PPC Minutes 19th September 2003

MH/PH/273 103

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (17th Meeting)

19th September 2003

PART A

All members were present. Deputy C.J. Scott - Warr en was not present for items A1 to A3.

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. Bridge Deputy J.A. Bernstein

In attendance -

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

D.C.G. Filipponi, Assistant Greffier of the States (for a time) Mrs J. Marshall, Senior Executive Officer

Miss F. Agnès, Executive Officer

R.W. Whitehead, Principal Legal Adviser (for a time)

Ms. P. Staley, Law Draftsman (for a time)

M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

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

Minutes A1.  The Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd August 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

22nd August 2003 -

1. A ct No. A2 - Members' remuneration - that the ComptrollerofIncome Tax remained adamant that hewas not prepared to raise the current level of expensesallowableto States memberswithoutany formal expenses claim unless there was strong evidence to show that members routinely spent more than  the  current  amount on expenses. Currently,  few members made formalclaims over and above the allowable amount.He suggested that an alternative would be for membersto pay upfront and to  claim  back  all  expenses from  the  States  Treasury. In  this  way expenseswouldbeproperly scrutinised, However, this wouldbe a very bureaucratic  and  time  consuming process  for  all  involved. The Committee requested that the view of the States Auditors be sought on whether the current level of the round sum allowance for States members  was  reasonable.  The  Senior  Executive  Officer  was requested to take the necessary action;
2. A ct No. A4 - Draft Public Finances Administration (Jersey) Law 200-: noted that the Committee hadbeen invited to attend the Finance

and  Economics  Committee  meeting  on  1st  October  2003  to  discuss  its

comments on the above draft Law. The Committee requested that the paper considered at its previous meeting be updated and that an advance copy of the Finance and Economics Committee paper, prepared by the Deputy Treasurer of the States, be requested so that members attending this meeting might be fully briefed on the points to be discussed;

3. A ct No. A5 - Machinery of Government Reforms Timetable - that the Principal Legal Adviser had confirmed that his advice regarding the possibility of curtailing the length of office of elected membersof the States remainedvalid;
4. A ct No. A6 - States members accommodation and facilities - that it was not possibleto create direct access from the Media Booth to the Media Room due to the different levels of the rooms;and
5. A ct No. A7 - Royal Court/States Building - disabled access - that a report had been prepared for submission to the next meeting of the EnvironmentandPublic Services Committee.

New Standing A3.  The  Committee  considered  a  paper,  dated  3rd  September  2003,  from  the Orders of the Greffier of the States in connexion with a proposed approach towards the work of States of Jersey. preparing new Standing Orders for the States of Jersey.

1240/4(138)

The Committee noted a table of subject areas for which it was proposed to assign Ex.Off. lead officers' to undertake the necessary research and consultation with members.

The  Committee endorsed  the  approach  set  out  in  the  Greffier's  paper.  It suggested that the working group which had looked at the new States of Jersey Law  be  reconvened  for  this  purpose.  It  authorised  the  Greffier  to  act  as instructing  officer  for  the  Law  Draftsman  and  requested  that  a  prioritised timetable be produced for dealing with the work.

On a related matter, the Committee noted the Bailiff 's recent statement on members' conflicts of interest and requested that any comments on this be transmitted to the Senior Executive Officer. The Assistant Greffier of the States was requested to renew contact with an officer in Scotland in relation to this issue

States members' A4.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A6  of  22nd  August  2003, accommod-ation, considered a report, dated 9th September 2003, from the Executive Officer in relation services and to the recommendations of the Consultation Group set up to consider the use and facilities. furnishings of the States members' areas of the States Building.

1060/5/1(18)

The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Consultation Group and Ex.Off. noted, in particular-

1. Meeting Room (formerly designated Common Room') - that this room would besetup as a multi-use meeting room capable ofuse for larger  informal business meetings  and as  a  dining  room for  States members' lunches during States sessions;
2. C ommunication Centre (formerly designated Library') - that this room would be furnished with desk pods,telephones, network points, ICT facilities, photocopierand fax machine;
3. M embers' Common Room (formerly known as the Smokers' Room)

- that this room would not be used as an office for Privileges and Procedures Committee officers, as previously suggested. It was considered more suitable  as  a  Common  Room  for  members  rather  than  the  Meeting Room which  had previously  been  designated  for this function.  This room would have an audio link with States chamber. (It was noted that the Committee's officers would remain in Morier House. In addition, an office had become available for the President adjacent to the Peirson Room).

