PPC Minutes 14th November 2003

MH/PH/329 133

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (21st Meeting)

14th November 2003

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Senator C.G.P. Lakeman, from whom apologies had been received.

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. Bridge Deputy J.A. Bernstein

In attendance -

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

Mrs. A.H. Harris , Deputy Greffier of the States Mrs. J. Marshall, Senior Executive Officer Miss F. Agnès, Executive Officer S. Drew, Assistant Legal Adviser M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

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

Minutes. A1.  The Minutes of the meeting held on 31st October 2003, 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

31st October 2003 -

1. A ct No. A8(j) - States members' parking - that a draft letter had been received  from  the  President,  Environment and Public  Services Committee  setting  out the  proposed  trial  arrangements for  States members parking. Itwas agreed that it wasnot the role of the Executive Officers to deal with comments and possible complaints from States members on any problems associated with the trial arrangements. The Senior  Executive Officer  was requested  to liaise  with  the Chief Executive, Public Services Committee, with a view to amending the draft letter accordingly;
2. A ct No A3 - Shadow Scrutiny - The Vice President raised her concern that  Shadow Scrutiny  would  commence without establishing  the protection of privilege for witnesses. Shefelt that this might lead to a tendency for  witnesses to  seek legal advice  in relation  to their appearance before a Shadow Scrutiny Panel.Itwas pointed out that the lack  of powers bestowed on Shadow Panels would  give  reluctant witnesses the option ofrefusingan invitation to attend a Scrutiny Panel hearing  if  they  felt  uneasy about the  process. Furthermore,  it was

suggested that Chief Officers should know the extent to which they could

answer  the  Scrutiny  Panel's  questions  without  compromising themselves. In the case of middle ranking officers, Chief Officers would normally  attend  to  advise  their  subordinates.  The  issue  would  be addressed  in  the  training  programme  which  would  be  provided  for officers who might be called before a Scrutiny Panel. It was agreed that clear advice about this issue should be given  in Guidance Notes to Witnesses. The Committee also requested that every effort should be made to make provisions within the States of Jersey Law 1966 as soon as possible for the establishment of privilege as a protection for witnesses before Shadow Scrutiny Panels.

States Building - A3.  The Committee considered a report, dated 10th November 2003, from the Ground Floor Executive Officer, regarding a request that Committee Room 2, States Building, be Committee Room transferred to the occupancy of the Jurats for their full time and long term use. In this

- request to connexion, the Committee also received Jurat J. De Veulle and Mr. R. McLoughlin, transfer to Jurats. Chief Officer, Bailiff 's Chambers, and toured the current facilities afforded the Jurats 1060/5/1(27) and those set out for States members.

E.P.S.C.(2) The Committee was apprised of the current unsatisfactory arrangements whereby the Ex.Off. Jurats were obliged to pass the cells and use the same corridor as the defendants and Bailiff their family/friends, often having to confront prisoners and their families whom they

have just sentenced. This had been assessed by the States of Jersey Police as a serious security problem. A further issue was the fact that the Court of Appeal met in the Old Library thus cutting off on a regular basis one route from the current Jurats' Room to the  Royal Court.  The  Jurats had  experienced the  current  arrangements  for three months and had reached the conclusion that the current arrangements could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly they were seeking a suitable room in the States Building close to the Court which would obviate the identified difficulties. The room would be required on a full time basis and could not be shared with other users. Committee Room 2 had been identified as an ideal solution. It was suggested that a reciprocal arrangement might be reached to compensate States members for the loss of this room through shared use of the rooms designated as the Remote Witness Room on the Ground Floor and the Witness Room next to the States members Coffee Room on the First Floor.

The Committee expressed its sympathy for the situation in which the Jurats found themselves.  It  was  conscious,  however,  that  it  was  important  to  meet  the requirements of the future Scrutiny Panels which were to meet in the two designated Committee Rooms. These meetings needed to be accessible to the public and set up with  appropriate  recording  facilities.  Neither  of  the  two  rooms  offered  in compensation would meet these requirements. The Committee agreed that it could not contemplate transferring one of these Committee Rooms before it had even started the Shadow Scrutiny process.

The Committee considered an alternative suggestion, namely the transfer of the room designated as the States Members' Quiet Room. The Committee, however, decided not to approve this suggestion on the same grounds as above, namely that it was necessary to monitor and assess the provision of rooms for States members in the light of experience and that no rooms should be permanently transferred to other users at this stage. The Committee accordingly agreed to advise the Jurats that it could not comply with their request at this stage.

The Committee was also mindful of the draft report and proposition on the use and allocation  of  rooms  in  the  States  Building,  which  the  Environment  and  Public Services Committee intended to lodge au Greffe' on 18th November 2003. The Committee was supportive of the projet but decided to request the Environment and Public Services to delay lodging it to enable the Jurats, if they so wished, to approach that Committee with its proposal for transferring the occupancy of Committee Room 2. In the event that the Environment and Public Services Committee agreed to amend the draft projet to accede to the Jurats' request, the Committee resolved that it would seek to amend the projet to maintain the current proposed designation of rooms. In the meantime, the Committee agreed that the order for furniture for the rooms should proceed.

