Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 24 March 2006

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

17.02.06 Item 2

17.02.06 Item 2

Minutes of previous meetings

The Minutes of 27th January 2006 were signed as being an accurate record of the meeting.

The Minutes of 17th February 2006 were signed as being an accurate record of the meeting, after the replacement of the word conduct' with the word absence' in reference to the non- attendance of the Chairman's of Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel (item 2 of those minutes refers).

The  Minutes  of  9th  March  2006  were  signed  as  being  an accurate record of the meeting.

Matters Arising

Deputy  F.J.  Hill confirmed  that  the Social Affairs Panel had recently written to the Home Affairs Minister again requesting details of the consultation carried out by that Department in respect of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 200-. He advised the  Panel  that,  if  no  response  were  forthcoming,  the  panel would consider corresponding with the Chief Minister.

Deputy P.J. Ryan clarified that he had advised the Minister of Home Affairs not to delay the debate on the Sexual Offences (Jersey) 200- Law in account of his absence from the Island on the scheduled date of debate.

2.

Attendance at Chairmen's Committee meetings: protocol

The  Committee  discussed  the  attendance  protocols  for Chairman's  Committee  meetings,  and  concluded  that  they should  take  precedence  over  Panel  meetings  and  other engagements,  and  that  were  a  Panel  Chairman  to  be unavailable, the Vice-Chairman should attend, or in the event of their availability, then a substitute member of that Panel would attend in their place.

3.

Display facilities

The Committee discussed the provision of display space for the Scrutiny function, and noted that a meeting had taken place with officers of the Judicial Greffe in this regard. As a result of that meeting, a joint display board had been approved, to be placed on the door of the States building in the same position as the existing board. This was to be in keeping with the building and was to cost £750 from the scrutiny budget. Additionally, notice boards in the States bookshop were being used for the display of Panel agendas.

The Committee noted that the Judicial Greffe anticipated the installation of a LCD' screen in the foyer of the States building, and  that  this  was  to  be  made  available  free  of  charge  for scrutiny use.

4.

17.02.06 item 10

Draft States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PPC) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.15/2006)

The Panel received a memorandum from the Greffier of the States regarding the draft States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and  Immunities)  (Scrutiny  Panels,  PAC  and  PPC)  (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.15/2006).

The Committee noted that Regulation (3) 1 linked the ability to use powers of summons to the topics assigned to each Panel under  Standing  Order  135. Concerns  had  previously  been raised  as  to  the  possibility  that  a  person  could  make  an argument against the exercise of the powers of summons on the grounds that the Panel was operating outside of its remit.

Due to the overlapping nature of some of the work undertaken by various Departments, it was anticipated that reviews could, with prior agreement, cross into the remit of other Panels.

It  was  therefore  noted  that  the  Privileges  and  Procedures Committee would be requested not to present Regulation 3 at the time of debate, and that an amendment would be lodged au Greffe' to delete sub-paragraph 6 (1) (a), and to renumber the remaining sub-paragraphs accordingly.

5.

Correspondence received from the Comptroller and Auditor General

The  Committee  noted  correspondence  to  the effect that  the Comptroller and Auditor General would be willing to offer limited accountancy advice if formally requested to do so, although a strict  view  of  the  C&AG  function  would  probably  place  this outside of the statutory functions of that office.

The Committee welcomed this offer, noting that any provision of assistance would be given in private and that the independence of the C&AG would be respected at all times.

6.

09.03.06 item 3

President's oral feedback from a meeting with the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post

The President stated that he had met Mr. C. Bright, Editor, JEP, in order to discus the possibility of a regular submission from

Scrutiny to the paper, in the form of a dedicated page.

The  President  had  made  the  point  that  the  Panels  were submitting a significant number of adverts to the paper, and that a regular Scrutiny section would counterbalance the reduction in political  coverage  in  the  JEP  resulting  from  a  new  editorial policy.

The Committee considered the advertising submitted to the JEP to date, and discussed its cost and effectiveness. It also noted that the level of readership of the JEP had declined dramatically in  recent  years  and  currently  reached  approximately  19,000 households  as  opposed  to  some  37,000  households  a  few years previously.

The President had established that approximately £750,000 of advertising was submitted to the JEP by the States annually. It had also been determined that an eight-page insert would cost £4,200 per week, totalling £218,400 per year. The Committee discussed the possibility of using this as a format for all States advertising.

This would represent a saving of approximately £500,000, and the  President  was  of  the  opinion  that  such  a  change  in advertising method was both desirable and achievable.

The Committee agreed that the matter should be considered in greater depth and delegated further action on the matter to the President and Deputy Ferguson.

RD SF

7.

Proposed People's Forum

The Committee noted a report on  the subject  of a Scrutiny People's Forum which had been proposed by Deputy Southern with the aim to reach out to the community..

