Skip to main content

Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - Chairmen's Committee - 27 January 2006

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.

CHAIRMEN'S COMMITTEE

Meeting of Chairmen held on 27th January 2006

Present Deputy R C Duhamel, President

Deputy F J Hill

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier [arrived during item 2] Deputy G P Southern

Deputy S C Ferguson

Deputy J.G. Reed

Deputy P J D Ryan

Apologies

Absent

In attendance Mrs K. Tremellen-Frost, Scrutiny Manager

Mr. D. Filipponi, Assistant Greffier of the States [Item 5 only] Mr. I. Clarkson, Scrutiny Officer

Mr. W. Millow , Scrutiny Officer

Mr. M. Haden, Scrutiny Officer [Items 4 &5 only]

Miss S. Power, Scrutiny Officer [Items 4&5 only]

 

Ref. back.

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Independent Members of Chairmen's Committee

The President welcomed Deputies R.G. Le Hérissier and J.G. Reed as the independent members to the Chairmen's Committee.

 

2.

Vice-President

The  Committee  agreed  that   Deputy  R.G.  Le  Hérissier would be Vice-President of the Chairmen's Committee.

 

3.

17.01.06 Item 5

Previous Minutes

The  Minutes  of  20th  December  2005,  10th  and  17th January 2006 were signed as being an accurate record of the meeting.

NOTE: The Committee agreed that the following sentence of the minutes of 17th January 2006 should read -

"The Chairman of the Social Affairs Panel advised that the Social Security Minister would attend its meeting on 23rd January 2006" to read -

"The Chairman of the Social Affairs Panel advised that the Housing Minister would attend its meeting on 23rd January 2006".

 

4.

Sexual  Offences  (Jersey)  Law  200- (P.196/2005),- referral back to Scrutiny

The Committee noted that the above had been referred back to the Corporate Services and Social Affairs Panels at the States sitting of18th January 2006.

Corporate Services Panel.

The  Committee  considered  a  scoping  document  and related proposed statement to the States. The Committee

 

considered the opportunity which had arisen from this to consider the constitutional matters within Europe and other countries. Subsequent to consideration of potential overlap with the Social  Affairs  Panel and the need to  maintain clarity  of  boundaries,  the  Committee  approved  the statement. It was noted that the lead officer for the review would be Miss Sam Power with support from Mr. Mike. Haden.

Social Affairs Panel.

The Committee was apprised of a meeting between that Panel and Mr. Luke Small, Youth Reform Group. It was noted that Mr Small had a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights.

The draft statement of the Panel was approved. President's Statement

The Committee agreed that it would also be appropriate for the  President  of  the  Chairmen's  Committee  to  make  a statement following the aforementioned in the States to explain that when reports are to be debated in the States, they must give details of all background work and make all reports available for perusal.

It  was  noted  that  the  three  statements  needed  to  be finalised and with the Assistant Greffier of the States by noon on Monday 30th January 2006.

Documents attached

Aforementioned statements to States

5. Budget

The  Committee  welcomed  the  Assistant  Greffier  of  the States who outlined the following points in respect of the financial position -

  1. 2006 budget - the PAC did not currently have a

budget as the budget allocation of the Comptroller and Auditor General would be kept separate.

  1. 2005  underspend - a  carry  forward  of

outstanding money could be requested towards the end of February 2006. It was noted that there were competing demands for carry-forwards and any request should be specific and substantiated. The Committee was advised that  there  was  a  current  underspend  of £400,000  for Scrutiny, although the move of the Scrutiny function back to Morier House and other related matters would impact on this  amount.  There  was £30,000  underspend  for  PAC. Although  there  appeared  to  be  no  apparent  competing demands at present, the Committee noted that the amount of carry forward awarded was not usually more than 3 per cent of the underspend.