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

Fundamental A4.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A6  of  31st  October  2003, Spending Review considered a report, dated 11th November 2003, from the Assistant Greffier of the

- growth States  regarding  its  proposed  growth  submissions  as  part  of  the  2005-2007 proposals Fundamental Spending Review process.

2005-2007.

422/10/1(71) The Committee considered and approved the following growth proposals for

2005,  the  majority  of  which  coincided  with  the  introduction  of  ministerial Ex.Off. government -

A.G.O.S.

T.O.S. Members' Income Supplement £ 7 6 0 ,0 0 0

C.I.Aud. States Building (occupier charges) £  8 2 , 5 0 0

F.E.C.C. Scrutiny     £ 1 ,2 0 5 , 0 0 0    

Public Accounts Committee    £ 3 8 0 , 0 0 0

Hansard     £ 1 5 7 ,5 0 0     Commonwealth Parliamentary Association £  6 0,000

(one-off cost: hosting 2005 regional conference)

Total     £ 2 , 6 4 4 ,5 0 0  

In addition, the Committee approved the following proposed bids for the years 2006 and 2007, in respect of the States Building occupier charges -

2006 £  92,000 (over and above that submitted for 2005) 2007 £190,000 (over and above that submitted for 2006)

The  Committee  recalled  that  it  had  considered  savings  proposals  under  the Fundamental Spending Review process at its previous meeting but  had deferred approval subject to an approach to be made by the President to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee to treat the Committee as a special case in view of the substantial impact of those savings proposals during a period of significant change  resulting  from  the  Machinery  of  Government  reforms. The  Committee, having been advised that such an approach was most unlikely to be successful, approved the proposed package of savings proposals.

The Committee, having agreed to inform the Finance and Economics Committee of its savings and growth proposals, requested the Assistant Greffier of the States to prepare  the  necessary  documentation  under  the  Fundamental  Spending  Review process.

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

Administrative A5.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A6  of  25th  April  2003, Appeals System/ considered a report, prepared by the Greffier of the States, in relation to the current Ombudsman. operation of the Administrative Appeals System and its possible replacement with an 1386/2(71) ombudsman  system,  as  referred  to  in  the  Report  of  the  Review  Panel  on  the 465/1(30) Machinery of Government (Clothier report) and subsequently in a draft proposition

from Deputy Breckon.

Ex.Off.

G.O.S. The Committee was advised that the Ombudsman system in the United Kingdom was

considered  to  be  an  effective  complaints  mechanism  yet,  of  18,376  complaints submitted to the English Local Government Ombudsman in 2002/2003, only 3,880 obtained remedies (21.11 per cent). In Jersey, in contrast, the current Administrative Appeals  system  was  considered  weak  and  ineffectual,  although  the  figures  for successful  appeals  were  not  significantly  different  from  the  United  Kingdom Ombudsman. There was a general perception in the Island that the findings of the Board were often ignored by Committees and Departments, with no clear follow up procedure when the findings of Boards were not implemented. Furthermore, the role of the Greffier appeared to compromise the independence of the process from the States.

The Committee considered the suggestion by some Committees that the findings of the  Board  had  not  always  been  based  on  a  full  knowledge  of  the  policies  and procedures  of  the  Committee  concerned.  It  appeared  that  on  many  occasions, complainants were testing policy rather than maladministration. It was also suggested that, at times, the Boards had found against Committees because the Committees had failed to make a clear explanation of the policy context. It was recognised that the new Scrutiny system should give a more effective outlet to challenging Committee policies, which would, in turn, enable the Board to focus on the rights and wrongs of particular  decisions  taken  by  Committees  as  they  affected  individuals.  The Committee  requested  that  further  research  be  carried  into  the  reasons  given  by Committees when they rejected the findings of an Appeals Board.

The Committee agreed that it was essential to amend or replace the current system because of the present lack of confidence in it. It was mindful that the establishment of an Ombudsman system in Jersey would be costly in comparison to the current system and agreed that, rather than set up such a scheme at this time, it would seek to make  the  present  system  more  robust.  The  key  improvements  would  include changing the role of the Greffier in deciding whether or not to refer complaints to the Board; a better system of reporting the outcome of Boards and of publicising a Committee's response; clear guidelines for Committees and Departments on dealing with  complaints; and greater flexibility in the system. It was suggested that  the current Board might be renamed an Ombudsman Panel' on the basis that the current Panel already belonged to the British and Irish Ombudsman Association and fulfilled the criteria for that Association.

The Committee requested the Greffier of the States to prepare a further paper, for  consideration  at  a  subsequent  meeting,  on  proposals  for  a  revised, strengthened system for Administrative Appeals.

New Standing A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 19th September 2003, Orders for the received an update report, dated 7th November 2003, from the Greffier of the States States of Jersey. in connexion with the proposed approach to preparing new Standing Orders for the 1240/4(138) States of Jersey.

