PPC Minutes 11th July 2003

MH/KAK/211  81

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (15th Meeting)

11th July 2003

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy J-A. Bridge, from whom apologies had been received.

Senator C.G.P. Lakeman Connétable D.F. Gray Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. Deputy C.J. Scott - Warr en Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier Deputy J.A. Bernstein

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Greffier of the States

Mrs. A.H. Harris , Deputy Greffier of the States

R.W. Whitehead, Principal Legal Adviser, Law Officers' Department D. Woodside, Legal Adviser (for a time) Mrs J. Marshall, Senior Executive Officer

Miss F. Agnès, Executive Officer

M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk R. Halsey, Research Assistant

Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A and Part B.

Minutes A1.  The Minutes of the meeting held on 30th May 2003, having been previously

circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Reports presented A2.  The Committee, having noted the recent public announcement by Senator E.P. to the States. Vibert  regarding  a Waste  Watch' Campaign,  which  included  criticism  of 465/1(36) departmental reports produced in glossy formats, recalled that it had considered this

matter at its previous meeting (reference Act No A5). The Executive Officer was requested  to  forward  a  copy  of  the  President's  memorandum  on  this  subject  to Senator Vibert .

Machinery of A3.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 30th May 2003, received a Government: report,  dated  7th  July  2003,  from  the  Senior  Executive  Officer,  regarding  the Establishment of amendments  to  its  Report  and  Proposition  (P.79/2003)  on  the  establishment  of Scrutiny Panels Scrutiny Panels and Public Accounts Committee, proposed by Senator S. Syvret and and Public Deputy J.L. Dorey.

Accounts

Committee The President apprised the Committee of an informal meeting, held on 27th June (P.79/2003) - 2003, with Deputy Dorey, with the Vice President in attendance, to discuss the Proposed Deputy 's amendments. The Committee agreed that it was minded to maintain its amendments. position on the main points of Deputy Dorey's amendments, namely -

502/1(7)

502/1(9) (a) The  creation  of  a  dedicated  legislation  Scrutiny  Panel - The

Committee  was  opposed  to  this  amendment  on  the  basis  that  scrutiny  of Ex.Off. legislation would be more meaningful if there was a connexion between Pub.Ed. consideration  of  policy  and  relevant  legislation.  It  felt  that  a  panel States (2) dealing solely with legislation would have a very narrow legal/technical role;

2. Areas  of  Scrutiny  Panel  responsibility - The  Committee rejected Deputy  Dorey's suggestion that  its  designation of Scrutiny  Panel responsibilities was an approach rooted in the old silo mentality'. In its view, its own proposed division between the fourPanels would give Panels a remit which would enable them to cross the boundaries of various  Ministries,  and,  at the  same time, would  allow members to develop an expertise and knowledgeofbroadpolicy areas;
3. T he role of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) - The Committee believed  that, although  there was some overlap  in  the proposed membershipof the PACand the Chairmen'sCommittee,eachbody had a  distinctive  role  to  play.  The PAC would be considering matters relating to financial control, value for money andcorporategovernance, and would receive reports from theComptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The Chairmen's Committee, on the  other hand, would be responsible for co-ordinating the operation of the scrutiny functionand would  ensure  that the  work of the PAC and  Scrutiny  Panels complemented  rather  than  duplicated  each other.  The Chairmen's Committee would contain twoadditionalmembers to make clear it was not the PAC.

T h e Committee considered a further amendment proposed by Deputy

Dorey to delete paragraph d(v) of the proposition (regarding the power of the PAC to hold hearings, send for persons, papers and records and report to the States on the outcome of such hearings) on the grounds that it was a duplication of paragraph (f) which referred to the power of both the Scrutiny Panels and the PAC to call for relevant papers or records and to require people to attend before them. The Committee agreed that there  was  some  duplication  but  decided  that  d(v)  was  required  to balance b(i) which gave Scrutiny Panels the power to report to the States with appropriate recommendations. The Committee decided to reject the amendment accordingly.

