Chief Minister: Vote of Censure (P116/2011): Ministerial Comment

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 1 July 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-C-2011-0083
Decision Summary Title :	Comments of the Chief Minister on P.116/2011 Chief Minister: Vote of Censure		Date of Decision Summary:	30th June 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Project and Research Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Comments of the Chief Minister on P.116/2011 Chief Minister: Vote of Censure		Date of Written Report:	30th June 2011
Written Report Author:	Chief Minister		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Comments from the Chief Minister regarding P.116/2011 Chief Minister: Vote of Censure.
Decision(s): The Chief Minister approved the comments made in response to P.116/2011 to be lodged with the States Assembly.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Chief Minister has decided to present comments in response to Deputy Trevor Pitman’s proposition asking for the censure of the Chief Minister. The Chief Ministers comments simply ask States Members to reject this proposition based on the arguments set out in the comments.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower implications.
Action required: The Greffier of the States is asked to present the comments to the States Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
Signature:		Position: Senator T.A. Le Sueur, Chief Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Chief Minister: Vote of Censure (P116/2011): Ministerial Comment

Vote of Censure

Comments

I stand by my record and that of my Council of Ministers.

I, along with my Council of Ministers, have sometimes had to make difficult decisions. I appreciate that these decisions have not always found universal favour, but frankly I do not see how that warrants a vote of censure due to perceived failings in my conduct as Chief Minister.

Members will, I hope, be pleased that I am not responding in detail to every one of the 13 perceived failings that the Deputy has highlighted. I can assure members that there is a complete response to every criticism made.

I do this not only in an attempt to save time at an extremely busy period for the States but in recognition of the fact that during States Question Time well over 100 questions have been asked of, and answered by me alone (and that does not include replies from other Ministers) simply on the issues he has raised.

This vote of censure has no substance. It has selective phrasing and in places is ill informed and factually incorrect.

I would urge members to look at the Code of Conduct and remember that we are elected to serve here for the best interests of the people of Jersey. I would also point them in the direction of paragraph 8 – maintaining the integrity of the States by strengthening the public’s trust and confidence in the States, and not bringing it into disrepute.

I think that there is a danger in certain quarters that the respect we have for each other is diminishing and the expression of natural differences of political views on issues and policies lacks the courtesy and respect it deserves

This proposition should be given short shrift.

Chief Minister