Ex.Off. The Committee approved the proposed schedule which had a target date for

completion of a Law drafting brief by the end of April 2004.

Proposed A7.  The  Committee  considered  a  report,  dated  7th  November  2003,  from  the amendments to Greffier of the States in connexion with proposed minor amendments to the Standing

Standing Orders Orders relating to Certain Transactions in Land.

relating to

Certain The Committee was advised that the proposed amendments were minor changes Transactions in brought forward to address legal and technical difficulties with the present rules. The Land. Committee noted that the proposed changes were quite separate from the major 1240/4/1(25) review of Standing Orders was currently under way.

E.P.S.C.(2) The  Committee  approved  the  proposed  changes  and  requested  the  Law Ex.Off. Draftsman to prepare the necessary amendments to Standing Orders on the L.D. basis of the brief prepared by the Greffier of the States.

D.P.S.

H.Conv.

Machinery of A8.  The Committee received a report, dated 7th November 2003, from the Senior Government Executive Officer in connexion with the Machinery of Government Reform Plan. Reform Plan.

1240/22/1(31) The  Committee  noted  that  the  Plan,  which  had  been  drawn  up  by  the  Senior

Executive Officer, the Machinery of Government Manager and the Chief Executive, C.E., P&R Policy and Resources Committee, set out the overall actions which needed to be P.R.E.O. completed in order for Ministerial Government to be implemented effectively.

P.R.C.C.

Ex.Off. It further noted -

1. t hat the dates forFreedom of Information were already outofdate.The Committee referred this matter to the Working Party on Freedom of Information;
2. t hat the date for theintroduction of Ministerial Governmenthad yet to be determined;
3. t hat the timescale for any changes resulting from theworkof the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly was only  tentatively  included,  pending the  outcome of the  Special Committee meeting on 13th November2003.

The Committee agreed those items set down for action on its behalf, together with the suggested timetable. It noted the items listed for other Committees.

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

Code of Practice A9.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A6, dated 3rd October 2003, on Public Access received a revised draft Report and Proposition on the Code of Practice on Public to Official Access to Official Information: measures to improve implementation.

Information:

measures to The Committee approved the above draft Report and Proposition, subject to improve minor  textual  revisions  which  were  delegated  to   Connétable  D.F.  Gray  for implement-ation. agreement, and requested that it be lodged au Greffe' for consideration by the 955(30) States at the next available opportunity.

Ex.Off. The Greffier of the States was directed to take the necessary action. Pub.Ed.

States (2)

Arrangement of A10.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7 of 31st October 2003, noted Public Business that it had received expressions of interest the following States members willing to in the States - participate in a Working Party to consider the arrangement of Public Business in the

proposed States -

Working Party.

1240/7/1(78) Connétable T.J. Du Feu

Deputy P.J. Rondel (as a reserve)

Ex.Off. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains

C.E., P&R

P.R.E.O. The Committee decided to amend its original proposal, which was to invite two P.R.C.C. backbench members to join the Working Party, and agreed to invite all three E.D.C.(2) members.

The Committee Clerk was requested to prepare a letter on behalf of the President to all States members informing them of the composition of the Working Party.

Matters for A11.  The Committee noted the following matters for information -

information/ Acts

of other (a)  A  ct No. A3, dated 30th October 2003, of the Employment and Social Committee. Security  Committee  in  connexion  with  States  members'

remuneration: abolition of means-testing. The Committee noted the claim  made  in  the  Act  that  the  Employment  and  Social  Security Committee had not received a formal request to consider the legislative changes necessary to enable States members to be treated as employed' in  respect  of  Class  2  Social  Security  contributions.  The  Committee recalled, however, that it had made this request in its Act No A11 of the 22nd August 2003 following consideration of correspondence from the Director of Compliance and Governance at the Employment and Social Security Department. The Committee requested the Senior Executive Officer to prepare a letter on behalf of the President to the President of the Employment and Social Security Committee in order to confirm this request;

2. N ew Standing Orders from States of Guernsey, entitled The Rules of Procedure ofthe states ofDeliberation';
3. Simultaneous voting system - an oral update report from theExecutive Officer in relation to progress on the installation of a system in the States Assembly.The Committee was advised that the systemwouldbe installed over the Christmas recess and would be ready for use for the first session in 2004;
4. States members' access to States Building - The Committee requested that a protocol bedrawn up for consideration at its next meeting setting out conditionsof use for access cardsfor States members to enter the States Building;
5. A ct No. B1, dated 23rd October 2003, of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding  the proposed  Committee of Inquiry  into  the circumstances leading to the settlement with LesPas Holdings Limited;
6. e -mailcorrespondence,dated 14th November 2003, from SenatorE.P. Vibert regarding proposed changes to Standing Orders. TheCommittee agreed to refer theproposals relating to questionsand the frequencyof meetings to the WorkingPartyonArrangementofPublicBusiness;
7. dates of future meetings - Itwas agreed that a move to a three weekly cycle  of meetings would  allow  more time  for forward  planning  of

agendas.