Draft Amendment (No. 9) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey
REPORT
Introduction
The Privileges and Procedures Committee carried out a review of the
first 12 months of the Machinery of Government Reforms and presented its report
(R.105/2007 re-issue) to the Assembly on 9th November 2007.
PPC has undertaken an extensive consultation exercise with the Council
of Ministers, the Chairmen’s Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and all
States members on the recommendations. Initially, it has concentrated on those
that are most urgent to be considered in time for the new Assembly in December
2008 and the majority of these amendments relate to these recommendations.
1. Limit length of written questions and
the number of written questions a member may put at each meeting (Amendment No.
2)
MOGR Recommendation 53:
“The sub-committee recommends that Standing Orders be amended to restrict the
number of written questions that any one member can submit per States meeting
to 3 written questions of a maximum length of 200 words each.”
1.1 The Committee heard from the sub-committee that it appointed to undertake the review that the number and length of written questions tabled for answer in the Assembly during 2006 and 2007 to date was considerably greater than the number in 2005. There was, in fact, an increase of some 80.7% between 2005 and 2006. The overall rise between 2006 and 2007 was smaller, although it should be noted that, for convenience, questions on different topics had been grouped together as one question, rather than strict separation into individual questions. As there has been no upper limit on the total number of questions per member, such separation would have been illogical.
1.2 While the Committee recognises that the ability of members to hold Ministers to account and obtain information through written questioning is fundamentally important, there needs to be a balance in relation to this right and the resources of departments to respond regularly to numerous lengthy and complex questions.
1.3 The Committee has decided that it would be too restrictive to follow the sub Committee’s recommendation, and amendment 2 therefore proposes a maximum of 5 written questions, each on a single topic, of up to 200 words each.
2. Questioner to decide whether the
Minister must answer, in the event does not wish Assistant Minister to respond
(Amendments Nos. 3 and 4).
MOGR Recommendation 7:
“The sub-committee recommends that Standing Orders should be amended to provide
that a Minister, if present in the Assembly, should only be able to delegate
the answering of an oral question with notice to an Assistant Minister with the
consent of the questioner. This would ensure that members are not frustrated in
their attempts to hold Ministers themselves to account if they wish to do so.”
2.1 Assistant Ministers have answered oral questions with notice put to the Minister in the following circumstances –
● Assistant Ministers have answered questions when their Minister is absent from the Assembly;
● Assistant Ministers can be asked by their Minister to answer questions on matters delegated to them, for example, the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs who has answered questions on firearms issues, or the Assistant Ministers for Economic Development on matters delegated to them.
2.2 The Committee understands that it could be frustrating for members that they could not hold the Minister himself or herself to account because it was the Assistant Minister answering the questions. The purpose of amendments 3 and 4 is to provide that a Minister, if present in the Assembly, should only be able to delegate the answering of an oral question with notice to an Assistant Minister with the consent of the questioner. This would ensure that members are not frustrated in their attempts to hold Ministers themselves to account if they wish to do so.
2.3 This amendment is not designed to allow Assistant Ministers to answer oral questions without notice on behalf of the Minister. Should a Minister expect to be unavoidably absent, the rota would be altered in consultation with other Ministers, as now.
3. Signatures on a vote of
no confidence (Amendment No. 5)
[Not considered as part of MOGR Review]
3.1 This amendment arises following an
approach to PPC by Deputy Le Claire and the Committee is grateful to him for
drawing this matter to its attention.
3.2 At present Standing Order 22 requires 3 additional signatures on a vote of no confidence in “the Council of Ministers, any Minister or Assistant Minister or any committee or panel established by standing orders”. As a result the recent vote of no confidence in the Bailiff did not require the 3 signatures as the Bailiff is not included in the current list in Standing Order 22. Similarly a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of a scrutiny panel (rather than the entire panel) does not technically need the 3 signatures.
3.3 A vote of no confidence in any person or body of persons is clearly a serious matter and PPC considers that there is no logic in including the bodies and persons currently listed and excluding others. As a result the amendment provides that any vote of confidence will require the support of 3 members in addition to the proposer.
4. Arrangements for referral to Minister,
rather than Council of Ministers (Amendment Nos. 6 and 8)
MOGR Recommendation 54:
“The sub-committee recommends that Standing Order 27 be amended to provide that
the Greffier shall refer a Proposition lodged by a private member to the
relevant Minister or Ministers so that the Ministers can consider whether or
not to report to the States on the matter.”