It  was  noted  that  there  was  insufficient  financial  data

 

available regarding the cost of the Scrutiny process in full now that four Panels were in operation. It would only be at the  end  of  2006,  that  sufficient  information  would  be available to determine the true cost of the scrutiny function. It was determined to be essential that sufficient financial funds were available to permit the Scrutiny function to be undertaken in necessary depth and efficiency.

It was agreed that the financial allocation for 2006 would be divided as follows -

PAC £40,000 Corporate Services £80,000 Economic Affairs £80,000

Social Affairs £80,000 Environment £80,000

It  was  agreed  that  the  Assistant  Greffier  of  the  States would report back to the Chairmen's Committee in respect of the 2005 underspend and related carry-forward request as appropriate.

The Committee also agreed that a running total should be maintained  on  each  review  undertaken  including  staff costs.

DF

6.

Corporate Services Panel: update report

The  Committee  noted  that  the  above  Panel  was streamlining its work programme for 2006 and the Fiscal Strategy/GST would be likely reviews.

There had been consideration of the fulfilment industry but this  might  require  the  formation  of  a  Sub-Group  being formed which combined Corporate Services and Economic Affairs Panels. It was agreed that the former Panel would scope  this  review  and  liaise  with  the  Economic  Affairs Panel.

The Chairman, Economic Affairs Panel stated the need for that Panel to determine its work programme in line with the Economic Development Department and that the fulfilment industry might come within the top six areas to review.

PR

7. 10.01.06 item 1

"Livelink"

The Committee recalled that Mr. W. Ogley, Chief Executive had undertaken to investigate the possibility of Scrutiny members having access to "Live link". To date nothing had been forthcoming and it was agreed that arrangements should be made for Scrutiny members to be shown how this system operates.

 

8.

17.01.06 Item 1

Public engagement

The Committee agreed that it would delay the distribution of a leaflet to the public and that a "drip-feed" approach was more effective. Other means of reaching out to the public were considered namely, insertion of information at

 

 

the front of telephone directory or/and in other journals.

The Committee noted that the position of Manager of the Communications Unit was currently advertised and agreed that once that post had been filled it would be beneficial to invite that person to a Chairmen's Committee.

 

9.

17.01.06 Item 1

Website

The President apprised the Committee of a meeting with the  Greffier  of  the  States  in  respect  of  updating  the Assembly  and  Scrutiny  website.  He  explained  the necessity  to  consider  the  promotion  of  more "exciting" material and presentations in order to connect with the public.  The  President  also  suggested  the  inclusion  of sound-bites, TV-on line and film-form excerpts assisting raise the awareness of the scrutiny function.

The  Panel  Chairmen  agreed  that  their  Panels  would undertake  some  research  into  websites  of  other jurisdictions and county/borough councils and determine ways in which the Scrutiny Website could be improved. This in consideration of financial and manpower resources.

On a related matter, it was noted that the portal for the Scrutiny Website should be on the same level as that of the Chief Minister's Department.

 

10.

Social Panel: status

The  Committee  considered  the  appropriateness  of  a division of the Social Panel into two separate Panels. The Chairman  of  that  Panel  explained  the  following  issues which would arise if the Panel were divided -

  1. Two members of the existing Panel would move onto the other Panel
  2. States members currently not engaged with either  Ministerial  or  Scrutiny  work

not expressed an interest in joining the  Social Panel at the outset, with  the exception of one.

  1. The officer allocation would be one officer

per Panel.

  1. The Panel itself had no inclination to divide

and believed that although it would be a very  heavy workload,  that  it  would  be manageable.

  1. Review topics had been more or less determined and scoping was underway.

The Committee considered that it was essential to bid for both more members and more staff in the future and that it was important to consider these bids with urgency.

There was consideration of the formation of Sub-Panels to overcome concerns that areas of the Social Panel's remit would not be covered, however, there was also concern that  Sub-Panels  created  other  considerations  regarding

 

finance and staffing issues.

The officers withdrew from the meeting to attend another meeting at this point.

Signed Date

.. . President, Chairmen's Committee