Machinery of Government Review (R.105/2007): summary of action arising.

STATES OF JERSEY

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT REVIEW (R.105/2007): SUMMARY OF ACTION ARISING

Presented to the States on 29th January 2009 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT REVIEW (R.105/2007): Summary of action arising

FINAL REPORT

1. I n t roduction

In 2006 the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) was requested by the States to prepare a report on the operation of the first 12  months of Ministerial Government. A sub-committee of 3  members was established to undertake this work, consisting of Connétable Derek Gray, Senator M.E. Vibert and Deputy J. Gallichan of St.  Mary.

The sub-committee took oral and written evidence from a number of sources and presented its final report to the States on 9th November 2007 (R.105/2007 refers). The review looked at all aspects of the new system, from the operation of the Council of Ministers to the structure of the Scrutiny function.

2. R  ec ommendations

The report made a total of 55 recommendations which were to be undertaken by PPC, the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister's Department and the Chairmen's Committee.

3. A  ct ion taken

Following the publication of the review, PPC co-ordinated consideration of the recommendations and, where appropriate, suggested a lead body to take them forward. Where there were a significant number of stakeholders, PPC itself acted as lead body. The objective was to have any necessary changes in place by the end of the second session of the States in 2008.

This has been achieved, not least with the adoption by the States on 21st October 2008 of the Draft Amendment (No.  9) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, (P.140/2008) as amended (P.140/2008  Amd), and the Draf States of Jersey (Amendment No.  5) Law 200- (P.122/2008).

This report details the action taken under each recommendation by the Council of Ministers, Privileges and Procedures Committee, Chairmen's Committee, Scrutiny Panels and Public Accounts Committee as constituted up until early December 2008. It includes the percentage of those States members who had responded to the States members' questionnaire and who supported the individual recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION  1 – Where reports are of interest to all States members and are not confidential to the Council of Ministers, then presentations on them should be made to all members and not just to the Council.

Supported by 77% of members who responded

Presentations are currently made to all States members, both quarterly and when major policy is constructed.

Special presentations to States members have covered major policy areas from anti-inflation strategy, to the proposed airport runway works; although the Council of Ministers consider that an element of reasonableness is required in determining whether a presentation would constitute an efficient use of resources and officer time. It is anticipated that the new Council of Ministers will be provided with an opportunity to consider the frequency of such presentations to States Members.

RECOMMENDATION  2 – The Council of Ministers should review how it liaises with the Comité des Connétable s.

Supported by 63% of members who responded

The Chief Minister regularly meets with the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s and it is anticipated that this will continue under the new Council of Ministers, although this is an informal agreement which could be reviewed.

RECOMMENDATION  3 – The Council of Ministers should keep items listed on the B  Agenda to the strict minimum and should always err on the side of openness in case of any uncertainty about whether an item should be taken as Part  A or Part  B. Every effort should be madeto communicate forthcoming discussions and the subsequent decisions with all members of the States and significant policy decisions should always be notified to other members of the States before they are released to the media. In order to ensure information is as accessible as possible, the Council of Ministers should ensure that minutes of Part B items are recorded in Part  A minutes once a decision has been taken so that members are advised of what has been decided. There is also the facility to divide the record of an item between Part  A and Part B of the minutes where residual confidential matters remain.

Supported by 85% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed the recommendation[1].

RECOMMENDATION  4 – In cases of breach of the Ministerial Code that do not merit dismissal, the Chief Minister should issue a formal written reprimand to the Minister concerned and present this to the States Assembly for information. The issue of such a formal written reprimand would put on record the disapproval of the Chief Minister, supported by a majority of Ministers, in relation to the conduct concerned; and would be available as a formal record if further concern about the Minister's conduct occurred at a later date. If the Minister concerned had been asked to apologise, details of any apology given could also be recorded in the same document when presented to the Assembly.

Supported by 77% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed the suggestion that, where appropriate, a formal written reprimand be given in the case of such a breach, to put on record the disapproval of the Chief Minister, supported by a majority of

Ministers.[2] Each case of a suspected breach of the Ministerial Code will be considered by the Council, who will determine whether a reprimand is required and the manner in which it will be executed. It will be a matter for the

new Council, as appointed in December 2008, to consider whether the Code of Conduct for Ministers should be amended accordingly.

