PPC Minutes 25th November 2004

IC/PH/352  286

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (30th Meeting)

25th November 2004

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputy J-A. Bridge and Deputy J.A. Bernstein, from whom apologies had been received.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier Senator P.V.F. Le Claire Connétable D.F. Gray Deputy P.N. Troy Deputy C.J. Scott - Warr en

In attendance -

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

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

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

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

Minutes A1. The Minutes of the meeting held on 28th October 2004 (Part A), having been circulated previously, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Deputy P.N. Troy was not present for this item.

Scrutiny of States A2. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 14th October 2004, Business Plan recalled that it had considered the scrutiny of the Business Plan and Budget and and Budget. that it had requested that further research be undertaken with regard to the use of a 502/5/5(1) thematic process approach, and in particular that information on the scrutiny of the Budget in other jurisdictions be included within the report.

G.O.S.

A.G.O.S. The Committee welcomed Senator E.P. Vibert and Deputy G.P. Southern in their P.R.C.C. capacity as chairmen of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels to consider the discussion P.R.E.O. paper prepared by Mr. C. Ahier , Scrutiny Officer, in connexion with scrutiny of T.O.S. the States Business Plan and Budget.

C.I.Aud.

F.E.C.C. The Committee noted the research gathered on Budget Scrutiny in the British Isles, Scrutiny including England, Wales, Scotland and the Greater London Authority, as follows Clerk –

1. It noted that in England the 2003 pre-budget report was released on 10th December 2003, that the Committee held three evidence sessions in the week  following  the  statement  questioning  outside  experts,  Treasury Officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it also received written submissions from a number of outside experts and bodies. The resulting Scrutiny Report was published on 21st January 2004 in advance of the announcement of the budget in April 2004.
2. In Wales the Scrutiny of Budgets took place in three phases with a preliminary look at Committee priorities taking place in May, the draft Budget document being laid in October followed by a plenary session and

Scrutiny sessions in Committee to look at the draft Budget. A plenary session

on the final budget took place at the end of November. This was supplemented by the Scrutiny of the Budget by departmental Scrutiny Committees.

3. In Scotland there was a three stage budget process culminating in the Parliament voting on the Budget Bill. The first stage involved the Parliament considering a provisional expenditure plan by 31st March. During the second stage the Parliament considered the Scott ish Ministers detailed spending proposals for the next financial year, which were to be submitted by 20th September and the Budget Bill must be introduced before 20th January in each year.
4. At a national regional level the greater London Authority set a budget for itself and each of four functional bodies - Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The Budget Committee scrutinized the various functional bodies' budgets before the consolidated budget was prepared. Thereafter the draft consolidated budget was available to the Budget Committee in December, just a few days prior to the Public Hearing attended by the Mayor. The Budget heard from a set list of respondents, including the Chair and Senior Officers or Chief Financial Officers of each of the functional bodies. The Committee also took evidence from various groups, including business representatives, on their response to the budget. The Budget Committee prepared a written response in January and the consolidated budget proposals were considered by the London Assembly.

The Committee and the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panels noted that in each of the above cases there was more than one opportunity to review proposals, and therefore reaffirmed their view that to have sight of the States Business Plan and States Budget two weeks before lodging would not allow for meaningful scrutiny. The Committee agreed that the aim of the scrutiny process should be -

1. to i nform States members about the processes involved;
2. to s uggest improvements to the processes;
3. t o evaluate whether the outcomes were a fair reflection of the processes;
4. to assess the impact of proposals on stated strategic aims (for example vehicle registration duty and the environment); and,
5. to assist States members in evaluating the States Business Plan/States Budget.

The meeting was of the view that this could not be achieved within the resources available in such a short space of time.

The Committee supported the view of the Scrutiny Chairman that at key moments during the development of the Resource Plan and Budget, a member(s) of the Scrutiny Panel charged to review these reports should attend as an observer in order to gain a proper feel for the processes and to be able to commence some preparatory work. The need for trust and confidentiality was understood.

The Committee noted a letter dated 19th November 2004 from the President of the Finance and Economics Committee supporting the general direction which the Committee was heading on this matter. The President of the Finance and Economics Committee was keen to find out and understand the timetable the Committee  was  working  towards  to  introduce  a  system  which  implemented Scrutiny into the Budget plan and Budget processes, and he enclosed a copy of the Finance  and  Economics  Committees' timetable for  this  process to assist  with planning.

The Committee agreed that arrangements should be made to scrutinise the States Business Plan and Budget during 2005 as part of the Shadow Scrutiny training  process,  and  decided  that  a  meeting  should  be  arranged  with representatives  of  the  Policy  and  Resources,  Finance  and  Economics  and Privileges and Procedures Committees together with the Chairmen of the Shadow Scrutiny Panels in order to consider how this was to be achieved. In the interim, the Committee requested the Deputy Greffier of the States and Mr.  C.   Ahier  to  meet  with  their  officer  counterparts  in  the  Policy  and Resources and Treasury Departments in order to consider the detail. The Committee also requested that appropriate training be investigated so that a budget  scrutiny  training  package  could  be  put  together  at  the  earliest available opportunity.

