Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 28 July 2006

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Minutes

The minutes of the meetings held on 19th, 24th, 25th, 26th, 30th and 31st May and 5th June 2006, having previously been approved were accordingly signed.

The minutes of the 19th June were approved and signed.

The minutes of 30th June were held over to the next meeting as Item No. 20 "Public Accounts Committee Report" required an amendment to delete the last sentence.

2.

30.06.06 Item 5

Strategic Plan

The  Committee  recalled that  it  had requested  the   Deputy Greffier of the States to brief the Privileges and Procedures Committee  about  the  Committee's  concerns  regarding  the lack of financial and manpower figures in the Strategic Plan 2006 - 2011. It also asked the Deputy Greffier of the States to recommend to the Privileges and Procedures Committee that it should propose a change to the relevant Standing Orders to require the Council of Ministers to include three-year financial planning in the States Business Plan.

Noting that the Privileges and Procedures Committee had only met that same week, it requested the Scrutiny Manager to make any necessary follow up action.

KTF

3. 30.06.06 Item 7

Scrutiny Website

The Committee noted that this was in hand and costs were currently being sought to improve the website.

4.

Financial report - second quarter

The Committee received and noted the finance report for all

Panels  and  the  General  Scrutiny  Budget  for  the  second quarter. The Committee expressed its approval of the layout of the budget sheets.

The Committee was advised that the general budget could be used for central costs such as members' attendance at the Centre for Public Scrutiny Conference, provision of equipment and staff development.

The Committee recalled that, due to a total lack of budget for the Public Accounts Committee at the start of 2006, each Panel had contributed £10,000 to that Committee. Noting that that Committee did not require such a substantial amount it was  agreed  that £20,000  should  be  returned  to  the  four Panels on an equal basis.

5.

Social Affairs Panel (Income Support Sub-Panel)

The Committee noted and endorsed the appointment of Dr.

M.  Evans,  Senior  Research  Fellow,  Department  of  Social Policy Sciences at the University of Bath as adviser for this review.

The Committee noted the charge out rate of £550 per day and curriculum vitae. The Committee also decided that in future it should have sight of the full list of applicants to have a full understanding of the selection process.

6. 30.06.06 Item 11

Access request made by Economic Affairs Panel

The Committee received and noted correspondence sent to the Economic Affairs Panel from the Minister of Economic Affairs regarding access to confidential information.

The  Committee  stressed  that  if  Panels  or  Sub-Panels received information under a confidential cover they must fully respect this. There was also some consideration of having received permission from any particular company to release certain information, whether this was advisable.

Deputy G. P. Southern advised that the Sub-Panel had taken separate legal advice and agreed that the draft report would be forwarded to H.M. Attorney General prior to its release.

7.

All Panels work programmes

The Committee noted the reviews currently ongoing by each of the Panels. The Chairman, Social Affairs Panel requested that that Panel's comments to the States made in respect of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law be incorporated.

Consideration was given to the need for an investigation into the process in which States-owned properties was valued. This would come under the remit of the Corporate Services Panel but that Panel already had a full work load and had been asked to undertake another review by the Privileges and Procedures  Committee.  It  was  agreed  that  the  Chairman, Corporate  Services  Panel  would  draft  a  letter,  with  the assistance  of   Deputy  Ferguson,  to  the  Property  Holdings

PR/SF

Department to advise that there was an interest at looking into this process.

8.

24.07.06 Item 1

Review into the proposed sale of Jersey Telecoms

The Chairman, Social Affairs Panel appraised the Committee that members had been approached to form a Sub-Panel to undertake this review. Unfortunately it appeared that Deputy Ferguson and Connétable Murphy had a conflict of interest due to their rôles on the Public Accounts Committee. Deputy Southern would be seeking other members to join the Sub- Panel.  These  would  include  Senator  B.  E.  Shenton  and Deputy J.A. Martin.

