Environment - Approved Panel Minutes - 26 June 2008

Present

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Chairman) (RD) Connétable A. S. Crowcroft (SC) Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en (CSW) Deputy P. V. F. Le Claire (PLC)

Apologies

Connétable K. A. Le Brun of St Mary

Absent

In attendance

Mr M. Robbins, Scrutiny Officer Mr M. Dransfield, Scrutiny Officer

Ref Back

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Minutes

The  Panel  approved  the  minutes  of  17th  March  2008  (74a)  and amended and approved for signing the minutes of the meeting of 22nd May 2008 (78) The Panel agreed amendments to minutes of 20th March 2005 (75) and 28th March 2008 (75a). They were to be signed by the Chairman on completion of those amendments.

RD. SC. CSW. PLC.

MR / RD

2. Matters Arising

The Panel recognised that it was not able to deal with all items on the agenda and deferred all items besides the two current reviews to the following meeting. It was believed that the briefing from Deputy Le Claire  in  relation  to  the  Transdev  visit,  which  formed  part  of  the background  enquiries  to  the  impending  Integrated  Traffic  and Transport Plan Review could not be done justice to, with the time available to the Panel. In view of that, the Panel considered comments made by the Chairman's Committee during its meeting of 20th June 2008, at which the Vice-Chairman had been present in place of the Chairman who had been off-Island. The Panel considered the meeting briefing notes, in respect of the visit to be inappropriate.

RD. SC. CSW. PLC.

MR PLC

3. Waste Review

The Panel received an oral update by the Chairman relating to a European Union decision of the 17th June 2008 relating to Energy

From  Waste  (EfW)  Plants  which  were  required  to  produce  an efficiency output of more than or equal to 65%. Of France's 85 EfW plants only 7 met the criteria. Importantly for Jersey, the Minister of

Transport and Technical Services had brought the favoured option to the  States  in  Proposition  P.72/2008,  Energy  from  Waste  Facility: Establishment  and  acceptance  of  Tender.'  According  to  the specification, the proposed EfW Plant was classed as being 27% efficient,  thus  failed  to  meet  new  European  Union  criteria.  The Chairman agreed to circulate documents confirming his update to the Panel  and  to  hold  a  press  conference  relating  to  the  European Directive on Monday 30th June 2008.

The  Chairman  also  referred  to  letters  from  Tesco  Supermarket relating to anaerobic digestion policies to British Standards Institute PAS110  and  a  second  from  Sierra.  The  Panel  required  copies circulated in order that the Panel could discuss the content at a future meeting. The Chairman undertook to do this.

Consideration was given to R43/2008, Environment Scrutiny Panel; Independent Review – Planned Infrastructure for Implementing the Island's Waste Strategy- Response of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services'. The Panel recalled that on 17th June 2008 a statement was made to the States by the Chairman in response to that Minister outlining the problems of Juniper not being available to assist with any further work until the middle of July 2008. The Panel expressed  severe  frustration  with  delays  from  Transport  and Technical Services in producing information requested, and that it had prevented  the  Panel's  appointed  advisors  from  reviewing  the proposition.

The Panel agreed that the Chairman was to draft a comment within the following  three  days  to  meet  the  submission  deadline  for the debate of P.72/2008.

The Panel noted receipt of the States of Jersey Solid Waste Strategy Technology Review 2008' Babtie Fichtner report.

Examination of the final costs of the review exhibition, held at the Town Hall of £6554.76 showed it to be within the £7344.70 budget agreed for the event.

An additional fee of £2996.78 was approved for Junipers attendance at the event.

RD. SC. CSW. PLC.

RD

RD

4. Letter from Chairmen's Committee.

The Panel considered a letter from the President of the Chairman's Committee dated 23rd June 2008 addressed to the Panel Chairman

and welcomed Mr M. De la Haye, Greffier of the States of Jersey who attended to assist the Panel in the matter in his capacity of Accounting Officer.

