PPC Minutes 17th January 2003

MH/KAK/34  7

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (2nd Meeting)

17th January 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 (for a time) Mrs. A. Harris , Deputy Greffier of the States P. Byrne, Executive Officer Mrs. J. Bourke, Administrator

M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

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

Acting A1.  The  Committee,  having  been  advised  that  the  President,  following  medical President/Vice advice, had decided to withdraw from States work for a period of two months, and in President. accordance with Article 31(2) of the States of Jersey Law 1966, as amended, noted

that the Vice President would exercise the functions of the President during his period of absence.

Scrutiny Function A2.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A6 of 10th January 2003, gave - development of further consideration to the following aspects of its proposals for the development of proposals. the Scrutiny function under the new ministerial system - 1240/22/1(9)

1. T he Call-in' Mechanism - The Committee recalled that several key

Ex.Off. issues surrounding this mechanism remained to be resolved (such as

how to decide which decisions to call in' and who would make those decisions). The Committee requested its officers to research the criteria used in local government authorities in the United Kingdom in respect of key decisions that might be subject to call in' and to prepare a draft set of criteria which would be appropriate for the Jersey context.

A s part of this exercise, the Committee recognised that it was important

to clarify how Executive decisions made by the Council of Ministers and by individual Ministers would be recorded and made available to Scrutiny members. The Executive Officer was directed to liaise with the Manager  of  Government  Reform  to  see  how  far  the  Policy  and Resources Committee had progressed in its plans in this respect;

2. Shadow' Scrutiny Panels - The Committee reaffirmed its confidence that itshouldbepossibletoconduct a trial scheme in advanceof the formal establishmentof Scrutiny Panels.The challenge was toproduce a meaningful activity that would be a practical learning process for both members and officers. The Committee was confident that States members possessed the necessary basic skills and experience in order to scrutinise. However, it was alsoaware that a major culturalchangewas involved in developing a proper Scrutiny Function and that training would bevital to ensure the success of this new part ofthemachineryof government. Some generic trainingshould be provided to both members and officers in advanceof a trial scheme, with the understanding that more targeted training would become available as the new system developed.
3. M embership of Shadow' Scrutiny Panels - The Committee agreed that the trial schemeshouldbeopen to all memberswithout a conflict of interest in the particular topics chosen for the trial reviews. It was considered important that a broadrangeofmembersshouldbeenabled to have experience of working with a Scrutiny Panel as part of the learning process.
4. Powers of Shadow' Scrutiny Panels - The Committee wasawarethat, under the existing States of Jersey Law, a Scrutiny Panel would haveno powerstocallfordocumentsor for people to attend. Ithoped that the Panel would receive voluntaryco-operation from Presidents and officers during this learningprocess. It recognised that it might benecessaryto counter defensive attitudes among chief officers who might fear that scrutiny was principally a post hoc investigation into flawed policy implementation, whereas,astheFirstReport (2.8) had indicated, the intention was for Scrutiny Panels to actas critical friends', to play a part in enhancing the quality of policy developmentandimplementation.

T h e Committee agreed that the question of privilege in respect of both

witnesses and papers called for by Scrutiny Panels needed to be carefully considered. It was likely that some Scrutiny sessions would need to be conducted in private or confidential session. Few officers had previously been in the position of being scrutinised in this way. They would need to feel comfortable in an exercise which was clearly orientated as a non-threatening learning process.

T h e Committee requested that a letter be written to all Committee

Presidents asking them to consider the extent of assistance a Shadow Scrutiny Panel would be likely to receive if their department was to participate in the trial scrutiny exercise. It also requested that the advice of the Law Officers' Department be sought in respect of creating an appropriate mechanism which would take account of access to information and privilege for a trial scrutiny exercise.

5. Role of individual member in Scrutiny system - The Committee considered thepositionof the individual memberwhowishedtopursue a single issueinterest through the Scrutiny system. It recognised that the Scrutiny system wasdesignedtomoveaway from the individualistic culture whichwasprevalentamongmanymembersatpresent. It was envisaged that Scrutiny would focus on a limited number of major reviews, although some flexibility should be retained torespondtoad hoc issues. The programme of reviews would be selected and co-

ordinated by an over-arching Scrutiny Management Board. It would be

possible for an individual member to approach the Board with proposals for a review of particular issues. The Board would then need to be convinced of the purpose and value of the proposal and its priority within the overall Scrutiny plan.

