Report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended December 31st 2009-update - Report - 16 March 2011

Public Accounts Committee

Report on the Accounts of the States of Jersey for the year ended December 31st 2009 – Update

Presented to the States on 16th March 2011

P.A.C 4/2010 – addendum

CONTENTS

Chairman's Foreword.................................................................................................2

1. Rationale.............................................................................................................3
2. Collective Responsibility .....................................................................................4
3. Reaction from the Treasurer of the States........................................................15

4. Additional Spending Since 2005 Budget – a Breakdown.................................16
5. Conclusion........................................................................................................18 Terms of Reference for P.A.C.4/2010......................................................................21 Committee Membership...........................................................................................21 Appendix..................................................................................................................22

Chairman's Foreword

The  conclusions  of  the  Public  Accounts  Committee  disseminated  in  our  Report (P.A.C.4/2010) presented to the States on the 15th December 2010, were of such concern that further investigation of the problems was warranted.

Whilst accepting that any new form of Government will require time to evolve, our findings detailed in this update are extremely concerning.

The Ministerial System was supposed to result in more joined-up Government - in fact exactly the opposite has happened. Basic fundamental controls and checks and balances as recommended in Clothier were either removed or altered at implementation. Under the current system there is no possibility of a strong Executive; the Chief Minister's powers are limited, Ministers can operate with few controls, the Chief Executive has no power over Chief Officers to ensure collective implementation, and Departments are geared to operate in their own best interests rather than take collective responsibility for the good of the Island.

It is of little surprise therefore that spending has accelerated and the Government has lurched from one crisis to another during the past five years.

As a general rule they say that you can't blame the system. In this case the system is so fundamentally flawed that it is difficult to see how good government could be achieved under any political or public sector leadership.

Senator B.E. Shenton

Chairman, Public Accounts Committee

1. Rationale

1. The Public Accounts Committee has issued this supplementary document in light of the resignation of the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey and following the receipt of further information which highlights some extremely important issues.
2. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was extremely interested in the comments of the Chief Executive when he was asked who was charged with controlling the overall spending of the States of Jersey:

"The job description you have for me was put together in 2002 on the back of P.120 before the States had enacted the States of Jersey Law and the Public Finances (Jersey) Law, and there were some very specific changes made as those laws were enacted which undermined the ability of either the Chief Executive or the Council of Ministers to control or to be accountable for total spending in those terms. Under the States of Jersey Law the removal of collective responsibility from the Council of Ministers effectively made each Minister a corporation independently responsible for their own political functions. The Public Finances (Jersey) Law, with the creation of Accounting Officers, each accounting officer being solely and personally responsible for the proper and effective control and spending of the resources within their cash limit denied the ability of any one individual or any one body to have total overall control unless that body is the States."[1]

2. Collective Responsibility

1. The PAC was interested in the specific changes regarding collective responsibility that were made prior to the introduction of Ministerial Government. We are indebted to the Greffier of the States for his assistance in clarifying the course of events.
2. The first Proposition 'Machinery of Government - structure of the Executive' P.171/2002 (see Appendix) contained an Appendix 2 that referred to collective responsibility. However there were concerns expressed by some Members at that time about the contents of Appendix 2 and a Part A Minute of the Policy and Resources Committee of 21st October 2002, which reads as follows:

A1. The (Policy and Resources) Committee, with reference to its Act No. B3 of 22nd August 2002, recalled that its report and Proposition "Machinery of Government: structure of the Executive" (P.171/2002 - lodged au Greffe' on 24th September 2002) had been discussed at an informal meeting of Members of the States which had been held on 18th October 2002.

3. The Policy and Resources Committee noted that the abovementioned discussion had centered almost exclusively around the issue of collective responsibility and whether the Committee should continue to retain "Appendix Two" (which included the proposals on collective responsibility) as part of the Projet. It was recognised that there had been general support amongst Members at the meeting for the principle of collective responsibility, although it had not been felt that the Committee needed to be prescriptive at this stage as to precisely how collective responsibility would operate. Senator Horsfall had indicated to the meeting that the Policy and Resources Committee would give further consideration to this matter at an early opportunity.
4. Having had regard to the views which had been expressed at the abovementioned meeting, and to subsequent discussion, the Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to withdraw P.171/2002 and to substitute a revised report and Proposition which, although similar to P.171/2002, would no longer contain Appendix Two, nor the references in the main report to "collective responsibility."
5. The Policy and Resources  Committee, having considered a revised report and Proposition, approved the Projet, decided to lodge it au Greffe' on 22nd October 2002 and instructed the Greffier of the States to withdraw P.171/2002, which was to be replaced by the revised Projet.

6. As a result P.191/2002 was lodged (see Appendix) which does not contain the same prescriptive approach to collective responsibility. The most relevant paragraph in P.191 reads as follows:

"All Ministers will participate actively in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, which will work on the basis of consensual and collective decision-making. Ministers will need to decide upon the degree of collective responsibility under which they wish to operate, and also to agree on standards of conduct relevant to the particular demands that will be placed upon them. For example, one would assume that a Minister will be held accountable to the States for the work of his or her Department, and that a Minister will need to ensure that no conflict arises between his or her Ministerial position and his or her private financial interests. The actual rules or conventions relating to collective responsibility and the conduct of Ministers will be agreed and promulgated by the Council of Ministers once it has taken office."

7. The matter was therefore left to the Council of Ministers and nothing more about collective responsibility was included in any of the legislation in the lead up to the introduction of Ministerial government.
8. The first Council of Ministers considered the issue briefly at its second meeting on 16th December 2005 and the Part A Minute of that discussion reads as follows:

A9. The Council considered whether a revised Code of Conduct' relating to Ministerial responsibilities should be adopted, which would build upon that which had been agreed by the States on 1st November 2005 (P.225/2005 refers).

The Council recalled that as part of its work on Standing Orders, the Privileges and Procedures Committee had drawn up a Code of Conduct for Elected Members' which set out rules for States Members relating to a range of issues.

The Council recollected that the possible introduction of a Ministerial code of conduct had been given detailed consideration in 2002, by the Policy and Resources Committee, when it was drafting its Report and Proposition on the Machinery of Government: Structure of the Executive' (P.191/2005). That Committee had taken the view that particular demands would be placed upon Ministers in the exercise of their office, and it would be appropriate for separate guidelines to be developed. A draft document had subsequently been prepared which set out Guidance and Procedures for Ministers', and this had been included as an appendix to the first version of the report and Proposition on the Machinery of Government: Structure of the Executive', lodged au Greffe' on 24th September 2002 (P.171/2002). The appendix covered a range of issues relating to the conduct of Ministers, including private and outside interests, gifts and hospitality, and access to documents.

9. The Guidance and Procedures' document also included detailed guidance on collective responsibility, and emphasised the need for the Council of Ministers to work together on the basis of consensual and collective decision-making. The document proposed that there should be a limited number of exemptions from collective responsibility, in which Ministers would have the right in certain circumstances to speak against the policies of the Council of Ministers, such as matters of conscience.
10. Following publication of P.171/2002, concern had been expressed that the proposed rules on collective responsibility were too restrictive. In response to these concerns, the Policy and Resources Committee had decided to withdraw P.171/2002 and publish a revised report and Proposition under the same title (P.191/2002) which did not include the appendix on Guidance and Procedures for Ministers.' In relation to the conduct of Ministers, the revised report had made the following statement in relation to collective responsibility:

"The actual rules or conventions relating to collective responsibility and the conduct of Ministers will be agreed and promulgated by the Council of Ministers once it has taken office."

11. The Council recognised that the degree of guidance given in Standing Orders was of a fairly general nature and agreed that Ministers would require more specific guidance:

"Mindful that Ministers would be exercising a considerable degree of responsibility, and would be held directly accountable for their actions the Council agreed that it was important that there should be clear guidance on conduct, particularly in relation to personal business interests and the use of public position to further any interest other than that of the public. Senator T.J. Le Main wished for it to be recorded in the Minutes that he strongly refuted allegations that he was a personal friend of a local property developer."

12. The Council agreed that it was important that it was able to work collectively and that there was trust and confidence between Ministers. It would expect to consider matters in confidence, without its discussions being reported outside the Council until such time that agreement had been reached on the course of action to be taken.
13. The Council envisaged that it would be a forum for frank and open discussion, with the aim of reaching a consensus before taking a decision. It was accepted that there would be occasions when a Minister might wish to dissent from a decision, and in such circumstances the dissenting Member would be required to advise the Council and indicate how she or he intended to proceed. Other Members would be expected to support the Council's decision, and in the event that new evidence or thinking should lead them to change their views, they would be expected to discuss the matter with their colleagues before publicly changing their stance.
14. Mindful of the foregoing, it was proposed that the Council of Ministers should adopt an extended version of the States Members' Code of Conduct' with specific references to Ministerial responsibilities. There were a number of areas which Council Members considered should be enhanced and enforced in order that Ministers were seen to be abiding by the highest of principles. The Council requested that a revised draft of the proposed Ministerial Code of Conduct be presented for its endorsement at a subsequent Meeting.
15. The subsequent Code of Conduct for Ministers (see R.14/2006) agreed by the first Council (and ratified by the current Council of Ministers after its appointment in 2008) has the following section -

5. Working collectively

The Council of Ministers will work together on the basis of consensual and collective decision-making. The Council will therefore be able to discuss matters in confidence, without such discussions being publicly reported until such time that agreement has been reached on the course of action to be taken.

The Council of Ministers will be a forum for frank and open discussion, with the aim of reaching a consensus before taking a decision. There will, however, be occasions on which a Minister may wish to dissent from a decision, and in these circumstances the dissenting Member should make this clear to the Council and should indicate how she or he intends to proceed, e.g. to bring a Proposition to the States. Other Members would be expected to support the Council's decisions, and in the event that new evidence or thinking should lead them to change their views, they would be expected to discuss the matter with their colleagues before publicly changing their stance.

If a Minister, acting in her or his capacity as a Minister, should wish to make a decision or bring a Proposition to the Assembly on a matter that affects another Minister or Ministers, she or he should first discuss the matter with the Minister(s) concerned. If they are in agreement, the matter can then go forward. If there is disagreement, the matter should be forwarded to the Council of Ministers for discussion.

In their capacity as private Members, Ministers are free to bring a Proposition to the Assembly on any matter. If such a Proposition should concern another Minister's area of responsibility, she or he should inform the Minister concerned prior to lodging the Proposition.

16. Observation:

Collective responsibility is a long standing convention in the UK and works there largely due to the ability of the Prime Minister to 'hire and fire' Ministers - if a UK Minister doesn't toe the line he or she knows that dismissal could well follow. Unless the method of appointment and dismissal of Ministers was amended in Jersey it is difficult to see how the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers could enforce the doctrine in Jersey - it would be difficult to force a Minister (particularly one who was appointed by the States against the Chief Minister's nominee) to be forced to accept collective responsibility for decisions of a Council of Ministers when he or she may have fundamental political differences with the Chief Minister and/or his or her Ministerial colleagues. The current authority of Ministers comes from their appointment by a majority of States Members and not through loyalty to the Chief Minister and other Ministers.

17. There were slight changes in relation to the Corporate Management Board and role of the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers' role during the formulation of the Ministerial Government plans. The original 'Clothier' Proposition (P.122/2001) had the following references:

(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;

18. This was described as follows in the report:

6.21 The move from a Committee to a Ministerial system is obviously very significant, and there will need to be a change to the way in which support is provided from the civil service. It is proposed that each Minister will be supported by a civil service head of Department, and also that the heads of Department will form a management board under the leadership of a Chief Executive. Such a structure at official level will enable the Council of Ministers to receive the advice it may need in relation to corporate matters, resulting in the integrated delivery of public services.

19. In P.191/2002 (attached and referred to above) there was reference to the role of the Chief Executive and CMB as follows:

3.11 The Chief Minister's Department will be headed by the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and Head of the Public Service. In addition to ensuring that the Council receives proper administrative support, the Chief Executive will be the principal adviser to the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. She or he will also chair a Corporate Management Board, as agreed by the States in its decision of 28th September 2001, comprising the heads of all the Departments of the executive. In this capacity, the Chief Executive will be ultimately accountable for the good management of the public service. She or he will lead and direct her or his colleagues insofar as necessary to ensure the efficient management and implementation of the Council of Ministers' functions, responsibilities and decisions.

20. During the debate on the draft States of Jersey Law 200- in 2004 the States adopted an amendment of Senator Syvret that inserted what is now Article 26(6) of the Law (highlighted in bold below):

26 Status of Minister

1. Each Minister shall be a corporation sole having –

1. subject to Article 29(2), perpetual succession;
2. an official seal, which shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister or of any person authorized by the Minister to act in that behalf;
3. the power to –

1. enter into agreements for any purpose of his or her office,
2. acquire, hold and dispose of movable property,
3. do any other thing which the Minister can do by virtue of his or her office, and
4. do anything reasonably necessary or expedient for or incidental to any of the matters referred to in the foregoing clauses.

2. A Minister may, in the name of his or her office –
   1. sue and be sued in any civil proceedings; and
   2. be charged with an offence and defend criminal proceedings.
3. The official seal of a Minister shall be judicially noticed.
4. Every document purporting to be an instrument made or issued by a Minister and to be sealed with the Minister's official seal, authenticated in accordance with paragraph (1)(b), shall be –

1. received in evidence; and
2. deemed to be so made or issued without further proof, unless the contrary is shown.

5. A certificate signed by the Minister that any instrument purporting to be made or issued by the Minister was so made or issued shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
6. The senior officer in any administration of the States for which a Minister is assigned responsibility shall be accountable to that Minister in respect of policy direction.
7. In this Article –

"Minister" includes the Chief Minister;

"officer" means a States' employee within the meaning of the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005

21. In his accompanying report (P.124/2004 Amd(3)) Senator Syvret described the reasoning for the change as follows –

It is important that Members fully appreciate the fact that the move to Ministerial government means more than simply replacing committees with individuals; a change in both powers and accountabilities will take place. I refer Members to Article 25, Status of Minister, on page 37. I suggest that we should pay particular attention to paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article. These paragraphs describe a dramatic range of powers, and of responsibilities that will lay with the individual Ministers. It is because of the existence of such powers that this amendment and amendments 17 and 28 are necessary. It was my original intention to include a more extensive form of words as a type of preamble to these three amendments but the words were deemed superfluous in an actual Article of law. Nevertheless I reproduce them here to illustrate the context of the amendments:

"In accordance with the powers, responsibilities and potential civil and criminal liability described in paragraphs 1 to 5,

In the light of such powers and responsibilities, the amendment makes it clear by law that a Minister has political policy authority over his or her Chief Officer. Ministers are to be civilly and criminally liable. Yet under the present proposals they do not have final authority over their Chief Officers; that lies with the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers. This state of affairs is intolerable in that it leaves the Ministers with tremendous responsibilities, yet ultimately not the power. This situation also makes a mockery of the public who have a right to expect their elected representatives who carry high office, to actually have democratically accountable power over public Departments as opposed to such power residing with a non- elected civil servant. The amendment establishes that democratic policy authority resides with the Minister."

22. Observation:

The amendment of Senator Syvret, which was accepted by the States, diminished the power of the Chief Executive. The resulting system, whereby Chief Officer accountability was transferred to the Minister rather than a co-ordinating Chief Executive has in effect increased the silo' mentality within the States, increased Ministerial power whilst reducing controls, and left the Chief Executive in a very difficult position.

In hindsight this was, in terms of implementing a strong management structure within the States, a severely deficient amendment and should be revised with some urgency.

23. It is perhaps worth noting that the inaccuracies within the Senator's covering Report, and the fact the Amendment was carried, gives the impression that many Members of the States Assembly did not have a full grasp of the changes that they were implementing. There appears to be a lack of understanding that a Minister is a Corporation Sole and not a human entity – the incumbent Minister is simply the holder of that role, the personification of the position, and does not hold personal liability for actions taken when legitimately fulfilling that position. The civil and criminal liability lies with the Corporation Sole, the entity, and not the individual. The person holding that role is not in danger of being sued personally, or suffering a jail sentence or fine, from legitimately carrying out his/her role. The Report, and Senator Syvret's Amendment, gives the impression that this basic concept was not fully grasped.
24. Another constraint on the Chief Executive's authority over other Chief Officers is the fact that each CEO is an Accounting Officer under the Public Finances (J) Law 2005 and therefore has personal responsibility for financial decisions relating to his or her Department - it would be difficult to reconcile that personal responsibility with getting directions from the Chief Executive or being expected to take collective decisions at CMB if those were felt to conflict with an individual CEO's duties as an Accounting Officer. However the same could be argued in connection with the relationship between the Accounting Officer and the Minister. Indeed there is a possibility that under the current system – with the weak Chief Executive structure and lack of controls over the actions of the Minister in terms of collective responsibility – that both the Chief Officer and the Accounting Officer could find themselves forced to take questionable actions by a strong willed or bullying Minister. Given the fact that the Chief Executive is an expert in his field, having achieved his role through structured promotion, and a Minister may be an inexperienced layman thrust into a position of power, this is an unacceptable structure.
25. It is interesting to note the following observations within the Clothier Report (2000). Paragraph 5.2 succinctly highlights the perception of the Clothier Panel in respect of the operation of the policy and administration functions of government. The complete paragraph is reproduced at the end of this section.

There are a number of interesting observations that have failed to come to pass.

"the political direction of each Department should be the responsibility of the Minister and one or two other Members"

There is no evidence that this has actually happened. The role of the Assistant Minister remains undefined and the Ministers have the power to act in almost a dictatorial manner. Indeed a regular complaint of Assistant Ministers is that they are not kept in touch with policy development and are not asked to attend Council of Ministers meetings. The reality is that the political direction is the sole responsibility of the Minister.

"policies for their Departments would be subject to approval of a Council of Ministers"

The reality is that only cross-Departmental policies need to go before the Council of Ministers and the flexibility of the Strategic Plan allows a Ministers a great deal of discretion in how the objectives of the plan are interpreted as Departmental policy.

"We recommend that the Council of Ministers should be invested with sufficient powers to be able to give directions to the individual Departments if that becomes necessary."

There is no evidence that this power has ever been used (or actually exists).

"We would expect so compact an executive structure to have neither time nor inclination to become involved in details of administration."

The reality is that many Ministers have 'moved-into' their Departments - taking over their own office space and support staff - and micro-manage the administration functions to a level far beyond the remit perceived by Clothier. Under the current system a Chief Officer would be faced with a stark choice - either accept the interference of the Minister or risk being 'replaced.'

26. Recommendation:

The role of the Chief Executive needs to be re-examined to ensure that checks and balances are improved – as a Chief Officer could look to the Chief Executive for support when necessary.

The basic concept – that Ministers should be responsible for Policy and Chief Officers responsible for implementation – cannot be achieved if individual Officers report to Ministers on implementation issues, and the Chief Executive has no sway over those Chief Officers' actions. In terms of implementation, there is currently no Captain at the Bridge. The system allows too much interference by Ministers in operational matters. Consideration should also be given to removing the conflict that arises from the fact that the Chief Executive also holds a Chief Officer role in respect of the Chief Minister's Department. The change to a pure' Chief Executive role – with no conflicts – should be examined.

3. Reaction from the Treasurer of the States

1. The Public Accounts Committee was interested to receive a submission from the States Treasurer, in the form of a response to our report on the States Accounts 2009 (P.A.C.4/2010). This response is included in the appendix to this report, and includes a breakdown of additional expenditure approved since the 2005 budget.
2. Whilst rejecting our recommendation that the terms and condition of senior civil servants should be reviewed (this is reaction to our concerns that the Chief Executive has insufficient powers to be anything more than an adviser/implanter), the Treasurer did confirm that the Public Finance Law would be revised in 2011 and that these changes will include proposals to clarify and strengthen lines of accountability and overall financial control of States spending.
3. Recommendation:

The Public Accounts Committee considers that there is an urgent need to make Ministerial Government System fit for purpose by updating the Public Finances Law.

4. Additional Spending Since 2005 Budget – a Breakdown

1. In a written question the Deputy of St Mary asked the Public Accounts Committee what  the  overspend'  had  actually  been  spent  on.  We  would  like  to  thank  the Treasurer of the States for providing the following table that will assist his analysis.

16

2. Much of the additional spending went to the Social Security Department following the transfer of the benefits system from the Parishes and the ongoing costs of supplementation. Of the identified "overspend" over £32,000,000 relates to the Social Security Department.
3. This appears to disprove a basic premise that centralisation results in cost savings. Indeed the desire to introduce a system more in line with that of the UK welfare state has proved extremely costly. Whilst the recession and the introduction of zero-ten' have been widely heralded as the cause of our financial woes – there is no doubt that the rising costs of the new welfare system based Social Security Department is a major drain on our limited resources.
4. The level of benefits is a political decision and the increased spending has been fully approved by the States Assembly. However the PAC wishes to put on record it's opinion the escalation of costs in this area is unsustainable for what is a small Island economy.
5. If the economic outlook is such that, for example, levels of income support need to be modified in order to maintain economic viability, it is important that a system is in place whereby there is both leadership and action in the control of spending – however politically unpopular that may be.

5. Conclusion

1. The Public Accounts Committee welcomes the decision to update the Public Finances Law and shall monitor the progress concerning this. In terms of the structure of the States – both politically and operationally – we would concur with the view that both the Chief Minister's and Chief Executives roles were diluted when Ministerial Government was introduced. These weaknesses should be reviewed and addressed.
2. On page 30 of our report on the Accounts 2009, the departing Chief Executive is quoted as saying:

"Jersey is a specific society and through the States has determined that it wishes to have a certain style of government and certain style of organisation and I interpret efficiency in that context, and that is how I interpret it." " At the end of the day, the Island has decided it wants a certain structure and that is what we deliver."

3. This should be read in conjunction with the comments of the Chief executive on page 21 of the same Report;

The job description you have for me was put together in 2002 on the back of P.120 before the States had enacted the States of Jersey Law and the Public Finances (Jersey) Law, and there were some very specific changes made as those laws were enacted which undermined the ability of either the Chief Executive or the Council of Ministers to control or to be accountable for total spending in those terms. Under the States of Jersey Law the removal of collective responsibility from the Council of Ministers effectively made each Minister as a corporation independently responsible for their own political functions. The Public Finances (Jersey) Law, with the creation of accounting officers, each accounting officer being solely and personally responsible for the proper and effective control and spending of the resources within their cash limit denied the ability of any one individual or any one body to have total overall control unless that body is the States.

4. So it is not inconceivable that the Chief Executive when accepting the job believed that he would have more powers than those that were actually conveyed on him.

The States Assembly decided in its wisdom to reduce these powers and the Chief Executive operated within the parameters given to him – which on the face of it is not unreasonable.

5. Perhaps the original job description was, in fact, correct and it is the Ministerial system that has been designed incorrectly. Rather than re-design the job description to mirror the role as it currently is, the PAC recommends that consideration is given to amending the role in order to give the incumbent Chief Executive more power.
6. The public of Jersey probably look at the Chief Executive role in a similar vein to that of Managing Director or CEO. However as the interim Treasurer pointed out;
7. "Well, the Chief Executive is in, again, an unusual position in Jersey because in strict terms the Chief Executive is only the Chief Officer to the Chief Minister's Department, to the Chief Minister himself. So, as far as I am aware there is nothing in law that gives the Chief Executive direct authority over each chief officer. The Chief Officers are strictly reporting to the Ministers. But there are functions such as the States Employment Board that are, I think, a factor in the Chief Executive's authority over the rest of the States functions. I think it is another area that Jersey could well give consideration to whether not only does the Treasurer have the right specified authority but does the Chief Executive."
8. In a letter to all States Members dated 18th February 2011 announcing the resignation of the current Chief Executive, the Chief Minister wrote:

"Mr Ogley came to Jersey in April 2003 to work as the Chief Executive responsible for all the functions of the Policy and Resources Committee. He was recruited to lead on the executive changes required to implement Ministerial Government and then to become the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and Head of the Paid Service. It was envisaged that following the Clothier reforms the States would become a Corporate entity and that the Chief Executive, answering to a unified Council of Ministers, would have responsibility for the whole organisation.

Since 2003 the States has undergone fundamental reform of its political, officer and fiscal structures. However not all the changes envisaged were adopted by the States. Today the States is a significantly different organisation to the one that it planned to become."

9. The PAC does not interpret the statement of the Chief Minister that – "the States is a significantly different organisation to the one it planned to become" – to be a positive one.
10. The PAC believes that the deficiencies highlighted in this Report should be addressed as a matter of urgency. Certainly there should be a clear understanding of the tasks, powers and duties of the new Chief Executive prior to appointment. Furthermore if the position is to remain limited in overall power, as it is presently, it should be incumbent upon the executive to explain to the PAC why the position has been maintained in the current format and the highlighted deficiencies not addressed.

Terms of Reference for P.A.C.4/2010

1. To review the States of Jersey Financial Report and Accounts 2009
2. In accordance with paragraph 132(1)(a)(i) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, to receive a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General on the results of the audit of the Annual Financial Statement of the States, and to report to the States upon any significant issues arising.
3. To ensure that the issues identified in the Public Accounts Committee's Review of the 2008 States Accounts have been addressed.
4. To examine any further issues relating to the Financial Report and Accounts 2009 which the Committee considers relevant.

Committee Membership

The current Membership of the Public Accounts Committee (as at the date of the presentation of this report) comprises:

States Members

Senator B.E Shenton (Chairman) Senator A. Breckon (Vice-Chairman) Senator J. Perchard

Deputy J. Le Fondré

Independent Members

Mr A. Fearn Mr M. Magee Mr K. Keen

Officer Support: Mel Pardoe

Appendix

[1] Public hearing with the Chief Executive, 16th August 2010