Skip to main content

PPC Minutes 23rd November 2010

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

A- 325 CH/JAC/337

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (83rd Meeting)

23rd November 2010

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy C.H. Egré and Deputy M.R. Higgins, from whom apologies had been received.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary , Chairman

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (not present for the conclusion of item No. A9, item Nos. A10 to A13 inclusive, and item Nos. B1 and B2)

Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour

Deputy J.B. Fox (not present for item No. A6)

Deputy J.A. Martin

In attendance -

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

Miss A-C. Heuston, 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 meeting of 9th November 2010 (Part A and Part B),

having been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Draft States of A2. The Committee received the draft report and proposition entitled States of Jersey Jersey (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 201-,' in connexion with the bringing into (Miscellaneous legal effect decisions taken by the States on 13th October 2010 in relation to the Provisions) Law composition and election of the States (P.118/2010 refers).

201-.

450/12(1) The Committee noted that it was necessary for the draft Law to be approved as early

as possible in 2011 so that the approval of the Privy Council could be sought and the Law brought into force in good time before the 2011 elections. The Committee, having  agreed  a  minor  amendment  to  the  accompanying  report,  accordingly approved the same and requested that it be lodged au Greffe' in early course for debate on 18th January 2011. Advice had been received that the draft Law was considered to be human rights compliant, and the Chairman was requested sign a statement to that effect.

The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Draft Freedom of A3. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. B2 of 9th November 2010, Information received a draft schedule of organisations in connexion with the application of the (Jersey) Law draft Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 201- (P.101/2010 refers).

201-.

670/1(21) The Committee recalled that it had received advice that the definition of "public authority" provided in Article 1(f) of the draft Law appeared to include a diverse

range of associations including La Moye Golf Club and the Boy Scouts Association, for example. It had therefore been agreed that a definitive list of organisations which would be deemed "public authorities" should be included as a schedule to the draft Law. The Committee received a list of appointments made by the States and discussed which of the bodies listed should be considered public authorities for the purposes of the draft legislation. After some discussion, it was agreed that, rather than formulate a list at this stage, work should be carried out to further define "public authority" with a view to excluding any extraneous organisations. It was noted that assistance could be drawn from other legislation, including, for example, the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. The Committee also considered that there should be a power to add by Regulation to a schedule listing the names of bodies covered by the Law. It was suggested that it may be appropriate for Article 19(3) of the draft legislation, which required  public authorities to  maintain an index of information held, to only apply to scheduled public authorities, as opposed to all public authorities as per the present draft.

The Deputy Greffier was requested to discuss the matter with the Law Draftsman, and to advise the Committee further at its next meeting.

Freedom of A4. The  Committee  received  the  proposition Freedom  of  Information: Information: implementation plan,' lodged au Greffe' on 13th October 2010 by Deputy R.G. Le implementa-tion Hérissier of St. Saviour (P.145/2010 refers).

plan.

670/1(32) The proposition asked the Assembly to request the Chief Minister to present to the File States a plan for the implementation of the draft Freedom of Information (Jersey)

Law 201- before 28th February 2011, in order to ensure the full implementation of the legislation by the end of 2015.

The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of P.145/2010 in the light of its ongoing discussions in respect of the draft Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 201- (P.101/2010 and Minute No. A3 of the present meeting refer).

Shadow Boards A5. The Committee received the proposition Shadow Boards and Ministerial and Ministerial Boards: approval by the States,' lodged au Greffe' on 11th November 2010 by Boards: approval Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (P.170/2010 refers).

by the States.

1444/1(53) The proposition asked that the Minister for Economic Development be requested to

bring to the States for approval the proposal for the formation of a Shadow Board to oversee  the  harbours  and  airport;  to  agree  that  no  similar  bodies  should  be established by Ministers until the proposal had been agreed by the States; and to agree  that  Ministers  should  consult  with  the  Public  Accounts  Committee,  the Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  and  the  relevant  Scrutiny  Panel  before finalising any proposals in this regard. The Deputy also sought agreement that any proposals by Ministers to establish Ministerial Boards of elected members to advise them should be subject to prior States approval of the proposed membership and terms of reference of the Board; the financial and manpower implications and the scope of the policies to be considered by the Board.

With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire's proposition concerning the formation of Shadow Boards, the Committee agreed that it was not its role to comment on how a Minister should carry out his or her functions. With regard to paragraph (c) of the proposition, the Committee noted that the Deputy had not  included  a  definition  of Ministerial  Boards'. The  Committee  understood Deputy Le Claire to be referring to Ministerial Boards as defined in the proposition of  Senator  A.  Breckon  entitled Machinery  of  Government:  establishment  of Ministerial Boards and revised system of scrutiny' (P.120/2010 refers), which had proposed  the  introduction  of  Ministerial  Boards  and  had  been  rejected  by  the Assembly on 20th October 2010. The Committee agreed that it was inappropriate to  ask  the  Assembly  to  agree  that  States' approval  should  be  sought  for  the membership and terms of reference of Ministerial Boards without first obtaining the agreement of the States to the overarching concept. The introduction of Ministerial Boards would alter Jersey's machinery of government and the Committee agreed that  such  boards  should  not  be  formed  until  the  States  had  agreed  to  their establishment and identified their function. It was therefore agreed that the final part of Deputy Le Claire's proposition should be rejected. It was agreed that a draft comment to this effect should prepared and circulated to members for approval in

early course. The Committee noted the dissent of Deputy J.A. Martin. The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Ministerial A6. The  Committee  received  the  proposition  entitled Ministerial  Offices: Offices: reduction,' lodged au Greffe' on 12th November 2010 by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire reduction. of St. Helier (P.171/2010 refers).

