Establishment of a Home Affairs Committee

ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE _______________

Lodged au Greffe on 26th October 1999 by the Policy and Resources Committee

______________________________

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES GREFFE

175             1 9 9 9   P . 1 7 4          

Price code: C

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

  to re f e r to their Act dated 8th September 1998, in which they agreed to charge the Policy and Resources Committee

to develop further the work so far undertaken on the formation, organisation and responsibilities of the Home Affairs Committee; and

  (a ) to approve, in principle, the renaming of the Defence Committee as the Home Affairs Committee with effect

from 14th December 1999;

  ( b ) to  agree that a Chief Executive Officer of the Home Affairs Committee should be appointed as soon as

possible following the date of its establishment;

  (c ) to approve in principle the transfer to the Home Affairs Committee as soon as possible following the date of

its establishment of -

   (i ) th e f u n c tions of the Defence Committee;

  ( ii )  th e functions of the Prison Board;

   (ii i )  th e re s p onsibility for the Crime and Drugs Strategy Unit;

(iv  )  fin  a n c ia l responsibility for the Probation Department from the Finance and Economics Committee;

   (v ) r e s p o n s ibility for the functions of the Customs and Excise Department relating to administration and

drug enforcement from the Finance and Economics Committee;

  ( d ) to  charge the Home Affairs Committee from the time of its establishment to take the necessary steps to

amend the relevant legislation to enable it to discharge all of its responsibilities, but in particular those responsibilities relevant for the development and implementation of a strategy to bear upon all matters relating to the level and consequences of crime in Jersey.

POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

NOTES:  1. T h e Finance and Economics Committee is aware that the mechanics for the creation of a new Committee are

complex, but is concerned that it is being asked to provide the necessary funding at a time when the financial implications of such have yet to be identified or quantified. The Committee would be very surprised if no additional funding was required to implement the recommendations and is of the opinion that all proposals requiring extra funds would need to be fully identified, quantified and appraised before any commitment could be given to the provision of funding. The Committee is fully aware that considerable consultation will need to take place on this and other related issues before the new Committee is established.

   T h e r e is n o specific  additional  funding  included  in  the  revenue  Cash  Limits  for  2000-2002  for  any

developments which the Home Affairs Committee may bring forward, however it will be expected that where there is a transfer of function from one Committee to the proposed Home Affairs Committee there will have to be a corresponding transfer of funds which must be contained within the total Cash Limits of the Committees and departments concerned.

2 .        T  h e Establishment Committee's comments are to follow.

REPORT

1. Int roduction

1. O n 8 th September 1998 the States agreed to charge the Policy and Resources Committee "to develop further the work so far undertaken on the formation, organisation and responsibilities of a Home Affairs Committee".
2. T h e States thereby agreed in principle that there should be a Committee of the States with overall responsibility for the development and implementation of a strategy to bear upon all matters relating to the level and consequences of crime in Jersey. The proposal also seeks to overcome oneof the defects of the current Defence Committee, in that it comprises of a number of departments with noover-arching executive support.
3. T o im plement the States decision the Policy and Resources Committee decided to ask one of its members, the Connétable of St. Lawrence , to bring together all those who might be involved or affected by the formation of a Home Affairs Committee to expand on the work that had been undertaken up to that time. To assist in this process a Home Affairs Committee Project Group was established, chaired by the then Treasurer of the States. The membership of the Project Group was as follows -

G.M.Baird

Connétable I.M. Le Feuvre R.H. Le Breton

A.L. Renouf E.K. Wheeler F. Greene

R. Minkley

M.D. Furzer Dr. D.A. King

B. Heath T.D. Bell

Treasurer of the States (left June 1999)

Vice-President of the Defence Committee

Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police

Agent of the Impôts

Prison Governor

Chief Officer, States of Jersey Fire Service

Chief Officer, Driver and Vehicle Standards

Chief Inspector of Immigration Chief Probation Officer (replaced after her appointment to the post of Corporate Strategy Officer)

Chief Probation Officer (replaced Dr. King)

Treasury Projects and Planning Officer

4. I t w a s also agreed that a Political Steering Group should be formed to consider the potential political impact of any proposals made in relation to the formation of a Home Affairs Committee.