4.1 The current requirement in Standing
Order 27 that any Proposition lodged by a private member should be referred to
the Council of Ministers for a Report is unnecessary. Certain private members’
propositions are only relevant for one or 2 Ministers and not for the
whole Council and amendment 6 therefore provides that such propositions
are forwarded to the Minister(s) concerned so that the Minister(s) can decide
whether to present a comment to the States.
4.2 The current procedure when a member asks
in the States (usually when the list of lodged propositions is read out by the
presiding officer at the start of a meeting) that a proposition be referred to
relevant Ministers is formalised in the new Standing Order 77A which is
introduced by amendment 8.
5. Provision for an individual member to
ask another member to propose an amendment to a draft Law/proposition if he/she
will be absent when the amendment is to be debated (Amendment No. 7).
[Not considered as part of MOGR Review]
5.1 The Privileges and
Procedures Committee agreed that it should be possible for an individual
member, having lodged an amendment to another proposition or to legislation in
his or her own name, to be able to delegate the proposal of those matters to
another member in the case of unavoidable absence. While a standalone
proposition in the name of an individual member could wait and be proposed at a
later date, where the member has an amendment to another proposition or Law
which may be debated during their unavoidable absence, the work entailed in the
amendment is lost. In some cases, other members may also have wished the same
amendment to go forward, and another member may even have been advised not to
lodge an amendment because an amendment in similar terms had already been
received. If, during an unavoidable absence, a draft amendment falls away,
other members would effectively have been prevented from lodging similar
amendments and the opportunity for debate on those matters lost.
5.2 The effect of
amendment 7 is to provide for a member to ask another member to propose an
amendment on his behalf if he or she will be absent from the States for
legitimate reasons. It should be stressed that the rule will not apply if a
member is simply ‘en défaut’ without legitimate excuse.
6. 24 hours’ Notice of nominations
for ministerial office (Amendment No. 10(a))
MOGR Recommendation 49: “The
sub-committee recommends that Standing Orders should be amended to require the
Chief Minister designate to give formal notice through the States Greffe of his
or her nominees as Ministers at least 24 hours before the appointments are
made.”
6.1 In relation to the appointment of Ministers it has been noted that Standing Orders do not require the Chief Minister designate to give any advance notice to members of his or her nominations for ministerial office. In theory the Chief Minister could make no public announcement about his or her nominations until the start of the appointment process in the States Chamber.
6.2 The current Chief Minister, in fact, gave informal notification to members through the States Greffe some 24 hours before the appointments in 2005. The informal notification had nevertheless made it clear that this advance notification could be amended when the Chief Minister made his formal nominations in the Chamber. PPC believes that it is essential that members should have advance knowledge of the candidates for ministerial office so that they are aware of the proposed “team” being proposed by the Chief Minister and can make reasoned choices about nominating alternative candidates. In addition, the Chief Minister designate should have the prior agreement of those he intends to nominate to be his Ministers.
6.3 The Chief Minister will be appointed on 8th December 2008, and Ministers are scheduled to be appointed on 11th December. It is proposed that this revised provision be in force in time for the appointment of Ministers in 2008.
6.4 The first of the changes
being brought by amendment 10 (paragraph (a)) is to require the Chief
Minister designate to inform the Greffier of the States of his proposed
candidates for ministerial posts by 09.30 a.m. on the working day before
the day on which Ministers are appointed. These will then be forwarded to all
States’ members by e-mail and published on the States Assembly website.
7. Unopposed Minister to pass to Greffier
a statement of his or her policies for distribution to members (Amendment
No. 10(b))
MOGR Recommendation 50: “The
sub-committee recommends that Standing Orders should be amended to provide that
all candidates for ministerial office, even if uncontested, should produce a
written statement so that their proposed policy as Ministers is set out in
advance for the official record and recorded in Hansard.”
7.1 The procedure where there is more than one candidate for a ministerial office is that each candidate will make a speech, not exceeding 10 minutes in length, and then 20 minutes are allowed for elected members to question the candidate. This allows time for a candidate to make clear what his intentions are in relation to the post he or she is seeking, and for members to seek clarification or information on matters not covered in the speech. This is, of course, transcribed in Hansard.
