This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
MH/KAK/93 44
PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (8th Meeting)
24th March 2003
PART A
All members were present, with the exception of Deputy C.J. Scott - Warr en and Deputy J.A. Bernstein, from whom apologies had been received.
Senator C.G.P. Lakeman Connétable D.F. Gray Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier Deputy J-A. Bridge
In attendance -
M.N. de la Haye, Greffier of the States
D.C.G. Filipponi, Assistant Greffier of the States P. Byrne, Executive Officer M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.
Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.
Scrutiny Function A1. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 21st March 2003, gave - proposed call- further consideration to the question of including a call-in' mechanism within the in' mechanism. powers of Scrutiny Panels in the new ministerial system of government. 502/1(3)
The Committee considered the suggestion that call-in' could form an important Ex.Off. element of the creative tension' that should exist under the new system between the
Executive and Scrutiny functions. The move from the current Committee system into
a system of government where decision making power was concentrated in the
Executive constituted, it was asserted, a major cultural change in which non-
Executive members were likely to feel that they had lost much of their current means
of influencing political and strategic affairs in the Island. It was recognised that call-
in' could not stop Executive decisions but it would allow backbench members an
opportunity to influence the Executive by asking it to reconsider matters where it was
felt that decisions had been taken without proper consultation or beyond agreed
policy frameworks. It was argued that call-in' should be available to non-Executive
members, not as a central power, but as a residual supplement' to other means of
scrutinising the Executive. Dropping the proposal at this stage would disappoint
members and the Press who had been enthusiastic about this idea in the Committee's
First Report.
On the other hand, it was asserted that call-in' was unnecessary in the Jersey system as the arrangements for Scrutiny would provide other, more powerful means of holding the Executive to account. It was to be hoped that the quality of debate in the Assembly would be enhanced as members became better informed through involvement in effective scrutiny enquiries and developed skills in investigating below the surface of policies and strategies. Ministers could be called before Scrutiny Panels to account for their decisions and questioned on the basis of a rigorous and well researched brief in a way that was not usually possible under the present Committee system. Under this system, members generally were presented with papers expertly prepared by officers of the Department but did not always have the expertise or resources to investigate possible alternatives. The danger in introducing a call-in' mechanism, it was suggested, was that Scrutiny Panels might become inundated with requests for call-in' making them reactive to the Executive agenda rather than proactive with their own priorities. It would be necessary for Scrutiny Chairmen to establish a system of monitoring and checking all key decisions of the Executive to ensure that all potentially controversial decisions were caught' before the call-in' deadline expired. A call-in' mechanism, furthermore, would encourage an adversarial relationship with the Executive. Finally, there was a possibility that the mechanism could be abused by a small minority of members (in the absence of party discipline as in the United Kingdom).
Having considered both sides of the argument, the Committee decided that the proposed call-in' mechanism should be included, without prejudice, in the Committee's forthcoming draft report and proposition on Scrutiny. The final decision on whether or not to include the mechanism would be taken by the Committee before finalising and lodging the report and proposition. Deputy R.G. Le Herissier was requested to prepare the relevant section for inclusion in the Committee's report.
Access to Policy A2. The Committee, with reference to the decision of the Policy and Resources and Resources Committee not to continue its practice of distributing copies of its Minutes to all Committee states members, was advised that the Vice President, in order to better understand papers. that decision, had requested copies of the agenda paper considered by the Policy and 451/1(4) Resources Committee prior to that decision. The Vice President, however, had not
received a response from the Policy and Resources Committee in this regard.
Ex.Off.
C.E., P&R The Committee, in view of the relevance of the matter to the wider issue of Question P.R.E.O. Time which it was currently considering, decided to make a formal request to the P.R.C.C. Policy and Resources Committee to be granted a copy of the aforementioned papers.
The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Policy and Resources Committee accordingly.