Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 12 January 2007

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1.

Minutes

The Minutes of the meetings of 15th, 20th and 29th December 2006 were approved, subject to amendment of item 1 of 20th December  2006 to  show that  the  Committee  had  agreed  to review the contract with Orchid after the six months' extension.

2.

Item 3b 25.12.06

Item 9 15.12.06

Item 3 20.12.06

Item 3 20.12.06

Item 4 20.12.06

Matters arising

1. Ideaworks  template -   Deputy  Breckon  expressed concern regarding the current contract. The Committee asked for a paper to be prepared by the Greffier clarifying the scope for Scrutiny to adopt an alternative approach to advertising.

2. Three year budget allocation - It was felt that, as the work programme of Scrutiny Panels operated differently to the generality of States Departments, a case might be made for separate  treatment  of  Panel  expenditure.  The  Committee requested a paper to be prepared for the next agenda in order that consideration might be given to all aspects of this issue.

3. Proposed Amendment of Standing Order 72(6) (to allow  increased  time  for  Scrutiny) -  The  Committee  was informed that the Privileges and Procedures Committee would look at this proposal as part of the Machinery of Government review.

4. Proposed  Amendment  of  Standing  Order  26(3)(to allow a lodging period of two weeks for a Scrutiny proposition on a matter being scrutinised by a Panel) - The Committee was informed that the Privileges and Procedures Committee did not understand  the  need  for  this  amendment.  Consequently  the Committee agreed to prepare an amendment in its own name.

5. Role of advisers at Scrutiny hearings - The Privileges and Procedures Committee supported the Committee's view, in principle, that an adviser should be allowed to participate in hearings, subject to a protocol being prepared.

GOS GOS

KTF

3.

Panel reports

The  Committee  received  written  reports  from  each  of  the Panels. The following issues were discussed -

1. Proposed Review of Migration Policy - It was agreed that this review should be undertaken by a Sub Panel including representatives  from  Economic  Development  and  Social Security and Housing Panels. The Chairman of the Corporate Services Panel was requested to discuss the proposed review with  relevant  Chairmen  and  prepare  for  the  next  meeting  a project plan with terms of reference, resource estimates and proposed  membership  of  the  Sub-Panel.  Senator  Perchard raised  a  query  about  sharing  review  costs  but  this  was  not agreed by the Committee.

2. Overdale  review - The  President  was  requested  to prepare a statement for the States on 18th January 2007 in response  to  the  Health  and  Social  Services  Minister's comments.

3. Lessons  regarding  work  programme - Both Environment and Social Affairs Panels agreed that they had been over ambitious in planning their work programme in 2006 by taking on too many reviews at the same time and in respect of the latter Panel by planning a 2006 forward work programme.

4. Travel  and  Transport  Plan - Disappointment  was expressed in the fact the Environment Panel had been given no opportunity to participate in the preparation of this policy before it had been put out for public consultation. The brief period of consultation (8 weeks) prevented any in depth contribution on the part of the Panel. This appeared to be a trend for a number of Ministers (Housing were also about to publish a major new policy proposal) and belied promises to allow Scrutiny to play a part  in  policy  development.  In  the  Committee's  view  the production of Green papers' should be encouraged.

5. Planned Energy from Waste Plant - The Environment Panel intended to make a statement in the States commenting on the fact that Scrutiny's recommendations had been largely ignored.

6. Legal advice - The Chairman of the Economic Affairs Panel outlined the discussion his Panel was having regarding the costs of work carried out by an external legal firm.

7. PAC  programme  of  visits  to  departments:  The Committee  was  advised  that  these  visits  had  been  very informative.

PR

RD

RD

4

Usage of the States Chamber

The Committee received a paper from the Deputy Greffier of the States  regarding  the  above.   Deputy  Breckon  informed  the Committee that the States Chamber had proved to be a useful venue for Scrutiny hearings for the Dairy Review. It was noted that  Panels  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  Chamber  was sometimes used by the Court, parliamentary conferences and for visits by schools and visiting dignitaries.

5

Review of staffing levels - The Committee received a paper from the Deputy Greffier of the States. The Committee noted the advice of the Scrutiny Manager that a number of officers had been under a high level of pressure at various times during 2006 in coping with the workloads imposed by their Panels. It was agreed  that  it  was  important  to  consider  officer  capacity  in planning Panel work programmes and it was noted that officers

should generally focus on one review at a time.

It  was  agreed  to  arrange  a  specific  meeting  for  further consideration of staffing requirements in the long term.

KTF

6.

