PPC Minutes 27th June 2002

MH/PH/192 25

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (5th Meeting)

27th June 2002

PART A

All members were present. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier was not present for items A3 to A9.

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Deputy Greffier of the States D.C.G. Filipponi, Executive Officer

M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

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

Minutes A1.  The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14th June 2002, having been previously

circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Policy and A2. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A5 of 14th June 2002, received Resources H.M. Attorney General and Mr S. Drew, Law Officers' Department, to discuss the Committee: Draft future role of H.M. Attorney General as proposed in the draft Report and Proposition Report and of the Policy and Resources Committee on the Structure of the Executive. In this Proposition on connexion, the Committee received and considered a Memorandum, dated 24th June the Structure of 2002, from the H.M. Attorney General, together with the comments of the President, the Executive - and a report from Deputy J-A Bridge concerning a request from Deputy J.A. Martin Role of H.M. for advice from H.M. Solicitor General with regard to certain Housing forms.

Attorney General.

1240/22/1(18) The Committee considered the role of H.M. Attorney General in the light of potential

conflicts of interest that might occur between the Council of Ministers, the Assembly, Ex.Off. the Scrutiny Committees and the Crown.

A.G.

C.E., P&R H.M. Attorney General made the following points in the course of the discussion - P.R.C.C.

P.R.E.O. (i) t h at the Law Officers were advisers in the first instance to the States and

Committees. In cases where a States Member was advising an individual challenging the legality of the actions of a Committee, the Law Officers' responsibility  was  to  advise  the  Committee.  In  cases  where  a  States Member was seeking advice on a general legal point, the Law Officers' could provide assistance but this would be prioritised against other matters in the Department's workload;

2. th at the role of the H.M. Attorney Generalwastoprovideadvice to the States andCommitteeson the existinglegal position in any issue under consideration. This might include giving a judgementcallas well aslegal opinion. It wasfor politicians toconsiderchangesin the Law.Itwasnot within the scopeof Scrutiny Committeestoquestion the legal opinion but they mightexamine how a givenDepartmenthad applied theLaw;
3. t hat he was concerned at the suggestion that a structure might be set up

which would allow Scrutiny Committees to take separate legal advice. This was

on the grounds of duplication of resources and the potential for political debate on the quality of advice given to either side. He suggested that it would be impractical in a small jurisdiction such as Jersey with a limited pool of legal advisers to have separate legal advice teams for the Council of Ministers and Scrutiny Committees. In cases where a conflict might occur in the interpretation of the legal position, States members were not qualified to resolve the issue themselves;

4. t hat, in his view,the advice given byH.M. Attorney Generalonanygiven matter shouldnotbe published. Hesuggested that politicians should have to take responsibility for the decisions they took, not implying that they were relying on the legal advice from H.M. Attorney General;
5. that there were occasions, under the current circumstances when Committeesmightbe in conflict over particular issues. It waspossiblein such cases for a Committeetoseekseparatelegaladvice.The convention, though not explicitly stated in the current Law,was that this would not be done without first informing the LawOfficers'Departmentof the intention to doso;
6. that, while the abovedraftReportand Proposition suggested that H.M. Attorney General would be entitled to sit on all meetings of the Councilof Ministers, in practice, he would attend only those meetings whererelevant issues weretobediscussed;
7. that H.M. Attorney General would be responsible for advisingtheCouncil of Ministerson constitutional and international matters.Inhisview,it was not always possible to draw a clear distinction between what was international and whatwasdomestic; and

(viii) that he recognised that complexity and sensitivity of the issues but felt that

it was possible to be too theoretical about perceived future difficulties. It might be better to wait and see how matters developed and deal with issues of conflict when they arose rather than attempt to counter every possibility in advance.

The Committee expressed the following views -

1. t hat it was concerned that the position of H.M. Attorney General as impartial adviser to the States would becompromisedbythe perception that he/she wastoo closely associated withtheExecutive.Itwas possible that conflicts of interest would arise between the Executive and Scrutiny CommitteeswhereH.M. Attorney Generalwouldbeseen to have already taken a positiononthe side ofthe Executive. It could foresee a situation where a Scrutiny Committee might wish to take legal advice on a matterit was investigating, without wishing information to be passed on to the Executive. This might put H.M. Attorney General in a difficult position;
2. th at H.M. Attorney General should be the final arbiter for legal opinion, with two setsof legal advisers within hisofficeprovidingadvice separately to the Executiveand to Scrutiny Committees. It was felt that this would obviate the perception that might develop that H.M. Attorney General was taking on a more political role and that the Scrutiny Committees would only get a secondrate service incomparison with the Executivewho would have firstcallonH.M.AttorneyGeneral;

3. th at separateresourcesshouldbemade available to enable both Scrutiny Committeesand private memberstoobtainindependentlegaladvice when required. TheCommittee recalled that this was the situation in the Scott ish Parliament;
4. th at the current role ofH.M. Attorney General would inevitably change under the new Ministerial system of government and  that  it  would  be important todefine his/her role more precisely in the new States of Jersey Law.