The Committee noted the amendment of Senator S. Syvret which sought to introduce a call-in' mechanism with the initial establishment of the scrutiny function. The Committee recalled that it had given extensive reasons why call-in' should not be introduced straightaway and saw no reason to change its mind. The Committee also noted  the  comments  of  the  Policy  and  Resources  Committee  on  the  proposed amendments and agreed that they were very helpful.

The Committee welcomed Deputy Dorey to the meeting to discuss his proposed amendments, as follows -

1. The  creation of  a  dedicated  Legislation  Scrutiny  Panel - Deputy Dorey expressed  the view  that  there  were insufficient  numbers of memberswho were interested in real scrutiny of legislation. This had often been handled badly in the States. Hefelt that therewas a need for a  consistent  approach which would be better  encouraged  through  a dedicated  Scrutiny  Panel. The Committee, however, maintained  that States membersdid not require technical expertise in law drafting to

properly scrutinise legislation. Their focus, rather, should be on ensuring that

the law fulfilled the policy intent;

2. Areas of Scrutiny Panel responsibility - Deputy Doreywasconcerned that, if the terms of reference ofeach Scrutiny Panel were closely linked to ministerial portfolios, therewas a danger that the relationship with the Executive would becometooadversarial and that the concept of critical friend' would be diluted. Therewasalso the possibility that someareas of government would be ignored if they fell between the remit of different Panels. Deputy Dorey favoured a more generalist approach whereby Scrutiny Panel would be able totroubleshoot' in anyareas they chose. The Committee, however, believed that there were, on balance, advantages in enablingmembersto develop a policy expertise, albeit within a broad area of responsibility;
3. T he role of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) - Deputy Dorey was of the view that, asthemembershipof the PACand the Chairmen's Committee wouldbe practically identical, therewas a riskofconfusion and delay. He felt that the Chairmen's Committee was a gratuitous additional layer of bureaucracy. In his view, the Privileges and Procedures Committee shouldassumeresponsibility for overseeing the allocation of resources to the Scrutiny function. The Committee, however, did not believe that the PAC should beseenasresponsible for co-ordinating theworkof Scrutiny Panels. ThePAC would have its own audit priorities andshould meet entirely separately from the Chairmen's Committee. Scrutiny Panels hadtodecide their own priorities andnot appear to be driven by the auditfunction. It also believed that itwas important for the funding allocation for Scrutiny Panel to beseparate from the Privileges and ProceduresCommittee.This Committee should remain the Committee for the whole Assembly.Itwould contain both Executive and non-Executivemembers.Thereshouldbenohint of the Executive unduly influencing Scrutiny Panels in their choice of investigations.

S e n ator P.F.C. Ozouf joined the meeting at this point to discuss this

amendment. In his view, it was essential to maintain the distinctive roles of the PAC, who would investigate the implementation of policy, and the Scrutiny Panels, who would focus on the development and relevance of policy. This distinction had been a matter of much discussion between the PAC and Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Working Party and the Privileges and Procedures Committee, which had felt initially that the boundaries between the two functions were being drawn too strictly. The Working Party and the Privileges and Procedures Committee had now come to a common understanding of the respective roles. Senator Ozouf , therefore was opposed to Deputy Dorey's amendment which, in his view, blurred the proper distinction.

D e p uty Dorey expressed the view that the role of the PAC had been

poorly explained to States members. The fact that the final report of the above Working Party had not been published was a significant omission. He went on to express his view that States members had not been given sufficient time properly to study the Scrutiny proposals given the short time between the lodging of P.79/2003 on 10th June 2003 and the States debate to be held on 22nd July 2003. Ironically, he felt, there was little opportunity to scrutinise the Scrutiny proposals.

T h e Committee, having been advised that the Finance and Economics

Committee  would  have  no  objection  to  the  release  of  the  Working Party's  report,  agreed  that  the  report  should  be  circulated  to  States members as soon as possible, together with a covering note summarising the Committee's own position and decision-making in this regard. As to the timing of the debate on the Scrutiny function, the Committee pointed to the need to comply with a tight timescale for the production of the new States of Jersey Law.

