PPC Minutes 10th January 2003

MH/PH/21 1

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (1st Meeting)

10th January 2003

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., from whom apologies had been received.

Senator C.G.P. Lakeman Connétable D.F. Gray Deputy C.J. Scott - Warr en Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier Deputy J-A. Bridge Deputy J.A. Bernstein

In attendance -

D.C.G. Filipponi, Assistant Greffier of the States P. Byrne, Executive Officer S. Drew, Assistant Legal Adviser M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

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

Vice-President. A1. The Committee, in pursuance of Article 31(1) of the States of Jersey Law 1966, as

amended, appointed Deputy J-A Bridge as Vice President.

First Report - A2.  The  Committee  considered  correspondence,  dated  30th  December  2002,  from comments. H.M. Attorney General, and 19th December 2002, from Mr. J.M.E Harris , Manager of 465/1(22) Government Reform, with their comments on the Committee's proposals in its First

Report and noted the following matters -

Ex.Off.

1. L aw Officers' Department (2.24 and 2.27) - The Committee noted the pointmadeby the AttorneyGeneral that, generally speaking,theexecutive decisions of the Attorney General were not susceptible to reviewthrough the scrutiny process and the call-inmechanism.Italsonoted the firm view expressed by the Attorney General that it was not the functionof a Scrutiny Paneltoreview the legal advice givento those taking executive decisions;
2. L egal advice for Scrutiny Panels - The Committee recalled that it had agreed to discuss this matter further with the Attorney Generalandnoted that hehad been invited toattend a meeting with theCommitteetobe held on  14th  February 2003 for  this  purpose.  It  was further  noted that  the President and H.M. Attorney General were tomeetProfessorJ.Jowellin Londonon14th January 2003to discuss issues relating to the independent status  of the  States  of Jersey Assembly and to  latest  developments in constitutional  reforms in  national and  local government in the United Kingdom as they related tothegovernmentreformsin Jersey;
3. Code  of  Conduct  (Appendix  XIII) - The  Committee agreed  that  the proposed CodeofConductwasdesigned for elected membersof the States,

not Crown Officers, the Lieutenant Governor of the Dean, who were unelected

members of the States;

4. M embers' facilities - The Committee agreed that further investigation was required into the possibility ofusing the groundfloorofMorierHousefor members' facilities in the event of this space being vacated by the Viscount's Department. This area might offer a cost-effective and preferable alternative to the current proposalsforrefurbishing the Registre in the States Building. The Vice-President undertook to liaise with the Director of Architecture, PublicServices Department, in this respect. The Committee, accordingly, agreed to defer consideration of the draft report and proposition of the Environment and Public Services Committee on Phase 2 oftherefurbishmentprogramme for the States Building;
5. Access to information - The Committee noted that the Legislation Committee had agreed to set up a Working Party on freedom of information and data protection issues. TheWorkingPartywould consist of H.M. Attorney General and memberswho sat jointly on the Legislation and Privileges and ProceduresCommittees,namely Senator C.G.P.Lakeman and Deputy J-A Bridge;
6. Scrutiny and resources (2.101) - The Committeenoted that the Attorney General had questioned the statement in its First report that scrutiny would be a novel experience for most members'. The Committee, however, maintained its view that scrutiny would demand a change in culture amongst States members involved in this functionand that it would be necessary to develop new investigative and analytical skills in order to progress the scrutiny function fully;
7. P ublic Accounts Committee (PAC) (2.43 and 2.44) - The Committee recalled that it neededto give urgent attention to finalising its viewsonthe relationship between Scrutiny Panels and the PAC.Theproposalsforthe PAC had been firmedup for sometimeby the PAC and AuditorGeneral WorkingParty.However, the Committee feltthat,in a small jurisdiction like Jersey, it was necessary to retain flexibility in delineating the respective roles of Scrutiny andPAC.Itwasagreed that a meeting should be arranged with the aforementioned Working Party at an early opportunity;
8. Co-optees on Scrutiny Panels (2.54) - The Committee clarified the position of possible co-opteeson Scrutiny Panels, in that it was envisaged that they would be non voting membersand that they would not, therefore, take part in decisions onbudgets and propositionstobe considered bythe States;
9. Proposed Corporate Services and Policy Scrutiny Panel (2.62) - It was clarified that this Panelwould review financial policy' (not finance' as stated inthe Report);
10. A ccommodation (2.115) - The Committee agreed that the question of whether two dedicatedrooms or just one would berequired for use by Scrutiny Panelscouldbelefttill a later date; and
11. Impact of Scrutiny and Executive response (2.117 - 2.122) - The Committee clarified that it wasintendedthat,where a Scrutiny Panel report indicated that there was a need for the States to debate a certain issue

arising from one  of its reviews,  the Scrutiny Panel itself would promote  the

relevant report and proposition. However, it was not expected that each report from a Scrutiny Panel would necessarily require a debate in the States. Should any individual member be dissatisfied with the response of the Executive to a Scrutiny review on any particular issue, it remained their right to move a proposition to debate the issue.

