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.
185
KS/MH/336
PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (50th Meeting)
(Business conducted by electronic mail)
10th October 2019
PART A (Non-Exempt)
All members were present, with the exception of Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier, Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour and Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour , from whom apologies had been received.
Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier , Chairman Connétable C. H. Taylor of St. John Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier
In attendance -
L.M. Hart , Deputy Greffier of the States
K.L. Slack, Clerk to the Privileges and Procedures Committee Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.
Public Sector A1. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. B2 of 7th October 2019, Ombudsman recalled that it had expressed the wish to respond to the consultation on the proposal to consultation – establish a Public Sector Ombudsman (PSO')
response.
1240/26/87 The Committee was of the view that the present system, which relied on well-respected,
independent members of the community, from a wide range of professional backgrounds had many advantages and was an effective scheme. The Boards established from the States of Jersey Complaints Panel had strongly challenged Ministers and Departments in recent years when processes and procedures had failed, or not been adhered to.
The Committee had concerns that the proposed funding status of the PSO, which was mooted to replace a free service, could create a public perception of bias. It also questioned the proposed exclusion of the Minister for Health and Social Services from the PSO's remit, until such time as health care providers were brought in by a decision of the States Assembly, particularly because the Complaints Panel currently had – and had had in the past – cases pertaining to poor administration within the Hospital.
The Committee received a draft response, which reflected inter alia these views and instructed the Deputy Greffier to arrange for the response to be formally submitted.