PPC Minutes 2nd October 2002

MH/KAK/290 61

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (13th Meeting)

2nd October 2002

PART A

All  members  were  present,  with  the  exception  of  Senators  C.G.P.  Lakeman  and W.  Kinnard and Deputy J-A Bridge, from whom apologies had been received.

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Deputy Greffier of the States P. Byrne, Executive Officer Designate M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

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

A1.  The Committee, in the absence of the President and the Vice-President and in accordance with Article 36(2) of the States of Jersey Law 1966, as amended, approved Senator C. Stein to preside at the meeting.

Minutes A2.  The Minutes of the Meeting held on 8th August and 17th September 2002, having

been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Matters arising. A3. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A2 of 17th September 2002, noted

that further comment had been received in respect of the requirement for a public declaration of any previous offences by candidates for election as Senator or Deputy .

The Committee agreed to give further consideration to this matter at a subsequent meeting. One suggestion was that such offences might be publicised in a register rather than be the subject for a public declaration at the nomination meeting.

Matters for A4.  The Committee noted the following matters for information - information.

1. N otes of Meetings ofMembers of the Privileges and ProceduresCommittee held on 13th and 16th August 2002.

T h e Committee noted that in item A1(1) Process issues it was stated that

the  budget  allocation  for  the  States' Greffe  and  members' pay  and allowances would possibly come under the political responsibility of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. It was clarified, however, that no decision had yet been made in this respect. The Committee agreed that it would be more appropriate for oversight of members' pay and allowances to stay with the Finance and Economics Committee;

2. A rrangements for a visit to BirminghamCityCouncilon 10th October 2002  to view  scrutiny arrangements to include  the  President,  Vice- President, Deputy R.G.Le Hérissier and Executive Officer Designate;
3. L etter, dated26thAugust 2002, from Mr.J.A.LeFondré regarding the Committee'sproposalsforStatesmembers' remuneration;

4. L etter, dated 24th July 2002, from the Editor of the Jersey EveningPost in connexion with FreedomofInformation;
5. L etter,  dated  29th August 2002,  from  Mr. J.  Henwood regarding  the advertising in the Jersey Gazette of meetings of the Special Committeeon the CompositionandElectionof the States Assembly; and
6. M inutes, dated 14th August2002,of the Jersey1204-2004Sub-Committee of the Policy and ResourcesCommittee.

Financial Report A5.  The Committee received a financial report for the period ending 30th September as at 30.09.02/ 2002.

budget allocation

2003. It noted a balance of £10,802.11. An additional £45,000 agreed by the Finance and 1240/22/1/6/2 Economics Committee had not yet been included in this amount.

(4)

The  Committee  also  noted  correspondence,  dated  9th  September  2002,  from  the Ex.Off. President of the Policy and Resources Committee confirming that the sum of £410,000

from the funds allocated to support the machinery of government reforms had been

allocated to support the work of the Privileges and Procedures Committee in 2003.

This was made up of £80,000 to cover staff costs and a further non-staff budget of

£80,000. In addition, a sum of £250,000 had been allocated to enable arrangements for

scrutiny, subject to prior receipt of States approval of those arrangements, to be trialled

during the latter half of 2003. These funds for scrutiny trials included provision for up

to three full time equivalent secondment posts, though any increase in posts would

need to be confirmed by the Human Resources Committee.

2003 Budget A6.  The Committee received and approved the 2003 budget submission for inclusion Report narrative. in the States Budget Book for 2003.

1240/22/1/6/2

(4) The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Finance and Economics Committee for information.

Ex.Off. C.I.Aud. F.E.C.C. T.O.S.

Proposed Shadow A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A2(a) of 8th August 2002, received Scrutiny: Jersey a proposal from the College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University for a Review of Airport. Studies relating to Jersey Airport.

1080(907)

The Committee, having considered the proposal, agreed that it would be premature at Ex.Off. this stage to engage consultants in a scrutiny exercise in advance of the establishment

of a framework for scrutiny approved by the States. It was suggested that a Sub-

Committee be created in the meantime to start to look at Airport issues.

Tax Exchange A8.  The Committee noted an exchange of correspondence between the President and Agreement with the President of the Policy and Resources Committee with regard to the scrutiny of the United States major international agreements and in particular the Tax Exchange Agreement with the of America - United States of America (P.172/2002).

