Development Company: Selection Process-Ministerial Response-12 July 2011

Findings

Comments

1

By  not  providing  access  to information  such  as  general correspondence,  the  Treasury  and Resources  Department  failed  to engage with the Sub-Panel in an open and transparent process. It is therefore difficult  to  see  how  any  conclusion can be reached other than the process referred  to  is  not  "open  and responsive to Scrutiny".

The Treasury and Resources Department maintains  that  all  requests  for information  from  Scrutiny  were responded  to  as  expediently  and  as openly as possible, as evidenced by the numerous e-mails and phone calls that were  fielded  and  responded  to  in  the course of this review. It was also made clear,  upon  advice  from  the  Data Protection  Commissioner,  advice  that the Sub-Panel themselves received, that the  Department  would  not  be  in  a position to provide any information that would  constitute  a  breach  of  Data Protection legislation.

As  a  result  of  a  complex  recruitment process, there were numerous individual pieces  of  correspondence  and  e-mails

which contained sensitive personal data which under the Law could not be made available to Scrutiny. It would not have been possible for the Department to have collated  and  redacted  all  of  this information  within  any  reasonable timescales  that  Scrutiny  were  working to.

With this in mind, Scrutiny were asked to  be  more  specific  about  the information which they required, rather than a blanket request for all e-mails and correspondence. A specific request, for example,  built  around  the  perceived issues that the Deputy of St. John had confidentially advised the Sub-Panel of which have never been publicly aired or put to the Department would have been both helpful and worthwhile. However, the blanket request was maintained in all probability  due  to  the  fact  that  there were no issues of note to investigate.

2

Relevant documentation including the procedures and guidelines for the JAC was not readily available to the wider public. Furthermore, little information could be found electronically on the Internet  and  documents  were  not present  at  the  States  Greffe Information  Centre.  It  therefore appears  that  this  is  not  in  keeping with Article 24(3) of the Employment of  States  of  Jersey  Employees (Jersey) Law 2005.

The Appointments Commission Code of Practice is widely available within the States of Jersey, and arrangements are in hand to ensure that it is available on the States of Jersey's external website.

3

The Law does not provide clarity, for example, whereby the JAC may find itself  in  the  position  of  having concerns  over  an  appointments process,  having  reported  it  to  the States  Employment  Board,  but  the appointment  is  then  maintained  and possibly even presented to the States.

The  Law  gives  the  final  authority  on appointments to the States Employment Board. If the appointment is the subject of  ratification  by  the  States,  and  the Appointments  Commission  were  not supporting  the  appointment,  then  this would be apparent in the debate and may affect the States decision to approve an appointment.

This  point  is  being  considered  by  the Appointments  Commission  in conjunction with others.

4

The relationship between the JAC and the  States  of Jersey  is  unclear. The JAC's  budget  falls  under  the  States Human Resources (HR) Department.

The budget for the Jersey Appointments Commission  is  included  under  the Human Resources Department's budget for administrative purposes only, which

However,  this  implies  that  the  JAC report  to  the  Human  Resources Department, which is incorrect.

is  also  the  case  for  many  other independent bodies. Decisions on spend on  this  Budget  still  remain independently  with  the  JAC,  and  it  is therefore not reasonable to assume that the JAC report to the Human Resources Department.

Although  independent,  the  reporting relationship is to the States Employment Board, as set out in the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005.

5

Some meetings and interviews were not chaired by representatives of the JAC,  which  could  have  led  to  a negative  perception  as  to  the independence of the process.

The Code of Practice for Appointments to  Autonomous  and  Quasi-autonomous Public Bodies and Tribunals is silent on the  chairmanship  of  meetings  and Panels,  and  so  therefore  the  normal practice  is  to  follow  the  Guidance  on Senior  Recruitment  which  requires the Jersey  Appointments  Commission  to "chair the sift and final selection panels and take part in the selection process".

In the event that a meeting is chaired by another  person,  the  Appointments Commission will always contribute fully to the discussion and debate.

At no point has this been raised as an issue by the JAC as leading to a negative perception  of  the  independence  of  the process.

6

During  the  advertising  stage  of  the process, an advert was submitted to the Jersey Evening Post by the States Human  Resources  (HR)  Department before  the  recruitment  consultant "Odgers Berndtson" was sufficiently prepared. This resulted in a failure to provide individuals interested in the Chairman  and  NED  posts  with  the appropriate  information,  and  also resulted in a formal complaint being made.  Although  a  relatively  minor error,  the  Sub-Panel  is  of  the  view that this was unprofessional.