The Committee recalled that it had requested the Executive Officer to negotiate with the Bailiff 's department and the Judicial Greffe for the former Law Library Room and the Photocopier Room (off Coffee Room 2) to be transferred to the tenancy of States members. The Committee was advised that the Judicial Greffe required the Law Library for office use. Access to this room through the Gallery to the Old Library would not then be part of the States members' tenancy. The Judicial Greffe also required the Photocopier Room as a waiting room for witnesses. It had been agreed, however, that there could be shared' use of this room, with the Judicial Greffe as priority user with an agreement that it might be used by States members when not in use for the Court. The Committee authorised the Executive Officer to write to the Bailiff formally setting out this proposal to seek his approval to the arrangement.

Policy and A5.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A3  of  10th  January  2003, Resources welcomed Senator F.H. Walker , President of the Policy and Resources Committee, to Committee - discuss his Committee's proposal that a regular Question Time' be introduced in the proposed States during which the President of the Policy and Resources Committee could be Question Time' questioned with or without prior notice on aspects of his Committee's policies.

in the States.

1240/4(155) Senator Walker acknowledged the special interest States members and the Public had

in the Policy and Resources Committee with its overall co-ordinating responsibilities. Ex.Off. He recalled that the proposal had arisen from the successful experiment in which C.E., P&R candidates for the Presidency of the Policy and Resources Committee had made a P.R.E.O. statement on their policies and responded to members' questions. His Committee felt P.R.C.C. that the proposal would compensate in some measure for the decision no longer to

circulate Part B Minutes routinely to States members. In his opinion, it would enable

members to hold the President to account in an effective way. He suggested that the

President might make a short monthly statement to the House (maximum length 10

minutes) and then take questions for a defined period (maximum length 15 minutes).

He agreed that members should not be confined to only asking questions based on the

said statement. Senator Walker felt that the President of the Policy and Resources

should be able to respond to any questions on matters within the remit of his/her

Committee. He said that the focus of this Policy and Resources Question Time'

should be on imparting information to the public. There would be no place for

planted' questions or spin', as currently occurred in Prime Ministers Question Time

in the House of Commons. Members would soon become aware of any major issues

not covered in the President's statement as they continued to have access to Policy

and Resources Committee Part B Minutes, if they chose, by approaching the States

Greffe and in this way would be able to track developments for themselves. He

proposed that the Policy and Resources Question Time' should be introduced for a

trial period.

The  Committee  expressed  some  reservations  regarding  this  proposal.  It  was suggested that the Committee statement would be packaged' information and, in association  with  the  Policy  and  Resources  Committee's  appointment  of  a  press officer, would add to the public perception of spin'. It was feared that Question Time' would become predominantly a point scoring session, reinforcing emerging divisions in the States. An alternative proposal was made for the Policy and Resources Committee to have an open, public session as part of its scheduled Committee meetings, where the Committee could be questioned on its policies in the presence of the media. It was pointed out, however, that a Committee session would not have the same status and public impact as Questions in the States. There might be a tendency for such a Committee session to become the domain of a few regular attendees rather than the full complement of members in the States.

The Committee also suggested that Question Time' should not be limited to the Policy and Resources Committee but that other Committee Presidents, and future Ministers, should be required to make periodic statements to the House and take questions on their current policies. A schedule of such question sessions might be drawn up by the Greffier of the States.

The Committee acknowledged that the Question Time' proposal was outside current Standing Orders which did not allow questions to be put following a statement to the House. It requested that a paper be prepared for consideration at its next meeting on how Standing Orders might be revised to enable the proposed trial to take place.

