Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 28 March 2008

Present

Deputy S C Ferguson, President

Deputy R G Le Hérissier, Vice-President [after item 1] Deputy R C Duhamel

Deputy A. Breckon

Deputy G P Southern [after item1]

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian

Deputy J G Reed [items 1 -mid item 5]

Apologies

Deputy P J D Ryan

Absent

In attendance

Mrs K. Tremellen-Frost, Scrutiny Manager

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1. Minutes

The Minutes of 22nd February 2008 [Parts A and B], subsequent to some  typographical  amendments,  were  agreed  and  signed accordingly.

2. Panel work programmes

All Panel  work programmes had been completed, centralised and forwarded to the Executive and to respective Ministers.

3. PAC staffing

The Committee was advised by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that there was a 0.5FTE post available within the States Greffe and that use of this for a support officer for the PAC was being progressed through the Deputy Greffier of the States.

DGoS

4. Scrutiny Budget 2009

The  Committee  approved  a  paper,  subject  to  some  minor amendments, seeking to maintain the existing budget in 2009 based on developing scrutiny practices. It was agreed that the paper, as amended,  would  be  forwarded  to  the  Privileges  and  Procedures Committee.

KTF

5. Panel Reports

The Committee noted the Panel reports and the following additional information: -

1. Corporate Services

The Committee noted a set of possible questions to assist Panels in their  scrutiny  of  Departmental  Business  Plans.  These  would  be forwarded to all Panels through panel agendas.

2. Economic Affairs

Employment and Training Opportunities review - the first report would

Success of public meetings - in answer to a question as to how the success  had  been  measured,  the  Chairman  explained  that  the numbers attending had been good and that members of the public had been willing to speak. It was noted that the people in attendance had not been asked for their views on the meetings.

Complaint from member of the public - this related to a planning issue

and the Chairman explained that it was not within the scrutiny remit to investigate individual applications and would, consequently be looking into  policy  issues.  This  would  follow  the  report  on  the  particular application which was currently being prepared by Deputy Power.

BDO Alto forensic services - this group was still awaiting a document from the Minister of Transport and Technical Services in respect of a

cost  benefit  analysis  towards  the  tendering  process  for  a  new incinerator which that Minister was requested to undertake by the States. It was noted that it was not possible to fully scrutinise a matter without the base information.

Bovine Semen Importation Order - it was noted that the Panel would be considering reviewing this but would find it difficult to do so if access to the legal advice provided to the Minister was not made available.

(e)  Health, Social Security and Housing

Telephone  Mast  Review  responses  -  Economic  Development  and

SF

(f)  Public Accounts Committee

Jersey Enterprise Board - The PAC amendment to this was currently with H.M Attorney General and the amendment might be superseded by the Corporate Services' scrutiny report. The Committee considered the fact that H.M Attorney General had given advice to Bedell and Cristin which had been passed to the PAC. Following a request by a Committee  Member  to  have  access  to  that  legal  advice  under confidential cover, the Chairman agreed to check the status under which she had been sent it and take the necessary action.

6. Code of Practice: legal advice.

A number of issues had arisen relating to scrutiny's access, or lack of access to legal advice provided by the Law Officers Department to Ministers. Concerns were expressed that it was not possible for non- Executive  Members  in  their  capacity  as  legislators  in  the  States Assembly to vote in a properly prepared fashion to adopt legislation without all the information relating to the preparation of that legislation being made available. The Bovine Semen Importation Regulations and Civil Aviation Order were given as examples. It was agreed that a review of the States' decision to adopt the amendment of the Council of Ministers would be considered at the next meeting.

7. States Annual Business Plan.

The Committee considered its co-ordinating role and agreed that it was  important  to  have  a  united  approach  to  the  co-ordination  of Panel's  scrutiny  of  the  States  Annual  Business  Plan.  It  also considered the rôle of the Corporate Services Finance Sub-Panel and, whilst agreeing that the co-ordinating rôle fell within the remit of the Chairmen's  Committee,  agreed  that  a  meeting  between  the  two groups should be held on Friday 4th April with the Sub-Panel's adviser in attendance if possible in order to clarify responsibilities.