The delegation withdrew from the meeting.

The Committee noted that there was a clear difference of opinion between its position and that of H.M. Attorney General. It was mindful that the Policy and Resources Committee was expecting the Committee's response to the above draft Report and Proposition but felt that the matters discussed above required further consideration before it could be in a position to formulate its response. The Committee accordingly agreed to consider the issue further at its next meeting.

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

Public Accounts A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A5 of 24th May 2002, received Ms. Committee and E. Burst, Principal Corporate Policy Officer, Policy and Resources Department, in General Auditor - connexion with her draft report on options for the establishment of a Public Accounts proposed interim Committee (PAC) and the appointment of a General Auditor for the States. arrangements.

1240/22/1(8) The  Committee  recalled  that  it  had  endorsed  the  recommendations  of  the  Public

Accounts  Committee  and  Auditor  General  Working  Party,  namely  that  a  General Ex.Off. Auditor should be appointed at the same time, or soon after, the appointment of the

Chief Executive and departmental Directors and that the PAC should be created at the

earliest opportunity. However, it was aware that no funding to this effect had been

made available at the 2003 Revenue Decision Conference.

The Committee considered the way forward and was advised of the following three options, together with their advantages and disadvantages -

1. d elay the creationofthePAC and appointmentofthe General Auditoruntil funding was available;
2. in troduce an interim PAC hearing system basedonthecurrent States Audit Commission'sworkprogramme;and
3. s ubmit a request for funding to enablethe appointmentof the General Auditor at the same time as the appointmentoftheDepartmental Directors.

The Committee considered that option (b), while it might have some attraction in that it would incur no cost, would be ineffective as it would have no real power. It favoured option (c) as it felt that it was important to establish this post alongside the new Ministerial system so that the postholder might be involved in the formation and development of the audit process from the outset. The Committee noted that it was estimated that the appointment process would take place during the first quarter of 2003 with the postholder  taking up the post on 1st July 2003. On this basis the additional  costs  in  2003  were  estimated  at  approximately £180,000,  with  future additional annual costs from 2004 of approximately £350,000.

The Committee requested that the above draft report be finalised as quickly as possible and submitted for its consideration at a subsequent meeting.

Accommod- A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A6 of 14th June 2002, received a ation, services report, dated 25th June 2002, from the Executive Officer in connexion with the States and facilities for Building refurbishment programme and the provision of States members' facilities. States Members.

1060/5/1(18) The Committee noted an update report from the Public Services Committee on the

refurbishment contract for the States Building.

Ex.Off.

The Committee recalled that it had planned to survey the views of States members on the type of facilities most desired and the level of interest in such facilities. The Committee received a draft survey form setting out the possible options.

The  Committee  considered  a  plan  of  the  current  proposals  which  included  the conversion of the current Registre to provide a members common room, research library, three interview rooms and a small kitchen. The Committee, having noted that there was no provision at present for a members' office area, considered the possibility of using the Gallery area in the former Library, which had been partitioned off from the main Library area. It would require the installation of a number of work stations and storage facilities for members to work from. Alternatively, it was felt that there might  be  an  advantage  in  providing  a  multi-use  common  room  with  computer facilities. This would encourage more frequent use of the facility, particularly outside normal  business  hours.  It  was  also  suggested  that  members  would  appreciate  a comfortable  room  where  they  could  relax  when  they  were  in  town  and  between appointments. It  was agreed  that the options should be explored further once the members' survey had clarified the level of interest in the type of facilities that could be provided.

The Committee also considered the possibility of making provision for a members' smoking room. It was noted that no such space had been designated at present and that the building was currently a no smoking building'. To retain such a facility would mean  the loss  of  a planned meeting room  in  the Registre  and  the installation of appropriate ventilation. It was agreed that all aspects of the issue should be put to members as part of the planned survey.

The Committee was advised that the Law Society Library, which was currently housed in  the  States  Building  under  an  historic  arrangement,  might  provide  a  valuable additional area of accommodation should it become vacant. The Executive Officer was requested to clarify the position. The president declared an interest in this matter as the Librarian of the Law Society.

The  Committee  agreed  to  issue  the  aforementioned  survey  within  the  next  week, together with a drawing of the current proposals indicating the possible use of the Registre area. It agreed to give further consideration to a suitable route for funding such facilities in due course once the results of the survey had been collated.