6. S eminar - The Committee agreed to invite members and Chief Officers to participate in a Seminarat the endof February toraiseawarenessof the key issues involved in establishing a Scrutiny systemintheJersey context, whichwas rather different from localgovernment in the United Kingdom. This Seminar would involve chiefly local resources, with some input from external sources whocould give direct experience of the lessons learnt in the early stages of establishing local government scrutiny systems.TheSeminar would beused, in part,as a consultation exercise on a draft in principle' report and proposition on the developmentofthe Scrutiny Function in Jersey.
7. T raining issues - The Committeerequested the Deputy Greffier ofthe States to prepare proposals for a frameworkof training requirements for Scrutiny, together with relevantcostings.

T h e Committee expressed the view that the current training and

development programme provided by the States Human Resources Department for States employees should be reviewed in order to match the requirements of officers who will be involved in the new Scrutiny function. The Executive Officer was requested to write to the Policy and Resources Committee on behalf of the Committee in this regard.

8. Staffing for Shadow' Scrutiny Panels - The Committeewas assured that the States Greffe would support the workof the Scrutiny Panelto the extent that current resources andcommitmentswould allow. Some members of the States Greffe staff had already been freed up to commenceworkon research to assistdevelopmentsbeingpursuedby the Privileges and ProceduresCommitteeandtrainingrequirements for the change in culture under a Scrutiny system were already being addressed. TheCommitteewas requested to give adequate notice should it beconsidered that further staffing might be requiredonsecondmentto assist Scrutiny Panels.
9. Visits to see Scrutiny in action - The Committee wasmindfulof the value ofobserving scrutiny in action. Itwas keen that new members,as well as former membersoftheCommittee,should have the opportunity to visit local authorities in the UnitedKingdom. It wasaware that other members too had expressed enthusiasm in this respect but was also mindful that such visits were a costly exercise and needed to be prioritised against otherbudgetarydemands.Itagreed that therewas addedvalue in a visit made by current members of the Privileges and Procedures Committeewhocouldfeedback their experience directly to the Committee.

Resources. A3. The Committee considered its position within the States resource allocation

process, given that its future funding requirements had yet to be clarified.

It was agreed that an estimate should be made of the funding required for the following three main elements, scrutiny, departmental costs and training

requirements, together with some contingency.

The Executive Officer was requested to liaise with the Treasurer of the States with regard to the Committee's place within the States resource allocation process.

States Building A4.  The Committee considered the Report and Proposition of the Environment and Refurbishment Public Services Committee on the States Building Refurbishment Phase 2: approval Phase 2: approval of drawings and agreed to comment as follows -

of drawings -

comments. The Privileges and Procedures Committee notes that the proposals are in line 1060/5/1(21) with those contained in its First Report to the States, dated 22nd October 2002,

and it fully supports the proposition of the Environment and Public Services Pub.Ed. Committee accordingly.'

States (2)

Ex.Off.

Accommod- A5.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A2(d) of 10th January 2003, gave ation, services further consideration to the facilities available in Morier House in the event of the and facilities for ground floor area being vacated by the Viscount's Department.

Members.

1060/5/1(18) The Committee considered that the ground floor area might be very suitable for

accommodation  for  Scrutiny  Panels.  It  might  also  provide  appropriate Ex.Off. accommodation  for  a  members' library  and  research  facility  and  be  linked  to

proposals to develop a Visitors Centre and expand the service provided by the States

Bookshop.

The  Committee  requested  the   Deputy  Greffier  of  the  States  to  prepare  a comprehensive  report  on  the  issues  and  costings  involved  in  renting  and  re- organising the space available in Morier House.

Proposals for A6.  The Committee received an oral report from the Deputy Greffier of the States Recording and on progress in the preparation of a report on the costs involved in setting up a Transcription Hansard' recording and transcription service for the States Assembly.

Service for States

Assembly The Committee agreed that the following basic principles should apply -

(Hansard').

1240/10/1(1) (a)  t hat a verbatim transcript should be prepared (without signs of hesitation

in speech);

Ex.Off.

2. that the transcript  should  be  available  for the next scheduled States meeting (that is within a two week period);
3. that audio tapes would remain available to members who wished to review a debate;
4. t hat members would notbe invited tocheck through their speeches in advance of publishing the transcript; and
5. t hat an erratum would be publishedsubsequently,ifrequired,to note any transcription errors (but not for memberswishing to clarifysomething that they might havesaid in a debate).

The Committee requested that a draft report and proposition be prepared for its consideration by the end of February 2003.

Freedom of A7.  The Committee requested that the draft paper, prepared by the Department, on

Information. Freedom  of  Information  be  distributed  to  Committee  members  with  a  view  to

considering the draft at its meeting of 7th February 2003, following which the paper would be circulated to States members and other interested parties for consultation.

Connétable D.F. Gray agreed to join the Joint Working Party on Freedom of Information in place of Senator C.G.P. Lakeman.