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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 to approve the budget transfer for Le Geyt Flats refurbishment.

Subject:	Capital Budget Transfer Request: Le Geyt Flats Refurbishment
Decision Reference:	MD-TR-2006-0015	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report: (oral or written)	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:
Written Report – Title	Housing - Capital Budget Transfer Request: Le Geyt Flats Refurbishment	Written report - author		R.Foster
Decision(s): The Minister for Treasury and Resources approved the budget transfer as proposed in the attached report.
Reason(s) for decision: The Housing Department considers the refurbishment work to be of a high priority. Proposition P211/2005, considered by the former Finance and Economics Committee at its meeting of 22 September 2005, identifies the requirement within the listing produced as ‘Appendix B’. That proposition is yet to be debated by the States, but there has been a general acknowledgement that investment in some areas of existing States social housing is a high priority. The majority of the unspent funds were originally allocated for the phased development of the Le Geyt estate and the proposed refurbishment may be considered as a continuation of the rolling refurbishment programme.
Action required: Inform the Housing Department of the Minister’s decision. Action the budget transfer in the JD Edwards system.
Signature: (Minister/ Assistant Minister)			Date of Decision: 30/1/2006

Capital Budget Transfer - Le Geyt Flats refurbishment

TREASURY AND RESOURCES MINISTER

housing - capital budget transfer request:

le geyt flats refurbishment

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The Minister for Treasury and Resources is asked to consider a request of the Minister for Housing to transfer unspent budget sums totalling some £390,000 from various completed Housing Departments capital works to fund refurbishment works on 21 flats within the redbrick building at Le Geyt Flats, St Saviour.

2. Background

2.1. The Treasury has recently undertaken an exercise across all departments to close down completed capital works that were still showing as work in progress.

2.2. The exercise in the Housing Department identified an unspent balance of £471,931 - £449,934 of which resulted from underspends on the Le Geyt redevelopment phases 4 - 6. Of this, £83,039 will be required to meet costs incurred on other Housing Departments projects, leaving an available balance of £388,892.

2.3. The former Housing Committee, in its Act B14 of 28 October 2005, identified an urgent need to modernise the ‘red brick’ building at Le Geyt.

2.4. The Housing Department estimates the cost of the proposed works in the order of £350,000, for which there is no other readily available source of funding.

3. Comments

3.1. The default position for unspent capital budget sums is that the value is returned to the Consolidated Fund.

3.2. Financial Direction 3.6 ‘Variations to Heads of Expenditure’ permits the transfer of capital budgets from one expenditure head to another, subject to the approval of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

3.3. Such approval is delegated to the Treasurer for non-contentious items up to £100,000.

3.4. The Housing Department is proposing a refurbishment programme comprising:

· New roof;

· New windows;

· New doors - both communal and individual flats, with a security system;

· Overcladding to counter water penetration and improve insulation;

· New floor coverings;

· Improvements to communal areas.

3.5. The cost estimate is based on a tendering exercise undertaken in 2003 that did not progress due to lack of funds. The estimate of £350,000 allows for inflation over the intervening period.

3.6. Should the Minister approve the funding transfer and the cost of the proposed refurbishment be less than the transferred sum, any balance will be returned to the Consolidated Fund.

4. Recommendation

4.1. That the Minister for Treasury and Resources approves the proposed budget transfer.

5. Reasons for Decision

5.1. The Housing Department considers the refurbishment work to be of a high priority.

5.2. Proposition P211/2005, considered by the former Finance and Economics Committee at its meeting of 22 September 2005, identifies the requirement within the listing produced as ‘Appendix B’. That proposition is yet to be debated by the States, but there has been a general acknowledgement that investment in some areas of existing States social housing is a high priority.

5.3. The majority of the unspent funds were originally allocated for the phased development of the Le Geyt estate and the proposed refurbishment may be considered as a continuation of the rolling refurbishment programme.

States Treasury Corporate Finance

2 February, 2006 for Decision Meeting 30/01/2006