MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: PROPOSED REFORMS
_______________
Lodged au Greffe on 7th August 2001
by the Policy and Resources Committee
______________________________
_files/image002.jpg)
STATES
OF JERSEY
STATES GREFFE
180 2001 P.122
Price
code: E
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked
to decide whether they are of opinion -
(a) to agree that the Island’s present Committee
system of government should be replaced by a ministerial system, combined with
a system of scrutiny, as set out in the report of the Policy and Resources
Committee dated 26th July 2001 and that this objective should be achieved in
the following manner -
(i) the
Committee system of government will be abolished;
(ii) the
States will appoint a Chief Minister of Jersey from among their number who will
nominate a team of Ministers to form the Council of Ministers with the
executive function of government vested in the Chief Minister and the Council
of Ministers;
(iii) not more than 10 departments of government
will be established, each headed by a Minister, with power to appoint up to two
other members of the States to assist in his or her executive work, , subject
to the approval of the Chief Minister and to the condition set out in paragraph
(vii) below, with such members being able, if appropriate, to be so involved in
the work of more than one department;
(iv) the States will form a Procedure Committee,
comprised of members of the States who are not involved in the Executive, to be
responsible to the States for all aspects of Assembly procedure including, in
particular, scrutiny arrangements and an appropriate code of conduct for all
members of the States;
(v) the
States, upon the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, will establish
a small number of Scrutiny Committees, comprised of
members of the States not involved in the Executive, the function of such
committees, in support of the paramount role
of the States Assembly in such matters, being to examine the performance of
government, to scrutinise legislation and to contribute to the development of
policy;
(vi) the States will establish a Public Accounts
Committee, comprised of the chairmen of the Scrutiny Committees together with
at least one other member of the States not involved in the Executive, charged with the
scrutiny of public expenditure and supported by an Auditor General accountable
directly to the States Assembly;
(vii) the revised structure will be designed to
ensure that the number of members of the States not involved in the Executive
will always be in the majority ;
the Council of
Ministers will be supported by a Chief Executive who will be the head of the
civil service, which will be unified at senior level with heads of departments sitting on a Corporate
Management Board chaired by the Chief Executive;
the States will
establish an independent Appointments Commission, made up of non-States
Members, with responsibility for ensuring that the most senior civil service
appointments are properly made and free from undue political influence, and
which as its first task will recommend to the States a person for appointment
as Chief Executive
the Council of
Ministers will set up and lead a Liaison Group between the executive and the
parishes to keep under review the
relationship in the proposed new governmental arrangements between the centre
and the parishes.
(b) to request the Policy and Resources Committee
to present to the States, before the end of November 2001, an implementation
plan showing how these changes should be brought into effect.
POLICY AND RESOURCES
COMMITTEE
Notes: 1. The
Finance and Economics Committee...
2. The
Human Resources Committee...
