Policy Development Boards [P.122/2019]

STATES OF JERSEY

r

POLICY DEVELOPMENT BOARDS

Lodged au Greffe on 6th December 2019 by Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

2019  P.122

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. request the Chief Minister to take the steps necessary to ensure that information  concerning  all  current  and  future  policy  development boards  is  published  online  in  a  transparent  and  timely  manner, including terms of reference, consultation documents, membership, anticipated duration, the budget allocated to the board to complete its work and any interim or final reports;
2. that there should be a process of consultation with the appropriate scrutiny  or  review  panel  on  the  proposed  terms  of  reference  and membership of a policy development board, duration and allocated budget; and no ministerial decision to appoint a policy development board should be signed until at least one month has elapsed since the relevant panel was first consulted on the proposed terms of reference and membership; and
3. to request the Privileges and Procedures Committees to bring forward amendments  to Standing Orders  to permit States Members to ask written and oral questions of the chairs of policy development boards and to permit chairs of policy development boards to make official statements to the Assembly.

DEPUTY I. GARDINER OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

The Chief Minister has set up policy review boards to consider matters of major public interest or concern and support States Members in being more involved in the policy development process.

On 20th July 2019 the Chief Minister stated –

"When I stood as Chief Minister, I made it clear that my intention was to listen to  colleagues,  partners  and  stakeholders  before  rushing  into  major  policy proposals.  

I said I would offer integrity, inclusiveness and teamwork, and the Policy Development Boards (Boards) I am establishing are part of my commitment to enable more States Members to contribute to the important decisions facing us in the coming years. I stand by this approach and believe we cannot continue with the practices of the past."  

The Boards are advisory, supporting Ministers in making decisions in their areas of responsibility  as  stated  in  published  terms  of  reference,  "Policy  Development Boards – terms of reference".

Policy Development Boards should bring together all stakeholders and include specialist advice to ensure that the right policies are developed and implemented for Jersey.

Paragraph (a) of this proposition:

Paragraph (a) would standardise the information available online about each Policy Development Board

I have looked through the available information online about Policy Development Boards and found that information is not updated in a timely manner and also varies between the Boards in terms of what is published and what is not.

Example 1

The answer to written question WQ.522/2019 from Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour from 25th November 2019, states that there are currently 7 Policy Development Boards.

The information which was given in the answer was about 6 Boards (I assume that the 7 was the Future Hospital Policy Development Board, which has finished its work).

The section of the gov.je website which includes information about Policy Development Boards did not, as per 4th December 2019, refer to the following Boards which are in existence –

Island Identity and International Profile Policy Development Board

Sports Facilities Strategy Policy Development Board

According to the answer to oral question 189/2019 (OQ189/2019) from Connétable of St. Martin , the information on gov.je should be reconciled and published by now and it should include all new Boards.

Example 2  

All Policy Development Boards have published –

Membership

Minutes

Terms of reference

Additional information such as presentations and similar.

At the same time there is no consistency in publication of –

Reports

Anticipated duration and programme of progress

Budgets and choice of consultants.

I would like to bring Members' attention to the Recommendation (ii) 2 in final report, R.105/2013  "Machinery  of  Government  Review  Sub-Committee:  Final  Report" presented to the States on 9th September 2013 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee –

"A decision of an individual Minister to form an advisory or oversight group to assist with the development or revision of policy within his or her remit should –

1. be recorded by way of a formal and public Ministerial Decision; and
2. that Ministerial Decision should record at least the outline terms of reference, the membership and anticipated duration of each group and, where relevant, the budget allocated to the group to complete its work".

Paragraph (a) envisages that we will have standard information about current and future policy development boards published and kept updated for all who may be interested.  

Paragraph (b) of this proposition:

Paragraph (b) asks Ministers to hold a consultation with the relevant Scrutiny and Review Panel to deal with concerns which have been raised by different parties since the first Policy Development Board was created.

As stated in paragraph 10 of the "Policy Development Boards – terms of reference" for –

"This proposed operating model will be reviewed and refined as appropriate at 6 monthly periods as the process develops and evolves."

We are now more than a year since the first policy development board was created and we have enough understanding of where the collaboration between them and the States can be improved.

Concern  1:  Potential  conflict  of  interest  for  Members  between  their Scrutiny roles and the work of their Panel.

During PAC meetings we have discussed at length potential conflicts for members, which could be avoided if the membership was discussed with Scrutiny prior to establishing the board.

This point has been raised from the start in the letter from the President of Chairman's Committee to the Chief Minister on 16th July 2018.

Concern 2: Funding for the Boards

In the summer of 2018, it was stated that there were no additional resource implications  arising  from  ministerial  decisions  establishing  Policy Development Board.  

We know now that this is not credible, and funding is required for boards.

Budget allocation answers to written questions WQ.374/2019 from Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier and WQ.522/2019 from Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour state this clearly: "None of the Policy Development Boards were allocated funding at the time of their  inception,  however  the  Housing,  Early  Years  and  Island  Identity  Policy Development Boards have since applied successfully for funding for specific projects."

Written question WQ206/2019 from Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence raising a question regarding the contract with Altair, in respect of support for the Housing Policy Development Board, shows that the sum of £97,850 was approved for this purpose by a senior officer under Financial Directions and did not require a tender process.

However, we need to understand why this contract didn't go out for tender as required per financial directions for any contracts between £25,001 and £100,000. See Financial Directions No 5.1 paragraph 2.1.4. Table (1).

There might be valid reasons why this company is the best option.

At the same time, it's important for good governance for this type of process to be subject to some oversight.

Concern 3: Membership and Terms of Reference

Also, I think it will be very helpful to all sides to have a conversation and be challenged about Terms of Reference and have clarity between Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards roles –

Key finding 8: The original aim of Policy Development Boards was to support policy development. The Board looking at the hospital choose to review the evidential basis of past decision making. We believe that this backwards looking work is something that is better suited to Scrutiny. Having this work undertaken by Scrutiny would be less confusing for the public. This served to blur the lines between  the  Executive  and  Scrutiny.  We  are  disappointed  that  the  Chief Minister has not made more effort to address our concerns.

Recommendation 2: The Chief Minister and the President of the Chairmen's Committee should come to an agreed understanding about the relationship between Policy Development Boards and Scrutiny. The understanding should ensure  that  Policy  Development  Boards  do  not  compromise  the  work  of Scrutiny.

Key finding 9: We are troubled that there appear to be two competing accounts of how the Policy Development Board viewed its task.

Key finding 10: We have serious concerns about the quality and robustness of the  Policy  Development  Board's  governance  arrangements.  We  are  not satisfied that the governance processes and procedures were good enough for a Government-led group of politicians.

Following  all  concerns  mentioned  above,  the  way  forward  is  to  have  an  initial conversation and clarity prior to Policy Development Boards being established.

Paragraph (c) of this proposition:

At this stage, we are not able to question Chairs of Policy Development Boards and hold them to account, not in the States Assembly and not at Scrutiny level.

The Greffier has confirmed to me that attempts have been made to submit questions to chairs of policy development boards but this is not permitted under current Standing Orders, because being chair of a policy development board is not an official position' in the Assembly. I believe this should change in order to improve transparency and accountability.

Financial and manpower implications

There  are  no  additional  financial  and  manpower  implications  arising  from  this proposition. The proposition reflects ideas which have already been agreed; it will just ensure  they  are  applied  consistently.  Whilst  changes  to  Standing  Orders  can  be accommodated within existing resources.