2013-10-03 PPC (A)

AG/SC/283

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (8th Meeting)

3rd October 2013

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy J.H. Young and Deputy M. Tadier , from whom apologies had been received.

Deputy J.M. Maçon, Chairman Senator B.I. Le Marquand

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement Deputy J.A. Martin

Senator S.C. Ferguson

In attendance -

Deputy E.J. Noel, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources Item No. A3 only R. Foster, Director of Estates, Jersey Property Holdings Item No. A3 only

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré

Item No. A3 only

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

A.H. Harris , Deputy Greffier of the States

A. Goodyear, 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  of  5th  September  (Parts  A  and  B);  12th

September (Part B only); 17th September (Parts A and B) and 20th September (Part A only), having been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Meeting dates.  A2.  The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A2 of 19th December 2012 of

the Committee as previously constituted, agreed the following meeting dates for the remainder of 2013:

Friday 15th November 2013, 2.30 pm, Blampied Room, States Building Monday 9th December 2013, 2.30 pm, Blampied Room, States Building

Standing  A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. B2 of 5th September 2013, Orders and  gave further consideration to proposed amendments to Standing Order 168 of the Internal  Standing Orders of the States of Jersey following the report and recommendations Procedures  of the Standing Orders and Internal Procedures Sub-Committee. The Committee Sub- welcomed the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, Deputy E.J. Noel; Committee.  Director of Estates, Jersey Property Holdings, Mr. R. Foster; and Deputy J.A.N. Le 450/2/1(77)  Fondré in this regard.

The Committee recalled that the Standing Orders and Internal Procedures Sub-

Committee had recommended that the Standing Order be amended to include reference to Deeds of Arrangement and planning obligations in paragraph (1) and that paragraph (3) be altered so that all transactions captured by paragraph (1) would be reported to the States Assembly under the 15-day rule. The Committee received documentation from Deputy Le Fondré setting out the present wording of Standing Order 168 and the proposed amendment to Standing Order 168 as drafted by Jersey Property Holdings. It was noted that the amendment proposed by Property Holdings would amend paragraph (1) to provide that the Standing Order would apply to the following actions:

1. the disposal, acquisition, letting or rental of land on behalf of the public of Jersey;
2. the grant, variation, acquisition or cancellation of rights or servitudes over land on behalf of the public of Jersey;
3. the renewal, extension, variation or cancellation of any lease of land on behalf of the public of Jersey;
4. the approval of plans for the construction or alterations of buildings where the work isto be funded wholly or partly by money voted by the States;
5. the agreement of new or revised boundaries and/or amendments to boundary arrangements of land on behalf of the public of Jersey;
6. the agreement to be party to third-party contracts of land transactions on behalf of the public of Jersey in respect of such other matters not covered by paragraphs (1)(a)-(e) hereof.

While he was content with the amendments to Standing Order 168 drafted by Jersey Property Holdings, Deputy Le Fondré expressed the view that those agreements captured under paragraphs 1(a), (b), (e) and (f) should be captured under paragraph (3) of the Standing Order and required to be presented to the States at least 15 working days prior to a binding arrangement being entered into. The Deputy contended that this would provide States members with an opportunity for challenge. Deputy Noel expressed the view that any planning obligation agreements that were likely to be of interest to the States Assembly would come to light by other means, such as the publication of a Ministerial Decision, for example. Deputy Noel contended that capturing planning obligation agreements under the 15-day rule would be inappropriate. Those present discussed examples of agreements and whether they should be required to be presented to the States in advance of a contract being entered into. Having been apprised of the views of each party in respect of the matter, the Chairman thanked Deputy Noel, Mr. Foster and Deputy Le Fondré for their attendance and they accordingly withdrew from the meeting.