The above recommendation has also been approved by PPC.[3]

RECOMMENDATION  5 – The  appropriate  legislation  should  be  amended  to  provide  that  once  a proposition for the dismissal of a Minister is lodged by the Chief Minister in accordance with the statutory requirements, the Chief Minister should, supported by a majority of Ministers, be empowered to suspend the Minister concerned from office pending the States debate on the dismissal. In these circumstances,  the  Chief  Minister  himself  or  herself,  or  another  Minister  nominated  by  the  Chief Minister, would fulfil the functions of the suspended Minister pending the debate. If the States were to reject the dismissal proposal the suspended Minister would immediately resume his or her duties.

Supported by 77% of members who responded

Recommendation  5 formed part of the Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No.  5) Law 200-, lodged au Greffe' by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 29th July 2008, and adopted by the States on 21st October 2008.

RECOMMENDATION  6 – More use should be made of Assistant Ministers appointed to more than one Department and the current limit of 2 Assistant Ministers per Ministry should be removed, albeit with no change to the overall maximum number of Assistant Ministers.

Supported by 58% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed the recommendation in its letter to PPC of 12th March 2008, having concluded that it would allow for Assistant Ministers to play a key role in the development of cross-departmental policies.

PPC had previously decided not to pursue the recommendation, as it had received little support from members[4],

but notes that Assistant Ministers are working together in their consideration of the States' Strategic Plan.

RECOMMENDATION  7 – Standing Orders should be amended to provide that a Minister, if present in the Assembly, should only be able to delegate the answering of an oral question with notice to an Assistant Minister with the consent of the questioner. This would ensure that members are not frustrated in their attempts to hold Ministers themselves to account if they wish to do so.

Supported by 59% of members who responded

Recommendation  7 formed part of the Draft Amendment (No.  9) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey which was lodged au Greffe' by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 5th September 2008, and was adopted by the States on 21st October 2008.

RECOMMENDATION  8 – Assistant Ministers should only be appointed if the Minister concerned has a meaningful rôle for them to undertake. It is clear to the sub-committee that Assistant Ministers who have been given specific, well defined, delegated responsibility, have found their rôle more meaningful than those whose rôle is not clearly defined.

Supported by 80% of members who responded

Although the Council of Ministers endorsed the recommendation, it considered that the Assistant Minister already undertook a broad range of worthwhile duties. In its response to PPC dated 12th March 2008, the Council contended that it would not wish to constrain the range of duties performed through the introduction of precise definitions.

RECOMMENDATION  9 – Ongoing  delegations  to  Assistant  Ministers,  both  in  terms  of  general oversight and statutory functions, should be made clear on each department's website, so that the public and States members know who is dealing with which issues on a day-to-day basis.

Supported by 78% of members who responded

Recommendation  9 formed part of the Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No.  5) Law 200-, which was lodged au Greffe' by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 29th July 2008, and was adopted by the States on 21st October 2008.

RECOMMENDATION  10 – The  Council  of  Ministers,  in  consultation  with  Assistant  Ministers,  the Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  and  others,  should  give  consideration  to  the  appropriate arrangements that should be put in place when a Minister is absent. This review should clarify the rôle of the Assistant Minister in these circumstances. If necessary, appropriate amendments can then be brought to the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the Standing Orders of the States to clarify the rôle of an Assistant Minister in a Minister's absence.

Supported by 77% of members who responded

Recommendation  10 formed part of the Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No.  5) Law 200-, which was lodged au Greffe' by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 29th July 2008, and was adopted by the States on 21st October 2008.

RECOMMENDATION  11 – The scope of matters that can be delegated to Assistant Ministers should be reviewed.  Subject  to  the  receipt  of  appropriate  legal  advice  the  sub-committee  sees  no  reason,  for example, that Assistant Ministers should not be able to make Orders under specific legislation where other statutory responsibilities have already been delegated to them, subject to appropriate limitations.

Supported by 64% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed the recommendation in its response to PPC of 12th March 2008 and agreed that all such delegations of authority to Assistant Ministers should be collated and published on the States of Jersey website. This is currently under preparation. The States of Jersey Law 2005 precludes the making of Orders by an Assistant Minister and this remains unchanged.

RECOMMENDATION  12 – Ministerial Decision Summaries be clear, robust and comprehensive, and are cross-referenced with earlier decisions and discussions, and that they must be accompanied by all appropriate background papers and reports of relevance to ensure that the decision can be seen in context.