The Committee discussed further issues with the President of the Policy and Resources Committee, namely -

1. W orking Party on Arrangements for Public Business - the Committee advised that it was currently asking Departments to provide information on their plans for Public Business in the States. It was becoming apparent that States Business was expanding and the Committee intended toproduce proposals to rationalise current procedures;
2. T imetable for introduction of Machinery of Government Reforms - The Committee referred to the advice from thePrincipalLegal Adviser regarding the possibility of curtailing the length of office of elected members to enable the next public elections to bebrought forward to the Spring of 2005, if this was considered appropriate. The Committee reiterated its view that the introduction ofministerialgovernmentshould be combined with a GeneralElection. Senator Walker said that he would have no problem with this link but had previously been led to believe that itwasnotpossible to change the date ofthe elections currently scheduled for the Autumn 2005. Itwas recognised that this wasproperly within the remit of the Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States Assembly. The Committee requested that a draft Plan be prepared setting out how a Spring Election might take place in 2005.

It w as agreed that the priority was to have a fully agreed timetable for

the introduction of ministerial government. To this end, officers of the Privileges and Procedures Committee and officers from the Machinery of Government team were requested to continue to develop close working relationships, to avoid duplication of effort, and to co-operate in the development of a single agreed Strategic Plan for the introduction of the new system of government.

The Committee thanked Senator Walker for his contribution to the discussion before he left the meeting.

The  Committee  agreed  that  the  proposed Question  Time' merited  careful consideration but confirmed its view that it should be seen in the broader context of general review of Standing Orders and in particular the procedures relating to  the  conduct  of  Questions  in  the  States  and  the  arrangement  of  Public Business. It was also of the view that the reason given by the Policy and Resources for  ceasing  to  circulate  its  Part  B  Minutes  to  States  members  (namely,  that  its Minutes now contained sensitive personal information due to its Human Resources function) could be overcome by blanking out individual names and any identifying information. The  Committee  agreed  to  request  the  Policy  and  Resources Committee to revisit this particular decision in the interests of providing States members with full information on the development of its policies. The President undertook to write to the President of the Policy and Resources Committee to explain the Committee's views.

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

Shadow Scrutiny. A6.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A5 of 21st March 2003, received 465/1(31) a  report  from  the  Senior  Executive  Officer  regarding  the  practical  issues  to  be 502/1(6) considered in the implementation of Shadow Scrutiny.

Ex.Off. The Committee recalled that, in adopting P.79/2003 on the establishment of Scrutiny T.O.S. Panels and Public Accounts Committee, the States had approved a trial period of C.I.Aud. Shadow Scrutiny' in advance of the introduction the new system of government. It F.E.C.C. confirmed the purposes of Shadow Scrutiny, as described in P.79/2003, as follows - C.E., P&R

P.R.E.O. (i) T o create opportunities for training both members and officers – in P.R.C.C. particular developing new skills;

2. To include a  wide range  of members in the Shadow Scrutiny process;
3. Toprovide a learning experience for officers supporting the Panels.

The Committee agreed that these purposes should be extended to also include the following -

4. To develop the practical arrangements for  a  system  of  Scrutiny appropriate  for  Jersey.  This would include  introducing  a programme that  will  incorporate  all  elements  of the Scrutiny process including elements of presentandfuturepolicy, individual subject  areas/reviews  (including matters  of public  interest), ministerial decisions, draft/subordinate legislation;
5. T  o developguidelinesgoverningthe Scrutiny Process. This would include setting out the responsibilities of the chairman, members and officers, together with rulesforengagement with departments and thepublic;
6. Toassessing the resourcerequirements for Scrutinyinmoredetail in lightoftheexperience provided by the Shadowprocess; and
7. TodevelopawarenessoftheScrutinyfunction.

The Committee agreed that its role should be to agree and implement the framework within which the Shadow Scrutiny processes would operate. It would be responsible for developing guidelines, ensuring adequate resources and monitoring effectiveness. On the other hand, the programme of work for the Shadow process would be for the Panels themselves to decide, bearing in mind the objectives of the Shadow process which was essentially a training exercise. To this end, the Committee agreed -

1. t hat, at the end of 2004 andbeforethe introduction of ministerial government,itwould formally consult with the Shadow Scrutiny Panels andreportto the States on the effectiveness of the Shadow Scrutiny processand the formalarrangements for Scrutinyin its live context.

