PPC Minutes 21st January 2003

MH/KAK/35  12

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (3rd Meeting)

24th 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 (present for items A1 to A3 only) Deputy J-A. Bridge

Deputy J.A. Bernstein

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Greffier of the States (for a time)

D.C.G. Filipponi, Assistant Greffier of the States (for a time)

R.W. Whitehead, Principal Legal Adviser, Law Officers Department S. Drew, Assistant Legal Adviser P. Byrne, Executive Officer 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 10th January 2003, having been previously

circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

States members' A2.  The Committee, with reference to Act No. A2 of 9th December 2002, of the remuneration - Committee as previously constituted, recalled that it had lodged au Greffe' a report comments and proposition (P.238/2002) seeking to replace the current system of means-tested 1240/3(68) income and expense allowance for States members with a new remuneration scheme

available to all elected members. The Committee was pleased to note that lodging its Ex.Off. proposals had provoked a response from a number of quarters and agreed to extend

its consultation period to give ample opportunity for any further comments to be

received and considered. The Committee agreed to request 4th March 2003 as a date

for the States to debate its proposition.

The Committee received, in turn, Senator P.F.C. Ozouf , Deputy T.J. Le Main and the Bailiff in connexion with their comments on the Committee's proposals.

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf - Senator Ozouf indicated that, whileheagreed with  the principle  of all  States  members being entitled  to receive remuneration irrespective ofincome from othersources, thus removing the  current means-tested  element in the  income allowance, he  was opposed  to a  blanket payment for all  members. He proposed, alternatively, a threeway split consisting of

1. b asic remuneration in  recognition of States  Assembly  duties

(attendance at States sittings; 46 days in 2002) say £15,000;

2. r emuneration for Committee (Executive/Ministerial or scrutiny) responsibilities, based on three bands in order of importance/workload; say, Band A £10,000; Band B £7,500; Band C nominal.The President to receive double the Committee allowance (perhaps spread between Presidentand Vice President; and
3. Administrative support, say £10,000 - Senator Ozouf did not agree with theCommittee'sproposal that the totalremuneration package,basedon the equivalence of a grade 11 civilservant, should betaken to include administration expenses.Hebelieved that this overstated the remuneration of membersand ignored the fact that grade 11 civil servants, by virtue oftheir position, had administrative support.

S e n ator Ozouf  maintained  that his  proposal  recognised the  different

workloads of States members depending on the responsibilities they had assumed. He rejected the suggestion that States members would be reluctant to criticise Committee Presidents or the future Chief Minister for fear of losing a remunerated position.

S e n ator Ozouf did not believe that constituency work carried out by

members should be separately recognised in the remuneration package. He felt that such work was akin to the honorary system and was undertaken on a voluntary basis. He did not agree that members without Committee responsibilities would necessarily become overburdened with constituency requests just because members with responsibility positions were unable to respond to such demands. In his experience, busy States members were just as likely to take on constituency requests as those with fewer responsibilities.

S e n ator Ozouf recognised the Committee's desire to encourage a broad

range of the Island's population to stand for election to the States. However, he felt that the level currently proposed was unlikely to achieve that aim. He also thought that other financial matters needed consideration, including social security and pension payments, campaign costs, the ability for candidates to take time off work during election campaigns and severance arrangements for members leaving the States.

2. D eputy T.J. Le Main - Deputy T.J.Le Main explained the reasons behind his proposed amendment to P.238/2002 the effect of which would be to freeze States members' remuneration at the current level. He indicated that, whileheagreed with the principle ofremoving the current means-tested element in the income allowance, he was opposed to States members receiving whatwasseenby the general publicas a ten percent pay rise.Heaccepted that the actual figure mightbeless than ten per cent but the public perception had seized hold of this amount. He had been advised that the Manual Workers Union considered that the proposed increase in States members had a significant bearingontheirownpay negotiations. Deputy LeMain felt that anysubstantialincrease in Statesmembers' remuneration should be linked to the reforms in the machineryofgovernment and a reduction in the numbers of States members, just as other public sector pay

negotiations were often linked to modernisation proposals.

