transformation due to the move to Ministerial government which had made it very difficult to gauge the impact of the transformation in financial terms.

With regard to the carry forwards from 2006, the Committee was advised that it was no longer possible to request the total carry forward sums required. These must either be an actual amount or 1% of the total whichever was the lesser amount, with 3% being allowed if it could be justified. In addition, the commitments' system had changed, in that amounts could only be carried forward in respect of services actually received in the year in question. It was therefore no longer possible to commit current funds when a decision was taken to undertake an activity, if the service was actually delivered in the following year. If a service had been received in the current year, but the invoice had not yet been paid in the following year, this was known as accruals' and was allowed.

The Committee was further advised that carry forwards could be allowed where prior approval of the States had been obtained or where the expenditure was unexpected and unforeseen. The Committee recalled that the States had approved a carry forward of £188,000 for the operation of the fifth Scrutiny Panel and there had been certain items of unforeseen expenditure, such as the MORI poll to be undertaken in 2007 by the Committee in respect of the composition and election of the States Assembly, and the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie European Presidents' Conference, for which an offer was made to host after the 2007 budget had been finalised.

The Committee agreed that it would request to carry forward 1% of the Budget and also funding for the abovementioned unforeseen expenditure.

The Deputy Greffier of the States was directed to take the necessary action. Matters for A11.  The Committee noted the following matters for information -

information.

1. correspondence, dated 28th  November 2006,  sent  to H.M. Attorney General regarding The Jersey Electoral Register;
2. correspondence, dated  12th  December 2006, received  from  H.M. Attorney Generalregarding The Jersey Electoral Register;
3. c orrespondence, dated 28th November 2006, sent to Deputy P.V.F.Le Claire regarding Voting intheStatesAssembly;
4. correspondence, dated 28th  November 2006, sent  to   Deputy  G.P. Southern regardingAccesstoElectoral Register - credit agenciesand political parties;
5. correspondence, dated  28th  November 2006,  sent  to  Deputy  G.P. Southern regarding Scrutiny - increasedtimefor scrutiny;
6. co rrespondence,dated 15th December2006 sent to Professor P.W. Edge, LL.B., Ph.D. (Cantab) regarding the studyof religious representation in

the States Assembly;

7. c orrespondence, dated 15th December 2006 sent to Mr. C. Swinson, Comptroller and Auditor-General, regarding Embargoes on reports presented to the States;
8. c orrespondence,dated 27th December 2006, sent to all States Members regarding Reform of the composition oftheStates - nextsteps; and
9. t he Committee agreed that its next meeting would be held on Wednesday, 7th February 2007, commencing at 9.30 a.m. in the Le Capelain Room, States Building, Royal Square, St. Helier .