Legacy Report - Report - 22 September 2014

Scrutiny

and

Public Accounts Committee

Legacy Report November 2011 – November 2014

Contents

1.  Chairmen's Committee ................................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Primary recommendation ................................................................................................................ 1
2. Main issues during 2011-2014 ............................................................................................... 1

1. Amendments made to States of Jersey Law with regard to Scrutiny........................... 1
2. Overview of Ministers' accountability to Scrutiny. ........................................................... 2
3. Overview of Accounting Officers' accountability to the Public Accounts Committee. 5
4. Training .................................................................................................................................. 6
5. Protocols for working practices of Panels and PAC ....................................................... 7
6. Public Engagement .............................................................................................................. 7
7. Internal Communication ...................................................................................................... 8
8. Other....................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel.......................................................................................... 11

3. Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel .............................................................................................. 16
4. Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel .......................................................................... 20
5. Environment Scrutiny Panel ..................................................................................................... 25
6. Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel ............................................................ 28
7. Public Accounts Committee ...................................................................................................... 32
8. Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 36

1.  Chairmen's Committee

1. Introduction

It has been practice in previous terms of office for the Chairmen's Committee, each Scrutiny Panel and the PAC to produce internal legacy reports for their successor Panels and Committees. These largely advised on work which had been undertaken throughout the term of office, information regarding any work which was outstanding or which the Committee or Panel believed may need consideration in the next term of office, working practices and any other matters the Panels/Committees expected to be of use to their successors.

The Chairmen's Committee believes that the work of Scrutiny in holding Ministers to account should be of importance not only to States Members but to the electorate they serve. Although Scrutiny's work is largely dependent on the number, type and timing of the policies and legislation being produced by Ministers, Scrutiny does its work on behalf of the public. With this in mind, it has decided to put this legacy report in the public domain by presenting it to the States.

One of the major issues which has faced Scrutiny during the term of office has been the inability of Ministers to meet target deadlines in producing policy and legislation. This has had a detrimental effect on the Panels in terms of planning and prioritising workloads. It has also resulted in an excessive amount of work being lodged "au Greffe" for debate in the run up to the last summer recess of the term of office not permitting time for any Scrutiny. This is unacceptable.

Primary recommendation

The Ministerial Legislative and Policy programme and meeting of target deadlines must be reviewed and revised at the start of the next term of office to ensure that there is not a repeat of the excessive number of propositions brought at the end of the term of office, thereby not permitting time for scrutiny.

2. Main issues during 2011-2014

1. Amendments made to States of Jersey Law with regard to Scrutiny During 2014, the States of Jersey Law was amended to state:

"Standing Orders made under paragraph (i) shall make provision for scrutiny, which shall include provision for the agreement of a code of practice for engagement, for the  purposes  of  scrutiny,  between  elected  members  conducting  scrutiny  and Ministers and Assistant Ministers."

This provided the possibility for the Scrutiny function in the future to be revised by bringing an amendment to Standing Orders as opposed to being obliged to amend primary legislation which can be cumbersome and time-consuming.

A Code of Practice exists, as adopted by the States as amended on 28th April 2009. However, work has been undertaken on revising this to better reflect the matters specifically pertaining to the engagement for the purposes of scrutiny between those elected Members conducting  Scrutiny  and  Ministers  and  Assistant  Ministers.  There  remain  a  number  of matters which will require consideration with the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers and the Law Officers Department, in the short term, in order to progress this, namely:

1. Departmental Officials being required to attend on Scrutiny Panels;
2. Revision of section on legal advice to simplify and make more concise;
3. Sanctions.

Recommendations for Codes of Practice

2. Overview of Ministers' accountability to Scrutiny

The table below shows the level each Minister has been held to account during this term of office through full reviews culminating in Scrutiny Reports. This list does not include the raft of other work which has been undertaken in presenting Comments and/or Amendments to propositions to the States. The decision of a Panel to undertake a full review is often determined by the work stream of the individual Minister, whether Departments can meet target deadlines and the workload of the Panel. Scrutiny Panels have had to carry out a large volume of work on some complex and technical subjects. On average a Scrutiny review can take about three to four months, or longer, from start to finish due to the amount of information available and the importance of exploring every aspect of the topic.

Below is a list of all full Scrutiny Reports produced during this term of office which show how each Ministers' work portfolio has been scrutinised through full reviews. The year given is the  year  the  report  was  completed  although work  may  have  been ongoing  during the previous year in the case of 2013 and 2014. For more detailed information on Panel/PAC Reports, Amendments and Comments please see the relevant Panel/Committee page.

It is not always necessary or appropriate for Panels to produce a full Scrutiny Report. Amendments to propositions can be brought which are usually made when evidence has revealed that a lodged proposition is flawed in some way and an Amendment will force a debate in the States Assembly. Comments on a proposition can be made instead of, or with a report, usually when either the Panel, from its findings, agrees with a proposition, the Minister has already made changes during scrutiny of the policy or legislation or to raise awareness to the States of the work the Panel has undertaken.

Amendments and Comments

3. Overview of Accounting Officers' accountability to the Public Accounts Committee.

The PAC differs in several ways from the Scrutiny Panels. Not only does it have non-States Members appointed to it but it considers the work of Accounting Officers, and not usually of Ministers, and looks retrospectively at States expenditure and corporate governance. As with Scrutiny Panels, the PAC may make recommendations for action.

4. Training

Although an overarching induction and training programme was arranged by the States Greffe, a special training programme for Scrutiny was organised as follows:

1. All newly elected Members received an induction presentation on Scrutiny with the opportunity of open discussion and questions. This took place immediately after the elections;
2. All Members elected to Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee were invited  to  a  general  training  session  on  the  principles  and  working  practices  of Scrutiny. This was led by external providers who had previously trained in Jersey and who have knowledge of other jurisdictions;
3. Introduction to questioning training. One of the most important parts of Scrutiny is to ask effective and appropriately probing questions at Scrutiny Hearings. The first training session was held fairly early in the term of office by an external provider who has run training courses for Select Committees;
4. More  detailed  questioning  training,  including  practice  sessions,  were  led  by  the above training provider;
5. Refresher questioning training was provided by H.M. Solicitor General. One short hour theory session was followed by a morning's practical session.

Recommendations for training

5. Protocols for working practices of Panels and PAC

At the general training session, the attendees drew up a draft Statement of Intent/Purpose and intended standardised working practices of Scrutiny for the term of office. Subsequently a Code for the Conduct of Scrutiny Hearings and Filming of Scrutiny Hearings was agreed (attached in Appendix). These have been effective and have been abided by throughout the term of office. In the interests of good communication across the States, the President, and Chairmen's Committee gave a presentation to all States Members, and subsequently to the Corporate Management Board, on these issues early in the term of office.

Recommendations for protocols

The next Chairmen's Committee should reconsider the Statement of Intent/Purpose and protocols and agree standardised working practices at the outset for its term of office. These should be included as Appendices to the Scrutiny "working practice" Code which will be presented to the States.

6. Public Engagement

1. Scrutiny Matters Newsletter

The Chairmen's Committee continued to produce a bi-annual production of a newsletter delivered Island-wide . It is beneficial, has enabled Scrutiny to put the message out to the public about its work and is considered to be a sound use of public money.

In  2014,  the  last  year  of  the  three-year  term  of  office,  the  Committee  agreed  to  one newsletter, given that most Panels were aiming to conclude review work by the summer recess and that, with there being elections in October, it would be inappropriate to produce an Autumn edition.

