PPC Minutes 24th May 2002

MH/PH/151 13

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (3rd Meeting)

24th May 2002

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy H.H. Baudains, from whom apologies had been received.

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Deputy Greffier of the States D.C.G. Filipponi, Senior Committee Clerk M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.

Minutes A1.  The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15th May 2002, having been previously

circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Matters arising A2. The Committee noted the following matters arising from its meeting held on 15th

May 2002 -

1. A  ct  No.A2 -  Resources -  The Committee  agreed  that  it would be appropriate to publicisethelaunchof its ExecutiveSupportteam,which would bebasedin the Peirson Room,MorierHouse,commencingon 10th June 2002. It was also agreedthat,while its ExecutiveSupport would be independent of the Policy andResourcesDepartment, it was appropriate for  close  liaison  to  be established  at officer  level  to  ensure good communicationsandavoidduplication of effort;
2. A ct No.A6 - Accommodation,servicesand facilities for Statesmembers - that thePresident would liaise with the Deputy Greffier of the States in producing a preliminary list ofrequirements for members to be considered at the nextmeeting; and
3. A ct No.A8 - E-GovernmentWorkingGroup - TheCommittee decided to invite  Dr. S. Chiang, Director IT Services  and/or Ms S. Du Feu, Programme Manager, e-government,  to its  next meeting  to discuss  the issues relatingto the aboveWorkingGroup

Formation of A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 15th May 2002, received an Scrutiny outline paper, prepared by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier, regarding points to be considered Committees. in relation to the formation of Scrutiny Committees.

1240/22/1(19)

The Committee was advised that the above outline paper would serve as a framework for its future report on the terms of reference, conditions and facilities for Scrutiny Committees. It also received further documents relating to scrutiny arrangements in the United Kingdom, namely Overview and Scrutiny: a Practitioners Guide' by Professor P. Corrigan and two case study summaries from the Department of Transport, Local Government  and  the  Regions  Overview  and  Scrutiny  Project.  These  documents, together with others already received, would be included as appendices to the above report.

The Committee considered arrangements for the planned seminar for States members on the scrutiny function. It agreed that this should take place on Monday 1st July 2002 as a lunchtime meeting at a venue to be confirmed. The Committee, having noted that Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier had contacted the Institute of Local Government Studies, Birmingham, in relation to possible consultancy work on scrutiny, suggested that the Institute be approached with regard to a possible facilitator for the above seminar. It recognised that it would be important for such a facilitator to be well briefed on the local situation, including the Implementation Plan and the decision of the States on 28th  September  2001  to  develop  a  ministerial  system  of  government.   Deputy  Le Hérissier agreed to work with the Committee's officers in this regard and to prepare a draft paper for the next meeting outlining the issues that might be addressed at the seminar.

Remuneration A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7 of 15th May 2002 gave further and expenses consideration to a report, dated 12th May 2002, prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the provision for States regarding the provision of remuneration and expenses for States members. States members.

1240/3(64) The Committee, having regard to the consultation paper produced by the former House

Committee  (R.C.  33/2001)  together  with  the  subsequent  comments  received  from D.G.O.S. States members, agreed as follows -

1. t hat  a  basic  salary  should be available to  all  members irrespective  of income from outsidesources;
2. th at the level of paymentshould be linked to Grade10/11of the Civil Service scaleof salaries;
3. th at an enhancementtothebasic salary should be paid in respect of a member's responsibility position.For the timebeing this shouldbe limited to the postsofMinisters and Chairmenof Scrutiny and Public Accounts Committees,  pending further  clarification  of the position of Assistant Ministers within the Executive;
4. th at the level of the aboveenhancementshouldbemodestat the outset:

M i n isters/Chairman of Scrutiny Committees: 10/15 per cent of basic

salary

C h ie f Minister: 50 per cent of basic salary; and

5. th at, rather than establishing a specificpensionscheme for members, the level  of the  basic salary  to  be made  available  to  members should be adequate for  members to  make their  own financial  arrangements for retirement; and
6. th at the question of expensesshould be linked to the provisionofadequate accommodation and facilities. TheCommitteewasof the opinion that,with improved  administrative  support available  to members in the  future,  it might be possible to restrict members' expense allowance to the levelset by the Comptroller ofIncomeTaxas tax deductible without a formal claim (currently £3,500).