Item 5 20.12.06

Access  to  Council  of  Ministers  Part  B  papers - draft protocol

The  Committee  expressed  disappointment that  its  views appeared  to  have  been  largely  ignored  by  the  Council  of Ministers (CoM) in the latest draft of the Protocol. It was felt that too much discretion was left to individual Ministers in deciding whether to release confidential papers.

While  the  Chief  Minister  appeared  to  be  sympathetic  to  the Committee's position, he had been unable to persuade certain other members of the CoM who appeared determined to take a narrow view of a Panel's remit when considering requests for papers.

On a related matter it was also felt that Ministers were failing to consult  relevant  Scrutiny  Panels  at  an  early  stage  in  the preparation of major new policies. The Travel and Transport Plan  (3d  of  these  Minutes  refers)  and  the  Social  Housing Property Plan were recent examples where Scrutiny had been given no prior access to the reports before public consultation was initiated.

KTF

It was agreed that a delegation consisting of Deputies Duhamel, Southern and Breckon should request the opportunity to attend the next meeting of the COM to make their case.

7.

Scrutiny of the States Business Plan and Budget

Item 12.01.07

6

The Committee noted that its request to attend key meetings of the COM as observers had been refused by the Chief Minister.

It  was  further  noted  that  the  Corporate  Services  Panel  had deferred accepting the Chief Minister's offer of a briefing on the meetings  of  the  COM  and  sight  of  a  confidential  paper  on Emerging  Spending  Pressures' pending  clarification  of  the Committee's position.

A proposal from the Corporate Services Panel to establish a cross party Sub Panel to take a lead in scrutiny of the Business Plan and Budget was considered. This Sub Panel would be entitled to receive and consider confidential papers provided by the  CoM.  However,  it  was  felt  that  this  Panel  would  be hamstrung by the confidentiality requirements set by the CoM. Accordingly this proposal was not accepted.

It was agreed that, as this matter was closely linked to the previous issue, the same delegation mentioned above should discuss the Committee's concerns with the CoM. The Chairman of the Corporate Services Panel should also be included in the delegation for this purpose.

8.

Review of telephone masts

Item 1 29.12.06

The Committee noted estimated costs in the sum of £12,440.

9.

Review of Overseas Aid

Item 8 20.12.06

The Committee noted the consultant contract for services and engagement brief.

10

Review Costs

The Committee noted details of the costs incurred for the 16 Panel  reviews  undertaken  during  2006.  The  sum  total  was £128,642.

The Committee requested that the original budget estimates for each review should also be included in future. Miscellaneous expenditure should be itemised where this was a substantial amount.

11

Proposed amendment to Standing Orders - appointment of Scrutiny  Panel  Chairmen,  members  and  President  of Chairmen's  Committee - The  Committee  considered   Deputy Southern 's  draft  amendment  which  would  have  the  effect  of barring any members of the States who had been elected as Ministers  or  Assistant  Ministers  from  participating  in  the selection  and  appoint.  He  explained  that  he  felt  that  non- Executive members should be in control of their business and that it was inappropriate for Ministers to be involved in selection of their own scrutineers. Deputy Duhamel was concerned that this proposal would be divisive as it excluded, for the first time, a number of States members from participating in a vote in the Assembly.

It  was  agreed  to  give  further  consideration  once   Deputy Southern 's report had been worked up.

GS

12

Scrutiny Annual report

The draft heads of report prepared by the Scrutiny Manager were agreed. It was also agreed that the report should give a positive, upbeat reflection of the first year of operation. At the same time it should address the important issues regarding the relationship with the Executive.

The Scrutiny Manager stated that, if this report were be given a priority in her workload  some other tasks would have to be deferred temporarily. She expected to be able to produce a first draft  for  consideration  at  the  next  scheduled  Committee meeting.

Each  Panel  was  requested  to  prepare  a  contribution  to  the report.

KTF

All Chairmen

13

Public Engagement Group

Deputy  Reed  outlined  progress  in  developing  the  Public Engagement  Strategy  with  two  early  milestones  being  the publication of a Guide to Scrutiny and a newsletter. It was hoped that this would coincide in early February with the launch of the new Scrutiny website.

Financial implications were still to be clarified and would be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee.

Members were requested to submit their comments on the draft Strategy by 19th January.

The Committee also requested that a paper be prepared which analysed  the "ideals", needs  and  requirements  for  public engagement  with  comparison  between  using  the Communications  Unit,  Orchid  Communications  and/or  States Greffe.

JR

All Chairmen

KTF