During 2013 the newsletter was printed by an on-Island company which brought this area of the production of the newsletter to the Island, making it a totally on-Island venture.

2. Podcasting/web streaming

With the importance of public engagement in terms of Scrutiny, the Committee undertook work during 2012 to consider the use of web streaming of Scrutiny and PAC Hearings. It became clear that, although web streaming was the ideal option, it would be extremely costly to the public purse and consequently decided against it.

As a midway step, podcasts of Panel and PAC hearings were made available on the website and continue to be uploaded on scrutiny@gov.je  

3. Twitter

A Twitter account was set up to be used for the purposes of advertising scrutiny events such as hearings, publication of reports and such like and has been found to be an effective avenue of communication about Scrutiny "events".

4. Citizenship Programme

Le  Rocquier  School  was  the  only  school  to  take  up  the  offer  to  run  the  Citizenship Programme during 2013. This programme requires intensive resourcing on the part of States Members and teachers, is time-consuming to organise and difficult to identify suitable dates due to the constraints of the school curriculum and States Members availability. However, it has always proved a successful event with positive outcomes and gives an opportunity for our Island's young people to interact directly with politicians, both Scrutiny and Ministers or Assistant Ministers.

5. Surveys

In 2014, the Committee received a presentation from Jersey Post about the possibility of a survey of the public in respect of the newsletter and Scrutiny in general but it was too close to the production date of the newsletter and wasn't a viable option. Information on this has been retained separately for the future Chairmen's Committee if required.

6. Filming of Scrutiny meetings/hearings by Members of the public

The working practices agreed at the start of the term of office made it clear that all Scrutiny meetings would be held in private and all Hearings in public. It was also agreed that only the "mainstream" media would be permitted to film and for the first five minutes of the hearing. The Chairmen's Committee is delighted that this working arrangement has been maintained throughout the three year term and a standardised across the Panels and PAC has been recognised as good practice.

Recommendations for public engagement

7. Internal Communication

1. President and Chief Minister Meetings.

At the start of this term of office, the President and Chief Minister agreed to meet on a regular  basis  whenever  possible  after  each  Chairmen's  Committee  meeting.  This  has provided a manageable way of sharing information, seeking to resolve possible difficulties before they occur and keeping open the lines of communication between Scrutiny and the Executive.

There have been two occasions when the Chairmen's Committee has attended on the full Council of Ministers.

2. Inclusive Scrutiny Meetings

At the start of the term of office, the Chairmen's Committee agreed that all Scrutiny Members should have an opportunity to meet on a quarterly basis. These were organised during a States lunch recess and there were five in total.

The Committee found that meeting during a States recess became unmanageable and the numbers of members attending dropped over the course of time until no further meetings were arranged.

3. Departmental Work Programming Templates

Towards the end of 2012, one of the Scrutiny Panels created a template for Departments to complete to detail their individual work streams with target deadlines. As this was considered useful by Scrutiny, all Departments were requested to complete and update the standardised template. They have been particularly useful to inform Panels in preparation for quarterly Hearings as well as to monitor progress with policy and legislative developments.

Recommendations for internal communication

The Chairmen's Committee should insist that use of these templates by Departments is continued and that they are updated regularly. This should be included in the joint Code of Practice between Scrutiny and Ministers.

8. Other

1. Role of Chairmen's Committee in oversight of Scrutiny and PAC

Although the terms of reference for the Chairmen's Committee are clear within Standing Orders, the Committee would like to ensure that the new Chairmen's Committee recognises that  it  has  overarching  management  of the  budget  allocated to  the Scrutiny  and  PAC function. In the event of unresolvable complications, the Committee has the power to cease a Panel's access to the budget if required.

2. Provision of legal advice to Scrutiny/PAC

The Committee recommends that the next Chairmen's Committee invites H.M. Attorney General to one of its early meetings or to an early training session to be fully appraised of all areas of this important matter.

3. Trial of shared electronic document access

A trial took place over the summer recess 2014 with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel's review into the Budget 2015, of shared document access. Scrutiny and PAC work generates volumes of paper which to date has been circulated to Panel/Committee Members in hard copy.  This,  on  occasions  has  been  unmanageable.  The  trial  permitted  access  to  an electronic version of the Review Folders on a read-only basis. Following the Budget 2015 review an evaluation was undertaken by the Scrutiny Officer and Panel Members and a recommendation that this be made available to all Panels and the PAC made.

2. Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

Remit

There shall be a scrutiny panel which is assigned the topics of corporate services, corporate policies and external relations' (Standing Order 135(1)(a)). The Panel's remit covers the Chief Minister and the Ministers for External Relations and Treasury and Resources (Code of Practice 4.2). Following the decision of the States Assembly during the 2011 to 2014 session  to  move  responsibility  for  financial  services  from  the  Minister  for  Economic Development to the Chief Minister that area will also fall within the Corporate Services Panel's remit in the 2014 to 2018 session.

Membership

Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman)

Deputy J.G. Reed (Vice-Chairman)

Connétable D.J. Murphy (passed away on 25th July 2013)

Deputy S. Power (resigned from the Panel on 8th October 2013)

Deputy R.J. Rondel

Connétable D.W. Mezbourian (appointed to the Panel on 8th October 2013)

Introduction

1. The  Corporate  Services  Panel  has  reviewed  the  work  it  has  undertaken  since  its establishment by the States in November 2011 and agreed to provide a report to its successor Panel established by the States in its next session to assist in developing its own work programme.
2. The report sets out:

• The work undertaken by the Panel during the session 2011 – 2014;
• Methods of working used by the Panel; and
• Suggestions for issues that a successor Panel may wish to consider in developing

its work programme.

3. As  of  17th  September  2014,  the  Panel  had  met  195  times  (including  electronic meetings) since its first meeting on 30th November 2011. Details of minutes can be found on the Panel's web pages.

Work undertaken

4. The Panel conducted the following reviews in the period 2011 to 2014:

5. In addition, the Panel lodged the following Amendments:

• Medium Term Financial Plan 2013-2015 (P.69/2012): Ninth Amendment, Lodged on 23rd October 2012
• Draft  Public  Finances  (Amendment  No.4)  (Jersey)  Law  201-  (P.73/2013): Amendment, Lodged on 27th August 2013

6. The Panel also presented the following comments:

• Social Housing Schemes: Funding (P.40/2012): Comments, Presented on 25th May 2012
• Medium Term Financial Plan 2013-2015 (P.69/2012): Ninth Amendment (P.69/2012 Amd.(9)) – Amendment (P.69/2012Amd.(9)Amd.): Comments, Presented on 6th November 2012
• Draft  Budget  Statement  2013  (P.102/2012):  Comments,  Presented  on  3rd December 2012
• Draft  Public  Finances  (Amendment  of  Law  No.1)  (Jersey)  Regulations  201- (P.133/2013): Comments, Presented on 20th January 2014

7. The Panel has fulfilled the four main roles of scrutiny (Code of Practice 7.9) by undertaking work on:

1. Policy: Population and  Migration (including Interim Population Policy); Tourism Development Fund; Starter Home Deposit Loan Scheme.
2. Legislation: Minister for External Relations; Public Finances Law Amendments; Implementation of European Union Legislation; Public Sector Pension Reform; Draft Charities Law.
3. Annual Business Plan and Budget: Medium Term Financial Plan; Draft 2013 Budget; Draft 2014 Budget; Draft 2015 Budget.
4. Matters of public interest: Population and Migration; Starter Home Deposit Loan Scheme.

