Skip to main content

Corporate Services - Approved Panel Minutes - 16 June 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.

Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

Minutes of 16th meeting held on 16th June 2006

Present Deputy P J D Ryan, Chairman

Senator J L Perchard, Vice-Chairman Connétable J L S Gallichan

Deputy J Gallichan

In attendance Deputy J. Reed

Apologies Connétable D Murphy

In attendance Mr. M. Haden

M. de la Haye, Greffier of the States (for a time)

 

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Item 1 23.06.06

Review of Financial Framework of States Strategic Plan

The Panel met to consider its strategy for the debate on the draft Strategic Plan.

Apologies were received from Senator B. Shenton. Senator L. Norman was out of the Island. The Panel invited Deputy Reed to attend  in  order  to  co-ordinate  its  strategy  with  the   Deputy 's amendment No 13. The Panel received a note prepared by the Deputy setting out points of agreement and differences between the two amendments.

Both amendments sought to restrict States revenue spending to the  limits  set  out  in  the  2006  Budget  report.   Deputy  Reed's amendment No 13 was a single package, to be voted en bloc, whereas  the  Panel's  amendment  was  designed  to  allow  three separate  votes  on  (i),  (ii)  and  (iii)  of  Action  1.2.3.  The  Panel received  confirmation  that  three  separate  votes  would  be permitted.

It was noted that the Panel's view of the use of the Dwelling House Loan Fund was in conflict with the Deputy 's amendment which sought to ensure that the DHLF would be used only for capital expenditure and thus would be under the direct control of the States Assembly through the annual States Business Plan. The Panel's  amendment  on  the  other  hand  sought  to  apply  even stricter control of spending through the use of a Stabilisation Fund which  would  establish  clear  criteria  for  the  use  of  any  funds contained therein. The Panel therefore felt that it would not be able to support the Deputy 's amendment

It was noted that the Deputy 's amendment would precede the Panel's amendment in the debate in virtue of the fact that the Deputy sought to introduce a new Outcome at 1.1, whereas the Panel's amendment  addressed  1.2.  The  Panel,  conscious  that Deputy  Reed  amendment  had  a  material  effect  on  its  own amendment, asked the Deputy to consider allowing the Panel's amendment to be debated first, subject to States agreement to suspend Standing Orders. Deputy Reed agreed to consider the request.

 

2.

20% means 20%

The Panel received a submission from Mr. R. Bryans, Personal Finance  Society,  regarding  raising  the  limit  for  life  insurance premium relief to £10,000. It noted that the financial impact of the proposal would be a loss of £1.3 million in tax revenue.

 

The Panel agreed that the proposal merited further consideration. It was not prepared, however, to introduce an amendment without investigating  the  matter  thoroughly.  Accordingly  it  agreed  to request the States to defer the debate on P.58/2006, scheduled for 4th July 2006 to enable a review to take place.

It was suggested that this investigation might be the prelude to a broader review of savings and pensions and that Senator Shenton might be able to advise the Panel on the implications of these issues. The Chairman undertook to speak to him.

3. Fiscal Strategy Reviews

The Panel received confidential notes of a meeting between the Treasury and Resources Minister and the Chamber of Commerce.

The Panel was informed that it was intended to hold an in principle debate on the Zero/Ten Design proposal in September with the law being debated in December. The Panel expressed surprise at this information as it had drawn up a work programme based on a single debate in December and did not believe that a meaningful review could be carried out in time for a debate in September. It was agreed to request a deferral in the in-principle debate to allow time for the Panel to prepare a report.

Signed Date . ..

Chairman, Corporate Services Panel