The  Committee  requested  the   Deputy  Greffier  of  the  States  to  prepare  a  draft consultation  paper  for  its  consideration  at  a  subsequent  meeting,  setting  out  the principles and likely costings for a scheme based on the aforementioned points of agreement. It agreed that this consultation paper should be circulated to members in conjunction  with the  planned paper on accommodation, facilities and services  for States members.

Public Accounts A5.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A10 of 15th May 2002, received a Committee and delegation from the Public Accounts Committee and Auditor General Working Party, Auditor General comprising Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf , Mr I. Black, Treasurer of the States and chairman of Working Party - the Working Group, Mr T. Dunningham, Chairman of the States Audit Commission, report. Mr K. Hemmings, Acting Chief Internal Auditor, and Ms E. Burst, Principle Corporate 1240/22/1(18) Policy  Officer,  Policy  and  Resources  Committee,  in  connexion  with  the

recommendations  contained  in  their  final  report  to  the  Policy  and  Resources C.E., P&R Committee.

P.R.C.C.

P.R.E.O. The Committee recalled that the above report had been endorsed by the Policy and

Resources and Finance and Economics Committees. In accordance with the States decision of 26th April 2002 (P.23/2002), the responsibility for implementing the Public Accounts  Committee  and  Auditor  General  fell  within  the  Committee's  terms  of reference.

The Committee received a presentation, prepared by Ms Burst, and discussed the following points with the delegation -

1. Auditor General: The Committee was advised that this post wasof high importance  within the new  Machinery of Government. Ideally, the postholder should bein place to help shape the formation anddevelopment of the audit process from the outset. However, there were currently no funds allocated to the establishmentof this post in 2003.

It w  as agreed that, once established, it would be appropriate for the Auditor

General to be sited in the  States Greffe, Morier House, subject  to the availability of suitable accommodation space.

It w as suggested that the term General Auditor' should be used to avoid

any  confusion  with  H.M.  Attorney  General  when  abbreviating  the designation;

2. In terim Public Accounts Committee (PAC): The Committee formed the view that, until funding became available for the establishmentofthePAC and AuditorGeneral,an interim PACcouldbe put in placebased on the current  Audit Commission. The  Committee agreed to  give  further consideration to this suggestion;
3. Responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC): It was agreed that it wasimportanttoclarify the distinction between the role of the PAC and Scrutiny Committees.The role of the PAC would to review howpolicy was administered andto scrutinise publicexpenditure,income and assets.It would also beresponsibleforvalueformoney audits.

S c r utiny Committees, on the other hand, were responsible for examining

the formulation of policy. Thus they might question a Minister on political decisions taken, while the PAC might call civil servants to explain how the policy had been administered in order to assess value for money and the use of public funds.

T h e  Committee  received  flowcharts  representing  the  process  for  both

financial audits and value for money audits. It noted that a video was available

showing the PAC in the United Kingdom in action. It agreed that it would be useful to hold a viewing for States members.

T  h e  Committee  agreed  that  the  distinction  in  the  roles  of  Scrutiny

Committees and the PAC should be borne in mind as it developed its proposals on the arrangements for scrutiny. The Executive Officer and Ms Burst were requested to liaise in the preparation of a paper in this respect to be considered at a subsequent meeting;

4. Membership of the Public Accounts Committee

T h e Committee recalled the view of the Policy and Resources Committee

that the Scrutiny Committee Chairmen should form the majority of the membership of PAC. The initial view of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, however, was against this conclusion. It was of the opinion that, while members of the PAC might also serve on Scrutiny Committees, they should not be the Chairmen of those Committees. The clear distinction in  roles  between  the  Scrutiny  Committees  and  the  PAC  should  be maintained.

The Committee thanked the delegation for their report and their contribution to the meeting before they withdrew.

