Independent Jersey Police Authority: establishment.

STATES OF JERSEY

INDEPENDENT JERSEY POLICE AUTHORITY: ESTABLISHMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 2nd March 2010 by Senator A. Breckon

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: C  P.23

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to refer to their Act dated 19th May 1998 approving the establishment by law of a Police Authority, and –

to request the Minister for Home Affairs to present to the States for approval  no  later  than  December  2010  detailed  proposals  for  the establishment of an Independent Jersey Police Authority to oversee the work of the States of Jersey Police.

SENATOR A. BRECKON

REPORT

I have highlighted and set out in this Report the background to this sorry saga of doing nothing. I say this because I believe that not having a Jersey Police Authority (JPA) has cost us many millions of pounds to date and left the States of Jersey Police in a position where, to me, it is unclear exactly who they are accountable to and how?

This situation can NOT be allowed to go on forever without any sign of action!

I should declare an interest in that a few years ago I was a Member of a "Shadow Police Authority" as a (then) Member of the Home Affairs Committee, along with the Constable of St. Ouen , Ken Vibert .

I wish to add, and place on the public record, that the voluntary Chairman at that time was Mr. (former Deputy ) Robin Rumboll, and he did some sterling work in trying to put a structure and people, in place, virtually on his own, without an officer for most of the time.

When he had to step down for personal reasons, the progress drifted and I believe that this is demonstrated in the attached Report, as set out below which shows that nothing really meaningful has happened since, that I am able to detect – but then I'm not a policeman!

As can be witnessed from the attached Minutes of The States from 19th May 1998 with the debate of Policing of the Island (P.49, P.84 and P.86 – all of 1998) it was agreed to set plans in motion for a Jersey Police Authority and in general terms, to report back to the States (by the then Defence Committee) WITHIN TWO YEARS. (This was on an Amendment from Deputy Bob Hill.)

So, I believe that it would have been reasonable for the States to EXPECT some significant progress before the end of 2001, however, this never happened.

Sadly, some 10 years later I am unable to detect any meaningful progress regarding the establishment of a Jersey Police Authority – it is NOT apparent to me – hence this Proposition.

I believe that the lack of a JPA has been at significant cost to the public, and public purse – the apparent questionable management and accountability (or lack of it?) of one  high  profile  investigation  is,  I  believe  enough  to  demonstrate  that –  to  me anyway – a JPA is a must-have.

To  demonstrate  this  further  I  believe  an  unsuspecting  group  of  individuals  were "drafted in" to "oversee" the conduct and publicity with a major investigation, which with respect, I believe was a token gesture – their involvement and effectiveness was, in my opinion, questionable?

Also, I do not believe that it has contributed anything positive to the effective policing of the Island: indeed, with hindsight it has probably had the reverse effect.

By bringing this Proposition I hope to get some structure in place – a Jersey Police Authority –  which  is  a  widely  accepted  method  of  police  accountability  and effectively functioning throughout the United Kingdom; and I believe that it will give

some focus and urgency to an unsatisfactory situation that has lain dormant for too long.

I have deliberately NOT included any reference to the Honorary Police as I do not see this as an issue.

I have attached in full at:

APPENDIX 1: Jersey Police Authority – Review (R.C.35/2003) (presented by the Home Affairs Committee 22nd July 2003)

APPENDIX 2: extracts from Hansard that are relevant, from –

19th May 2009, and

21st September 2009.

Financial and manpower implications

I estimate that there will be a small cost of firstly establishing, and then maintaining, a Police Authority on an annual basis, which should come from the existing Home Affairs budget. I estimate that this would be in the order of £50,000 per annum; the administration should not exceed 25 hours per week and this could be provided by agency staff. Membership of the Authority should be on an honorary basis.

However the cost of this will, I believe, be insignificant when compared with the most recent history of funding special inquiries or investigations.

INTRODUCTION

1. Members and others will be aware of the impasse that has developed in the establishment by law of a Jersey Police Authority (JPA). This has manifested itself in increasing frustration amongst some States members at the lack of progress. This paper covers the background to the present situation, the factors that have hindered progress, background information on police authorities in England and Wales, the Dumfries and Galloway model, a SWOT analysis of establishing a police authority in Jersey, other issues to take into account and provides options on the way ahead.
2. The States resolved to set up a JPA on the 19th May 1998, pre-dating the formation  of  a  Home  Affairs  Department  by  2½ years.  It  was  always envisaged that the JPA would be a self-administering body independent of the administering  Committee.  At  the  outset,  it was  established  as  a  shadow authority, although it soon became apparent that it lacked vital officer support. The last formal meeting of the JPA was held in September 2001 towards the end of Senator Lakeman's time as temporary Chairman, following which the difficulties in finding a replacement Chairman, which still exist, started to develop.  When  the  Project  Officer  also  resigned  early  in 2002,  the proceedings of the JPA effectively ground to a halt. In the absence of anyone else able to progress matters – in particular the work necessary to find a replacement Chairman – the Home Affairs Department filled the void since it was envisaged that the JPA's conduit to the States would be through the Home Affairs Committee. However, given that the States had agreed that the JPA would be an independent body, this did not include progressing JPA business generally, although the Department has become the point of contact for the Honorary Police Trainer, a post set up by the JPA before formal business ceased.
3. It is important to be clear about what the States decided when it resolved to set up a JPA. Attached is a copy of the proposition, as amended, that was adopted on the 19th May 1998 (Appendix 1). Paragraph 1 of the proposition stated that the States:

"(1)  approved  the  establishment  by  law  of  a  Police  Authority  with

responsibility for –

1. securing the maintenance of effective and efficient policing throughout the Island;
2. setting local objectives and performance targets for the States of Jersey Police Force and the honorary police;
3. issuing an annual report reflecting achievements, a policing plan  and  budget  details  to  be  presented  to the  States  and published;"

AIM

4. The aim  of  this  paper  is  to  outline  an  alternative  means  of  fulfilling paragraph (1) of the proposition approved by the States on the 19th May 1998.