Supported by 83% of members who responded

This  recommendation  was  endorsed  by  the  Council  of  Ministers[5]  who  agreed  that  the  States  Greffe,  in consultation  with  the  Corporate  Management  Board,  should  re-issue  guidelines  to  all  departments  for  the

completion of Ministerial Decisions and emphasize the importance of cross-referencing linked decisions wherever possible.  The  Council  also  concluded  that  individual  Ministers  were  responsible  for  determining  whether documentation attached in support of a decision was appropriate.

The Chief Minister's Department established a Working Party in 2008 in conjunction with the States Greffe to review the progress of the recording of Ministerial Decisions. It will be progressing the issue of guidelines to departments  and  an  Intranet  page  to  include  guidance  and  frequently  asked  questions,  and  training  on  the recording of Ministerial Decisions will be delivered to all departments by the States Greffe in January 2009.

RECOMMENDATION  13 – The Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers should examine ways of expanding the policy support available to the Council of Ministers, possibly drawing on expertise already available in other departments.

Supported by 62% of members who responded

At present, the Corporate Management Board provides policy support both to Ministers through their respective Chief Officers, and to the Council of Ministers.

The Council of Ministers observed, in its letter to PPC of 27th November 2008, that consideration had been given to implementing a network of policy support from officers below the level of the Corporate Management Board. An informal network is in place and this matter will be considered in greater depth following the internal review of the Chief Minister's Department, which is currently underway.

RECOMMENDATION  14 – The  Chief  Minister's  Department  should  investigate  the  creation  of  a private secretary-type support rôle for the Chief Minister. This would be a full-time rôle that might involve a civil servant of approximately Grade  9-11, who would be responsible for undertaking basic research for the Chief Minister, assisting with preparation for official duties and attending meetings with the Chief Minister. In addition, the person appointed could undertake more basic functions such as diary planning for the Chief Minister.

Supported by 70% of members who responded

The Council agreed, at its meeting of 7th February 2008, that the Chief Minister would benefit significantly from provision of a dedicated research and administrative capability. Increased support for the Chief Minister was included as a growth item for the Chief Minister's Department for 2009 as part of the package of amendments to the Annual Business Plan lodged by the Council of Ministers. Arrangements for meeting this requirement are being implemented as part of the continued development of the Central Policy Unit in the Chief Minister's Department.

RECOMMENDATION  15 – The States should work to reach a shared understanding of what Scrutiny is there to do and when, and what scrutiny is not. The sub-committee believes that in the Jersey context this will include a variety of different forms of Scrutiny activity, ranging from involvement at the earliest stages of policy development to reviews of existing policy at a much later stage.

Supported by 80% of members who responded

The What is Scrutiny?' conference was held on 6th February 2008 and was attended by a significant number of States members and senior officers.

On 12th March 2008, the States approved the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee as set out in the Appendix to the report of the Chairmen's Committee dated 28th December 2007, and amended by the Council of Ministers.

RECOMMENDATION  16 – The membership of a Panel or Sub-Panel undertaking a review should not be heavily weighted in favour of a political party.

Supported by 74% of members who responded

This recommendation was rejected by the Chairmen's Committee on the basis that Scrutiny is an evidence-based process and does not take account of political perspectives. The Committee considered the important factor to be that Panels and sub-Panels comprise members interested in the subject who can work together, irrespective of

political allegiances.[6]

PPC agreed that the Chairmen's Committee could intervene if it was felt that the membership of a panel or a sub- panel was heavily weighted in favour of a political party, and decided not to progress this recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION  17 – Panels should analyse decisions, not the general activity of a Minister, and that a Scrutiny Panel should focus on conducting reviews by receiving/hearing evidence and obtaining advice. Panels should avoid old style committee' discussion.

Supported by 63% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed the recommendation.[7]

PPC noted that each Panel has its own style of working, and did not propose any amendment at this stage.

RECOMMENDATION  18 – The Scrutiny function should give further consideration to the manner in which  its  public  relations  are  handled  to  ensure  that  the  effective  solution  is  implemented  whilst achieving value for money.

Supported by 66% of members who responded

Following  the  success  of  the  citizenship  programme  and  the  Scrutiny  Matters  newsletter,  the  Chairmen's Committee believes public engagement should continue to be managed through the Scrutiny office. In its letter to PPC of 10th October 2008, the Chairmen's Committee suggested that an amendment should be brought to Standing Orders 128, 143 and 136 to remove responsibility for informing the public about Scrutiny work from the terms of reference of PPC and to include it in the terms of reference of the Chairmen's Committee and Scrutiny Panels.