Access to A6.  The Committee received a report, dated 14th May 2002, from the Deputy Greffier Committee of the States regarding access to Committee Minutes by members of the States. Minutes by States

members. The Committee recalled that, in accordance with a ruling in 1987 from H.M. Attorney 1240/1/2(18) General of that time, members were entitled to access Committee Minutes and other

papers in the custody of the Greffier of the States in connexion with matters connected D.G.O.S. to their States' duties. The normal practice was for members to inform the relevant

Committee President as a matter of courtesy. The Committee was advised that the

Greffier of the States, concerned that the above ruling gave members the right to

access a wide range of highly confidential private and personal information and that

breaches  of  confidentiality  could  theoretically  arise  as  a  result,  had  requested

clarification from H.M. Attorney General as to whether the 1987 ruling remained valid

in light of the changes since that date in relation to matters such as Human Rights,

privacy and data protection. The Committee noted the correspondence from H.M.

Attorney General, dated 3rd and 15th April 2002, in which he advised that the matter

was essentially a political rather than a legal question. He had gone on to express the

view that members requesting access to information should be made fully aware of

confidentiality and privacy issues.

The Committee agreed that the possible consequences of any breach of confidentiality should be clearly explained to members who should be required to sign some form of declaration of agreement. The Committee also considered whether there was a need to include information in respect of the names of individuals in Committee Minutes. It was mindful in particular of applications made to the Housing and Human Resources Committees where sensitive private details might be the subject of a report to the Committee. It suggested that Committee papers and Minutes might simply use a code known only to the Department rather than the names of individuals. The Committee decided  to  request  all  Committees  to  review  their  procedures  in  relation  to confidentiality, privacy, Human Rights and data protection issues and to report back to the Committee on their guidelines in this respect. The Deputy Greffier of the States was requested to prepare a letter for the President to send to all Committees giving the full background to the Committee's concerns that lay behind this request.

The Committee, following H.M. Attorney General's advice, approved in principle a procedure for accessing Minutes, as follows -

1. M e mbermakes request to the GreffiertoaccessMinutes
2. G  reffier informsrelevantCommitteePresident but doesnot disclose name of  member seeking  access  unless  authorised  to  do so by the member concerned;
3. M  ember is granted  access  after signing  an  appropriate declaration  on privacy and confidentiality issues.

The  Committee  requested  the   Deputy  Greffier  of  the  States to finalise  guidelines setting out clearly for members the framework for the operation of the policy on access to Committee Minutes. The Committee agreed that, subject to the Bailiff 's approval, it would take a proposition to the States to seek approval for these guidelines, after seeking  advice  from  H.M.  Attorney  General  on  the  appropriate  wording  of  the declaration on privacy and confidentiality issues that members would be required to sign.

Public Finances A7.  The  Committee  received  a  delegation  from  the  Finance  and  Economics (Administration- Committee,  comprising   Deputy  D.R.  Maltwood,  the  Treasurer  and  the   Deputy istration) (Jersey) Treasurer of the States, to discuss that Committee's review of the Public Finances Law 1967, as (Administration)(Jersey)  Law,  1967,  in  as  far  as  it  related  to  the  Privileges  and amended - Procedures Committee's responsibility for reviewing Standing Orders.

review.

1038(52) The Committee was advised that the Finance and Economics Committee wished to

comment and put forward proposals in the following areas -

C.I.Aud.

F.E.C.C. (a) P ropositions  and  draft  legislation  going  to  the  States  which  have T.O.S. financial consequences

T h e Committee was advised that, in line with best practice in financial

management,  it  was  proposed  that,  following  sound  strategic  planning procedures,  States  funding  should  be  allocated  through  an  annual prioritisation  process,  which  would  only  be  amended  in  an  emergency situation. This proposal would have implications for the traditional right for States  members  to  introduce  propositions  to  the  States,  as  a  proposal involving  additional  expenditure  could  only  be  approved in  principle' pending the next annual resource allocation process. It was the view of the Finance and Economics Committee that it should not then be possible to bring a proposition with wording requesting the Finance and Economics Committee  (or  Minister)  to  identify  a  source  of  funding.  Similarly, amendments to propositions, which required additional funds, would only be permitted in principle'. In the current situation, it was possible for members to bring forward propositions or amendments with considerable financial significance for the States, which fell outside the normal resource allocation  procedure.  The  Committee  was  advised  that  this  proposal reflected the position in many other administrations. It was based on sound financial  discipline  which  meant  that  the  States  could  not  approve  a proposal  which  was  recognised  as a  good  thing' without  identifying clearly where the funding was to be found.