BACKGROUND 5.  The decision to set up a JPA flowed from one of the recommendations in the Report on the Policing of the Island, otherwise known as Clothier One', which was published in July 1996 by a Review Body chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier. On the 5th November 1996, the States charged the then Defence Committee with setting up a Working Party "to consider whether, and to what  extent,  the  issues  raised  in  the  report  by  the  Review  Body  are appropriate to the Island." The proposition adopted on the 19th May 1998 reflected  the  findings  of  the  Working  Party  which  had  concluded  that  it "supports the findings of the Review Body that the Island would be best served by the creation of an independent body with a broadly based membership including independents."

6. Like the Jersey Police Complaints Authority, the position of Chairman is honorary and Robin Rumboll held the post for the first 2 years. Much of the Authority's early work centred on two tasks:

• Preparing  a  law  drafting  brief  for  establishing  the  JPA  by  law (paragraph (1) of the proposition at Appendix 1).

• Establishing how much current legislation would need amending in order that the Chef de Police would have charge of the honorary police within the parish, and that the Connétable s could cease to fulfil an operational policing role (paragraph (3)(a) of the proposition at Appendix 1).

7. A Legislation Sub-Committee was set up and an outline law drafting brief was completed in June 2001. However, the necessary detailed drafting instructions remained outstanding and no further progress was made towards foundation of the JPA in law. A painstaking and thorough review of primary legislation was carried out by the Law Officers' Department which identified 96 separate pieces of legislation that would have to be reviewed if the roles of the Chef de Police and the Connétable s were to change.
8. Unfortunately, Mr. Rumboll began to suffer ill health and eventually had to resign  as  Chairman.  Senator  Christopher  Lakeman  agreed  to  become  the temporary Chairman on a caretaker basis in 2001 at about the time that the new Police Chief took up his post. During that period, effort concentrated on improving working relationships between the States and the Honorary Police with much success. A useful catalyst has been the expenditure of JPA funds on a training contract to deliver training to the Honorary Police on a range of important  policing  skills,  e.g.:  notebooks,  arrest,  court  procedures, documentation,  speed  detection  devices,  first  aid  and,  latterly,  on  the introduction  of  the  Police  Procedures  and  Criminal  Evidence  (Jersey) Law 2003. The training is being delivered by John De La Haye, a recently retired chief inspector.

9. During this period, the shadow JPA also turned its attention to encouraging the  establishment  of  a  Chairman  and   Deputy  Chairman  of  the  Honorary Police, and to the proposed merger of the Centeniers' Association and the Association of Vingteniers and Constables' Officers (paragraphs (3)(b) and
   3. of  the  proposition  at  Appendix 1).  The  merger  proposal  was  not favoured by the Associations and foundered. However, with the assistance of the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s, the Honorary Service went some way towards fulfilling proposal (3)(b) by establishing a new Committee of  Chefs  de  Police  and  electing  a  Chairman  and   Deputy  Chairman  from among their number.
10. Senator Lakeman had to relinquish his caretaker role in early 2002 when he took over the new Privileges and Procedures Committee. At the same time, the Project Officer, who had been in post less than a year, also resigned to pursue an alternative career. Despite a concerted effort by the Home Affairs Committee to find a new Chairman, this proved impossible throughout 2002 until a potentially high quality candidate expressed a strong interest in the post. He spent November 2002 seeing key people – constables, centeniers and the Chief Officer – but reached the conclusion that, in his view, Jersey did not need a police authority along the lines of the England and Wales model. He considered that a consultative body on policing matters would suffice whilst leaving  political  and  financial  responsibility  with  the  Home  Affairs Committee.
11. The JPA's  business  has  effectively  been  in abeyance  since  spring  2002 although,  ironically,  the  initiative  that  it had  been  most  proactive  in establishing – professional training for the Honorary Police – continues to flourish and is much appreciated by the Honorary Service.

FACTORS THAT HAVE HINDERED PROGRESS

12. As a preface to the following section, the significant effort that has been expended in carrying out the work of the shadow JPA to date, particularly by those that have led it, should be acknowledged. For the first 2 years or so, the lead was taken by a lay Chairman who received no recompense for such a large commitment. Subsequently, the reins were held by a busy States member and  professional  lawyer  at  great  cost  to his  time.  Nevertheless,  with  the benefit  of  hindsight,  the  following  factors,  from  which  we  should  learn, appear to have hindered progress towards establishment by law.

Insufficient Application of Resources to Carry Out the Task

13. Paragraph (5)  of  the  proposition  at  Appendix 1  "charged  the  Defence Committee, in consultation with the Finance and Economics Committee, to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to support the work of the Authority." The budget for the JPA presently inscribed within Home Affairs is £39,400. In the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, the budget allocated was £88,000, £66,000 and £55,000 respectively. The Home Affairs Committee has therefore made significant sums available over the years for JPA running costs. The falling budget over the years is due to these resources not being expended by the shadow authority to take the work forward. The JPA was initially given

Committee Clerk support until this was withdrawn. A minute secretary was then employed but it took until mid-2001 for the JPA to employ a Project Officer in order to take the complex legal work forward.

14. Future funding is an issue which will have to be addressed if the formation of a JPA, or an alternative body, isto proceed. The Hampshire Police Authority has a budget for FY 2003/4 of £1 million against the Constabulary budget of £247 million. Applying a pro rata calculation to our Police budget would mean a JPA budget of £80,000. However, taking into consideration our lack of economies of scale,  it is likely  that  there  may  be  a  minimum  staff level necessary  for  a  police  authority  whatever  size  of  constabulary  is being supported  and  to take  account  of  local  factors.  For  example,  it may  be necessary  to employ  an  officer  to  support  the  Honorary  Police  in the preparation  of  policing  plans and performance  measurement.  A  budget  in excess of £100,000 may therefore still be conservative for a JPA fulfilling its full remit.

Insufficient Focus on the Establishment by Law of a Police Authority

15. In making the resolution at paragraph (4) to Appendix 1, it appears to have been almost taken for granted that the necessary legislation to establish the JPAin law would be prepared and passed. At that time, the complexity of the task was not appreciated. Consequently, the resolution focuses on the JPAhaving "to develop and to bring forward to the Defence Committee within two years an action plan to give effect to recommendations in paragraph (3),"The real effect was to embroil the shadow JPAin issues such as the office of Chef de Police, the post of Chairman of the Honorary Police, the merger of the Honorary Police Associations, the position of Procureur du Bien Public and codes of practice for Parish Hall Enquiries. Later, the JPA found itself debating Parish policing plans and holding itself responsible for Honorary Police training. However laudable these tasks were, they have collectively served to divert the JPA from the principal task of getting itself established by law. In hindsight, these other tasks could have been delegated to other, more appropriate agencies with a remit to work closely with the shadow JPA.