S e n ator Ozouf suggested that, in order to promote further understanding

of  the  respective  roles,  it  was  important  that  the  current  Audit Commission  should  evolve  in  the  short  term  into  a shadow' PAC alongside the proposed shadow' scrutiny panels. This would entail the appointment of States members to gradually take over the role currently played by external members of the Audit Commission. The Committee was supportive of this proposal.

The Committee thanked Deputy Dorey and Senator Ozouf for their comments on P.79/2003 before they left the meeting.

The Committee requested the Senior Executive Officer to finalise its comments on the amendments proposed by Senator Syvret and Deputy Dorey. It delegated agreement  of  the  final  comments  to   Deputy  R.G.  Le  Hérissier  before  their presentation to the States on 15th July 2003.

Remuneration A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A4 of 30th May 2003, received a Sub-Committee - report,  dated  7th  July  2003,  from  the  Greffier  of  the  States  regarding  the recommend- recommendations  of  the  Remuneration  Sub-Committee  in  connexion  with  the ations. establishment  of  an  independent  States  Members  Remuneration  Review  Body, 1240/3(70) together with two draft propositions and a draft advertisement seeking expressions of

interest for membership of the Body.

Ex.Off.

The  Committee  noted  that  the  Sub-Committee  had  made  the  following recommendations -

1. A bolition of the existing means-tested system of remuneration to be replaced with a standardlevelofremuneration available to all members irrespective  of  income from  other sources. The Sub-Committee recommended that  this  should be  done before the  proposed  Review Body began work so that the Bodyshouldbeawareof the parameters within which it wasworking.

T h e Committee was mindful of the current budgetary restraints in States

finances and the possible public perception that members were treating themselves as a special case. However, it was also cognisant of the long delays in addressing this matter, which had also been the subject of work undertaken by the House Committee before the establishment of the  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee. It  agreed  that  it  was important, in terms of equity, to pursue the principle of a standard level of remuneration available to all members.

T h e Committee was of the opinion that the effective date of this change should be backdated to 1st January 2003. The Executive Officers were requested to enter into a dialogue with the Treasury on this matter. In addition,  the  Executive  Officers  were  requested  to  discuss  with  the Treasury its proposals for changing the system of payment from the

existing system of payment in advance to one of payment in arrears in line with

States payroll system.

T h e  Committee  requested  that  the  proposition  should  include  a

mechanism for regularly updating the agreed level of remuneration in line with the current system of annual increases according to the Jersey Retail Price Index, minus 0.5 per cent.

T h e Committee, with reference to its Act No. A1 of 14th February 2003,

recalled its discussion with the Comptroller of Income Tax regarding the level of expenses allowable against tax without formal documentation. It requested  its  officers  to  pursue  with  the  Employment  and  Social Security  Department  the  matter  of  double  taxation  relating  to  the reimbursement of Class 2 Social Security payments;

2. S ame level of remuneration for all members - the Sub-Committee recommended that  all  members, irrespective  of any  positions  of responsibility, should receive the samelevelofremuneration, both in the existing  system and under the future  ministerial system. The Committee, however, felt that this matter which should be referred to the proposed Review Body.
3. T erms of reference and proposed membership of the Review Body - The Committeenoted the drafttermsof reference recommended by the Sub-Committee. It was of the opinion, however, that these were too tightly drawnand prescriptive, appearing to dictate the findings of the Review Body. The Committee decided to refer the matter back to the Sub-Committee.

I t w as advised that Senator E.P. Vibert had informally approached a

number of people regarding possible membership of this Body. The Committee, however, felt that fresh thinking was requiring regarding the membership  of  such  a  Body.  It  agreed  that  the  States  should  be requested to approve the principle of a Review Body without specific names being identified in the Proposition.

The Committee requested that the draft Propositions be amended accordingly and  that  accompanying  Reports  be  prepared  for  consideration  at  its  next meeting,  with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of  the  Review  Body  early  in  the Autumn session.

