Select a region
Jersey's senior politician has confirmed that his team of Ministers actually have no real control over the actions of their civil servants.
In answer to a question in the States, the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst pointed out that officers are only accountable to the States Chief Executive, John Richardson, and the most Ministers can do is complain to him, if they don't feel an officer is performing well enough.
His comments come in the aftermath of the Jersey Innovation Fund scandal, in which a damning report into the Fund's management revealed that up to £1.4m of taxpayers' money was potentially at risk in the form of overdue loan repayments - some of that money may still be recovered. The Fund's initial accounting officer Mike King resigned just days before the report was published, and the politician in charge of it, Senator Philip Ozouf, also resigned - both he and the Chief Minister were strongly critical of the way the Fund was administered.
In response to a question about the accountability of civil servants from Deputy Russell Labey, Senator Gorst said:
"...we have a non-political civil service in Jersey, which means that it is not Ministers who assess the performance of officers, but rather their line managers. We should not wish ourselves into a completely different position where the civil service is beholden to the Council of Ministers. This is the balance we need to strike.
"It is also why the Public Finances Law places a clear obligation on Accounting Officers to be personally accountable for the use of public monies, a practise which avoids political considerations in the management and reporting of financial performance.
"Of course, Ministers cannot and do not turn a blind eye to performance. If a Minister is unhappy with the performance of their Chief Officer, or believe that implementation of polices and their directions are inadequate or deficient, they can raise the matter with the Chief Executive."
Meanwhile, it emerged yesterday that Jersey's former Director of Financial Services declined to take on responsibility for the ill-fated Innovation Fund.
Joe Moynihan was a well-respected banker before joining the civil service, but it seems that he was unwilling to become the Fund's 'Accounting Officer' - the person who is personally accountable for its performance.
Initially, that role was held by the former Chief Officer of the Economic Development Department, Mike King.
But when political responsibility moved from the Economic Development Minister to Senator Ozouf, as the Minister responsible for Financial Services, Digital, Competition and Innovation, Joe Moynihan as Senator Ozouf's de facto 'Chief Officer', might have been expected to take on the role of Accounting Officer.
But in Senator Ozouf's resignation letter - which was published yesterday - he reveals that Mr Moynihan declined to do the job:
"Whilst the C&AG has been undertaking her review, it would have been inappropriate for me to disclose publicly the corrective actions I began to make from January 2016 after JIF had been fully delegated to me as you (sic) ACM, albeit with our former Director of Financial Services being unwilling to take Accounting Officer concomitantly with me trying to take proper responsibility for the Fund."
The news emerged on the day that more details came out as to which Ministers signed off on the JIF loans:
On the 25th May 2016, the States published the following list of recipients, so one further loan must have been made after that date, in order to make up the full set of seven given above - but they are also not necessarily in the same order:
Documents published by the States also show that that the necessary laws weren't in place to enable equity to be taken in the companies applying for support, which would have given the States a share in their success, rather than simply loaning them money:
"From a review of Advisory Board minutes, the idea of taking equity positions was first discussed by the Advisory Board in April 2014 and a number of times thereafter. Having recognised on several occasions that a legislative change was needed to permit an equity position in companies, action was not taken by officers to bring the legislative changes forward."
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.