3. B ailiff - The Bailiff expressed his view that the Committee's proposals represented animportantstage in thedevelopment of political thinking about the status  of States members and might  be seen as  the final abandoning ofthe honorary principle as regards elected representatives in the States. Hefelt that this turning pointdeservedproperrecognition in  the  Committee's report on  remuneration  particularly  in view  of possible repercussions onthewider honorary tradition in the Island.

T h e Bailiff , having recognised that the matter of remuneration was in the

hands of the States members themselves to decide, offered the view that the work of States members was still not generally regarded as a full- time  occupation.  Some  members  maintained  other  professional responsibilities, while others chose to devote all their working time to political activity. Much depended on the individual and the time and energy he/she was prepared to into their work as a States member. On the whole, he favoured differential payment according to responsibilities rather  than  a  single  blanket  payment  for  all.  He  felt  that  it  was demeaning to members to suggest that they would be over-influenced in their  decisions  by  thoughts  of  keeping  a  well-remunerated  post. Furthermore, it was not yet clear what the responsibilities and workload of non-Executive members would be in the new ministerial system of government. Consequently, it might be premature to introduce a new system of remuneration at this stage. He suggested that the reform of States members' remuneration would be more acceptable to the general public when it could be seen in the context of the overall reforms to the composition of the Assembly and to the machinery of government.

The Committee, having thanked each of the above for their comments, agreed that it would take into account all the comments received and would consider at its next meeting whether or not to revise its report and proposition. It agreed that it should press ahead with trying to achieve the removal of the current means-tested element in members' income allowance. There appeared to be general agreement amongst those who had commented on its proposals that the time had come to change this principle. However, the issues in respect of the actual level of remuneration, differential pay, administration expenses and pensions needed further consideration.

Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., undertook to contact the Comptroller of Income Tax to clarify the position with regard to tax allowances on administration expenses.

States of Jersey A3.  The Committee, with reference to Act No. A3, dated 9th December 2002, of Law - drafting the Committee as previously constituted, received Mr. M. Entwistle, Principal Legal proposals. Instruction  Officer,  Machinery  of  Government  Reforms,  in  connexion  with  his 450/1(1) Discussion Paper, dated 13th January 2003, on the drafting proposals for a new States

of Jersey Law.

Ex.Off.

The  Committee  noted  that  the  drafting  instructions  had  been  formulated  on  the following assumptions -

1. t hat decisions that had previously been adopted by the States should be incorporated into drafting instructions without further debateon these policies;
2. t hat options describedin the Firstreportof the Privileges and Procedures Committee on the scrutinyfunctionwere, in the absenceof alternative

proposals, taken generally to be policy proposals. The Committee recalled that

number of issues, such as the call-in' mechanism and the powers of Scrutiny Panels remained to be decided;

3. t hat, inthe absence of a States decisiononP.186/2002regarding the composition  and election  of the  States  Assembly, and in  respect  of constitutional issues that had not been raised in the Clothier report or debated by the States, the status quoshouldprevail.TheCommittee recalled that, in its form as the Special Committee ontheComposition and  Election  of the  States  Assembly, it  had agreed to review the recommendationscontainedin P.186/2002 atanearly opportunity; and
4. t hat, as far aspossible, the new States of Jersey Law would be high-level enabling legislation, with muchof the detailed provisions contained in Standing Orders. Workon Standing Orders would commenceonce the drafting instructions for the principal Law had been approved by the Committee.

The Committee considered the issue of whether or not certain powers of the Bailiff should be retained in the new Law, namely his casting vote, his power of dissent and his  powers  to  issue  orders  for  the  regulation  of  admission  of  strangers.  The Committee was advised that the Bailiff had indicated that he did not wish to retain the aforementioned powers. The Committee requested the Principal Legal Adviser to research the historical background to these powers and the possible constitutional effects of removing them from the new Law. Similarly, the Committee requested that the position regarding the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor to veto be researched.

The  Committee  noted  that  it  was  proposed  that  the  new  Law  should  contain  a statement outlining the general functions of the States Assembly. The Committee, however, questioned whether this was necessary. Such a statement was not contained in the current Law. It was felt that, in stating the functions of the Assembly, there was a possibility of missing out some element. It was agreed that it would be better not to state the functions.

