Chief Minister in invitation row

by Thistle Thu 19 Feb 2009, 8:40 pm

Chief Minister in invitation row
Guernsey's Chief Minister has joined a row over who should offer hospitality to visiting dignitaries.

Deputy Lyndon Trott is defending the fact that HE invited guests to a recent function, rather than the Bailiff.

The Chief Minister has written to the Assembly & Constitution Committee arguing it's part of HIS role as head of the Policy Council to extend invitations to guests.

The Committee has expressed concern that the Council's mandate is being misinterpreted.

by Digger Thu 19 Feb 2009, 9:03 pm

IMO This man is clearly delusional , i am sorry to say but he should not be allowed to be out on his own.

by karma Thu 19 Feb 2009, 9:20 pm

Megalomania roooooooooooooools - scary!!!!!

by Thistle Fri 20 Feb 2009, 8:55 am

Chief Minister in invitation row 10mohlt

out of the pram

by plimmerton811 Fri 20 Feb 2009, 8:59 am

It seems fair enough that he can invite guests. Mind you if he had any sense he would let the Bailiff invite then it comes out of the Bailiffs budget

by Thistle Fri 20 Feb 2009, 9:02 am

not the problem plimmerton he wants to be the only one who gives out the invitatations.he is only head of policy council not of the island

by karma Fri 20 Feb 2009, 11:55 am

He is not a 'Prime Minister' !!!! there is no 'I' in TEAM which IMO says it all................

by Dave Jones Fri 20 Feb 2009, 2:56 pm

Now I don’t want to spoil your fun over this issue but you are wrong,

The protocol on these matters is very clear and the legal advice that is given to the CM by the Crown Officers is very clear and is what the CM bases his decisions on in such matters.

To listen to some inside the States and outside, you would think Lyndon makes this up as he goes along. Well he doesn’t and he takes advice on these issues. It takes time when you get a job such as Chief Minister to understand all the different aspects of the job. So on this occasion don’t accuse him of doing something he has not done.

I have reproduced the legal advice below this has since been circulated in letter form to all States members.

Policy Council Mandate

As noted by your Committee, the Policy Council is mandated “to be responsible for ...the provision on behalf of the States, of hospitality to appropriate visiting persons ...” (paragraph (a)(iv)). However, in order properly to understand this responsibility it must be placed in context. It appears under the sub-heading “Constitutional Affairs” and follows such other responsibilities as representing the Island and negotiating and considering international agreements and matters. The context is, therefore, quite clearly part and parcel of the external relations aspect of the Policy Council’s mandate.

Whilst the functions previously conferred on the former Island Reception Committee form part of the Policy Council’s mandate, the combination of those functions with the other functions delegated by the States of Deliberation to the Policy Council mean that this aspect of its mandate must also be understood as part of the developments that have occurred since 2004 or thereabouts in relation to the Machinery of Government changes and the removal of the description previously applied to the Bailiff as “head of the administration” (which had caused problems in Strasbourg in McGonnell v UK).

The Chief Minister chairs the Policy Council. In that respect, he is identified externally as the political leader of the States of Deliberation, first by the way the States have delegated those functions to the Policy Council and secondly by the usual way in which Ministers become identified with the Departments they head. For example, legal proceedings are often instituted in the name of or against the Minister of a Department. However, it is still the States of Guernsey that is the legal entity, acting by and through its Departments, Committees and the Policy Council. When the Policy Council fulfils its mandate, it is doing so as the States of Guernsey.

Advice tendered by HM Procureur, which I understand was copied to you and the members of your Committee, included the statement that-

“It is not correct to say that the Bailiff would normally 'host' the dinner, although he would ordinarily extend a welcome to the guest(s) for whom the function has been organised. Such dinners are States of Guernsey functions, and the States are the hosts: that has been the position for so long as I can conveniently ascertain, and I do not believe that any Bailiff – present or past - has acted as 'host' in recent years at such a dinner.”

Whilst the Policy Council’s mandate confers upon it responsibility for providing hospitality on behalf of the States (as emphasised in your letter), it is unsurprising that the Chief Minister, in his capacity as chairing the Policy Council, will act for the States in this way. In doing so, he is not acting solely as Chief Minister, because that position has no formal functions distinct from those delegated to the Policy Council in its mandate from the States. Similarly, the Bailiff, as Presiding Officer of the States of Deliberation, has no formal functions on behalf of the government of Guernsey except where they have been conferred upon him by the voting members of the full government. In the 21st Century, the majority view has been to reduce the administrative or executive functions of the office of Bailiff in order to ensure that the occupant’s position as Chief Justice is not compromised, meaning that he would not be able to give litigants the fair trials that are required, particularly by reference to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Further, paragraph (f) of the Policy Council’s mandate is to “be accountable to the States for the management ... of public funds and other resources entrusted to the Policy Council”. As a States of Guernsey Dinner is paid for out of the Policy Council’s budget allocation, this element of its mandate shows the need for the Policy Council to be accountable for the expenditure incurred. This supports the analysis that providing and paying for hospitality to visitors is a function conferred on the Policy Council and that the States expect it to be delivered in accordance with that mandate. The Policy Council is firmly of the view that matters of accountability are paramount in the discharge of all our responsibilities.

The Dinner in honour of Lord Bach

This was attended by the Bailiff, who delivered the first speech of the evening, being one of civic welcome. What actually occurred, therefore, accorded with the practice to which HM Procureur has referred. There had been liaison with the Bailiff’s Chambers and the Office of His Excellency about the arrangements for the visit of Lord Bach, but that did not extend to the wording of the invitation, which is a matter for the Policy Council acting on behalf of the States of Guernsey. Moreover, the arrangements for the visit respected the various protocols in respect of courtesy calls and accommodation arrangements.

In this instance, the invitees to the dinner were all of the States members, including the Presiding Officers and the Law Officers, plus a very small number of guests. Had the invitation simply said that “The States of Guernsey invites ...”, the vast majority of the invites would have been made to the invitees by themselves.

Yours sincerely,

L.S. Trott

Chief Minister

by Thistle Fri 20 Feb 2009, 3:31 pm

thank you for clarifying this dave .we got to have a pop at somebody i suppose and sometimes the CM sadly leaves himself open to these things.

by Dell Fri 20 Feb 2009, 5:37 pm

Well, that's straightforward and addresed that then!

by karma Fri 20 Feb 2009, 5:54 pm

Glad you think so Dell :-) :-)

Nothing fools you my friend.................

Lovely Jubbly - Cushty - Rodney, you plonker - This time next year we'll be millionaires!" Dell Trotter

by noddy Fri 20 Feb 2009, 7:40 pm

Can't beleive all the fuss over a dinner party - obviously nothing worthy of making a fuss over at the moment so lets see what Trotty has been up to lately that we can have a whinge about.

I used to be a member of whyguernsey but got put off by this sort of drivel that got put up there - this place is no better I see.

And before you start, yes I do live in St Sampsons and no I didn't vote for Trott - but many did hence he got elected fair and square. I've got no problem with that, why are so many people seemingly against democracy.

by Thistle Fri 20 Feb 2009, 7:54 pm

sorry if we are spouting drivel noddy but people do have a right to their own opinion.

by Dell Fri 20 Feb 2009, 8:21 pm

Hi Noddy and welcome!

noddy wrote:....... why are so many people seemingly against democracy.

This is a democratic forum, different people = different views or opinions! All are welcome to express a view. Look forward to your posting. Chief Minister in invitation row Happy-051