Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 20 April 2006

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Minutes of previous meetings

The  Minutes  of  the  24th  March  and  6th  April  2006  were approved and signed.

2.

24.03.06 item 9

Scrutiny Website Action Group [SWAG]

No contact had yet been made between Deputies Duhamel and Ferguson with the above group. It was noted that Deputy J. Gallichan had expressed a wish to join the group and that she had offered to become a scrutiny "pivot" for public engagement. It  was  agreed  that  Deputies  Duhamel  and  Ferguson  would discuss matters with Deputy Gallichan in the first instance.

RD/SF

3.

Quarterly Financial Report - 1st quarter

The Committee noted and approved financial reports for each of the Panels, PAC and the general scrutiny budget for the 1st quarter. Deputy J. Reed expressed his concern that there were no  manpower  figures  and  without  these  the  picture  was incomplete. Deputy Reed advised that he would discuss the matter with the Greffier and Assistant Greffier of the States.

JR

4.

24.03.06 item 11

PAC  carry-forward  request  to  Minister  Treasury  and Resources

Deputy  Ferguson  had  received  a  reply  from  the  Minister  of Treasury and Resources regarding the £30,000 carry-forward request. Deputy Ferguson briefed the Committee that it was the view of that Minister that the Public Accounts Committee did not require a budget. Deputy Ferguson would follow up the matter.

SF

5.

17.02.06 item 1

Corporate Services Panel - Sexual offences (Jersey) Law 200- Review

The Panel noted the number of officer hours spent undertaking

the above review and the number of hours worked which were supplementary  to  normal  working  hours  where  Time  in  Lieu could be taken.

On a related matter the Social Affairs Panel was awaiting a reply from the Minister, Home Affairs regarding work undertaken by that Department on the above and the abuse of trust. If this was not forthcoming, the Committee agreed that it would support the Social Affairs Panel in progressing the matter.

If relevant information was not forthcoming within two weeks from the Minister providing details of the consultation that the department had carried out, a letter would be written from the Chairmen's Committee requesting the information.

6.

24.03.06 item 11

Social Panel split

The  Committee  considered  a  draft  report  and  proposition  in respect of the above which had been prepared by the Greffier of the States.

The  Committee  considered  issues  relating  to  the  proposed division,  namely  the  number  of  members  available  to  form another Panel, the consequences of a possible reshuffle, the amount of work involved in serving on two Panels and the effect on ongoing reviews.

It also considered the names of the Panels as it was felt that Social panel 1 and Social Panel 2 was lacking in imagination.

Furthermore, if a fifth Panel were created that would mean a Chairmen's  Committee  of  eight  members  and  it  considered whether the additional independent members would be required. It  was  noted,  however,  that  this  would  require  a  further amendment to Standing Orders.

The Committee agreed substantial changes to the report and proposition and the Manager was asked to amend the draft, circulate to all Chairmen and subsequently to all Scrutiny Panel members.

It was agreed to aim at lodging the report and proposition at the beginning of May.

In conjunction with the above, a list of scrutiny topics considered for review which had been rejected or deferred due to insufficient room  in  the  Panel's  programme  (or  because  there  were insufficient resources) to accommodate additional review topics should be prepared by each Panel and submitted to the scrutiny office and Deputy Duhamel in the near future.

KTF

Panels

7.

24.03.06 item 13

Access to legal advice

The  Committee  noted  that  the  matter  was  scheduled  for consideration by the Council of Ministers on 20th April, however had  been  deferred  to  its  meeting  of  27th  April  due  to  the absence of a number of Ministers on 20th April.

It was agreed that an email should be sent to the Chief Minister

expressing  the  disappointment  of  the  Chairmen's  Committee that this delay had arisen and remind him that this was delaying the lodging of the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and PAC.

KTF

8.

24.03.06 item 14

Strategic Plan

The Committee recalled that it had previously agreed that a co- ordinated scrutiny approach to the Strategic Plan would be more beneficial than independent Panel amendments. It also recalled that it had been agreed to submit individual Panel reports to the Scrutiny Manager in time for an executive summary to be drafted for the meeting. This had not occurred.

The  Committee  received  a  scoping  document  from  the Corporate Services Panel in respect of a proposed review into the financial framework of the Strategic Plan. It also received a status report from the Social Affairs Panel and noted that that Panel had taken a different approach to the matter.

The Committee reaffirmed its intention to proceed with a co- ordinated  approach  and  requested  that  all  Panels  forward information to Deputies Duhamel and Le Herissier by 28th April 2006. The latter would prepare a synopsis for consideration at a supplementary Chairmen's Committee meeting to be held on 4th May 2006 between 1.00pm and 2.30pm. Deputy J. Gallichan would represent the Corporate Services Panel in the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and Deputy Martin would represent the Social Affairs Panel in the Chairmen's absence.