The Committee agreed that the process for the appointment of Shadow Scrutiny Panels should reflect, as far as possible, the normal States procedures for the appointment of Committee and approved the following steps -

2. t hat all States members would be invited to declare aninterestin participating inthe process byservingon a Shadow Scrutiny Panel. The Committee took the view that any member could join a Shadow Scrutiny Panel so long as they did not participate in any review pertaining to States Committees to which they already belonged;
3. t hatmembersbeasked to nominatetwoChairmen for the Shadow Scrutiny Panels from the listofthosewhohaddeclared an interest in participating intheprocess. The Committee was conscious of the crucial role to be played in the success of the process by the two Chairmen. It considered whether it might be advisable for the Committee itself to invite two members to act as Chairmen; however, it agreed that it was more appropriate to rely on the democratic process. In the long term, this would give Shadow Scrutiny greater credibility;
4. t hatmembershipof the Panelsshouldbenominatedby each of the Chairmenand presented to the Statesfor approval. The Committee was anxious that all members who wished to participate in Shadow Scrutiny should have the opportunity to do so. The Committee wished to get away from the image of Scrutiny as some form of second-class' function in comparison with the Executive function. To ensure that all members would have the opportunity to take part in the learning process, the Committee agreed that, depending on the numbers of interested members, a succession plan should be devised to enable members to serve for a defined period of time or for a particular piece of work;

The Committee considered whether Scrutiny Panels should be generalist', that is, allowed to select issues from across the whole Public Sector, or dedicated to particular subject areas. The Committee agreed -

5. t hat, for thepurposes of the Shadow Scrutiny process, it shouldnot be prescriptive regarding the topics for Shadow Scrutiny. Topics should be selected by the Panels on the basis of what would best deliver the objectives of the Shadow process. It was of the view that the Panels should still adopt a themed approach, where practical, and that the respective Chairmen should co-ordinate their programmes, with the Privileges and Procedures Committee providing a monitoring role to ensure that Panels were not over-ambitious to start with and selected studies of an appropriate size for a training process.

The Committee acknowledged that the Shadow Panels would not possess any powers to require attendance at meetings and that proceedings would not be covered by privilege. The Committee explored the possibility of providing privilege to Scrutiny Panels by making them Sub-Committees of the Privileges and Procedures Committee but was advised that this was not a solution as Sub-Committees were not covered by privilege. The Committee was optimistic that States Committees and their respective Departments would embrace the process provided that the topics selected in this interim training period were not overly confrontational inducing Committee and Departments under scrutiny to become defensive.

To ensure that the training process was enhanced, the Committee agreed, as follows -

6. th  at the Privileges and ProceduresCommitteeshouldcommenton the appropriateness of the programme selected by the Shadow Scrutiny Panelsindeliveringtheobjectives;
7. t hat, for eachpieceof work undertakenby a Shadow Scrutiny Panel, a ReviewGroupshouldbesetupto assess the effectiveness of the process and identify anyproblemsencountered either bythe Panel or the departmentprovidinginformation.
8. that reports produced by the Shadow Scrutiny Panels should be presented to the States andpublished;
9. t hat a website should be set up for the purposes of making the record offormalmeetingsandhearings publicly available and of publishing thePanels'reports;
10. th at protocols/guidelines for Shadow Scrutiny shouldbedeveloped by the Committee's Officers and presented to the States for agreement at the same time as they were asked to approve the membershipof the Shadow Panels.

The Committee was conscious that a system of recording Executive decisions had not yet been agreed. It noted that the Senior Executive Officer and the Manager of Machinery of Government Reforms were to visit Whitehall in the next month to investigate the recording of Cabinet decisions with a view to developing a system appropriate to the Island. In the meantime, for the purposes of the Shadow Scrutiny exercise, it was agreed -

11. t hat Committee minutes should be used as the basis for scrutinising Committee decisions in the short term; and
12. th  at any proposed system for the recording of ministerial decisions should be trialled as part of the process.