The Committee, given that many members had only recently received the Discussion Paper and had not had the opportunity to fully study its proposals, agreed to defer further consideration until its next meeting. In the meantime, in view of the need to pursue this matter in a timely fashion, given its relevance to other aspects of the reform of the machinery of government, a group consisting of the Acting President, Acting Vice President, the Greffier of the States, the Principal Legal Adviser, the Executive Officer and the Committee Clerk would scrutinise the drafting proposals in detail.

Special A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7(c) of 10th January 2003, Committee to Committee  received  a  paper, prepared  by the  Greffier  of  the  States,  dated 23rd consider the January 2003, setting out the functions of the Special Committee and the actions that relationship the  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  needed  to  take  in  relation  to  the between appointment of the Administrative Appeals Panel.

Committees and

the States. The Committee noted that the term of office of the current Panel was due to expire on 1240/1/2(18) 31st March 2003 and that it was necessary, therefore, to take a proposition to the 955(28) States  to  reconstitute  the  Panel.  The  Committee  was  advised  that  the  current Chairman, Mr. R.R. Jeune , C.B.E., had indicated that he would be prepared to serve

Ex.Off. for one more year, but for reasons of his age, did not feel able to offer himself for another three year term. The Committee, having been advised that Mrs C.E. Canavan,

currently one of the two Deputy Chairmen, had indicated an interest in this position, agreed  that  she  should  be  formally  invited  to  become  the  new  Chairman.  The Committee noted that Mr. Jeune had been involved with the Administrative Appeals system for some 40 years and agreed to give further consideration to marking his retirement at a subsequent meeting.

The Committee, having noted that it was customary for the Panel to present an annual report to the States, agreed to receive representatives of the Panel at a subsequent meeting to receive their report.

The Committee noted the minutes of the Special Committee, dated 19th March and 16th August 2002, which had previously been circulated and, having noted that they had been approved by the outgoing President, authorised the acting President to sign the said Minutes.

The Committee agreed to defer further consideration of the Greffier's report to the next meeting.

Freedom of A5.  The Committee, with reference to Act No. A3 of 24th October 2002, of the Information. Committee as previously constituted, considered a draft consultation paper, prepared 1240/22/1/6/1 by the Department, on Freedom of Information.

(1)

The Committee requested that the consultation paper be revised to further clarify the Ex.Off. following issues -

1. a c c e s s t o  Information  for States members - The  Committee requested  the Principal Legal Adviser to  assist  in clarifying  the implications  of the Birt  Ruling'. It  also requested  that  further information beincludedonthe current practice and control with regard to Statesmembers' access Committeeminutesandpapersinthe custody of the Greffier of the States;
2. t he implications ofHumanRights legislation in setting certain limits on access to information and its relationship with Data protection; and
3. N  ew Zealand Official Information Act, 1982 - The Committee recalled that it had been advised that theNew Zealand legislation provided a suitable model for Freedom of Information legislation in Jersey. Itwas advised that, as yet, requests to gain accesstothe law draftingbrief for the NewZealand legislation had not been successfuland requested that efforts in this respect berenewed.

The Committee agreed that the above paper should be issued in the form of a Rapport et Correspondence at an early opportunity so that feedback might be obtained from States members and other interested parties. It requested that a brief introductory page be added to the consultation highlighting the key questions that needed to be addressed in developing Freedom of information legislation in Jersey.

The Committee recalled that H.M. Attorney General had been invited to attend a meeting with the Committee on 14th February 2002 to discuss its proposals for Freedom of Information. Mindful that the provisions of the New Zealand legislation went  beyond  those  incorporated  in  the  recent  United  Kingdom  legislation,  the Committee agreed that the implications of possible differing legislation should be raised with H.M. Attorney General at that meeting. It also requested members to consider any further questions they would like to put to H.M. Attorney General on this matter.

On a related matter, the Committee noted that the Policy and Resources Committee had decided to discontinue the practice of circulating full Minutes of its meetings to all States members on the grounds that it was not appropriate to divulge in this way sensitive or confidential matters which might appear on the Part B Minutes of that Committee.  A  regular  session  in  the  States  providing  an  opportunity  for  States members to question the President of the Policy and Resources Committee on topical matters had been proposed as an alternative. The Committee expressed some concern that this change of policy might be regarded as contrary to its own proposals for developing States members' Access to Official Information. The Acting President reported that she had requested that the Committee papers which had helped to guide the Policy and Resources Committee in reaching its decision be made available in order that the background to this decision might be more fully understood.

