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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (31.03.08) for the Minister to comment on p23/2008 a draft act to annul the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 9) Order 2007

Decision Reference: MD-T-2008-0023
Decision Summary Title :	Minister’s Comments to P23/2008 Draft Act to Annul Order requiring ‘30’ stickers on the rear of certain vehicles		Date of Decision Summary:	28 March 2008
Decision Summary Author:	Caroline Anderson Director of Transport		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Oral		Person Giving Oral Report:	Caroline Anderson
Written Report Title :			Date of Written Report:
Written Report Author:			Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Minister for Transport and Technical Services written comments on P23/2008 Draft Act Annulling the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No 9) (Jersey) Order 2007 lodged by Deputy G Baudains
Decision(s): The Minister approved the attached comments on Deputy Baudains proposition (P23/2008) and requested that they be presented to the States in advance of the debate.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister does not agree with the proposition and the comments and will urge the States to reject it.
Resource Implications: None.
Action required: Attached comments to be forwarded to the Publications Editor at the States Greffe for presentation to the States.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Order 2007 - proposition to annul p23/2008 - Minister's comments

COMMENTS OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

ON P23/2008 DRAFT ACT ANNULLING THE MOTOR VEHICLES

(CONSTRUCTION AND USE) (AMENDMENT No 9) (JERSEY) ORDER 2007

In his report, with regard to the presentation to the States of the Road Traffic (No.58) (Jersey) Regulations 2007, the Deputy of St Clement surmises that the Minister for Transport and Technical Services was “keen not to advertise his intentions at the time”. I wish to assure the House that this was not so. The report which accompanied the draft Regulations clearly stated that following the implementation of the Regulations, an amendment to the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Jersey) Order 1998 would be made in order to introduce a requirement to display a “30” sign on the rear of the relevant vehicles. A further reference to the intended requirement for the signs followed in the section headed “Financial Implications”. As the report was only about a half page in total, summarising the effect of 8 Regulations, I consider that the reference to a further piece of related legislation was given an appropriate level of significance.

The Road Traffic (No.58) (Jersey) Regulations 2007 altered the categories of vehicle subject to an all island 30 mph speed limit. Previously it applied to any vehicle of unladen weight more than 2.5 tonnes or a vehicle drawing a trailer. It now applies to large and medium goods vehicles (over 3.5 tonnes laden weight), large passenger carrying vehicles, and vehicles drawing trailers. These categories are consistent with driving licence categories, and whilst previously the types of vehicle subject to a 30 limit was not obvious, they are now. Goods vehicles are categorised by laden rather than unladen weight and a different category of driving licence is required to drive a goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes.

The intention to change the categories and introduce a requirement for those vehicles to display a 30 mph sign was part of the proposals for a revised speed limits policy put to the States by the then Environment and Public Services Committee. That policy was debated and approved on March 15th 2005. Although the requirement to display the sign was not mentioned in the Proposition, it was mentioned in the report. Prior to the finalisation of the policy, the Committee of the day had carried out public consultation on its proposals including a Jersey Evening Post advert which mentioned the intended requirement for a 30 mph sign. No adverse comment was received at the time.

Speeding vehicles, particularly large ones, have been identified on many occasions as a main concern for the public of Jersey. Public surveys consistently find that when asked what issue they would want the police to tackle in their neighbourhood, the majority of people say speed. Large vehicles are generally less manoeuvrable and leave less space for other road users especially pedestrians. It is sensible to limit them to a lower speed and the requirement to display a sign will improve the public’s awareness of the provision, both for drivers of the restricted vehicles and other road users.

My Department invited haulage firms and goods vehicle suppliers in the Island, to a meeting in November at which the requirements were explained. It has distributed leaflets advising of the new requirements to haulage companies, local garages and Parish Halls. A press release was issued, and formal notices in accordance with the legal requirements of the relevant legislation published in the Gazette. The issue also received media coverage when debated in the States in October. Further information has been available on the States website.

I understand the Deputy’s concern that a fine of £5000 would seem high in relation to the offence of failing to display the sign. This is, of course, a maximum value which a person shall be liable to for the use of a goods vehicle which does not comply with any of the numerous requirements of the Motor Vehicles Construction and Use (Jersey) Order 1998. Although I am not responsible for policing our traffic laws, I would expect the authorities to take a sensible approach and the likelihood of the maximum value of fine being imposed in relation to failure to display the 30 sign, would be low.

I have inherited this proposal from my predecessors but I consider it an entirely appropriate measure which can only assist our efforts to see the numbers of injuries on our roads reduce, and I urge the House to reject the Deputy’s proposition.