Corporate Services - Approved Panel Minutes - 23 July 2014

Present

Senator S.C. Ferguson, Chairman Deputy J.G. Reed, Vice-Chairman Connétable D.W. Mezbourian Deputy R.J. Rondel

Apologies

Deputy T.A. Vallois [Co-opted for Item 1 under Standing Order 138(5A)]

Absent

In attendance

Mr. W. Millow , Scrutiny Officer

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel approved the records of its meetings held on 17th, 20th, 25th, 26th and 30th June and 2nd, 9th and 10th July 2014, as well as the private records of the meetings held on 26th June and 10th July 2014. The records were signed accordingly.

25/06/14 Item 2

513/36

2. Population and Migration

The  Panel  recalled  that  it  had  received  advice  from  the  Chief Statistician in respect of when Jersey's Labour Market 2013 report and Jersey's Resident Population 2013 Report would be published. It was noted that information on the granting and removal of licences and on the post-implementation review of the  Control of Housing and Work (Jersey)  Law  2012  was  still  awaited  from  the  Chief  Minister's Department, notwithstanding that the request had been followed up by the Scrutiny Office.

26/06/14 Item 1

513/1(40)

3. Fiscal Policy Panel

The Panel, recalling the meeting it had held with the Fiscal Policy Panel (FPP) on 26th June 2014, agreed to request confirmation from the FPP of what improvements, if any, in the collection and presentation of data the FPP would like to see.

The Panel noted that the FPP would publish its 2014 annual report on 24th July 2014, on which date a presentation would be provided for all States Members.

WM

10/07/14 Item 2

513/42

4. Public Sector Pensions

The  Panel  noted  that  Regulations  arising  from  the  Draft  Public Employees (Pensions) (Jersey) Law 201- were unlikely to be ready to be lodged in time for the Panel to review the Regulations before the elections in October 2014. Consideration was given to what work, if any, the Panel could feasibly undertake. It was agreed to request that the Panel's expert advisor be asked to complete a short report to act as an end point for the Panel's work and to provide a basis on which the Panel's successor could undertake work on the Regulations. It was also  agreed  to  request  an  update  from  the  Public  Employees

WM WM

Contributory Retirement Scheme (PECRS) Committee of Management and the Joint Negotiating Group on their positions in respect of the Regulations.

09/07/14 Item 1

513/43

5. Draft Charities Law

The Panel noted that its report on Draft Charities (Jersey) Law 201- (P.108/2014) had been presented to the States on 11th July 2014, after which the Assembly had debated and approved the draft Law on 18th July 2014. It was further noted that the Ministerial Response to the report was due to be presented on 22nd August 2014. Consideration was  given  more  generally  to  the  situations  which  arose  in  which Ministerial Responses to Scrutiny Reports were presented to the States after the relevant debate (to which the relevant Report referred) had been completed. Noting that this was undesirable, the Panel agreed to advise the Chairmen's Committee of its concerns in this regard.

WM

511/1(46)

6. Legacy Report

Consideration  was  given  to  a  draft  legacy  report  for  the  Panel's successor. The following amendments were agreed:

1. Further efforts should be made to ensure that a proper indication of departmental work programmes was provided by Ministers, with the general principle underlying this measure that there should be no surprises.'
2. The Panel's successors should take a tough line in instances when a meeting with a Minister had been arranged for some time but was then postponed or cancelled at the last minute.
3. With the transfer of responsibility for financial services from the Minister for Economic Development to the Chief Minister, it was anticipated that responsibility for Scrutiny of that area would shift to the Panel's successors (rather than the successor Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel).
4. It should be underlined that the modes of cross-Panel working which had been used during the review of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) had been successful and underlined for use again for such reviews in the future.
5. The Panel's successors should be made aware of imminent work to be undertaken by the Executive on the development of a long-term vision and a population policy.
6. Consideration should be given to the appointment of advisors for reviews that took into account whether a fresh approach would be beneficial.
7. Questioning training would be beneficial, with follow-up training to be provided.
8. Potential review topics for the Panel's successors included Andium Homes  and  its  use  of  monies  loaned  by  the  States;  and  Fort Regent.
9. Informal meetings with the FPP should be held more regularly, if possible, to ensure a good working relationship was established with the FPP. In that regard, the Panel agreed to ask the FPP whether there were any changes which the FPP wished itself to make to the series of meetings between the Panel and the FPP.

