PPC Minutes 13th June 2007

PH/KAK/179  184

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (49th Meeting)

13th June 2007

PART A

All members were present,  with the  exception of Deputy I.J. Gorst , from  whom apologies had been received. Deputy S.C. Ferguson was not present for item Nos. A1 to A3 and B1 and Deputy J. Gallichan was not present for item Nos. B2 and B3.

Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement - Chairman Senator M.E. Vibert

Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains

Deputy S.C. Ferguson

Deputy J. Gallichan

In attendance -

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

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

Mrs. D. Abbot-McGuire, Finance and Administration Manager (for a time) 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 23rd May 2007 (Part A and Part B), 24th

May  2007  (Part  A  only)  and  4th  June  2007  (Part  A),  having  been  previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Estimates for the A2.  The Committee considered a report, dated 6th June 2007, prepared by the States Assembly Greffier  of  the  States  in  connexion  with  the  financial  estimates  for  the  States and its services Assembly and its services for 2008.

for 2008.

422/10/1(80) The Committee noted financial estimates for the States Assembly and its services for Encl. 2008 which covered all expenditure relating to the work of the Assembly including

the cost of facilities in the States Building, members' remuneration, scrutiny panels, the Public Accounts Committee, the Privileges and Procedures Committee and the States Greffe.

The Committee was advised that the indicative cash limit for the States Assembly for 2008  calculated  by  the  States  Treasury  was £5,084,100.  This  incorporated inflationary increases, an allowance for pay awards and a reduction for efficiency savings of £31,600 and included a growth of £188,000 to fund the 5th scrutiny panel on  a  permanent  basis.  The  Committee  noted  that,  in  accordance  with  Treasury procedures, the estimates were set out in a "Service Analysis" where certain key service  areas' were  identified  and  all  costs,  including  overheads  such  as  rent, stationery, telephone and salary costs of administration staff, were allocated across those service areas.

Although it  was  noted  that  to  date  the scrutiny panels  and  the Public  Accounts Committee had underspent their budgets by a significant amount it was recognised that it was difficult to assess the long-term requirements of the panels after only one full year of the operation of the new system. The Chairman's Committee believed that as scrutiny developed there would be a greater requirement for expert advice and therefore it could be difficult to propose a reduction at this stage. The Committee noted that any overall underspend was likely to be returned to general revenues at the end of the year and would not be retained by scrutiny.

The Committee accordingly approved the proposed estimates and requested that they be formally submitted to the States Treasury for inclusion in the Annual Business Plan.  The  Committee  further  requested  that  the  estimates  be  submitted  to  the Comptroller  and  Auditor  General  for  his  comments  as  required  by  the  Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005.

The Finance and Administration Manager was directed to take the necessary action.

Draft Freedom of A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 23rd May 2007, was Information advised that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel had agreed to review the Freedom (Jersey) Law of Information  legislation. The Panel believed that it  would be in a position to 200-. undertake a review of the resource implications of implementing the Law during the 513/8(1) first quarter of 2008.

Composition and A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 4th June 2007, resumed Election of the consideration of the Composition and Election of the States Assembly.

States Assembly.

465/1(75) The  Committee  discussed  whether  an  informal  briefing  should  be  organised  for

States members to discuss the Committee's proposals on the reform of the States before the issue was debated in the Assembly on 17th July 2007. The Committee opined that it could lead to a more informed debate if members were reminded of the reasons why these two proposals were put forward and if it was outlined exactly why other options for reform would not be workable.

Senator Vibert advised the Committee that, after being approached by several States members and also members of the public, he had come to the conclusion that, rather than just putting forward the one option favoured by the States, the public should be given the opportunity to have its say in a referendum and decide whether it preferred either of the proposed options for reform or retaining the status quo. Senator Vibert was concerned that the public might not be happy with the preferred option of States members and he reiterated the fact that the Committee had always said that the public would be consulted on the matter of reform.

It was opined that putting forward three options in a referendum could lead to other States members or even the public stating that their own preferred options for reform should also be included in the referendum. The Committee also recognised that there was a possibility that the results of a referendum could be equally split between the various options put forward leading to an uncertain result.

Notwithstanding the above, the Committee conceded that it should be established whether it was possible to draft an amendment worded in such a way that would allow the States to approve in principle the two options for reform. These would then be put to the public in a referendum along with an option to retain the status quo and the public's preferred option would be lodged for debate by the States.

The Committee concluded that the Bailiff should be consulted regarding whether or not an amendment could be drafted which was worded in such a way as to allow both options to be put to the electorate in a referendum if the States agreed. If the proposed amendment  was  rejected  by  the  States  then  the  debate  would  continue  on  the Committee's main proposition and Deputy Baudains' amendment.

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

Public Elections A5.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 22nd March 2006, (Jersey) Law considered several amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.

2002.

424(3) The Committee also discussed whether polling cards should be issued to electors in Encl. advance  of  an  election.  It  was  noted  that  the  present  electoral  roll  software

programme was still experiencing problems and as yet was not working to its full capacity however the Committee agreed that, as it was likely that each Parish would issue the polling cards, the Comité des Connétable s should be consulted in the first instance.

The  Committee  then  considered   Deputy  G.P.   Southern 's  proposition Electoral Registration:  link  to  population  register' (P.68/2007)  which  would  remove  the requirement for a person to be resident in the Island for 2 years before becoming eligible to vote. The Committee opined that it would be curious if every resident were automatically entitled to vote once they had registered on the population register regardless of their length of residency. It was requested that a comment on P.68/2007 be prepared for consideration together with information provided to establish whether electoral registration was restricted by nationality or length of residency in other jurisdictions.

The Committee recalled that it had agreed a number of amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 although these had not been progressed for approval by the States. It was agreed that a report and proposition of the amendments should be drafted and a copy should be sent to the Comité des Connétable s and the Jurats for their comment.

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