Official Report of the States Assembly and its Committees ('Hansard') – introduction

STATES OF JERSEY

r

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE STATES ASSEMBLY AND ITS COMMITTEES (HANSARD'): INTRODUCTION

Lodged au Greffe on 17th June 2003

by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to re f er to their Act dated 28th September 2001 in which they agreed to form a Privileges and Procedures

Committee which would be responsible for the production of a Hansard-type transcript of States' proceedings; and to their Act 26th March 2002 in which they agreed that the Committee, in consultation with the Greffier of the States, should bring forward proposals, including resource requirements, for the approval of the States, concerning the establishment of a service for the recording and transcription of States proceedings and, should the States so decide, for the recording and transcription of the proceedings of Scrutiny Committees, and the Public Accounts Committee; and

(a ) to agree that an official report of the States Assembly should be introduced with effect from 1st

January 2005, subject to the necessary funding being made available;

(b ) to agree, in principle, that an official report of oral evidence to Scrutiny Panels and the Public

Accounts Committee, once established, should be introduced;

(c ) to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to keep the style of the official report under

review, and to refer significant changes to the States for approval;

( d ) t o request the Privileges and Procedures Committee , in conjunction with the Finance and

Economics Committee, to take the necessary steps to obtain funding within the resource allocation process to enable the establishment and operation of the service as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

Note:  The Finance and Economics Committee's comments are to follow.

REPORT

1. B a c kground

1. T h e States adopted P.122/2001of the Policy and ResourcesCommittee("MachineryofGovernment: proposed  reforms") on  28th September 2001.  On 27th  November 2001  the Policy  and Resources Committee presented to the States the associated Implementation Plan,an extract of which appears at Appendix  A. The Privileges and Procedures Committee was charged with bringing forward a report regarding the production of a Hansard-type transcript ofStates' proceedings and set outsome indicative costs.
2. T h e  Privileges  and Procedures Committee, with  assistance  from  the  States Greffe,  has undertaken research onhow Hansard' type reporting is undertaken in other jurisdictions, and the President, former Senator C. Stein andtheExecutive Officer undertook a visit to the Scott ishParliamenton 12th and13th June 2002. A summaryof the Committee's findings isattached at Appendix  B.In its first report to the States (presented on 22nd October 2002) theCommittee gave its preliminary views on the establishment of a Hansard' type transcript service, attached atAppendix C.
3. L i nks have been established with the British-Irish Parliamentary Reporting Association(BIPRA)and a States Grefferepresentativehasmade a numberof visits inorderto see how the parliamentary recordis produced inother jurisdictions. Through discussion with colleagueselsewhere a better understandingis being developedin the States Greffeofthe various processes involved in recording, transcribing, editing and publishing parliamentary proceedings.

2. W  h at kind ofreport is requiredforthe States?

1. T h e  terms of reference  of the United Kingdom Official  Report which appear in Erskine  May's ParliamentaryPractice' and are some 90 years old, read as follows –

" th e Official Report is a full report, in the first person, of all speakers alike, a full report being defined as one which, though not verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument'."

2. T h e Privileges and Procedures Committee, in January 2003, considered thestyleof official report(the record') that wouldbe appropriate for Jersey. It considered the degree of editing whichwas desirable, having considered the typesof record kept elsewhere, andnotedan excerpt from a speechmadeby Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier which, with his consent, had been treated in 3  slightly different ways to illustrate how a record mightbe affected. This isattachedatAppendix D.Thedegreeof intervention in the record remains the subject of lively debate, and the Committeehas decided in the first instance that substantially verbatim reporting of proceedings would beappropriatefor Jersey. Thus, only hesitations and redundancies would be omitted, with even obvious mistakes remaininguncorrected so as to maintain the flavour' of the speech. This will inevitably reduce the editing workrequiredto produce thefinal version thereby keepingcosts to a minimum.
3. S ta tes Minutes formally recording decisions will continue to be required astheofficial record. Therefore it will notbe necessary to transcribe the entire meetingof the States, but to record only questionsand answers, statements  and debates  in this  way.  Where debates  arise  as Members discuss  the  future arrangement of States business, the Committeerecommendsthat,on such occasions, the Bailiff orany Membermay request the States toagree that such debates shouldbetranscribed in the record where they consider that they should form part ofthe official report. Inother cases, a digital audiocopy of any exchanges will beheld, and couldbe referred toor transcribed at a later date, if necessary.
4. T h e Privileges and Procedures Committee recommends that the styleof the official reportshouldbekept under review in the light of experience as the service is operated. As a parliamentary record, it is important that Hansard accurately and fairly reflects proceedings, and it maybefound that somelight

editing is required. Any proposal to make significant changes in the style of the report would be referred to the

States for approval.