RECOMMENDATION  19 – Standing Orders should be amended to allow sub-panels to present reports to the States in their own name. This recommendation is, in part, dependent on the outcome of the review of the Scrutiny structure referred to in Recommendation 20.

Supported by 57% of members who responded

The Chairmen's Committee advised PPC in May 2008 that, as Scrutiny was still in its infancy and developing, it needed time to continue to evolve and therefore it did not wish to comment on the recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION  20 – The structure of the Scrutiny function should be reviewed to capitalise on the enthusiasm and focus that sub-panels have shown.

Supported by 63% of members who responded

The Chairmen's Committee advised PPC in May 2008 that, as Scrutiny was still in its infancy and developing, it needed time to continue to evolve and therefore it did not wish to comment on the recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION  21 – The Chairmen's Committee should consider and publish the procedure for scrutinising the Strategic Plan, the Annual Business Plan and the Budget and that annually, the Council of Ministers and the Chairmen's Committee should agree the programme for the coming year, and inform the States thereon.

Supported by 72% of members who responded

In December 2008, the Council of Ministers provided Scrutiny with the Strategic Plan – proposed process, setting out the timetable and next steps in the consideration of the States Strategic Plan 2009, together with the process for engaging with States Members and Scrutiny.

All States Members were invited to a meeting to discuss the plan in January 2009.

RECOMMENDATION  22 – If not already in place, clear procedures should be agreed on the passing of all relevant information to each Scrutiny Panel in relation to the Strategic Plan and Annual Business Plan in a timely fashion, and the Chairmen's Committee should be responsible for co-ordinating the work of the different panels.

Supported by 76% of members who responded

Recommendations 21 and 22 were endorsed by the Council of Ministers.[8] The Chairmen's Committee advised that a timetable had been drawn up between the Executive and Scrutiny which included dates of further meetings

and drew attention to dates when Scrutiny could expect more detailed papers and briefing meetings. Scrutiny of the 2008 Annual Business Plan had been co-ordinated by the Chairmen's Committee and responses sent with a covering paper by the Committee. Plans are currently underway for scrutiny of the Strategic Plan in 2009.

RECOMMENDATION  23 – The Council of Ministers and the Chairmen's Committee should agree a protocol on the sharing of information between Panels in relation to States-wide policies, for example in relation to the Strategic Plan, the Annual Business Plan and the Budget.

Supported by 76% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers commented in its report to PPC of 27th November 2008 that information had been made available to Scrutiny Panels in accordance with the Scrutiny Code of Practice, under which each Panel must sign a confidentiality agreement for information they are given. However, it has been accepted by the Council that the higher-level  information  contained  in  corporate  documents  such  as  the  Annual  Business  Plan,  Budget  and Strategic Plan are of wider interest to all Panels. Accordingly, during the 2009 Annual Business Plan process, it was agreed that the Chairman of the Chairmen's Committee would sign a confidentiality agreement on behalf of the other Chairmen, after obtaining their agreement, so that the information could be shared across all Panels.

RECOMMENDATION  24 – At the beginning of each year –

• the Council of Ministers must inform the Chairmen's Committee of its indicative programmes in relation to the Annual Business Plan and the Budget, and every third year, the Strategic Plan, and

the dates of the key meetings which Scrutiny members would be invited to attend in relation to each;

• Scrutiny must provide the Council of Ministers with scheduled dates of each of its Panels for meetings/hearings in relation to these documents; and dates upon which it would seek informal

briefing meetings with officers, and meetings with Ministers;

with a view to ensuring the timely transfer of information, the dovetailing of meetings of the Executive and Scrutiny, sufficient time for Scrutiny and the efficient and effective use of manpower resources.

Supported by 76% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers currently operates in accordance with the above recommendation. On a related matter, the Council acknowledge that there is a need for the States to determine the next Strategic Plan by July 2009 in order to provide the next Council and Assembly with substantive room for decision-making.

The Chairmen's Committee commented in its letter to PPC of 10th October 2008 that a timetable had been drawn up which included dates of further meetings, and that work was being undertaken at officer level in respect of the Strategic Plan.

