25/07/2012

PM/MH/214

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (13th Meeting)

25th July 2012

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache , from whom apologies were received.

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

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement

Deputy J.A. Martin

Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy K.L. Moore (not present for items B1 and B2)

In attendance -

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

P. Monamy, Acting 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 28th June (Part A only) and 20th June

2012 (Part A and Part B), having been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Standing  A2. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 20th June 2012, Orders and  received an oral update from the Chairman concerning the proposed establishment Internal  of a business management committee from which it was noted that he had taken no Procedures  further action.

Sub-

Committee:

proposed

Business

Management

Committee.

465/4(11)

Questions  A3. The Committee considered a written question from 17th July 2012 which the submitted and  Chairman had been asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins regarding a breakdown of the propositions  activity levels of each category of States Member in terms of questions submitted lodged:  and propositions lodged from 2005 to date.

activity

levels – The Committee recalled that the information sought was available on the States written Assembly website, though possibly not in the format desired by the questioner. question from  The Committee also noted that a broadly similar question appeared recently in a Deputy M.R.  template posted on a blog by Mr. D. Wimberley. Prior to the submission of the Higgins. question, approximately 16 persons appeared to have utilised this template as the 465/1(183) basis for their submission to the Electoral Commission. The Commission had

already  considered  this  matter  and  had  concluded  that  committing  its  limited

officer resource to the collation of answers to these questions would not generate sufficient benefit, having regard to its terms of reference.

Whilst the Chairman's response to the question was considered to be acceptable by a majority of the Committee, Deputy M. Tadier considered it to be unsatisfactory in some respects, as he felt that the information requested should be available to be provided to the member and to any others requesting it in the format of their choosing. He suggested that had the Freedom of Information Law been in force, departments  would  have been  encouraged to  collate  relevant information  in a better, more publicly accessible way. The Deputy Greffier of the States confirmed that  the  Freedom  of  Information  Law  would  not  require  officers  to  collate information in the way an enquirer might wish it to be arranged, but simply to provide the generality of the information requested. Senator Ferguson suggested that, in the present case, the information sought was already available and therefore accessible by the member and the public generally.

The Committee endorsed the answer provided by the Chairman on 17th July 2012. Deputy Tadier asked that his dissent to that decision be recorded.

States  A4. The Committee reviewed the charging arrangements for the supply to the Assembly  public  of  hard  copy  documents  by  the  States  Assembly  Information  Centre, Information  following a suggestion by Deputy M. Tadier that the issue of free access to public Centre: hard  documents should be considered.

copy document

supplied to  It was noted that the majority of documentation offered for sale at the Information public – Centre  was  available  free  of  charge  either  on  the  States  Assembly  website review of  (www.statesassembly.gov.je)  or  the  Jersey  Legal  Information  Board  website charging  (www.jerseylaw.je). The charging structure applied for material supplied over the arrangements. counter at the Information Centre was designed so  as to recover printing and 422/14/1(12) material costs. The Committee noted that income generated by the Information

Centre from document sales over the previous 6 years had fallen from £22,342 in 2006 to £6,192 in 2011, with the majority of the income being derived from sales to companies (e.g. law firms) or other States departments,

The Committee agreed that it would not be appropriate to remove the current charges for hard copies of documentation sold to professional users, but decided that  henceforward  single  copies  of  documents  should  be  made  available  to members of the public free of charge.

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

Oral and  A5. The  Committee  considered  whether  training  in  the  drafting  of  oral  and written  written questions in the States Assembly should be provided to Members of the questions in  States and whether H.M. Attorney General should be formally invited to assist in the States  that regard.

Assembly:

provision of  The Committee recalled that during a meeting of all Scrutiny members on 13th training for  June 2012, the matter of questioning training had been discussed and, following an States  offer from H.M. Attorney General to provide training, the conclusion had been Members. reached that all States Members would benefit from professional advice regarding 1240/9/1(158) the formulation of oral and written questions in the States Assembly.

Having noted that the question of the effectiveness of oral and written questions in the States Assembly had been raised by several witnesses during the course of the Machinery  of  Government  Review  Sub-Committee's  recent  programme  of

65

13th Meeting 25.07.12

interviews with States Members and senior officers, the Committee agreed that to ask the Attorney General if he would be prepared to offer questioning training to all States members and, if so, on what basis (e.g. whether free of charge) – noting that it was understood that he had previously indicated that a maximum of 16 per training group would be reasonable.

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

Electronic  A6. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A5 of 20th June 2012, devices in the  considered a draft report and proposition inviting the States to sanction a trial of States  battery-powered  hand-held  devices  (but  not  laptop  computers)  in  the  States Chamber:  Chamber during meetings of the Assembly for a trial period ending on 31st July battery- 2013, provided that the devices were silent and were used without disturbing other powered hand- members.

held devices –

draft report  The Chairman complimented the officers on the production of a very full and and  useful report to accompany the proposition, and a number of amendments to the proposition. proposition and to the report were agreed. In particular, the Committee decided to 465/1(169) omit reference in the proposition to "(but not laptop computers)", substituting the

words "that are silent in operation"; and also to change "are silent and are used without  disturbing  other  members"  to  "do  not  disturb  members  or  impair decorum."  The  Committee  asked  that  the  report  be  similarly  amended,  as appropriate.