Taking on the Mantle of a Police Authority Without Any Legal Foundation

16. This observation flows from the previous one in that by having several more tasks laid upon it by virtue of paragraph (3) of the proposition, the JPA took on the mantle of being the police authority without actually having that status. This only served to raise expectations about what the shadow JPA could reasonably achieve whilst acting in that capacity. It had a mammoth task to achieve in establishing itself by law whilst, simultaneously, having to deal with recommendations specific to the Honorary Service. It might have been helpful if either the Attorney General, whilst seeing that codes of practice were  produced  for  Parish   Hall  inquiries,  had  been  requested  to take responsibility for these other matters in consultation with the shadow JPA or, alternatively, the Comité could have assumed the responsibility. This would have given the Honorary Service ownership and control over the proposed changes  whilst  leaving  the  shadow  JPA  clear  to concentrate  on  its establishment by law.

17. An interesting parallel can be drawn on this point with the formation of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). The manner in which that body was established in law and the time line to achieve it provide a useful comparison. The States  approved  in principle  the  formation  of  a  PCA  on  the  13th April 1993.  Mr.  Leslie  May  was  appointed to take  this  work  forward  by chairing  the  Steering  Group  consisting  of,  amongst  others,  the  Attorney General (the present Bailiff ), the former Police Chief and the late Constable Le  Sueur  (for  the  Comité).  The  group  made  relatively  rapid  progress  in formulating a law drafting brief but, subsequently, the legislation took a long time  to complete  the  law  drafting  process.  The  Police  (Complaints  and Discipline (Jersey) Law 1999 was registered in the Royal Court on the 5th March 1999 but did not come into force until the 1st January 2001 following preparation of the subordinate legislation. Mr. Leslie May was then appointed as the PCA Chairman. This process took almost 8 years to complete. The important point to note, however, is that the PCA was not expected to operate in some sort of shadow capacity during all that time. It could not, in any case, given that complaints cannot be dealt with in such a fashion. Although we should not be complacent about the 5 years that have elapsed since the States' resolution on the JPA, the PCA scenario serves to show that such matters do take time to achieve, even with fewer distractions.

Lack of Interest in the Post of JPA Chairman

18. The lack of interest in the post of JPA Chairman has been well documented in answers to questions in the States. There have been two recruiting campaigns in the last 18 months. The first produced no interest at all, whilst the second at the end of last year produced a high quality candidate who later became unconvinced of the need for a JPA following his induction period. That aside, and accepting that Jersey has a tradition of honorary service, chairmanship of a police authority is a heavy responsibility for any member of the public and it may be that the post should have been recognised by way of remuneration. Certainly,  this  is acknowledged  on  the  mainland  as  the  rates  detailed  at paragraph 27 will testify. If the States decides to pursue the formation of a JPA, there is a case for Jersey following suit but it would be wise to consider the  potential  effect  on  similar  posts,  e.g.:  Chairman  Police  Complaints Authority, Chairman Appointments Commission.

The Uncertainty in the Future Role of Connétable s

19. The uncertainty over the future role of the Constables, created by the Review of the Machinery of Government (Clothier 2'), has also caused delay. It is likely that Constables would not want to relinquish their policing role if they were also to lose their seats in the States. Conversely, they might be content to see that role go if they are to be busy States members in a ministerial style of government.  This  uncertainty  has  had  a  bearing  on  the  debate  and  delay surrounding the recommendations at paragraph (3)(a) – (c) of the resolution.

POLICE AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

20. There are 43 territorial police authorities in England and Wales. Separate arrangements exist for U.K.-wide forces such as the MOD Police, British Transport  Police,  National  Criminal  Intelligence  Service  (NCIS)  and  the

National Crime Squad (NCS). Similarly, territorial forces outside England and Wales have separate structures for funding and accountability. All Scott ish local  authorities  are  police  authorities  in  their  own  right  and  most  come together to share a police force through a joint committee made up entirely of elected members. Two "unitary" police forces – Dumfries and Galloway and Fife –  stand  alone  and  are  organised  differently.  These  arrangements  are outlined in the next section.

21. At this point, members might find it helpful to consider the basis upon which police  authorities  operate  in England  and  Wales.  The synopsis  given  in paragraphs 22 to 32 is based upon information supplied by the Hampshire Police Authority.
22. Police authorities were formed as a result of the Police and Magistrate's Court Act 1994. They are accountable to the Home Secretary and, ultimately, the general public in their local authority area. Prior to that, there were Police Committees within County Councils usually consisting of 24 councillors and 12 magistrates. The budget was obtained through the County Council. In 1995 the Hampshire Police Authority became a free-standing body separate from the Council. The initial staff complement was 2 part-timers but this has risen to 5 as shown on the attached organisation chart (Appendix 2). The present membership  of  the  Authority  is 17 –  which  is representative  of  most Authorities – consisting of 9 councillors, 3 magistrates and 5 independent lay members.  Experience  has  shown  that  the  councillors  tend  not  to take  a political party stance on police matters.

How the Authority is an improvement on the previous Committee

23. Councillors  tended  to take  a  party  stance  under  the  Committee  system, particularly when it came to setting the budget. The magistrates were, and still are, sobering influences with their experience of people passing through the criminal justice system. The lay members have brought strength to the system through their impartiality. The Authority is regarded as more accountable to the  public.  For  example,  the  Council  Tax statement  actually  lists  the contribution to policing. However, it has been difficult for the Authority to sell itself. The public do not perceive any differentiation from the police. Her Majesty's  Inspector  of  Constabulary  reports  to the  Authority  following inspections rather than to the Chief Constable. The Authority itself is not subject  to scrutiny  by  the  County  Council  Scrutiny  Committees.  The Authority is accountable to the Home Secretary and, through its consultation process, with the general public.