This  co-ordinated  approach  would  not,  however,  preclude individual  Panels  from  making  individual  amendments  or undertaking individual reviews into areas within their remit.

9.

Corporate Services Panel - Think Tank

In relation to Minute No. 8 above, the Chairmen's Committee noted  the  proposal  to  create  a  Think  Tank  comprising  local economists. This group would meet on a six monthly basis and guide the Panel as to where to find relevant evidence.

Whilst  the  principle  was  noted,  it  was  agreed  that  it  was inappropriate  that  such  a  group  be  created  at  this  stage.  It advised the Corporate Services Chairman that it should seek out local  economists  who  might  assist  with  the  review  on  the Financial Framework of the Strategic Plan only but not to form a group as proposed.

The Committee also agreed that local people might be a useful asset in all areas of scrutiny, especially if they were prepared to give their service free of charge. It would be useful to create a local register of interested and suitably qualified local people in all  scrutiny  areas.  The  Committee  requested  a  paper  for  a subsequent meeting on how this might be best achieved and how it could be advertised.

KTF/RD

10.

Communication Flow

The  Committee noted and  endorsed  the  suggestion  that the Scrutiny Manager should prepare a briefing summary sheet for

Panels  on  the  matters  considered  at  Chairmen's  Committee meetings.  It  also  agreed  that  PAC  States  members  and independent members should receive these.

Equally, matters from Panels should be referred to the Scrutiny Manager for placing on the Chairmen's Committee agenda.

11.

Scrutiny Officers - rôle

The Committee considered a paper prepared by the Scrutiny Manager in respect of the rôle of scrutiny officers. It was noted that there was some differing levels of expectations of this role.

It  was  also  noted  that  in  other  jurisdictions,  there  were researchers, clerks and press officers in separate rôles but in Jersey  these  rôles  were  combined.  To  that  end  the  officers provided an independent and impartial executive support service to the Panels based on decisions taken at a political level.

It was agreed that the Manager would discuss the rôle with each Chairman and Officers of each Panel with a view to all Panel members  being  made  aware  of  the  role  officers  should undertake.

On a related matter, it was noted that the Scrutiny Manager had requested  officers  to  attend  Panel  meetings  of  Panels  with whom they had no contact. The purpose was for members to build up a rapport with all officers and for officers to understand the  different  working  practices  of  the  four  Panels.  It  was understood that there might be occasions when officers have to stand in for colleagues on other Panels and this would support those occasions.

KTF

12.

Sub-Panels

The Committee noted a paper prepared by the Scrutiny Manager regarding  the  establishment  and  working  practices  of  Sub- Panels. It was considered that any Chairman of a Sub-Panel should be a member of the full Panel which would give better opportunities for regular feedback. It was, however, recognised that this was not stipulated in Standing Orders.

The possibility of amending Standing Orders to permit a member to join a Panel for a particular review was also considered.

13.

Social Panel - work programme

The Chairman of the above Panel advised the Committee that due to a Housing report and proposition having been withdrawn which was going to form the basis of a review, the Panel had re- organised  its  work  programme.  The  GP  Out-of-Hours  was awaiting  the  report  from  the  Jersey  Competition  Regulatory Authority and the Early Years and Youth Services issues were delayed due to the Executive not having finalised these matters. The Panel had agreed, therefore, to move forward its review into the  Rôle  of  Centeniers  and  the  Magistrate's  Court.  The Chairman would consequently stand down from the Sub-Panel reviewing Low Income Support and undertake the review into the Role of Centeniers with the main Panel.

It was noted that the reviews had already been approved by the Chairmen's Committee and that it was a matter of rescheduling. The Panel was visiting H.M La Moye prison on 21st April and the Minister for Home Affairs was attending on the panel on 12th May 2006.

On a related matter, Deputy Ferguson appraised the Committee that the States of Jersey Police Law 1974 had been updated.

14.

Mobile Recording Equipment

The Chairmen's Committee noted the cost of the above and requested that further enquiries be undertaken into alternatives. It  was  suggested  that  the  Information  Services  Director  be contacted together with Delta Conferencing.

KTF

15.

Written questions from public.

The Committee considered a paper from the Corporate Services Panel regarding an initiative to invite written questions from the public to be considered for putting to Ministers at formal public meetings with  Ministers.  It was  made  clear  that this did not include hearings.

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Committee  approved  the initiative  in  principle,  it  noted  its  previous  agreement  of  9th March  2006  that  it  would  be  inappropriate  for  the  scrutiny function to use the Communications Unit and did not therefore approve the news release as prepared by that unit.

It agreed, however, that an alternative news release or advert would be prepared which would include the announcement that the guidelines for submitting such questions would be available from the scrutiny office.

16.

09.03.06 item 3

Media coverage

The President advised the Committee of figures he had obtained in respect of the expenditure made by the States to the Jersey Evening Post from 2004 to 2006.