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of
opinion -
(a) to agree that the Island’s present
committee system of government should be replaced by a ministerial system,
combined with a system of scrutiny, as set out in the report of the Policy and
Resources Committee dated 26th July 2001 and that this objective should be
achieved in the following manner -
(i) the committee system of government will be abolished;
(ii) the States will appoint a Chief Minister of
Jersey from among their number, by a process to be agreed, who will nominate a
team of ministers
to form the Council of Ministers, with the executive function of government vested
in the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers;
(iii) not more than ten departments of
government will be established, each headed by a minister, with power
to appoint up to two other members of the States to assist in his or her
executive work, subject to the approval of the Chief Minister and to the
condition set out in paragraph (vii) below, with such members being able, if
appropriate, to be so involved in the work of more than one
department;
(iv) the States will form a Procedure Committee
to be responsible to the States for all aspects of Assembly procedure
including, in particular, scrutiny arrangements and an appropriate code of
conduct for all members of the States;
(v) the States will establish, upon the basis of conditions and terms of reference to
be drawn up by the Procedure Committee, a
small number of scrutiny committees, comprised of members of the States not
involved in the Executive, the function of such committees being, in support of
the overriding role of the States Assembly in such matters, to contribute to the
development of policy, to scrutinise legislation, and to examine the
performance of government;
(vi) the States will establish a Public Accounts
Committee, comprised of the chairmen of the scrutiny committees
together with at least one other member of the States not involved in the
Executive, charged with the scrutiny of public expenditure and supported by an
Auditor General accountable directly to the States Assembly;
(vii) the revised structure will be designed to
ensure that the number of members of the States who are not involved in the
Executive will be greater than those who are;
(viii) the Council of Ministers will be supported by a
Chief Executive who will be the head of the civil service, which will be
unified at senior level; and heads of departments will form a management
board under the leadership of the Chief Executive;
(ix) the States will establish an independent
Appointments Commission, comprising persons who are not members of the States,
with responsibility for ensuring that senior civil service appointments are
properly made, and which as its first task will recommend to the States a
person for appointment as Chief Executive;
(x) the Council of Ministers will establish a Liaison
Group to consider service
delivery and
resource allocation issues as between the Executive and the parishes
and to keep under review the relationship between the Executive and the
parishes;
(b) to request the Policy and Resources
Committee to present to the States, before the end of November 2001, an
implementation plan showing how and when these changes should be brought into
effect.
POLICY AND RESOURCES
COMMITTEE
Notes: 1. The Finance and Economics Committee’s
comments are to follow.
2. The Human Resources Committee’s comments
are to follow.
REPORT
1. Introduction
1.1 In
bringing forward its proposals for reforming the Island’s machinery of
government, the Committee has worked from the fundamental premise that the
system needs to change. This was the clear signal from the States’ decision to
establish the Review of the Machinery of Government in 1998, and also from the
Clothier Report published in January 2001. The Committee believes that the need
for change is widely accepted both in the States itself and in the community at
large. There is a widespread public perception that the Island’s government is
inefficient, indecisive, poorly co-ordinated, and out of touch with the demands
and pressures of a modern society.
1.2 The
Policy and Resources Committee believes that this perception is well-founded,
and it is for this reason that it is coming forward with a wide-ranging set of
proposals for change. These proposals have been arrived at only after a lengthy
period of consultation and reflection, and the Committee has given careful
attention to the many views that have been expressed from all quarters.
1.3 In
essence, the Committee is recommending that the Island’s machinery of
government should move from the present committee arrangements to a ministerial
system, combined with a system of scrutiny. The Committee’s proposals flow from
those which were set out in the Clothier Report, but the Committee has taken a
view on which aspects of that report should be taken forward now, in relation
to the core objective of a change to a ministerial system combined with a
system of scrutiny, and those which require more thought or should be taken
separately as issues in their own right in due course.
1.4 The
Committee is greatly indebted to Sir Cecil Clothier and his team for the work
they have undertaken in reviewing the Island’s system of government. The Panel
conducted its work effectively and diligently over a period of almost two
years, and faithfully completed the task that it was assigned.
2. Background
2.1 There
have been calls for change to the Island’s system of government for many years,
but the present debate could be said to have started in January 1998, when a
workshop of States members and Chief Officers considered the role and
responsibilities of the Policy and Resources Committee, as well as the more
general question of the strategic and corporate management of the States.
2.2 As
a result of these discussions, in July 1998 the Policy and Resources Committee
lodged “au Greffe” a report and proposition,
(Strategic and corporate management of the States: (P.164/98)) in which it
stated that it was firmly of the opinion that there was a need for a general
review of the machinery of government, and that this review should be carried
out by a body totally independent of the States which should consult widely
throughout the Island.
2.3 In
adopting the
Committee’s proposition, on 1st September 1998, the States
agreed, in principle, to the
appointment of an independent body to undertake a review of all aspects of the
machinery of government in Jersey. and tThe Policy and
Resources Committee was asked to bring back terms of reference together with
nominations for the chairmanship and membership of the review body.
