23/05/2012

IC/SC/159

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (10th Meeting)

23rd May 2012

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy M. Tadier and Deputy K.L. Moore , from whom apologies had been received.

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier , Chairman Senator S.C. Ferguson

Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement

Deputy J.A. Martin

In attendance -

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré, Machinery of Government Sub-Committee (for item A7)

Deputy J.H. Young, Machinery of Government Sub-Committee (for item A7)

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

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

I. Clarkson, 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 19th March (Part B only), 11th April

(Parts A and B) and 25th April 2012 (Parts A and B), having been circulated previously, were taken as read and were confirmed.

States of  A2. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A2 dated 12th May 2011 of Jersey  the  Committee  as  previously  constituted,  received  the  draft  States  of  Jersey Complaints  Complaints Panel Report 2011.

Panel: report

for 2011. The Committee welcomed a delegation of the Complaints Panel comprising: C.E. 1386/6/1(2) Canavan, Chairman; N.P.E. Le Gresley, Deputy Chairman; Advocate R.J. Renouf ,

Deputy Chairman; J.G. Davies; M. Le Gresley; T.S. Perchard; and, D.J. Watkins.

Having noted that  the Chairman  and Mrs.  Le Gresley, Mr.  Perchard and Mr. Watkins  were  due  to  retire  from  the  Complaints  Panel  in  2012,  having  each completed between 12 and 15 years of honorary service, the Committee expressed its gratitude for their dedication to the role. A gift was presented to each retiring member as a token of the Committee's appreciation. In responding, the Chairman thanked the Greffier of the States and his team for having provided invaluable support to the Complaints Panel throughout her period of service.

The Committee sought feedback from the Board regarding the effectiveness of the existing procedure.  It was advised that whereas the majority of States departments provided timely feedback on the Board's primary findings in individual cases, the Complaints Board would benefit also from receiving informal feedback on any ancillary findings and recommendations that it might feel obliged to make from

time to time.

During its review of the draft report, the Committee noted that, as in previous years, most of the complaints received in 2011 had related to decisions made by the Minister for Planning and Environment. In this regard, the Committee was mindful that the increase in the number of planning related complaints could be attributed to a number of factors including the perceived prohibitive costs of a Royal Court or third party appeal.

The Committee was pleased to learn that the Assistant Greffier of the States would be recommending certain measures to enhance public awareness of the Complaints Board once new members had been appointed.

The Committee, having noted the content of the draft report and the Chairman's forward, approved the same and agreed that it should be presented to the States in the report series on or before 29th May 2012.

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

Pensions for  A3. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 25th April 2012, States  recalled that it had discussed with the States Members' Remuneration Review Members. Body (the SMRRB) the possible introduction of a pension scheme and the related 1240/3(85) recommendation of the SMRRB made in 2009 (R.62/2009 refers).

The Committee considered a report entitled: Pensions for States Members,' to which R.62/2009 had been appended.

The prevailing view of the Committee was that the role of a States Member had, for better or for worse, become a full-time one. With this in mind, it was arguably becoming increasingly difficult to maintain that the absence of a pension scheme would not  deter  some  Island  residents  from  standing  for  election.   It  was nevertheless  acknowledged  that  there  would  probably  never  be  an  economic climate sufficiently favourable as to make the justification for introducing such a pension straightforward, even though many other Commonwealth parliaments had already introduced such schemes for their members.

The Committee formed the provisional view –

1. that it would only consider proposing the introduction of a schemeif it could be delivered within the existing budget for States Members' salaries and expenses, and
2. that the SMRRB's option 3 as outlined in R.62/2009 (that the States make matched contributions to individual States Members' private pension schemes') appeared worthy of further consideration.

Regarding (a) above, the Committee noted that the outcome of the work being progressed by the Electoral Commission could conceivably impact the existing budget for States Members' remuneration and expenses.

Regarding (b) above, the Committee was advised that the SMRRB had previously undertaken additional scoping work in respect of its option 3 and that this could be made available at the Committee's next scheduled meeting.

The Committee  agreed to  give further consideration to the  matter  at  its  next scheduled meeting and requested the Greffier of the States to make available at that meeting any previous research about the pension provision for members in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

49

10th Meeting 23.05.12

Freedom of  A4. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 25th April 2012, Information  recalled that the Chairman had written to the Chief Minister requesting an update (Jersey) Law  on the status of the implementation plan for the Freedom of Information (Jersey) 201-:  Law 201-.

implementation

670/1(42) The Committee received correspondence, dated 8th May 2012, from the Chief

Minister concerning implementation of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 201-. It observed that the Chief Minister had requested the Minister for Treasury and Resources to release an initial sum of money to enable the appointment of a project manager for the implementation project. Once the project manager had been appointed, initial scoping work would be undertaken. The Chief Minister would then seek to meet with the Committee later in 2012 to discuss the outcomes of that scoping work.

