Chairmen's Committee - Approved Committee Minutes - 20 February 2013

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

Connétable of St. Brelade

Absent

Connétable of Grouville , Connétable of St. Ouen , Deputy G. Baudains

In attendance

Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Martin

Deputy S. Power

Deputy J. Hilton

Deputy J. Reed (items 1-3 only) Deputy M. Tadier

Deputy R. Rondel (items1-3 only)

Mrs. K. Tremellen-Frost, Scrutiny Manager

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

510/1(15)

1.  Budgeting procedures

The  meeting  considered  the  existing  budgeting  procedures  of  the Scrutiny budget as opposed to how the budget was managed during the first three years of Ministerial Government.

It was noted that the Scrutiny budget was held under that of the States Assembly and its Services under the political control of the Privileges and Procedures Committee and the Accounting Officer for that budget was the Greffier of the States who was personally accountable for the proper financial management of such resources. The budget allocated to the Scrutiny function was the political responsibility of the Chairmen's Committee under Standing Order 143(b).

The meeting was apprised that the budget allocated to Scrutiny was, in the main, for the engagement of Advisers to provide technical support for Panel reviews. During the first three years the overall budget had been divided between the five Scrutiny Panels with a small amount being allocated to the Public Accounts  Committee. That Committee generally relied on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General and it was not anticipated that an additional amount for expenditure on Advisers would be required.

The Committee also noted that during 2008, the Accounting Officer had expressed concerns about the management of the budget under the aforementioned arrangement given  that the political responsibility  to oversee the budget allocated to Scrutiny was that of the Chairmen's

Committee. The  division  of the  budget  amongst  Panels  had  led  to uncertainty over political responsibility and accountability for spending decisions. In light of these concerns a proposal was put to the then Chairmen's Committee that the budget should be centralized so that the Committee was able to ensure that it could fulfil its terms of reference in a meaningful way. It was stressed that this would not detract from the autonomy of Panels to set their own work programmes. The proposal to centralize the budget was commended by the former Comptroller and Auditor General.

Accordingly  the  then  Chairmen's  Committee  agreed  to  move  to  a centralized budgeting system.

As an aside, the meeting considered the use of the Scrutiny budget for additional resource support in terms of a dedicated research officer such as an undergraduate. Consideration ensued as to the benefit of Advisers  as  opposed  to  research  officers  in  terms  of  the  technical support the former could provide given also that this was the designated purpose of the Scrutiny budget. It was noted that Advisers frequently had a large organisation behind them to provide additional expertise.

A belief was expressed that an independent research officer would be able  to  access  information  within  Departments  with  ease,  however, there was a counter-argument that a research officer would have no more success at this than would a Scrutiny Officer.

On a related theme of access to Executive information, consideration was  also  given  to  the  fact  that  the  Departmental  Scrutiny  Liaison Officers had other job roles to fulfil which meant that they were not always able to action requests from Scrutiny immediately. This could lead to delays in the information being forthcoming to Scrutiny.

The meeting noted that since 2006 the Scrutiny budget had had large yearly underspends and that had occurred again in 2012. This was due in the main to the fact that Panels over the years either had undertaken a minimum amount of work or had not engaged technical support in the form of Advisers.

The meeting considered that there had originally been two Scrutiny Officers  allocated  per  Scrutiny  Panel,  however,  Panels  had  not generated sufficient work to justify the retention of that number of staff and  there  had  been  a  reduction  of  two  Scrutiny  Officers  for Comprehensive  Spending  Review  cuts.  In  terms  of  the  need  for additional resources at this time, the meeting was advised that there was currently no identification of this need. Furthermore, the Committee was advised that there was a requirement for the Scrutiny budget to be utilized  on  Scrutiny  matters  only  ie:  review  work  and  not  on commissioning work outside the remit of Scrutiny reviews.

510/1(45)

2.  Meetings of Scrutiny Panels and Public Accounts Committee in public or private

The meeting considered whether there had been too much of a move to holding  meetings  in  private  when  there  was  no  real  justification  to holding  them  in  private.  It  also  considered  whether  it  should  hold meetings under Part A and Part B agendas in accordance with the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information.

It was considered whether opening some current private meetings to the public would give more exposure to the media and thereby raise the profile of Scrutiny.

Previous practices were noted and determined to have led to confusion for all concerned, including the public. It was noted that at the start of this term of office all Scrutiny Members had agreed a standardised and co-ordinated  approach.  Meeting  usually  involved  matters  such  as preparation for reviews, hearings, briefings, reports etc and these would be held in private where Members could speak frankly and freely about all issues and confidential material could be considered. All hearings where evidence was sought and Ministers were held to account were held in public, unless confidential and/or sensitive information was to be discussed.

It  was  also  agreed  that  private  briefings  from  Ministers  and Departmental Officers pre-review were beneficial in terms of providing background information. However, once a review was established and thereafter, Hearings should all be in public.

As an aside, it was reinforced that Scrutiny was evidence-based and that it was essential to avoid driving Scrutiny forward through political agendas.

510/1(59)

3.  Panel working practices

The meeting considered the following three main areas:

1. The possibility of pooling Scrutiny Members to act as a sounding board for Review Panels and/or Sub-Panels;
2. The possibility of Members moving from one Panel to another;
3. Inclusion of other Members on Scrutiny Reviews.

In respect of item 1 above, the issue of confidentiality arose whereby a Panel or Sub-Panel had received information in confidence and this could not be discussed with others. This would act as an impediment to the purpose of the "sounding board"

In respect of item 2, it was noted that this needed to be done formally through the States Assembly in accordance with Standing Orders and there was no provision for Panel Members to switch Panels informally.

On  consideration  of  item  3  it  was  noted  that  there  were  very  few Members who had not been active on Scrutiny Sub-Panels or co-opted to a Panel during this term of office. The meeting was advised that the mechanisms  were  already  in  place  to  encourage  non-Executive Members who did not serve on Scrutiny Panels to sit on Sub-Panels or to be co-opted to a Panel without the need for enquiring about Members individual  interests.  It  was  also  noted  that  a  small  group  of  non- Executive Members had made a conscious deliberate decision not to serve on Scrutiny during this term of office.

It  was  agreed  that  such  matters  could  be  the  topic  for  the  away- morning.

510/1(47)

4.  Away-morning/afternoon

The meeting considered whether there was a desire and/or need for a block of time to be set aside for all Scrutiny Members and other non- Executive Members to discuss a range of matters. This would provide more time rather than to compress important matters into a short space of time.

The meeting noted that not everyone was in favour of an away-morning as it was felt that there was so much Scrutiny work underway that it would be more beneficial to be undertaking that.

It was agreed that this should be further discussed by the Chairmen's Committee which would need to agree to timings, venue and format.

510/1(59)

5.  Elections to States Assembly of Scrutiny Members

It was suggested that at the away-morning a topic for discussion could be whether Scrutiny Chairmen should be permitted to select their own Membership of Panels without it being agreed by the States, much in the same way as Assistant Ministers are appointed.