Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 25 February 2011.

Decision Reference: MD-TR-2011-0024
Decision Summary Title:	Comments on P19/2011: Historical Child Abuse: Request to Council of Ministers		Date of Decision Summary:	23rd February 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Head of Decision Support		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title:	Comments on P19/2011: Historical Child Abuse: Request to Council of Ministers		Date of Written Report:	23rd February 2011
Written Report Author:	Head of Decision Support		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Comments on P19/2011: Historical Child Abuse: Request to Council of Ministers.
Decision(s): The Minister approved the comments on P19/2011: Historical Child Abuse: Request to Council of Ministers to be presented to the States at the earliest opportunity.
Reason(s) for Decision: To enable the Minister’s comments on P19/2011: Historical Child Abuse: Request to Council of Ministers to be presented to the States.
Resource Implications: Other than those detailed in the comments there are no further financial or manpower implications.
Action required: Greffier of the States to be requested to present attached comments to the States at the earliest opportunity and prior to debate of P19/2011 at the sitting commencing 1st March 2011.
Signature:		Position: Senator P F C Ozouf Minister for Treasury and Resources
Date Signed:		Date of Decision:

Historical Child Abuse: Request to Council of Ministers (and Amendment) P.19/2011 - Comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

Comments on P19/2011: Historical Child Abuse: request

to Council of Ministers and P19/2011 - Historical Child Abuse: request

to Council of Ministers - Amendment

The Minister for Treasury and Resources wishes to comment for the benefit of States Members on the financial and manpower implications of this proposition and its amendment.

Main proposition

Senator Le Gresley is correct to state in his report and proposition that there are no financial implications as a direct result of it. However, should the proposition be carried, the requirement for the Council of Ministers to reconsider their decision would seem to imply an expectation that a Committee of Inquiry be pursued. The financial consequences of such a route are considerable – estimated at anywhere from £3 million to £10 million by the Council of Ministers. The comments provided separately by the Council of Ministers clearly indicate that any benefits to be derived from a Committee of Inquiry may not justify the financial costs involved – although it is important to stress that the Council of Ministers’ decision was not taken on this basis.

The answer to the Senator’s recent Written Question 6031 clearly indicates that the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund is not considered by the Attorney General likely to be suitable as a source of funding for any potential Committee of Inquiry.

Amendment

The Deputy of St. Martin’s amendment serves only to strengthen the views of the Minister for Treasury and Resources expressed above by making the potential cost larger. No funding for a potential Committee of Inquiry was ever “set aside” as the Deputy contends. It was always envisaged that any funding for such a course of action would need to be sought specifically and separately from the States if necessary. The £11.75 million previously approved by the States in P91/2008 and P83/2009 has been exhausted, with £346,000 recently returned to the consolidated fund following the formal closure of the Inquiry.

Minister for Treasury and Resources