The Committee noted the position.

Code of  A5. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 14th March 2012, Conduct for  recalled that on 19th March 2012 the Committee had presented its report entitled: Elected  Code of Conduct for Elected Members: Review – Consultation Document.' Members:

consultation. The  Committee  considered  a  report  entitled:  Code  of  Conduct  for  Elected 1240/4(166) Members: Review.'

It was noted that only one consultation response had been received since 19th March and that this had been submitted to the Committee on a confidential basis.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the consultation response to its next scheduled meeting. It further requested the Greffier of the States to append to the Committee's next agenda a the report entitled "Code of Conduct for Elected Members: review – consultation document" (P.34/2012) that had been presented to the States by the Committee on 19th March 2012.

Electronic  A6. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A3 of 25th April 2012, devices in the  recalled having discussed the cost of printing publications for States Members and, States  as a related matter, the use of portable electronic devices in the States Chamber. Chamber.

465/1(169) The Committee  considered a  report  entitled: Electronic  Devices in the States

Chamber.'

The Committee was advised that printing and postage costs for States Members incurred by the States Greffe were in the region of £10,000 per annum. Additional work  would  be  needed to  establish  whether the  provision  of  electronic  tablet devices in lieu of a supply of hard copy publications would be both viable and capable of generating savings.

It was recalled that on 17th May 2011 the Committee as previously constituted had lodged au Greffe' a report and proposition entitled: Hand-held Devices in the States Chamber: Trial' (P.77/2011 refers). Although the then Deputy D.J. de Sousa of St. Helier had lodged an amendment to P.77/2011, neither were debated by  the  States  because  the  Committee  as  previously  constituted  withdrew  the proposition. It had concluded that the workload of the States before the 2011 elections was prodigious and that other propositions should take priority.

On reviewing P.77/2011, the Committee formed the view that the proposition had merit. Whereas the use of relatively cumbersome laptop computers in the States Chamber was not supported given space constraints and the potential for noise pollution,  the  Committee  considered  that the  benefits  of  permitting  smaller

electronic tablet devices capable of silent operation, and with on-screen keyboards only, might ultimately increase States Members' productivity and prove no more disruptive than the existing permitted practice of writing and exchanging paper notes. It was nevertheless acknowledged that arriving at a viable definition of an acceptable  handheld  electronic  device  would  require careful thought, not least because of rapid advances in technology.

The Committee agreed that it should in due course conclude its review of facilities for  States  Members  by  considering  a  draft  report  and  proposition  proposing, amongst other things: the reinstatement of lunches for States Members on States days;  provision  of  sandwich  lunches  during  meetings  of  the  Committee,  of Scrutiny Panels and of the Public Accounts Committee; and, the permitting of tablet-style electronic devices in the Chamber.

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

Machinery of  A7. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A11 of 14th March 2012, Government  recalled that it had discussed the terms of reference to which the Machinery of Sub- Government Review Sub-Committee was  working and  the  development of an Committee:  online questionnaire for States Members.

progress

report. The Committee received an oral briefing from Deputies J.A.N. Le Fondré and J.H. 1240/22/1(61) Young regarding the progress made by the Machinery of Government Review

Sub-Committee.

Deputy  Young  advised  the  Committee  that  development  of  the  online questionnaire had proved somewhat laborious and complicated. It had therefore been abandoned in favour of a programme of interviews with individual States Members.   These  were  being  progressed  by  Deputies   Tadier ,  Le  Fondré  and Young, with assistance being provided from time by other members of the Sub- Committee as necessary. Once a clear majority of States Members  had been interviewed, the Sub-Committee  intended to begin the process  of interviewing senior  officers.   It  was  envisaged  that  the  full  interview  programme would hopefully be completed by the end of June, following which a process of collation and analysis of the views expressed would begin. The Committee was assured that the Sub-Committee was making every effort to maintain a consistent and objective approach to each interview.

The Committee sought clarification as to why the Sub-Committee had elected not to have its interviews transcribed. It was advised that a Committee Clerk or other officer of the States Greffe was creating a written record of each interview (the duration of which was not less than 30 minutes) so as to ensure that the evidence being collected carried weight. Every States Member or officer being interviewed had been or would be advised that they could speak in confidence. They would not be  quoted  in  any  report  produced  by  the  Sub-Committee  unless  their  prior permission had been obtained by the Sub-Committee. To date, none of the 17 persons already interviewed had objected to the Sub-Committee's approach.