The Committee accordingly approved the revised projet and asked that it be lodged au Greffe' as soon as practicable, with a view to it being taken into consideration by the States in September 2012.

"Compromise  A7. The  Committee  considered  5  recommendations  of  the  Public  Accounts Agreements:  Committee  in  its  report  entitled:  "Compromise  Agreements:  following  up  the following up  investigations of the Comptroller and Auditor General" (PAC.1/2012) which were the  of particular relevance to it.

investigations

of the  The Committee noted, as follows -

Comptroller

and Auditor  "Recommendation  3.2  - The  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee General":  should  amend  Standing  Orders  to ensure  that  Amendments  which recommendati would  bring  about  major  changes  to  States  Policy  must  be on of Public  accompanied  by  an  Impact  Assessment  and  explained  to  all  States Accounts  members  in the wider  context  before  debate. This  would  make  all Committee. States Members fully aware of implications of Amendments to major 512/15(6) propositions. (See 6.22)."

It  was  recalled  that  the  Sub-Committee  had  already  reported  to  the Committee  and  that  a  report  was  in  the  course  of  preparation. The Committee noted that Standing Order 21(2) required that the draft of a proposition  for  lodging  au  Greffe'  "must  be  accompanied  by  the proposer's statement of whether the proposition, if adopted, would have any implications for the financial or manpower resources of the States or any administration of the States and, if there are such implications – (a) set out the proposer's estimate of those implications; and (b) explain how, when and from where, in the proposer's opinion, they could be sourced." Whereas: (3) "The proposer may request information from any Minister responsible for the resources in question and a Minister shall, when so requested, ensure that the proposer is provided with complete and accurate

information sufficient to enable the proposer to prepare the statement", it was  apparent  that  the  proposer  was  not  obliged  to  so  request  such information. The Committee decided to request a report for its next meeting on the provision of Impact Assessments with propositions, and invited the Assistant  Greffier,  who  had been the  support  officer for  the review  of Standing Orders, to prepare a report for its meeting in September.

"Recommendation  3.4  - The  Review  into  the  Machinery  of Government currently being undertaken by a Sub-Committee of the Privileges and Procedures Committee must resolve the fractured lines of responsibility  at the  level  of  Chief  Minister  and Chief executive Officer, because without clear lines of responsibility, there are no clear lines of accountability. (See 7.12.)"

The Committee considered that it would be more appropriate for the Sub- Committee to seek to "address" the fractured lines of responsibility rather than  to  "resolve"  them. The  Committee  invited  the  Sub  Committee  to consider  this  issue  in  conjunction  with  its  review  and  to  make  a recommendation on it.

"Recommendation 3,7 – An independent mediator should be identified before the end of 2012 to work with the States Employment Board and the Privileges and Procedures Committee whenever serious concerns are expressed by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Officers in respect of working relationships with Ministers. (See 7.46)."

It was agreed that this was a matter which the Chief Minister should be asked to resolve. Deputy Martin questioned whether the mediator might be able to perform 2 roles.

"Recommendation  3.8  – The  Privileges  and Procedures  Committee must ensure that the Appendix of (Amendment No. 1) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.225/2005) [Procedure for dealing with a complaint or concern about capability from an elected Member] must be included in the States Members Handbook so that Members are fully aware of the procedures to be followed, (See 7.56)."

The Committee recalled that, as P.225/2005 had been adopted by the States, the Appendix could be included in the Handbook as suggested.

"Recommendation  3.9  – The  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee must  draw  up  a  thorough  and  robust  system  of  investigation  and resulting sanctions which can be implemented to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct for both States Members and the Council of Ministers. (See 9.6)."

It  was recalled that  this work  was currently in progress  and  would be returned to in Autumn 2012.

Standing  A8. The Committee discussed with Deputy J.P.G. Baker of St. Helier his request Orders 104 and  that presiding officers should give consideration to a more robust application of the 108:  rules in Standing Orders concerning irrelevant or repetitious speeches.

application –

discussion with   Deputy  Baker  outlined  his considered view that  a  number  of  debates  he  had Deputy J.P.G.  observed or participated in since November 2011 had been extended excessively Baker. due to speeches made in possible contravention of Standing Order 104, which

67

13th Meeting 25.07.12

450/2/1(71) required "(1) A speech by a member of the States must be relevant to the business

being  discussed.  (2)  A member  must  not – (a) unduly  repeat  his  or  her  own arguments or the arguments of others."

