States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 (P.151-2005) 2nd amd (P.151-2005 Amd.(2)) – coms

Published on: 6 September 2005

Presented by: Policy and Resources Committee

Debate date: 13 September 2005

Reference: P.151/2005(Amd)(2)(Com)

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES BUSINESS PLAN 2006 – 2010 (P.151/2005): SECOND AMENDMENT (P.151/2005 AMD.(2)) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 6th September 2005 by the Policy and Resources Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

The Policy and Resources Committee opposes the amendment on the following grounds –

T h e proposition does not explain why the Policy and Resources Committee has been identified as the

committee which should make a reduction in its budget. The budget recommendations in the draft 2006 Business Plan represent the outcome of a rigorous process of discussion and prioritisation involving Committee Presidents, and they take into account the relative demands and requirements of the services offered to the public. The Committee accordingly recommends that if the amendment is approved, a formal process be established whereby any potential reductions in a committee's cash limit to compensate for an increase in another committee's cash limit can be formally appraised.

T h e S tates have decided to support the introduction of a limited third party right of appeal, and a decision

will need to be taken about how and when this service is to be funded. The Committee does not, however, believe that it would be wise for the States to take a decision in haste, without having considered the wider implications. The Committee notes that Deputy Scott Warr en's amendment does not address the matter of the additional Royal Court costs that would arise out of the introduction of a third party right of appeal.