Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 13 April 2007

Present

Deputy S C Ferguson, President

Deputy R C Duhamel

Deputy F J Hill

Deputy R G Le Hérissier

Deputy P J D Ryan

Deputy J G Reed

Deputy A Breckon (Present for items 5, 7, 9-12)

Apologies

Absent

Deputy G P Southern

In attendance

Mrs K Tremellen-Frost, Scrutiny Manager

Mr C Ahier , Scrutiny Officer

Miss L Kingston, Scrutiny Officer

Mrs D Abbot-McGuire, Finance and Admin Manager (Present for Item 4)

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1. The meeting welcomed Deputy S. C. Ferguson as President of the Chairmen's Committee following election by the States on 27th March 2007.

2. Minutes

The Minutes of 9th March 2007 were taken as read and signed accordingly.

3. Action Update

1. IdeaWorks: It was noted that the Greffier of the States was pursuing  the  possibility  of  amending  the  template  for  scrutiny adverts.

2. Annual Report: It also noted that the Annual Report would be considered by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 11th April and presented to the States thereafter.

3. Website: The Committee also noted that the new website had been launched on 2nd April 2007.

• The Sub Panel was hoping to receive a confidential copy of the draft legislation within the next few weeks.
• The Sub Panel would then present its report to the States in advance of the debate on the draft legislation, which was likely to take place during July 2007.

Overseas Aid Sub Panel

• The Sub Panel was in the process of drafting its report, which it

• The Sub Panel held a meeting with Dr Rosemary Geller, Medical Officer of Health, to discuss progress made in implementing the health screening database.
• The Sub Panel continued to search for an expert adviser to assist with this review. One focus of the adviser's work would be assisting the Sub Panel with analysis of the population modelling work that was being undertaken.
• A scoping document and estimate of expenditure for this review would be forwarded once further work had been done on the timetable for this review at the Sub Panel's next meeting on the

23rd April.

States Business Plan and Budget process

 The Panel had agreed that its work on this would be based on the following separate issues:

1. Scrutiny of the process involved in the States Annual Business Plan – the Panel would present its report on this issue later this year, once it had had the opportunity to monitor the entire process.
2. Scrutiny of the financial framework of the Business Plan

– the Panel had delegated responsibility to the Chairman and Deputy Egré to conduct further work into this issue, with a particular focus on the financial forecasts, with a view to providing the Council of Ministers with the Panel's report by the end of April 2007.

3. Scrutiny of the Cash Limits for the Chief Minister's and the Treasury and Resources Department – the Panel had delegated responsibility to Senator Perchard to conduct further work into this issue, and the Panel would then provide the Council of Ministers with its comments by the end of April 2007.

Sub Panel reviewing the sale of the former JCG site

 The Panel had formed a Sub Panel to conduct a review into the sale of the former Jersey College for Girls site. The Sub-Panel was constituted as follows:

Although the Review into the sale of Jersey Telecoms had been completed, the Sub-Panel had not been formally disbanded. The recommendation in the final report that an impact assessment/cost benefit  analysis  be  carried  out  by  the  Treasury  and  Resources Minister had been accepted.

The Sub-Panel was therefore in the process of re-engaging Dr. David Parker on a mutually-agreed basis to participate in a steering group to carry out the analysis. The estimated cost to the Panel of this analysis will be £5,000.

The Panel had noted that several of the Economic Development Department  submissions  to  the  Progress  against  Initiatives' document appeared to show items as on track' when they were in fact delayed. The Panel had sought clarification of this as it was concerned that this document represented an opportunity to follow

the work of the Executive, and it considered that the accuracy of the statements within it were of the utmost importance.

c) Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Review of the Centeniers Role in the Magistrate's Court:

• Work on the Panel's report was ongoing. The draft report had been distributed to stakeholders for factual comment. The Panel had  engaged  Professor.  A.  Le  Sueur,  Legal  Adviser  to  the House of Lords Constitution Committee, to provide advice in relation to the report.
• The  Panel  was  advised  by  H.M.  Attorney  General  to  seek independent  legal  advice  in  respect  of  the  dual  role  of  the Magistrate as his position as Titular Head of the Honorary Police precluded him from advising the Panel.

Review of the GP Out-of-Hours Service:

 The consequent Scrutiny Report was presented to the States on 10th March 2007.

The Committee noted that to date no response from the Health Minister had been received.

Review of the Closure of Leoville and McKinstry Ward s (Overdale

 The Panel awaited the official response from the Minister for Health and Social Services. At the States sitting of 13th March 2007, the Minister indicated that he hoped to have forwarded a completed response to the States Greffe by the end of that week.

The Committee noted that to date no response from the Health Minister had been received.

Review of Early Years Education and Care:

• The Chairman made a statement in the States on 27th March 2007 in which he described preliminary work undertaken by the Panel  and  explained  why  a  Scrutiny  Review  would  not  be undertaken.