3. H  o w can a member correct the official report?

3.1 F o llowing publication, Members would have the opportunity to ensure that any misinterpreted words could be corrected. This would occur immediately in the case of the website copy, and corrections would appear in a subsequent errata sheet, to be produced a month after initial publication, so as to reduce the number of correction sheets issued. For the avoidance of doubt, Members would not have the facility to change the report, only to correct incorrectly transcribed interventions. In some other jurisdictions where the record is prepared overnight, Members may be invited to provide the Official Report Editor with a copy of their speeches to assist in the transcription of proceedings by in-house staff, and are able to review their typed interventions in the record at the end of the day on which they were made. It is not envisaged that States members would be invited to approve in advance the textual content relating to any contribution they may make during the proceedings.

4. W  il l the official report be printed?

1. It i s envisaged that the report would be available on the StatesAssemblywebsite, allowing Members, the media and the public to search electronically fortopics or individualMembers' contributions. Theformat of the electronic copy couldbedesignedto enable immediate access to particular debates, and thecopy would be uploaded to the website by States Greffe staff as soon as it becomes available. An official printed and/or digital copy will bekeptforArchivepurposes; thereafter, ifrequired, individual copies will be printed ondemand for saleinthe States Bookshop,orfor distribution toMemberswho prefer a paper copy.Bynot automatically printingand distributing publications already available freeofchargeon the internet, savings are envisaged both for theStatesandmembersof the public.
2. T h e Privileges andProcedures Committee believes that a new,improved search engine should be made available for the States of Jersey website. Such a facility wasnot included in the original project owingto cost  (in  the  region  of £20,000).  Up-to-date costings for  this  project  are  not yet  available  but the Committee  will  undertake further  research into  this  issue as part of  its  work on the provision of information tothepublic.

5. H  o w will the report be transcribed?

1. T h e Jersey Legal Information Board undertook a Digital RecordingPilotImplementationunder the aegis of the JudicialGreffe for the Courts, and this has been extremelysuccessful. A summaryof the findings of the pilot are attached atAppendix E.
2. A p propriate and cost-effective solutions exist tooutsourcetranscription,minimising the impact on staff numberswithin the public sector. The Committee decided that it would be inappropriate to create new public sector posts to deal with transcription, and recognised that the ability to maintain a fully trained team of staff working variable hours in the current local labour market would not be feasible. The variable natureof the number and frequencyof meetings of the States is such that itwouldbeextremely difficult toemploy a fixednumberofpermanent staff as they would be either unable to keep up in busy periods orunder-occupiedinquietperiodsandrecesses. The Committee confirmed that it wouldsupport the outsourcing of the transcription work requiredto produce the first draft whichwould then be refined by the OfficialReportEditor,whowouldbeappointedby the States Greffe.
3. C u rrently, the systemoperatedby the Judicial Greffe is that a copy ofcertain Court proceedings is transferred to compact disc (CD) and forwarded to anappropriate approved provider,together with a glossary  of names, or French  used, to  be returned  after 5  days, transcribed. In  the  case of Court transcription, thelevelof additional in-housecheckingrequireddepends upon the provider used.The content of States debates is typically denser than exchangesinCourt,where the deliveryof utterances tends  to  be slower and more deliberate. Any transcription  of States  business will  require  in-house checkingand the amount of time devoted to this depends upon the experience andthe quality ofwork

returned by the transcription service used. For transcription of States meetings, it is anticipated that in-house

checking will be required by the Editor to remove redundancies, to check French titles, to cross-check transcription in the case of overlapping interventions and in particular to insert references to procedure relating to, for example, the consideration and approval of legislation which is not clear from an audio recording. The time required to prepare the brief for the reporting service, presence in the Chamber throughout debates and checking work cannot yet be calculated with any certainty, but one full-time post has been included for reference.

4. T h e aim would betoproduce a verbatim transcript before the next scheduledStates meeting. This will normally be within 2 weeksof the original recording (whichis a similar timescale to that currently achieved by the Judicial Greffe in respect oftranscriptsofcourt proceedings), but occasionally withinone week,as States meetings aresometimes scheduled, or additional meetings agreed,one week later than the preceding meeting.
5. In reaching this decision the Committee considered the timescales within whichMembers would wish the official record to be available, and noted the cost implications of an overnight service, a oneweek service and a 2-week service. Outline costingsreceived show that foranovernight service tobe provided the costs rose by approximately50percent; a oneweek service will cost approximately 25 per cent more. It is to be noted that in orderto achieve a nextdayservice, the HouseofCommonsemploys20 staff; the Scott ish Parliamentemploys a totalof37 staff. The reasoning for anovernight service forthe House of Commonsis that thereportshouldbe available for the next meetingday of the House. In the context of the States Assembly, as mentionedabove, the next meeting date is normally 2 weekshence,rather than the following day. The Committee doesnotconsider that a next day service is necessary, or that the resource implications couldbe justified, and therefore recommends that the recordbe available by the next States meeting.
   6. C o s tsof the ParliamentaryRecord Service for the official reportoftheStatesAssembly