450/2/1(41)

It was proposed that the States agree to abolish the ministerial offices of Social Security and Housing within a period of no more than 5 and 3 years respectively and that the functions of each office be transferred to the relevant Ministers as deemed  appropriate.  The  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  would  then  be requested, in consultation with the Chairmen's Committee, to bring forward for approval  the  necessary  amendments  to  Standing  Orders  to  establish  a  revised structure of scrutiny panels to reflect the revised ministerial structure.

The Committee noted the content of the proposition and agreed that it did not wish to present a comment to the States in this respect.

Standing Order A7. The Committee received correspondence dated 10th November 2010 from 21(2).re: resource Deputy T. Vallois in connexion with the possible amendment of Standing Order 21 implications of (2) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey.

Propositions

450/2/1(43) Deputy  Vallois  invited  the  Committee  to  consider  whether  to  propose  an

amendment  to  Standing  Order  21(2)  in  order  to  incorporate  a  requirement  for reports  accompanying  propositions  to  include  impact  statements  on  economic, environmental and social factors. The Deputy stated that she did not wish to hinder members' ability to bring propositions to the States; however, she felt that this approach would enable members to strengthen their position by outlining how their proposition sat within States policies.

The Committee discussed the proposal and agreed that the economic, environmental and  social  impact  of  propositions  should  be  taken  into  account  by  members wherever  possible.  However,  the  Committee  was  concerned  that  placing  a requirement upon members to include economic, environmental and social impact statements in all propositions could result in difficulties for individual members. The Committee recognised the Deputy 's concern that, at present, reports primarily focused  upon  the  financial  implications  of  a  proposition.  However,  it  was  not considered feasible for members to provide fully considered and accurate economic, environmental and social impact statements with every proposition lodged due to the  level  of  research  required.  It  was  noted  that  Standing  Order  21  presently required  members  to  set  out  their estimate  of  the  financial  and  manpower implications of a proposition and to explain how in the proposer's opinion' they could  be  sourced.  The  Committee  did  not  consider  that  an  extension  of  this requirement would lead to valuable additional information being made available.

In  conclusion,  the  Committee agreed  that  it  was  not  minded  to  propose  an amendment to Standing Order 21(2) at this time. The Chairman was requested to write to Deputy Vallois to advise her accordingly.

The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Media relations. A8. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A7 of 9th November 2010, 1240/10(36) received a draft White Paper in connexion with media relations.

The Committee recalled that it had agreed at its meeting on 9th November 2010 to withdraw its proposition Media Relations: Code of Conduct,' lodged au Greffe' on 15th July 2010 (P.100/2010 refers), and to issue a White Paper in its place. It had also  been  agreed  that  further  research  should  be  carried  out  to  identify  media accreditation agencies. Having considered the draft White Paper the Committee agreed that it wished to establish whether there was an international accreditation agency for members of the media. It was not considered appropriate for the States Greffe to determine media accreditation applications and, with this in mind, the Committee agreed certain amendments to the "accreditation" section of the draft Code of Conduct so as to require members of the media to produce proof of recognised accreditation to the States Greffe prior to permission being granted to record meetings. It was proposed that a meeting be held with the Senator B.E. Shenton and Deputy A.E. Jeune , as members of the former Media Working Party, in order to apprise them of the amendments to the draft Code, once these had been finalised. The Committee would then proceed with a view to bringing a revised proposition in respect of media relations to the States for debate in due course.

The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Standing Orders: A9. The Committee received the proposition entitled Standing Orders: additional additional signatories on propositions,' lodged au Greffe' on 19th November 2010 by Senator signatories on P.F. Routier (P.174/2010 refers).

propositions.

P.174/2010 The proposition asked the States agree to request the Privileges and Procedures 450/2/1(42) Committee  to  bring  forward  an  amendment  to  Standing  Orders  to  require

propositions lodged by a member of the States in his or her own right to be endorsed and countersigned by 7 other members. The Committee did not believe that the proposal would be a barrier to individual members bringing propositions; rather, it was felt that it could serve to strengthen propositions as members would be unlikely to  countersign  a  proposition  without  first  giving  sufficient  consideration  to  its content. It was noted that, at present, in accordance with Standing Order 102 of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, propositions were required to be seconded by a member of the States in order for the debate to proceed. The Committee considered that a member may be willing to second a proposition simply because they considered that the proposer should possess the right to have their proposition debated. Such members may not be willing, however, to endorse a proposition in the  manner  proposed  by  Senator  Routier.  Having  discussed  the  proposal,  the Committee agreed that it was in support of Senator Routier's proposition.