It  is  recognised  that  the unprofessionalism' is not levelled at the States  of  Jersey's  Human  Resources Department;  however  it  is  recognised that  there  is  a  need  to  ensure  that external  agencies,  when  engaged,  are able  to  meet  their  commitments.  For clarification,  the  events  are  detailed below.

The  advertising  plan  was  agreed  with Odgers and allowed for the initial advert to appear in the JEP on Thursday 9th December 2010.

The advert was prepared by Odgers and placed  in  the  JEP  by  the  States  of Jersey's HR Department, who confirmed in  an  e-mail  to  Odgers  at  midday  on Monday  6th  December  2010  that  it would be appearing in the JEP 3 days

later, on Thursday 9th December.

At no point during the period from 6th December to 9th December did Odgers indicate  that  they  would  not  be sufficiently  prepared  to  receive responses, and the HR Department were not advised of this issue. If Odgers had advised  that  they  were  not  ready  to handle  the responses, the  advert  could have been placed during the following week.

7

It is not appropriate that any persons (in  this  case  States  Members)  who have  been  asked  to  participate  in  a recruitment process for an important position  are  not  given  the  requisite paperwork  (and/or  Terms  of Reference) sufficiently in advance of meetings.  This  is  not  only unprofessional,  it  is  also unacceptable,  as  it  does  not  allow such  persons  to  be  adequately prepared for such meetings.

Members  of  the  Transition  Advisory Panel  were  circulated  the  requisite papers  by  post  before  the  meeting  on 17th January. These were dispatched on Thursday 13th January from the Chief Minister's  Department.  However,  the papers were not delivered by Jersey Post until the morning of the meeting. It is regrettable that members did not receive the papers in time and steps were taken to ensure it was not repeated.

8

The  Sub-Panel  consider  it unacceptable to give any persons (in this case States Members) short notice of very important meetings, such as those  relating  to  this  particular recruitment process.

The  dates  for  the  interviews  were provided to States Members some weeks before the interviews took place. These dates were agreed by the Panels at the time. It would not have been possible to provide  dates  earlier  because  the interview arrangements had not yet been confirmed.

The interviews on 28th February were organised at short notice; but it should be noted that this was the only practical option given that the interviews needed to be arranged around the availability of the  candidates  and  Panel  members. Some  of  the  candidates  had  other business  commitments  taking  place during  March,  which  is  also  true  for Interview Panel members who had other meetings that could not be reorganised. It  would  have  been  unsatisfactory  to leave  more  than  a  month  between the NED  interviews  and  a  longer  period from when candidates were short-listed, and  therefore  it  was  agreed  on  21st February by all concerned to interview the following week.

9

The  timetabling  of  interviews  was inconsistent for the NED candidates.

The timetable for the interviews of the Non-Executive  Directors  needed  to balance  the  commitments  and  travel arrangements  of  candidates  and  Panel members.  One  interview  from  21st February also needed to be re-scheduled because  the  candidate  had  been  ill. These  issues  needed  to  be  considered when  timetabling  the  interviews  and, given that 28th February was the only feasible date for interviews, the order in which  candidates  saw  each  Panel  was changed.  There  was  no  objection expressed  by  the  Jersey  Appointments Commission  to  the  interviews  being conducted in this order, and this finding is therefore not recognised as an issue which affected the process.

10

The  Sub-Panel  found  that  the Candidate Brief was inconsistent with the actual interview process.

The  Candidate  Brief  was  prepared  in November 2010, following which there was  at  least  2 months  until  the  final Non-Executive Director interviews took place.  The  exact  format  of  the recruitment process could not have been foreseen at this early stage, particularly given  that  involving  a  political  Panel was  a  new  format.  The  inconsistency between  the  Candidate  Brief  and  the interview process reflected an evolving process  as  discussion  took  place  and plans were put together, which ensured that  interviews  were  as  robust  and transparent  as  possible.  This  is  not uncommon  in  recruitment  processes undertaken  in  the  private  and  public sectors.

11

Members of the TAP had reason to believe that they would be involved in the short-listing and in "signing off" the  candidates  for  NEDs  and Chairman.

It  is  not  standard  practice  for  a subsidiary Panel to be involved in the short-listing  of  candidates.  This  is  set out in the Appointments Commission's Code of Practice, which makes clear that a selection Panel should be responsible for all decisions in respect of the long- and short-listing of candidates.