How the Hampshire Constabulary is Funded

24. Police  authorities  in England  and  Wales  receive  their  funding  through  a combination  of  grants  from  central  government  and  a  precept  (demand) through the Council Tax levied directly on the public. The grants are notified to police authorities first. The Authority may appeal against the annual grant within a specified period. Once the cost of the annual policing plan is known and approved by the police authority, the difference between the cost of the plan and the amount given in grants is made up by the precept. The public have no say in the size of the precept; the expectation is that the public will

accept it as a result of the consultation exercises, surveys, performance criteria and annual reports carried out and published by the police authority.

25. For the FY 2003/4, the Hampshire Police Authority received £184,500,000 centrally through Revenue Support Grant, Share of the National Business Rates and Police Grant. Net expenditure on police services was estimated to be £247,610,000 (an increase of £20,000,000 or 8% over the previous FY). Therefore, the amount required to be raised by the Council Tax precept was £62,800,000.  This  translated  to a  charge  of  £97.29  per  annum  on  each individual's Council Tax for police services alone (an increase of 29.5% over the previous FY).
26. The Authority does get complaints about the size of the precept but these are generally satisfied after more detailed explanation on how the budget is made up. If they do not pay, members of the public can be taken to court. There is no redress for the general public other than through the ballot box. There is no mechanism for the public to take direct action in the way that, for example, St. Helier rate payers have done in recent years. The argument put forward is that the Authority carries out a robust consultation exercise with the public and then translates their wishes into the Policing Plan. In theory, therefore, the precept is simply the financial value of the level of service required by the public. The flaw in this argument of course is that the public do not know the likely cost of the expected level of service until the Council Tax is about to be levied.

Hampshire Police Authority Budget

27. The Authority  has  cost  £803,000  for  FY2002/3  and  is projected  to  cost £1 million for FY 2003/4. Staff costs for the 5 staff are £128,000. There has been a recognition that members have to be properly remunerated for the work they do. A flat rate per annum is paid depending upon position held. The current  rates  are  £20,000  (Chairman),  £15,000  (Vice-Chairman),  £12,500 Panel Chairman and £8,500 (members).

Responsibilities

28. The Authority employs police officers in its name but the Police Human Resources  (HR)  Department  does  all  the  recruiting  and  personnel management. The Force has a Director of Finance who manages the budget but who is subordinate to the Council Treasurer. The Council Treasurer is, notionally, the Authority's finance officer. The Chief Constable manages the Force and constructs the annual budget for submission to the Authority for scrutiny. As described above, the Authority does not have to go to the Council for funding.

Personnel Matters

29. The Authority does not have a role in disciplining police officers except for Assistant Chiefs and above (i.e.: members of ACPO). All personnel matters are dealt with by the Force themselves, although the Authority's Personnel Panel keeps a watching brief on such matters as sickness levels, the HR Plan, recruitment levels, deployments, etc. The Authority appoints, and dismisses if

necessary, all members of ACPO. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, Health and Safety will fall to the Authority from the 1st June 2003. The Authority is wondering how to implement this. The options are either take on their own Health and Safety Officer or to delegate the task back to the Force.

Operational Matters

30. The Authority has no responsibility for operational matters at all. However, on a very sensitive issue, the Chief Constable may choose to gain the Authority's support. Hampshire had an interesting parallel with Jersey concerning the introduction of CS spray. The former Chief Constable chose to advise the Authority that this was likely to be brought in and the Authority felt at first that it would be a step too far. Members were invited to observe the training sessions for officers and some chose to subject themselves to the incapacitant spray. The Authority supported its introduction, although the Chief Constable could have brought itin solely in accordance with ACPO policy.

Authority Meetings

31. The Chief Constable stays for the whole of the Authority's meetings unless, exceptionally, there is a confidential item. An obvious example would be a discussion about the future of the Chief Constable himself. The Authority operates with Sub-Committees as shown on the attached organisation chart (Appendix 3).

The Policing Plan

32. The annual Policing Plan is put together by the Force and the Authority then adopts it after discussion and any amendment. The major part of the work is done by the Corporate Services Department at Force Headquarters but they work closely with Authority officers throughout the year to prepare drafts and float these with the Authority during the year, especially on novel or sensitive matters. The Authority is thinking of taking on a Performance Management Officer to quality assure the information coming from Force HQ. This is not the result of any mistrust of the Force's Corporate Services Department, but more to help members interpret the information coming from the Force and to suggest  questions  that  members  might  wish  to  ask.  This  was  a recommendation from a recent Best Value Review. They are also considering taking on an officer to work on Community Safety Partnerships. This would take the staff complement up to 7.

THE DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY MODEL

Background

33. Unlike  in England  and  Wales  or  with  the  Strathclyde  Constabulary  in Scotland, where a single Constabulary might serve several local authorities, the Dumfries and Galloway local authority boundaries coincide with those of the  Dumfries  and  Galloway  Constabulary,  hence  the  term  "unitary  police force/local authority." When police authorities were created under the Police and  Magistrate's  Court  Act  1994,  there  was  resistance  to  having  one  in Dumfries and Galloway on the basis that the local authority was too small to justify  the  extra  layer  of  bureaucracy.  The Dumfries  and  Galloway

Constabulary has a complement of approximately 340 police officers. Policing takes place through the local authority's Police, Fire and Public Protection Committee which clearly has a wider remit than purely policing matters. In terms  of  its  unitary  nature,  the  size  of  its  police  force  and  the  political arrangements that exist, Jersey bears a closer comparison to Dumfries and Galloway than to police authorities in England and Wales.

Police Funding

34. The Dumfries and Galloway Police revenue budget for the FY 2003/2004 is £26,942,000.  This  compares  with  the  States  of  Jersey  Police  budget  of £19,045,000 for 2003.

Committee Funding and Support

35. The cost of supporting the Police, Fire and Public Protection Committee is currently £48,000. These costs comprise:

• Committee costs: special responsibility allowances for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, travelling and printing of documents (£30,000).

• Staff costs totalling £18,000. There are no dedicated staff; however, the following staff cover the support functions:

Group Manager Corporate Support and Governance – 5% of time acting as Deputy Clerk to the Committee covering duties such as consultation, management, Registrar of Tribunals and legal advice.