The Committee, having considered the matter, agreed that it would be minded to request that an amendment be drafted to Standing Order 168(1) in line with the proposal put forward by Property Holdings as set out above. The Committee was not minded, at the present time, to pursue any further amendment to Standing Order 168 in order to alter what was required to be reported to the States under the 15-day rule set out in paragraph (3) of Standing Order 168. It was noted, however, that any member of States could propose such an amendment, should they so wish. It was requested that law drafting be sought in respect of the proposed amendment to Standing Order 168(1). The amendment would then be considered alongside the remaining amendments to be taken forward by the Committee in response to the recommendations of the Standing Orders and Internal Procedures Sub-Committee. The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

States A4. The Committee received correspondence dated 9th September 2013 from

179

8th Meeting 03.10.13

members'   Deputy R. Bryans in connexion with arrangements to be made for the States Christmas  members' Christmas lunch.

lunch.

1240(186)   Deputy Bryans had proposed that the Christmas lunch be held at the Academy

Restaurant at Highlands College, rather than at the Town Hall where it had been held in previous years. The Committee agreed that arrangements should be made to  hold  the  Christmas  lunch  at  the  Academy  Restaurant  on  Wednesday  18th December 2013. The Committee Clerk was requested to take the necessary action.

Code of  A5.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A3 of 5th September 2013, Conduct for  received correspondence from Deputy M.J. Falla ize, Chairman, States Assembly Elected  and  Constitution  Committee,  States  of  Guernsey,  dated  5th  September  2013, Members:  regarding the possible establishment of a joint Commissioner for Standards for Commissioner  Jersey and Guernsey, and noted the Chairman's reply of 12th September 2013.

for Standards.

465/1(185)  The  Committee  recalled  that  it  had  lodged  au  Greffe'  the  proposition

Commissioner for Standards: establishment' on 9th September 2013 (P.107/2013 refers), and that the proposition was scheduled for debate on 22nd October 2013. The Chairman had committed to apprise Deputy Falla ize of the outcome of the debate in respect of the proposition and had advised that, should the States adopt the  proposition,  the  Committee  would  wish  to  discuss  the  possibility  of establishing a joint Commissioner. The position was noted.

Public  A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. B2 of 17th September Elections –  2013, received a report entitled Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Alternative Single  Vote (AV)' dated 26th September 2013 and prepared by the Greffier of the States. Transferable

Voting System  The Committee recalled that Deputy M. Tadier had lodged au Greffe' a report and (STV) and an  proposition entitled: Public Elections – Single Transferable Voting System (STV) Alternative  and an Alternative Voting System (AV)' (P.86/2013 refers). The proposition asked Voting System  the States to bring forward plans for the implementation of STV for multi-member (AV)  constituencies and AV for single member constituencies in advance of the 2014 (P.86/2013).  elections. Deputy Tadier had advised the Greffier's office that he intended to delay 424/2(86)  debate on the proposition until after 5th November 2013, when the States would

consider a number of propositions for the reform of the composition and election of  the  States  Assembly  (P.93/2013;  P.94/2013;  P.98/2013;  P.116/2013  and P/117/2013 refer).

The Committee considered an extract from Dr. A. Renwick's report entitled: The Jersey States Assembly in Comparative Perspective: a report for the States of Jersey Electoral Commission' regarding the workings of the AV and STV systems. It was noted that the recommendation of the Electoral Commission that AV and STV  should  be  introduced  from  2018  had  been  made  in  the  context  of recommendations  on  overall  reform  of  the  States  Assembly.  The  Committee discussed the difficulties that could arise as a result of using different counting systems within one parish should either the status quo remain, or should its reform proposals be adopted, with some parishes being required to use AV for the single member  districts  and  STV  for  the  multi-member  districts.  The  Committee expressed  concern  regarding  the  proposal  to  introduce  two  different  voting mechanisms for the 2014 elections, and was not minded to lodge the proposition in its own name, as had been requested by Deputy Tadier .

The  Committee  agreed  that  further  consideration  should  be  given  to  the presentation of a comment in respect of the proposition. It was agreed that any comment should be prepared in the light of the outcome of the reform debates to

be held on 5th November 2013. The matter was accordingly deferred.