The Committee noted that the draft terms of reference would be finalised, with a call for evidence during August and to aim for a public meeting in early September.

Consideration was given to the proposed length of the review and Deputy Southern undertook to note this and reconsider the timescale.

GS GS

9.

30.06.06 Item 3

Communications Sub-Group [Public Engagement Group] (PEG)

The  Committee  welcomed  Deputies  S.P.A.  Power  and  J. Gallichan  to  the  meeting  as  representatives  of  the  above group. The meeting recalled that Deputies Ferguson, Reed and Le Hérissier were also members of this Sub-Group as well as members of the Chairmen's Committee.

The Committee received a paper prepared on behalf of the group which outlined issues regarding communication with the media, use of the Communications Unit, Personal and Social Development Programme in schools and a seminar for all States members on public engagement to be run by Sir Robert Phillis.

The delegation was questioned as to why it had not circulated the paper prior to the meeting and why it had not actioned the following  instructions  tasked  to  it  at  the  Chairmen's Committee meeting of 30th June 2006 -

To provide a list of prospective PR consultants;

To make necessary arrangements for the consultants to make a presentation to the Committee;

To develop an engagement strategy in more detail.

The delegation explained that during its work to fulfil these tasks,  it  had  become  clear  that  scrutiny  did  not  have  a collectively agreed image of its own function. In that regard the PEG had recommended a self-evaluation be undertaken prior  to  making  any  moves  to  employ  a  PR  consultant. Consideration was given as to whether scrutiny should be examining existing policies, al be they in draft form or whether it should be raising alternative policies as appeared to be the case.

Concern was expressed as to the lack of information shared between  Panels,  between  the  Council  of  Ministers  and

responsibilities could not be removed.

With regard to the third option the Committee noted that it could take four to six weeks to appoint staff, they would be untrained. Furthermore, if the fifth Panel were to be approved with  staffing  there  might  be  an  obligation  to  retain  the contracted  appointee  under  the  terms  of  the  Employment Law. If the appointee were of lesser calibre than required for a full time post, this would not be beneficial in the long term.

Consequently, the Committee, noting that the documentation for the Youth Service Review would not be available until December 2006, the Chairman, Social Affairs Panel agreed that he would request that his Panel deferred that review and undertook the review into Overdale. The Chairman, Social Affairs Panel agreed to advise the Chairmen's Committee of the decision subsequent to its forthcoming meeting.

BH

11. 19.05.06 Item 7

Joint Scrutiny Public Meeting

The Committee considered the previous public meeting held at Hautlieu School on 18th May 2006. It had been considered by some to have been successful but had received criticism.

The Committee agreed that the principle of public meetings across the scrutiny function was important and considered topics for discussion which might encourage the public to attend.

Consideration  was  given  to  selecting  one  appealing  topic which influenced all the Panels and the public at large. It was agreed that all Panels and the Public Engagement Group should be asked to submit topic areas for discussion at a public meeting.

It was agreed to aim for the third week in September, a venue to be decided.

Panels/PEG

12.

30.06.06 Item 13

Sub-Panels (constitution and powers)/Co-option

The Committee noted that there had been some areas of concern when forming Sub-Panels in that a Panel could not co-opt members onto a full Panel.

It was also noted that Sub-Panels did not have the power to present a report to the States in its own name even though only one member of the full Panel might be sitting on the Sub- Panel.

It was agreed that, with the forthcoming establishment of a fifth Panel, it would be inappropriate to consider this further at this time. It recommended, however, that these matters be included in any overall review which might occur at the end of the year.

13.

30.06.06 Item 14

Accountancy Advice for Scrutiny Panels

The Committee received a list of companies which had been contacted and expressed an interest and an accompanying

Chairmen  should  be  informed  of  this  fact.   Deputy  S.F. Ferguson requested that her strong concerns about the lack of communication be minuted.