The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 11th July 2003, recalled that it had agreed that the States Audit Commission should act as a Shadow Public Accounts Committee. In order to progress this transformation the Committee agreed -

13. to request the Finance and EconomicsCommittee -

1. to seek to amendthetermsof reference for the StatesAudit Commission which related to membership to allow the appointmentofadditionalStatesmembers to fill the current vacancies and to replace the current representative of the

Finance and Economics Committee with a Shadow Chairman; and

2. to  agree that two of the  vacancies should be filled  by the Chairmen of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels.

The Committee also agreed -

14. that the Shadow Chairman of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee should be appointed by the States from among those who had indicated an interest in participating in the Shadow Scrutiny process.

The Committee agreed that each of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels should be supported by two Scrutiny Officers (in line with the staffing envisaged in P.79/2003), with a shared Administrator a total of five staff in total. It was agreed that the direct management of the function should be the responsibility of the Greffier of the States. The Committee's Executive Officers would undertake a close monitoring role to ensure the effectiveness of the arrangements and develop the detailed proposals for the full Scrutiny process based on outcomes. The Committee accordingly agreed -

15. to prepare a report to the Finance and Economics Committee recommending the approvalof 5 temporaryposts to support the Shadow Scrutinyprocess;
16. that administrative support to the Shadow Public Accounts Committee wouldbeprovidedbyShadow Scrutiny Officers;
17. t o chargetheGreffierofthe States with setting upanindependent appointmentspaneltoappointstaff to support the Shadow Scrutiny process, possibly involvingtheStatesAppointmentsCommission to ensure transparency.
18. t hat the training programme for Scrutiny Officers should be determined by the States Greffe in liaison with the Executive Officers;
19. that the training programme for Shadow Scrutiny Panels and other membersshouldbedeterminedby the ExecutiveOfficersin liaison with the States Greffe;
20. t hat the training programme for Chief/Senior Officersshould be determined by the Executive Officers in liaison with the Chief Executive of the States, StatesHumanResourcesDepartmentand the States Greffe.

The Committee was advised that the Gallery to the Old Library would make an ideal area to base Scrutiny Officers, Scrutiny Panel members requiring desk area for Scrutiny business and the Scrutiny Panels themselves when meeting informally. This would allow informal training and learning together to develop both staff and members. Formal meetings and hearings might be held in the two recently refurbished Committee rooms in the States Building. However, there was currently no dedicated budget for furnishing these rooms. The Committee was advised that, as the budget allocated for 2003 for Scrutiny had not been utilised, a maximum sum of £60,000 could be allocated for furnishing these rooms to a high standard and in a flexible format that would allow for either meetings and/or hearings with public access. An estimated additional £20,000 (maximum) would be required for audio equipment to record the formal sessions. The Committee accordingly agreed -

21. to the  use  of the  Gallery  of the  Old Library,  subject to States agreement, to accommodate Shadow ScrutinyOfficersandPanels;
22. t o the allocation of funds to equip and furnish the Gallery oftheOld Library andto furnish twoCommittee rooms forShadowScrutiny use.

The Committee recalled that the budget allocated for the implementation of Scrutiny was £250,000 for both 2003 and 2004, a total of £500,000. It noted that little of the budget for 2003 had been spent to date, although it was intended that most of the funds required to set up the Shadow process would be committed before the end of the year. The Committee accordingly agreed -

23. t o seek in principle permissionforanysurplus in the funds allocated for 2003 to be carried forward to 2004 onthebasis that the Shadow process had only beenapprovedin July 2003andthereforecould not beimplemented until late 2003/early 2004.

The Committee received a draft timetable for the implementation of Shadow Scrutiny with a commencement date at the beginning of January 2004. The Committee, having noted that the deadlines were tight but achievable -

(x )     a pproved the draft timetable accordingly.

The Committee requested that the above report be transformed into a form which might be presented to the States as a Rapport et Correspondence in order that States members and the public might be fully informed about the plans for the Shadow Scrutiny process.