The Committee considered that Standing Order 108 was also relevant to the matter raised by the Deputy : "(1) The presiding officer shall warn a member of the States whose speech – (a) is not relevant to the business being discussed; or (b) unduly repeats the member's own arguments or the arguments of others, (2) If the member disregards  the  warning,  the  presiding  officer  shall  direct  the  member  to discontinue his or her speech."

It was noted that Deputy Baker was concerned that misleading statements made by members in the Assembly reflected poorly on the Assembly as a whole. Unless a challenge were to be made at the time about anything inaccurate or misleading spoken in the Assembly, Deputy Baker was concerned that the impression might be given that the remaining members acquiesced to what had been said, however erroneous it might have been. One aspect of particular concern to the Deputy was the need for members to remain on subject' during questioning and debate, and that they should not incorrectly link unconnected matters.

Deputy Baker suggested that the present arrangements for debate of, in particular, routine'  items, was grossly inefficient and often  irrelevant.  He advocated the imposition of time-limited speeches as probably the only way of ensuring that members  kept  their  contributions  in  the  Assembly  relevant.  The  Committee considered other possible changes to the current format of conducting business in the  Assembly, although  it  was recognised that  not  all  members of the States necessarily shared the views expressed by the Deputy . Deputy Tadier recalled that the possibility of 3-weekly meetings of the Assembly, rather than the present 2- weekly arrangement, had been considered previously. The Chairman suggested that it might be possible to reduce the quorum required for certain items of States business such that only a bare minimum of members could be able to conduct routine' matters. The Committee noted the arrangements in Guernsey where the States met on a monthly basis, for up to 2 days, from a Thursday morning through to the Friday afternoon, if necessary.

Having considered whether it might be appropriate for the Chairman to write to the Bailiff and other presiding officers in order to urge them to rule firmly on any transgressions by members in the States Assembly, it was accepted that, generally, it was considered that the presiding officers already dealt with such transgressions promptly and firmly as required by the particular circumstances of each case.

Deputy  Baker,  having  thanked  the  Committee  for  providing  him  with  an opportunity to address it on the above matters, expressed the hope that it would be possible for the time available to the States Assembly to be put to better use than hitherto, preferably through the application of a greater level of discipline on the part of States members. Deputy Baker withdrew from the meeting.

The Committee agreed that the Chair should take a stronger line on repetition and decided to offer the guidance to the Presiding Officer that it was the Committee's view he should rule  more strictly on Standing Orders 104(2)(a) and 108. The Chairman was requested to write to the Presiding Officer accordingly.

Public  A9. The Committee received an oral update from Deputy Martin, in her capacity Elections  as Chairman of the Public Elections Review Sub-Committee which was presently Review Sub- undertaking a review of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.

Committee:

update. It  was  noted  that  work  would  shortly  commence  on  preparing  a  report  for 465/8(6) presentation to the Committee, and the Deputy Greffier of the States indicated that

responses received from members of the public and States members and others were presently being analysed, in conjunction with the response which had been forthcoming from the Sub-Committee's meeting with the Jurats. Meanwhile, it was noted that 2 members of the Sub-Committee, together with the St. Helier Electoral Officer and the Deputy Greffier of the States would be visiting Guernsey on 2nd August  2012  for  discussions  regarding  the  arrangements  in  place in  that jurisdiction.

Machinery of  A10. The Committee received an oral update from Deputy Tadier , in his capacity Government  as Chairman of the Machinery of Government Review Sub-Committee.

Review Sub-

Committee:  It  was  noted  that  the  Sub-Committee,  having  conducted  interviews  with update. approximately half of current States members, and others, was now ready to move 465/1(182) into a public consultation phase, during which comments would be invited from

the  public  on  the  basis  that  no  interviews  were  envisaged.  The  Committee concurred with the Chairman's suggestion that an invitation to attend for interview should  be  extended  to  all  those  States  members  who had  not  yet  availed themselves of the opportunity to speak to the Sub-Committee.

Deputy Tadier emphasised  that  all contributions  to  date  had been received  in confidence and would not be attributed to an individual unless consent for this had been given. It was apparent to the Sub-Committee from the interviews held to date that there was no general consensus of opinion as to the way ahead, although there had been some lines of agreement in certain areas. Deputy Tadier suggested that it had been a worthwhile exercise which had resulted in analysis of the perceived problems, although not necessarily the identification of solutions.

It was noted that once the public consultation phase had been concluded, it was envisaged that Sub-Committee would review its findings to date and commence work on recommendations.

Electoral  A11. The Chairman reported that he had been contacted by a journalist from the Commission:  Jersey Evening Post regarding the fact-finding visit to Barbados presently being fact-finding  undertaken by the Electoral Commission.

visit to

Barbados. The Committee noted that the Chairman had confirmed that 2 members of the 1240/22/1/10(7) Commission and an officer had travelled to the Caribbean, utilising the budget

which had been allocated to the Commission to undertake its task.