Indemnity for A5.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A4  of  10th  January  2003, States Members. recalled that it had received a request from Deputy T.J. Le Main to consider what 1240/9/1(90) arrangements should be put in place to provide indemnity for States members in the

event that they should find it necessary to defend themselves in a legal dispute. The Ex.Off. Committee  received  a  report,  prepared  by  the  former  Executive  Officer,  Mr. A.G. P.  Byrne, in this connexion.

The Committee recalled the advice given by the Attorney General when consulted in 2000 by the then House Committee on the same matter [Act No. B1, dated 13th November 2000 refers], the key points of which were, as follows -

1. l egal advicewouldbe provided to members when defendingthemselves against an action broughtby a memberofthepublicwhen that member was acting in his orhercapacity as a Statesmember;

2. e xceptions to the above would beifthere was an allegation ofdishonesty or malicesuchas would give riseto the possibility of action takenby the States thereafter under Standing Orders, or where there was a conflictof interest,  such  as a  dispute  between  a  member and  a  government department;
3. l egal assistance would not be provided to enable a member to bring proceedings against an individual in the eventof a claim of slander or libel, this being viewedasan individual private matter for members.

On the question of insurance cover, it was noted that the States' insurers currently provided cover for negligent or accidental breaches of duty, with an excess payable of £250,000. The Committee was of the opinion that such an excess rendered the insurance cover largely worthless. It felt that the public purse should provide that cover if it was ever necessary. The Committee noted that it was possible to provide alternative forms of insurance cover on an individual basis but felt that this would relate in reality to a member's private capacity and was therefore unlikely to be supported from public funds.

The Committee recognised the difficulty in determining in individual cases whether legal action was taken as a result of an individual's position as a States member or in their private capacity. However, it expressed the view that it was not always apparent why legal advice was afforded by the Law Officers Department in some cases and not in others. The Committee considered two recent cases involving civil servants who had felt that their professionalism had been defamed. One had received legal assistance and the other had not. The Committee requested the Law Officer's Department  to  provide  guidance  to  members  and  officers  on  the  extent  of assistance that might or might not be provided with regard to indemnity, legal advice and defamation.

The President undertook to write to Deputy Le Main in order to clarify the sort of arrangements he was seeking and advising him of the findings contained in the above report.

Public Right of A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A6 of 4th April 2003, and with Access to Mr.  D.  Woodside,  Legal  Adviser,  Law  Officers' Department  in  attendance, Information, considered its revised draft comments on the report and proposition of Deputy A. Financial and Breckon on Public Right of Access to Information, Financial and other records of the other records of States of Jersey (P.34/2003).

the States of

Jersey - The Committee approved the draft, subject to certain textual revisions, and comments on requested that they be presented to the States in due course.

P.34/2003 of

Deputy A. The Committee requested that a copy of the finalised comments be sent to Deputy Breckon Breckon in advance of their publication.

1240/1/2(18)

955(29)

Ex.Off. Pub.Ed. States (2)

States Assembly: A7.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A11  of  30th  May  2003, Future Budgetary considered  correspondence,  dated  9th  June  2003  and  20th  June  2003,  from  the Arrangements. Presidents of the Policy and Resources and Finance and Economics Committees 465/2(5) respectively, regarding future budgetary arrangements for the States Assembly.

1240/22(31)

The Committee noted that it was proposed that the budget for the States Greffe, Ex.Off. together with those for States members' income support and expenses allowances, T.O.S. the  Commonwealth  Parliamentary  Association  (CPA)  and  the  Assemblée C.I.Aud. Parliamentaire de la Francophonie should be transferred to its responsibility. The F.E.C.C. Committee agreed that it welcomed the principle of these transfers which would C.E., P&R go some way towards achieving the objective of establishing one budget for all P.R.E.O. costs associated with operating the States Assembly as a legislature.

P.R.C.C.

A.G.O.S. The Committee considered a draft letter of response to the President of the Finance

and Economics Committee outlining certain matters to be raised with that Committee before giving final approval. The Committee noted, in particular, the matter of the proposed British Islands and Mediterranean Region Conference of the CPA, which was due to be held in the Island in 2005. As the estimated costs of this function were likely to be substantial (in the region of £100,000), the Committee agreed to seek re- assurance from the Finance and Economics Committee that requests to meet these exceptional costs would be considered sympathetically.