The  Committee  considered  alternative  means  of  advertising States matters and the effect on the current Parish advertising system. It also considered whether it was more appropriate for the Privileges and Procedures Committee to progress this in view  of  the  fact  that  a  States-wide  publication  was  being proposed which included the Council of Ministers.

It was noted that research had previously been undertaken into the use of the Jersey Gazette and in the first instance it was requested  that  that  research  be  sought.  Subsequently,  the President  undertook  to  prepare  a  paper  on  the  matter  and forward  this  to  the  Chairmen's  Committee  and  the  Public Accounts Committee.

17.

Joint Scrutiny Meeting

24.03.06 item 7

The Committee recalled its previous agreement to hold a co- ordinated scrutiny public event. The President reported back that the Environment Panel had not supported this initiative, however the Committee agreed to progress this as it would demonstrate to the public that scrutiny was a co-ordinated function.

It was agreed that any Panel member could be nominated to represent  a  Panel  and  that  it  need  not  necessarily  be  the Chairman. It was also agreed that a public meeting regarding the strategic plan would be appropriate and that as well as a general invitation, specific organisations could be invited.

The  18th  May  2006,  7.30pm  to  9.00pm  was  approved  in principle and after discussion regarding an appropriate venue, including Fort Regent and the Opera House, it was agreed that the Arts Centre would be more appropriate.

Availability and costs for this would be sought prior to any further action such as media releases.

KTF

18.

Scrutiny Plus

The  Committee  was  advised  that  at  the  last  Scrutiny  Plus meeting, it had been agreed that meetings of the above group should  be  formalised  by  having  minutes  taken  in  order  to improve communication.

The  Committee  received  and  noted  email  communication between the States Greffe and the President in respect of the above, however, the President maintained that these meetings were Chairmen's Committee meetings to which all non-executive members were invited.

Some  members  believed  that  it  could  also  include  Assistant Ministers, although this was not widely accepted. Concern was expressed that there may be a perception that this was the establishment of an opposition and it was noted that it was not a States-approved body. Consideration was also given to whether there  might  be  progressing  into  an  area  which  might  be considered ultra-vires.

Whilst it was recognised that Scrutiny Plus had been formed along similar lines to the previous Member's Forum which was an informal body, there remained an opinion by some members that  the  Scrutiny  Plus  function  should  be  formalised,  as  it brought  together  all  members  who  should  be  involved  in scrutiny.

Various alternatives of ways to provide secretarial support were explored  including  members  rotating  the  responsibility  or members contributing a small sum of money to pay for such support.

It was agreed that the matter would be referred back to the next Scrutiny Plus meeting.

RD

19.

Corporate Services Panel - proposed reviews

The  Committee  received  scoping  documents,  estimates  of

resource  requirements  and  draft  contract  for  consultancy services in respect of two proposed reviews: draft GST Law and Zero Ten "Look Through" provisions.

The Committee noted that the appointment of the consultant Mr. Richard Teather had followed correct procedure in accordance with Financial Direction 5.1. It was also noted that that Direction required a consultant employed by the States of Jersey to hold personal  indemnity  insurance,  which  Mr  Teather  had  had difficulties acquiring.

The Committee queried the necessity for this in respect of the scrutiny function and requested that this be investigated.

It  was  noted  that  the  reviews  would  be  conducted  by  Sub- Panels, although membership of those Panels was not currently available.

The Committee approved the two reviews and the appointment of the adviser subject to clarification of the personal indemnity insurance issue.

KTF

20.

Environment Panel - appointment of adviser

The Committee noted that the Environment Panel was intending to appoint Mr Chris Coggins to provide advice in respect of its Waste Review. Mr. Coggins had been appointed as adviser to the Shadow Scrutiny Panel which had reviewed the draft Waste Management  Strategy  and  in  consequence  had  background knowledge of the issues pertaining to the Jersey situation.

Although the Committee approved the appointment in principle, it was noted that the matter of personal indemnity insurance would  need  to  be  ascertained  before  any  contract  could  be signed.

21.

Centre for Public Scrutiny - attendance

The Committee noted that the above conference was to be held on 28th June 2006 and also noted that a training day for officers followed on 29th June 2006. It also considered the possibility of visiting a Select Committee or a nearby Borough Council on the day prior to the conference.

The Committee, noting its responsibility to oversee allocation of resources to the scrutiny function, agreed that three members should attend, with two of those being new members and a third being  a  more "established  member". The  decision  regarding which  members  would  attend  would  be  decided  by  the Chairmen's Committee.

The Committee, having noted the officer day following the day of the  annual  conference  agreed  that  up  to  four  officers  might attend.

22.

24.03.06 item 4

Guidance Notes for States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities)  (Scrutiny  Panels,  PAC  and  PPC)  (Jersey) Regulations 2006.