Principal  Officer –  10%  of  time  on  agenda  preparation, reports and correspondence.

Secretarial – 20% of time.

Membership

36. The Police,  Fire  and  Public  Protection  Committee  is  comprised  of 19 members  with  the  following  political  representation:  Conservative  (4), Labour (5), Lib-Dem (2), SNP (3) and Independent (5). The Chairman is currently Lib-Dem and the Vice-Chairman is an Independent. There are no members of the judiciary or lay members serving on the Committee and is therefore a totally political committee unlike police authorities in England and Wales.

Committee Responsibilities

37. The Committee's main responsibilities are to:

• Consult with the local community regarding police and fire matters.

• Publish an annual police and fire best value performance plan setting out  priorities  for  the  year  ahead,  performance  targets  and  the allocation of resources to meet these priorities.

• Monitor best value and continuous improvement activities pertaining to police and fire matters.

• Appoint the Chief Constable, Firemaster and their Deputies.

Developing the Policing Plan

38. Much as in England and Wales, the Policing Plan and priorities are developed by the Chief Constable following detailed public consultation, analysis of surveys and feedback from local authority members on local issues. This process  enables  the  Committee  to respond  to local  issues  and  remain influential in setting policing priorities.

Performance Monitoring

39. Accountability  is achieved  through  monitoring  police  performance  on  a quarterly  basis  and  having  a  rigorous  public  performance  reporting mechanism in place. Specifically, this includes:

• An Annual Public Performance Report which provides information and local statistics on all aspects of the constabulary's performance.

• Formal reporting to the Committee on a quarterly basis.

• Reports to local Area Committees to inform debate on particular local issues.

• A  Public  Performance  Report  Supplement  distributed  through  the local media. These reports are open and transparent and allow for scrutiny and discussion of performance as well as providing members and the public with an opportunity to raise matters of concern to constituents.

Dumfries and Galloway Council Perspective

40. The view of the Dumfries and Galloway Council is that, through its Police, Fire and Public Protection Committee, it supports the provision of a locally based police force. It believes that overseeing policing activities in this way optimises accountability and service delivery. As a consequence of being a unitary authority, Dumfries and Galloway benefits from seeing its residents receive a locally focussed and locally responsive service which it regards as being a direct result of the current structure. It is also significant that good relationships are fostered with partner agencies which benefit from having the same geographic boundaries.

ASSESSING THE BENEFIT OF HAVING A JPA – SWOT' ANALYSIS

41. In  order  to formulate  a  view,  it is  helpful  to  consider  the  strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of having a police authority in Jersey. A SWOT' analysis is set out below.

SWOT Analysis of Having a Police Authority in Jersey:

Strengths

• To help "secure the maintenance of effective and efficient policing throughout the Island".

• Able to better co-ordinate at the strategic level the policing strategies of the States and Honorary Police.

• Able to include independent, lay members in order to represent the will of the people.

• Able to set objectives and performance targets for both the States and Honorary Police.

• To give greater transparency to policing activity, particularly for the Honorary Police, about whose activities the general public receive little information.

Weaknesses

Jersey too small to replicate the England and Wales police authority model. Island's government and civil service machinery well capable of managing policing and achieving local accountability.

Presupposes that we do not have "effective and efficient" policing already (this cannot be said about the States Police in particular as the most recent HMI report will testify).

There could be an annual recurring cost to the tax payer of c.£100,000 to run the JPA which bears scrutiny, especially in the current financial climate. In opportunity cost terms, this equates to at least 2 uniformed police officers.

Jersey does not have a Council Tax system and precept for police funding in the same way that the U.K. The need for a high level of accountability and transparency is clear in the English system where an annual, per capita charge is levied on each member of the public.

Introduces  a  further  layer  of  bureaucracy  between  the  operational services and the Home Affairs Committee. Could slow and frustrate the implementation of key policing initiatives.

Will place heavy demands upon the lay Chairman, assuming one can be found to fulfil the role on an honorary basis.

JPA constitution could be flawed:

Under the Ministerial system, there may not be 2 members of the Home Affairs Committee to sit on the JPA.

There  are  two  places  on  the  JPA  for  Constables.  If  they  do  not relinquish their policing role, under the England and Wales police authority model they should not be full members of the JPA. As members of the Honorary Police, they would effectively be sitting in judgement of the States of Jersey Police and themselves.

Opportunities

Enables the general public to have a direct say in policing through independent, lay members.

May  help  the  Honorary  Police  to  achieve  a  more  unified organisational structure and achieve consistency in policing activity between Parishes.

Threats

To States members:

Possibility  that  the  JPA  would  artificially  distance  elected decision makers from a key States responsibility. Could even be construed as States members abrogating responsibility for policing issues.

Possible  reluctance  of  the  Honorary  Police  to  subordinate itself to a police authority.

To the Minister for Home Affairs under a ministerial system:

Reduced direct influence on policing strategy.

Weakened position politically on the Council of Ministers if there is a perception that the States of Jersey Police are not under  the  control  of  the  Committee,  i.e.:  span  of  control reduced considerably.

To the general public:

Further rise in public expenditure for the additional layer of bureaucracy.

To the independent Chairman:

The dichotomy between the States and Honorary Police – and even within the Honorary Police itself – could seriously test the role of an independent and part-time Chairman. Minor roles,  responsibilities,  organisational  and  who  does  what' issues could distract the JPA from important strategic policing issues.  We  have  already  seen  this  with  the  JPA  getting involved in the reluctance of the Honorary Service to form a single  Association  structure  and  the  negotiations  that  took place to achieve a Chefs de Police Committee.

The present system enables States members to ask questions of the President Home Affairs on the floor of the House. If this is to continue, it would necessitate the President retaining a  close  working  relationship  with  the  Police  Chief  which could marginalise the position of the Chairman.

To the Police Chief:

Loss  of  regular  and  direct  access  to  the  political  body responsible for policing matters (Home Affairs Committee). He cannot work to two separate chains of command.

Possibility that progress on policy matters hampered where Honorary Police reluctant to embrace initiatives.