RECOMMENDATION  25 – It is essential that all major law should be scrutinised so that members fully understand the impacts on the citizen of the legislation, once introduced. The sub-committee is not yet happy with this situation and would like to see an in-depth review of the way in which legislation is scrutinised.

Supported by 76% of members who responded

A  review  has  been  undertaken  by  Scrutiny  into  the  way  in  which  legislation  is  scrutinised.  However,  the Chairmen's Committee does not believe that scrutiny of all major legislation is appropriate.[9]

In its report to PPC of 27th November 2008, the Council of Ministers stated that no law drafting briefs had been forwarded to Scrutiny Panels since the Council endorsed recommendation  25 at its meeting of 7th February 2008. Green and white papers are already shared with Scrutiny Panels and the Council feel there is a need for a legislative scrutiny process to review Ministers' deliberations.

The recommendation has been supported by the Law Draftsman's office and in future, Scrutiny Panels should be informed by the sponsoring departments when law drafting briefs have been sent. The Council of Ministers has suggested that a pilot scheme should be undertaken in 2009 to trial cost-effective scrutiny of draft legislation for a number of selected laws.

RECOMMENDATION  26 – Proper arrangements should be put in place to provide for timely access to information. The time of the States Assembly should not be taken up in questions and answers that are required for the purpose of Scrutiny. Requests for information should be reasonable, allow a reasonable period for reply, and consideration should be given to deciding whether such requests should relate to the decision only, and not the decision-making process.

Supported by 68% of members who responded

PPC has not progressed this recommendation further. It would be impossible to establish for certain whether a member was asking a question for his or her own interest or that of a Panel, and as Scrutiny has extensive power to access information by issue of summons, if necessary, there would be no value in laying down rules to attempt to prevent this.

RECOMMENDATION  27 – As part of the discussions about "What is Scrutiny?" referred to earlier, agreement should  be reached  on  what Scrutiny  comprises,  and  whether or  not  Scrutiny should  be reviewing the process of making a decision, as well as the actual decision itself.

Supported by 63% of members who responded

The Chairmen's Committee stated in its letter to PPC of 10th October 2008, that in order to fully scrutinise a matter it was essential to be able to review how a decision had been reached. The Committee considered that, as scrutiny  was  evidence-based,  there  would  be  circumstances  when  it  would  be  appropriate  to  put  forward alternative policy options.

RECOMMENDATION  28 – The sub-committee is aware that discussions in relation to legal advice have been on-going for many months between the Council of Ministers and the Chairmen's Committee. The matter has nearly come to a head on 2  occasions when a debate was scheduled as the draft Code of Practice for Scrutiny but on both occasions the proposition was withdrawn at the last minute. The sub- committee does not believe it can usefully add to the on-going discussions but believes that the issue must be resolved one way or another. If, as seems likely, no agreement can be reached between the Executive, the Attorney General and Scrutiny, the matter should be brought to the States as soon as possible to allow the whole Assembly to take a decision on this issue.

Supported by 73% of members who responded

On 12th March 2008, the States approved the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee set out in the Appendix to the report of the Chairmen's Committee dated 28th December 2007 (P.198/2007 refers), as amended by the Council of Ministers.

RECOMMENDATION  29 – There should be a formal process, conducted from time to time, to canvass the public's views on matters for review. Alternatively, panels might consider holding public hearings from time to time, during which members of the public may have a limited time slot to question a departmental officer or a Minister on a matter of public or personal interest.

Supported by 61% of members who responded

The Chairmen's Committee, in its letter to PPC of 12th December 2007, stated that there was a danger of encouraging review topics form the public and not having the capacity to undertake them. The Committee observed that last part of the recommendation had already been undertaken, but on a review topic only, not on generic issues. As scrutiny is review-based, the Chairmen's Committee felt that it would be inappropriate for Scrutiny to host meetings of this nature on generic issues. Subsequent to this, Scrutiny had a presence all at the Home and Lifestyle Show 2008 from 6th to 9th November 2008, to explain the work carried out by Scrutiny and invite comments from the public.

RECOMMENDATION  30 – Ministers  should  ensure  that  the  2  processes  (policy  formulation  and Scrutiny) will operate side by side from the start, and that green' (Discussion papers) and white' (Draft Policy) papers should be issued and available for Scrutiny. The sub-committee believes it would be helpful for the title pages of discussion papers to be printed on green paper.