Concerns  were  again  expressed  regarding  the  relative  breadth  of  the  Sub- Committee's terms of reference. The Committee was invited also to consider the number of interviews planned and the resource implications for the States Greffe given the methodology being adopted. Regarding the former, it was assured that the Sub-Committee remained confident that it could fulfil the terms of reference within its existing timetable. On the latter point, the Committee agreed that the Greffier  of the  States  should seek  to  recruit a  suitably  qualified person  on  a temporary  basis  to  assist  with  the  process  of  producing  summaries  of  each interview.

51

10th Meeting 23.05.12

Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache requested that his dissent to the Committee's decision to  authorise  recruitment  of  a  temporary member  of  staff  be  recorded  in  the minutes. He submitted that the Sub-Committee did not need to conclude its work by September 2012 and that the need to incur additional expenditure on temporary staff was therefore less than compelling. Moreover, he expressed concern that rushing to meet an arbitrary deadline might ultimately prove counterproductive.

Open ballot for  A8. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A3 of 4th January 2012, Ministers and  recalled that it had presented to the States a comment to the proposition entitled: Chairmen Open Ballot for Ministers and Chairmen' (P.188/2011 refers). It further recalled (P.188/2011) that the proposition had been listed for debate on 29th May 2012.

450/2/1(66)

The Committee  was notified that  on 3rd May  2012  the Standing Orders and Internal Procedures Sub-Committee had considered the issue of voting by secret ballot, the rationale for holding votes in secret and the question of whether this should be extended to include votes of no confidence. In doing so, it had been mindful that accountability and openness were two of the general principles that holders of public office were expected to abide by. The Sub-Committee  was expected to recommend to the Committee that Standing Orders be amended to substitute the word open' for the word secret' in respect of all appointments. It was anticipated that the Sub-Committee's final report would be presented to the Committee by the end of June 2012.

The  Committee  noted  the  position  and  agreed that  its  existing  comment  to P.188/2011 should stand.

Public  A9. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 8th February 2012, Elections Sub- recalled that it had established the Public Elections Sub-Committee to review the Committee:  Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.

progress

report. The Committee considered a report, dated 17th May 2012 and which was entitled: 465/8(1) Public Elections Sub-Committee: Mid-term Report.'

The Committee observed that the Sub-Committee had met on 5 occasions and that its review of the Law was well advanced.  Arrangements to consult the public via an online questionnaire and a public meeting at St. Helier Town Hall were also well in hand.

The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee hoped to present its final report to the Committee before the summer recess.

Standing  A10. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 25th April 2012, Orders and  recalled that it had deferred consideration of a report from the Standing Orders and Internal  Internal Procedures Sub-Committee concerning a proposed business management Procedures  committee.

Sub-

Committee:  The  Committee  agreed  to  defer  consideration  of  the  proposed  business proposed  management committee until such time as a clear majority of its members were Business  present.

Management

Committee.

465/4(11)

Acts of the  A11. The Committee considered a report entitled: Publication of the Acts of the States:  States.'

publication of

Acts from  It was noted that Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache had requested that the Committee 1800. consider  whether  funding  should  be  made  available  in  order  to  facilitate  the 465/1(181) publication of the Acts of the States from 1800. His request had been made

following an approach by Advocate and historian J. Kelleher.

The  Committee  was  advised  that  there  had not  been  an  occasion  during  the previous decade when access to archived Acts of the States from 1800 onwards had been required for specific research purposes. Neither was there a ready source of funding for such a project within the Committee's budget for 2012. It was nevertheless accepted that the historical value of the proposed exercise would be significant.

Senator Bailhache observed that a relative absence of uncommitted funds within the Committee's budget for 2012 had not prevented the Committee from funding a temporary member of staff to assist the Machinery of Government (MOGR) Sub- Committee (Minute No. A7 of this meeting refers), albeit that the sum needed to make  available historical  Acts  of  the  States  might  significantly  exceed  that required by the Sub-Committee.

The Committee agreed that it would be minded to support a proposal to facilitate publication of Acts of the States from 1800 onwards and that, in the first instance, its  officers  should  consult both  the  Jersey  Archive  and  the  Société Jersiaise regarding the feasibility of the proposal and whether either party was in receipt of funding that might be utilised to support the project.

The Committee also provisionally agreed that it should, in due course, consider inviting the States to endorse the proposal as part of its forthcoming proposition concerning States Members' facilities (Minute No. A6 of this meeting refers).

Correspondence  A12. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A6 dated 16th March 2010 from Mr. B.  of the Committee as previously constituted, noted correspondence from Mr. B. Cooper. Cooper concerning the Review of the Role of the Crown Officers chaired by 1135/19/1(7) Lord Carswell (R.143/2010 refers) and the Seignorial Rights (Abolition) (Jersey)

Law 1966.

The Committee concluded that the author of the correspondence appeared to have misunderstood a decision of the States Assembly and the basis on which that decision had been made.

The Greffier of the States was requested to draft a response to Mr. Cooper for the Chairman's consideration.