Education and Home Affairs - Approved Panel Minutes - 14 May 2007

Education & Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

PUBLIC MEETING Record of Meeting Date: 14th May 2007

Meeting with the Chief Minister

Present Deputy F.J. Hill ,BEM, Chairman

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian , Vice-Chairman Deputy S. Pitman

Deputy J. Gallichan

Apologies

Absent

In attendance Senator F.H. Walker , Chief Minister

Mrs. J. Marshall, Strategic Planning Manager – Chief Minister's Department

Mr. W. Millow , Scrutiny Officer Mr. T. Oldham , Scrutiny Officer

3. 2008 Annual Business Plan

1. Comment: The Panel was given a short time, following receipt of the relevant documentation, to consider its response
2. Comment: Documentation forwarded to the Panel was not as informative as could have been hoped for: there was a lack of detail, particularly regarding previous costs.
3. How can the system be improved?

NOTES:

1. The Role of Scrutiny

1. The Chief Minister outlined a vision of how the Scrutiny function could work:

1. The Chairmen's Committee should liaise with the Scrutiny Panels in order to establish an annual work programme. This programme, based upon known, upcoming policies, would need to be flexible. However, its existence would allow for a greater understanding by all concerned (Panels, Ministers et al) and facilitate the Departments' anticipation of the upcoming needs of Panels regarding information.
2. Once a Panel had decided upon its work programme and considered the questions it would wish to have answered, the Scrutiny Officers would  liaise  with  the  relevant  Department(s)  in  order  to  gather information  for  the  Panel. Use  of  this  system  would  engender  an easier flow of information and ensure that Departments had sufficient time to locate documentation.
3. Whilst the Scrutiny process could be described as Member-led', this did not require Members to do everything. Scrutiny Officers would gather information requested by Panels and, potentially, present such information back to Panels (i.e. in briefing reports). In this way, the Scrutiny function would mirror the work undertaken of the Executive in which  the  work  was  'Member-led'  by  the  Council  of  Ministers  and individual Ministers but where the expertise of Officers was used.
4. Panels would work to the evidence available and restrict themselves to evidence-based opinion rather than forming their own opinions. As such, Panels would fulfil the role of critical friend.' This had not always occurred to date.
5. Scrutiny Reports would potentially disagree with the Minister's policy; agree  with  the  broad  scope  of  the  policy  and  suggest  minor amendments; or agree with the policy. In the latter cases, Panels should not be afraid to compliment as well as criticise.

2. The Panel advised the Chief Minister that it had set an annual Work Programme for 2006 but that this programme had been hit by unforeseen circumstances.
3. All Scrutiny Panels would receive a report from the Chief Minister on the involvement and use of Scrutiny Officers whilst individual Ministers would highlight this system at their meetings with Panels. The Machinery of Government Review Sub-Committee had also been advised by the Chief Minister on this matter.

4. The Chief Minister believed two Panels had performed well thus far: the Corporate Services and Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panels.

2. Ministerial Response to Scrutiny Reports

1. The  Chief  Minister  advised  that  Ministers  should  respond  to  Scrutiny Reports  in  an  informed  and  professional  way,  within  a  reasonable timescale. Ministers should not be afraid to change their minds on the basis of the recommendations made within Scrutiny Reports.
2. The Minister for Planning and Environment's response to The Planning Process (SR2/2007) was seen to provide a good example of a Ministerial response although it had not addressed the recommendations made in the Scrutiny Report. It was agreed that it would be beneficial for responses to address both the findings and recommendations. The Ministerial response to Overdale: The Closure of Leoville and McKinstry Ward s (SR1/2007) had not been forthcoming within three months of the report's presentation. The response to The GP Out-of-Hours Co-Operative Service (SR6/2007) would soon be due (based on the response-time of three months). It was noted that the Minister for Health and Social Services had recently been ill. It was noted that the response-time in other jurisdictions was shorter than three months. The Chief Minister considered a response-time of three months to be generous.
3. The Chief Minister indicated his intention that it be standard practice for Ministers to  respond  to Scrutiny  Reports. Discussions  occurred at  the Council of Ministers on this issue although the Chief Minister was not able to force Ministers to respond.