The  implementation  plan  circulated  to the  Transition  Advisory  Panel  clearly stated that the Recruitment Panel would be responsible for the short-listing and recruitment  process,  in  line  with  the Code of Practice. Any misunderstanding

that  the  Transition  Advisory  Panel would  be  involved  in  the  short-listing process was clearly dispelled early on, and  is  covered  by  the  exchange  of e-mails  between  members  and  the Appointments  Commission  from  25th January 2011.

It  would  not  have  been  expedient  for 2 Panels  to  review  the  61 candidates who  applied  for  the  roles  of Chairman/NEDs  in  the  short-listing process,  and  it  was  therefore  agreed sufficient  that  the  recruitment  Panel would do this.

Furthermore, the role of the TAP was confirmed by the Minister for Treasury and  Resources  and  accepted  by  the Deputy of St. John (a member of TAP) in  the  States  Sitting  of  1st  February 2011. The Deputy of St. John questioned the   Bailiff  on  a  perceived  conflict  of interest, stating he was a Member of the shadow interview board for S.o.J.D.C., which is interviewing some candidates to do with shadow boards', the Minister for Treasury and Resources interjected stating  that  with  the  greatest  of respect to the Deputy of St. John , he is not on the interview board, he is on the Technical  Advisory  Panel,  which  is going  to  advise  the  Panel  that  is appointing the chairman'. The Deputy of St. John  then  confirmed  his understanding  by  stating  Thank  you. Yes, you are right'.

It has been clearly stated and accepted in the States that the role would not entail signing off' of candidates. It is also of note  that  all  but  one  of  the  States members  of  TAP  were  present  at  the vote  on  the  proposition  to  which  this exchange refers.

12

As  it  is  noted  elsewhere,  Baroness Ford  firstly  took  part  in  the  short- listing  process  for  NEDs  and,  in addition,  chaired  the  second Recruitment  Panel  interview.  The Sub-Panel  considers  that  the  States Assembly should have been given the opportunity to approve the successful candidate  as  Chairman  before

Baroness  Ford  was  involved  in  the appointment of the NEDs as an external, professional individual and it was in this capacity  and  her  capacity  as  Chair designate that she joined the recruitment Panel. This is entirely  normal  practice when  new  Boards  are  formed  and  the JAC were fully behind this decision.

allowing that individual to engage in the short-listing process for NEDs.

13

The  Sub-Panel  highlights  the administrative  failure  to  notify 2 interviewees of the requirement to give  a  5 minute  presentation  to  the TAP.  This  was  unprofessional  and could have placed those candidates at an unfair disadvantage.

It is accepted that one of the candidates interviewed  for  the  role  of  Chairman was not notified of the requirement to give  a  5 minute  presentation  to  the Transition  Advisory  Panel.  This  is regrettable and was overlooked as other tasks  were  administered  on  the  day. However, it is of note that in this case the  candidate  who  was  supposedly disadvantaged'  was  the  successful candidate.

It is however maintained that the other Non-Executive candidate was notified of the need to give a presentation, contrary to what the finding infers. The officer responsible for meeting candidates has confirmed that the individual was told of the need to give this presentation before meeting the Transition Advisory Panel. It should be emphasized that candidates were  informed  of  this  question  only 5 minutes  before  the  TAP  interview began,  which  may  explain  for  an apparent lack of preparedness.

14

Personal  data  was  not  properly controlled at the end of the process.

The Sub-Panel confirmed in the Public hearing that no States Department had breached the requirements placed upon it under the Data Protection Law.

All  individuals  have  a  personal responsibility for ensuring that they are handling personal data in a secure and confidential way, and that it is used for the purposes intended. Officers and the JAC  are  aware  of  their  requirements under the Data Protection Law; but to ensure  that  even  higher  standards  are enforced,  procedures  will  be  reviewed for the control of personal data at the end of the recruitment process.

15

The  Sub-Panel  has  found  that  there were some shortcomings with regards to the administration concerning the wider process. The Sub-Panel stresses that these do not appear to have been the  responsibility  of  the  JAC,  but originated  from  either  the  Human Resources  Department  or  the  Chief

The  Sub-Panel's  statement  that  there were "some shortcomings" in relation to the administrative process is misleading, particularly when these issues were not to an extent that would have rendered the  appointment  process  invalid.  The alleged  shortcomings  have  been  dealt with in previous comments, and it is the view  of  the  Minister  that  no  further

Minister's Department.

evidence has been presented that would render this statement true.

