Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 13 June 2012

Present

Deputy T.A. Vallois, President Deputy S.G. Luce , Vice-President Senator S.C. Ferguson

Deputy J.M. Maçon

Deputy J.H. Young

Deputy K.L. Moore

Apologies

Deputy Power

Absent

Deputy S. Pitman, Connétable of Grouville , Connétable of St. Ouen

In attendance

Connétable of St. Brelade (item 3 onwards) Connétable of St. John (item 1 to mid 4) Connétable of St. Martin

Deputy Hilton

Deputy Reed

Deputy Rondel

Mrs. K. Tremellen-Frost, Scrutiny Manager Mr. W. Millow , Scrutiny Officer

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

07.02.12 Item5

513/32 517/18

1.  Ministerial  Responses  to  Scrutiny  Reports  SR1/2012  and SR2/2012 and

The  President,  having  congratulated  the  Corporate  Services  and Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panels on their Scrutiny Reports (SR1/2012: Population and Migration and SR2: Respite Care for Children and Young Adults respectively) also commented on the positive Ministerial Responses they had received. The meeting noted the importance of following up accepted recommendations in a timely manner.

30.05.12 Item 1

513/35

2. Medium Term Financial Plan [MTFP]

The meeting recalled its previous decision to scrutinise the MTFP in a standardised  format  by  each  Panel  holding  private  briefings  with respective Ministers and Departments prior to the lodging of the MTFP, preparing  brief  papers  to  forward  to  a  Sub-Panel  of  the  Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, on which a Member from each Panel would sit (not  necessarily  Chairmen)  and  this  Sub-Panel  would  undertake  a thorough review of all matters arising.

The Committee noted that Terms of Reference for each Panel had been drafted to provide some standardisation as had the Terms of Reference for the Corporate Services Sub-Panel. The Chairmen's Committee had received  these  and  they  had  been  circulated  to  Officers  for  Panel agendas.

The Committee, aware that the MTFP changed on a regular basis, considered at what point Panels would be able to rely on information contained within the plan. The fact that the previously stated date of 3rd July 2012 for lodging looked likely to slip was of concern as it had an impact on the work of all the Panels and of the Sub-Panel of the Corporate Services Sub-Panel.

If the lodging date were not until late July and Panels wished to hold public hearings then these hearings would have to take place during the summer recess. Experience had shown that holding Hearings during this time was impractical, mainly due to lack of accessibility to Ministers, Executive Officers and Scrutiny Members at the same time.

It was recognised that, in any event, it was important to establish the membership of the Corporate Services Sub-Panel and that this should be progressed with a Member (not necessarily the Chairman) from each Panel.

Given that the meeting was advised that the work of the Sub-Panel needed to be concluded by end October and that it would therefore need to hold hearings through the summer recess and that it would require the Panel papers in order to commence its work by the end of July, it would not be possible for Panels to hold any public Hearings.

It was agreed that at the next meeting between the President and the Chief  Minister,  the  concern  of  the  Scrutiny  Membership  should  be raised with a discussion about the possibility of a deferral of the debate given the deferral of the lodging date.

Consideration was given to the President asking a question of the Chief Minister in the States, however no decision was reached.

Consideration  was  also  given  as  to  the  rationale  of  the  Corporate Services Sub-Panel requiring one or more advisers and an explanation was provided.

The Connétable of St. John withdrew during this item

511/1(50)

3. Votes by Scrutiny Members on Scrutiny-related matters in the States Assembly

The meeting considered whether it would be beneficial for Scrutiny Members  to  vote  in  unison  on  Scrutiny-related  matters  which  were debated in the States Assembly. Members were cognisant of the fact that although they served on Scrutiny, they  were also apolitical on Scrutiny and that unified voting could appear to be forming a "party".

The  meeting  considered  the  particular  case  of  the  Tourism Development Fund (P.26/2012) which had been referred back to the Corporate  Services  Scrutiny  Panel.  The  meeting  recognised  how events  had  led  to  this  proposition  falling  between  two  Panels  and therefore concluded with a debate for a referral to Scrutiny. It was agreed that closer communication between Panels was important.

The  meeting  noted  Standing  Orders  72  and  79  which  related  to procedures that were available for Scrutiny to use as mechanisms in the States Assembly.

The Connétable of St. Brelade arrived at the end of this item.

22.05.12 Item 7

510/1(3)

4. Training: Questioning Skills

The meeting recalled that the Chairmen's Committee had previously agreed that Mrs K. Faragher of beSPokeskills should provide follow-up training in questioning skills later in the year. Noting that it was planned that this would be a more interactive session involving role-play the meeting fully supported this and requested that Chairing Skills should also be included.

The meeting was advised that H.M Attorney General had offered to provide training on questioning skills and it was agreed that this should be followed up.

On  a  non-related  Scrutiny  matter,  the  meeting  considered  the availability  of  training  for  Members  to  ask  questions  in  the  States Assembly. It was agreed that, as this was not a matter for Scrutiny, it would be referred to the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

KTF/ KM

510/1(45)

5. Information relevant to briefings and hearings by the Executive to be received at least 24hrs prior to the meeting

The  meeting  considered  a  number  of  situations  whereby  written information  from  the  Executive  had  been  made  available  during Scrutiny Hearings. The meeting agreed that this was not acceptable and that, in order for Panels and the PAC to be able to perform to the best  of  their  ability  they  required  all  written  documentation  at  least twenty-four hours in advance. It was noted that the existing Executive Guidelines which had been drawn up by the Executive would need to be amended which would require acceptance by the Executive.

KTF/ TV

510/1(45)

6. Effectiveness of Public Hearings

The meeting received a request from a Member that the Chairmen's Committee should consider the effectiveness of Scrutiny Hearings ie: whether  it  would  be  advisable  to  receive  written  documentation  in advance so that the Panels could better prepare questions based on that documentation. This was agreed.

KTF/ CC

510/1(45)

7. Scrutiny  Hearings:  moving  from  Public  to  Private  during  a Hearing

The  meeting,  having  considered  the  relevant  circumstances  and regulations in respect of the above, agreed that the President would remind the Chief Minister of the relevant Standing Orders and that moving  into  private  during  a  Hearing  was  at  the  discretion  of  the Panel/Committee not the witness.

It also agreed that the Chief Minister should be requested to advise Ministers of the above and also advise them that, should a Minister believe that it would be more appropriate for a hearing, or part thereof, to be held in private, the Minister should contact the Scrutiny Office at least 24 hours in advance to request this with the reasons why.

KTF/ TV

510/1(42)

8. Visual footage of Scrutiny Hearings

It was queried whether any decisions had been made in respect of members of the public taking visual footage at Scrutiny Hearings and was advised that this was a matter for the next Chairmen's Committee meeting when a final decision would be made.

CC