7.2 PPC noted that the majority of Ministers in 2005 were appointed without a contest and they therefore had no opportunity to set out their proposed policy in the Assembly in a speech made as part of a contest, and members had no opportunity to question them in a question and answer session. It was, in fact, only in the contested appointment of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services that members heard the 10 minute speech of the candidates and were able to question them.
7.3 The effect of the second part of amendment 10 (paragraph (b)) is to require a Minister who is selected and appointed unopposed to provide the Greffier of the States with a copy of his or her proposed policies within 3 working days of appointment, to be distributed to all members. In addition the Greffier of the States has indicated that he will exercise his discretion under Standing Order 160(3)(a) and publish the statements in Hansard alongside the transcript of the contested elections.
8. Presiding officer to invite the
Assembly to pause after appointing Ministers before proceeding to appoint to
other positions (Amendment No. 11)
MOGR Recommendation 52: “The
sub-committee recommends that there should be a short adjournment of at least
4 hours between the appointment of Ministers and the subsequent
appointment of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, the
Public Accounts Committee and the Scrutiny Panels. This half-day adjournment
could, in practice, mean reconvening the following day or, alternatively,
meeting in the afternoon if the appointment of Ministers is concluded during a
morning Sitting.”
8.1 Current Standing Orders provide that the Chairmen of PPC, PAC and the Scrutiny Panels must be appointed immediately after Ministers and these appointments are therefore, made on the same day as Ministers.
8.2 When the new Standing Orders were put in place the then Privileges and Procedures Committee considered it was important that the election of the PPC Chairman, the PAC Chairman and Scrutiny Panel Chairmen took place immediately after the appointment of Ministers so that the status of these Chairmen was recognised and to ensure that Chairmen could be appointed before the Ministers selected their Assistant Ministers.
8.3 Because 3 out of the 4 appointments for Scrutiny Chairmen in 2005 were uncontested, the process of appointing Chairmen happened very quickly and several people giving evidence to the sub-committee considered that this “rush” to appoint Chairmen was unsatisfactory. The sub-committee is conscious that the Chief Minister’s nominees for Minister were, with one exception, all appointed in December 2005. This may not be the case in the future when more positions may be contested and, in those circumstances, it is possible that unsuccessful candidates for Minister may wish to put their names forward as Chairman of PPC, PAC or a Scrutiny Panel. On balance, the sub-committee therefore believed it may be better to have a short adjournment between the appointment of Ministers and the appointment of Chairmen.
8.4 The effect of amendment 11 is to require the presiding officer to invite members to consider whether they wish to adjourn. There has been some discussion on the length of the adjournment, ranging from 2 hours, to 4 hours, to overnight. The amendment provides for the States to decide whether they wish to adjourn to later in the day, in which case they will decide at what time they wish to re-convene, or to adjourn to 09.30 a.m. the following day.
9. Constitution of Privileges and
Procedures Committee – member from the Chairmen’s Committee (Amendments
Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
MOGR Recommendation 44: “The sub-committee
recommends that Standing Orders should be amended to provide that the President
of the Chairmen’s Committee should be an ex-officio member of PPC to ensure
good co-ordination between PPC and the Scrutiny function.”
9.1 The Privileges and
Procedures Committee recommends this minor structural change to improve links
between the Committee and the Chairmen’s Committee. Until 2007, there were no
shared members between the PPC and the Chairmen’s Committee. This has now been
resolved, when the PPC took the initiative to fill a vacancy by inviting the
President of the Chairmen’s Committee to be a member of PPC.
9.2 Although the sub-committee recommended
that the President of the Chairmen’s Committee should sit on PPC ex-officio,
PPC believes that the proposal may have been unduly restrictive. The change
proposed is therefore simply that one member of the Chairmen’s Committee should
be a member of PPC and that the appointment should be made by the States as is
the case for all other members of the committee. The change is only a minor one
but it unfortunately requires a significant number of changes to Standing
Orders to achieve and these are set out in amendments 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
9.3 PPC is keen to ensure that all members
of the Chairmen’s Committee should be eligible to stand for the place on PPC
and this will therefore require the appointment of PPC members to be undertaken
in 2 stages. The Chairmen’s Committee consists of the 5 scrutiny panel
Chairmen, the Chairman of PAC and 2 other members appointed by the States at
the 4th meeting after the swearing-in of members after each ordinary election.