T h e m e mbership of the Steering Group was as follows -

C o n n é ta ble I.M. Le Feuvre Chair-person C o n n é ta ble M. Pollard

D e p u ty H.G. Coutanche

D e p u ty D.R. Maltwood

D e p u ty M.A. Wavell

G . M . B  aird

T .D  . B e ll

5. T h e Project Group identified at an early stage that its work should take into account the formation of the Police Authority, and agreed a process of consultation and discussion with Mr. Robin Rumboll, the Chairman of the Authority.
6. C e r ta in individuals or groups not included in the membership of the Project Group were identified as persons who would wish to contribute to the process, and it was agreed that the following would receive minutes of all meetings -

th e B a ilif f;

th e A tt o rney General;

th e L a w Draftsman;

th e G r e ffier of the States;

th e C h ie f Executive of the Policy and Resources Committee; th e P re s ident of the Probation Committee.

7. T h e Project Group met seven times during the period December 1998 to August 1999.
8. T h e Political Steering Group met six times during the same period.
9. B o th Groups identified a number of requirements to be satisfied by any proposed amended Committee structure. These were that any proposal should -

• in v olve less States Committees than currently;

• o ff er the potential for reduced agenda volumes for those Committees involved;

• sa tis fy the States' wish, made known in their adoption of the Strategic Policy Review 1995, that there should be one particular body responsible for the co-ordination of strategic planning and policy-making in what is a sensitive and complex area generally defined as "Home Affairs";

• o ff er the potential for improved awareness and support by the Committee of the activities and requirements of the departments reporting to them;

• o ff er the potential for improved co-ordination and efficiency in the provision of administrative support for the departments involved;

• s e e k to leave undiminished the operational responsibilities and accountabilities of the separate departments and their professional officers;

• p ro vide an effective and efficient organisation and one which would be capable of further development in response to future requirements;

• a ch ieve the objectives in the most effective way and in the shortest possible timeframe having regard to the legislative requirements.

10. T h e Committee has received a report from the Project Group and has met with the Presidents of the Defence Committee, the Prison Board and the Probation Committee. The Committee is most grateful to all those concerned for the time given in addressing the complex issues involved in bringing together a number of presently separate areas of responsibility.
11. T h e Project Group, in carrying out its work, considered the Home Affairs Committee's -

• rô le s and responsibilities;

• str ucture;

• m o dus operandi;

• re s ource implications, i.e. -

   u e x e c u tiv  e structure;    u a d m  in is  tration;

   u a c c o m  m odation;

   u b u d g e t/r  esources;

• le g al implications;

• ad v antages and disadvantages.

12. T h e Committee, having considered the report of the Project Group and the views received from the Presidents of the Committees directly involved, has decided to put forward the following proposals for the States' approval. The

Committee has not accepted the report of the Project Group in its entirety, and the main points of view of the Group that the

Committee does not share are referred to in the Appendix to this report.

2. Executive summary

1. T h e key findings are that -

• th e existing Defence Committee should be re-named the Home Affairs Committee;

• th e existing Defence Committee's responsibilities should be transferred to the Home Affairs Committee;

• th e existing Prison Board's responsibilities should be transferred to the Home Affairs Committee;

• th e existing Immigration and Nationality Department's responsibilities to the Lieutenant-Governor should remain;

• th e existing Finance and Economics Committee's responsibilities for the Customs and Excise Department in

respect  of  drug  enforcement  activities  and  administration  should  be  transferred  to  the  Home  Affairs Committee, but the responsibilities for fiscal and general goods control matters should remain with the Finance and Economics Committee;

• th e existing Finance and Economics Committee's financial responsibilities for the Probation Service should be transferred to the Home Affairs Committee. Otherwise the Probation Service should remain as at present responsible to the Royal Court through that Court's Probation Committee;

• a Chief  Executive  Officer  should  be  appointed  for  the  Home  Affairs  Committee,  who  should  have appropriate executive support;

• th e Crime and Drugs Strategy Unit should be responsible to the Home Affairs Committee through the Chief Executive Officer;

• th  e relationship between the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee, who would be responsible for

advising on strategy and monitoring the successful achievement of the strategic policy objectives across the departments responsible to the Committee, and the operational responsibilities of the Chief Officers of those departments, would be similar to the relationship between the Treasurer of the States as Chief Officer of the Finance and Economics Committee and the other Chief Officers who report to that Committee.