P.172/2002 -

Scrutiny of major The Committee noted the concern expressed by the President regarding paragraph (b) inter- of P.172/2002, namely whether the States should delegate authority to the Policy and governmental Resources Committee to enter into similar agreements in the future. The President had agreements. requested  that  paragraph  (b)  be  held  over  pending  further  consideration  by  the 603(19) Privileges and Procedures Committee and others.

1009/2/9(57)

The Committee noted that this suggestion had been accepted by the President of the Ex.Off. Policy and Resources Committee.

The Committee expressed a general concern that States members were currently not well briefed on international matters.

States members' A9.  The Committee received a summary of responses received to date from States parking members in connexion with proposals put forward by the Public Services Committee arrangements - in its Act No B12 of 27th May 2002 with regard to States members' car parking summary of arrangements.

responses.

1060/181(10) The Committee noted that a number of members had expressed very strong opinions

against the proposal for members to be charged for parking on the site behind the Ex.Off. Tourism  Department.  The  Committee  Clerk  was  requested  to  check  whether  a P.S.C.(2) commitment had been made by a previous President of the Public Services Committee Encl. that an alternative parking arrangement would be provided for States members before

the current site was cleared for development. The Clerk was also requested to check

whether any further comments had been by other States members.

The Committee agreed to send a copy of the above summary, attached as an enclosure to this Act, to the Public Services Committee.

Code of Conduct A10.  The Committee noted correspondence, dated 29th August 2002, from the Bailiff for States regarding the draft Code of Conduct for States Members.

members -

relationship with The Committee noted the suggestion made by the Bailiff that the Code should contain the Civil Service. some guidance with regard to the relationship between States Members and the Civil 1240/9/1(110) Service. It was advised that the draft Code had been amended to take account of this 792/4(20) matter.

Ex.Off. The Committee also noted that the President had sent the President of the States

Human Resources Committee an extract from Hansard in respect of the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers for possible inclusion in Civil Service Guidance as necessary.

Public Accounts A11.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A11 of 8th August 2002, noted an Committee/ exchange of correspondence between the President and the Treasurer of the States, General Auditor/ together with associated papers regarding a meeting held on 13th August 2002 in new Public which the following matters were discussed -

Finances (Jersey)

Law/ States (a) States  members' propositions  with  financial  implications - The members' Committee noted the information paper, prepared by Mr. R.E. Harris , in propositions with this respect. This paper maintained that general practice elsewhere was not financial to  allow  members' propositions  involving  public  expenditure  between implications. budgets.  The  alternatives  were adjournment  debates', as  used  in 1038(52) Westminster,  or in  principle  debates' as  previously  suggested.  The 1240/4(152) Committee recalled a monetary limit of £50,000 had been suggested by the 1240/22/1(8) Treasurer of the States. However, the Treasurer of the States had now

indicated that he was no longer minded to recommend such a limit. The Ex.Off. Committee itself favoured a limit of £250,000. The Committee expressed

concern at the increasing power of the Executive and the limitations being

proposed on the rights of backbenchers to bring propositions to the States

affecting public expenditure;

(c) P ublic Accounts Committee - The Committee received and noted a record of a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Auditor General Working Party, held on 20th September 2002, attended by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier. The Committee recalled that it had requested further clarification regarding the respective roles of scrutiny and PAC, particularly in respect of best value/value for money reviews. The above Working Party had formed strong views on the function of PAC which was to look at whether policies had been administered efficiently, economically and effectively, while scrutiny focussed on whether policies had been effective. The PAC would concentrate on the work of civil servants; scrutiny would question ministers. The Working Party was keen to avoid duplication of effort and to create a lean, efficient system. It was of the view that Scrutiny Committees would have a heavy workload with regard to the policy and legislation aspects of their responsibilities. However, the Committee felt that there was a danger of setting up artificial boundaries between the two roles of PAC and scrutiny. The Committee wished to reserve its position on this issue pending further consideration;

(c) A uditor General (or General Auditor of the States) - The Committee noted that the Working Group -

1. q uestioned whether the Committee's preferred title of General Auditor wasappropriate.The title Auditor General for Jersey (AGJ) had been suggested to avoid possible confusion with the title of Attorney General(H.M.AttorneyGeneral);
2. a greed with the proposal that the budget for the General Auditor should bevotedby the States Assembly;
3. s tressed the independence of the General Auditor. He/she would decide his/her ownprogrammeofworkand prepare reports for PAC. Scrutiny Committeeswouldpreparetheirownreports.TheGeneral Auditor was not a resource which would be made available to Scrutiny Committees;and
4. a greed that the States ofJerseyLaw should mention the General Auditor but that the detailed responsibilities for this individual should be included intheFinance Law. Thetermsof reference for PACshould be contained in the Statesof Jersey Law although the Public Finance Law should acknowledge the existence of that Committee.

