Retail Strategy Impact Assessment

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (25.09.07) to approve the Minister's Comments on the Retail Strategy Impact Assessment.

Decision Reference: MD-E-2007-0185
Decision Summary Title :	Comment on P84 Retail Strategy Impact Assessment		Date of Decision Summary:	24 September 2007
Decision Summary Author:	Director Strategic Development		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 :	Economic Development comment on P84 – Retail Strategy: Impact Assessment		Date of Written Report:	24 September 2007
Written Report Author:	Director Strategic Development		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Comment on P84 – Retail Strategy: Impact Assessment
Decision(s): The Minister approves his comment on P84 – Retail Strategy: Impact Assessment
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister has already issued an Article 6(4) request to the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority seeking advice on the economic impact of new entry into the retail sector. The comment is intended to bring this fact to the attention of the States and that there is, therefore, no need for the States to debate P84.
Resource Implications: The cost of the study will be met from within existing resources.
Action required: Comment to be forwarded to the States Greffe
Signature: Senator P.F.C.Ozouf		Position: Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Retail Strategy Impact Assessment - Comment

Economic Development comment on P84 – Retail Strategy: Impact Assessment

The Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel is calling for an economic impact assessment of the addition of a third operator on the retail sector. I can confirm that I have written to the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority requesting advice under Article 6(4) of the Competition Regulatory Authority (Jersey) Law 2001. The terms of reference are set out below.

Article 6 (4) request for JCRA advice on economic impact of new entry in the retail sector

Advice is sought from the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (the ‘JCRA’) on the economic impact of new entry into the retail sector by a third supermarket competitor.

In providing this advice, the JCRA should take into account the likely impact on:

· consumer welfare (in terms of prices, quality, innovation and choice available to consumers);

· the productive efficiency of existing retailers (in terms of their costs and revenues); and

· the Jersey economy overall.

The JCRA should provide this advice on the basis of the most recent and relevant information available and should consider empirical evidence which may be relevant to circumstances in Jersey. In this regard, experience from other small economies may be particularly relevant.

The JCRA has advised that it would aim to complete this work by the end of January 2008.

Members may recall that the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel made a statement on the 1st May on the Panel’s Retail Strategy Interim Review. The attached response was circulated to all States Members on the 4th May.

Whilst the Proposition itself is capable of being supported there is much in the accompanying Report with which I do not agree. Nevertheless the JCRA’s advice is being sought and there is clearly no need for the States to debate P84. Deputy Southern is asked to withdraw the Proposition.

Philip Ozouf

Minister for Economic Development

24 September 2007