2. Wh  ile  the conclusions of the current machinery of government review could affect the future Committee structure, and this could apply to Committees generally, this is not considered to be a reason for not proceeding with the formation of a Home Affairs Committee now.
3. T h e  Committee  considers  that  there  will  be significant  strategic  and  policy  co-ordination benefits  from the establishment of the proposed Home Affairs Committee.
4. T h e transfer of some of the functions to the Home Affairs Committee will take time. There will therefore need to be a phased process starting with the re-naming of the Defence Committee as the Home Affairs Committee and the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer.

3. St ruc tural proposals

1. I t is considered that any revised structure should -

• o f fer  the  potential  to  the  Committee  for  improved  awareness  and  support  of  all  the  activities  and requirements of the departments reporting to it;

• o ff er the potential for improved co-ordination and efficiency in the provision of administrative support for the departments involved;

• s e ek to leave undiminished their professional responsibilities and accountabilities of the Chief Officers involved;

• p ro vide an efficient and effective organisation and one which would be capable of further development in response to future requirements.

2. T h e departments for inclusion in the Home Affairs Committee are - ex is tin g D e fe n ce Committee Departments -

Po lic  e Se rv i c e ;

Fir e Se  r v ic e ;  

I m m  ig r a t io n a n d N  ationality; D ri v e r a n d V  e h ic le Standards;

ad d itio n a l D ep artments -

    C u s to m  s a n d E x c is e ( th ough for fiscal matters the Department would continue to report to the

Finance and Economics Committee);

    H .M  . P r is o n .  

  T h e T e rritorial Army would report to the Home Affairs Committee, mirroring the existing arrangements with the

Defence Committee.

3. T h e proposed way forward would be -

• th e existing Defence Committee be re-named the Home Affairs Committee;

• th e existing Defence Committee's responsibilities be transferred to the Home Affairs Committee;

• th e rôles and responsibilities of the Home Affairs Committee should incorporate the current mandate of the Defence Committee, and also incorporate terms embracing the additional departments;

• th e Home Affairs Committee's primary rôle and responsibility should be to focus on strategic policy and planning, allied to a co-ordinating rôle and a monitoring rôle in the implementation of the strategy across the departments for which it is responsible;

• th e Home Affairs Committee should develop a Committee Strategic Plan;

• th e rôle and structure of the departments referred to in section 3.2 should continue unchanged with accountability transferred to the Home Affairs Committee;

• th e Immigration and Nationality Department's current relationship with the Lieutenant-Governor should remain undisturbed;

• th e relationship of the Probation Service with the Royal Court should remain undisturbed, whilst reporting to

the Home Affairs Committee on financial matters; [The Policy and Resources Committee considers that while the Probation Service is an important element in the development of the overall strategy for those matters for which the Home Affairs Committee would be responsible, it is recognised that the Probation Committee is responsible to the Royal Court. Reconciling these two elements is a matter that the Committee believes should be left to the new Home Affairs Committee to consider in consultation with the Probation Committee and the Bailiff .]

• th e Customs and Excise Department should report to the Home Affairs Committee for drug enforcement activities and administration, and to the Finance and Economics Committee for fiscal and general goods control matters;

• th e Crime Drug Strategy Unit should report to the Home Affairs Committee, but machinery should remain in place to ensure the effective co-ordination of the respective rôles of the Home Affairs, Health and Social

Services and Education Committees in respect of the Drugs Strategy.

4. T h e Committee has received strong representations from the Prison Board that the latter should remain a separate

Committee of the States and not be absorbed into a Home Affairs Committee. The main arguments advanced by the Prison

Board, and the Committee's response to those arguments, are as follows -

• th a t the Prison service benefits from having seven politicians dedicated to it.

