Independent Jersey Police Authority: Establishment P.23/2010: 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 18 March 2010 regarding: Independent Jersey Police Authority: Establishment P.23/2010: Ministerial Comment

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2010-0022
Decision Summary Title :	P.23/2010 Independent Jersey Police Authority – Comments		Date of Decision Summary:	16 March 2010
Decision Summary Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Independent Jersey Police Authority P.23/2010 – comments		Date of Written Report:	16 March 2010
Written Report Author:	Minister for Home Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Comments P.23/2010 – Independent Jersey Police Authority: Establishment
Decision(s): The Minister decided to present to the States comments on P.23/2010 – Independent Jersey Police Authority: Establishment
Reason(s) for Decision: The Proposition calls for the Minister to present detailed proposals for establishing an Independent Jersey Police Authority. The Minister is supportive of Senator Breckon’s Proposition and is setting up an Advisory Group to assist him.
Resource Implications: The precise resource implications are not known at this time. The Proposition suggests that a police authority could be operated at £50,000 per year. A police authority set up along UK lines would cost more than £1m per year. It may be possible to create an authority at a cost of between £50,000 and £100,000 per year, but this could not be funded from within the existing cash limit of the Home Affairs Department.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to make arrangements to present to the States the comments on P.23/2010.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Independent Jersey Police Authority: Establishment P.23/2010: Ministerial Comment

States of Jersey

Independent Jersey Police Authority : Establishment (P.23/2010) – Comments

Present to the States on --- March 2010 by the Minister for Home Affairs

COMMENTS

I welcome and support this Proposition.

When Senator Breckon commenced work on this Proposition he was obviously unaware of the fact that I had already commissioned a report from the Chief Officer of Home Affairs who had been in consultation thereon with the Acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. Furthermore I had already spoken to six Members of the Assembly, namely –

(1) My Assistant Minister, Deputy Hilton;

(2) The Connétable of St Ouen;

(3) The Deputy of St Martin;

(4) Deputy Fox;

(5) The Deputy of St Peter;

(6) Deputy T Pitman;

in order to ask them as to whether they would be prepared to assist me on an Advisory Group. All six of these had agreed so to do.

I have recently received the draft report and will shortly be seeking to set up the first meeting of the Advisory Group. The task which is faced by myself, with the assistance of this Advisory Group, in finding the right balance in relation to a police authority will not be an easy task. The general feeling of those who had looked at the previous draft law which was based upon the Gibraltar model of a police authority was that the police authority proposed would be insufficiently strong. There will be a need to set a fine balance. If the police authority is too strong then there will be risk that it will:-

(a) seek to set up its own criminal justice policy independent to that of the Home Affairs Minister; and/or

(b) seek to start to interfere with the operational freedom of the States of Jersey Police.

If, on the other hand, the new Police Authority is too weak, then it will be insufficiently challenging to the way in which the States of Jersey Police seek to carry out policy.

The issue also arises as to who will be responsible for police policy. My current view is that this must remain the responsibility of the Minister with the Police Authority taking responsibility for ensuring that policy is appropriately implemented.

I shall also be asking the Advisory Group to look at other related difficult issues such as the statutory arrangements for the appointment, suspension, discipline and possible dismissal of the Chief and Deputy Chief Officers of Police.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The report to the Proposition suggests that a police authority could be operated at a cost of £50,000 per year and that this could be funded from within the Home Affairs Department’s cash limit. A police authority set up along U.K. lines would cost in excess of £1m per year. However, it may be possible to create a similar body at a much lower cost of between £50,000 and £100,000 per year but this could not be funded from within the department’s existing cash limit.

Because of the various policy decisions which will need to be made in relation to this area, it is my intention to bring a general Proposition to the States in order that the general principles involved may first be discussed. I am confident that the timescale set in the Proposition of no later than December 2010 for such detailed proposals can be met.