Methods of working

8. Sub Panels – For the most part, the Panel worked as a Panel. Sub-Panels were established for the review of the Tourism Development Fund and the MTFP. In the latter case, this was part of a cross-Scrutiny approach to the MTFP and the Sub-Panel incorporated membership of each of the Scrutiny Panels. The Panel would underline this cross-Panel approach was successful and would recommend consideration be given to its use again in the future.

9. Quarterly Public Hearings with Ministers – The Panel invited the Chief Minister and Minister for Treasury and Resources on a regular basis to discuss topical issues arising in their respective departments. When the States Assembly appointed a Minister for External Relations, Quarterly Public Hearings were also held with that Minister.
10. Advisors  -  The  Panel  appointed  expert  advisors  to  assist  with  the  majority  of  its reviews. In addition to providing briefing notes on evidence received and assisting with question plans, advisors have been able to meet with departmental officers on a number of occasions to discuss important background to the reviews being undertaken by the Panel or Sub-Panel.
11. Briefings – The Panel has invited Members of the Executive to give informal briefings on a particular subject for background information at the start of a review. Briefings received  included  ones  on  the  States  of  Jersey  Development  Company;  the Modernisation Programme; and the work of the Channel Islands Brussels Office.

Suggestions for future work

12. This section identifies possible areas for future work by a successor Panel including forthcoming legislation. In addition to a general suggestion that consideration be given to the recommendations made by the Panel in the reports listed above, the Panel would highlight the following:

• Public  Sector  Pensions:   When  the  Panel  undertook  its  review  of  proposed reforms to public sector pension provision, it had been anticipated that the States Assembly  would  have  debated  both  the  primary  Law  and  the  secondary Regulations before September 2014. The Regulations were not ultimately brought forward in accordance with that timetable and the Panel was therefore unable to complete its review as anticipated. There is therefore likely to be some scope for work to be undertaken on the Regulations by the Panel's successor. For the purposes of this review, the Panel engaged BWCI Consulting Limited to review the proposed reforms and the Panel recommends that consideration be given to their re-appointment in the event of further work being undertaken. The Panel asked BWCI Consulting Limited to provide a brief report in September 2014 which could provide the platform on which the next Panel could undertake a review of the Draft Regulations.
• Modernisation  Programme:  The  Panel  was  regularly  updated  on  the Modernisation Programme during its lifetime but no formal review was undertaken, in part because the proposed reforms had not reached a stage where a review would be feasible. That is likely to occur during the 2014 to 2018 session, however, and the Panel therefore recommends that consideration be given to undertaking a review in respect of the Modernisation Programme.
• States of Jersey Development Company (SoJDC): The Panel received briefings on the work of the SoJDC, including from the Managing Director, during its lifetime. This occurred most particularly when the Assembly was due to debate whether development of the Esplanade Quarter should be deferred until further information had been provided to the Assembly. No review was undertaken and the question ultimately  became  moot  following  RBC's  decision  to  proceed  with  the  rival

development at the end of Kensington Place. Nevertheless, the Panel recommends consideration be given to undertaking a review in relation to SoJDC, in part to follow up the work undertaken by this Panel but also to follow up the various Scrutiny Reviews which have been undertaken since 2005.

• MTFP and Draft Budget: The Panel established a mechanism and process by which the MTFP and Draft Budgets produced during its lifetime could be reviewed, including the use of a cross-Panel Sub-Panel for reviewing the MTFP. The Panel would suggest using that model as a basis for future reviews of the MTFP and Draft Budget.
• Population and Migration: At the time when the Sub-Panel undertook its review of the  Control  of  Housing  and  Work  (Jersey)  Law,  it  was  advised  by  the  Chief Minister's  Department  that  a  post-implementation  review  of  the  Law  would  be carried  out  by  the  end  of  July  2014.  As  such,  the  Sub-Panel  committed  to undertaking a review of this work to ensure that the recommendations proposed during its review had been duly considered by the Department. However, at the time of writing the legacy report the post-implementation review had not yet been published by the Department and, as a result, the Panel did not get the opportunity to consider this work.  
• Charities (Jersey) Law: The intention of the Chief Minister's Department was to introduce the new Charities Law in two phases; the first phase introduced the primary Legislation and the second phase would establish Regulatory Standards for charities in Jersey. The Panel made a number of recommendations in respect of Phase 2 in its review of the draft Law. Therefore, there is likely to be some scope for work to be undertaken on Regulatory Standards as well as the Regulations introduced under both phases of the Law's development.  
• Utilities: Aside from the work undertaken in respect of the SoJDC (see above), the Panel undertook little work in respect of utilities and States-owned companies. This is therefore an area where there has been less Scrutiny in recent years and which may therefore benefit from some consideration during the 2014 to 2018 session. Within this area, consideration should be given to work in respect of Andium Homes which, following the incorporation of the Department of Housing, falls partially within the Panel's remit as a States-owned company.
• Long-Term Plan: The Panel received briefings on the development of a long-term planning framework. This work is due to be progressed by the next Council of Ministers  and  is  therefore  a  topic  which  the  successor  Panel  should  consider examining.
• Fort Regent: During 2014 Quarterly Public Hearings with the Minister for Treasury and Resources, the Panel was advised of the work being undertaken by Jersey Property Holdings in relation to Fort Regent. This work was not due to reach fruition  until  the  new  Assembly  and  the  Panel  therefore  recommends  that consideration be given to undertaking a review of the subject. This might require cross-Panel work given the topic would potentially impact on the remit of more than one Panel.
• Hospital Employment Appointment Process: The Panel, alongside the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel received a topic proposal that a review be undertaken in respect of the overall appointment process at the hospital and patient safety at the hospital. Given that the former matter fell within the Corporate Services remit, it was agreed that a recommendation be left for the successor Panel to consider undertaking a review of the matter.

Further Suggestions

13. In addition to the above, the Panel would also highlight the following:

• Meetings were held by the Panel on an annual basis with the Fiscal Policy Panel (FPP), most often during the period when the FPP was preparing its annual report. These were generally held at the invitation of the FPP itself. However, they proved useful in enhancing the Panel's understanding of the economic context, particularly in respect of the Panel's Draft Budget reviews, and the Panel recommends that its successor  endeavour  to  maintain  the  practice.   Indeed,  the  Panel  would recommend that meetings be held more regularly (e.g. on each occasion that the FPP visits the Island) if possible.
• Early in its lifetime, the Panel undertook a visit to the Houses of Parliament at Westminster in order to learn about the work of Select Committees. The visit included time spent with a member of the Treasury Select Committee. The Panel found the visit to be useful and recommends that its successor undertake a similar visit as part of its induction and training.
• The Panel recommends that further efforts should be made to ensure that a proper indication of departmental work programmes is provided by Ministers, with general principle being that there should be no surprises'. The Panel considers that the provision of better information on forward work programmes would facilitate the Panel's own planning and the liaison between the Executive and Scrutiny.
• On several occasions, public hearings which had been arranged with Ministers and for which the dates had been in the diary for some time had to be re-arranged due to the unavailability of the Minister in question. The Panel recommends that its successor take a firm line in such instances in order to ensure that the public hearings are not taken for granted and are considered in the appropriate light.  
• The  Panel  would  recommend  the  use  of  expert  advisors  for  reviews,  when appropriate. The Panel's successor might wish to consider whether, in cases where a topic is revisited, the appointment of different advisors would provide some freshness of approach to the topic in question.
• The Panel found the provision of questioning training to be of benefit and would recommend that its successor take advantage of such training (including follow-up training).