2.4 On
19th January 1999 the Committee lodged “au Greffe” a proposition (Review of the
machinery of government: terms of reference and membership: (P.13/99)),
which recommended the membership and terms of reference for the Review Body. . The
terms of reference were presented in a manner designed to ensure that the scope
of the review would be as wide as possible, covering all aspects of the
machinery of government, with the exception of the constitutional relationships
between the Island and the United Kingdom and the European Union.
2.5 The
terms of reference were the subject of an amendment from Senator Stuart Syvret
which proposed that the Review Body should also examine the machinery of
government in the context of transparency, democratic responsiveness and the
need for checks and balances (Review
of the machinery of government: terms of reference and membership
(P.13/99) - second amendments (P.19/99)).
2.6 On
2nd March 1999 the States adopted the Committee’s proposition, together with
Senator Syvret’s amendments, and agreed to appoint a panel to undertake
a review of all aspects of the machinery of government in Jersey with the
following terms of reference -
“to consider whether the present machinery
of government in Jersey is appropriate to the task of determining,
co-ordinating, effecting and monitoring all States’ policies and the delivery
of all public services; including -
the
composition, operation and effectiveness of the States Assembly;
the
composition, operation and effectiveness of the Committees of the States;
the
role and respective responsibilities of the States, the Committees and the
Departments in achieving an efficient and effective strategic and business
planning and resource allocation process;
the
role of the Bailiff;
the
transparency, accountability and democratic responsiveness of the States
Assembly and Committees of the States; and
whether the
machinery of government is presently subject to checks and balances sufficient
to safeguard the public good and the rights of individuals;
but excluding -
the
constitutional relationship between the Bailiwick and the United Kingdom; and
the
constitutional relationship between the Bailiwick and the European Union;
and to make
recommendations to the Policy and Resources Committee on how the present
machinery of government could be improved.”.
2.7 The
States also agreed that the membership of the panel should comprise five local
residents and four persons resident outside the Island, with an independent
chairman, as follows -
Non-local
Sir
Cecil Clothier KCB, QC (Chairman)
Sir
Kenneth Percy Bloomfield, KCB
Professor
Sir Maurice Shock
Professor
Michael Gilbert Clarke CBE
Local
Mr.
John Henwood, MBE
Mrs.
Anne Elizabeth Perchard
Mr.
Geoffrey Colin Powell, OBE
Advocate
John Daniel Kelleher
Advocate
David Fisher Le Quesne
2.8 All
the non-local members of the Review Panel had extensive, relevant experience,
with particular reference to United Kingdom central and local government, and the two
professors brought with them national reputations in governmental reform. The
local members were all residents of long-standing who were well-known and
respected in the community.
2.9 Over
the next two years the Review Panel considered a large body of evidence
relating to the Island’s machinery of government. From the very outset the
panel resolved to give close attention to the views of the wider public and in
so doing interviewed over 130 witnesses and received over 160 written
submissions. It also held an extensively advertised public meeting in St.
Helier and sampled public opinion through an opinion poll that was conducted on
its behalf by MORI.
3. The
Clothier Report and the consultation process
3.1 The
report of the Review Panel on the Machinery of Government in Jersey (the
“Clothier Report”) was published on 15th January 2001 and presented to the
States on the following day. The Report received widespread coverage in the
local media and, in view of the extensive publicity and general availability of
the document, the Committee does not propose to give a detailed account of its
contents here. However, a general summary of the report’s recommendations is
provided for ease of reference at Appendix
1One.
3.2 The
Clothier Report was critical of many aspects of the Island’s system of
government. One of its main criticisms was that the Island lacked a clear
centre of governmental authority and that this prevented it from reacting in a
timely and decisive manner to the challenges of a modern society. The report
went on to make a series of recommendations that amounted to a comprehensive
plan for the revision of the system of government in Jersey. These
recommendations encompassed many important areas of government, including the
electoral system, the composition of the States Assembly and the role of the
Bailiff.However, t The most
fundamental recommendation was that the present committee arrangements should
be replaced by a ministerial system combined with a system of scrutiny.
3.3 In
the weeks following publication the Clothier Report provoked a considerable
degree of public comment. There were many who welcomed the Report for the
breadth and depth of its recommendations. However, some disagreed, in whole or
in part, with the Report’s recommendations, claiming that it had failed to take
sufficient note of the advantages of the present system. It is fair to say
though, that there was very little support for the view that there should be no
change at all to the present arrangements.
3.4 The
Review Panel was criticised in some quarters on the grounds that it had not
considered other government models before producing its recommendations. The
Committee, however, believes that this criticism was unjustified in that it
failed to take proper note of the Panel’s terms of reference, which in this
respect were to “make recommendations to the Policy and Resources Committee on
how the present machinery of government could be improved”. and that tThe Panel had
indeed considered a range of options, but had concluded from the weight of
evidence that change along the lines that it eventually recommended would offer
the best way forward.
3.5 The
Policy and Resources Committee wished to ensure that the public had a full
opportunity to comment on the Clothier Report and its recommendations and
established a Steering Group, consisting of three members of the Committee,
namely Senator Pierre Horsfall (Chairman), Senator Len Norman, and Senator
Nigel Quérée, to oversee the mechanics of the consultation timetable. In
addition, two officers were seconded from other States Departments to support
the consultation process.
3.6 The
first step in the consultation process was to send out summary copies of the
Clothier Report to every household in the Island. Copies of the summary were
also translated into Portuguese and made generally available. Members of the
public were then invited to submit their written comments to the Committee by
19th March,
although this deadline was later extended to the beginning of April 2001.
3.7 In
addition, a public meeting was held at Fort Regent on the evening of 15th March
which was
broadcast live by Radio Jersey. This meeting provided an opportunity for
Islanders to express their views and ask questions of both local and non-local
members of the Clothier Panel.
3.8 While
this public consultation process was in progress, the Committee decided that
it also wished to promote discussion within the States organisation. First, the
Committee sought
the initial views of other States Committees on the Clothier Report and its
recommendations, and then States members and Chief Officers were invited to an
informal all-day meeting on 27th February. At this very
well-attended meeting there was a wide-ranging and constructive discussion,
which included a presentation from and a discussion with members of the
Clothier Panel.
3.9 At
that same meeting it was decided by those States members present that the
membership of the Policy and Resources Committee’s ad hoc Steering Group should
be extended to include nine other States members and, as a result of a ballot
held shortly afterwards, the following nine additional members of the
Steering Group were elected to the group -
Senator
Christopher Lakeman
Connétable
Mac Pollard
Deputy
Ken Syvret, MBE
Senator
Wendy Kinnard
Senator
Stuart Syvret
Deputy
Mike Vibert
Deputy
Paul Routier
Deputy
Roy Le Hérissier
Deputy
Gerald Voisin
4. The
Steering Group
4.1 The
first meeting of the newly enlarged Steering Group took place on 8th March
2001, and at the outset it was agreed that the Group’s remit should be “to
recommend a way forward on the reform of the machinery of government”. The
Group discussed the recommendations in the Clothier Report and the general
consensus of opinion was that there were two key areas for consideration,
namely the proposals for a ministerial system and for a system of scrutiny. The
Group did not have a view at this stage on whether or not it would be desirable
to move to a ministerial system with a system of scrutiny, but it did agree that
the implications of any such move would be crucial to the Island’s system of
government,
and therefore these
issues should be given priority
consideration.priority should therefore be given to the
consideration of these issues.
4.2 However,
before examiningconsidering
these issues in detail, the Group agreed that it should begin by going back to
first principles and examining what was meant by “good government”. This could
be done reaching agreement on a set of criteria, which could then be used for
evaluating various options for a system of government. In this connection the
Group agreed that it should not restrict itself solely to an examination of the
recommendations in the Clothier Report, but that it should also look at other
possible options for a system of government.
4.3 4.3Another
informal meeting of States members was held on 20th March, and at this meeting
agreement was reached on a set of criteria that could be used by the Steering
Group in its assessment of various options for a system of government,
and;.
It was also agreed that the Steering Group should consider the following
four different options for government reform -
· Continuing with the
present system of government: In this option there would be no significant
changes to the current system of government.