T  h e  Committee  considered  the  example  of  the  proposed  new  Race Relations Law, put forward recently by the Legislation Committee. This

proposal was part of a strategic plan approved by the States and would take its

due place in the resource allocation process, having now been approved in principle' by the States.

T h e Committee was mindful of the sensitive political nature of the above

proposal, which would constrain the rights currently members possessed to bring forward proposals which they considered to be of pressing importance. Members would need to understand how they could still, press their case. In the first instance, they would need to convince the appropriate Minister. If that course of action failed, they could proceed through an approach to a Scrutiny Committee or through a public campaign to apply the pressure of public opinion.

T h e Committee agreed that this proposal needed further careful

consideration and agreed to address the matter at a subsequent meeting.

2. Financial Information included in reports accompanying propositions and legislation going to the States.

T h e Committee noted that the Finance and Economics Committee's view

was that the Public Finances Law, rather than States Standing Orders should provide for the requirement for the inclusion of consistent financial information in reports accompanying propositions and proposed legislation to going the States (including amendments thereto). It was further proposed that the current requirement for the Finance and Economics Committee to comment in every case should be optional and/or delegated to the Treasurer.

In t his connexion, the Committee recalled, with reference to Act No. B1,

dated 5th November 2001 of the former House Committee that that Committee had considered a draft Code of Direction setting out a minimum standard requirement for financial information to be provided to States Members when proposals and amendments were to be debated. The House Committee had argued that individual members could not be expected to provide this information without assistance. They had argued that neither the administering Department nor the Treasury were considered to be impartial and that there should be some form of independent assistance, though this would be difficult to provide in some circumstances in a small jurisdiction such as Jersey.

T h e Committee agreed to give this matter further consideration at a

subsequent meeting, having reviewed the previous draft Code.

3. P ropositionsregardingbuildingplans

T h e  Committee  endorsed the  recommendation  that  the requirement  for

building plans to be debated in the States should not be included in revised Public Finances legislation.

4. T enders

T h e Committee endorsed the recommendation that the Public Finances legislation would not in future provide for tenders to be noted by the States.

5. L and Transactions

T h e  Committee endorsed the recommendation that the Minister responsible

for property transactions should produce a Direction for other Ministers and officers  to  follow.  This  should  replace  the  Standing  Orders  relating  to Certain Transactions in Land.

The Delegation  from the Finance and  Economics Committee  agreed to provide a flowchart illustrating how the proposed new system of financial discipline would work in comparison to the current situation.

The Committee requested clarification on the relative position of Standing Orders and Codes of Direction with regard to their binding power on States members.

The Committee mindful that the review of the States of Jersey Law 1966 and Standing Orders was part of the second tranche of tasks assigned to it by the States, agreed to give further detailed consideration to the recommendations in (a) and (b) above once its Executive team was in place.

The delegation was thanked for its submission before it withdrew from the meeting.

The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Finance and Economics Committee.

Date of next A8. The Committee confirmed the date of its next meeting which was to be held on 7th meetings. June 2002, commencing at 9.30 a. m. in the Halkett Room, Morier House.

The President agreed to circulate members with a list of proposed dates for future meetings in the rest of June 2002.

Matters for A9.  The Committee noted the following matters for information - information

1. th at the President would issue a pressreleaseon the work oftheCommittee to date;
2. th at theMinutesof the Committee would henceforth bemade available on the StatesAssembly website rather than beinge-mailed directly to all States members.Thosemembersof the States who did not have accesstoe-mail would be offered the opportunity of receiving hard copies of the Minutes.