Whilst  the  Committee  approved  the  concept  in  principle  it considered the fact that various Panels were holding meetings which engaged the public. Whilst this kind of public interaction was a valuable tool for awareness-raising there was a risk of "overkill".

After discussing the matter, the Committee decided that it would be  advantageous  to  consolidate  community  engagement meetings between the four Panels. It was agreed to aim to attend a public venue monthly in order to discuss matters of concern with the public.

It was also agreed that a member of each Panel would replace the  Chairman  if  unavailable,  and  that  this  idea  would  be circulated to all members for consideration.

Panel Chairmen

8.

17.02.06 Item 3a

Proposed Citizen's Panel

The Committee noted that this proposition was to be debated in the Assembly in the future and that such a debate would afford the proper opportunity for discussion.

The  Panel  was  advised  that  an  approach  from  the  Chief Minister's Department was anticipated on this subject, and the

Committee directed officers to suggest that any such approach be made in the form of formal correspondence to the President through the Scrutiny Office.

9.

27.01.06 item 9

Scrutiny website

The Committee discussed the current design and operation of the  website, and the  options for future improvement. It was suggested  that  the  website  would  benefit  from  better differentiation between Panels and an improved search engine.

The Committee was informed that on officer group, the Scrutiny Website  Liaison  Group  (SWAG),  had  met  recently  and  was progressing work in respect of the website.

The Chairmen were requested to identify any members with previous experience within their Panels who would wish to join SWAG in progressing the Scrutiny Website and to forward the names to the Chairmen.

The President and Deputy Fergusson were delegated to liaise with the SWAG.

Chairs RD SF

10.

27.01.06 Item 5

Carry-forward of Scrutiny 2005 underspend

The Committee noted that the President had accompanied the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to the Council of Ministers meeting the previous day in respect of the carry-forward request for the full 2005 underspend.

It was noted that the full carry-forward was not supported and that only 3 per cent of the total PPC 2005 budget was permitted in  accordance  with  the  Treasury  Code  of  Directions. Consideration was given to the ability of operating a fifth Panel for a time with the limited carry-forward available.

The President reported that he had been concerned at some comments made by Ministers that scrutiny was not progressing as it should in that it was promoting its own political agendas and revisiting topics already reviewed. It was unsure whether the meeting had been minuted.

The discussion of this item was incorporated with items 11 and 12 of these minutes.

11.

17.02.06 item 4

Split of Social Affairs Panel

The Panel received a report from the Greffier of the States in connection with the proposed split of the Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel which summarised the Committee's conclusions from its last meeting.

It was noted that the Committee had previously agreed that this split would not proceed until additional Scrutiny Officers had been  appointed  and  consequently,  financial  resources  been made  available  for  these  appointments  to  be  made. The Committee  noted,  however,  that  such  a  split  was  the  only realistic option if the Social Panel were to carry out in-depth work on the departments within its remit.

Consideration was given to the £40,000 (£10,000 per Panel) which, it was agreed, had been transferred to the PAC budget as a temporary measure whilst awaiting the outcome of the carry-forward discussions.

After discussion of the various actions necessary to achieve the split and after receipt of advice from the Greffier of the States, the Committee remained adamant in the importance of creating a fifth Panel.

It was agreed that the Chairmen's Committee and the Chairman of  PAC  should  concurrently  send  independent  letters  to  the Treasury Minister requesting that the remaining £30,000 in the 2005 PAC budget be carried forward and that an increase of £20,000  in  the  scrutiny  budget  for  2007  should  also  be requested on behalf of the PAC so that funding of £90,000 for each of the 4 scrutiny panels could be restored for 2007.

RD/SF

12.

27.01.06 item 5

Scrutiny Budget for 2007

The Committee noted a report detailing the expenditure of the Scrutiny  function  to  date,  and  estimating  the  cost  of  an additional Panel to be £188,000, with the creation of two new Scrutiny Officer posts. This would provide the new Panel with the same annual budget as the four currently existing if the level of funding was restored to £90,000 per panel in 2007.

It considered forwarding the paper prepared by the Greffier of the States to the Privileges and Procedures Committee to ask if that Committee wished to progress the matter to the States or whether  it  would  be  more  appropriate  for  the  Chairmen's' Committee to forward this in its own name. It was agreed that, if the principle of establishing a fifth panel were approved by the States,  the  Assembly  would  effectively  have  sanctioned  the consequential increase in staffing and funding even though a formal States' decision on the extra resources would be needed in  the  Annual  Business  Plan  debate  in  September  2006.  If further  money  was  not  made  available  it  would  necessitate splitting the budget five ways and the Committee agreed that this was not an acceptable way to proceed.