3.  Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Remit

Standing Order 135 (1)(a)Scrutiny panels: establishment and constitution

(1) There shall be –

(b) a scrutiny panel which is assigned the topics of economic affairs and economic development ("economic affairs");

The Panel's remit duly covers the Economic Development Department (Code of Practice 4.2)

Membership

Deputy S.G. Luce , Chairman

Connétable M.J. Paddock, Vice-Chairman (appointed 29th January 2014) Connétable S.W. Pallett (appointed Vice Chairman, resigned from the position 29th January 2014)

Connétable J. E. Le Maistre (appointed to Panel 22nd October 2013)

Introduction

1. The Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel has reviewed the work it has undertaken since its establishment by the States on 24th November 2011 and agreed to provide a report to its successor Panel established by the States in its next session to assist in developing its own work programme.
2. The report sets out:

• the work undertaken by the Panel during the session 2011 - 2014
• methods of working used by the Panel
• suggestions for issues that a successor Panel may wish to consider in developing its work programme

3. The Panel met officially for the first time on 8th December 2011, continuing to work through into September 2014 having held 101 meetings during that time. Minutes are available on the Panel's web pages, or through the Scrutiny Office.

Work undertaken

4. The Panel conducted the following reviews in the period 2011 to 2014:

Additional Pre-Review Work:

• P.114/2013 Draft Aquatic Resources (Jersey) Law 201-: Comments, 12th February 2014
• Enterprise Strategy 2013/Enterprise Action Plan: See summary correspondence from Panel to Minister dated 4th December 2013

5. The  Panel  has  fulfilled  the  four  main  roles  of  scrutiny  (Code  of  Practice  7.9)  by undertaking work on:

1. Policy: Retail, Digital Skills, Tourism Shadow Board, Jersey Innovation Fund, Aircraft Registry
2. Legislation: Intellectual Property, Draft Financial Services Ombudsman
3. Annual Business Plan and Budget: Medium Term Financial Plan
4. Matters of public interest: Incorporation of Ports of Jersey, Retail Policy

Methods of working

6. Economic Development Department: Work Stream Document – The Panel worked with  EDD  from  an  early  stage  to  establish  a  no-surprises'  approach  to  its  work programming - to the potential benefit of both the Panel and Minister. One measure introduced was a working document incorporating all work streams of the department, with  an  associated  outline  of  the  timetabling/progress  position  of  each  entry.  This document was updated regularly at the request of the Panel, most usually and helpfully in advance of Quarterly public hearings.
7. Structured Attendance at Economic Development Ministerial Team meetings – An additional measure within the no-surprises' approach was the agreement that the Panel (or Chairman) accompanied by the Scrutiny Officer would on occasion attend Economic Development Ministerial Team meetings. They were initially to be held on monthly, but developed to occur on a more needs arising basis and as such became highly irregular. Such meetings when they occurred provided an insight into ongoing ED work and an opportunity to exchange progress reports and address any difficulties arising. The Panel would recommend continuing with these meetings, but to try to ensure that they are held on a regular basis.

8. Briefings – The Panel has regularly invited/received officials from the Executive to give informal briefings on a particular subject for background information at the start of a review, updates to completed reviews or significant developments/progress reports on areas of potential review within its remit (eg sea routes). The Panel has also received similar briefings from stakeholder organisations, both public (eg JIF Board Chairman, Digital Jersey, Jersey Business, Jersey Post) and private sector (eg Jersey Chamber of Commerce).
9. Quarterly Public Hearings with the Minister for Economic Development  - The Panel invited the Minister for Economic Development on a regular basis to answer questions on topical issues arising in the department.
10. Advisors - The Panel has been selective in its engagement of advisers. It agreed to appoint  expert  advisors  to  assist  with  three  of  its  reviews,  those  of  a  particularly technical nature. For two of those reviews, Intellectual Property and Financial Services Ombudsman, the advisors' primary role was to produce desktop analysis of particularly technically  challenging  legislation,  and  the  Panel  regards  these  circumstances  as demonstrating when such assistance is invaluable.
11. Sub-Panel - The Panel has found limited need for the use of Sub-Panels in its term of office, the only example being the Digital Skills review that touched on both industry and educational matters. The Digital Skills Sub-panel's membership was Connétable Steve Pallett  (Chairman),   Deputy  Jeremy  Maçon,   Connétable  Deidre   Mezbourian  and Connétable Juliette Gallichan. The Panel had expected to lead a Sub-panel in relation to Licensing Law/Alcohol Strategy, but the necessary draft law or draft strategy though much discussed, failed to materialise.

Suggestions for future work

12. This section identifies possible areas for future work by a successor Panel. These suggestions are primarily legacies of the work undertaken by the Panel over the course of the last 3 years and the expected delivery of certain projects by the Minister for Economic Development that are due to cross over into the next term of the States of Jersey.

1. Incorporation of Ports of Jersey:

Further to its Comments paper to P.70/2012, the Panel has undertaken significant background work, which remains ongoing, in anticipation of a major Review of plans to incorporate the Ports of Jersey. Following a public consultation undertaken throughout the summer of 2014 by EDD/PoJ, the Panel has received the summary of responses and all individual responses. These and the context of the Panel's previous background work might help shape a review of the incorporation legislation and associated issues, which  it  is  anticipated  will  be  lodged  as  a  priority  by  the  Minister  for  Economic Development in late 2014/early2015

2. Tourism:

Work implementing the recommendation of the Tourism Shadow Board to effectively close  down  Jersey  Tourism  and  establish  an  independent,  grant  funded  tourism promotion  organisation,  Visit  Jersey',  is  ongoing.  It  is  expected  that  significant momentum might be achieved in late 2014/early2015 by ED following the appointment of a project co-ordinator. This matter might therefore be a priority of the new Panel (see also Quarterly Hearing, 8th September 2014).

3. Jersey Aircraft Registry (JAR):

The Panel recommends follow up to its work since 2012 on a planned Aircraft Registry, particularly the expected establishment of the JAR and development of the detailed operational business case in the last quarter of 2014, subsequent to the presentation of R.115/2014 The Financial Case for the Jersey Aircraft Registry in August (see also Quarterly Hearing, 8th September 2014).

Further Suggestions

1. Licensing Law (final quarter 2014)
2. Financial Services Ombudsman Regulations (final quarter 2014)
3. Enterprise Strategy/Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy – updates
4. Additional Follow up to Panel Reviews, notably Retail Policy (2014), Jersey Innovation Fund (2013)

Other Matters

13. In addition to the work topics outlined above, the Panel would highlight the transfer of the remit for financial services legislation and associated matters from the Minister for Economic  Development  to  the  Chief  Minister/Minister  for Treasury  and  Resources. Whilst  for  continuity  the  Economic  Affairs  Panel  maintained  responsibility  for  the duration of this term, it is expected that the scrutiny remit might appropriately be taken on by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel.