Consideration  was  given  to  the  following  sentence  in  the Chief Minister's letter -

"This [timetable of Strategic Plan and Annual Business Plan] was also discussed the following week with the Corporate Services panel who also confirmed that they were the proper liaison point regarding the draft Annual Plan 2007". This was not the recollection of the Chairman of the Corporate Services Panel and the Manager was requested to seek out the notes of that meeting.

On a related matter, the Committee agreed that if officers were forwarded confidential information which a Panel had received, it was for the Panel Chairman to advise the Minister that the information would be circulated to other Chairmen under confidential cover and to action accordingly.

The  Committee  noted  a  briefing  paper  prepared  by  the Greffier  of  the  States  regarding  the  process  of  making amendments to the Annual Business Plan.

KTF

15.

30.0606 Item2

Livelink

The Committee received correspondence from Mr. W. Ogley, Chief  Executive,  dated  19th  July  2006  regarding  general access to information by scrutiny and access to the Livelink system.

It was agreed that Deputy Duhamel would meet Mr. Ogley.

RD

16.

30.06.06 Item 11

Guidelines for Executive Officers in dealing with scrutiny requests.

The  Committee  received  an  noted  correspondence  dated 19th  July  2006  regarding  the  above  which  it  noted accordingly.

17.

Suspension  of  draft  Code  of  Practice  5.4 -  Corporate Services Sub-Panel Zero Ten

The Committee noted a Minute of the above Sub-Panel to suspend the 5.4 of the draft Code of Practice to permit the adviser  to  ask  questions  of  witness  [who  would  not  be Ministers] at public hearings.

The  Committee  recalled  that  it  had  taken  advice  on  this matter from the Greffier of the States and in recognition of the fact that advisers were not covered by immunity agreed that this should be retained in the Code of Practice. Irrespective of the  fact  that  Advisers  should  be  covered  by  personal indemnity insurance, the Committee agreed that there were other  methods  of  working  which  could  be  employed  and decided that it would be inappropriate for the draft Code of Practice to be suspended.

18.

Away-day

After some consideration in respect of the reasons and value of an away-day, the Committee agreed that such an event should be held during October on a date and at a venue to be decided.

19.

30.06.06 Item 8

Establishment of fifth scrutiny Panel

The Committee welcomed the Deputy Greffier of the States to the  meeting.  The  Committee  noted  that  following  the Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  Meeting  with  the Chairmen's Committee on 26th July 2006, the former had written to the Minister, Treasury and Resources in respect of the following -

The  concerns  that  scrutiny  was  unable  to  fully undertake its function due to insufficient manpower;

A request that any underspend at the end of the year be carried forward subject to a cap to be agreed; and,

A  request  as  to  whether  the  Minister  considered  a request for £188,000 could be absorbed by budgets of ministerial departments.

It was agreed that an amendment to the States of Jersey Law was required.

With  regard  to  the  appointment  of  two  new  officers,  the Committee noted that, whilst advertisements could be placed, no appointments could be made until after the debate on the Annual Business Plan.

The Committee considered staffing allocation once the fifth Panel had been established and noted that there would have to be some movement of officers between Panels dependant on experience and workload which would be organised by the Scrutiny Manager.

20.

21.07.06 Item 1

Draft Code of Practice

The Committee considered the following -

Legal  advice:  it  was  agreed  that  the  latest  version should be included in the draft Code

Establishment of fifth Panel 4.2: an amendment would be  brought  to  the  draft  Code  of  Practice  at  the appropriate time.

Work programming 2.7 and 7.14: it was agreed that the word "provisional" would be entered before "future" and "work programme" respectively.

The Committee agreed that the draft Code of Practice once amended would be circulated to Chairmen's Committee for final checking and would be lodged forthwith with a date for debate of 26th September 2006.

21.

Transcription

The Committee noted that the standard of transcriptions of hearings was extremely poor and the view was expressed that the company should not be retained. The Committee also noted  that  the  matter  was  being  investigated by  both  the Scrutiny Manager and the Deputy Greffier of the States.