It also agreed that finalisation of a scrutiny response by 8th May 2008

might be premature although it would work towards that date. It also agreed  that  it  would  not  be  appropriate  for  scrutiny  to  give  a presentation to the Council of Ministers and other States Members.

8. Scrutiny successes

A report on the above was received and noted. It was suggested that information from this report and the paper in respect of the 2009 budget would be appropriate to include in the forthcoming newsletter. Noting  that  there  were  matters  to  consider,  namely  the recommendation  in  the  internal  working  practices  report  that  the Chairmen's Committee should provide "a high level of direction to all involved in scrutiny" and that there was the absence of one Panel's paper on status of recommendations made in reports, it was agreed to reconsider the matter at its next meeting.

KTF

9. Newsletter

The  Committee  noted  that,  despite  the  lack  of  support  by  the Chairman of the Environment Panel, that that Panel had agreed to contribute. It was also noted that the newsletter would need to be signed off by 25th April for circulation the week beginning 19th May.

10. Machinery of Government Reforms Report

The Committee considered Panel responses to Recommendation 19 and 20 of the above report and noted that the Economic Affairs and Health, Social Security and Housing Panels had initially decided not to provide any comments due to their views that the MOGR report itself was not worthy of any consideration. However, the Economic Affairs Panel had very recently discussed the Recommendations since the circulation of the Chairmen's Committee agenda and perceived that in respect  of  Recommendation  19,  Sub-Panels  required  the  right  to present reports in their own name. Its view was that it was the Sub- Panel which had undertaken the work and was aware of the subject not the main Panel and that subsequent involvement by Members who had not been involved in the Sub-Panel's work was inappropriate. It did not support Recommendation 20, however.

The Committee considered the option and benefits or otherwise of minority reports, however, agreed that the Committee summary report be  revised  to  incorporate  the  views  of  the  Economic  Affairs  and Health, Social Security and Housing Panels, the Chairman of the latter having agreed to discuss the matter with the Panel.

It was agreed that once the comments from all Panels had been received, that a draft amendment to the Standing Orders in respect of Sub-Panels should be prepared.

HSSHSP

11. Powers of Panels to co-opt Members

The  Committee  received  a  report  based  on  a  number  of  Panel Chairmen  wishing  to  co-opt  other  Members  onto  full  Panels  for specific reviews and not having the possibility of doing so within the confines of Standing Orders. It was accepted that the purpose of co- option was to permit a Member to work on one specific review and would  not  involve  attendance  of  that  Member  at  other  meetings including  general  administrative  Panel  meetings.  The  Committee agreed that there would not be a problem co-opting members onto a

Panel who had previously been rejected by the States as a Member of that Panel.

The alternative approach that a Member with knowledge or specialism could be invited to give evidence to a Panel was explored, however it was agreed that that did not allow that Member to ask questions of other witnesses which was advantageous.

It was agreed that a draft amendment to Standing Orders be prepared to permit the powers of co-option to main Panels.

Deputy  Duhamel  requested that  his  dissent from  this  decision  be recorded.

KTF

12. Scrutiny of possible violations of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

The Committee welcomed Deputy Hill to the meeting. The Deputy asserted that scrutiny of this area had been overlooked and he was exploring ways to cover this area. A number of possibilities were considered -:

1. Each  Scrutiny  Panel  takes  on responsibility  for  scrutinising every HR statement;

2. A  separate  Scrutiny  Panel  is  formed  to take  particular responsibility for this;

3. An amendment be brought to Article 16 of the Human Rights Law  (statement  of  compatibility)  to require  a  full  impact assessment on the HR implications with the reasoning behind the statement.

It  was  noted  that  the   Deputy  had  discussed  the  matter  with  the Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  and  that  Committee  had accepted that there was a vacuum. The Committee reiterated the view that when laws and policies were based on legal advice, they could not be efficiently scrutinised due to lack of access to that advice.

It was also noted that the Deputy would be visiting the Joint Select Committee  at  Westminster  shortly  and  he  agreed  to  advise  the Committee of any information gathered. Consideration was given to a combination  of  the  above  options:  to  amend  Article  16  and  give responsibility to each Panel for examining all Human Rights issues.

Deputy Hill withdrew from the meeting and the Committee agreed that if the final decision were to amend Article 16 this would be within the remit of the PPC.