Supported by 82% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed recommendation  30 at its meeting of 7th February 2008. It further considered that there was scope for clarifying the circumstances in which Scrutiny could have a matter referred to it by the States Assembly, particularly when a specific policy proposal had already been considered by the Panel at the green and/or white paper stage.

The Communications Unit is currently redrafting the existing consultation guidelines, as part of a review, 2  years after their introduction. The review will take into account PPC's request for greater clarity for green papers, and the revised guidelines will be presented to the new Council of Ministers in early 2009.

RECOMMENDATION  31 – Members of Scrutiny Panels should take care to ensure that information received  by  the  Panel  is  not  used  for  individual  political  purposes,  that  is,  information  received  in confidence by a Scrutiny Panel should not be used by an individual member in a personal capacity, for example, during question time in a States meeting. Furthermore, when seeking information as a private member,  members  who  also  serve  on  Scrutiny  Panels  should  make  it  clear  that  the  request  for information is a personal one and not made on behalf of a Scrutiny Panel.

Supported by 74% of members who responded

PPC notes that improper release of information is inappropriate and is likely to hinder the Scrutiny process, however, PPC has not progressed this recommendation further. Information obtained confidentially as a member of a Scrutiny Panel should not be used by a member in an independent capacity.

RECOMMENDATION  32 – The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should be proactive in the latter part of 2008 to ensure the membership is appointed as soon as possible after the beginning of the next session in December 2008.

Supported by 66% of members who responded

The PAC advised that, at the time of the transmutation from the Shadow Committee to the full Committee, there were resignations of independent members from the Committee. In order to ensure a range of experience and total transparency, the vacancies were advertised and this process led to a delay in the formation of the full Committee.

RECOMMENDATION  33 – The terms of reference of the PAC should be reviewed to ensure that it has a meaningful rôle, and that it can act independently of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) should it wish to do so.

Supported by 70% of members who responded

The PAC advised that it can operate independently of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but that it would be unwise to operate more than occasionally without his advice.

RECOMMENDATION  34 – The  PAC  should  prepare  a  future  work  programme  for  onward transmission to the Council of Ministers each year.

Supported by 71% of members who responded

It was considered by the PAC that the annual work-programme reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, published every autumn and presented to the States, would be guidance for the expected hearings of the Public Accounts Committee as it was from these reports that a schedule of hearings would be derived.

RECOMMENDATION  35 – The PAC is recommended to adopt a more consistent method of informing members about the PAC's activity, and to produce a report and present it to the States at the conclusion of each of its reviews, so that States members and the public may be apprised of its conclusions on the matters it has considered. These should be uploaded onto the States Assembly and PAC websites. The sub-committee recommends that the PAC meets the Council of Ministers on a regular, perhaps bi- annual, basis to discuss reviews and to offer feedback to the Council on its findings.

Supported by 77% of members who responded

The reports of the PAC are presented to the States and published on the PAC website. While the Committee appreciated that a meeting with the Council of Ministers would provide one method of following up reports, it considered that it would be preferable for the relevant Minister to issue a response to reports, together with plans for implementation of the recommendations, as provided for in the Code of Conduct for Scrutiny panels and the

PAC.[11]

RECOMMENDATION  36 – The sub-committee does not see the need to have 2  independent members on the Chairmen's Committee.

Supported by 62% of members who responded

There are no longer 2 independent members on the Chairmen's Committee, following the adoption by the States, on 21st October 2008, of Draft Amendment (No.  9) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.140/2008): amendments, lodged au Greffe' by Senator M.E. Vibert on 23rd September 2008.

RECOMMENDATION  37 – The Chairmen's Committee should –

1. a c t ively co-ordinatethe work of the Scrutiny Panels;
2. ta k e a lead intheorganisation of Scrutiny oftheAnnual Business Plan andBudget;
3. m  onitortheprogressof the Panels' work programmes.

Supported by 62% of members who responded

All work and review targets are co-ordinated by the Chairmen's Committee through monthly Panel updates. Each meeting includes a review of work in progress and work planned.

RECOMMENDATION  38 – The Chairmen's Committee should prioritise the allocation of resources in accordance with Standing Orders. This will necessitate a discussion on proposed reviews across the piece, the prioritisation of the reviews, and the allocation of funds to those given the highest priority. (The allocation of staff resources should be undertaken by the Scrutiny Manager and not at a political level.) It

is recommended that the Committee should not allocate the entire budget at the start of the year, but should hold a proportion of funds back for allocation later in the year according to need.