Work Programme:

• Consideration had been given to topics that could constitute the Panel's second Review (to run concurrently with Early Years). Potential  Scrutiny  Reviews  of  the  Youth  Service  and  Police Authority  had  been  considered  in  some  detail;  however,  the Panel had agreed that its work in relation to the Annual Business

The Income Support Sub-Panel met with the Minister for Social Security at a Public Hearing on 30th March 2007 to discuss the draft Regulations.   As  a  result  of this  meeting  the  start  date for  the Income Support system had been moved to Tuesday 27th August (from the 30th July) in order to allow more time for scrutiny. The Rates had yet to be finalised but had been promised to the Sub- Panel on Friday 13th April. The Sub-Panel had invited the Minister to a Public Hearing mid-May to discuss the finalised Income Support proposals and the Sub-Panel's suggested amendments.

The Committee noted that this was a highly involved and detailed review of regulation and policy formation which was proving to be very time consuming. The Committee was informed that the Panel advisor was also assisting the Social Services Department.

The Committee noted the  possibility that the Minister for  Health might  be  considering  future  funding  of  Health  services  through increased  Social  Security  contributions.  As  this  was  within  the

Strategic Plan it was anticipated that the Minister would take this change to the States.

5. Environment Scrutiny Panel

Waste review: report continued to be drafted but would only be presented when it was of a sufficient standard to make an impact.

Design of Homes: work on this was suspended until the officer on loan  to  the  Mast  review  Sub-Panel  had  been  released.  The Committee  noted  that  new  Panel  members  might  assist  in completing this review.

The Committee noted that one of the officers who supported the Environment Panel had been "loaned" by that Panel to the Health Social Security and Housing Phone Mast review in late December 2006,  whilst  the  Scrutiny  Manager  was  on  annual  leave.  The agreement had been that the review would be completed and report presented  to  the  States  by  end-February.  However,  due  to  the volume of work involved, this review had taken longer than planned and had left the Environmental Panel with one officer for the first quarter.

The  Committee  considered  a  joint  review  (Environment  and Corporate Services) into Environmental taxes / VRD replacement. It was proposed that Deputy Duhamel should lead the Sub-Panel and that Deputy Ryan be included as a panel member. The committee noted that this would not be considered until the completion of the Design of Homes report.

6. Public Accounts Committee (PAC)

The Committee was advised that PAC was still awaiting the audit of accounts and a report on Special Funds.

The Committee was informed of the areas covered by the PAC review of Early Years to avoid duplication with the Education and Home Affairs review on the same topic. The PAC review focused on the historical efficiency and costs of nursery education.

The Committee noted that all PAC reviews provided a retrospective analysis of efficiencies, and might provide good historical data for future Scrutiny reviews.

5. Financial Report

The Committee and welcomed the Finance and Admin Manager to the meeting.

The Committee noted the first quarterly financial report and was advised  that  the  reporting  structure  had  changed  and  that  the Treasury had been very supportive in this process.

The  Committee  noted  that  the  President  would  receive  monthly Panel accounts and that the Committee would continue to receive them quarterly.

The Committee was advised that an underspend for the first quarter

had been recorded.

On considering whether the budget would be better held in one central fund, it was agreed that this should be considered within the Working Practices review.

The Committee expert advisors were a key aspect of the review process and, therefore, were a significant proportion of review costs. The  Committee  proposed  a  register  of  expert  witnesses  be implemented as a tool for Panels but not as a prescriptive list.

The  Committee  requested  that  an  appendix  of  miscellaneous expenditure over £100 be added to the quarterly reports.

DAM

19.02.07 Item 1

6. Invoices from Orchid Communications

The Committee noted the invoices from Orchid Communications and the related activity reports.

The Committee considered whether the purpose of Orchid's initial engagement  to  set  a  foundation  for  public  engagement  for  the scrutiny function  had been achieved and agreed that an interim assessment was required before the contract expired on 31st July 2007. The Committee agreed that all Panels would discuss Orchid's input  to  date  and  consider  future  PR  and  public  engagement requirements and report back to the Chairmen's Committee at a subsequent meeting.

In view of the fact that the Public Engagement Group (PEG) had been formed by the Committee to develop public engagement for scrutiny, the future of that group was considered but no decision taken.

7. Media Feed

The Committee agreed the expenditure for a media feed for both Blampied and Le Capelain Rooms. The Committee noted that the introduction of the media feed might lead to more publicity and consequently, encourage public engagement.

02.02.07 Item 1

8. Junior Admin Assistant

The Committee agreed to appoint a junior administrator on a one year  contract,  on  the  understanding  that  such  a  contract  was compliant  with  Employment  (Jersey)  Law  2003.   Deputy  R.C. Duhamel requested that his dissent from this decision be recorded.