1. It i s the intention of the Committeeto take advantageof the preparation already undertakenby the Jersey Legal Information Board,and the experiencegainedby the JudicialGreffeinthe acquisition anduseof digital audiorecordingequipment.Itisalsoimportant that any equipment installed in the States Chamber is compatible with systemsbeing used by the Judicial Greffe in the event that the States Chamberis required tobe used as a Court when the States are not in session and Scrutiny Panels are not using the Chamber. While there are temporarily slightly different arrangements, when the Royal Court returns to the States Building followingrefurbishment, the States Chamber will againbe used from time to time for this purpose.
2. A comparisonof the costs of a service using an outsourced provider, and usingJersey-based outworkers, is attached at Appendix  F.The figures are based onan average of40 Statesmeetingsper year, with 34  sessions requiring to be prepared within 2 weeksand 6 within one week,inordertobe available for the next States meeting. Costings have been obtained from 2 Court ReportingServices approved by the Lord Chancellor'sDepartmentand a memberoftheStates Greffe staff has visited both.However, tenders against specific criteria would be invited at the time such a contractislet.

7. T i m ingof the project

7.1 It i s hoped that, subject to the availability of funding, equipment can be purchased in 2004 to allow for a period of piloting and testing prior to the system going live, during which time the present (analogue) tape recording equipment will continue to be used, with a view to introducing the service fully with effect from 1st January 2005.

Recommendation A: The Committee recommends that –

1. a n official reportofthe States beintroduced with effect from 1stJanuary2005 using digitalaudio recording technology to replaceageinganalogueequipment;

2. t h e  report  include  transcripts  of questions and answers, statements,  consideration of public business and,whereappropriate,considerationofindividualitems arising from considerationof the arrangementoffuturebusiness;
3. th e reportbe substantially verbatim;
4. th e Privileges andProceduresCommitteeto keep the style ofthe report under review and to refer substantial changestotheStates for consideration;
5. th  e reportbeproducedso that it will beavailablebeforethenextscheduledStatesmeeting, i.e. within a normaltargetproduction time of 2  weeks,althoughthere will occasionally be a production time ofoneweek;
6. t h e methodofreporttranscription to meet business need, andproducedinthemostcost-effective way, using outsourcedstaffwhereverappropriate.

8. W  h at kind ofreport is requiredfor Scrutiny PanelsandthePublic Accounts Committee?

1. T h e Statesasked the Committee toconsiderwhether Scrutiny Paneland the PublicAccounts Committee meetings should alsoberecordedand transcribed. Itis useful to draw on experience relating to the procedure ofCommitteesof Inquiry, whereminutesofbusiness meetings are prepared in the normalway by a Committee Clerk, but the hearing ofevidence is recordedon analogue audio tapes, stored in an archive, and subject to the procedureoftheindividualCommittee of Inquiry concerned, access made available to the public orwitnesses (that isthose persons may listen to a copy)at a later date onrequest. Should the Committee require excerptsofthosetapes to be transcribed, this has either been carried out by the StatesGreffeforsmall requests, oroutsourcedwheremore significant sections are required.
2. T h e Committeebelieves that Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committeeshouldadopt a similar practice in relation to recordingand transcribing meetings. While the businessmeetingscouldbeminuted by an officer, evidencetakenin oral hearingsshouldberecorded digitally, with the facility, subject to the Panel's budget, to have all or part of the evidence preparedandpublishedwhere this is considered necessary. As stated in the Committee's report and proposition on the establishment of Scrutiny Panels and the Public AccountsCommittee (P.79/2003), suitable premises will need tobe identified for hearings and permanently equipped with recording equipmentandappropriate furniture, and be fully accessible to members of  the  public  including  those with  special  needs. It  is  considered  that  ground  floor accommodationwithinMorierHouse, once vacated by the Viscount'sDepartment,maybe appropriate. The costings that follow do not include provision for rent andservicesof premises for scrutiny hearings as these are includedin Appendix FivetoP.79/2003.
3. It is envisaged that while some Scrutiny hearings will take placein a dedicated Scrutiny meeting room, others maygo out to different locations, forexample,at a Parish Hall ,in order to meet the requirements of new working practices for scrutiny. It would beappropriate, then, for certain equipment to beportable. It mustbe noted that when used inanother location, skilled personnel will berequiredtosetupandto removetheequipment, adding toresource implications. Scrutiny Panelsmayalsochoose to makeuseof the equipment installed in the States Chamber.
4. S im ilar hourly costs would apply to the recording and transcription of such meetings as would apply to recording and publication of the record of States Meetings, with the exception that the checking of transcripts could be undertaken either by the Official Report Editor or the Scrutiny staff, although any substantial  transcription  would  require  more checking which would  impact on the  amount of time available for Scrutiny Officers to carryoutresearch and prepare policy reports, and this shouldbeborne in mind. Costs would rise if any Panel decided that it required its reporttobepreparedwithin a shorter timescale than 2 weeks,ascostedin this report.
5. E s timated equipmentandrevenue costs for providing a recording and transcription service for Scrutiny