4.  Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Remit

There shall be an Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel which is assigned the topics of Education, Sport and Culture and Home Affairs (Standing Order 135(1)(a)). The Panel's remit covers the policies and work of the Minister for Education Sport and Culture and the Minister of Home Affairs (Code of Practice 4.2)

Membership

Connétable S. W. Pallett, Chairman 22nd January 2014 to Election 2014. Connétable M. P. S. Le Troquer, Vice Chairman 22nd January 2014 to Election 2014.

Connétable S. Rennard 18th February 2014 to Election 2014.

**************************************************************

Deputy J. M. Maçon, Chairman 22nd November 2011 to 22nd January 2014

Note:  The  Chairman  resigned  due  to  the  workload  he  was  experiencing  with  other commitments. At that point, the Panel was dissolved.

Connétable M. P. S. Le Troquer, Vice Chairman 22nd November 2011 to 22nd January 2014

Connétable S. W. Pallett, 22nd November 2011 to 14th January 2013

Deputy M. Tadier 15th January 2013 to 22nd January 2014

Deputy G. Southern 4th June 2013 to 22nd January 2014

Introduction

1. The  Education  and  Home  Affairs  Scrutiny  Panel  has  reviewed  the  work  it  has undertaken since its establishment by the States in November 2011 and agreed to provide a report to its successor Panel established by the States in its next session to assist in developing its own work programme.
2. The report sets out:

1. the work undertaken by the Panel during the session 2011 - 2014
2. methods of working used by the Panel
3. suggestions  for  issues  that  a  successor  Panel  may  wish  to  consider  in developing its work programme

3. The Panel met 66 times between 28th November 2011 and 28th July 2014. Details of minutes can be found on the Panel's web pages.

Work undertaken

4. The Panel conducted the following reviews in the period 2011 to 2014:

5. Numerous subject areas were examined by the Panel with various amounts of work completed to provide the Panel with information to decide if a review was necessary or not. In some cases, this was examination of a few documents, in others considerably more was done including visits or briefings from the Minister and senior staff of the department. The following topics did not require a scrutiny review:

Armed Forces Covenant

Budget 2014

Care Inspectorate Report

Child Care Registration

Criminal Justice Young Offenders Customs

Cycle Helmets

Higher Education Fees

Improving Standards of Achievement Intellectual property Rights

Maths DfESC Report

Police Force Jersey law

PPaCE Codes

Prison

Probation Service

Rehabilitation of Offenders Secondary Education Exam results Sex Offenders Law

Skills Strategy

Social Inclusion

Socio Economic Status

Sports Strategy

Starting Pistol Incident

Unlawful Public Entertainment Regs Wheel Clamping

6. The  Panel  has  fulfilled  the  four  main  roles  of  scrutiny  (Code  of  Practice  7.9)  by undertaking work on:

1. Policy: Introduction of Tasers in Jersey, Jersey Music Service: introduction of user pays' charges (P.36/2013) – comments, Trackers
2. Legislation: Draft Passports and Explosives Laws, Draft States of Jersey Police Force Law 201- (P.182/2011): comments
3. Annual  Business  Plan  and  Budget:  Now  the  Medium  Term  Financial  Plan relating to ESC and HA Departments
4. Matters  of  public  interest:  Relocation  of  Police  Headquarters,  Camera Surveillance, Introduction of Tasers in Jersey, Trackers

Methods of working

7. Quarterly Public Hearings with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture and the Minister for Home Affairs- Every three months, the Panel invited the Ministers to a public hearing to ask questions on topical issues arising in the respective departments.
8. Advisors  -  The  Panel  appointed  expert  advisors  to  assist  with  its  reviews  where necessary. In addition to providing briefing notes on evidence received and assisting with question plans, advisors have been able to meet with departmental officers on a number of occasions to discuss the background to the reviews being undertaken by the Panel.
9. Briefings – The Panel has invited Ministers and senior staff members to provide private briefings  on  subjects  of  interest  to  afford  the  Panel  background  information.  This assisted in deciding whether a review was necessary or provided direct information from the Department at the start of a review.
10. Public Engagement – The Panel used various elements of public engagement in all reviews, from advertising in  the media for a general response from the public, to targeted requests aimed at specific groups of stakeholders.
11. Visits – The Panel undertook visits only where value could be added to reviews, or the consideration of a review, by such a visit.
12. Documentation – Documentation is the mainstay of information obtained and provides the basis for questioning at hearings, references for inclusion in reports and evidence upon which the recommendations of the Panel are based.

13. Public Hearings – Hearings where the public and media are invited have been the main  method  of  obtaining  or  challenging  evidence  with  Ministers  and  other stakeholders.
14. Comments / Amendments - The Panel has noted that it has been useful to have maintained a working relationship' with the Minister and senior staff of both departments within the Panel's remit. Early discussion on new policy or legislation being proposed by the  Minister  has  produced  movement,  or  perhaps  agreement  on  the  part  of  the Minister. This has negated the need for a full review to be undertaken, saving both public argument and the unnecessary spending of public money. The States have been notified of matters dealt with in such a manner by Comments or Amendments as necessary.
15. Background work – The Panel has received nominations for reviews from the public and its own members. This creates varying degrees of work to establish if:-

• there are concerns that warrant further investigation and
• a review would add value to the process overall and
• the subject is within the remit of the Panel.

This  work  may  require  examination  of  documentation,  briefings  from  relevant individuals, a visit or other research. It has to be extensive enough for the Panel to understand the issues sufficiently to decide if the matter needs formal examination within a review.

16. Report – At the conclusion of a review, the Panel publishes a report listing the key findings and recommendations based on the evidence obtained during the review. (Comments or an Amendment may suffice.)

Suggestions for future work

17. This section identifies possible areas for future work by a successor Panel including forthcoming  legislation.  These  suggestions  are  based  unpon  the  Strategic  Plan Initiatives 2009 - 2014 and the departmental objectives approved in the 2011 States Business Plan and derived from the experience of the Panel over the last three years:

1. ESC Review of Secondary Education:  The Panel is aware that the outgoing Director of Education is undertaking a review into secondary education. This is an emotive subject which has a system that is now almost unique to Jersey. Whatever the review suggests will be controversial for some. This is an area that may benefit from a Scrutiny Review although it may be appropriate to wait and see what the ESC Minister chooses to do about the review first.
2. Youth Service: Following the CSR cuts, the Youth Service had to make serious changes and for a time it looked like front line services would be lost. Additional support from the Parishes and private donations saved the day. The following points have been brought to the attention of the Panel:

1. 10% was taken by the CSR from the total YS budget, yet 45% of the YS budget comes from voluntary sources;
2. This important service is reliant on voluntary contributions;
3. Permanent staff salaries account for the largest part of the YS budget and are funded therefore by voluntary contributions;
4. All Parishes benefit in one way or another from the YS service. However there is no common funding from Parishes;  

5. Schools are funded on a per head basis. The YS is flat rate;
6. The media have reported some tragic incidents during 2013 and 2014 relating to mental health issues of the islands' youth. Nothing has been done to increase YS counselling service;
7. The Minister has no statutory requirements to fund the YS. Therefore there is in nothing in place to protect this service. A Minister could reduce or even simply shut the service down to save money.

Initial enquiries with the Minister suggest that there may be disagreement with some or all of the above concerns. (Pages 8-17 Quarterly Public Hearing 30th June 2014).

3. Highlands College: During the review into the Trackers Apprentice Programme, the Panel uncovered evidence of questions as to whether Highlands was large enough to deliver the diversity and quality of courses it aspires to provide, that the campus is physically suitable and that the college is funded adequately to provide a modern training and education facility of the standard expected of a modern training provider. The Panel considers that a review may be appropriate to examine the funding and future needs of the campus.  