The  Panel  agreed  the  legacy  report,  subject  to  the  amendments identified. It was further agreed that the Chairman would oversee any final amendments required and the dispatch of the legacy report to the Chairmen's Committee. In that latter regard, the Panel was advised

WM

that legacy reports would be provided to the Committee for its meeting on 28th August 2014, after which the legacy reports of all Panels would be consolidated into one document and presented to the States.

7. Future Meetings

The Panel noted that its next scheduled meeting would take place on 3rd September 2014.

513/1(41)

8. Extradition Law

The Panel noted receipt of correspondence from the Chief Minister in respect of proposed amendments to the Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004. It was further noted that the Chief Minister had asked whether the Panel would like to review the proposed amendments or whether it would be content to receive a briefing on them. It was also noted that the Chief Minister  had  asked  for  the  Panel's  view  on  whether  the  proposed amendments  should  be  lodged  for  debate  in  September  2014  or whether, in light of the impending elections, lodging should take place once the elections had been completed.

The Panel agreed that there was insufficient time for it to undertake a review of the proposed amendments. It was nevertheless agreed that the  proposed  amendments  should  be  subjected  to  review,  albeit  it would be for the Panel's successors to do. Noting that the implication of this agreement was that it would be preferable for the proposed amendments to be lodged once the elections had taken place, it was agreed to advise the Chief Minister accordingly.

WM

10/07/14 Item 1

513/44

9. Draft 2015 Budget

The Panel, recalling the advice and information it had received during its public hearing with the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 18th July 2014, considered lines of enquiry for its review of the Draft 2015 Budget. It was agreed to contact JT, the Jersey New Waterworks Company and Jersey Post  to request their views on the proposals contained  in  the  Budget.   It  was  also  agreed  to  request  a  written submission from the Managing Director of The Mortgage Shop, given comments he had been reported to have made in the Jersey Evening Post.

Consideration was given to the various parts of the proposition of the Draft Budget. It was agreed that the Panel's expert advisors would be requested to consider the financial forecasts used to develop the Draft Budget  and  how  they  compared  to  the  forecasts  used  in  the development of earlier Budgets. It was subsequently agreed that the Panel's review would also consider the following questions:

1. What rules were currently in place in respect of the use of various funds from which the Draft Budget proposed to make transfers to the Consolidated Fund?
2. What use was due to be made of £250 million which the States had borrowed for the Housing Project?
3. What had happened in relation to an investment of the Currency Fund  which  had  previously  been  made  to  the  States  of  Jersey Development Company (SoJDC)?
4. How much previously allocated capital expenditure had in fact been spent?
5. How  did  the  provisions  of  the  proposition  compare to  what  the States had previously agreed in earlier Budgets?

WM WM

WM

6. What changes to the use of the Strategic Reserve would be made if the Draft Budget were adopted?
7. How  certain  was  it  that  Part  (k)  of  the  proposition  could  be delivered?

Consideration was given to whether, procedurally speaking, Parts (i) and (j) of the proposition needed to be debated in September 2014 and it was agreed that advice on this matter would be beneficial.

The Panel considered the timetable for the review. It was noted that it would be challenging to realize the anticipated timetable, whereby the Panel's  report  would  be  presented  at  least  two  weeks  before  the beginning of the debate on the Draft Budget. It was nevertheless agreed to aim to keep to that timetable. It was noted that responsibility for developing the main body of the Panel's report could in due course be delegated to the Chairman and those Panel Members who would be available at the end of August 2014.

Consideration was given to a draft question plan for the Panel's public hearing with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce on 24th July 2014. Amendments  to  the  question  plan  were  agreed,  which  the Scrutiny Officer was requested to enact.

It was noted during the Panel's discussions that both the Chairman and Deputy R.J. Rondel held shares in Jersey Water.

WM

WM