The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
2020.07.13
1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the President of the Scrutiny Liaison
Committee regarding a Safer Travel Period: (OQ.195/2020)
Will the President explain why her committee decided to lodge an amendment to A safer travel period: States Assembly approval (P.84/2020) in its own name and advise whether any consideration was given to the possibility of it being lodged by a committee member in their own name?
Senator K.L. Moore (President, Scrutiny Liaison Committee):
I can refer Deputy Higgins to the answer provided to his Written Question 275, which explained that further to the lodging of A safer travel period on 26th June, a briefing held with the Ministers for External Relations and Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and our observations of associated Scrutiny-related and more general activity and commentary on the broader issue, the committee agreed to lodge the amendment to P.84. The committee was mindful of our remit primarily as a co-ordinating and oversight body but agreed that due to the extremely compromised timeframe and far-reaching cross-cutting nature of the proposition lodging such an amendment in the committee's name would be an exceptional but expedient and an appropriate approach in the circumstances. No consideration was given by the committee to a Member lodging the amendment in their own name. In the absence of time for any individual or cross-cutting Scrutiny Panel to establish a review and consult in a meaningful way the overarching objective of the amendment was to draw on the knowledge and experience of the chairs representing each panel remit to encourage constructive debate on such an important topic. This is something that we are very satisfied to have contributed to with many Members choosing to speak in an extremely informed and thought- provoking way on the proposed amendments.
3.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Is the president aware that the media refer to her as the head of Scrutiny and that many members of the public believe that when she brings propositions or speaks in that capacity that she is representing the views of all Scrutiny members, which of course you do not, and members were not generally consulted about the proposition you brought forward on that particular day?
[14:45]
Senator K.L. Moore :
I can only reiterate that there was a very compressed time period. We tried and endeavoured to communicate that through the various chairs to panel members so that there could be a knowledge shared. I believe I sent an email at some point to Scrutiny members so that they were aware of what was occurring, but at the time we did what we thought was the most expedient in the best possible way. Essentially we had to conduct this over the space of a weekend and due to the subject matter falling across many different panels and there not being the time provided, as I said in my original answer, it was the best way to approach the situation, which was highly extraordinary.
Deputy M.R. Higgins: Final supplementary?
The Deputy Bailiff :
No, only if other Members have asked questions.