PPC Minutes 30th January 2004

MH/KAK/37  166

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (29th Meeting)

30th January 2004

PART A

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

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. Bernstein

In attendance -

M.N. de la Haye, Greffier of the States R.W. Whitehead, Principal Legal Adviser Mrs. J. Marshall, Senior Executive Officer Miss F. Agnès, Executive Officer

M.P. Haden, Committee Clerk.

Mrs S. Stoten, States Greffe

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

Minutes A1.  The Minutes of the meetings held on 9th and 15th January 2004, having been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Administrative A2.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A9 of 9th January 2004, received Appeals system - a delegation representing the Administrative Appeals Panel, comprising Mrs C.E. proposals for Canavan, Chairman, Advocate R.J. Renouf , Mr. P.G. Farley, Mrs M. Le Gresley, change Miss  C.   Vibert  and  Mr.  T.S.  Perchard,  in  connexion  with  the  draft  discussion 1386/2(71) document, prepared by the Greffier of the States regarding proposed changes to the 465/1(30) current Administrative Appeals system.

G.O.S. The delegation,  having  collectively  discussed  the  draft  document  ahead  of  the Pub.Ed. meeting, acknowledged the issues raised in the draft discussion document and shared States (2) the concerns of the Committee.

The delegation expressed the following views in particular -

1. t here shouldbe a formal written follow upprocedure for the findings of the Board with a timescale andtrackingmechanism;
2. t he profile of the Appeal Boardshouldberaised;
3. t he current system was underminedby the lackofknowledge and respect from Committees;
4. A  ppealBoards should be have at least onelawyer, with ideally three

lawyers on the Panel;

5. t heGreffierof the States should remain the central pointofcontact for any appeal but that the Chairman should decidetheappropriatenessof eachcase for appeal;
6. th e Paneldid not favour anOmbudsman option as the cost could notbe justified; and
7. t he delegation indicated they would behappytosuggestandimplement procedural guidelinesfor inclusion to a workingdocument.

The Committee, having discussed the above with the delegation, directed the Greffier of the States to prepare the document for presentation to the States, subject to minor amendments, and hoped that publicity would be generated for the appeal mechanism as a result. The Committee also felt that a change of name for the Administrative Appeals System would promote its image. The Committee felt that States of Jersey Review Board' would be most appropriate.

The Committee expressed thanks to the members of the Panel for their personal dedication  to  the  Administrative  Appeals  System  and  acknowledged  the  good working  relationship  that  had  been  built  with  the Greffier  of  the  States. The Committee also thanked the Sub-Committee, comprising Deputies Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M.,   Deputy  C.J.   Scott - Warr en,  assisted  by  the  Greffier,  for  their  work  in preparing the discussion document.

Machinery of A3.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A8  of  9th  January  2004, Government: considered its response to the Report and Proposition Machinery of Government: Votes of No Votes of No Confidence in Individual Ministers' (P.6/2004), lodged au Greffe' by Confidence in Senator S. Syvret on 20th January 2004.

Individual

Ministers The  Committee  recalled  that  the  States,  in  adopting  P.191/2002,  had  previously P.6/2004 agreed that Votes of No Confidence in individual Ministers would not be allowed 1240/22/1(34) under the structure of the new Executive government. However, it further recalled

that agreement had subsequently been reached with the Presidents of the Policy and C.E., P&R Resources  and  Finance  and  Economics  Committees  to  allow  for  Votes  of  No P.R.E.O. Confidence  in  individual  Ministers  in  the  new  Standing  Orders  and  that, P.R.C.C. consequently, the draft article in the draft States of Jersey Law relating to Votes of Ex.Off. No Confidence had been withdrawn. Thus, Senator Syvret's proposition appeared to

have been already settled.

The  Committee  noted  facsimile  correspondence,  23rd  January  2004,  from  the President requesting Senator Syvret to withdraw his proposition on the basis of a formal undertaking from both the Policy and Resources Committee that it would not seek to amend the relevant Article of the draft States of Jersey Law, with a similar undertaking from the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

The Committee requested the Principal Legal Adviser to consider any implications the proposal might have for the new draft States of Jersey Law, and to finalise its comment on Senator Syvret's proposition once it had received the Principal Legal Adviser' comments. It also agreed to advise the Policy and Resources Committee of this position.

States Building - A4.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A7 of 28th November 2003, request to transfer received Deputy M.F. Dubras, President of the Environment and Public Services Committee Room Committee, to discuss the proposal in the revised draft Report and Proposition of the to Jurats. Environment and Public Services Committee on the Use and Allocation of Rooms 1060/5/1(27) within the Royal Court/States Building to re-assign to the Jurats the room currently

designated within the States members area as the third Committee Room.

