Skip to main content

2012-03-14 PPC (A)

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

MH/AG/SC/089

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (6th Meeting)

14th March 2012

PART A

All  members  were  present,  with  the  exception  of  Senator  S.C.  Ferguson  and Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement , from whom apologies had been received.

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier , Chairman Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache

Deputy J.A. Martin

Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy K.L. Moore

In attendance -

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

Mr. M. Haden, Acting Clerk to the Privileges and Procedures Committee Note:  The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.

Minutes.  A1.  The Minutes of the meetings of 8th February 2012 (Part A and Part B) and

28th February 2012 (Part A only), having been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Electoral  A2.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A1 of 28th February 2012, Commission:  discussed the States debate in respect of the proposition Electoral Commission: composition  composition and terms of reference' (P.5/2012 refers), in which Deputies J.A. and terms of  Martin and M. Tadier had spoken against Committee's proposition in line with reference:  their Minority Report.

States debate

(P.5/2012).  The  Chairman  suggested  that the  Committee should establish  ground rules in 1240/22/1(59)  situations where members dissented from the Committee's agreed position. It was

recognised that members had a right to give their views on a contentious issue such as this. It was suggested that there should have been an opportunity to discuss in advance how members might perform in this debate.

2011 Annual  A3.  The Committee received the 2011 Annual Report of the States Assembly Report of the  and thanked the officers for their work in preparing the report. It was noted that the States  report presented graphic evidence of the increase in the number and length of Assembly.  States meetings.

1240/25(6)

The Committee agreed to present the report to the States and requested the Greffier of the States to take the necessary action.

Code of  A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 8th February 2012, Conduct for  received a draft consultation paper in respect of the proposed review of the Code of Elected  Conduct for Elected Members and agreed to present it to the States as a Green members:  Paper with a consultation period of six weeks.

consultation.

1240/4(166)  The Committee requested that an advert be prepared and a press release to draw

the attention of the general public and former States members to the consultation.

British-Irish  A5.  The Committee received a report in respect of membership of the British- Parliamentary  Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The Committee agreed that States members should Assembly.  be given the opportunity to renew the appointment of the member and reserve 956/1(1)  member and further agreed to adopt the same approach to the selection process as

that which had been taken on the previous occasion in 2006.

Electoral  A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute A1 of 28th February 2012, Commission  received a report on the next steps to be taken following the conclusion of the composition  States  debate  on  P.5/2012  Electoral  commission:  composition  and  terms  of and terms of  reference,' which proposition had been lodged au Greffe by the Committee on 13th reference:  January 2012.

States debate

(P.5/2012).  The Committee noted the actions that had been taken to implement the decision of 1240/22/1(59)  the States on 7th March 2012 to adopt the proposition and agreed to delegate

authority to the Chairman and Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache to approve the final text of the proposition relating to membership of the Electoral Commission. Members noted that it was intended to lodge this proposition in early April 2012 with a view to a States debate at the beginning of May 2012.

Questions in  A7.  The  Committee  received  correspondence  dated  2nd  February  2012  and the Assembly.  copied to the Committee from the Bailiff of Jersey, Mr. M.C.St.J Birt, regarding 1240/4(184)  the answering of questions in the Assembly. The Committee requested that the

letter be forwarded to the sub-committee reviewing Standing Orders and Internal Procedures.

States  A8.  The Committee received electronic correspondence dated 1st March 2012 members'  from Deputy G.C.L. Baudains regarding States members' lunches.

lunches.

1240/9/1(89)  The Committee recalled that, on 24th September 2009, the States had adopted the

proposition: Draft Annual Business Plan (P.117/2009): tenth amendment' and had accordingly agreed to decrease the net revenue expenditure of the States Assembly and  its  services  by  £11,300  through  the  cessation  of  free  lunches  for  States members on meeting days and of free sandwiches lunches during all meetings of Scrutiny panels, the Public Accounts Committee and the Privileges and Procedures Committee. The Committee noted the Official Report (Hansard') of the debate in this  regard. On 1st March 2012 Deputy Baudains  had  requested that PPC be invited to consider to the practicality of the decision of the States to cease the provision of lunches, having been advised that lunch could not be provided during a meeting of the Machinery of Government review sub-committee.

The Chairman advised that he wished to deal with this matter in the broader context of facilities for members. He proposed to conduct a walkabout around the States Building to assess the utilisation of rooms with a view to providing further accommodation for members and he invited other members of the Committee to join him. He also proposed to issue a questionnaire to States members in order to ascertain what facilities they aspired to.