Panels and the Public Accounts Committee are shown in Appendix G. Recommendation B: The Committee recommends that –

1. t h e facility for anofficial report of Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee,once appointed under the new MachineryofGovernment,beintroduced using digital audio recording technology foroptional use;

2. th e report include transcripts of oral evidence;
3. th e reportbe substantially verbatim;

4. th e reportbe produced within thetimescale that meets the Panels' business need withinbudgetary constraints;

5. t h e report be transcribed in the most cost-effective way, using outsourced staff wherever appropriate.

9. F u n ding

9.1 I t is important to ensure that sufficient funding for the above initiatives is available so that they can commence on time.

Estimated initial equipment costs –

S ta t e s Chamber.................................................................... £20,750

S c ru t in y P a n els and Public Accounts Committee.................... £22,800

Estimated annual revenue costs –

S ta t e s A s s e m bly................................................................. £148,000

S c ru t in y P a n els and Public Accounts Committee................... £152,825

Recommendation C: The Committee recommends that –

1. t h e Privileges and Procedures Committee, in conjunction with the Finance and Economics Committee,takes the necessary steps, within the normalbudgetarycycle,tosecurefunding with a view to commencingrecording and transcription of the Statesproceedings from 1st January 2005;

2. th e supportoftheFinanceandEconomicsCommitteebesought in order to secure capital funding in advanceofJanuary2005inordertopurchaseequipmentandconduct a pilotduring the autumn session 2004.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation A: The Committee recommends that –

1. a n official report of the States be introduced with effect from 1st January 2005 using digital audio recording technology to replace ageing analogue equipment;
2. th e report include transcripts ofquestions and answers,statements, consideration of public business and, where appropriate, consideration ofindividualitems arising from consideration of the arrangementof future business;
3. th e reportbe substantially verbatim;
4. t h e Privileges and Procedures Committee to keep the style of the report under review and to refer substantial changes to the States for consideration;
5. th e report be produced so that itwillbe available before thenextscheduled States meeting, i.e. within a normal target production time of 2  weeks, although there will occasionally be a production time ofone week;
6. th e method of report transcription to meet businessneed,and produced in the most cost-effective way, using outsourcedstaffwhereverappropriate.

Recommendation B: The Committee recommends that –

1. th e facility for an official report of Scrutiny PanelsandPublic Accounts Committee,onceappointedunder the newMachinery of Government, be introduced using digital audiorecordingtechnologyfor optional use;
2. th e report include transcripts of oral evidence;
3. th e reportbe substantially verbatim;
4. t h e report be produced within the timescale that meets the Panels'business need within budgetary constraints;
5. th e reportbe transcribed in the mostcost-effectiveway, using outsourcedstaffwhereverappropriate. Recommendation C: The Committee recommends that –

1. th e Privileges andProceduresCommittee,in conjunction with the Finance andEconomicsCommittee, takes the necessary steps, within the normal budgetary cycle, to secure funding with a view to commencing recording and transcription of the States proceedings from 1st January 2005;
2. th e support of the Finance and Economics Committeebesought in orderto secure capital funding in advance of January 2005 in order to purchaseequipmentandconduct a pilot during theautumn session 2004.

APPENDIX A

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: PROPOSED REFORMS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – extract

27th November 2001

"HANSARD

In adopting P.122/2001, the States agreed to ask the Privileges and Procedures Committee, once formed, to be responsible for "...the production of a Hansard-type transcript of States' proceedings...". The planning for the implementation of this proposal is being undertaken by the States Greffe which is currently considering the following 4 issues –

• w  h at type of equipment will be required?

• h o w will the transcription take place?

• w  h at format(s) will be used for the production of the transcript?

• w  h at areas of States work will be covered by the Hansard service?

Although some very approximate costings are set out in this report it is intended to provide more details of the resource implications of the various options by the end of January 2002 once further information has been received from suppliers and other jurisdictions.