OTHER ISSUES

The Relevance of the Review of the Machinery of Government

42. When Sir Cecil Clothier published his first report in 1996 on police services, thoughts of a review of the machinery of government were undeveloped. The report we now know as Clothier 1' was written with a Committee style of government  in mind.  The  Report  on  the  Review  of  the  Machinery  of Government  (Clothier 2')  will  see  the  States  moving  to ministerial government, fewer States departments/ministries, a Council of Ministers to form the Executive and Scrutiny Committees, formed from the majority of States members, which will provide the necessary checks and balances. The question  arises:  does Jersey  need  an  English  style  police  authority  and  a parallel Scrutiny Committee system in order to achieve the required level of transparency in policing matters?

Sub-Committees of the States

43. Paragraph 3 of the Report of the Working Party on Policing of the Island contains the following statement:

"The Working Party believes the creation of another political committee to undertake this role would be inconsistent with the current resolve of the States to reduce their Committees, and an additional disadvantage is that political committees are unable to include independents in their membership. The

creation  of  a  Police  Authority  avoids  these  concerns  and  is  therefore recommended  by  the  Working  Party.  The  Police  Authority  would  be answerable to an Administrative Committee: either the Defence Committee or the proposed Home Affairs Committee."

44. Although this statement is true in relation to normal States Committees, itis worthwhile to consider Article 32 of the States of Jersey Law 1966 which relates to sub-committees:

"ARTICLE 32

POWER OF COMMITTEES TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO SUB- COMMITTEES

1. Any Committee may appoint as members of a Sub-Committee

of the Committee any persons, whether members of the States or not, and any person so appointed may exercise all the powers of a member of the Sub- Committee  other  than  a  power  which  involves  the  expenditure  of  public monies.

2. The term of office of persons appointed under this Article

shall be such as the Committee may determine and the Committee may revoke any such appointment at any time."

45. Article 32 provides a vehicle for independent members to serve on States Sub- Committees. A current example would be the Capital Projects Review Sub- Committee  administered  by  the  Finance  and  Economics  Committee.  Sub- Committees have the advantage of not requiring separate foundation by law in the way that was envisaged for the JPA. This option was unrehearsed in the Working Party's report and was not considered as an alternative, perhaps because the Working Party envisaged that this could lead to the creation of another political body quite separate from the Home Affairs Committee.

Finance

46. The current arrangements for public finance mean that the Force's finance officer,  the  Home  Affairs  Director  of  Finance  and  Administration,  is accountable to the Treasury through the Home Affairs Committee. This could give rise to a situation where the Police Chief would need to attend Committee meetings on financial issues, but would have to resist the temptation to discuss operational matters because that would be JPA business. An alternative would be  for  the  States  of  Jersey  Police  to receive  its  budget  direct  from  the Treasury, but itis unlikely that the Finance and Economics Committee would want to fragment the normal accounting line through a Committee of the States. Moreover, such an arrangement might not fit with any new accounting rules envisaged for the Ministerial form of government. Additionally, if the JPAisto notionally oversee the overall policing budget, there is much work to be done on how Honorary Police budgets should be organised with regard to budget setting, accountability and value for money.

Manpower

47. In England and Wales, police personnel are employed in the name of the police authority. The draft law drafting instructions drawn up by the shadow JPA suggested  that  police  civilians  would  be  employed  by  the  JPA.  To achieve this, detailed negotiations would need to take place with employee groups and legislative provision made. There may also be a conflict with a States desire to standardise conditions of employment in the public sector.

OPTIONS

48. Taking into account the foregoing background and arguments, the following 3 options emerge for members' consideration. The considerations for' and against' each option are given, although these may not be exhaustive, to try to avoid any possible bias.

Option 1: Proceed towards the establishment of a JPA by law For:

This is the status quo option which would require the Home Affairs Committee to follow through on the States resolution of the 19th May 1998. It would, arguably, put into  effect  the  strength'  criteria  outlined  in  the  SWOT  analysis  by  improving efficiency,  effectiveness,  accountability  and  transparency  of  policing  services.  It would be the only viable option if the majority of States members are in favour of having a JPA.

Against:

The shadow JPA is currently hamstrung' by a States resolution which places upon it difficult tasks which are not central to its establishment by law. The additional benefit to  Jersey  that  would  be  derived  does  not  sufficiently  outweigh  the  cost,  either financially or in time. The financial cost is estimated to be at least c.£100,000. There is negligible interest from lay people in becoming the independent Chairman.

Option 2: Establish a consultative group under the present political structure For:

It is accepted that independent, lay people cannot serve on committees of the States. However, they could serve on a Sub-Committee/consultative group in much the same way  as  we  have  a  Capital  Projects  Review  Sub-Committee  and  a  Firearms  Law Liaison Group. The group could be chaired by either the President of the Home Affairs  Committee,  a  Committee  member,  or  an  independent  member,  with 2/3 independent lay members to provide public representation. It would be necessary to  consider  how  the  proposed  body  would  be  constituted  under  the  forthcoming ministerial system when sub-committees, as they exist at present, will disappear, but it is  likely  that  some  alternative  form  of  committee  could  be  created  under  the chairmanship of the Minister for Home Affairs or an Assistant Minister. A member of the proposed Conseil des Connétable s could be included to provide representation for the Honorary Service at a political level. Possible titles would be the Police Liaison Group or Police Consultative Committee. Senior politicians and their officials would

remain accountable for policing but could draw on the broader experience of Honorary and independent members for advice, support and the transparency with the public that was envisaged through the JPA. Executive responsibility would remain with the Home Affairs  Committee  and  organisational  support  effected  through  the  Home  Affairs Department. The introduction of a scrutiny function in the States would add weight to the need for accountability and transparency. There would be no additional cost other than dedicated Executive Officer support.

Against:

The group would have no executive authority over the Honorary Police which could leave a doubt that it could do little to draw the activities of the two police forces further together. The group could also be viewed as having presentational value only and  being  an  unnecessary  diversion from  operational  policing  where  mechanisms already  exist  for  close  liaison.  However,  as  an  alternative,  a  Memorandum  of Understanding could be agreed pledging support for the aims and objectives of the Consultative Committee.