3. Access to Information

1. If  Ministers  were  reticent  about  forwarding  documentation  to  Scrutiny Panels before the final draft, the Chief Minister would need to act although the Chief Minister did not have the power to force Ministers to act in a particular manner although he could endeavour to persuade Ministers.
2. Part B agendas for meetings of the Council of Ministers were available to Scrutiny Panels. If a Panel identified a potential area of interest on such an agenda,  it  could  make a  request  for  the  relevant background  papers. Further permission would need to be sought from the relevant Minister if the  Panel  subsequently  wished  to  forward  the  information  to  another Panel.
3. Background papers would be provided to a Panel, on request, if the topic fell within that Panel's remit (regardless of whether the Panel had already chosen to undertake a Scrutiny Review of the topic). There would not be a problem in providing information to a Panel in such cases provided the request  was  reasonable and  did  not seek  to  have all paperwork (e.g. inclusive of e-mail correspondence) provided to the Panel.
4. Panels could ask the Scrutiny Officers to look at Part B agendas and subsequently to request the relevant minutes. Individual States Members had the right to request to look at Part B minutes at the States Greffe.
5. There was potentially an issue with the use of Part B minutes in Scrutiny Reports. Care  had  to  be  taken  at  meetings  and Public Hearings  that discussions did not lead to the release of confidential information at an inappropriate  time. There  had  recently  been  breaches  of  confidence

although these had appeared to be legitimate mistakes and the situation had

subsequently been resolved.

6. The Chief Minister personally believed that legal advice given to Ministers should generally be shared with a Scrutiny Panel, if the Panel required it. However, this view was held by a minority of the Council of Ministers and was not shared by H.M. Attorney-General. One way to resolve this issue would be for a proposition to be debated by the States. This had not previously occurred as it had been hoped that an alternative solution could be found.

4. Annual Business Plan and Strategic Plan

1. Scrutiny of the Business Plan and Strategic Plan should form an inherent part of each Panel's work programme, although it was for individual Panels to decide how in-depth its study of the Plans should be.
2. The Chief Minister had complimented the Panel for its work in 2006 on the Strategic  Plan. It  was  noted  that,  at  the  time,  there  had  been  some difficulties in establishing exactly how Scrutiny would review the Plan.
3. In 2006, the Panel had been given approximately six weeks to scrutinise the Strategic Plan. However, the Council of Ministers had merely had twelve weeks to prepare the Plan: following the appointment of the Council of Ministers in December 2005, it had been necessary to lodge the Plan by 1st April 2006.
4. Basic information relating to the 2008 Annual Business Plan had been available since November 2006. Panels could have advised the Scrutiny Officers  at  that  time  which  information  they  would  wish  to  consider. Although the information identified might not have been available at the time, liaison between the Officers and Departments would have lead to a smooth  flow  of  information. This  would  have  allowed  the  Panel  an understanding  of  how  Departments  would  spend  their  money  and therefore of the changes identified in spending patterns. These changes could  subsequently  form  the  Panel's  focus  in  its  work. One  potential difficulty was that Panels had different ideas regarding the level of detail of the information which it would wish to receive.
5. It was recognised that all areas of the States (i.e. Executive and Scrutiny) were placed under pressure with the new Business Planning process. The new  Finance  Law  had  separated  the  spending  and  budgeting  plan processes. Departments  were  therefore  required  to  prepare  spending plans by the end of May rather than by the end of September (as had previously been the case). Departments were being encouraged to look further  ahead  in  their  planning:  it  was  anticipated  that  this  method  of thinking would ultimately become the norm and thus the process would become easier for Departments to manage.

5. General Matters

5. The Panel was advised that Mrs. J. Marshall, in addition to holding the position  of  Strategic  Planning  Manager,  acted  as  the  Departmental Scrutiny Liaison Officer.
6. It was noted that A Social Policy Framework for Jersey fell within the remit of  the  Education  and  Home  Affairs  and  Health,  Social  Security  and Housing Scrutiny Panels.

7. It was noted that it may have been beneficial to have appointed a ChiefOfficer when Scrutiny had been established.
8. Concerns were expressed that meetings which had been held merely forthe Council of Ministers had not been open to all States Members (e.g. thevisit of Professor King).

Signed Date: ..

Chairman

Education & Home Affairs Panel