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.
Review Panel – Care of Children in Jersey
Record of Meeting
Date: 29th November 2017
Present | Deputy S.Y. Mézec , Chairman Deputy T.A. Vallois, Vice-Chairman |
Apologies | Senator S.C Ferguson Deputy J.A. Hilton |
Absent |
|
In attendance | Senator I. Gorst , Chief Minister Mr. A. Heaven, Director, Children's Policy, Community and Constitutional Affairs Miss S. McKee , Scrutiny Officer |
Ref Back | Agenda matter | Action |
511/2/3 | 1. Meeting with Chief Minister The Review Panel received the Chief Minister for a meeting to discuss P.108/2017 (Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Report: Implementation of Recommendations), which was due to be debated in the States Assembly on 12th December. The Panel raised concerns with the Chief Minister with regard to the rationale behind the Proposition and the request for approval from the States Assembly to undertake the work outlined in the Report. It was noted that the Proposition asked the States to decide whether they were of the opinion: "to endorse the Council of Ministers' response to the Final Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017) to request the Chief Minister to ensure that the actions in relation to each of the 8 recommendations are implemented as proposed in the response". The Panel advised that it did not consider it necessary for the Chief Minister to request approval from the States to implement the recommendations proposed in the response to the final report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. It was noted that the Chief Minister had already begun work on a number of action points contained within the Report without first seeking approval from the Assembly. The Panel also raised its concern that the Proposition would not allow States Members the opportunity to vote against individual action points in the report. Members would have to vote for the entire report or vote against the Proposition, which could be perceived as voting against the principle of adopting the recommendations of the Care Inquiry. The Panel suggested that the Chief Minister should instead lodge the Proposition as a Report and hold an in-committee debate with States Members on the actions contained within. The Panel was of the opinion that an in-committee debate would allow Members to be more honest |
|
| and open without having to essentially approve an entire action plan at one sitting. The Chief Minister supported the Panel's suggestion and the reasons behind it and agreed to liaise with the States Greffe about the procedural implications, and the timeframe in which an in-committee debate could take place. The Chief Minister advised that he would also write to States Members to inform them of the decision. |
|