The current tape recording equipment in the States Chamber dates from the late 1980s and, irrespective of whether or not a recording service were being introduced, it is now coming to the end of its useful life. The present system requires the presence of an officer from the States Greffe in the Chamber at all times to ensure the correct operation of the equipment, to change tapes and to record the names of speakers in a log related to the tape counter' to assist with finding particular parts of the tape.

It is now recognised in most jurisdictions that there are insufficient trained stenographers to rely on this method of instant' transcription for the production of a record of meetings. Although some Hansard staff at the House of Commons still use stenography, the majority of the staff at Westminster now rely on tape recordings which are subsequently transcribed through audio typing.

For Jersey it is proposed that modern digital recording equipment be introduced, capable of producing a digital audio recording which will have advantages in the dissemination of the recording. In addition the digital recording can be electronically tagged' to identify the name of the speaker which is of great assistance during transcription as the transcriber does not need to recognise the voices of the speakers or attempt to follow a complicated log completed by hand. This system of tagging' has been viewed in the Welsh Assembly (albeit alongside video recording as well as audio recording) and is now in use in Royal Court transcription after the recent installation of digital recording equipment by the Judicial Greffe. The tagging' would be placed on the digital recording by an operator in the Chamber who would simply press an appropriate key on a console or keyboard corresponding to the speaker. When the transcriber receives the digital recording the sound is accompanied by the name of the speaker appearing on the computer screen.

The experience gained during the recent Royal Court pilot shows that the digital system has considerable advantages over analogue recording methods and gives great flexibility in undertaking the transcription because the digital data can be transferred electronically to any remote location and transcribed by a person with a PC loaded with the appropriate software. It is estimated that the installation of the digital equipment and software would cost approximately £30,000 with a software cost of some £1,000 per PC used for transcription. As mentioned above, more precise costings will be available early in 2002.

It is not planned, at this stage, to introduce video recording of States proceedings. Although these have become commonplace in many jurisdictions it is an extremely expensive service to operate and requires a full television production facility in the Parliament. In some jurisdictions (for example the House of Commons) there is a buoyant market for the television coverage with a subsequent recovery of cost through payments from broadcasters. There is no evidence that any real market would exist in the Island apart from a few minutes coverage during CTV and BBC local news programmes.

APPENDIX B

Visit to Scott ish Parliament

The experience of the Scott ish Parliament has demonstrated that whilst a Hansard service could be conducted either in-house' or by outside agencies, in-house' arrangements work better for Scotland.

In producing the Scott ish Official Report, every effort is made to retain the atmosphere of the debate, with limited minor editorial changes being made, as necessary, in order to aid clarity. For archiving purposes, only CD-Rom capture is used in Scotland (no paper), although it is recognised there that, as technologies improve, that method might soon become obsolete.

The Official Report in Scotland is produced overnight, with outside printers being used (affording it priority over other  official  publications)  in  order  to  achieve  the  tight  deadline  for  publication.  Members  of  the   Scott ish Parliament are able to see their respective speeches in print, once they have been transcribed, prior to publication.

Digital recording in Scotland represents the same level of cost as sound capture on cassette tapes but is considered to be more user-friendly. The Parliament's transcription and editorial staff are required to have high standards and knowledge and understanding of the topics under discussion. Recruitment and selection is thorough, with sub- editors being responsible for management of the teams and also for quality control.

Extract of First Report of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, presented  to  the States on 22nd

October 2002

"Transcription costs

112. The Privileges andProcedures Committee will be investigating the establishment of a Hansard' type transcript service for the States as part of a second phase of its work and, at that stage, a final recommendation will be made, after consultationastowhetherornot the proceedingsof Scrutiny Panels should berecordedandtranscribed in full.
113. The Committeenevertheless considers that Scrutiny Panels will probably wish to record all oral evidence given to them and may then wish to receive a transcript ofsome or all of this evidence.Itiscommon practice in other jurisdictions for all evidencegivenbefore Parliamentary, Select or Scrutiny Committees to betranscribed. For the purposes of this report it has been estimated that each Scrutiny Panel will wish to transcribe some100hoursof oral evidenceeachyear.There will bean initial capital sum required to purchase the necessary recording equipmentfor the rooms tobe used for this purpose. Themanagement of the transcription service itself will be undertaken in conjunction with the transcription of the proceedings of the Assembly."