Composition  A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A1 of 24th September and Election of  2013, received the proposition Composition and Election of the States Assembly: the States  Reform Proposal 4' lodged au Greffe on 30th September 2013 by Deputy A.K.F. Assembly –  Green of St. Helier (P.117/2013 refers).

reform

proposals.  The Committee noted that the proposition constituted one of a number of reform 465/1(194)  proposals that had recently been lodged au Greffe' (P.93/2013; P.94/2013 and

P.98/2013 refer) and discussed whether it would wish to present comments to the States in respect of the aforementioned propositions and related amendments. The Committee agreed that it would be helpful to obtain expert analysis of the various options that were being proposed in order to assist States members during the debates. The Greffier of the States was accordingly requested to appoint an expert to review the content of each of the reform propositions, and related amendments, and  to  report  their  findings  to  the  Committee,  with  a  view  to  the  report subsequently being presented to the States.

Machinery of  A8.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 5th September 2013, Government  considered the approach to be adopted for the forthcoming in Committee' debate Review Sub- on  the  final  report  of  the  Machinery  of  Government  Review  Sub-Committee Committee.  (R.105/2013 refers) and received a draft guidance note in this regard.

465/1(182)

The draft guidance note proposed that the duration of the debate should not exceed one full morning or afternoon, and that the debate should be divided into five sections, as follows: (i) The Executive; (ii) Non-executive members; (iii) Scrutiny; (iv) Other matters (v) Conclusion. The Committee, having considered the draft guidance note and relevant appendices, agreed the proposed approach, with the proviso that members should be able to extend the length of the in Committee' debate beyond the proposed time limit should they see fit, and requested that it be circulated to members for their reference. It was agreed that members of the Sub- Committee should be invited to introduce each section of the report during the in Committee' debate, which was due to be held on 8th October 2013.

States  A9.  The Committee received a report entitled: States Members' Remuneration Members  Review  Body:  recommendations  for  2014',  which  report  contained  the Remuneration  recommendations of the States Members' Remuneration Review Body (SMRRB) Review Body:  with regard to remuneration for States members for 2014.

recommenda

tions for 2014.  The  Review  Body  recommended  an  increase  of  £600  in  members'  basic 1240/3(73)  remuneration effective from 1st January 2014 to £42,600. It recommended no

increase  in  the  current  expense  allowance  of  £4,000.  It  was  noted  that  the Committee was obliged to present the recommendations to the States and that the recommendations relating to the actual level of remuneration and expenses payable to  elected  members  would  be  implemented  automatically  unless  a  proposition seeking  a  debate  was  lodged  au  Greffe'  within  one  month  of  the  date  of presentation.

The  Committee  agreed  that  a  foreword  should  be  prepared  and  that  the recommendations should be presented to the States as a Report. It was suggested that consideration could be given to reducing the frequency of such reports from the SMRRB, which were usually received on an annual basis. The Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary action.

181

8th Meeting 03.10.13

Oral question  A10.  The Committee noted that an oral question would be asked of the Chairman from Deputy  by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier during the States sitting on 8th October 2013 T.M. Pitman  in connexion with the operation of Standing Order 109(7), which related to the regarding  removal from the Official Report (Hansard') of the names of individuals named Standing Order  within the course of States questions or debates.

109(7).

450/2/1(79)   Deputy  Pitman  would ask  whether  the  Committee would  agree to review  the

current  operation  of  the  aforementioned  Standing  Order  to  ensure  that  it  was operating adequately. The Committee, having considered the matter, noted that Standing  Order  109(7)  was  only  used  when  members  had  breached  Standing Orders by naming an individual during a States sitting. The view was expressed that  members  should  abide  by  Standing  Orders  so  that  intervention  by  the Presiding Officer under Standing Order 109(7) would not be required. It was considered  that  the  Presiding  Officer  would  be  grateful  for  the  guidance  of members, who could raise a Point of Order to draw the attention of the Presiding Officer to the use of a name in contravention of Standing Orders if necessary. If a member was not content with a decision made by the Presiding Officer, then that decision would be subject to appeal though a proposition lodged for that purpose. The Committee concluded that Standing Order 109(7) was not used frequently and that it had received no evidence to indicate that it was not operating adequately. It therefore did not intend to carry out a review.

The Chairman was requested to provide an answer to the question in the above terms.