This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
Public Accounts Committee
Record of Meeting
Date: 22nd February 2013
Meeting No: 23
Present | Deputy T. Vallois, Chairman Senator S. C. Ferguson, Deputy R. Rondel Deputy G. Baudains Mr J Mills |
Apologies | Mr I. Ridgway |
In attendance | Mr M. Robbins, Officer to Public Accounts Committee |
Ref Back | Agenda matter | Action |
Item 8 04.02.13 | 1. Grants and Subsidies Review The Committee welcomed the Director of Enterprise and Business Development, the Strategic Policy Manager, the Management Accountant Officer and the Departmental Scrutiny Liaison Officer from the Economic Development Department to a private briefing to explain how the system of grants worked. The Chief Officer from Economic Development joined the meeting later. The Committee received a folder containing documentary information outlining the different grant systems used by the Department. |
|
Item 1 11.02.13 | 2. Canbedone Productions Limited Grant The Committee discussed an anonymous letter received in relation to Canbedone. The Committee recalled the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee which stated: "9.16: Anonymous Submissions will not be considered." Whilst the information within the letter was compelling, the Committee noted the advice of the officer to follow the Code of Practice. It recognised that it had met its terms of reference and whilst the enquiries suggested within the document may offer corroboration, the lines of enquiry suggested added nothing new. It was not agreed that this may be suitable to forward to the Comptroller and Auditor General as a whistleblowing matter and that individual Departmental Officers offering Scrutiny information had guidelines previously agreed between the Scrutiny function and the Council of Ministers. The letter may have come from outside the States organisation. |
|
| It was accepted that the report needed to be published as soon as possible. The area of an application to the Tourism Development Fund had been the subject of a question on the question plan for the public hearing with the Economic Development Department Officers, which had been overlooked during the hearing. It would be appropriate to consider that area. The officer was to write to the Chairman of the Tourism Development Fund and establish if there had been any approach to the fund by or on behalf of Canbedone. If so, copies of the minutes or notes were to be obtained. | MR |