On  the  contrary,  the  Minister  believes that the entire recruitment process was robust and carried out in a professional manner,  and  it  is  regrettable  that  the Sub-Panel's finding suggests there were some shortcomings, when in fact it fails to  show  any  substantive  evidence  that this was in fact the case.

16

The purpose of the TAP was not only to see how candidates would react in a  political  environment,  but  also  to give  candidates  the  opportunity  to question States Members. Provided it was  clearly  defined,  the  Sub-Panel concurs  that  this  was  a  worthwhile approach.  However,  it  is  paramount that the way in which results of such a Panel are fed into and discussed with the main Recruitment Panel is clear from the outset.

Where  senior  appointments  will  be subject  to  political  scrutiny,  it  is worthwhile  to  give  candidates  an opportunity to meet States Members and ask  questions.  Particularly  when candidates are being interviewed with no previous experience of the Island, it is valuable for them  to  meet  with  States Members in order to better understand Jersey's  political  context  and  the concerns  of  Members  and  the  wider community.

It  is  also  vital  that  the  way  in  which results are fed into and discussed with the main Recruitment Panel is clear from the outset. In this case, TAP members were perhaps not entirely clear how their results  would  be  utilised  by  the Recruitment Panel. However, there is a clear difference between being involved in  the  recruitment  process  and  being involved in the decision-making process, and  TAP  members  did  receive  very comprehensive briefings about this and their  role  on  the  day  before  the interviews took place.

17

There  were  inconsistencies  between how the role of the TAP was defined in  documentation,  and  what  was provided to States Members regarding the interviews for the NEDs.

This finding is rejected. The brief/terms of reference provided to TAP members clearly stated that this Panel would "take a role in the appointments process itself through  meeting  with  candidates"  and would be "consulted on key parts of the process".  In  comparison,  the Recruitment  Panel  would  be "responsible  for  the  recruitment  and the appointment to the individual roles". These roles would have been repeated and clarified to the TAP throughout the interview process, given that the Panel was briefed by the Chief Minister and

the  interviews  were  overseen  by  a member  of  the  Appointments Commission whose job it was to ensure that the Panel was operating within the remit it had been asked to. An e-mail was  also  sent  to  the  TAP  on  25th January  2011  from  the  Appointments Commission, which clarified the Panel's role.

18

The role of the TAP, as envisaged by the JAC and the Recruitment Panel, was clearly that of a subsidiary Panel offering  a  political  perspective  on candidates  and  also  answering questions  from  the  candidates  on political issues.

The Minister is glad to note that given the evidence provided that the Sub-Panel is of the view that the role of the TAP was, as envisaged by the JAC and the Recruitment Panel, was clearly that of a subsidiary Panel'.

It was anticipated that the TAP would meet  with  candidates  and  offer  a political perspective on their suitability for  the  roles,  while  also  allowing  the candidates to engage with the political interface  of  the  Island.  Clearly, S.o.J.D.C. will operate within a political environment,  and  it  is  important  to ensure  that  senior  appointments  are assessed on their knowledge of Jersey, their ability to make the transition to the Island, and work effectively within the local  context. This  is just  one area  of competencies,  but  it  is  vital,  and  one which politicians should be involved.

19

The results of the TAP process were then to form a part of the deliberation of the Recruitment Panel in arriving at its decision.

The Recruitment Panel was relying on the TAP to focus on a particular area of competencies –  engagement  with  the community,  understanding  of  the political system, etc. – which would be fed back to the Panel in order to help make a final decision. The views of the TAP  were  taken  very  seriously  and helped  the  Recruitment  Panel  in  their deliberations.  It  was  clear  from  the outset, as noted by the Sub-Panel, that the TAP, in its advisory capacity, would feed back to the Recruitment Panel with their scores, and this would form a factor in the final decision.

20

It is clear that there were a number of factors  which  were  not  properly understood  which  could  have  given rise to the initial misinterpretation by TAP  members  that  their  role  was

As  evidenced  above,  at  least  one member  of  the  TAP  agreed  that  their role  was  advising  the  Panel  that  is appointing  the  chairman  and  not  as  a member of the Interview Panel.

somewhat wider.