Extract of the speech by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier in the debate on the Jersey Heritage Trust: amendments to constitution (P.37/2002) considered by the States on 4th March 2003

Word for word including hesitations

"Aah, thank you Sir. It's more uh with sadness than uh anything else that I stand up uh on this proposition cause I had mine following I hope fairly soon when we get the comments from Education, Culture, Leisure, Sports and uh et al. Um Senator Lakeman said did mention the lack of trust and there was a bit of a play on that word. But for those of us who have been acquainted with the situation clearly something did break down at an early point in the Mont Orgueil development. I don't wish I'm desperately trying not to ascribe blame, although I know it has been ascribed by various people, but something did break down of that there's no doubt and it's been very difficult to rescue the situation. I have tried to behind the scenes and quite frankly have got uh not very far and I know one or two senior members have also tried and again have got not very far. So I think, Sir, even though uh um Deputy Baudains, Sir, finds himself in a situation which we often do the right sentiments but the wrong proposition um I think his sentiments do need um examination. I think his diagnosis may be correct that something has gone uh badly wrong, and while some of his evidence may, by Senator Vibert , Sir, been proven to be inaccurate I don't think this contaminates the rest of his evidence and I don't think this um necessarily invalidates his general point. Er, there has been a history I'm afraid of um allegations of people not listening, and there has as er the Deputy of Grouville said, there has been various experts and er I don't know how many members were there last night when two of the major experts I was there it was a fairly heavy session when Doctors Rodwell and Dixon two of the key players outlined um their view of the history and why they had acted as they had acted. Um it's a very deep argument, it's very detailed and it's very easy to get diverted. And also very hard for sort of untangle all of the various emotions that have unfortunately arisen."

Removing hesitations and redundancies

"Thank you Sir. It's more with sadness than anything else that I stand up on this proposition cause I had mine following I hope fairly soon when we get the comments from Education, Culture, Leisure, Sports and et al. Senator Lakeman did mention the lack of trust and there was a bit of a play on that word. But for those of us who been acquainted with the situation, clearly something did break down at an early point in the Mont Orgueil development. I'm desperately trying not to ascribe blame, although I know it has been ascribed by various people, but something did break down, of that there's no doubt, and it's been very difficult to rescue the situation. I have tried to behind the scenes and quite frankly have got not very far and I know one or two senior members have also tried and again have got not very far. So I think, Sir, even though Deputy Baudains finds himself in a situation which we often do, the right sentiments but the wrong proposition, I think his sentiments do need examination. I think his diagnosis may be correct that something has gone badly wrong, and while some of his evidence may, by Senator Vibert been proven to be inaccurate I don't think this contaminates the rest of his evidence and I don't think this necessarily invalidates his general point. There has been a history I'm afraid of allegations of people not listening, and as the Deputy of Grouville said, there has been various experts and I don't know how many members were there last night when two of the major experts, I was there, it was a fairly heavy session, when Doctors Rodwell and Dixon, two of the key players, outlined their view of the history and why they had acted as they had acted. It's a very deep argument, it's very detailed and it's very easy to get diverted. And also very hard to untangle all of the various emotions that have unfortunately arisen."

Lightly edited

"Thank you Sir. It's more with sadness than anything else that I rise to speak on this proposition because I had mine[1]  following, I hope fairly soon, when we get the comments from the Education, Sport and Culture Committee. Senator Lakeman did mention the lack of trust and there was a bit of a play on that word. But for those of us who are acquainted with the situation, clearly something did break down at an early point in the Mont Orgueil development. I'm desperately trying not to ascribe blame, although I know it has been ascribed by various people, but something did break down, of that there's no doubt, and it has been very difficult to rescue the situation. I and also one or two senior members have tried, behind the scenes, and quite frankly we have not got very far. So I think, Sir, even though Deputy Baudains finds himself in a situation, which we often do, the right

sentiments but the wrong proposition, I think his sentiments do need examination. I think his diagnosis may be correct that something has gone badly wrong, and while some of his evidence may have been proven to be inaccurate by Senator Vibert , I don't think this contaminates the rest of his evidence and I don't think this necessarily invalidates his general point. There has been a history of allegations of people not listening, and as the Deputy of Grouville said, there have been various experts (I don't know how many members were there last night when two of the key players – Doctors Rodwell and Dixon – outlined their view of the history and why they had acted as they had acted) – it's a very deep argument, it's very detailed and it's very easy to get diverted. It is also very hard to untangle all of the various emotions that have unfortunately arisen."

Digital Recording Pilot Implementation conducted by the Judicial Greffe Brief summary of findings

In October 2001, the relevant JLIB Project Board carried out an evaluation of the project and concluded that the pilot had been successful even though it had taken longer than anticipated in order to gain experience in the use of the system.

Transcription of the recordings from a variety of minor hearings and 2 assize trials (of 3 and 5 days' duration respectively) were outsourced to a court reporting service in the United Kingdom and this allowed the many benefits of handling the recording and transcript digitally to be achieved. The cost and speed of this service were considered to have been significantly better in comparison with the analogue equivalent.