Having regard to Senator Routier's proposals, the Committee also discussed the signatory  requirements  under  Standing  Orders  22  and  23,  in  respect  of  no confidence  propositions and propositions to  rescind  an earlier  decision. Should Senator Routier's proposition be adopted, the Committee considered that it may wish to undertake a review of the number of signatories required under various Standing Orders with a view to their possible standardisation.

It was agreed that a comment should be drafted in respect of P.174/2010, to be circulated to the Committee for approval and subsequent presentation to the States.

The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Review of A10. The Committee received e-mail correspondence from the Deputy of St. John Jersey's system dated 11th November 2010 which asked the Committee to consider inviting an of government. outside body to review Jersey's system of government.

465/1(160)

The   Deputy  stated  that  various  propositions  to  amend  the  Island's  system  of government had been brought to the Assembly over recent years, but few had been adopted.  The   Deputy  considered  that  the  previous  review  of  the  Island's government had been flawed, having been based upon local government in the United  Kingdom.  The  Committee  was  therefore  invited  to  request  a  Royal Commission  to  review  the  Island's  system  of  government,  or,  alternatively,  to request  that  a  review  be  carried  out  by  the  Commonwealth  Parliamentary Association. The Committee noted that the States of Jersey would not be bound to accept the advice of a Royal Commission, and it did not consider that it was the role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to conduct such a review. The Committee recalled that a number of proposals for the reform of the Island's system of government had been rejected by the present Assembly, and agreed that any decision to invite an external body to review the Island's government system should be made by the newly elected Assembly. The Chairman was requested to write to the Deputy of St. John to advise him accordingly.

The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Standing Order A11. The Committee received a report prepared by the Treasury and Resources 168: investment Department entitled Investment properties and Standing Order 168'. The Chairman properties. welcomed Deputy E.J. Noel, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, and 450/2/1(44) Mr. J. Turner, Deputy Treasurer, Treasury and Resources Department.

The Deputy Treasurer advised the meeting that an amendment to Standing Order 168 of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey was being sought in order to facilitate the effective implementation of the Minister for Treasury and Resources' investment strategy. The Committee noted that the strategy sought to invest in a mix of United Kingdom commercial properties. In accordance with Standing Order 168, all proposed investment transactions required either the approval of the States, or the presentation of the transaction to the States 15 days before entering into a binding agreement. It was considered that the notification procedures set out in Standing  Order  168  had  not  been  intended  for  investment  transactions  outside Jersey of the type which would be undertaken under the investment strategy. These transactions  would  require  prompt  action  and  confidentiality  and  the  Minister therefore considered it appropriate to ask the States to agree an amendment to Standing Order 168, the effect being to exclude transactions related to investment in property outside Jersey in accordance with the investment strategy.

The  Committee  discussed  the  matter  and agreed  to  sponsor  the  proposed amendment to Standing Order 168. Having noted that, in accordance with Standing Order  128(a),  the  Committee  was  responsible  for  the  bringing  forward  of amendments to Standing Orders, it was agreed that, following receipt of the draft amendment,  consideration  would  be  given  as  to  whether  the  Minister  or  the Committee would be best placed to lodge the proposition au Greffe' for debate by the States.

On a related matter, the Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A3 of 26th January  2010,  recalled  that  employees  from  Treasury  and  Resources' Property Holdings department had attended its meeting in January 2010 to discuss further possible amendments to Standing Order 168. At that time, Property Holdings had been invited give further consideration to the matter and to report back to the Committee at a future date. The Committee had yet to hear from Property Holdings in this respect, and Deputy Noel was requested to ascertain the current status of the proposals to further amend the Standing Order.

Having been thanked by the Chairman for their attendance, Deputy Noel and the Deputy Treasurer withdrew from the meeting.

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

Correspon-dence. A12. The Committee noted correspondence sent by the Chairman following its

meeting on 11th November 2010, as follows:

  1. to Deputy P.J. Rondel, dated 12th November 2010, in connexion with the use of electronic devices during voting;
  2. to Deputy M. Tadier dated 12th November 2010, in connexion with questions and answers during States sittings;
  3. to Deputy E.J. Noel dated 12th November 2010, in connexion with the

possible reduction of the 30-minute notice period to bring a debate to a close

in accordance with Standing Order 84;

  1. to Senator B.E. Shenton, President, Chairmen's Committee, dated 12th November 2010, in connexion with the formation of informal' Boards and the debate of scrutiny reports;
  2. to Mr. P. Le Claire, dated 15th November 2010, and to Deputy T.M. Pitman, dated 16th November 2010, regarding wording used during the States sitting on 2nd November 2010.

Work A13. The Committee noted its ongoing work programme, with particular regard to programme. the drafting of proposed amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002. It

was agreed  that  the  Greffier  of  the  States  should  be  requested  to  furnish  the Committee with an update in this regard in early course.