The Executive Officer was requested to reply to both of the above letters indicating the Committee's response to their comments.

Proposed A3.  The  Committee  received  correspondence,  dated  7th  January  2002,  from  the Question Time' President of the Policy and Resources Committee, regarding a proposal to hold a regular in the States. Question  Time' in  the  States,  during  which  members  could  ask  questions  of  the 1240/4(155) President of the Policy and Resources Committee with or without prior notice.

C.E., P&R The Committee noted that the above proposal had arisen following the success of the P.R.E.O. recent open question forum in the States for the election of the President of the Policy P.R.C.C. and  Resources  Committee.  The  Policy  and  Resources  Committee  had  considered Ex.Off. whether this practice should be extended to enhance the movement towards more open

government and, in advance of the development of the new scrutiny functions, to allow a more  structured  and  frequent  scrutiny  of  current  issues  with  which  the  Policy  and Resources Committee was dealing.

The  Committee  welcomed  the  positive  suggestion  of  the  Policy  and  Resources Committee, which it felt might be considered courageous', but formed the view that it should be considered in the broader context of a general review of procedures governing the  conduct  of  Questions  in  the  States  Assembly.  The  Committee  recalled,  with reference to Act No. A3 of 17th September 2001 of the House Committee, that that Committee had had an extensive discussion with the Bailiff on this issue and requested that the Minutes of that discussion be circulated for information to members of the current Privileges and Procedures Committee. It also suggested that an open session, in which  States  members  might  be  given  the  opportunity  to  question  the  Policy  and Resources Committee on its policies, might be instituted as a regular feature of meetings of that Committee.

The  Committee  directed  the  Executive  Officer  to  send  a  letter  of  response  to  the President of the Policy and Resources Committee on behalf of the Committee.

Indemnity for A4. The Committee considered a request from Deputy T.J. Le Main that arrangements States members. should  be  put  in  place  to  cover  States  members  against  litigation  from  someone 1240/9/1(90) dissatisfied with a political decision.

Ex.Off. The Committee, with reference to Act No. B1 of 13th December 2000 of the House

Committee, recalled that this matter had previously been considered by that Committee and that H.M. Attorney General had given advice in a letter, dated 3rd October 2000, which, in summary, was as follows -

1. d ecisionswere generally takenbyStatesCommitteesandnot individual States members, and, therefore, any legal action that might arise would normally be taken against theCommitteeandnotthe individual. However, the position might be differentifan action wastaken against an individual member alleging  malice,  although  this  would  be an extremely high threshold for a would be litigant;

2. s hould a States memberface individual legal action brought by a memberof the public, the LawOfficers' Departmentwouldmake itself available to advise and represent that individual ifhe/shesowished.However,should the States decide,in such a case arising, to take action against a member accused of dishonesty or malice under Standing Ordersof the States of Jersey, the LawOfficers' Department should beon hand toadviseand represent the States rather than the individual. Similar difficulties would also exist in such caseswhere conflicts ofinterestarise between a States memberand a States Committee,orStates' departmentalOfficers,where it would notbepossible to represent either party.Therefore,itwas not tobe assumed that legal assistance wasalways available to States members;
3. insurance  policies,  although  not a  matter for the involvement  of H.M. Attorney  General, might  be  able  to  be taken  out by  individual States membersprovidingcover for legalfees incurred by a memberindefending him/herself. Additional insurance would need to be considered in relation to the typeofcase that might give risetoanawardof damages, andif such a casewas likely to occur;
4. t here would be a reluctance by the Law Officers' Department to assist States memberswhowishedto bring theirown proceedings as defamation proceedings  might end up,  if brought unsuccessfully, with  the  States considering action under Standing Ordersof the States of Jersey against the memberconcerned.For the reasons stated in (b)above, the LawOfficers' Departmentwould need tomake itself available to the States. In addition, as  the  resources of the Law Officers' Department were  under severe pressure, it would be inappropriate to putthe private interest ofindividual membersaheadofthepublic interest.

The Committee was of the view that it would be difficult to ascertain the value and cost of a relevant insurance policy, as legal proceedings against States members occurred very infrequently in Jersey. Furthermore, it was considered important that any insurance cover  should  not  be  seen  as  providing  indemnity  against  possible  unreasonable behaviour on the part of States members. It agreed that the retained States insurance adviser, Mr. N. Tibbo, should be requested to give advice on the matter. The Executive Officer was directed to contact Mr. Tibbo accordingly and to advise Deputy Le Main that the Committee was taking advice on his proposal.

Induction A5. The Committee, with reference to Act No. A6, dated 29th November 2002, of the Programme for Committee as previously constituted, received an oral report from the Vice-President on new States a meeting which had taken place on 7th January 2003 with representatives of the local members. media as part of the induction programme for States members.

