The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS: PUBLIC ACCESS
Lodged au Greffe on 7th June 2011 by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade
STATES GREFFE
2011 Price code: A P.103
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
to request the Council of Ministers to hold its meetings in public, except when the Council is discussing any matter which, by virtue of any enactment or code, it is entitled to discuss in private.
DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE
REPORT
Commitment to transparency
On 10th June 2009, the States voted, after a lengthy debate, to adopt the 2009 – 2014 Strategic Plan, by 32 votes to 16.
Contained within that document were several references to open', accountable' and transparent' government.
On page 7, we find the words –
By working openly and inclusively with all sectors of our community we will:
create a responsive government [] which embraces a progressive culture of openness, transparency and accountability to the public.'
On page 32 there is a similar pledge –
We will work to improve the public trust in government and establish a system of greater transparency, public participation, and collaboration to strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government (CM).'
Given these clear commitments to greater openness, transparency, accountability and public participation in the democratic process, it seems that there should be little resistance to this simple proposition asking the Council of Ministers to hold their meetings – as far as possible – in public.
Precedents
In 2005, when the States formally moved to a system of Ministerial Government, the Scrutiny function was also adopted as one of the checks and balances' to executive government; its ethos, to hold the Council of Ministers, and the process of policy- making, to account, in a transparent way, based on evidence and facts. As such, there is a presumption of open access to the public in Scrutiny meetings. Similarly, the Privileges and Procedures Committee hold their normal business in public session.
It seems that if the Council of Ministers are to take seriously their commitment to more open government, they too should follow the example of Scrutiny and hold at least some of their meetings (A Agendas) in public.
Policy in formation – B Agendas
Clearly, there will be times, as is the case for Scrutiny and for PPC (less often for the States Assembly) when items need to be discussed in confidence (I say clearly', but of course there will be those more radical than myself who would say that all proceedings should be held in the open). It seems appropriate that the current system of B Agenda items continue to be discussed amongst the Council of Ministers; these items might include policy in formation, and it is quite reasonable that Ministers (and other Committees/Panels) should be able to discuss ideas and policy direction freely, without the fear of misreporting or misinterpretation.
Page - 3
P.103/2011
Nonetheless, there should be a presumption that any items which do not reasonably need to be on the B Agenda, be discussed in a forum which is openly accessible to the public. I hope that all members share my view, and the view that is expressed in the very noble aims of the Strategic Plan.
The ideal of an open, transparent, accountable and responsive government is not one that can be achieved overnight, but by taking small steps in the right direction. This is just one of those small steps, which I hope the Assembly will be able to support.
Financial and manpower implications
There should be no financial or manpower implications arising from the adoption of this proposition. One consideration, however, is that an appropriate room will need to be used, so that interested members of the public and media will be able to be seated.