Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 11 October 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-S-2013-0100
Decision Summary Title :	DS – Income Support (General Provisions) (Amendment No.12) Order 2013		Date of Decision Summary:	11 October 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Policy Principal		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	WR - Income Support (General Provisions) (Amendment No.12) Order 2013		Date of Written Report:	11 October 2013
Written Report Author:	Policy Principal		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Income Support (General Provisions) (Amendment No.12) Order 2013
Decision(s): The Minister made the Income Support (General Provisions) (Amendment No.12) Order 2013
Reason(s) for Decision: Changes to the Income Support General Provisions Order are required in order to reflect the changes made in the Income Support (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 2013. The changes clarify the definition of a ‘determination’ in line with the Regulations, and the function of a Determining Officer. The Income Support (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 2013 introduce new powers for Income Support determining officers to determine whether a person can be considered actively seeking work, and whether they have ceased remunerative work without good cause. They create a new system of sanctions where a person can be given a warning that remains in force for a set period. They allow for breaches of that warning to create a financial penalty that runs for a set period. The Order clarifies where a determination may be made in order to reflect the changed Regulations, when a redetermination may be made, what these decisions affect with regards to the Regulations, and how they must be delivered to the person affected and to other members of their household. It also provides for requests for a reconsideration of some decisions to be required to be made within seven days. These are decisions made under Article 12(1A) and relate to whether somebody has ceased work without good cause, that a person should be warned, and that a person is in breach of that warning.
Resource Implications: There are no manpower implications in respect of this Order. There may be very limited savings in respect of benefit costs directly from the imposition of the sanctions. Benefit savings are also expected to accrue as benefit recipients move into and remain in employment as a result of the deterrent effect of the revised rules.
Action required: Policy Principal to notify the Greffe and the Law Draftsman that the Order has been made and to forward the signed and sealed Order to the States Greffe, requesting the Greffier of the States to arrange for the Order to be notified to the States.
Signature:		Position: Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Income Support (General Provisions) (Amendment No. 12) Order 2013

Written report: Income Support (General Provisions) (Amendment No.12) Order 2013

Background

Changes to the Income Support General Provisions Order are required in order to reflect the changes made in the Income Support (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 2013. The changes clarify the definition of a ‘determination’ in line with the Regulations, and the function of a Determining Officer.

Meaning of ‘determination’ and function of a determining officer

The Income Support (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 2013 introduce new powers for Income Support determining officers to determine whether a person can be considered actively seeking work and whether they have ceased remunerative work without good cause. They create a new system of sanctions where a person can be given a warning that remains in force for a set period. They allow for breaches of that warning to create a financial penalty that runs for a set period.

The Order clarifies where a determination may be made in order to reflect the changed Regulations, when a redetermination may be made, what these decisions affect with regards to the Regulations, and how they must be delivered to the person affected and to other adult members of their household.

It also provides for requests for a reconsideration of some decisions to be required to be made within seven days. These are decisions made under Article 12(1A) and relate to whether somebody has ceased work without good cause, that a person should be warned, and that a person is in breach of that warning.

Financial and manpower considerations

There are no manpower implications for these changes. There may be very limited savings in respect of benefit costs directly from the imposition of the sanctions. Benefit savings are also expected to accrue as benefit recipients move into and remain in employment as a result of the deterrent effect of the revised rules.