5.  Environment Scrutiny Panel

Remit

There shall be a scrutiny panel which is assigned the topics of environment and technical services  ("environment");'  (Standing  Order  135(1)(d)).  The  Panel's  remit  covers  the Departments of the Environment and Transport and Technical Services (Code of Practice 4.2)

Membership

Deputy J. Young (Chairman)

Deputy S. Luce (Vice-Chairman)

Connétable P. Rondel

Deputy J. Le Bailly (appointed to Panel 21st January 2014)

Introduction

1. The Environment Panel has reviewed the work it has undertaken since its establishment by the States in December 2011 and agreed to provide a report to its successor Panel established by the States in its next session to assist in developing its own work programme.
2. The report sets out:

• the work undertaken by the Panel during the session 2011 - 2014
• methods of working used by the Panel
• suggestions for issues that a successor Panel may wish to consider in developing its work programme

3. The Panel met 70 times between December 2011 and September 2014. Details of minutes can be found on the Panel's web pages.

Work undertaken

4. The Panel conducted the following reviews in the period 2012 to 2014:

5. The Panel has fulfilled the four main roles of scrutiny (Code of Practice 7.9) by undertaking work on:

1. Policy: Ash Disposal; Energy Policy; Waste Water Strategy.
2. Legislation:  draft  Aquatic  Resources  Law;  compulsory  wearing  of  cycle helmets.
3. Annual Business Plan and Budget: Medium Term Financial Plan: the Panel reviewed aspects of the Medium Term Financial Plan in 2012, as part of an overall review carried out by the Corporate Services (MTFP) Sub-Panel.
4. Matters of public interest: Green Street Police HQ: Traffic and Parking; taxi regulation; compulsory wearing of cycle helmets; radon.

Methods of working

6. Co-option - The Panel considered co-opting another member for the purposes of the radon review, but unavoidable delays to the timing of the review caused the additional member to withdraw. Consequently all Panel reviews have been conducted by the full Panel.
7. Quarterly Public Hearings - The Panel invited the Ministers for Planning and Environment and Transport and Technical Services to answer questions on topical issues arising in the respective departments on a regular basis.
8. Advisers - The Panel appointed expert advisers to assist with the majority of its reviews. In addition to providing technical reports, briefing notes on evidence received and assisting with question plans, advisers have been able to meet with departmental officers on a number of occasions to discuss important background to the reviews being undertaken by the Panel.
9. Briefings - The Panel has invited Members of the Executive to give informal briefings on particular subjects both for background information at the start of a review, and on important topics which the Panel was monitoring but not currently reviewing, to establish whether it wanted to undertake a review into the matter.

Suggestions for future work

10. This section identifies possible areas for future work by a successor Panel including forthcoming legislation. These suggestions are made following consideration of the States Strategic Plan, departmental business plans and the Panel's experience of departmental priorities and initiatives over the past three years.

• Radon: the Panel's review of radon (presented to the States on 8th September 2014) drew attention to a lack of coordination and commitment amongst States departments in addressing the recognised problem of high levels of radon in the Island, and the potential consequences for public health. The Panel believes that the recommendations in its report (S.R.11/2014) may need to be followed up by a successor Panel to ensure that appropriate action is taken.
• Heritage protection: due to other commitments the outgoing Panel was unable to carry out a review of heritage protection during its term. Members consider that a review would be beneficial to examine the policy and practice of the Planning Department in implementing development control policies of the Island Plan, and consider the practical effect of the new system for identifying and listing heritage sites and properties under the Planning and Building Law (200-), following the White Paper consultation carried out in 2010. Specific concerns include: aspects of development  control  policies  and  their  implementation  in  respect  of  historic buildings,  including  consideration  of  their  appropriateness  and  practicality  and property restrictions; potential conflicts between restrictions on historic buildings compared with other planning policies and building bye-law requirements; existing and proposed restrictions applied to listed buildings in respect of options for their repair, refurbishment, redevelopment or change of use, and whether these are fair and reasonable; and the availability and use of grants or incentives to assist owners of listed buildings, compared with other jurisdictions.

• Energy Efficiency Scheme: this subject was opened up during the Panel's review of  the  draft  Energy  Policy  of  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment,  and subsequently discussed at a number of public hearings. The Panel has some concerns about the eligibility criteria for grants under the existing scheme, and whether these have been applied fairly and consistently across all applications and properties  that  have  benefited  from  improvement  works.  Anecdotal  evidence suggests  that  some  owners  who  have  benefited  under  the  scheme  may  be independently wealthy. The Panel considers that this may require investigation, and that plans to extend the scheme to the able to pay' sector may need a different approach to ensure that the use of public funds does not result in direct financial benefit to property owners, rather than the environmental benefits intended through reduction in energy use. The Panel has also requested that as this involves grants being made from public funds, full details of the internal audit report into the scheme should be made public.
• Taxi regulation: during its tenure the Panel discussed the need for improvements to the Island's taxi service on a number of occasions with the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, as well as participating in consultation carried out by the department  in  respect  of  the  White  Paper  Taxi  Regulatory  Reform  - Recommendations'. Members were led to believe that some reforms would be introduced during the term of office of the current States. However, following a private briefing on 30th May 2014 where the Panel received a confidential paper on taxi strategy implementation it became apparent that this was not going to happen, leading to concerns that long-awaited improvements may not be forthcoming. The Panel considers that as a matter of importance to the public, if proposals to improve the taxi service are not followed up promptly by the department, a Scrutiny review may be appropriate to ascertain what has happened to the proposals and when the necessary improvements will be introduced.
• Crematorium emissions:  correspondence on this matter from the Minister for Health  and  Social  Services  in  March  2014  confirmed  that  emissions  from  the crematorium were unabated, and that there were no plans to address this for the existing crematorium. While it was argued that this put Jersey in a similar position to many UK authorities with unabated crematoria, the Panel maintained its view that permitting  unabated  emissions  of  toxic  substances  such  as  mercury  was unacceptable for a wealthy Island, and that the matter should not be allowed to drop.  It  was  noted  that  the  issue  was  potentially  complicated  by  commercial initiatives to introduce alternatives to cremation or burial for the disposal of human remains,  a  matter  which  would  require  changes  to  the  law  and  was  being addressed by the Minister for Planning and Environment.

6.  Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel

Remit

The Panel's remit covers the Departments of the Health and Social Services Minister, Social Security Minister and Housing Minister (Code of Practice 4.2). In 2014, the Chairmen's Committee agreed that the scrutiny of the Housing Department should be transferred to the Environment  and  Transport  and  Technical  Services  Scrutiny  Panel  after  the  elections subject to adoption of the proposition by the States.

Membership:

Deputy K.L. Moore (Chairman) Deputy J.A. Hilton (Vice-Chairman) Deputy J.G. Reed

Introduction

1. The Health, Social Security and Housing Panel has reviewed the work it has undertaken since its establishment by the States in December 2011 and agreed to provide a report to  its  successor  Panel  established  by  the  States  in  its  next  session  to  assist  in developing its own work programme.
2. The report sets out:

• the work undertaken by the Panel during the session 2011 - 2014
• methods of working used by the Panel
• suggestions for issues that a successor Panel may wish to consider in developing its work programme

3. The Panel met 217 times between 2nd December 2011 and 4th September 2014. Details of minutes can be found on the Panel's web pages.