The  Senior  Executive  Officer  was  authorised  to  take  the  necessary  action.  The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Policy and Resources  to  gain  its  support  for  the  Shadow  process  and  to  the  Finance  and Economics Committee to gain its support for the proposed Shadow Public Accounts Committee and for the use of the budget.

States of Jersey A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. B1 of 11th July 2003, received Law 200-: Ms P. Staley, Law Draftsman, and Mr. R.W. Whitehead, Principal Legal Adviser, to revised draft. discuss the latest revised draft of the new States of Jersey Law.

450(1)

The Committee considered a memorandum, dated 11th September 2003, from the L.D. Law Draftsman and agreed, as follows -

Ex.Off.

A.G. (a)  t hat the definition of week' should remain as any period of seven days;

2. t hat the following groundsfor disqualification for office as Senator or Deputy shouldbeaddedtothedraftlist (Article 8(1)) -

(i ) i f th at person ceased to be a British citizen; and (i i) if t hat person ceased to be ordinarily resident.

3. t hat the rule for the disqualification ofpart-timeworkersrequired further clarification (Article 10);

4. t hat the powertochange the dates of elections (Article 6), aswell as the cut-off date (Article 13(5)), shouldbeincludedin the Regulations;
5. t hat reference to the Chief Minister andMinisters collectively as the Council ofMinistersshouldbe reinstated (Article18);
6. th at the selection and appointmentof a new Chief Ministeror Minister would notberequired for a period of up to eightweeks prior to the triennial  selection  and  appointment that  would always follow  the ordinary elections for Deputies.The States should have discretion in this matter  depending on the circumstances (Article  19).  Similarly,  the power for a Minister toact in the temporaryabsenceor incapacity of another Minister shouldbe limited to eight weeks (Article 26);
7. that  a  Chief Minister  designate should not  be able, when  bringing forward  nominations  and proposals for Ministerial appointment,  to propose  transfers  of functions  and amalgamations and  splits  of Ministries (Article 19);
8. t hat, in the eventofthe States deciding they had no confidence in the Council of Ministers, the Councilshould,byconvention,act only to the extent necessaryfor essential administration anddischargeofministerial functions until it ceased to hold office (Article22).

The Committee was minded to decide that the dismissal of a Minister might proceed on a simple majority of the Council (Article 23). However, it requested that the position agreed in the States debate on this matter be checked.

The Committee recalled that it had not yet been decided how Ministerial decisions would be recorded. It was advised, however, that this was not relevant to Article 34.

The Committee noted that the Law Officers were working on a paper as to the meaning  and  implications  of  being  a  corporation  sole  within  the  Jersey  context (article 25).

The Committee discussed the principle of amending Orders in Council (Article 46). The Committee agreed that it was important to clarify this matter with a view to reaching a common understanding with H.M. Attorney General.

The Committee noted the useful summary, provided in the above memorandum, setting out the arrangements, under the draft Law, in the event of the resignation, disqualification, dismissal, incapacity or death of a Chief Minister or Minister.

The Committee received a copy of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which set out in its  Preamble  the  constitutional  relationship  of  Dominions  with  the  Crown.  The Committee agreed to consult H.M. Attorney General on his views in relation to the suitability of a Preamble to the States of Jersey Law.

The President undertook to meet the Law Draftsman to discuss in detail the next draft of the Law.

Code of Practice A8.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A6 of 30th May 2003, considered on Public access a  draft  Report  and  Proposition,  prepared  by  the   Deputy  Greffier  of  the  States, to Official regarding proposals to improve the implementation of the Code of Practice on Public Information - access to Official Information.

measures to

improve The Committee approved the draft Report and Proposition in principle, subject to a implement-ation - number of changes in the wording of the report which were delegated to the Vice draft Report and President and the Deputy  Greffier of the  States for finalisation. The Committee Proposition decided to request the comments, prior to lodging, of the Policy and Resources 955(30) Committee,  as  the  Committee  with  responsibility  for  co-ordinating  the  work  of

Committees.