(d) P ublic Finances Law - The Committee received and noted a paper prepared by Mr. R.E. Harris detailing summary proposals for the new Law, and dealing with matters of major change.

The Committee requested  that the  above Record of  the meeting  of the  PAC and Auditor General Working Party be tabled at a subsequent meeting in order for the matters raised to be given further consideration.

Role of H.M. A12. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A2 of 25th July 2002, noted an Attorney General exchange of correspondence between the President and H.M. Attorney General in in the Council of respect of the position of the Attorney General vis-à-vis the Council of Ministers and Ministers/ legal legal advice to be provided to Scrutiny Committees.

advice to

Scrutiny The Committee noted that other jurisdictions commonly had resources available to Committees. Scrutiny Committees to obtain separate legal advice, when necessary, although it was 1240/22/1/6/1 recognised that this need did not arise frequently. The Committee agreed that it was

(12) important to establish the principle that independent advice should be available to Scrutiny Committees. On occasions when a difference of opinion might arise between Ex.Off. the advice provided by the Attorney General and the advice obtained by the Scrutiny Committees this, should be clearly presented to the States as such.

The Committee agreed to invite H.M. Attorney General to attend a subsequent meeting to continue further discussion of the issue. It requested that a copy of H.M. Attorney General's letter of 1st August 2002 be tabled together with a resumé of the key points of difference between the Committee and H.M. Attorney General.

On  a  related  matter,  the  Committee  noted  a  further  exchange  of  correspondence between the President and H.M. Attorney General regarding assistance received by the Committee  from  Mr.  R.  Whitehead,  Principal  Legal  Adviser,  and  Mr.  S.  Drew, Assistant Legal Adviser, Law Officers' Department. The Committee noted that the Attorney General was pleased to be able to offer assistance to the Committee through them on general research matters. H.M. Attorney General requested the opportunity of considering  the  Committee's  proposals  on  internal  and  external  constitutional questions at some convenient time.

Machinery of A13.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A9 of 30th July 2002, gave initial Government: consideration to the report and proposition lodged au Greffe on 24th September 2002 Freedom of by Senator S. Syvret on the Machinery of Government: Freedom of Representation Representation. (P.173/2002).

(P.173/2002)

1240/22/1(12) The Committee recalled that it had made its position clear on the question of collective

responsibility, which it felt should not be prescribed by the States at this stage. It Ex.Off. recognised that individual members had differing views on the issue and decided to

defer making a comment on the projet until all members of the Committee had had the

opportunity to consider the matter.

Jersey Post: A14.  The Committee noted a letter, dated 20th August 2002, from Mr. R. Brett, Retail distribution of Development Manager, Jersey Post, regarding the distribution of electoral leaflets. election leaflets.

424/2(5) The Committee expressed concern at the high cost of the service offered by Jersey Post

to election candidates. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier said that he had raised the matter with Ex.Off. the Chief Executive of Jersey Post.

On a related matter, the Committee recalled that the House Committee had previously bought space in the Jersey Evening Post to give all election candidates an amount of free publicity. In reviewing this trial, however, that Committee had formed the view that the exercise was unnecessary as individual candidates continued to purchase their own space in addition to that purchased by the House Committee. The Committee agreed that the matter merited further consideration.

Acts of other A15. The Committee noted the following Acts of other Committees - Committees.

1. A ct No.B4, dated4thSeptember 2002, ofthe EducationCommitteein connexion with the proposed future financing of the BMI Occupational Health Scheme;
2. A ct No.B15, dated15thSeptember 2002, oftheFinanceandEconomics Committee inconnexion with the Public Finances (Administration) (Jersey) Law 1967 - preparation for a brieffor a new law;and

3. A  ct  No.B2, dated 12th  September 2002,  of the  Policy and  Resources Committee inconnexion with the Public Finances (Administration) (Jersey) Law 1967, as amended.

Date of next A16. The Committee proposed a tentative date of 23rd October 2002 commencing at 3 Meeting p.m.  for  its  next  meeting.  The  Committee  felt  strongly  that  it  should  attempt  to

establish a schedule of regular fortnightly meetings. It was suggested that Wednesday afternoons appeared to be generally acceptable to members.