Work undertaken

4. The Panel conducted the following reviews in the period 2011 to 2014:

Amendments

The Panel brought various amendments to propositions throughout its term of office. These are as follows:

• The Panel lodged an amendment to the Strategic Plan (P.28/2012) in April 2012 to include "Promoting Family and Community Values" which was accepted by the Assembly.
• The Panel lodged three amendments to the Proposition P.82/2012 "Health and Social Services: A New Way Forward" in October 2012:

• Regarding the proposals to be brought forward by the end of 2014 for a "new" hospital the Panel called for an amendment to include full details of all  manpower  and  resource  implications  necessary  to  implement  the proposals – Supported by the Council of Ministers and accepted.
• For the development of a new primary care model, the Panel called for an amendment to bring forward proposals by the end of 2013 as opposed to 2014 as stated in the proposition – this was not supported by Council of Ministers and was withdrawn during the debate. However, a compromise was reached by which the Chief Minister assured the Panel and States Assembly that the Council of Ministers would complete the work on the new primary care model by the end of September 2014.

• Regarding the proposals for a sustainable funding mechanism the Panel called for an amendment to bring forward the proposals before the end of September 2014, as opposed to "by the end of 2014" as mentioned in the proposition – this was supported by the Council of Ministers and accepted.
• The Panel also lodged an amendment to the Reform of Social Housing (P.33/2013) on 16th April 2013.

Other matters

On 4th June 2013, P.72/2013 "Hospital Outpatients: Re-introduction of Prescription Charges" was lodged by the Minister for Health and Social Services. The Panel undertook a review into P.72/2013 and shared with the Department 4 proposed amendments it planned to undertake. On 5th September 2014, the Minister for Health and Social Services withdrew P.72/2013 and the Panel understand this was withdrawn as a result of its inquiries. The Panel is delighted that Scrutiny was able to identify areas that needed further clarification before being implemented.

5. The  Panel  has  fulfilled  the  four  main  roles  of  scrutiny  (Code  of  Practice  7.9)  by undertaking work on:

1. Policy:  Housing  Transformation  Programme,  Health  White  Paper,  the Redesign of Health and Social Services.
2. Legislation: Long Term Care Scheme, Regulation of Care (Jersey) Law 201, Employment  (Amendment  No  8)  (Jersey)  Law  201  -  Family  Friendly, Discrimination (Jersey) Law.
3. Annual Business Plan and Budget: Review of the Medium Term Financial Plan for each of the 3 Departments
4. Matters of public interest: Respite Care for Children and Young Adults, Draft Discrimination (Jersey) Law 201-, Health White Paper, the Redesign of Health and Social Services, Employment (Amendment No 8) (Jersey) Law - Family Friendly,  Long  Term  Care  Scheme,  Child  and  Adolescent  Mental  Health Services (CAMHS), Housing Transformation Programme.

Methods of working

6. Sub  Panels  -  The  Panel  found  that  the  creation  of  Sub-Panels  has  assisted  in developing its work programme enabling the skills and expertise of other Members to be incorporated  in  the  Panel's  work.  The  Housing  Transformation  Programme  was conducted in this manner.
7. Co-option – The Panel found that co-opting other States Members onto its Panel has been very effective especially when a topic comes under the same remit as another Panel. For example, the Panel co-opted Senator S. C. Ferguson from the Corporate Services Panel to undertake the review into the redesign of Health and Social Services which included looking at the financial aspects of the proposals.
8. Quarterly  Public  Hearings  with  the  Minister  for  Health  and  Social  Services, Minister  for  Housing  and  Minister  for  Social  Security  -  The  Panel  invited  the Ministers on a regular basis to ask questions on topical issues arising in the respective departments.
9. Advisors  -  The  Panel  appointed  expert  advisors  to  assist  with  the  majority  of  its reviews. In addition to providing briefing notes on evidence received and assisting with question plans, advisors have been able to meet with departmental officers on a number of occasions to discuss important background to the reviews being undertaken by the Panel or Sub-Panel. The Panel also used expert advisors to undertake desk top reviews issuing Panel comments to accompany the advisor's report.
10. Briefings – The Panel has invited Members of the Executive to give informal briefings on a particular subject for background information at the start of a review. For example, the Minister for Health and Social Services gave the Panel a briefing on the new hospital and what the 10 year plan would entail to assist it with its understanding of the subject. This briefing was jointly presented by the Treasurer who gave insight into the financial side of the hospital build and how costs were established. The Panel has also had private briefings which have helped establish the foundation for a review, in particular CAMHS.

Suggestions for future work

11. This section identifies possible areas for future work by a successor Panel including forthcoming legislation. These suggestions are drawn from the Strategic Plan Initiatives 2009 - 2014 and the departmental objectives approved in the 2014 States Business Plan.

• Respite Care for Adults: When the Panel undertook its review into Respite Care for Children and Young Adults, it seemed the next step would be to undertake a follow up review to see what was being done to care for adults needing respite. The Panel has met with Mrs L. Bratch who represents the Special Needs Advisory Panel (SNAP) informing her it would put this review on its legacy report.

• Patient Safety in the Hospital: The Panel has received correspondence from a member of the Public stating concerns around patient safety in the hospital with patients being put at harm. The Panel believes that this should be investigated further.
• Continuation of Redesign of Health and Social Services – community and hospital services: The Panel presented its report of the Health White Paper in 2012, and following on from this work presented its report of the redesign of health and social services in 2014. The redesign programme is a ten year programme, and the Panel hopes its successor Panel will follow on from its review and monitor the implementation of its accepted recommendations. The Council of Ministers plans to lodge proposals for the new hospital in 2015 via a Full Business Case which will be an important part of any review which is undertaken in the future.
• Sex Discrimination: The Discrimination Law was debated and approved by the States on 14th May 2013. The Panel undertook a desktop review of the Law and presented its report to inform the States debate. The Minister for Social Security plans to introduce regulations to address discrimination on the grounds of sex, age and disability. The sex discrimination regulations are due to be lodged in January 2015 and the Panel believes these should be scrutinised by its successor Panel as a continuation of its work.  

Further Suggestions

• The Panel would recommend its successor Panel to continuously follow up and monitor the implementation of accepted recommendations from past reviews.

Other Matters

12. In addition to the work topics outlined above, the Panel would highlight the issue of following up the findings and recommendations made within its CAMHS report as they are linked specifically to the Department's own review into mental health which is due to conclude in July 2015.

7.  Public Accounts Committee

Remit

The terms of reference for the Public Accounts Committee are found at Standing Order 132.

Although the emerging convention is for the majority of the Committee's work programme to be based on reports published by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Standing Order 132(1)(c) provides scope for the Committee to select review topics unilaterally.

Membership

Between  November  2011  and  November  2014,  the  Committee  was  constituted  in accordance with Standing Order 131. Its membership was as follows -

Title  Name Deputy  T A Senator S C Deputy  S C Deputy  R J Mr  A

Mr  C

Mr  S

Mr  J F Mr  I Deputy  G C L Mr  R J

Role

Vallois  Chairman Ferguson  Vice Chairman Pitman  States Member Rondel  States Member Fearn  Non-States Evans  Non-States Haigh  Non-States Mills  Non-States Ridgeway  Non-States Baudains  States Member Parker  Non-States

Date Appointed  Date Resigned 22/11/2011  End of Term 24/11/2011  End of Term 24/11/2011  25/09/2012 24/11/2011  End of Term 17/01/2012  26/06/2012 17/01/2012  26/06/2012 17/01/2012  19/02/2013 11/09/2012  End of Term 11/09/2012  End of Term 25/09/2012  End of Term 04/06/2013  End of Term

Work Undertaken

The PAC undertook the following reviews between November 2011 and November 2014.

