Skip to main content

Was the Data Protection Commissioner consulted in respect of declaration of interests of a members spouse of partner

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.

1240/5(6779)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE BY THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 20th MARCH 2012

Question

Would the Chairman inform members whether the Data Protection Commissioner was consulted on whether it was appropriate for a member to be required to declare the interests of his or her spouse or partner before the Committee lodged the Amendment (No. 18) to the Standing Orders of the States which will require publication of interests on the internet and, if so, what advice was received? If the Commissioner was not consulted would the Chairman explain why this was not done?

Were all candidates standing for election in October 2011 notified in writing of the requirements concerning the interests of spouses/partners and, if so, did this include getting written consent from the spouse/partner agreeing to the publication of interests? Were candidates further notified that it was intended to publish interests on the internet as well as making them available for public inspection in Morier House?

If candidates were not notified, will the Committee be taking action to address the issue and will the Committee agree to delay the implementation of the proposals until the next elections to enable appropriate measures to be taken to address any concerns relating to the interests of spouses/partners?

Answer

Internet research shows that Registers of Interests relating to M.P.s in the House of Commons, Members of the Scott ish Parliament, Members of the Welsh Assembly and Members of the States of Guernsey can all be found and examined on the net. (See appendix)

The Data Protection Commissioner was not consulted immediately prior to the lodging of Amendment (No. 18) to the Standing Orders of the States, however she had been engaged with earlier discussions with the Code of Conduct Working Party, particularly when this issue was first discussed in 2005.

The amendment refers only to the interests of the member, their spouse or co-habitee, but not to any other member of the family. The duty to declare the interests of one's spouse has been included in Standing Orders since 1991 since which time the following have been declarable -

" (b) the name and description of any company, whether registered in Jersey or elsewhere, in which the member or the member's spouse, or both persons jointly, owns more than ten per cent of the issued shares;

(c)  a description of any land in Jersey, other than their principal place of residence, which is owned by the member or the member's spouse or both persons jointly and from which either of them derives an income;"

On 6th March 2012, the States agreed that the amendment to Standing Orders which enables publication of a member's interest on the States Assembly website will come into force one month later, namely 6th April 2012.

This amendment was approved following two States' debates. However, the questioner will be aware that the Privileges and Procedures Committee initially proposed publication of the register of members' interests as long ago as 2005 (P.162/2005 refers) as there was consultation with members, and the Committee of the day withdrew this element of the Standing Order changes at a member's request. The matter was brought back to the Assembly by an individual member, the Deputy of St. Martin , and on 9th June 2011 was carried by 39 votes to 9, with 2 abstentions, and the Committee therefore secured the necessary law drafting amendment to Standing Orders for the States' approval to implement that decision, which was debated on 6th March 2012. The revised Standing Order was approved by 38 votes to 5 with one abstention.

The then Deputy of St. Martin also asked a question (6323) of the Committee on this matter on 7th June 2011. Given that matters have been lodged on 3 occasions, consultation with members has occurred, and there was both an earlier written question and a debate during the run up to the last election, I believe there was adequate notice of the provision for prospective candidates.

The Committee as previously constituted did not recommend the online publication of the register of members' interests immediately the proposition was adopted in 2011 and considered that the move to online publication should only be made once the new Assembly has been sworn in, allowing those standing for election to take an informed decision in the full knowledge that the details they will be required to provide as elected members will be published on the Internet. It is the responsibility of prospective candidates for any new position to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the post, and this is also true of the office of States' member. There are a number of obligations placed on anyone who stands for election to the States including the need to abide by the election expenses' regulations, the need to abide by a Code of Conduct and it is the duty of all candidates to ascertain what the constraints of elected office are before standing for election.

It is important to remember that Standing Orders require the Greffier of the States to maintain a register of members' interests and that any person may inspect the register at the offices of the States Greffe during normal working hours. While a photocopy cannot be provided, the Assembly has been advised by the Law Officers that any person could copy out the register and post it on the internet. A member of the public had already expressed an interest in doing so. Were a copy posted on the internet by an individual it may be incomplete and may not be maintained, so that any register put on the internet informally could be misleading, certainly with the passage of time. The Committee took the view that a properly maintained and accurate list will be a better solution. The amendment to Standing Orders was approved by a large majority of the Assembly on 6th March 2012 and there is now no scope for PPC to put this matter on hold as requested by the questioner.

APPENDIX