   T h e C o m m  itte   e would expect that with the proposed Home Affairs Committee dedicated responsibility for

overseeing the Prison Service would be given to one or possibly two of the individual members of that Committee;

• th e independence of the Prison Governor would be threatened by the Chief Officer of the Home Affairs Committee.

   T h e C o m m  itte   e has stressed that the rôle of the Chief Officer of the Home Affairs Committee would leave

undiminished the professional responsibilities and accountabilities of the departmental Chief Officers involved. It is expected that the Professional Officers will report directly to the Home Affairs Committee on their areas of responsibility in the same way that the Comptroller of Income Tax reports directly to the Finance and Economics Committee, notwithstanding that the Finance and Economics Committee has the Treasurer of the States as its Chief Officer.

   T h e p o s itio n of the Prison Governor should also be enhanced by his access to the support services that will be provided by officers of the Home Affairs Committee to all the departments of that Committee;

• th a t the manpower and financial requirements of the Prison Service are less likely to be satisfied if the Prison Service is responsible to the Home Affairs Committee.

   T h e C o m  m itte   e is of the view that a Home Affairs Committee with an overall strategy will enhance the

prospects of the Prison Service obtaining the manpower and money required for that service to be undertaken effectively. In addition, and possibly more importantly, through the development of a comprehensive strategy bearing upon all matters relating to the level and consequences of crime in Jersey, it is possible that the policies pursued will lead to a reduction in the pressure on the Prison Service, and thereby in the need for additional manpower and financial resources.

4. Legis lative proposals

1. T h e introduction of the Home Affairs Committee will require amendments to be made to all existing departmental legislation to reflect -

• th e change in name of the Defence Committee;

• th e transfer of certain departments to the Home Affairs Committee from other Committees;

• sp lit  responsibilities for the Customs and Excise Department.

In a d d iti on the legislation would need to cover the rôle of the separate Police Authority.

  T h e L a w Draftsman has confirmed that it would not be possible to amend Customs legislation until Privy Council

approves the new Customs and Excise Law early in the New Year. The required amendments will be complex and may well take some time to determine and draft. The inclusion of Customs and Excise within the Home Affairs Committee framework will have to be delayed until this work has been carried out.

2. I n s u pport of the structural proposals it is therefore proposed that -

• th e existing Defence Committee should be re-named the Home Affairs Committee;

• al l Defence Committee legislation should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee;

• a ll Police legislation currently referring to the Defence Committee as the responsible Committee should be

amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee as the responsible Committee; where the Committee remains the appropriate body following the enactment of legislation providing for the new Police Authority;

• al l Fire Service legislation currently referring to the Defence Committee as the responsible Committee should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee as the responsible Committee;

• a ll Immigration and Nationality legislation currently referring to the Defence Committee as the responsible Committee should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee as the responsible Committee;

• al l Driver and Vehicle Standards legislation currently referring to the Defence Committee as the responsible Committee should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee as the responsible Committee;

• a ll Probation Committee legislation currently referring to the Finance and Economics Committee should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee;

• al l Customs and Excise legislation with regard to administration and drug enforcement currently referring to the Finance and Economics Committee as the responsible Committee should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee as the responsible Committee;

• al l Prison legislation currently referring to the Prison Board as the responsible Committee should be amended to refer to the Home Affairs Committee.

  T o th  e e xtent that it is possible to do so, the required amendments to legislation, referred to above, will be achieved

through an Act of the States to transfer functions under Article  29 of the States of Jersey Law.

5. A dm inis trative proposals

1. T h e following administrative measures will be necessary -

• th e Committee should have a Chief Executive Officer, with appropriate executive support, who would be responsible for advising the Home Affairs Committee on its overall strategy and for ensuring the effective implementation of that strategy;

• th e Chief Officers of the Committee's departments would retain their present responsibilities;

• a H ome Affairs Chief Officers Group should be formed which should meet regularly under the chairmanship of the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee;

• th e Home Affairs Chief Officers Group should meet on a regular basis with the Home Affairs Committee in order to ensure efficient and effective policy co-ordination;

• in order to demonstrate impartiality and to ensure full regular contact with each of its departments, the Home Affairs Committee's meetings should, where appropriate, concentrate on single departmental agendas;

• in order to minimise the risk of the interests of the smaller departments being dominated by the interests of the larger departments, one member of the Home Affairs Committee should be allocated responsibility for

overseeing each of the departments reporting to the Committee.