Bailiff

E.P.S.C.(2) The Committee recalled that it had been opposed to the proposed transfer of this Ex.Off. room,  which was currently intended  for  use  as  Members' Quiet  Room, on  the

grounds that it was necessary to monitor and assess the provision of rooms for States members in the light of experience. It further recalled, in her absence, the Vice President's views with regard to this matter, which had been set out in her letter to the Bailiff on 17th November 2003. However, the Committee was advised by the President that, in his view, a compromise was essential in view of the safety of the Jurats and the respect owing to their office. In addition, the Court of Appeal required an appropriate room to meet and work. Deputy Dubras expressed his shared concerns that the Jurats would be forced to mix with members of the public and alleged criminals if an acceptable solution could not be found.

Deputy  Dubras  indicated  to  the  Committee that three  remote  witness  rooms, administered by the Judicial Greffe, would be made available to States members in exchange, on a shared-use basis, provided they were not required for use by the Court. The Committee, however, was of the opinion that these rooms would not be an adequate replacement for the Members' Quiet Room due both to their restricted size and their primary use for the Court. The Committee recognised that only two of the witness rooms offered represented a usable space to the members and noted that only experience would determine their suitability in the long term.

The Committee also raised the matter of the furniture for the Members' Quiet Room which had been ordered at a cost of £16,000 in good faith, prior to the discussions on the possible transfer of the room. It was of the view that this expense should be reimbursed to enable the funding to be used for other purposes within the facilities for States members.

On  a  related  matter,  the  Committee also voiced  concerns  about  the  use  and management of the Royal Court/States Building, namely -

1. t hedelay in concluding an acceptable Service LevelAgreement for the building;
2. p roblems which had been experienced with the shared use oftheOld Library and the cost of disassembling the temporary Court setting when the spacewasrequired

for States functions and receptions; and

3. o ccasionswhenJurors had wandered through the areaaround the States Chamberwhen the States were in session.

It was agreed that the Judicial Greffe should be asked to give urgent consideration to the management of the building during Assize trials, including the movement and proper protection of Jurors.

The Committee, after some discussion, came to the conclusion that the practical concerns  of  the  Jurats  had  to  be  addressed  and  that  the  transfer  of  the third Committee  Room  was  ultimately  the  best  solution  to  these  difficulties.  The Committee, however, wished to secure a formal assurance from the Environment and Public Services Committee that the States Members allocation of rooms would face no further reduction.

Deputy Dubras having left the meeting, the Committee returned to the question of the furniture which had been ordered for the Members' Quiet Room and which was due to be delivered on 2nd February 2004.

It was agreed that the furniture should be installed, for the time being, in the Quiet Room and the Committee reiterated its view that compensation for the expenditure should be sought.

The Greffier of the States was directed to send a copy of this Act to the Environment and Public Services Committee accordingly.

States Building: A5.  The Committee received a report, dated 21st January 2004 from the Executive artwork in Officer in relation to proposals for Artwork to be housed in the Atrium of the States Atrium of Main Building.

Entrance.

1060/5/1(47) The Committee were apprised of the three available options -

Ex.Off. (a) To commission  a  piece  of  artwork  expected  to  be  in  the  region  of

£15,000 to £20,000. This was considered inappropriate in light of the Financial Spending Review;

2. To  invite commission by competition  which would  entail  complex arrangementsregardingsponsorship, prize money and / or a community project; and
3. T o loan artwork from the Jersey Heritage Trust on a rotation basis, with managementand display responsibility being offered atno cost by the Trust.

The  Committee  agreed  that  the  latter  option  was  advantageous,  not  least because it was the cheapest but also because it would provide a variety of prestigious artwork. Establishing confirmation that pieces would be adequately covered by the building's existing insurance, with respect to theft or damage, was considered by the Committee to be of primary importance. Therefore, the Committee directed the Executive Officer to make the necessary arrangements on its behalf.

Freedom of A6.  The Committee considered a Memorandum, dated 23rd December 2003, from Information: Deputy C.F. Labey in connexion with policy relating to Public Records Management. Public Records

Management. The Committee, conscious that the Vice President would share its interest in this 308/3(4) particular  issue,  was  minded  to  defer  discussion  to  its  next  meeting.  The

Committee  requested  that   Deputy   Labey  be  invited  to  the  next  meeting  to Ex.Off. discuss the topic. The Committee felt it appropriate to seek legal advice and

directed the Senior Executive Officer accordingly.

Machinery of A7.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 12th December 2003, Government received a report, dated 23rd January 2004 from the Senior Executive Officer in Reform: connexion with proposals for the recording and promulgation of Ministerial decisions Ministerial under the new system of government.