It was apparent that the Chairmen's Committee was not supportive of the  visit  by  the  Connètables  to  the  Material  Recycling  Facility  in Cardiff considering it to be a political means of increasing awareness of a group of Members prior to a political debate. The Committee further considered it inappropriate for scrutiny to finance such a visit as it was not felt to be within its rôle or purpose. It also felt that such

use of funds could bring scrutiny into disrepute.

The  Greffier  of  the  States  advised  the  Panel  that  it  was  vital  to demonstrate that any moneys spent were strictly for the purpose of Scrutiny business. The Chairman questioned whether he had actually offered to pay for the Connétable s expenses at the meeting of the Comité de Connétable s and required copies of the minutes covering that meeting circulated to Panel Members. The Panel was of the opinion that taking the Connétable s to a plant in the United Kingdom was not lobbying but full disclosure of the facts of the scrutiny position and was therefore within the Scrutiny remit. The Greffier asserted that, although he had not originally reached any definite conclusion, he did not necessarily share this view and it was for this reason that he had asked for a political viewpoint which he had now received very clearly from the Chairmen's Committee. He accepted that the question of What is Scrutiny?', which had been raised in the recent Machinery of Government review, remained largely unresolved and this made some decisions for him as Accounting Officer difficult.

The Panel felt that it was inappropriate that the Ministers, for example, could publicise matters in the press, yet there had been great restraint placed upon Scrutiny. The Panel maintained that the Waste Plant review was ongoing. There had been no report published and no member of the Panel had signed anything off to say the review was completed. The Panel noted that despite their best intentions, there had been no time available to do the necessary work from the lodging of P.72/2008 to the debate. This issue was complex and obtaining background papers from the department had been time consuming and  eroded  time  available  to  the  Panel.  Both  BDO  Alto  Forensic Services Limited and Juniper Consultancy Services Limited, as Panel advisors,  had  insufficient  time  to  answer  the  many  questions outstanding due to the delays. The involvement of the Chairmen's Committee  was  particularly  frustrating  at  a  crucial  juncture  in  the Waste Plant review.

Particular concerns were expressed by the Panel with the level of monitoring the Chairmen's Committee appeared to be undertaking with  regard  to  Panel  expenditure  for  ongoing  reviews  and  it questioned the basis for the suggested curtailing of spend. The Panel was  of  the  opinion  that  Standing  Orders  of  the  States  of  Jersey provided it with autonomy to allocate its own financial resources and that no clear guidance within Standing Orders of the States of Jersey or the Code of Conduct for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee provided the Chairmen's Committee with any power of veto.

The Panel concluded that the problems for the Chairmen's Committee arose from the debates in the States and the legislation put in place at the inception of Scrutiny. The result of the debate provided no clearly understandable  provision  for  individual  Panel  funding  or  the overarching  role  of  Scrutiny.  The  Panel  recognized  that  during  a States debate, the Bailiff asked the Chairman of individual Panels if it wished to undertake a piece of work and not the President of the Chairmen's Committee. The Panel therefore concluded that, in its view, there was no power for the Chairmen's Committee to control the work of the Panel other than to co-ordinate for the prevention of

duplication. It further agreed that political intervention on the clarity of this matter was required. The Panel agreed that a meeting with the Chairmen's Committee after the Waste Debate, to discuss the terms of reference for Scrutiny Panels contained within Standing Orders of the States of Jersey and the Code of Conduct for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee was desirable.

RD. SC. CSW. PLC.

5. Fisheries

The  Panel  agreed  that  100  metre  fishing  nets  were  an  item  of commercial fishing equipment and not suitable for the purpose of leisure fishing.

The Panel agreed that an online internet log to the Fisheries and Marine Resources Department could work effectively in assisting with active  enforcement  of  the  Fisheries  Laws.  It  would  assist  in  the monitoring of the use of nets and allow the Department officers to be aware of when nets were set.

The  Panel recognised that  it  had  various  observations  during  the review that required publishing, with the overarching suggestion that a much larger piece of legislation was essential. The Panel required the drafting of comments for presentation to the States on 1st July 2008, which would outline its observations. A full scrutiny report would not be published.

RD. CSW. PLC.

MR