2. A ce ntral support service function will be established for the smaller departments covering -

• se c retarial support (for the Committee);

• in f ormation technology support;

• p er sonnel management support;

• fin  ancial management support;

• ca s ework research on major topics such as human rights legislation/freedom of information etc.;

• p la nning and project management support.

  I n th  e view of the Committee, however, consideration should be given to whether a number of these support

services (e.g. information technology, personnel and financial management) might be provided most effectively, in part  or  in  whole,  using  the  existing  resources  of  the "corporate" departments  (i.e.  the  Computer  Services Department, the States Personnel Department and the Treasury).

3. D e d icated  accommodation  should  be provided  for the  Home Affairs  Committee.  In  order  to  demonstrate impartiality, this accommodation should not be co-located within existing departmental premises.

6. A dv antages

6.1 T h  e Committee is of the view that the following benefits would be gained from the creation of a Home Affairs Committee.

Po  litic   a l benefits

• a s trategy would be more readily formulated covering all the areas of responsibility of the Committee;

• m o re coherent application of policy;

• b ette  r value for money in service delivery;

• b ette  r transparency for public accountability;

• it w  ould better facilitate compliance with States policies;

• a la rger Committee could be more influential and better represent its small departments;

• th e number of States Committees would be reduced by one;

• a s sist the new Committee by the provision of executive support which the present Defence Committee currently lacks.

  D e p a rtm   ental benefits

• en c ourages better liaison between departments;

• p ro vides scope for better central support;

• co m  mon standards can be adopted and applied more effectively.

7. N ext steps

7.1 T h e Committee would propose that the Defence Committee should be re-named the Home Affairs Committee and, together with the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer, should -

• d ev elop and co-ordinate the required actions;

• d ev elop a detailed project plan and timescale;

• id e ntify the necessary financial and staffing resources;

• fo r mally liaise with the Law Draftsman to identify the effort required and likely timescales of processing the necessary legislative changes.

19th October 1999

APPENDIX

THE REPORT OF THE HOME AFFAIRS PROJECT GROUP

The main points included in the report of the Home Affairs Project Group which the Policy and Resources Committee has not accepted, are as follows -

1. T h e G roup's majority view was that the Crime and Drugs Strategy Unit should report to the Policy and Resources Committee through that Committee's Chief Executive Officer. TheGroup expressed the view that the rationale behind  this  proposal was that the rôle  of the  Unit  is  predominantly one of facilitation of cross-departmental boundaries, with no one Committee having the policy formulation responsibility. The Group stated that Health and Social Services and Education, who have a major input into the Crime and Drugs strategies, would not consider it appropriate for the Home Affairs Committee to have overall policy formulation responsibility in this area.
2. T h e G roup is of the view that the Home Affairs Committee should not have a Chief Executive Officer but should have  a  dedicated  executive  support  unit/secretariat,  and  the  Chief  Officers' Group  which,  together  with  the management  of  the  executive  support  unit/secretariat,  would  meet  on  a  regular  basis  with  the  Home Affairs Committee in order to ensure the efficient and effective policy co-ordination.
3. T h e G roup saw the following risks and threats that might arise from the creation of a Home Affairs Committee -

• m a y have the wrong composition of departments leading to instability;

• ad d itional costs in bureaucracy without operational benefits;

• ad d itional staff requirement against States policy;

• d e partments reporting to two Committees might have conflicting objectives which cannot be reconciled easily. They also lead to confusion amongst staff and public and divided loyalties amongst officers and politicians;

• d ep artmental balance may be wrong with large departments dominating at the expense of smaller ones;

• a g endas too varied at meetings, wasting the time of officers and stretching the expertise and workload of politicians.