C.E., P&R

P.R.E.O. The Committee was conscious of the important role of the media in ensuring that P.R.C.C. information  reached  the  public  domain,  particularly  under  the  new  scrutiny T.O.S. arrangements. It requested accordingly that the media be consulted with regard to the C.I.Aud. proposals. The Executive Officer was requested to take the necessary action.

F.E.C.C.

D.G.O.S. The Committee noted the financial and manpower implications indicated in the report Ex.Off. and agreed to send the comments of the Finance and Economics Committee.

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

Televising States A9.  The Committee, with Mr. C. Rolfe of the BBC Radio Jersey, in attendance, sittings. considered correspondence, dated 22nd July 2003, from Mr. A. Watts, News Editor, 1240/10(34) Channel Television, regarding a proposal to trial the televising of selected States

debates or Committee statements.

Ex.Off.

The Committee agreed, in principle, that televised coverage of the States would enhance public awareness of the political process. It requested the Executive Officer to prepare a report, in liaison with the BBC and Channel Television, on the various scenarios to be considered and the operational guidelines to be agreed.

Finance and A10.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7 of 11th July 2003, received a Economics letter, dated 5th August 2003, from the President of the Finance and Economics Committee- Committee confirming the transfer of budgets relating to the States Assembly.

Future

Budgetary The Committee, having noted the responses given to the questions raised in the Arrangements. President's letter of 18th July 2003, agreed to formally accept the budget transfers 465/2(5) and to advise the Finance and Economics Committee accordingly.

1240/22(31)

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

Law Draftsman's A11.  The Committee, with Ms P. Staley, Law Draftsman in attendance, considered Office - transfer the question of the support non-Executive members of the States might expect when to Chief the  Law Draftsman's Office  was transferred  to the Chief Minister's Department Minister's under the agreed Machinery of Government reforms.

Department.

422/23(103) The Committee recalled that P.70/2003 on the proposed Departmental Structure and

Transitional Arrangements had not been explicit on this matter. Currently, private Ex.Off. members  were  able  to  seek  assistance  from  the  Law  Draftsman  in  drawing  up C.E., P&R amendments  to  proposed  legislation.  It  was  the  Committee's  view  that  this P.R.E.O. arrangement should persist under the new system.

P.R.C.C.

The Committee agreed to request the Policy and Resources Committee to consider this to give reassurance to future non-Executive members that they would still be able to approach the Law Draftsman for assistance.

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

Liberation 2005 A12.  The Committee noted Act No.A5, dated 31st July 2003, of the Policy and Sub-Committee Resources  Committee  regarding  the  establishment  of  the  Liberation  2005  Sub-

Committee.

The  Committee  formally  agreed  to  appoint  Senator  C.G.P.  Lakeman  as  its representative on the Liberation 2005 Sub-Committee.

Matters for A13.  The Committee noted the following matters for information - information.

1. paper,  dated  11th  September 2003, from  the  Committee  Clerk  in connexion with theStandards Board for England;
2. l etter, dated 2ndSeptember2003, from Mr.R.R. Jeune ,CBE, thanking the Committeefor the gift tomarkhis retirement asChairmanof the Administrative Appeals Panel;
3. e -mail, dated 12th September2003, from Deputy F.G.Voisinregarding the re-organisation of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department;
4. t hat the proposed newsletter toStatesmembers on the refurbishment of the  States  Building  and  the  new  facilities  for members had  been overtaken by events. An updated newsletter would bepublished in due course after consultation with thePresidentand the Vice President;
5. t hat the Committeeplanned to hold an Away-Day' meeting to discuss its terms of reference and its strategic plan. It wasenvisaged that this might be combined with an opportunity to considertheway forward for the Special  Committee on the  Composition  and Election of  the  States Assembly;
6. t hat  some 800 people  had taken the  opportunity  to tour  the  States Chamber led  by Senator  C.G.P. Lakeman on Heritage Day 13th September2003;
7. t hat Mr.B. Querée, Political Editor of the Jersey Evening Post,had been present forItemsA4 and A5of the meeting

Date of next A14.  The Committee confirmed the date of its next meeting to take place on 3rd meeting October 2003, commencing at 9.30 a.m. in the Halkett Room, Morier House.