Supported by 60% of members who responded

In the period 2005-2008, financial resources were divided between Panels for ease of management and an amount set aside in a general budget, in a system which the Chairmen's Committee believed worked well. Any queries or concerns regarding planned expenditure are passed to the Accounting Officer, and if the matter could not be resolved between the Accounting Officer and the Panel, it was forwarded to the Chairmen's Committee.

RECOMMENDATION  39 – It  is  recommended  that  a  more  streamlined  process  be  introduced  for approving and lodging amendments to Standing Orders which have been agreed by the Chairmen's Committee.

The Chairmen's Committee should review the structure of Scrutiny and determine whether there is sufficient flexibility within the current system, whether the structure remains appropriate, and whether there is merit in reducing time spent on general discussion of Ministers' policies.

Supported by 59% of members who responded

The Chairmen's Committee, in its letter to PPC of 10th October 2008, remained of the view that the structure of the scrutiny function was appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION  40 – The  Chairmen's  Committee  and  the  Council  of  Ministers  should  meet specifically for the purpose of exchanging information on the work programme of Ministers and the review  programme  of  Scrutiny.  The  agenda  for  this  meeting  should  be  agreed  in  advance,  and participants  should be  aware  of  their  rôles  in  the  discussion.  On  both  sides,  prior  work should  be undertaken to agree priorities and set timetables for the work/review programmes.

Update meetings should be timetabled and held if changes to the programme have occurred or are likely to occur, in order that everyone is fully informed, and to ensure as far as possible that no abortive work is undertaken.

Supported by 72% of members who responded

The Council of Ministers endorsed the recommendation and concluded that it should consult with the Chairmen's Committee with a view to producing a framework document describing the process of formulating the Strategic Plan and the Annual Business Plan. On a related matter, the Council concluded that Scrutiny Panels should aim to draft their work programmes for the coming year in September and that it would be of considerable assistance to Ministers if Panels would forward to the relevant Ministers key meeting dates for the coming year prior to the

commencement of that year.[12]

The Chairmen's Committee advised in its letter to PPC of 10th October 2008 that it was the responsibility of the individual Panels to be knowledgeable about the work programmes of the relevant Ministers and departments. The Panels also report to the Chairmen's Committee any topics which are considered for review but not undertaken.

RECOMMENDATION  41 – The Chairmen's Committee should review its processes for co-ordinating the work programme and prioritising and allocating resources, and clarify these procedures in the Code of Practice.

Supported by 63% of members who responded

Inclusion  of  the  above-mentioned  procedures  in  the  Code  of  Practice  was  considered  by  the  Chairmen's Committee to be inappropriate, and would have resulted in a delay in presenting the report on the matter to the

States. The Chairmen's Committee advised that it had a protocol covering its co-ordinating rôle.[13]

RECOMMENDATION  42 – The updated draft Code of Practice should be lodged and debated without delay. In the event that no consensus can be reached on legal advice, this section should simply be

determined by the States.

Supported by 67% of members who responded

On 12th March 2008, the States approved the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee set out in the Appendix to the report of the Chairmen's Committee dated 28th December 2007 (P.198/2007 refers), as amended.

RECOMMENDATION  43 – The question of who is accountable for Scrutiny must be considered and satisfactorily resolved.

Supported by 75% of members who responded

The question of who is accountable for Scrutiny has yet to be resolved,[14] although the Chairmen's Committee believe that the system for managing the budget has worked.[15]

RECOMMENDATION  44 – Standing Orders should be amended to provide that the President of the Chairmen's Committee should be an ex-officio member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to ensure good co-ordination between the Privileges and Procedures Committee and the Scrutiny function.

Supported by 55% of members who responded

Recommendation  44 formed part of the Draft Amendment (No.  9) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey lodged au Greffe' by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 5th September 2008 and adopted by the States, as amended, on 21st October 2008.

RECOMMENDATION  45 – In  order  to  allow  peer  review  of  the  Scrutiny  budget,  the  PPC  should continue to hold the Scrutiny budget, and should take a stronger position on an appropriate budget level for Scrutiny, having regard to previous years' under-spends. Secondly, a procedure should be agreed to resolve any difficulties that may be highlighted by the Accounting Officer.