Although formal reviews represented the majority of the Committee's work, it also lodged amendments to the draft Comptroller and Auditor General (Jersey) Law 201- (P.98/2014 refers), a number of which were adopted by the States.

Other review topics that were scoped or otherwise considered during the Committee's term of office included: the Gigabit Jersey project initiated by Jersey Telecom; the Esplanade Square development; and, the application of States policy on grants and subsidies. Gigabit Jersey was deferred on the basis that implementation was at an early stage. The matters raised with the Committee regarding Esplanade Square fell more readily within the remit of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, which subsequently made enquiries of its own. Although significant initial enquiries were made by the Committee during 2013 on the matter of grants and subsidies, the Committee's work programme was unable to sustain a further review. The information obtained has nevertheless been collated for potential consideration by the reconstituted committee.

A majority of the Committee's review topics would ordinarily have been selected from reports produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this regard, the Committee's work programme was affected by the resignation of the then Comptroller and Auditor General in June 2012.

The Committee warmly thanks Mr. C. Swinson, OBE, for the quality of the reports he produced and for his expert advice during his time in office. It further acknowledges that Mrs. K. McConnell, who was appointed in February 2013, has already proven to be a very capable successor.

Methodology

The Committee met on a broadly monthly cycle. Meetings were generally attended by the C&AG or a nominated representative of the Jersey Audit Office (which supports the C&AG), save for the period between the resignation of the former C&AG and the recruitment of a successor.   In  accordance  with  the  practice  agreed  by  the  Chairmen's  Committee, Committee meetings were conducted in private session.

When undertaking reviews, the Committee secured initial briefings from, and submitted various requests for information to, relevant departments. Hearings were held as necessary to establish or corroborate evidence. These hearings were generally conducted in public session.

Suggestions for Future Work Programme

The Committee's primary suggestion regarding its successor Committee's work programme is to concentrate on matters arising from the reports produced by the C&AG in accordance with  the  Jersey  Audit  Office  audit  plan  for  2014-15.   In  this  regard,  the  reconstituted Committee may consider it appropriate to give early consideration to the following 3 reports published by the C&AG during the summer of 2014 –

1. Use of Management Information in the Health and Social Services Department – Operating Theatres,
2. The States as Shareholder – Jersey Telecom, and
3. Financial Directions.

A  review  of  (b)  above  might,  amongst  other  things,  serve  to  clarify  how  –  and  how successfully – the States evaluates and balances the dual objectives of generating profit and delivering public good. It might conceivably set the scene for consideration of the Gigabit Jersey  fibre  project,  the  execution  of  which  will  have  reached  a  late  stage  when  the reconstituted committee begins work.

Looking to the future, the Jersey Audit Office audit plan covers a broad range of topics including,  but  not  exclusive  to:  corporate  and  departmental  risk  management;  decision making;  the  government  relationship  with  arm's  length  bodies  such  as  the  newly incorporated  Andium  Homes;  and,  information  management  and  technology. Reports produced in accordance with the audit plan are expected to offer ample scope for the reconstituted Committee to fulfil its terms of reference and, in particular, to test the extent of progress  made  to  address  the  key  issues  identified  in  the  reports  published  by  the Committee between 2012 and 2014. These key issues are outlined below.

First, each of the Committee's reports demonstrated in some way the value of ensuring that all  stakeholders  have  a  precise  and  shared  understanding  of  the  answers  to  4 straightforward questions –

1. What is government trying to achieve?
2. How is the government aim in the public interest?
3. Where is the SMART[3] action plan to deliver the desired outcome?
4. How will success be measured?

On  several  occasions  the  Committee  found  that  while  individual  stakeholders  within departments had a firm perception of to what was to be done – and why and how – that which was written down for shared reference was rather less clear or, in isolated cases, non- existent. Standards of decision recording across the organisation were of particular concern, not least in the case of the £200,000 grant to a film company.

Effective record keeping provides clarity of purpose, a shared knowledge base for the organisation and the public it serves, and generally encourages the maintenance of high standards.   It  is  also  a  prerequisite  for  good  project  management  and,  ultimately,  for accountability. The Committee considers that, with the right people, the right tools and the right procedures, it is quite possible to deliver effective record keeping without incurring an excessive administrative overhead.

Following on from clarity of purpose, there needs to be a more robust and consistent approach to project management across the organisation, so as to improve the effectiveness of policy implementation. The Committee's report PAC.2/2014 corroborates findings reported by the C&AG in R.118/2013 and thereby underlines the requirement for a step-change in project management capability across the States. The Chief Executive has been asked to provide the Committee with a written report explaining what actions are or have already been taken in this area. This report will be forwarded to the reconstituted Committee, which may wish to select one or more topics that allow for the success of the measures outlined by the Chief Executive to be tested.

Departments also need to be better at evaluating the implementation of policy so that they can do an even better job for the public next time. Some parts of the organisation are perhaps more successful than others in this regard. For example, while the Committee found that certain lessons had been learned from the previous bus service contract in time to influence the approach to new contract negotiations in 2012, it was concerned to note the absence of a full evaluation of the Health and Social Services Integrated Care Records programme.

The Committee will also be forwarding to its successor the information collated regarding States  grants  and  subsidies. Our  provisional  sense  is  that  there  are  grounds  for  a considered review of agricultural subsidies, not least because of the findings we reported in PAC.1/2013 concerning dairy industry support and transitional' Quality Milk Payments, and given that the current Rural Economy Strategy is approaching end of life status.

The  public  sector  reform  agenda  should  be  well  advanced  when  the  reconstituted Committee compiles its work programme. Culture change will be to the success of the reform  agenda  and  the  reconstituted  committee  will  have  an  important  role  to  play  in encouraging  change.   Without  it, the  issues highlighted  above  will  be  much  harder  to address. In this regard, the Committee may consider it appropriate to review one or more elements of the reform agenda.

Other Matters

During 2014 and following a brief review of its working practices, the Committee concluded that it should pursue a digital first' working methodology. In that regard, it submitted an initial case to the Chairmen's Committee for the provision of a dedicated online filing system for the benefit of all Committee members and relevant officers within the States Greffe. This proposal  has  been  taken  forward  by  the  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  in consultation with the Chairmen's Committee. The reconstituted Committee may wish to be apprised of developments in this field.

Anticipated changes to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey will necessitate the preparation of a new code of practice concerning engagement between the Committee and the Executive, and a separate code dealing generally with the procedures of the Committee. The former will be lodged au Greffe' for approval by the States, whereas the latter will be presented to the States for information. Both will be within the remit of the successor Chairmen's Committee to take forward. Draft codes are being prepared and these will be submitted to the reconstituted committee for comment. The preparation of new codes of practice may offer the reconstituted Committee scope to revisit aspects of the relationship between the Committee and Executive Departments so as to maintain and enhance respect.

8.  Appendices

[1] To be presented subsequent to presentation of this legacy report

[2] To be presented subsequent to presentation of this legacy report

[3] Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound