Financial and manpower statements in Propositions- revised procedures (P.92-2010) – comments

STATES OF JERSEY

FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER STATEMENTS IN PROPOSITIONS: REVISED PROCEDURES (P.92/2010) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 27th September 2010 by the Council of Ministers

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: A  P.92 Com.(2)

COMMENTS

It is more important than ever for States Members to make voting decisions based on complete  and  accurate  information,  and  the  financial  and  manpower  implications section of a proposition is integral to this process. The responsibilities of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, prescribed under the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005, mean that any amendments made to Standing Order 21 give both the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Council of Ministers great cause for concern. In the Council's  opinion  the   Deputy 's  proposal  weakens  the  procedure  in  a  number  of areas –

1. In its current form, Standing Order 21 requires the proposer to be fully aware of  the financial  and  manpower implications  associated  with  a proposition before it is lodged. P.92/2010 would permit the removal of this requirement, resulting in members considering propositions without the proper financial and  resource  information  attached.  This  conflicts  with  the  PAC's  recent recommendation following its Financial Review of the Jersey Heritage Trust. In its letter to all States Members dated 11 August 2010, the Privileges and Procedures Committee has referred to the PAC's recommendation requiring that the PPC –

"examine this issue and review current arrangements, saying There is  no  point  in  passing  aspirational  strategies  unless  there is  some realism in respect of execution of funding.'"

By establishing the financial and manpower implications prior to lodging a proposition, the proposer must research and conclude whether the resources required to achieve the proposal are realistic and attainable. Removing this obligation  may  lead  to  a  number  of  propositions  being  lodged  that  are subsequently  withdrawn  or  defeated  as  it  becomes  apparent  they  are  not achievable.  States  members' time  is  valuable  and comes  at  a  cost to  the taxpayer. Members should only be asked to consider propositions that have been appropriately researched and contain complete information.

2. Another function of Standing Order 21 is to ensure that members receive adequate  time  to understand  and  appreciate  the  financial  and  manpower implications incurred if they were to approve the proposition. There is a risk that submitting an Addendum, as proposed by the Deputy , could result in members receiving material and complex financial information at the eleventh hour. This would not be conducive to members' busy working schedule, nor does it serve the taxpayer if a proposition is passed with onerous resource implications which members did not have a reasonable period of time to assimilate.
3. The Proposition proposes that a Minister or Ministers provide information on financial  or  manpower  implications  within  7 days  of  being  requested  in writing to do so. This part of the proposal assumes that assessing the resource implications for propositions isin all cases a relatively simple exercise, or that departments have infinite resources that they may allocate significant time to assessing  the  financial  and  manpower  implications  immediately. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Page - 2

P.92/2010 Com.(2)

Taking the recently lodged P.117/2010: Social Security Scheme: amendments (Senator A. Breckon) as an example; the Senator's proposal has wide-ranging and long-term financial consequences affecting all States departments, the Consolidated Fund, the Health Insurance Fund, the private sector and the public. In terms of manpower, it may require additional Law Drafting time to develop a new Long-Term Care Insurance Fund. The proposition has been lodged at a time when the Social Security Department is diverting all available resources to the Annual Business Plan process. It would be unreasonable and unfair to expect the Minister for Social Security to provide analysis on the financial  and  manpower  implications  on  this  proposition  within  7 days, especially when it requires a cross-departmental approach.

Standing  Order  21  already  requires  Ministers  upon  request  to  provide complete and accurate information that is sufficient to enable the proposer to prepare the statement. Ministers are also subject to the recourse of the oral and written  question  process,  should  the  proposer  feel  that  the  quality  of information submitted is in question, or that the length of time taken to submit the information is unreasonable.

At a time when we are asking departments and members to be far more diligent with resource implications, the Council feels this Proposition is a step backwards in terms of individual responsibility and therefore strongly urges members to reject this Proposition.

Extract: Standing Order 21

21  How a proposition is lodged

1. A member of the States or a body wishing to lodge a proposition shall give a draft of itto the Greffier.
2. The draft must be accompanied by the proposer's statement of whether the proposition, if adopted, would have any implications for the financial or manpower resources of the States or any administration of the States and, if there are such implications –

1. set out the proposer's estimate of those implications; and
2. explain how, when and from where, in the proposer's opinion, they could be sourced.

3. The proposer may request information from any Minister responsible for the resources in question and a Minister shall, when so requested, ensure that the proposer is provided with complete and accurate information sufficient to enable the proposer to prepare the statement.

Page - 3

P.92/2010 Com.(2)