The  Recruitment  Panel  wanted  the process  for  selecting  the  S.o.J.D.C. Board  to  be  completely  robust  and transparent, and it was made very clear at the beginning of the process that the TAP would be an advisory Panel. TAP members were provided with documents describing  the  TAP's  role,  and  there were a number of meetings before the interviews  where  the  Appointments Commission  took  members  through questions and the interview process. It did, therefore, appear that the TAP was fully aware of their advisory role and the construct of the interviews.

The  2 Panels  were,  for  instance, unanimous  in  the  choice  of  Baroness Ford  as  preferred  Chairman,  and  had consistent  views  on  2  of  the  3 NEDs. Nevertheless, there were inconsistencies in how 2 specific NED candidates were marked by the TAP and the Recruitment Panel.  These  candidates  were  seen  by each  Panel  on  the  same  day,  and  the experiences  of  the  2 candidates  were completely juxtaposed,  with  one  Panel marking the first candidate highly and the other giving a low mark, and vice- versa.  This  inconsistency  lead  to considerable  discussion,  and  ultimately the TAP's views were taken on board, but the Recruitment Panel arrived at a different conclusion.

21

It  was  unclear  from  the documentation  the  Sub-Panel received whether there was a formal list  of  declarations  of  conflicts  of interest.

There was no formal list of declarations of conflict of interest. However, Panel members at all stages in the recruitment process  declared  whether  they  were conflicted and acted in an appropriate, professional  manner.  The  JAC  were fully supportive of the approach taken and will be consulted upon on how to strengthen this further.

22

It appears that declarations of conflict were known about by the individual Panels to which they were made, but not to any other Panels involved in the  selection.  Therefore,  this  could give  rise  to  the  perception  (to  any party  interested  in  the  process)  that such  issues  were  not  properly  dealt

The Minister is thankful for the Panel's finding  that  any  issues  relating  to perceived conflicts of interest were dealt with.

The Panels operated independently, and the subsidiary Panels made a report of their findings to the Recruitment Panel. It  is  unclear  how  the  sharing  of

with, when in fact they had been.

declarations of interest between Panels would have affected the process or any of the decisions taken, particularly as the JAC  did  not  find  fault  with  how conflicts of interest were dealt with.

23

All of the short-listed candidates were considered  to  have  significant achievements in their previous roles.

All  the  short-listed  candidates  were high-calibre individuals with significant skills,  experience  and  technical knowledge appropriate to the needs of the  States  of  Jersey  Development Company. The Candidate Brief clearly set  out  the  need  to  attract  the  right calibre of individuals to the roles, and those  short-listed  certainly  met  these expectations, bringing together a mix of skills,  technical  backgrounds,  and on/off-Island  experience  that  would bring significant strength to the Board of Directors.

24

As  a  result  of  questions  by  the Interview  Panels,  some  candidates raised  the  issue  of  where  master- planning and planning powers should sit.

The  candidates  who  were  interviewed had wide-ranging experience of property development and regeneration across a large  spectrum  of  different  types  of development bodies. It is therefore only natural  that  questions  about  master- planning  and  planning  powers  would arise, given the different structures that candidates  would  have  been  used  to working with in their previous roles. But once  explained  and  clarified,  all candidates  were  comfortable  with  the role and there was no misunderstanding from them.

25

The Recruitment Panel members were of  the  view  that  it  was  made  very clear  to  candidates  that  it  was  not envisaged  that  S.o.J.D.C.  would possess planning powers.

The  remit  of  the  States  of  Jersey Development  Company  was  clearly explained to candidates. Each candidate was well challenged on these matters by the  Recruitment  Panel  and  was  asked questions  about  how  well  they understood the role of S.o.J.D.C. and its relationship  with  other  stakeholders. Candidates would also have had access to  the  States  report  and  proposition (P.73/2010) that set out the structure and responsibilities  of  the  States  of  Jersey Development Company. To this extent, it was made very clear to candidates that it  was  not  envisaged  that  S.o.J.D.C. would  possess  planning  powers,  and there was no lack of clarity from any

member of the Recruitment Panel that this was the case.

26

The  preferred  candidate  of  the Technical  Panel  was  considered  by them to be likely to "work in a more collaborative way", but was not the candidate  ultimately  recommended for approval by the States.

It is understandable that the Technical Panel came to a different conclusion to that  of  the  other  2 Panels,  given  the calibre of all the candidates interviewed. The role of the Technical Panel was to explore  the  technical  skills  of  each candidate  and  its  views  would  have formed  an  important  part  of  the Recruitment Panel's final decision about who to appoint as Chairman.

