25/04/2013

IC/SC/134

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (28th Meeting)

25th April 2013

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy K.L. Moore , from whom apologies were received.

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft , Chairman

Senator S.C. Ferguson

Senator Sir P.M. Bailhache (except for items A1 and A2) Connétable L. Norman

Deputy J.A. Martin

Deputy M. Tadier

In attendance -

Senator I.J. Gorst , Chief Minister (for item A7 and B2)

J.D. Richardson, Chief Executive, States of Jersey (for item A7 and B2) T. Walker , Director of International Affairs (for item A7) M.N. de la Haye, Greffier of the States

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 14th February (Part A only) and 14th

March 2013 (Parts A and B), having been circulated previously, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Senator P.M. Bailhache was not present for this item.

Matters  A2.  The Committee noted the following matters arising from the Part A Minutes arising.  of its meetings held on 14th February and 14th March 2013 –

1. Minute No. A1 of 14th February 2013 – the Committee noted that the notice period in Standing Order 168(4) had now been extended to 3 months, thereby ensuring that the States would not need to be notified of Housing Department tenancies, and
2. Minute No A2 of 14th March 2013 – the Committee thanked the States Greffe for having orchestrated a high profile voter registration and turnout campaign concerning the referendum on reform of the States Assembly.

Senator P.M. Bailhache was not present for this item.

Referendum  A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A2 of 14th March 2013, (Reform of  received an oral report from the Greffier of the States regarding the outcome of the States  referendum on reform of the States Assembly held on 24th April 2013.

Assembly)

(Jersey) Act  The Committee was advised that the first round of voting had not produced a clear 2013:  winner. Second preference votes had therefore been counted and the following

referendum  result had been confirmed –

outcome.

1240/22/1/10  Option A – 6,707 votes (45.02 per cent) (10)  Option B – 8,190 votes (54.98 per cent)

1,727 of those who voted for Option C had declined to select a second preference. Overall turnout had been 26.2 per cent.

It was clarified that a report evaluating the referendum process would be prepared in early course. In the intervening period, the Committee was invited to clarify its thoughts on next steps.

The Committee considered whether, given the percentage turnout and the narrow margin of victory for Option B in the first round of voting, independent statistical interpretation of the result was warranted. This proposal was ultimately rejected. Although  several  of  the  Committee  members  cited  concerns  regarding  the adequacy of the 3 specific options put to the electorate, the Committee accepted that the referendum had delivered a definitive outcome and agreed that the process of implementation should commence in early course with preparation of the law drafting instructions. In reaching its decision, the Committee acknowledged that individual Members might seek to amend the resulting proposition and that an extended debate in the Assembly regarding the validity of the referendum outcome could not be ruled out.

Deputies J.A. Martin and M. Tadier requested that their dissent to the Committee's decision be recorded in the Minutes. Both considered that further consideration of the referendum outcome was warranted given the potential for Option B to give disproportionate weight to votes cast in the less densely populated parishes.

The implications for the so-called Troy rule,' under which the number of non- executive States Members was required to exceed the number of Members in the executive by a minimum of 10 per cent, was discussed. It was noted that, in the absence of a proposal to amend or repeal the Troy rule, implementation of Option B would require an executive of no more than 18 Ministers and Assistant Ministers and it was agreed that the law drafting instructions should be prepared on this basis.

Consideration was also given to the matter of boundary regulation in future years. It was clarified that the Electoral Commission had considered the matter and had concluded that a discrepancy of between 500 and 1,000 voters could be tolerated without unduly compromising voter equity for Deputies.

The  Committee  resolved  to  evaluate  the  referendum  process  at  a  subsequent meeting.

Senator P.M. Bailhache was not present for this item.

Carswell  A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 7th February 2013, Review Sub- recalled that it had established the Carswell Review Sub-Committee.

Committee:

terms of  The Committee considered a project document entitled: Carswell Review Sub- reference.  Committee: Terms of Reference.'

499/3(22)

It was explained that the Carswell Review Sub-Committee had met for the first time on 18th April 2013 and, having revisited R.143/2010 (Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers'), had agreed to propose to the Committee that it be charged with fulfilling the following terms of reference -

133

28th Meeting 25.04.13

"(a)  To review the recommendations of the Carswell Report (R.143/2010)

in relation to the creation of an elected President of the States, with specific consideration of –

1. the role of the current Bailiff as both civic head and Presiding Officer of the States Assembly;
2. the  role  of  the  Speaker  in  other  jurisdictions  based  on  the Westminster model; and,
3. the practical and financial implications of replacing the Bailiff with an elected Speaker.

(b)  To deliver a report and recommendations to PPC."

The Sub-Committee was expected to take several months to complete its work.

The Committee endorsed the terms of reference for the Carswell Review Sub- Committee and recommended that the Chairman inform the Bailiff accordingly.

Senator P.M. Bailhache was not present for this item.

Machinery of  A5.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A3 of 14th March 2013, Government  gave  further  consideration  to  the  draft  interim  report  of  the  machinery  of Review Sub- Government Review Sub-Committee.

Committee:

interim report.  It was noted that an executive summary had been added to the draft in accordance 465/1(182)  with the Committee's request and that certain other minor and inconsequential

amendments to the report had been made. An additional recommendation had been added proposing that the Council of Ministers be required to publish, and keep  updated,  a  collated  list  of  all  advisory  and  oversight  groups  formed  to progress the development or revision of policy.

The Committee noted the revised report and resolved -

1. to present the report to the States Assembly on 30th April 2013, and
2. to forward the report to the Council of Ministers and the Chairmen's Committee for comment.