· Reducing the number of
States Committees: This option would involve reducing the number of States
Committees with the aim of providing a greater degree of co-ordination.
· Having a modified
committee system with more co-ordination and scrutiny: As well as reducing
the number of committees, this option would give a stronger mandate to the
Policy and Resources Committee. It would also include the creation of Scrutiny
Committees.
· Moving to a
ministerial system/system of scrutiny: This would entail the replacement of
Committees with a ministerial system, together with a system of independent
scrutiny by those in the States not involved in the ‘executive’ side of
government. This option would be based closely on the recommendations in the
Clothier Report, and for the purposes of this report it is described as the
“Ministerial/Clothier” option.
4.4 In
the weeks immediately after this meeting the Steering Group met on several
occasions to discuss the criteria and evaluate the options that had been
proposed. The Group further decided that -
· the criteria for assessing good government could be grouped
under four main headings, namely “Democratic Government”, “Coherent
Government”, “Decisive Government”, and “Effective Scrutiny”, together with an
additional heading of “Public Acceptability”;
· in relation to the criteria for good government ,
the
list of 29 which had been identified by States members, should include a reference to the need for
high ethical standards in public life, and that the
criterion of “Transparency/Standards in public life - keeping the public
informed” should accordingly be added; and
· as the criterion of “Accountability” had featured more than
once in the original list, the list should be amended slightly so that it
featured only once.
This
resulted in agreement
on a revised list of 29 criteria under five main headings
being agreed.
4.5 All
of the five main headings and the criteria were then assigned weightings which,
in the Group’s opinion, reflected their relative importance.
4.6 A
copy of the revised list of criteria, together with the weightings assigned by
the Group, is attached as Appendix 2.
4.7 At
this point the Group then began giving more detailed consideration to each of
the four options that had been identified for a system of government. Other
possible options had been discussed during the Steering Group’s meetings, and
it was agreed that two of those should also be included in the evaluation
exercise. These were as follows -
· A modified Committee
system with more co-ordination, but without Scrutiny Committees :
This
was similar to the third option identified by States members on 20th March (see
paragraph 4.4), except that it did not include scrutiny committees; and
· A Combined Committee/Ministerial
Option: This option combined elements of both the present committee system
and a ministerial system of government. The number of States Committees would
be reduced to nine or ten Committees/Ministries, each with a Minister/President
and a small number of other States members. Three scrutiny committees would
also be created. Unlike the Ministerial/Clothier option, the majority of States
members would exercise both executive and scrutiny functions, i.e. through
membership of not more than one executive committee, and of one or more
scrutiny committees.
4.8 The
Steering Group members proceeded to assess each of these six options according
to the agreed criteria, and results of individual assessments were collated and
the average scores calculated. The agreed weightings were then applied to
produce overall scores and the results are shown in Appendix 3.
Note: At every stage this work was carried out in
consultation with the Statistics Unit of the Policy and Resources Department.
4.9 The
results of the Steering Group exercise showed a clear margin in favour of two
of the options. The system that scored most highly was the Ministerial/Clothier
option and this was followed by the Combined Committee/Ministerial option. The
lowest-scoring option was the present system of government, with a total score
that was well under half of that received for each of the two highest-scoring
alternatives. This latter result was entirely consistent with the fact that
virtually no argument had been heard or presented which had advocated that the
present system should remain unchanged.
4.10 It
is worth
noting that -
· the results were based on the averages of the scores
received, rather than on the views of each individual Group member, and the
process that was followed therefore ensured that the results provided a
representative view of the Group as a whole; and;
· the results were arrived at only after a lengthy process of
discussion by 12 States members, representing many different shades of opinion,
and with extensive experience of the States.
4.11 The
Steering Group did not restrict itself solely to the evaluation exercise, but
it also discussed many of the issues that had been raised in the Clothier
Report.
4.12 One of the main subjects for discussion was the issue of scrutiny, and the general consensus of opinion was that the present scrutiny arrangements were very deficient. It was felt that it was impor