22.

Corporate Services Panel Update Report

The Committee noted that the Zero Ten Design  Proposal Sub-Panel  had requested  that  Treasury  deferred  the  in- principle States debate on the zero/ten tax proposals from late September/early October until the States sitting on the 24th  October  2006. The  Panel  aimed  to  present  its  final report no later than the 3rd October 2006.

However, the GST Review appeared to be extending due to the complicated nature of the subject and an interim report might be necessary.

Realistically,  the  Panel  would  not  have  been  able  to commence work on a Jersey Telecom review until October.

The  Panel  would  not  be  putting  any  amendments  to  the Annual Business Plan due to a lack of manpower.

23.

28.07.08Item 8

Economic Affairs Panel Update Report

The  fulfilment  review  was  proceeding  to  schedule  and  a report might be available first week in September, but advice from external lawyers was currently awaited.

The Connétable of St. Brelade was acting as rapporteur for the Panel and identifying the situation with regard to marine fuel. It was noted that there was no conflict of interest as the Connétable did not sell marine fuel through his business.

The Skills Gap Review would be deferred until 2007.

There was a Dairy Industry Sub-Panel which was working very closely with the Chief Minister's Department and noted that £5,000 had been agreed to contribute to a consultant to be utilised by both the Chief Minister and Scrutiny. It was also noted that despite such close working relationships, the Sub- Panel had reserved its right to hold its independent opinion. Deputy Ferguson requested details of the hourly rate of the consultant.

Privatisation of Telecoms (These minutes Item 8 refers)

There would be no Panel amendments to the Business Plan due to both lack of time and manpower.

24.

Social Affairs Panel Update Report

The Income Support Sub-Panel has held a public hearing but was  unable  to  progress  thereafter  until  figures  had  been made available towards the end of this year. There was the possibility  of  producing  an  interim  report,  suspending  the

review  until  such  time  as  the  figures  were  available  and revisiting the matter thereafter.

GP Out-of -Hours Review - still awaiting the JCRA report but the Panel had written to request information about when this report would be available.

Centeniers  in  the  Magistrates' Court - the  Panel  had requested  that  it  attended  a  Parish   Hall  Inquiry  but  H.M. Attorney General had advised that this would be inappropriate as Parish Hall Inquiries are not a part of the political process.

There remains the Criminal Justice Policy to review.

The Panel was meeting its Ministers shortly to discuss the Annual Business Plan. Consequently no decisions could be made as to whether amendments from the Panel would be forthcoming at this time.

25.

Environment Panel

The Planning process review was being lead by Deputies Baudains and Le Hérissier. Hearings had been held and there had been some divergence from the Terms of Reference due to the size of the subject. However, the Committee noted that the Chairman believed that this review merited staying within its terms of reference.

The Design of Homes Review was being lead by Deputy Power and progress had been rather slow. However, a visit to London was being undertaken shortly.

The Waste Management Review had been delayed by the late  commencement  of  the  zero  waste  trial  in  St.  Helier. Consequently the report which had been anticipated by end of  July had been delayed. The Committee  noted that the Parish  of  St.  Helier  was  intending  to  extend  the  scheme across the Parish. There had been some difficulties in respect of  the  unions  but  it  was  hoped  that  it  would  be  running smoothly during August.

There was consideration as to whether this trial formed a correct  part  of  the  scrutiny  function  as  it  appeared  to  be seeking alternative policies as opposed to concentrating on commenting  on  current  policy.  It  could,  however,  be recognised  as  evidence  gathering  to  support recommendations.

With regard to the Waste Review, the Panel was continuing to take evidence from Dr. Haden Taylor as it was believed that there  were  elements  of  the  technology  he  was  proposing which could be useful.

The Panel might submit amendments to the Annual Business Plan  regarding  the  Transport  and  Technical  Services expenditure on sewage and the Panel hoped to meet the Minister in respect of this.