The Committee agreed that the paper should be forwarded to the PPC with a request that it be considered at that Committee's next meeting.

13.

09.03.06 item 1

Access to legal advice

The Committee received a letter sent from the President to the Chief Minister, together with an e-mail reply from the acting Chief Minister expressing confidence that the matter of legal advice  would  soon  be  resolved.  Correspondence  was  also received  stating  that  H.M.  Attorney  General  was  to  provide advice on this matter to the Council of Ministers on 6th April 2006.

The Committee noted that little progress hade been made in this regard, and that Panels still did not have access to the legal advice passed to Departments. It was understood, however,

that the Council of Ministers supported the Panels' right to see that advice, to an extent.

The  Committee  noted  that  the  Economic  Affairs  Panel  was currently receiving advice from HM Attorney General in respect of one of that Panel's reviews.

14.

Strategic Plan – way forward

The  Committee  discussed  the  manner  in  which  the  Panels should proceed in respect of scrutinising the draft strategic Plan 2006 – 2011. It received a briefing document produced for the Environment Panel in respect of that plan.

It was noted that this process was made more difficult by the separation  of  this  high-level  strategy  and  the more  practical business  plans  that  had  not  yet  been  finalised  by  some Departments. It was  agreed that this problem was  simply a result  of  the  current  year  being  the  first  strategic  planning cycle'.

After some discussion, the Committee agreed that each Panel should undertake a similar study of the Strategic Plan as that of the  Environment  Panel.  These  were  to  be  collated  by  the Scrutiny Manager, who would produce an overarching executive summary. This was to be returned to the Committee before its next meeting. With regard to the latter, the Committee agreed to meet on 20th April 2006 and not on 21st April as scheduled.

Panel Chairs/KTF

15.

Attendance  at  meetings/workshops  of  the  Council  of Ministers

The  Committee  noted  that  there  was  a  variance  of  opinion between  ministers  in  the  level  of  appreciation  for  the involvement of Scrutiny in these meetings.

Some Ministers welcomed Scrutiny's input from the outset of the initiative and were willing to be open and inclusive, whilst others appeared less keen to engage with the scrutiny function.

It was, however, agreed that a clear and effective channel of communication needed to be developed between the Council of Ministers and the Chairmen's Committee.

It was noted that all States Members had previously been able to  be  observers  during  the  former  Fundamental  Spending Review process and that there should still be the opportunity to observe budget discussions.

16.

17.02.06 item 3

Chairmen's Committee meetings: open session

The Committee discussed the relative merits of sitting in public session, and concluded that it would be appropriate in order to demonstrate that scrutiny was committed to transparent and open government. It was agreed that sensitive and confidential matters were to be placed on a second agenda, and that the headings  of  these  items  would  be  available  to  the  public, although the discussion and any related minutes would not be accessible.

17.

Terms of Reference - Economic Affairs Panel review into the incorporation of Jersey Post (P.9/2006)

Deputy Southern , having previously informed the Committee of his intention to undertake a review as above, made the draft terms of reference available for the Committee's consideration.

Deputy Southern explained that the matter of incorporation was directly affected by the Economic Development Minister's recent policy  settlement  in  respect  of  the  fulfilment  industry.  His intention was to call in' the Draft Postal Services (Transfer) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.9/2006), due to concerns that once Jersey Post was incorporated it would be impossible for the decision to be rescinded were the review to uncover facts that revealed it to be untenable.

Deputy  Reed  expressed  concerns  that  this  was  delaying incorporation, and was of the opinion that Jersey Post would be in a position once incorporated to react to changes in local policy in the manner of any other business.

Deputy   Southern  noted  those  concerns  and  undertook  to present his report to the States by 23rd May 2006.

18.

Media Training

The  matter  of  media  training  for  Scrutiny  members  was discussed, as it had previously been raised during the members' initial training secessions.

The Committee concluded that this was a generic matter and should be referred back to the States Greffe.

KTF

19.

Health and Safety Training for Scrutiny Officers

The Committee noted that, in view of the number of meetings planned to be held in external venues, the Scrutiny Office had been  advised  that  risk  assessments  be  undertaken.  As  no officers had any experience in this matter, training had been investigated.

A number of quotes for training had been sought and that the method  which  was  to  be  significantly  cheapest  was  the engagement of T.F. Management and Training Limited for a two and half hour session.

However, the Scrutiny Manager noted that this company was operated  by  her  spouse,  and  had  brought  it  before  the Committee for this reason.

The  Committee  had  no  objection,  and  directed  the  Scrutiny Manager  to  engage  the  above  business  to  undertake the training.

20.

Communication of major decisions to all States Members.

The Committee considered communication from Senator J.L. Perchard in which he suggested that all major decisions made by Scrutiny Panels such as review topics, terms of reference,