Simultaneous A6.  The  Committee  received  and  considered  a  draft  report  and  proposition Electronic Voting requesting the States to agree to the introduction of a simultaneous electronic voting - draft report and system to replace the appel nominal'. proposition.

1240/22(8) The Committee was firmly supportive of the view that a simultaneous electronic

voting system would remove any possibility and perception that members' direction Ex.Off. of voting was influenced in any way by those voting before them. The proposed Pub.Ed. system would be more efficient and save time in the States Assembly. It was advised States (2) that funding had been included in Phase II of the refurbishment work to the States

Building,  based  on  costings  received  by  the  Environment  and  Public  Services

Department from the Department of Electronics  who  had researched appropriate

systems.

The Committee considered the practicality of erecting a large plasma screen in the States Chamber so that the results of a ballot might be displayed immediately to members. The Committee, however, agreed that such a screen would be out of place in the historic setting of the Chamber. Furthermore, the benefits of displaying the results on screen did not warrant the expense which would be in the region of £9,000. The Committee was mindful that it was occasionally in the interest of the public or the media to announce the details of the appel. It was proposed that, in those cases, the Greffier of the States should, if requested to do so by any elected member of the States, announce the details of each member's vote immediately after the result of the vote was declared.

The Committee approved the draft report and proposition, subject to minor revisions to be finalised and agreed by the Acting President. It requested that the report and proposition be lodged au Greffe' on 4th February 2003 with a view to a debate in the States on 4th March 2003. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., agreed to act as rapporteur for the debate.

Scrutiny Seminar A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A2(f) of 17th March 2003, gave 1240/22/1(9) further consideration to the planned Scrutiny Seminar for States members and Chief 465/1(28) Officers, to beheld on 21st February 2003 at the Headquarters of the Royal Jersey

Agricultural and Horticultural Society (RJA&HS).

Ex.Off.

The Committee noted that Mr. S. Sanghera, Head of Scrutiny, Lambeth Council, had agreed to address the Seminar. The Committee noted that the current Mayor of Lambeth, a personal friend of Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., was also willing to come to Jersey for the agreed to attend the Seminar.

The Committee agreed an outline programme for the half-day Seminar. It agreed that politicians  and  Chief  Officers  should  form  separate  focus  groups  following  the keynote address in order that both groups should feel comfortable in addressing the

issues in ways most relevant to their respective positions.

The Committee requested that invitations be sent out to all States members and Chief Officers.

States Members' A8.  The Committee received catering quotations from five different suppliers in lunches. respect of the provision of States Members' lunches.

Ex.Off. The Committee approved the lowest quotation, in the sum of £4.40 per person,

received from Simple Simons, on a probationary basis.

Policy and A9.  The Committee received correspondence, dated 23rd January 2003, from the Resources President of  the Policy and  Resources Committee,  requesting  the Privileges and Committee: Procedures Committee to nominate a member to serve as a member of the Machinery Machinery of of Government Sub-Committee.

Government Sub-

Committee. Connétable D.F. Gray agreed to join the above Sub-Committee as the representative 1240/22/1(5) of the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

C.E., P&R The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Policy and P.R.E.O. Resources Committee for information.

P.R.C.C.

Ex.Off.

Acts of other A10.  The Committee noted the following Acts of other Committees - Committees.

1. A  ct No.A7, dated 15th January 2003,ofthe Finance and Economics Committee  in  connexion with  the  report and proposition  of the EnvironmentandPublicServicesCommitteeonPhase II works for the refurbishment of the States Building;and
2. A  ct No.B5,dated 10th January 2003, of the oftheEnvironmentand Public ServicesCommitteeinconnexion with its report and proposition on Phase II works for the refurbishmentofthe States Building.

Date of next A11.  The Committee confirmed the date of its next meeting, scheduled for Friday meeting 7th February 2003, commencing at 12 noon in the Halkett Room, Morier House.