1240/9/1(26)

The Committee was advised that the meeting had been considered very worthwhile but Ex.Off. was disappointed to note that the BBC had been unable to send any representative. The

Committee requested that, in view of the important role played by the BBC in the

island's political life, the BBC should be requested to suggest alternative opportunities

for new States members to meet journalists working on both BBC radio and television in

order that members might become more aware of the protocols and benefits of working

closely with these arms of the media.

The Executive Officer was directed to write to the Managing Director, BBC Radio Jersey, accordingly.

Development of A6.  The  Committee  considered  how  the  Scrutiny  Function  might  be  trialled  over

trial Scrutiny coming months in advance of the formal establishment of Scrutiny Panels.

function.

1240/22/1(9) The Committee was mindful that any trial system should be well planned and well

resourced. The objective of a trial system would be to enable States members and Ex.Off. officers supporting the work to start to acquire the skills necessary for effective scrutiny

so that a robust framework could be in place to complement the Executive arm of

government once the new ministerial system was established in 2005. The Committee

recognised that any shadow Scrutiny Panel set up under current circumstances would not

be reviewing the ministerial system for which Scrutiny was devised. Nor had the full

powers which would eventually be available to Scrutiny Panels yet been decided in

advance of a redrafted States of Jersey Law. The Committee, however, agreed that it

should  still  be  possible  to  establish  a  simplified  set  of  rules  of  engagement  on  a

voluntary basis to enable effective shadow Scrutiny Panels to operate.

It was proposed that the States should be requested initially to establish two shadow Scrutiny  Panels,  one  reviewing  a  Department  and  another  looking  at  a  cross- departmental policy issue. There was some initial discussion on whether one of the new merged departments, such as Education, Sport and Culture, might be the focus of a review, or an established department initiating internal changes, such as Health and Social Services. The Committee agreed to give the matter further consideration at its Strategic Policy meeting on 17th January 2003.

The Committee noted that the Policy and Resources Department had requested the return of Mrs J. Bourke, Administrator, from her secondment to the Privileges and Procedures Committee. The President and Vice-President undertook to speak to the President of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding continuing support for the Committee.

The President agreed to make a statement at the first sitting of the States Assembly in 2003 regarding the Committee's plans for trialling scrutiny. He would also make a progress statement on the work on the Committee's Second Report

Matters for A7. The Committee noted the following matters for information -

information.

1. that  the   Bailiff  had been invited  to  attend  the  next  meeting  of the Committee, to be held on 24th January 2003, to discuss his concerns in respect  of certain constitutional  issues' raised  by the  Committee's proposals on States members' remuneration contained in its report and proposition  (P.238/2002). The Committee  agreed that  it would defer requesting a date for a debate in the Statesfor its proposition pending that meeting. In this connexion, the Committee alsonoted the viewsof Deputy T.J. LeMain,who had proposed that the levelofremuneration for States membersshouldbefrozen at current levels in view of the reduction in workload  brought about by the decrease  in  the number of States Committees;
2. c orrespondencereceived from former Deputy D.R.Maltwoodregarding the entrance  to  the  Public  Gallery  in  the  States  Building. The Committee agreed that this area needed to be cleaned upandendorsed the suggestion that glazedscreening would provide a more acceptable entrance for the public. The Executive Officer  was requested  to approach the Assistant Director, Design and Conservation, Planning andEnvironmentDepartment for adviceon this matter in the first instance;
3. c orrespondence,dated2nd January 2003, from the former Deputy K.W. Syvret, M.B.E., previously President of the Special Committeetoconsider the Relationship betweenCommittees and the States, together with various

correspondence from members of the Administrative Review Board. The

Committee, mindful that it had assumed the responsibilities of the above Special Committee, requested that a paper be prepared regarding the terms of reference, functions and procedures for appointment of the Administrative Appeals Panel;

4. c opyofBirmingham City CouncilMediaOfficerJobDescription;
5. correspondence from Channel Television and the Jersey Evening Post regarding their phone connexions to the StatesChamber. It wasnoted that the BBC had chosennotto accept theCommittee'soffertopay for their phone connexion, preferring to affirm its independence;
6. D eputy J. A. Bernstein undertook to look into alternative provision for sandwiches for the Committee;
7. A ct No.A5,dated 29th November 2002, of the Finance and Economics Committee inconnexionwith the Privileges and ProceduresCommittee' report and proposition on States members' remuneration; and
8. A ct No.B12, dated 29th November2002,oftheFinanceandEconomics Committee inconnexion with funding for Phase II of the States Building works.

Dates of meetings A8. The Committee approved the following dates for future meetings - 2003.

1. 1 7th January 2003 - Strategic Policy meeting, commencingat 8 a.m. in the Regency Room,GrandHotel, St. Helier ;
2. 2 4th January 2003, commencingat12noon, in the HalkettRoom,Morier House, including a meeting with the Bailiff ;
3. 7 th February 2003, commencingat 12 noon, in the Halkett Room,Morier House;and
4. 1 4th February 2003,commencing at 2.30 p.m., in the Halkett Room,Morier House, to meetH.M.AttorneyGeneral.