GUIDELINES FOR OFFICERS
ATTENDING SCRUTINY PANELS
GENERAL
Under the terms of a Report and Proposition (P 79/2003) that was
approved by the States of Jersey on 24th July 2003, it was agreed
that two shadow Scrutiny Panels and a Public Accounts Committee should be set
up immediately and that formal Scrutiny Panels, four in number, would be formed
at the time of the implementation of the ministerial system of government.
Within the terms of this Report and Proposition, it was decided that –
"…the Scrutiny Panels and Public Accounts Committee shall have the
power to call for any papers or records relevant to the matter under
consideration and the power to require any person to attend before them;"
Whilst the shadow Scrutiny Panels were not given the same powers as the
formal Scrutiny Panels, nevertheless the States agreed that Committees of the
States should –
"… provide the fullest support and co-operation to the shadow
Panels to enable them to operate effectively;"
These guidelines have, therefore, been developed in order to provide
advice and guidance to all States’ employees on how they should conduct
themselves when they are required to appear before a (Shadow) Scrutiny Panel or
the Public Accounts Committee.
REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE THE PANEL/COMMITTEE
States’ employees may be required to appear before a Scrutiny Panel or
the Public Accounts Committee in order to provide an explanation of the
policies of the Committee to whom they report and the performance of their
department in implementing those policies. It is therefore appropriate that the
Committee’s chief officer should be requested to designate a suitable officer
to appear before the Scrutiny Panel or Public Accounts Committee, and the Chief
Officer should have the right to accompany the officer when s/he appears before
the Panel or Committee.
The deliberations of the Panel/Committee are normally held in open
session, with public and news media entitled to be present. If particularly
sensitive or confidential material is likely to be discussed, it would be
appropriate to approach the Panel/Committee via the relevant Scrutiny Officer
in order to arrange for the evidence to be provided in closed session. (The
type of information that is considered to be sensitive is set out in the
attached Appendix.)
PROVIDING EVIDENCE
The underlying principle that should be followed when providing evidence
is that the employee should be as helpful as possible to the Scrutiny Panel/Public
Accounts Committee. Employees appearing before the Panel/Committee are
responsible for ensuring that the evidence that they give is accurate. It is,
however, normal practice for the Scrutiny Officer to give some indication as to
the areas that the Panel/Committee will seek to cover during the meeting and so
the officer will need to be fully briefed on the main facts of the matters on
which they expect to be examined. (This might be a major task as a
Panel’s/Committee’s questions can range widely.)
If, subsequently, it is discovered that the evidence has unwittingly
contained factual errors, these should be made known to the Panel/Committee via
the relevant Scrutiny Officer as soon as possible after this discovery.
DISCUSSION OF POLICY
States’ employees should, as far as possible, confine their evidence to
questions of fact and explanation relating to their Committee’s policies and
actions. They should be ready to explain –
All comments by States’ employees on the policies and actions of their
Committee should respect and be in accordance with the political impartiality
of the Public Service.
States’ employees should also avoid being drawn into discussion on the
merits of alternative policies where this is politically contentious. If
employees are pressed by the Panel/Committee to make such comments then they
should recommend that such questions be referred to the Committee President.
Discussions or questions during the course of a Panel/Committee meeting
taken in open session might move into areas which are considered confidential
and/or sensitive in accordance with the criteria set out in the attached
Appendix. Employees should identify to the Panel/Committee the nature of the
information that is being sought and indicate that they feel unable to provide
such information in an open evidence session without further authority.
Subsequent to the meeting, the employee should refer the matter to his or her
Chief Officer in order that it can be resolved, and subsequently to the Committee
President if necessary.
Even in closed session there may be very rare occasions when an employee
is concerned about the release of highly confidential and sensitive
information, particularly where this appears not to be relevant to the Panel’s
line of enquiry. In such circumstances, the employee should indicate their
concerns about revealing such information without further authority and
indicate that s/he will refer the matter to the Chief Officer for resolution,
and to the Committee President if necessary. Subsequently, the Committee
President will discuss the matter with the Chair of the Panel/Committee.
WRITTEN REPORTS
It is quite likely that a Scrutiny Panel and Public Accounts Committee
will seek written replies to certain questions in advance of a Panel/Committee
hearing. As is the case with oral evidence, States’ employees should act within
the rules that have been set out above with regard to the provision of such
information. If there is doubt about the provision of any information then this
should be discussed with the Chief Officer, and subsequently with the Committee
President if necessary.
If a request for information is considered excessive and would incur a
significant cost or diversion of effort by the employee or others, the matter
should be referred to the Committee President for discussion with the Chairman
of the Scrutiny Panel or Public Accounts Committee in order to see how it can
be resolved.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL LIAISON
Where the particular subject matter of an enquiry by a Panel/Committee
spans the work of more than one Department, it is important that the Department
with the predominant role takes the lead to ensure that the evidence given is
co-ordinated and consistent. Where there is no clear predominant Department,
the Chief Executive, Policy and Resources Department, should decide who should
take the lead.