The Deputy Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary action.

Shadow Scrutiny A3. The Committee recalled that, over the course of 2004, the Shadow Scrutiny Panels: Panels had experienced some difficulty in retaining members. In particular it noted vacancies. that the Shadow Scrutiny Panel chaired by Deputy G.P. Southern was operating 502/1(12) with a reduced membership of three.

D.G.O.S. The Committee considered various options for increasing the number of States Clerk Members  available  to  serve  on  the  Shadow  Scrutiny  Panels.  It  noted  that  the

ministerial system of government was due to be introduced in December 2005, whereupon the roles and responsibilities assigned to Committees of as many as seven States Members would be managed by a Minister and, at most, two Assistant Ministers. In view of this  forthcoming  change,  the  Committee  considered that certain Committees could be invited to operate with a reduced membership of three, thus releasing a number of States Members for Shadow Scrutiny. However, and having noted that only two Members were actually required for scrutiny duties in the short to medium term, it concluded that it would be sufficient simply to bring a proposition to the States to allow for members of the Committee to serve on the Shadow Scrutiny Panels.

The Deputy Greffier of the States was requested to take the necessary action.

Freedom of A4. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A9 of 4th November 2004, information – received a progress report from Mr. P. Baker, Instructing Officer, in connexion with progress and the production of drafting instructions for a freedom of information law.

research.

955(36) The Committee noted that a first draft had been produced. Arguments for and

against the creation of a law were included within the draft, which also highlighted a number of specific policy issues for consideration, including –

1. w hether a publications scheme should be created,
2. a po  ssible rôle for the Data Protection Registrar,
3. pol  itical and legal options for enforcement,
4. t he inter-relation of a freedom of information law with other laws,
5. a d  efinition of public bodies that would be bound by the law,
6. a no fees' policy,

7. t he release of previously exempt information in the public interest, and
8. r elease of non-exempt information in existence prior to the introduction of the Code.

Having been apprised of all relevant matters, the Committee acknowledged the work carried out by the Instructing Officer to date and endorsed the approach taken in the report. It further agreed that individual members should forward comments on the policy matters raised in the report to the Instructing Officer within 7 days.

States of Jersey A5. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7 of 4th November 2004, Law 200-. noted that the States of Jersey Law 200- had been adopted by the States on 16th 450(1) November 2004, albeit with a number of amendments.

Clerk The Committee recalled that, during the course of the States of Jersey Law 200- G.O.S. debate, the President of the Policy and Resources Committee had unexpectedly P.R.C.C. given an assurance that his Committee would bring forward an amendment to P.R.E.O. Article 19, so that States Members would have the opportunity to elect Ministers

individually, albeit still only on the recommendation of the Chief Minister.

The Committee noted the assurance given to the States but decided that this was a matter for the Policy and Resources Committee and not one where it intended to propose any change itself.  In addition the Committee reserved its right  to  propose  an  alternative  amendment  in  the  event  that  the  system proposed  by  the  Policy  and  Resources  Committee  was  thought  to  be inappropriate or unworkable.

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

Further  discussion  of  the  States  of  Jersey  Law  200- took  place  under  the Committee's confidential Part B' agenda.

A People's A6. The Committee received a report and proposition, lodged au Greffe' by Advocate: Senator S. Syvret, entitled, A People's Advocate' (Projet No. P.202/2004 refers). Comments.

1240(175) The Committee noted that the proposition had been referred to it for a comment.

However, and having acknowledged that the effect of the proposition would be to Clerk increase  the  number  of  non-elected  members  of  the  States  Assembly,  the A.G. Committee questioned whether the content of the proposition fell outside of its

terms of reference.

On the matter of impartiality, the Committee noted that the accompanying report referred to the duty of a People's Advocate' to proffer independent legal advice to the Assembly and back-benchers' in a manner that would be wholly independent of either any executive function or the Law Officers' Department. The Committee considered that legal advice provided by the Law Officers' Department was indeed wholly independent and it therefore expressed serious doubts as to the need for a second legal opinion. It further considered that the impartiality of the post holder could be called into question. As the People's Advocate' was to be answerable to the States directly, there would inevitably be a temptation for the post holder to tailor any advice given in an attempt to satisfy a majority of the States Assembly.

The Committee noted that, from time to time, reports circulated amongst States Members of cases where Committees, Shadow Scrutiny Panels, Departments or individual  members  of  the  States  had  apparently  experienced  difficulties  in obtaining urgent advice from the Law Officers' Department. However, any delays were understood to have resulted from the careful and objective prioritization of what was acknowledged to be a consistently prodigious workload. The Committee therefore concluded that the funding required to provide for a People's Advocate' might be utilized more efficiently to increase the resources available to the Law Officers' Department. It further concluded that there were sound administrative reasons  for  channelling  future  requests  for  legal  advice  through  a  centralized Members' services' facility within the States Greffe.

The Committee noted that the Law Officers' Department was producing a comment to the aforementioned proposition. In light  of the foregoing, the Committee decided to defer further consideration of a comment to its next meeting.

States Members' A7. The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A4 of 28th October 2004, parking. recalled that it had reached agreement with the Environment and Public Services 1240/9/1(115) Committee on the matter of future parking provision for States Members.

The Committee received a report and proposition of the Environment and Public Services Committee entitled, States Members' Parking' (Projet No. P.199/2004), together with an associated amendment brought by Senator J.A. Le Maistre.

Having noted that the proposition brought by the Environment and Public Services Committee was in accordance with the views as expressed at the Committee's  meeting  on  28th  October  2004,  the  Committee  decided  to comment in the following terms –

The Privileges and Procedures Committee supports the proposition.'

With regard to the amendment brought by Senator J.A. Le Maistre, the Committee expressed sympathy with the  principle  of equity between  States  Members and employees of the States in terms of free parking provision. Notwithstanding the foregoing, concern was expressed that the removal of free parking provision for certain public sector staff groups might require negotiations in connexion with pay and conditions of service, thereby delaying resolution of the parking issue for States Members.

The Committee agreed that individual members should be free to comment on the Amendment in the States.

Senatorial A8. The Committee received a draft report and proposition, prepared by Deputy Elections 2005. P.N. Troy , in connexion with Senatorial elections in 2005.

424/2(22)

It was explained that the purpose of the proposition was to allow those Senators elected in 2002 for a six year term of office to stand down and seek a fresh mandate for Ministerial government.

On examining its terms of reference, the Committee concluded that the subject matter of the proposition fell outside of its remit. Accordingly the Committee declined to consider the matter.

Hansard: A9. The Committee received an oral report from the Deputy Greffier of the States transcription of in connexion with the transcription of oral questions in the States Assembly.

Oral Questions.

1240/10/1(4) The Committee was advised that, following an initial problem in ensuring that tapes

for transcription reached their destination (which had been resolved by employing D.G.O.S. an alternative postal carriage service) the service used for the transcription of oral Clerk questions was providing a timely and high quality record.

With regard to the future expansion of Hansard style transcription services, the Committee recalled that Projet No. P.81/2003, as adopted by the States on 20th January 2004, called for the creation of an electronic record, whereas the record of oral questions was being reproduced in the Minutes of the States Assembly. The Committee  considered  that,  in  the  longer  term,  all  records  of  the  States Assembly  should  be  kept  electronically  so  as  to  limit  the  resourcing implications arising from production of extended Minutes and to comply with the terms of the aforementioned Projet.

Shadow Public A10.  The Committee recalled that on 24th November 2004 the Shadow Chairman Accounts of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee had lodged a proposition in connexion Committee: with the appointment of an additional member to the Shadow Public Accounts appointment of Committee (Projet No. P.197/2004 refers).

members.

570/1(2) The Committee considered whether its responsibility for the Scrutiny function was

such  that  it  would  be  appropriate  for  it  to  assume  responsibility  for  making Clerk recommendations on membership of the Shadow Public Accounts Committee to the

G.O.S. States.

T.O.S.

C.I.Aud. The Committee was advised that the Finance and Economics Committee retained F.E.C.C. responsibility  for  appointing  the  non-elected  members  of  the  Shadow  Public Scrutiny Accounts Committee. Accordingly the Committee decided that it should seek

the views of both the Finance and Economics Committee and the Shadow Public Accounts Committee on the matter.

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

Matters for A11. The Committee noted the following items for information – information.

1. t he Committee's list of outstanding actions and matters arising,
2. co  rrespondence, dated 16th November 2004, from the President to all States Members in connexion with access to facilities within the States Building,
3. c orrespondence, dated 16th November 2004, from the Dean of Jersey in connexion with a review of the position of unelected members of the States,
4. Act  No.  A8  of  the  Policy  and  Resources  Committee,  dated  21st October 2004, concerning proposals for a freedom of information law, and
5. Act  No.  A6  of  the  Policy  and  Resources  Committee,  dated  21st October 2004, concerning the composition and election of the States Assembly.

With regard to the correspondence listed at item (c) above, the Committee noted that the issue raised by the Dean of Jersey was a matter for the now defunct Special Committee on the Composition and Election of the States. It therefore requested the Committee Clerk to write to the Dean in appropriate terms.