Option 3: Rescind the present States resolution For:

The presumption has been made that the Island needs to import the England and Wales concept of a police authority in order to achieve efficient and effective policing services and transparency with the public that they serve. Is this necessarily so? As far as the States of Jersey Police are concerned, HMI reports and Public Satisfaction Surveys  would  indicate  otherwise.  The  same  processes  are  not  in  place  for  the Honorary Police and it is accepted that they need to move with the times. However, they are essential to what is "Jersey" and other ways could be found to improve and measure  their  effectiveness.  In  England  and  Wales,  police  authorities  afford  the opportunity to devolve responsibility for policing to the local level and to justify the levels of funding demanded through the Council Tax precept. In Jersey, local and central considerations merge and funding mechanisms are markedly different. The marginal benefit of having a JPA might not outweigh the recurring cost. It would introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy at a time when the States is drawing down its committee structure and actively seeking to reduce public expenditure.

Against:

Seeking to rescind a States resolution should not be undertaken lightly. In order to do so,  robust  and  cogent  arguments  need  to  be  put  forward.  The  Committee  would effectively  be  saying  that  the  recommendations  in  Clothier 1  and  the  subsequent recommendations of the Working Party and the Defence Committee are not as valid as they were perceived to have been in 1998. The Home Affairs Committee would have a responsibility to take its case to the States where the arguments for and against could be aired publicly.

CONCLUSION

49. The report of the Working Party on Policing of the Island (R.C.41/1997) gave effect to the resolution of the States of the 19th May 1998. At paragraph 3.5 of the  report,  the  Working  Party  put  forward  the  following  Statement  of Common Purpose and Values for both arms of the police in Jersey:

"To work together to increase continually the public's satisfaction of the policing  in  the  Island through  the  approval  and  application  of  strategies involving the efficient use of all resources available to the policing function, whether Honorary or State."

50. The fundamental question to consider is whether, taking into account the experience of the shadow JPA over the last 5 years and the developments that have taken place since, the Island should proceed to set up a police authority. There is a cost/benefit judgement to be made, i.e.: whether the cost to the public of having a police authority along the lines of the England and Wales model outweighs any additional benefit it will deliver. As with any similar problem, a balance needs to be struck; the solution is neither black nor white.
51. The cost can be measured in both time and money. Five years have elapsed since the States passed its resolution. It will take several more years to fully develop the law drafting brief, gain a place in the law drafting programme and pass the necessary legislation. Regarding the financial cost, at paragraph 3.10 of the same report it states: "The Police Authority will require to be supported by a clerk and a treasurer. Both could be covered by existing posts." Suffice it to say, there are no existing posts and itis difficult to know what the Working Party had in mind.
52. In  terms  of  additional  benefit,  the  police  authority  aims  set  out  at paragraph (1) of the States resolution are of course laudable. These aims hinge on efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. The questions that need to be asked from the point of view of additional benefit are:

1. If itis accepted that both our policing services are, to varying degrees, efficient and effective, how much more so will they be under a JPA?
2. Bearing in mind processes such as the States of Jersey Police Public Satisfaction  Surveys  and  the  scrutiny  of  Honorary  Police  budgets through  Parish  Public  Assemblies,  how  much  more  accountable would the police be through a JPA?
3. If the judgement is that the potential benefits to be gained outweigh the cost, can they be accrued in other ways rather than establishing a JPA?

53. An alternative to a JPA would be to establish a sub-committee specifically to oversee policing in Jersey along the lines of the Dumfries and Galloway model but with representation from lay members. This is currently allowed for in the States of Jersey Law and would have the following advantages:

• It would not require separate foundation in law.

• Political  lines  of  accountability  to  the  States  would  be  preserved through the Home Affairs Committee.

• As  well  as  lay  membership,  the  Honorary  Service  would  be represented  at  political  level  by  a  constable  assuming  that  their

policing responsibility is relinquished, but their political responsibility retained, under a ministerial system of government.

• The Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, would retain a single line of responsibility.

• Cost would be minimised by providing organisational support through the Home Affairs Department with some Executive Officer support.

• The  sub-committee  would  still  be  responsible  for  producing  the annual policing plan, establishing priorities, consulting with the public and performance monitoring and, under the ministerial system, would be subject to scrutiny along with other government bodies.

STATES MINUTES 19th May 1998

"Policing of the Island – P.49/98, P.84/98 and P.86/98

THE STATES commenced consideration of the proposition of the Defence Committee regarding  the  policing  of  the  Island  and  adopted  sub-  paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of paragraph (1).

Sub-paragraph (c)  of  paragraph (1)  was  adopted,  the  States  having  accepted  an amendment of Deputy Frederick John Hill of St. Martin , that for the words issuing an annual policing plan', there should be substituted the words issuing an annual report reflecting achievements, a policing plan and budget details'.

Deputy Maurice François Dubras of St. Lawrence withdrew his amendment that, in sub-paragraph (c), for the word Force' there should be substituted the word Service'.

Paragraphs (2) and (3) were adopted.

Paragraph (4)  was  adopted,  the  States  having  accepted  an  amendment  of   Deputy Frederick John Hill of St. Martin that, in the fourth line of the paragraph, after the words Defence Committee' there should be inserted the words within two years'.

Paragraph (5) was adopted.

THE STATES, adopting the proposition as amended –

1. approved  the  establishment  by  law  of  a  Police  Authority  with responsibility for –

1. securing the maintenance of effective and efficient policing throughout the Island;
2. setting local objectives and performance targets for the States of Jersey Police Force and the honorary police;
3. issuing an annual report reflecting achievements, a policing plan  and  budget  details  to  be  presented  to the  States  and published;

2. agreed –

1. that  the  constitution  of  the  Police  Authority  should  be  as follows –

1. an independent Chairman appointed by the States on the recommendation of the Defence Committee;

2. two members of the Defence Committee, not being Connétable s, appointed by that Committee;
3. two   Connétable s  appointed  by  the  Comité  des Connétable s;
4. two independent persons appointed by the States on the  recommendation  of  the  Defence  Committee following an open selection procedure involving the Attorney General and the Defence Committee,

the  States  appointments  to  be  made  following  consideration  in camera;

