We have not given ourselves the power to hire and fire

Anyone reading it would have obtained the impression, wrongly, that deputies had given themselves the powers to ‘hire and fire’ a swathe of civil servants. Ironically, the post referenced is one in which the president of that committee already has a say in the appointment, but is not one that is covered in what the States approved last week.

Indeed, presidents are already involved in interview panels for senior posts and committees currently have the power, through the Rules of Procedure, to express no confidence in a senior officer with the expectation that the officer will be transferred out of the service of the committee. All the States decided was that there should continue to be the same accountability as a consequence of the changes to the senior leadership structure and the introduction of a matrix system of management. We have not given ourselves the power to ‘hire and fire’, just to continue to have a voice.

Therefore, to state that, ‘These are talented, well-paid people who suddenly find a whole new layer of political management foisted on them every four years,’ demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the current system and a strange acceptance that those senior civil servants should not have some form of accountability to the political body which they are meant to serve.

We should like to make it very clear that we are well served by our senior civil servants, who demonstrate hard work and commitment in meeting the many considerable challenges we face every single day, and our successful amendment did not arise from any dissatisfaction as to the service we are receiving and should not be seen as such. We state again that all that has been agreed is to ensure that the level of accountability currently in place continues to exist under the new senior leadership structure.

What the States has approved is certainly not a fundamental breach of impartiality, as was well argued in debate. There are many jurisdictions, Sweden and Denmark being just a couple of examples, which allow political involvement in the appointment and performance of senior civil servants. Indeed, a 2007 study for the OECD concluded that political involvement in administration is essential for the proper functioning of a democracy, and that political involvement can be a rational response to situations where the executive faces structural arrangements which generate a multiplicity of principals. Westminster is an exception, but then we do not have a Westminster-based system with politically appointed special advisers.

The real issue that this matter has brought out is not over the political involvement in the appointment and performance of senior civil servants, but the fact that the powers they have are set out in the Rules of Procedure. It was agreed by the States that this was not the best place to set out employment matters and, consequently, Policy & Resources, in consultation with committees, should develop a framework governing the relationship between the elected States and the civil service, taking into account what the Assembly has agreed this week.

DEPUTIES HEIDI SOULSBY AND MICHELLE LE CLERC

Address withheld.