As a result, although most members of PPC will be appointed at the 3rd meeting,
the final member, who will be a member of the Chairmen’s Committee, will not
able to be appointed until these 2 extra members of the Chairmen’s Committee
have been selected.
9.4 The appointment process to be followed
for this member of PPC will follow the normal appointment process for committee
membership. The Chairman of PPC will consult the President of the Chairmen’s
Committee and will then make a nomination. It will be open to any member of the
Assembly to nominate any other member of the Chairmen’s Committee. If this
happens a ballot or ballots will be held. The amendments also set out, in the
usual way, that the representative of the Chairmen’s Committee will lose his or
her place on PPC if he or she ceases to be a member of the Chairmen’s
Committee.
Financial and manpower statement
These amendments
have no financial or manpower consequences for the States.
Explanatory Note
Amendment 1 is the interpretation provision.
Amendment 2 limits the length of a question that is to be answered in writing to 200 words and restricts the number of such questions that a member can submit for written reply to be tabled at a single meeting to 5.
Amendments 3 and 4 allow a member who submits a question that is to be answered orally to indicate that he or she wishes the question to be answered by the member to whom it is addressed, rather than by another person on behalf of the addressee.
Amendment 5 provides that any vote of confidence, in any person or body of persons, requires 3 signatures, in addition to that of the proposer. Currently, the requirement applies only to votes of confidence in the Council of Ministers, a Minister, an Assistant Minister or a committee or panel established by standing orders: it does not apply, for example, to a vote of no confidence in the chairman of such a committee or panel.
Amendment 6 alters the arrangements for referral of propositions. Instead of being referred to the Council of Ministers, a proposition will be referred to the relevant Minister or committee (for example, the PPC, in the event that the proposition relates to the States of Jersey Law 2005). The Minister or committee will then decide whether or not to present a report upon the proposition.
Amendment 7 allows a member of the States who has lodged, in his or her own name, an amendment to a proposition to ask another member of the States to propose the amendment in his or her place, if he or she will be absent from the States, for legitimate reasons, when the amendment is debated.
Amendment 8 restates the arrangements for a member of the States to propose, without notice and before the debate on a proposition commences, that the proposition be referred to the relevant Minister or committee for a decision whether or not to present a report upon the proposition.
Amendment 9 is linked to Amendments 12 to 15, which provide for one of the members of the PPC to be selected from the members of the chairmen’s committee. Because, following an ordinary election, the members of the chairmen’s committee are appointed by the States after the members of the PPC, the member of the PPC to be appointed from amongst the members of the chairman’s committee must be appointed after membership of that committee has been completed. Accordingly, the final member of the PPC will be appointed at the 4th meeting following an ordinary election. The remaining members of the PPC shall continue to be appointed at the 3rd meeting.
Amendment 10 makes 2 changes to the procedure for selection and appointment of Ministers.
The first is to require the Chief Minister designate to deliver to the Greffier a declaration of his or her candidates for appointment to the Ministerial offices. This must be done by 9.30 a.m. on the working day before the start of the meeting. So, if the meeting is on a Tuesday, the statement must be delivered on the Monday morning; if the meeting is on a Monday, the statement must be delivered on the morning of the preceding Friday. The Greffier will then distribute the declaration to States members and, in view of the shortness of time before the start of the meeting, may do so by e-mail. The Greffier is also required to publish the declaration on the States’ website.
The second is to provide that a Minister who is selected and appointed unopposed shall deliver a statement of his or her proposed policies to the Greffier no later than 3 working days after his or her appointment. The Greffier will distribute a copy of the declaration to members.
Amendment 11 adds in a requirement for the presiding officer to prompt the States to consider whether to adjourn after the completion of the process for selection of the Ministers and before the process for selection and appointment of the committee chairmen commences and resume, either later on the same day, or on the next working day.
Amendments 12 and 13 revise the procedures for appointment of the members of the PPC, as described above.
Amendment 14 provides that the membership of the PPC shall include a member of the chairmen’s committee, appointed by the States as described above.
Amendment 15 provides that the member of the PPC who is appointed in his or her capacity as a member of the chairmen’s committee shall cease to be a member of the PPC if he or she ceases to be a member of the chairmen’s committee.
Amendment 16 is the citation and commencement provision.