2. that, subject to paragraph (4), the Authority's term of office should be three years and that appointments might be made to fill any vacancies occurring during the Authority's term of office;

3. approved the recommendations in paragraph 2.2 of the Report of the Working Party on Policing in the Island dated 5th December 1997, as follows –

1. that  the  office  of  Chef  de  Police  for  each  parish,  be established  by  law  to  have  charge  of  the  honorary  police within the parish and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law; and that the Connétable s should cease to fulfil  an  operational  policing  role  but  retain  overall responsibility for the effective and efficient policing of their parish;
2. that  posts  of  Chairman,  and   Deputy  Chairman,  of  the Honorary  Police,  and  the  responsibilities  of  the  respective posts, be established by law;
3. that  the  Centeniers  Association  and  the  Association  of Vingteniers  and  Constables  Officers  be  recommended  to merge into a single association;
4. that the senior Procureur du Bien Public in a parish should be empowered by law to deputise for the Connétable in the event of the latter's incapacity or absence from the Island;
5. that  the  Attorney  General  be  requested  to  prepare  and maintain a Code of Practice covering Parish Hall inquiries and to monitor the consistency of awards and procedures at such enquiries;

4. agreed  that,  pending  the  passing  of  the  necessary  legislation,  the Police Authority should be appointed with the charge, in consultation with all interested parties, to develop and to bring forward to the Defence Committee within two years an action plan to give effect to recommendations  in paragraph (3),  and  any  consequential  changes

that may be necessary; to identify in that action plan the new or amending legislation, and all administrative measures, necessary to implement the plan; and to charge the Defence Committee to resolve with the Policy and Resources Committee the timetable for drafting the legislation, and in consultation with the Comité des Connétable s, to bring to the States the necessary changes for approval;

5. charged the Defence Committee, in consultation with the Finance and Economics  Committee,  to ensure  that  sufficient  funds  are  made available to support the work of the Authority.

Members present voted on the proposition, as amended, as follows –

Pour' (45)

Senators

Horsfall, Rothwell, Le Maistre, Stein, Bailhache , Syvret, Tomes, Norman, Walker , Kinnard.

Connétable s

St. Clement ,   St. Lawrence ,   St. Mary ,   St. Brelade ,   Grouville ,   St. Martin , St. Ouen , St. John .

Deputies

Wavell(S),  H. Baudains(C),   Le Sueur (H),  Coutanche(L),   St. Mary , S. Baudains(H),   Trinity ,  Pullin(S),  Johns(H),  Duhamel(S),  Routier(H), Dorey(H),  Layzell(B),  Breckon(S),   Grouville ,   St. Martin ,   St. John , Le Main(H),  Blampied(H),  Rabet(H),   Crowcroft (H),   Vibert (B), de la Haye(B), Le Cornu(C), St. Peter , Dubras(L), St. Ouen .

Contre' (1)

Connétable

St. Helier ."

APPENDIX 2 (to R.C.35/2003)

_____________________________________________________________________ Re-issue note

This report has been re-issued as, due to a typographical error in the States Greffe, an incorrect version was published originally.

EXTRACTS FROM JERSEY HANSARD'

19th May 2009

Questions without notice to the Minister for Home Affairs

4.10   Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Several times the Minister has stated that the major new laws which he inherited have got major issues and problems. Could he outline to the Assembly whether he has now made progress with these issues and problems around the Discrimination Law, the Police  Authority  Law,  et cetera  and  when  he  will be  bringing  these  laws to  the Assembly?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

We are working very hard on the Sex Offenders Law and think we have now solved most of the problems which were there. There are issues in relation to a proper assessment of what it is going to cost but we are fairly close to being able to bring that back to the House. In relation to discrimination, progress has been made in terms of trying to run this but much more cheaply than was previously envisaged, utilising an expanded form of the existing Employment Tribunal. My excellent colleague, Deputy Hilton, is working particularly in relation to this area. Sorry, I have forgotten what ...

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: Police Authority.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Police Authority. In relation to police authority, I have taken a decision that until the dust has settled in relation to a number of current matters it will be very difficult to take  forward  any  sensible  proposals.  I  am,  therefore,  leaving  that  over  for consideration towards the end of the year. I have been doing some thinking on that and my own thinking is moving towards the formation of some sort of police authority committee which would include States Members and non-States Members. I think we need something which is going to have more oomph as it were – more power, more clout – than the previous arrangements.

21st September 2009

Questions without notice to the Minister for Home Affairs

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

I have decided to bring my question forward a couple of weeks. Will the Minister indicate  when  an  independent  police  authority  for  Jersey  is  likely  to  be  fully operational?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I can answer that question and I am grateful that Deputy Tadier did not make me answer the other one. As Deputy Tadier knows, I took the view early in assuming office as the Minister for Home Affairs that it would be unwise to attempt any serious work in relation to this until the dust had settled in relation to various disciplinary and other matters. That view has, if anything, been reinforced by the direction in which things have gone. I think that we need to receive reports. There needs to be a time of reflection upon those reports and, indeed, upon what has happened once we know what has happened and only thereafter, I think, can I begin to formally declare plans to bring before this House in relation to the way in which a police authority would be structured.

5.5.1   Deputy M. Tadier :

Just a supplementary, Sir; would that authority have responsibility for both the States Police and the Honorary Police and, if not, would the Minister say whether it is desirable  that  it  should  have  responsibility  for  both  the  Honorary  and  the  States Police?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I have hesitated because I am just having to think about this. My own mind is focused on a police authority in relation to the States of Jersey Police and not on a joint police authority. There was a previous attempt to set up – in fact it was an organisation set up which never functioned very well which was meant to cover both – and my own view is that the Honorary Police responsibility should remain ultimately with the Attorney General as it does at present and that trying to set up an all-embracing authority will just confuse matters.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I thank the Minister for his response but does he not believe that there is also perhaps a greater risk of ...

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy . I think you have had 2 already so I must allow others to have a go. If there is time left you can come back at the end. Deputy of St. Martin ?

6. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I could probably help both Deputy Tadier and the Minister. When the States agreed in 1999 to set up a police authority, it was intended that both Honorary and the States Police would be part and parcel of that. I know that for a fact.