The Committee Clerk was authorised to take the necessary action.

Pensions for  A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No A2 of 20th June 2012, States  recalled having agreed to give further consideration to the possible introduction of Members.  a pension scheme for States Members and the related recommendation of the 1240/3(85)  States  Members'  Remuneration  Review  Body  (SMRRB)  made  in  2009

(R.132/2009 refers) once the outcome of the referendum on reform of the States Assembly was known.

The Committee considered a report dated 25th April 2013 and which was entitled: Pension Provision for States Members.'

It was felt that the case for providing a modest pension scheme for Members remained  strong  given  that  politics had  all  but  become  a  career  and  that  the conclusions of the SMRRB regarding the case for pension provision were plain. Option  3  as  outlined  in  R.132/2009  remained  the  provisional  choice  of  the Committee,  although  it  acknowledged  that  the  economic  climate  remained challenging and, therefore, that Members would probably be reluctant to support

the establishment of a pension scheme unless it could be done without increasing the budget for the States Assembly.

Consideration was given to the outcome of the referendum on reform of the States Assembly and the interim report of the Machinery of Government Review Sub- Committee (R.39/2013 refers). The Committee observed that a smaller Assembly would have budgetary implications. It was further noted that proposals for reform of the  Public  Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme  (PECRS)  had  been published in March 2013. The Committee discussed whether a suitably reformed PECRS might provide an appropriate vehicle for providing States Members with a modest pension following the reconstitution of the States in November 2014. It was agreed that establishing the cost to the public of any scheme would be a prerequisite to any further consideration of the matter, irrespective of whether the PECRS might be capable of serving as the appropriate vehicle.

The  Committee  reaffirmed  that  it  was  provisionally  minded  to  pursue  the introduction  of  a  pension  scheme  in accordance  with option  3  as outlined  in R.132/2009, on condition that introduction of such a scheme could be achieved without increasing the budget of the States Assembly. It nevertheless agreed that it should make a final decision on the matter once the Chairman had made contact with  the  Treasury  and  Resources  Department  and  had  established  whether  a reformed  PECRS might be  capable of providing a pension scheme  for States Members broadly in accordance with option 1 of R.132/2009.

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

Minister for  A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A4 of 14th March 2013, External  recalled that the Council of Ministers was minded to propose the establishment of Relations.  the office of Minister for External Relations and that the Chief Minister wished to 450/1(19)  meet  with  the  Committee  discuss  the  proposal.   It  further  recalled  that  the

Corporate  Services  Scrutiny  Panel  had  begun  its  review  of  the  proposal  and expected to report to the States in May 2013.

The Committee welcomed: Senator I.J. Gorst , Chief Minister; the Chief Executive, States of Jersey and the Director of International Affairs.

The Chief Minister explained that he had made the case for having a Minister for External Relations during the course of a Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel public hearing held on 9th April. It was envisaged that an Assistant Ministerial post would be extinguished following the Minister's appointment, thereby ensuring that compliance with Article 25(3) of the States of Jersey Law was maintained. The  appointment  process  for  the  Minister  for  External  Relations  would  be executed by the States Assembly in the normal way.

The Committee confirmed that its interest in the proposal stemmed from Standing Order  128  (a),  which  charged  the  Committee  with  keeping  under  review  the composition, the practices and the procedures of the States as Jersey's legislature and bringing forward for approval by the States amendments to the Law and standing orders as considered appropriate. In that regard, the Committee had no observations  to  make  on  that  case,  save  to  note  that  in  recent  years  strong arguments had been made in favour of the establishment of other ministerial roles, including a Minister for Children and a Minister for Justice.

There followed a discussion regarding the so called Troy rule' (which stipulated that the number of non-Executive States Members should exceed the total number of Ministers and Assistant Ministers by a margin of 10 per cent) and the outcome of  the  referendum  on  reform  of  the  States  Assembly.   It  was  noted  that  an

135

28th Meeting 25.04.13

Assembly of 42, constituted in accordance with the Troy rule, would have room for only 18 ministers and assistant ministers. Some thought would therefore need to be given to which ministerial portfolios were truly necessary in future years, irrespective of whether a Minister for External Relations was to be approved. Thought would also need to be given to the corresponding scrutiny structure.

On the matter of whether the Troy rule should remain, the Committee noted the conclusion of its Machinery of Government Review Sub-Committee; that a majority of Members were thought to favour the retention of minority government scrutinised by a majority of Members, as envisaged by the Clothier Panel. It had nevertheless implied that the Troy rule might not be required in its present form. The Chief Minister advised the Committee that he had been considering the same issue and would reveal his conclusions in due course.

Consideration was given to the question of whether the existing rules and methodology for appointing the Council of Ministers remained appropriate. Ministerial portfolios were defined by Standing Order 117(1), while the number of Ministers was prescribed in Article 18 of the States of Jersey Law 2005. Under the existing rules the Chief Minister had not been empowered to align ministerial portfolios to fit the strategic priorities identified at the commencement of his term of office. Although the Committee had not yet formed a view on this matter, it anticipated that an argument could be constructed in favour of giving the Chief Minister significantly greater flexibility in this regard.

In summary, the Committee concluded that the question of whether the office of Minister for External Relations should be created had, to an extent, been overtaken by the issue of how the machinery of government should be adapted to fit a smaller States Assembly.

The Committee agreed that the Chairman should write to the Chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel outlining the Committee's views as recorded above.

The Committee Clerk was authorised to take the necessary action.