The Committee approved the draft letter accordingly. The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Finance and Economics and Policy and Resources Committees for information.

Finance and A8.  The  Committee  received  correspondence,  dated  12th  June  2003,  from  the Economics Treasurer of the States relating to funding for pay awards for June 2002 and 2003. Committee: Pay

awards The Committee agreed to accept additional funding in the sum of £3,900 for the 2002/2003 effect of these pay awards and requested the Executive Officers to take the necessary 465/3(2) action.

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

Authorised A9.  The Committee approved the Executive Officers, Mrs Janet Marshall and Miss signatories. Fiona Agnès, as authorised signatories for the payment of Committee invoices and 465/1(3) accounts.

C.I.Aud. The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the States T.O.S. Treasurer accordingly.

Matters for A10.  The Committee noted the following matters for information - information

1. t hat the President, with DeputiesF.J.Hill and J.A. Bernstein, would meet Senator  W. Kinnard  and other members of the  Working Party on Tribunals onFriday 18th July 2003;
2. c orrespondence with the OfficeoftheLieutenant Governor regarding a proposal to abolish the LieutenantGovernor'spowerof veto in the new States of Jersey Law;
3. Q uarterly Financial Reportfor the period ending 30th June2003;
4. N  otes of the second meeting of the Freedomof Information Working Party, dated 13th June2003;

5. a revised report, prepared by the Deputy Greffierof the States, regarding proposed measures to improve the implementation of the Code of Practice on Public access to Information.Inthe absence of the Vice President the matter was referred totheWorkingPartyon Freedom of Information for consideration;
6. c orrespondence,dated 16th June 2003, from Deputy J.L.Dorey relating to States members' access to Committee Minutes;
7. c orrespondence,dated 29th May 2003, from the Presidentof the Policy and ResourcesCommitteeregardinghisCommittee'scommentson the Consultation Paper on Freedomof Information (R.C.15/2003);
8. report of Chairman of Jersey 1204-2004 Sub-Committee, dated 15th May2003;
9. c orrespondence,dated28thMay 2003, from theSales and Marketing Director, Jersey Post, concerning Political Mailing;
10. c orrespondence, dated 10th June2003, from Deputy G.C.L. Baudains regarding the frequency ofmeetings called in thelunchhour;
11. c orrespondence,dated 25th June 2003, from the Chief Executive, States Human Resources Department, regarding the accountability of civil servants; and
12. th e date ofthe next meeting to take placeon Friday 25th July 2003, in the HalkettRoom,MorierHouse,commencingat9.30a.m.

Acts of other A11. The Committee noted the following Acts of other Committees - Committees.

1. Act No A11 dated the 1st May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee inconnexion with the progress of machineryofGovernment reforms.
2. Act No A12 dated the 1st May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee in connexion with the review ofTribunals;
3. Act No A2 dated the 29th May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee in connexionwiththe future budgetary arrangements for the States Assembly;
4. Act No A3 dated the 29th May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee in connexion with its commentson the RC.15/2003;
5. Act No A4 dated the 29th May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee in connexion with the establishment of a Machinery of GovernmentReformssteeringgroup;
6. A ct No A5 dated the 29th May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee in connexion with Scrutiny arrangements;
7. Act No A6 dated the 29th May 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee in connexion with a proposed question time';

8. Act No A10 dated 18th June 2003 of the Finance and Economics Committee in connexion with the summaryof current manpowerpolicy;
9. A ct NoA26dated24thApril 2003 of the Home Affairs Committee in connection with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme;maximum level of compensation;
10. A ct NoA4 dated 1st May 2003 oftheEmploymentand Social Security Committee in connexion with their commentson the RC15/2003;and
11. A ct No 3 dated 10th June2003 of the CommonwealthParliamentary Association inconnexion with its budget.