Decisions -

recording and The Committee noted the report and agreed to give further consideration to this promulgation. matter at a subsequent meeting and on the Vice President's return. 1240/22/1(35)

Ex.Off.

Simultaneous A8.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A3 of 9th January 2004, gave Electronic Voting further consideration to draft amendments to Standing Orders required to enable the

- draft introduction of simultaneous Electronic Voting.

amendment to

Standing Orders. The Committee was apprised of the current situation regarding planning permission 1240/22(8) and  installation  of  the  voting  buttons  in  the  States  Chambers,  the  former  being

approved and the latter being proposed for 4th March 2004. The Committee gave due Ex.Off. consideration to the subject of abstaining and notification of the Appel and agreed the Pub.Ed. amendment adequately covered all scenarios.

States (2)

The Committee approved the draft Amendment (No.26) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey , subject to minor typographical revisions, and directed the Greffier of the States to prepare an accompanying report with a view to the Amendment being lodged au Greffe' on 10th February 2004. The Greffier of the States was requested to discuss with the Law Draftsman an appropriate date for the Amendment to come into force.

Working Party on A9.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A1 of 17th November 2003, the Organisation considered how it should take forward the suggestions made by the Working Party on of States the Organisation of States Business at its meeting on 17th December 2003.

Business.

1240/7/1(78) The Committee noted that the inaugural meeting had raised many interesting and

useful points with various suggestions which might be trialled in the coming months.

Ex.Off.

The  Committee requested  that  a  second  meeting  of  the Working Party  be arranged as soon as possible with a view to agreeing a programme for the proposed trials.

Code of Practice A10.  The  Committee,  with  reference  to  its  Act  No.  A1  of  15th  January  2004, on Public Access considered  the  amendment  lodged  by   Deputy  P.N.   Troy  to  his  own  report  and to Official proposition Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information: Register of Information : Reports' (P.196/2003).

Register of

Reports The  Committee  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  inclusion  of  the  amendment  would (P.196/2003) increase the scope of the proposition and would ultimately raise questions as to what

- second reports were considered in the public interest. It felt that departments would, as a amendment consequence, be at liberty to withhold reports on the basis that they were not in the 955(32) public interest.

Ex.Off. The Committee noted that the President had attempted to meet Deputy Troy

but had been unable to agree a convenient date.

States Members' A11.  The  Committee, with  reference to  its  Act  No. A1  of  20th October  2003, Remuneration: considered its position with regard to the Report and Proposition of Deputy T.J. Le increases for Main, States  Members' Remuneration:  increases  for  2004 - rescindment 2004 - (P.11/2004).

rescindment

(P.11/2004) - The Committee agreed to oppose the rescindment proposal which would deprive comment. States  members  of  their  annual  increase  in  remuneration. It  was  noted that  this 1240/3(74) increase was significantly less than the public sector increase at June 2003.

Ex.Off. The Committee requested that comments be drafted for its consideration, drawing attention to the number of times the issue of States members' remuneration had been

debated  in  recent  times  by  the  States  and  the fact  that the  establishment  of an independent Remuneration  Review Body had  been  agreed by  the  States.  It also requested  that  the  comment  include  graphs  showing  how  States  members' remuneration was falling behind public sector pay increases year on year.

States Members' A12.  The Committee, with reference to its Act No. A11 of 22nd August 2003, Remuneration: received  correspondence,  dated  15th  January  2004,  from  the  President  of  the Class 2 Social Employment and Social Security Committee together with an undated report from the Security Senior Executive Officer in connexion with the treatment of States members' social Contributions security contributions.

1240/3(67)

The Committee noted that the House Committee in R.C.33/2001 had referred to Ex.Off. advice received from the Employment and Social Security Department to the effect

that a minor amendment to the Social Security (Classification)(Jersey) Order 1975

would  enable  States  members  to  be  treated  as employed' for  Social  security

purposes with the employer's contribution being met by the States. The Committee's

request that Employment and Social Security Committee consider amending the Law

had been based on this advice. It further noted that the Employment and Social

Security Committee had questioned the basis for this apparent special treatment for

States members.

The  Committee  agreed  to  seek  a  meeting  with the  Employment  and  Social Security Committee in order to discus the matter more fully with a view to reaching  agreement  on  the  way forward. The Senior Executive  Officer  was directed to take the necessary action.

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

1. an  article from  The Ombudsman magazine regarding  the  Scott ish Parliamentary  Standards Commissioner, together with  a  copy of the Scott ish Parliamentary StandardsCommissionerAct2000;and
2. d ate ofnextmeetingscheduled for 20th February 2004