Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 11 July 2007

Environment Scrutiny Panel

PUBLIC MEETING Record of Meeting

Date: 10th July 2007 Meeting Number: 53

Present Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Chairman) (RD)

Connétable K. A. Le Brun of St Mary (KB) Connétable A. S. Crowcroft (SC)

Deputy P. V. F. Le Claire.(PLC)

Apologies

Absent

In attendance C. Le Quesne, Scrutiny Officer

M. Robbins, Scrutiny Officer

funding to each Panel. He advised that legislation as it stood did not preclude the funds allocated to a Panel being called back by the Chairmen's Committee (and in theory even by the Privileges and Procedures Committee) should it be necessary. The Greffier further advised the Panel that its decision was in two parts procedural and political and whilst he could advise on the first he could not advise on the latter.

The Greffier advised that Standing Orders of the States of Jersey 143(b)  in  respect  of  the  terms  of  reference  for  the  Chairmen's Committee stated that the responsibility was -

to oversee the prioritization and allocation of resources to the PAC and scrutiny panels;

It  was  suggested  that  on  that  there  was  some  scope  for  the Chairmen's Committee as a body to allocate funds to a specific activity.  If  not  from  the  Panels'  allocated  budget  then  from  the general scrutiny funds.

The Panel suggested that the proposal of the newsletter funding from  Scrutiny  funding  did  not  reflect  the  intention  outlined  in Standing  Order  128  (g)  whereby  the  Privileges  and  Procedures Committee (PPC): terms of reference appoint PPC -

to  be  responsible  for  the  provision  of  information  to  the public about the work of the States and the work of the Council of Ministers. The scrutiny panels, and the PAC, and to keep these public information services under review

The  issue  of  responsibility  for  the  dissemination  of  information relating to the Panels individual and collectively was considered in detail. The Panel suggested that the newsletter provided information that was quite clearly public information and on that basis should be distributed by PPC as part of its remit. It was suggested that whilst such a view might be taken it would not be the practical solution; the Council  of  Ministers  for  example  retained  the  services  of  the Communications Unit as the conduit to release any information. The individual Panel Chairmen dealt with the press directly in respect of their reviews and the President of the Chairmen's Committee could approach the Press for the Chairmen's Committee.

The Panel suggested that it may be more cost effective and better placed  for  combined  communications  to  be  issued  through  the States existing Communications Unit on the basis that the resource was already available.

Some  concern  was  expressed  by  the  Panel  as  to  whether  the Standing Orders provided the necessary vires in Law to require a Panel  to  participate  in  the  funding  of  any  activity  endorsed  or selected by any one other than that Panel itself. It was agreed that it may be appropriate for a request to be made to PPC to consider the issue of funding allocation and management with a view to clarifying the apparently grey areas in the future.

The Greffier advised that clarification would be provided following the introduction of the Scrutiny Code of Practice which would be considered by the States during the week commencing 16th July 2007.

as opposed to incinerating.

It was agreed that the Town Hall should be the venue of the first road show and that it should take place during September 2007 and should provide people with the opportunity to view what could be achieved with recycling, products etc, much the same as the event which the Panel had previously undertaken. In addition companies providing  alternative  solutions  should  be  invited  to  make presentations.  It  was  agreed  that  the  Public  Hearing  with  the Minister should also take place at the Town Hall at the end of July 2007 at a time to be agreed.

The Panel agreed that a summary document should be produced to outline  the  findings  of  the  review.  It  was  noted  that  such  a document was now produced as a matter of course following all scrutiny reviews. In addition it was requested that a Waste recycling

and associated costs frequently asked questions paper should be drafted and uploaded to the Scrutiny website and disseminated to RD all schools and Parish Hall s.

On a related matter the Chairman advised that the Panel had been offered access and space on the Eco Active website. It was agreed that a newsletter type style with a link to the Scrutiny site may be an appropriate way forward and that the link could be located on the Eco Active Site.

The Panel agreed that follow up information in a simple format should provide the public with information relating to the potential savings in detail which could be achieved through recycling as opposed to incinerating. Details of shipping costs and such like must  be  made  available.  It  was  considered  essential  that  the information was provided in a clear and concise manner.

The  Panel  agreed  that  it  would  meet  with  the  Comité  des Connétable s to present its findings and to outline the real options with  regard  to  shipping  recyclables  and  the  potential  business opportunities such an approach could represent.

On a related matter the Panel noted the receipt of correspondence from M. Lamballais and agreed that the Chairman would follow up any necessary action.

The  Panel  requested  that  its  thanks  to  the  review  officer  be recorded for his efforts.

RD. KB. SC. PLC.

5. Vote of no confidence

Item 5

28/06/07 The Chairman thanked Panel members for their efforts in preparing

for the States debate.

The  Panel  agreed  that  it  would  discuss  its  responses  to  the comments  made  during  the  debate  of  P.85/2007  following  the

release of the States Hansard transcript and prepare a response to MR/CLQ the statements made during the debate at that point.

Of particular concern to the Panel were the comments relating to issues of retaining information.

RD. KB. SC. PLC.

6. Future reviews

Officers The Panel considered some areas which it may wish to scrutinize

and  requested  that  initial  information  be  sought  relating  to  the

following possible subjects -

1. Integrated Transport Policy -

The officers were directed to obtain a date when the policy would be available to the Panel for consideration.

2. Air Quality -

The Panel requested that information be sought to ascertain the type of air quality monitoring currently undertaken on the island and how that complied with standards in other jurisdictions.

3. Energy - Emissions from waste plant;

The Panel suggested that if the States opted for incineration as its waste treatment following its debate to be held on the subject then the issue of carbon emissions had been omitted. It was requested that  information  be  sought  on  the  emissions  from  the  current incinerator  and  the  projected  emissions  for  any  possible replacement option.

4. Recycling of inert waste;

The Panel requested that some information be sought in respect of the removal of inert waste to extend life for use in the recycling industry and the development of concrete products.

5. Tidal energy;

Information was to be sought in respect of the work undertaken to date  by Alderney  with regard  to  investigating  the  generation of power harnessing energy from the tidal flow.

6. Planning -Hopkins master plan;

The Panel would seek early sight of the art gallery and connecting road project.

7. Waterfront;

The  Panel  requested  information  on  the  proposed  future developments at the waterfront and the related costs.

8. EDAW Report -

The Planning Department report assessing the report should be requested for consideration.

9. Waste - Energy from waste next step

Confirmation  would  be  requested  on  the  work  to  date  on  the preparation  for  energy  from  waste  plant.  The  Panel  requested information on the planned ground works relating to the energy from waste plant.

10. Design of Homes -Follow up review

The Panel would consider further work on Design of Homes and planning issues subsequent to the completion of its current report.

The officers were requested to draft a time line and plan for future reviews subsequent to the completion of the Waste Review follow up work and the Design of Homes Report.

Signed Date: ..

Chairman Environment Panel