Members discussed the possibility of re-establishing the provision of lunches for members on States days on the basis of a contribution from members by deducting a  certain  amount  from  their  expenses.  Members  recognised  that  there  was  a distinction to be made between the provision of lunches on States days and the provision of sandwiches to members undertaking a working lunch on Scrutiny Panels and other Committees of the States. However, the latter had been prohibited following the States decision to adopt an amendment to the States Business Plan in

29

8th Meeting 14.03.12

2009. States members' views on the possible reinstatement of working lunches would be canvassed in the questionnaire to States members.

Public  A9.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 8th February 2012, Elections sub- received an oral update from the Chairman of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law committee.  2002 review sub-committee, Deputy J.A. Martin.

465/8(1)

It was noted that terms of reference had been agreed; a meeting had been arranged with the Jurats to discuss the elections; a discussion had been held with Professor Lee and a visit to Guernsey had been planned for May 2012.

Standing  A10.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 8th February 2012, Orders and  received a paper from the Standing Orders and Internal Procedures review sub- Internal  committee  regarding  a  proposal  to  trial  the  use  of  a  Business  Management Procedures of  Committee in order to improve the time management of the Assembly.

the States sub-

committee:  The sub-committee had agreed that time was valuable, that there should be a proposed  certain discipline to States debates and that members should be able to organise Business  meetings outside scheduled States days with confidence. The sub-committee was Management  therefore in favour of establishing an envelope' defining the length of States Committee.  meetings. The sub-committee proposed that the Business Management Committee 465/4(11)  would  shadow  the  current  arrangements  throughout  2012  prior  to  formally

establishing a procedure in 2013. The Business Management Committee would prepare a paper in advance of each States meeting setting out the priority believed to be appropriate to items on the Order Paper indicating how long each item of debate was expected to take. It was hoped that members would become used to having a framework for States meetings and would appreciate its benefits. Over the course of time it was expected that the Business Management Committee would become more experienced at correctly estimating the length of debates.

It was noted  that most jurisdictions  had  some  form of Business Management Committee; however, it was noted that the States of Jersey was different from other jurisdictions where a party system was in place. In Jersey there was a strong tradition based on the right of individual members to bring forward propositions and to have their say on debates.

The Committee was content to allow the trial period to proceed but requested that the paper be placed as a formal item on the next agenda to give members adequate time to consider the implications.

Machinery of  A11.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A5 of 8th February 2012, government:  received  an  oral update from the  Chairman  of the Machinery of Government Sub-  review sub-committee.

committee.

1240/22/1(61)  The Committee was informed that the sub-committee had met to consider how its

remit related to the work of the Electoral Commission and had written to Senator Bailhache in this  regard. The sub-committee proposed to prepare  a  survey to enable States members to express their views online in addition to making formal submissions. It was suggested that the terms of reference for the sub-committee were very broad and that the sub-committee should liaise with the Chief Minister to request his observations in this respect.

Work  A12. The  Committee  noted  an  update  report  in  respect  of  its  ongoing  work programme.  programme.

Medium Term  A13. The Committee received correspondence dated 28th February 2012 from the Financial Plan:  Minister for Treasury and Resources, Senator P.F.C. Ozouf , in respect of proposed proposed  amendments to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey in order to facilitate the amendments to  Medium Term Financial Plan and new style documentation.

Standing

Orders.  It was noted that States procedural matters relating to the Annual Business Plan 450/2(19)  and Budget had previously been included in the Public Finances (Jersey) Law

2005. However, following the recent amendments to legislation to accommodate the Medium Term Financial Plan and new style Budget, a conscious decision had been  made  to  remove  all  States  procedures  matters  from  the  Law  and  to incorporate them into the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey. The Committee received a list of proposed changes to Standing Orders which reflected many of the procedures  previously  included  in  the  Public  Finances  Law,  as  well  as  the agreement of the States that the Medium Term Financial Plan should be lodged for a minimum 12 week period. While the Minister was aware that responsibility for Standing Orders fell under the remit of the Committee, it was considered that it would  be  more  appropriate  for  the  amendments  to  be  taken  forward  by  the Minister in this instance. The Minister would, however, seek to liase with the Committee and the Council of Ministers in respect of the final draft amendments, prior to their being lodged au Greffe for debate by the States.

The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for the Minister to take forward the proposed amendments to Standing Orders as they were consequent upon his own proposals for the Medium Term Financial Plan.

Written  A14. The Committee noted the draft response which had been prepared in respect question.  of the written question from the Connétable of St. John , to be tabled on 20th March

2012, regarding the publication of interests of members' spouses or partners.

Agendas.  A15. The  Committee  discussed  the  allocation  of  items  to  A  (public)  and  B

(confidential) agendas. The Committee was advised that certain items were placed on the B agenda in accordance with the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information. Should a particular item be classified as exempt under the Code this would be because it would not be appropriate for the agenda papers to be released into the public domain.