However,  whether  the  candidate  was likely to "work in a more collaborative way"  was  just  one  issue  that  the Recruitment Panel needed to take into consideration among the many different competencies required from candidates; they also needed, for example, to have experience of chairing a Board and be able  to  manage  complex  stakeholder relations.

Although  the  Technical  Panel's  views would therefore have been important, as would those of the Transition Advisory Panel, the Recruitment Panel ultimately had to make the decision who to appoint as  Chairman  based  on  who  it  thought was best suited to the role.

27

The  initial  proposed  composition  of the Technical Panel did not originally include  a  senior  member  of  the Planning  Department,  and  this  was only  revised  4 working  days  before the interviews for the Chairman.

The  make-up  of  the  Technical  Panel evolved during the recruitment process. There  was  a  clear  intention  from  the outset that the Technical Panel would be comprised  of  individuals with  relevant commercial  and  technical  expertise, including planning experience.

It was identified early on that a person with a good understanding of the local planning system would sit on this Panel. A  U.K.-based  individual  with  the appropriate background and experience was identified, but was unfortunately not able to attend on the date in question. The  Chief  Officer  of  Planning  was therefore invited to sit on the Panel as his  contribution  was  considered important in order for candidates to be challenged on local planning matters.

Recommendations

Comments

1

The  Sub-Panel  recommends  that  the JAC should have its own page linked to  a  States of Jersey  website,  which should provide electronic links to all relevant JAC documentation.

Accept – arrangements are in hand to ensure that it is available on a States of Jersey external website.

2

A  website  would  enable  more up-to-date information about the JAC to  be  provided  in  a  timely  manner, including, for example, the recruitment roles in which it has been involved.

Accept – discussions are in hand with

the JAC as to what information will be provided on the external website.

3

The  Chief  Minister  or  the  States Employment  Board  must  review  the relationship  between  the  JAC  and States of Jersey to provide clarification with regard to Key Findings 3 and 4.

Reject –  Although  Key  Finding 3  will be  considered  by  the  Appointments Commission in conjunction with others, the  Minister  cannot  accept  Key Finding 4  for  the  reasons  set  out  in response to Key Finding 4.

4

The  JAC  should  consider  chairing every  part  of  the  process,  to  ensure that  their  independence  is  preserved and that there is no risk of a perception that it might have been compromised.

This issue is for the JAC to consider.

5

When  different  Interview  Panels  are involved,  interviews  must  be scheduled  in  such  a  manner  that candidates  are  interviewed  by  those Panels in the same order.

Accept –  wherever  possible  and practicable, the sequencing of Interview Panels will remain constant in order to ensure  that  candidates  are  not disadvantaged.  If,  however,  there  are specific  circumstances  which  require different sequencing, then this will be with the formal agreement of the Panel chairman.

6

Given the increasing use of Internet- based processes, protocols are required for  the  distribution,  use  and destruction  of  personal  details  and other  relevant  material.  Where personal data is provided in hard copy to interviewers, it should be formally retrieved  at  the  end  of  every recruitment process.

Accept – although noting that no States Department  broke  requirements  under the  Data  Protection  legislation, procedures will be reviewed to ensure that  third  parties  are  made  aware  of their  requirements  and  to  ensure personal data is dealt with appropriately at the end of an interview process.

7

The  way  in  which  the  results  of  an Advisory  Panel  are  fed  into  and discussed  with  a  main  Recruitment Panel must be clearly defined from the outset.

Accept –  future  recruitment  processes will  endeavour  to  ensure  that  the methodology  of  utilising  results  of Advisory  Panels  are  set  out  and formally agreed at the outset.

8

The method for declaring conflicts of interest  should  be  reviewed  in  order for absolute clarity and transparency. This would ensure that the integrity of the  independence  of  the  process  is maintained.

This issue is for the JAC to consider.

The Minister is confident, however, that in this process conflicts of interest were declared  in  a  completely  transparent way as required by the JAC members.

9

A  comprehensive  list  or  register  of declarations  of  conflicts  of  interest must be maintained (or a statement to the  negative)  for  each  recruitment process.

This issue is for the JAC to consider further,  but  the  Minister  accepts  that this  should  be  the  case  in  all requirement processes.

10

A list of declarations of conflicts of interest  should  be  circulated  to  all recruitment  personnel  (including States  Members)  involved  in  the process,  and  in  advance  of  any interviews.

This issue if for the JAC to consider further.