Education and Home Affairs - Approved Panel Minutes - 29 June 2011

Present

Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier, Chairman Deputy T. M. Pitman, Vice-Chairman Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy J. M. Macon

Apologies

In attendance

Deputy D. Wimberley, Sub Panel member Mr M. Haden, Scrutiny Officer

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

516/29(5) 14.06.11 Item 1

BDO Alto Report: Operation Rectangle: Review of Efficient and Effective Use of Resources

The Panel, with Deputy D. Wimberley in attendance as a member of the review Sub Panel, met to consider their response to the issues raised by BDO Alto and the Minister for Home Affairs in connection with  the  above  review.  Members  noted  that  a  meeting  of  the Chairmen's Committee had been convened for 30th June 2011 to consider  these  matters  and  it  was  agreed  to  prepare  a  detailed response.

Members  considered  briefing  notes  from  the  Scrutiny  Officer  and comments already circulated to members by the Chairman.

Members considered the questions raised about the ability of Deputies Pitman  and   Tadier  to  participate  in  the  Panel  proceedings  in  an impartial manner because of the remarks published by the Deputies respectively in P.116/2011 and a blog posting concerning the use of unpublished  material  from  the  BDO  Alto  review  in  a  national newspaper. Members rejected this suggestion. They maintained that members approach issues in Scrutiny with a range of views gathered from various sources, whether from the media, personal contacts or their own research. It would be impossible to find members without previous knowledge and views on issues under review. In participating in  Scrutiny  Reviews  members  routinely  commit  to  laying  aside preconceptions and looking at evidence in an objective fashion. The process  of  gathering  evidence  through  public  enquiries  and submissions is transparent. In addition Panel membership imposes its own  checks  and  balances  and  conclusions  can  be  tested  and challenged.

In response to the particular instances raised by BDO Alto it was pointed out that the two Deputies had not commented on how the information came to be used in the national press but made in the remarks in the context of (i) criticism of the Chief Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs' overall handling of the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police (ii) criticism of the accredited media for not taking up the matter.

Deputy Pitman informed the Panel that he had now reconsidered the offer  made  in  his  letter  to  the  Minister  dated  22nd  June  2011  to withdraw  the  relevant  paragraph  in  P.116/2011  in  which  he  had referred to the revelations about the premature release of the material from the BDO Alto review.

Members agreed that the issue of the leaking of material to the Mail on Sunday was a discrete matter which will be considered on its merits and accepted that the Deputies were committed to considering the evidence which will be presented in the course of the review before reaching a conclusion about the implications.

Members also rejected the suggestion that their terms of reference for the review had been unduly influenced by the authors of the blogs which had initially raised the concerns whether the BDO Alto report was  fair,  accurate  and  independent. They  were  confident that  the terms of reference were phrased objectively. Nevertheless, it was agreed that a preliminary meeting should be offered to BDO Alto to discuss  their  concerns  prior  to  proceeding  with  the  review  and consider whether any revision was necessary.

Members accepted the points raised by BDO Alto in connexion with the title of the review and agreed to change this to Issues surrounding the  BDO  Alto  Review  of  Financial  Management  of  Operation Rectangle'.

Members  noted  that  BDO  Alto  had  provided  information  which addressed the concerns outlined in the Sub Panel's letter of invitation to BDO Alto to attend a public hearing. Nevertheless, this explanation did not pre-empt further enquiries through a face to face meeting with BDO Alto.

Members  noted  that  BDO  Alto  had  requested  that  their  evidence should be heard in camera' and their written submission provided under  a  confidentiality  agreement  because  their  evidence  would necessarily  involve  discussion  of  matters  of  a  highly  confidential nature regarding the a child abuse investigation and the names of persons involved in the investigation. Members however were mindful that in camera' hearings were used only sparingly in Scrutiny where it could  be  shown  that  there  was  a  need  to  preserve  identities  or confidential  information.  Members  did  not  believe  that  a  blanket agreement for confidentiality should apply to all the evidence provided by BDO Alto but agreed to consider receiving specific information on a confidential basis if necessary. Members would then be in a position to consider whether any confidential matters might require to be followed up in an in camera' session.

Finally members noted that BDO Alto had requested that the date for a hearing be deferred until the end of July. Members however recalled the very heavy States programme over the next few weeks and leave commitments which they had already made following the final States session  in  the  week  commencing  18th  July.  Members  were  very reluctant therefore to accede to BDO Alto's request to defer hearings until the end of the month.

The Scrutiny Officer was requested to prepare a draft letter to the

MH

President of the Chairmen's Committee based on the briefing notes and the above discussion.