On  a  related  matter,  the  Committee  considered  correspondence  from   Deputy  P.J. Rondel regarding States members' access to the States Building. He proposed that members should be provided with keys or key cards to enable access outside normal business  hours.  The  Committee  was  aware  that  this  was  a  matter  for  the  Public Services Committee. It  agreed that this matter should be considered  in the wider context of the provision of facilities for members. It was also agreed that the question of members' access to Morier House should be addressed as a matter of priority. The Executive Officer was requested to liaise with the officers of the Department of Public

Services in this connexion.

Remuneration A5.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A4 of 24th May 2002, received a and expenses draft consultation paper, prepared by the Deputy Greffier of the States, regarding the provision for provision of remuneration and expenses for States members.

States members -

consultation The Committee recalled that it had agreed that the level of enhancement to be provided paper. to Ministers and chairman of Scrutiny Committees should be modest at the outset. It 1240/3(64) was aware, however, that support for a considerably greater level of enhancement had

been expressed at a meeting regarding the Structure of the Executive organised by the Ex.Off. Policy and Resources Committee on 21st June 2002. The Committee recognised that

some regarded the post of Minister under the new system of government as a full-time

position. Consequently, they felt that the post should be rewarded adequately to attract

the  highest  calibre  of  member.  Others,  however,  felt  that,  in  the  Jersey  context,

Ministers could not be expected to give up their jobs entirely. Many professional

people  would  be  discouraged  from  entering  politics  if  this  was  the  case.  The

Committee  agreed  to  maintain  its  position  with  regard  to  enhanced  salaries  for

Ministers.

The Committee endorsed the draft consultation paper but decided to defer issuing the paper for a short period pending the survey on members' facilities.

States of Jersey A6.  The Committee considered the draft Amendment (No. 11) of Standing Orders Law 1966 - relating  to  Certain  Transactions  in  Land,  together  with  a  report  prepared  by  the Amendment (No. Department of Property Services. 11) of Standing Orders relating to The Committee accepted that the above Standing Orders were part of its responsibility Certain as they were made under Article 27 of the States of Jersey. It was advised that the Transactions in purpose of the draft amendments were to increase the financial thresholds relating to Land. certain transactions in land below which the consent of the States did not need to be 1240/4/1(24) obtained. The opportunity had also been taken to clarify a point concerning amounts of

annual rent.

Pub.Ed.

States (2) The  Committee  approved  the  above  amendment  which  was  to  come  into  force T.O.S. forthwith,  and  agreed  that  it  should  be  lodged "au  Greffe" once  the  necessary F.E.C.C. accompanying report was finalised.

C.I.Aud.

D.P.S. The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Finance and

Economics Committee for information.

Proposed States A7.  The Committee considered the proposed meeting dates for states meetings in meeting dates 2003 and approved the following -

2003.

1240/2(60) January 21

February 4 and 18

Ex.Off. March 4 and 18

P.S.C.(2) April 1, 8 and 29

May 13 and 20

June 10 and 24

July 8 and 22

September 9 and 23

October 7 and 21

November 4 and 18

December 1 and 3 (Budget) and 9

The Committee noted that some of the above dates did not comply with Standing Order 4(1) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey and it would, therefore, be necessary to obtain the approval of the States to suspend the Standing Order in order that the dates might be confirmed. The Deputy Greffier of the States was requested to prepare the necessary report and proposition for consideration by the Committee.

The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Public Services Committee for information.

Acts of other A8.  The Committee noted the following Acts of other Committees and matters for Committees and information -

matters for

information. (a) A ct No.B12, dated 27th May 2002, of the Public Services Committee

regarding the States Members' car park to the rear of the Tourism building;

2. A ct No.A6,dated 30th May2002,of the Policy andResources Committee regarding  its  report  and proposition  on the  Structure  of the Executive Government;
3. A ct No.B5,dated 30th May 2002, of the Policy and ResourcesCommittee regarding the review ofthe Public Finances (Administration)(Jersey) Law 1967, as amended;
4. A ct No.B6,dated 30th May 2002, of the PolicyandResourcesCommittee regarding  legal instruction  resources for  the  Privileges  and Procedures Committee;
5. A ct No.B8,dated 30th May 2002, of the Policy and ResourcesCommittee regarding resources for the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly;and
6. a paper detailing outstanding Committeeitems and workin progress.

Date of next A9.  The Committee agreed to meet on Tuesday 2nd July 2002, commencing at 1  p.m. meeting in the Peirson Room, Morier House in order to consider the Executive proposals of the

Policy and Resources Committee in its draft report and proposition.