KTF

9. Working Practices

The Committee discussed whether to undertake a review of the Scrutiny  function  and  whether  a  greater  degree  of  Panel standardisation in the approach to reviews and reports would be beneficial. It was noted that current guidelines set out the need for an evaluation after each review had been concluded and that the Annual Report also constituted a review of working practices. The Committee  noted  that  some  members  were  concerned  about additional  layers  of  control  being  imposed  upon  Panels  and  a resulting loss of autonomy.

The  Committee  agreed  to  establish  a  working  group  comprising Deputies J. Reed and R. Le Hérissier to investigate scrutiny working practices and they would work with panel members and officers to propose improvements to working practices.

The  Committee  discussed  the  role  of  the  Chairman  of  Scrutiny Panels and agreed that it was within the remit of the Chairman to monitor ongoing work of the areas within the relevant Panel's remit and,  as  such,  could  request  an  officer  to  seek  background information without Panel agreement.

JR/RLH

10. Code of Practice

The Committee considered the draft Code of Practice and discussed H.M Attorney General's comments. The Committee was informed that H.M. Attorney General had asked to meet the President in order to discuss the draft Code of Practice.

The Committee noted that H.M. Attorney General had advised that the States of Jersey Law precluded him from releasing legal advice given to the Executive.   The Committee discussed whether this assertion had been verified by independent legal advisers.

Having discussed the unresolved issue of access to legal advice, the Committee agreed that Deputies Ferguson and Duhamel would request copies of correspondence between the Chief Minister and H.M. Attorney General for consideration at a subsequent Chairmen's Committee meeting.

SF/RD

12.02.07 Item 1(d)

11. Annual Business Plans and Budget

The Committee discussed scrutiny of the States Annual Business Plans and Budget. It was agreed that the proposed timeframe for scrutiny was insufficient to complete any detailed reviews and that busy work programmes also compromised detailed consideration in this area. It was agreed that the President would correspond with the Chief Minister and request a two week delay in order to allow more time for Scrutiny.

The Committee discussed how best to approach scrutiny in this area. It was noted that most Panels had made arrangements to discuss the departmental Business Plans within their remit with the relevant Ministers. It was further noted that the Environment Panel's response to the 2007 States Business Plans, which addressed high level issues, could provide a model for future scrutiny in this area given the tight timeframe involved.

It was agreed to form a Sub-Panel, comprising Deputies Ferguson; Le Hérissier; Reed and Ryan to consider the Annual Business Plan of  a  department  within  the  Health,  Social  Security  and  Housing Panel's remit. It was further agreed that Deputy Le Hérissier would chair the Sub-Panel and that an accountant would be appointed as an adviser.

RLH

12.02.07 Item 1(b)

12. Draft protocol on access to Council of Minister's Part B information

The Committee discussed the revised protocol as proposed by the

Council of Ministers. It was agreed that Panels needed to have access to all information in order to make an informed decision as to whether  a full  scrutiny review  should  be  initiated. As  such  the Committee agreed to remove 'unless undertaking a full review.' from point 8. The Committee agreed that or explain reasons for non- disclosure.' be added to point 5. It was agreed to circulate the amended draft as proposed by the Council of Ministers plus the Chairmen's  Committee  last  updated  version  to  the  Chairmen's Committee members for comparison and amending prior to lodging the Committee's draft for a States debate.

KTF

09.02.07 Item 3

13.  Council of Ministers - policy on public consultation

The  Committee  considered  the  above  policy  and  discussed  the possibility  of  Scrutiny  using  the  Communications  Unit.  It  also considered  whether  discussions  with  the  Communications  Unit Manager should be held prior to correspondence being sent to the Chief Minister. It considered a draft response to the policy which had been prepared by the Public Engagement Group and it was agreed to send the letter as drafted to the Chief Minister. It was noted that Deputy Reed could subsequently hold discussions with the Communications Unit Manager as an independent member but not as a representative of the Chairmen's Committee.

KTF

14.  Standing Order 141

The Committee considered amending Standing Order 141 to allow non-Chairmen to stand and agreed to give further consideration at its next meeting.

09.02.07 Item 14

15.  Lodging  periods  for  propositions  brought  by  Scrutiny Panels

The Panel agreed to defer consideration of the proposed lodging periods for propositions brought by Scrutiny Panels until Deputy G. Southern was present.

16. Mobile Recording Equipment

The Panel noted the information regarding the Mobile Recording Equipment and agreed that, whenever possible, the Department of Electronics be used to erect and dismantle equipment rather than Scrutiny staff.

KTF

09.03.07 Item 6

17. Investigative Interviewing training

The Panel noted the arrangements for the Investigative Interviewing training  on  26th  and  27th  April  2007  and  the  list  of  confirmed attendees.