MATTERS WHICH MAY BE SUB JUDICE
Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee are subject to the
same rules in connection with matters awaiting the adjudication of the courts.
Thus, if States’ employees believe that a matter of such nature may arise, they
should contact the relevant Scrutiny Officer to establish whether the
Panel/Committee is aware of this. In addition, employees should take care in
discussing or giving written evidence on matters which may become the subject
of litigation. In such circumstances, employees should ensure that advice is
obtained from the Crown Officers to establish the limits of the information
that would be permissible to release to the Panel/Committee.
DISCIPLINARY MATTERS
Responsibility for carrying out investigations into the conduct and
behaviour of individual States’ employees rests with the employer. If a
Scrutiny Panel seeks to allocate individual criticism or blame through
questioning States’ employees, it is appropriate in those circumstances for the
employee to request the matter to be referred to their Chief Officer in order
that the appropriate investigation might be carried out in accordance with
established procedures and with appropriate safeguards for the individual(s)
concerned. Thereafter, answers to the Panel’s questions should not be provided.
Subsequently, the Chief Officer should provide information relating to the
outcome of the investigation to the Panel/Committee, with the appropriate level
of confidentiality being applied.
COMMENT ON EVIDENCE FROM OTHER WITNESSES
Evidence provided by others to the Panel/Committee which is critical of
a department may be given after the departmental representatives have already
given their evidence. In such circumstances it is open to the Department’s
Chief Officer to respond to the criticisms, and to forward this response on to
the relevant Scrutiny Officer for consideration by the Scrutiny Panel or Public
Accounts Committee.
After the hearing, a copy of the transcription, if one is to be
prepared, or a summary of evidence will be sent to the officer or officers who
have given evidence to the panel, and the officer(s) will therefore have the
opportunity to comment on the draft before it is finalised. Any proposed
amendments should be discussed with the relevant Scrutiny Officer. (A copy of
the CD Rom on which the evidence was recorded can also be made available.) In
the event that the Officer has made any factual omissions during the hearing,
he/she should provide such information to the Scrutiny Officer within seven
days.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PANEL’S/COMMITTEE’S APPROACH
If an officer is concerned at the manner in which s/he has been dealt
with by a Panel/Committee, the matter should be raised, in the first instance,
with her/his chief officer. If it is considered appropriate, the chief officer
could broach the matter with the President of her/his Committee, who could then
pursue the matter with the Chair of the relevant Panel/Committee. If the
President considers that the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved, s/he
could then refer the matter to the President of the Privileges and Procedures
Committee for resolution.
Policy and Resources Committee
INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED SENSITIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRESENTING TO
A SCRUTINY PANEL/PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
(The criteria set out below are drawn from the Code of Practice on
Public Access to Official Information (P.38/99), Part III, paragraph 3.2)
For the purposes of appearing before a Scrutiny Panel/Public
Accounts Committee, the following information should be considered to be of a
confidential and sensitive nature:-
(a) such disclosure would, or might be liable to -
(i) constitute an unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of an individual;
(ii) prejudice the
administration of justice, including fair trial, and the enforcement or proper
administration of the law;
(iii) prejudice legal
proceedings or the proceedings of any tribunal, public enquiry, Board of
Administrative Appeal or other formal investigation;
(iv) prejudice the duty of
care owed by the Education (Sport and Culture) Committee to a person who is in
full-time education;
(v) infringe legal
professional privilege or lead to the disclosure of legal advice to an
authority, or infringe medical confidentiality;
(vi) prejudice the
prevention, investigation or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution
of offenders, or the security of any property;
(vii) harm the conduct of
national or international affairs or the Island’s relations with other
jurisdictions;
(viii) cause damage to the
economic interests of the Island;
(ix) prejudice the financial
interests of an authority by giving an unreasonable advantage to a third party
in relation to a contract or commercial transaction which the third party is
seeking to enter into with the authority;
(x) prejudice the competitive
position of a third party, if and so long as its disclosure would, by revealing
commercial information supplied by a third party, be likely to cause
significant damage to the lawful commercial or professional activities of the
third party;
(xi) prejudice the
competitive position of an authority;
(xii) prejudice
employer/employee relationships or the effective conduct of personnel
management;
(xiii) constitute a premature
release of a draft policy which is in the course of development;
(xiv) cause harm to the
physical or mental health, or emotional condition, of the applicant whose
information is held for the purposes of health or social care, including child
care;
(xv) prejudice the provision
of health care or carrying out of social work, including child care, by
disclosing the identity of a person (other than a health or social services
professional) who has not consented to such disclosure;
(xvi) prejudice the proper
supervision or regulation of financial services;
(xvii) prejudice the
consideration of any matter relative to immigration, nationality, consular or
entry clearance cases;
(b) the information concerned was given to the authority concerned in
confidence on the understanding that it would be treated by it as confidential,
unless the provider of the information agrees to its disclosure.