Evaluation by reference to the system criteria identified by the Project Board and staff involved indicated that the criteria in respect of the following areas had been met – sound quality; written log; security/audit trail; sound capture; recording method; transcription; installation, commissioning and training; support/repair and spares holding. In addition, the criteria for computer network environment, audio streaming and portability had been partially met.

The project demonstrated a number of benefits, including increased efficiency, ease of access and faster production of transcripts. Any suitably equipped computer on the States network was able to be linked to the court proceedings for the purposes of remote listening. Improved security of data resulted from the inclusion of the audio files in the Judicial Greffe's overnight data back-up routine. The need to store bulky analogue tapes was eliminated, with storage space and risk of theft or loss reduced. In comparison with analogue recording, the cost of consumables was reduced by approximately 70 per cent and the cost of outsourced transcript reduced by approximately 40 per cent.

STATES ASSEMBLY

Costs of the proposed Parliamentary Record Service Number of States meetings per year

Investigations through the British-Irish Parliamentary Reporting Association (BIPRA) have indicated a typing factor' of 8 for the House of Commons (9 for the Scott ish Parliament): therefore one hour of speech requires 8 (or 9) hours of audio typing/input to achieve first draft stage. The approximate costs contained in the Implementation Plan assumed that there would be 30 States Meetings each year (25 scheduled for 2003 and an allowance for an additional 5). However, in 2000, there were 34  meetings, in 2001 there were 36 meetings, and in 2002 there were 45 meetings of the States, so it will be necessary to be able to fund transcription in unusually busy sessions. The number of States meetings days is a matter for the States, and arises from States' business need. The alternatives are that basic funding should therefore be estimated for 35 meetings per year, with a mechanism to obtain additional funding for exceptionally busy years but this is procedurally difficult as the budget cycle does not easily support guesstimates of when busy years might occur. These have traditionally occurred in the third year of the life of an Assembly as policies come to fruition. For the purposes of this report the Committee has worked on the basis of an average of 40  States meetings a year.

BIPRA visits

Continuing the links established with the British-Irish Parliamentary Reporting Association (BIPRA), a member of the States Greffe has attended 2 of the Association's meetings in order to see how the parliamentary record is produced in other jurisdictions. Through discussion with colleagues elsewhere a better understanding is being developed of the various processes involved in recording, transcribing, editing and publishing parliamentary proceedings.

Outsourcing

Experience relating to the Courts has shown that transcription can be outsourced economically and reliably to a court reporting service, and it is to be hoped that the same could apply for States' meetings. Although none of the Parliaments or devolved legislatures in the British Isles currently uses outsourced transcription to a company, and there is therefore no experience to draw on from those legislatures, the Committee was encouraged to learn that the new London Assembly has adopted outsourcing as its means of transcription. In March 2003, an officer of the States Greffe, as part of a BIPRA meeting, visited the new Assembly building (City Hall ') at The Queen's Walk, SE1 and discussed with the Committee Services Manager the recently introduced arrangements for recording the Assembly's proceedings. A demonstration was provided in one of the ground floor meeting rooms where recording facilities were installed of the Assembly's "Prism" logging software, as applied during the recording of proceedings. It was emphasised that the time of each log was associated with the record of the speaker indicated and the first few words of their opening remarks. Thus the timed segments remained associated with that particular speaker, irrespective of the way in which the recording was divided up automatically by the software. In the London Assembly's case, the court reporting service used (which is one of the two already contacted by the States Greffe) also provided a member of staff to attend the meetings and to prepare the lognotes, which is a significant advantage. In the absence of such a link officer, careful attention will need to be given in Jersey by the Official Report Editor to the preparation of a comprehensive brief to be followed by remotely based staff. Investigation could be undertaken to establish whether any of our BIPRA colleagues had capacity to undertake transcription on behalf of the States Assembly, subject to cost, and assurances that appropriate priority was given to that service. However, the experience of the Judicial Greffe has been mainly positive, and a similar route is therefore recommended.

Experience of recent Committees of Inquiry

The Committee of Inquiry into Honorary Police Election Procedures and the Committee of Inquiry into their Current Allocation of Residential Properties by Housing Trusts supported by the Housing Development Fund

elected to have all of their evidence transcribed from audio cassettes. For the former, a total of 32  x  45  minut cassettes were transcribed locally. Not all were outsourced, but those that were cost £200 per hour to transcribe, for a 10-day turnaround service. As this type of work was unfamiliar to the Jersey-based provider, careful and time-consuming checking was required by States Greffe staff as the quality of the transcription was generally poor.

Transcription Turnaround Period

For the normal pattern of States meetings scheduled every fortnight, a 6-day turnaround period will be required for the transcription service, to leave time for checking and publication. In order to provide a transcript when the States meets on a weekly basis a 2-day turnaround period will be necessary.

It has been assumed that a 10-day turnaround will be sufficient for the purposes of Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee. These bodies may on occasions decide that they require a quicker turnaround period. It will be for them to make this decision taking into account the availability and appropriate prioritisation of funding within the budget set aside for their purpose.

CAPITAL COSTS FOR STATES ASSEMBLY

Note.  The secure website facility would allow the digital recording to be uploaded in Jersey to a secure site

which the transcription company would access through the internet. This would avoid the need to send CD-ROM copies of the data and save time (the electronic files of data created by digital recording are currently too large to be sent by e-mail).

ESTIMATED REVENUE COSTS, AS AT MARCH 2003 –

A.  Outsourced (United Kingdom-based) – overall annual cost £148,000 – £157,500

Costs of outsourcing to an approved Court Reporting Service in the United Kingdom would be, as follows – fo r t r anscription of each 8-hour day of recording –

£2 ,3 5 0 fo r a 2-day turnaround

£2 ,1 0 0 fo r a 6-day turnaround

£2 ,0 0 0 fo r a 10-day turnaround.

Outsourcing to a high quality provider has the advantage that fewer internal staff will be required. Once received electronically, the high-quality text can be edited to the required standard and a final Official Record' version

produced. As in the GLA example already referred to, this would require a detailed log of speakers associated with each recording, together with a glossary of terms relating to the subject matter under discussion. As a legislature there are additional elements to be considered for the Assembly – detailed guidance will also be required as regards procedural matters (particularly in relation to legislation), to be provided to the reporting service  to  assist  it  in  producing  a  potentially  high-quality  draft  report.  In  addition,  guidelines  and contemporaneous  information  would  be  required  to  deal  with  incidents  of  over-speaking,  where  a  member attempts to interject or interrupt during the proceedings. In other jurisdictions, the person preparing the draft report sits in the Chamber while his/her section is actually spoken; in Jersey an Official Report Editor will need to be present and supply the relevant information in the form of a brief to accompany the recording. The Reporting Service is responsible for ensuring that response times and levels of accuracy are maintained, and the Official Report Editor is responsible for quality assurance.

TO RECEIVE THE REPORT BY THE NEXT STATES MEETING –

Using transcription turnaround times that will result in the official report being published in time for the next States meeting as recommended by the Committee –

£

1. 6-day turnaround: £2,100 Assuming34 days per annumatupperrate 71,400
2. 2-day turnaround: £2,350

Assuming 6 days per annum 14,100 Maintenance contracts 2,000 Transcription equipment 1,500 Consumables and archiving 500 Equipment replacement costs, annual 3,500 Official Report Editor  one FTE post, circa 50,000 Office 5,000

TOTAL 148,000 OR TO RECEIVE THE OFFICIAL REPORT WITHIN 7  DAYS,

ADD £9,500  = 157,500

SCRUTINY PANELS AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Costs of proposed recording and transcription service

The following costs assume that the equipment for digital audio recording for the States Assembly is already in place, and that each of the 4 Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee decide to have 14 days of evidence transcribed each year (total of 70 days) –

Estimated equipment costs as at January 2003 –

£

Fixed equipment and software for one permanent Scrutiny

meeting room 11,200 Portable equipment/FTR Reporter Desk 8,000 2 personal computers, software, installation and commissioning 3,600

TOTAL additional expenditure 22,800

Estimated additional revenue costs as at February 2003 – TO RECEIVE TRANSCRIPT WITHIN 2 WEEKS –

£

A. Outsourced (United Kingdom based) –

Outsourced transcription costs per day of recording

10-day turnaround £2,000

Assuming 70 days per annum 140,000 Maintenance contracts 4,000 Consumables and archiving 1,200 Equipment replacement costs 5,625 Setting up/taking down portable equipment on 10 occasions per

year 2,000 TOTAL 152,825

OR

TO RECEIVE TRANSCRIPT WITHIN ONE WEEK ADD £24,500 = 177,320

Note  In Appendix Five of P.79/2003 (Machinery of Government: establishment of Scrutiny Panels and Public

Accounts  Committee)  the  cost  of  transcription  shown  above  (£140,000)  is  listed  separately.  The remaining annual cost shown above for maintenance contracts, etc. (£12,825 of the £152,825) would need to be met from the funds listed under the heading Ancillary costs' in Appendix Five of P.79/2003. The costings in P.79/2003 do not take account of the requirement for a possible one week turnaround as shown above.