Turning to the Consolidated Order Paper. Firstly, on behalf of all Members, I should like to welcome His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor to the Chamber this morning.

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

2. Nomination of Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour as a member of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Deputy Bailiff:

There is a nomination of Deputy Pamplin of St. Saviour as a member of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Deputy Pamplin wishes to speak.

2.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour:

I just wanted to put on a matter of record for Hansard and the general public, for those who were unaware, I was an original member of this panel at the beginning of the term. I quite fancied working alongside Deputy Morel and the panel that he put together. Unfortunately other commitments took over so I had to step away but it was always the intention, if successful, with the panel’s approval to return to this extraordinary brilliant panel at this time when the economic needs of the Island are going to be a massive situation for all of us. I thank the panel members for accepting me back on the panel and I hope that makes it clearer for members of the public.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I note from the chat and confirm that Deputy Pamplin has been proposed and seconded. In the default of there being any other candidates I declare that Deputy Pamplin has been appointed as a member of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

QUESTIONS

3. Written Questions

3.1 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence of the Chief Minister regarding Government of Jersey contracts with EY: (WQ.233/2020)

Question

Will the Chief Minister advise how many Government of Jersey contracts have been awarded to EY since 1st January 2018, to include contracts to EY offices in Jersey and in any other location, and in relation to each such contract awarded to EY will the Chief Minister advise –

(a) whether a tender process was carried out;

(b) what the purpose of the contract was;

(d) what the duration of each contract was?

Answer

The information requested is detailed within the table below: -

a. Was a tender process carried out	b. Contract purpose	c. Value of Contract	d. Duration of contract
No	Efficiencies Programme COO (2020) Continuation of delivery programme for Efficiencies programme	£198,764	4 months
No	Efficiencies Programme CYPES 1. Support to develop and produce a plan for delivering CYPES efficiency savings, assisting with design and validation	£105,000	3 months
No	Efficiencies Programme JHA 1. Identify opportunities for efficiency savings 2. Delivery of outline opportunities for efficiencies 3. Delivery of detailed plans for realisation of Efficiencies	£108,000	3 months
No	Efficiencies Programme Stages 1-4 Accelerated Portfolio COO 1. Identification of efficiency opportunities 2. Verification of efficiency opportunities and commissioning of activity to deliver efficiencies 3. Oversight and reporting of delivery of efficiencies, including governance and decision making	£860,696	12 months
No	Efficiency Programme HCS Support to develop and produce a plan for delivering HCS efficiency savings, assisting with design and validation with focused areas e.g. CIPs, agency reduction, P82 funding	£564,533	12 months
Yes	Finance Transformation Partner T&E 1. Consolidation of the Finance Function 2. Coaching of Treasury Staff 3. Co-creation of the Government Plan 4. Outline Business Case for Integrated Technology Solution 5. Enterprise Risk Management 6. Financial Process Review and Improvement 7. Accounting Automation Implementation 8. Zero Based Budgeting	£2,850,000	24 months
Yes	Revenue Jersey - Provision of Tax Advice 1. Jersey approach OECD review of the Taxation of the Digital Economy T&E	£70,000	4 months
Yes	M&D Transformation Partner COO 1. Target Operating Model (TOM) for the States of Jersey Modernisation and Digital Function 2. The discovery, design and implementation of a Corporate Portfolio Management Office (CPMO) 3. The discovery, design and implementation of a States of Jersey Digital Strategy including investment case 4. The discovery, design and implementation of a Business Architecture function including COVID response 6. Cyber Security Programme Initiation Phase 7. Programme Management of contractual activities.	£3,600,000	27 months
Yes	Our Hospital Financial & Commercial Advisory Services OCE 1. Development of the Business Case including the Economic Case (including Value for Money analysis), Financial Case (including financial modelling and affordability assessment) and Commercial Case (including procurement strategy) 2. Financing including debt funding options and execution. 3. Accounting and Tax advice. 4. Procurement support including support in development of financial and commercial aspects of bid documentation, support in bidder engagement and dialogue and evaluation support. 5. Other financial and commercial advice as required including providing support in areas such as financial and commercial modelling.	£800,000	19 months
No	Provision of Interim Head of Technology M&D Emergency requirement as a result of COVID to provide senior resource to manage IT operations government infrastructure estate	Commercial in Confidence*	7 months
Yes	Project Torrin - Financial Advisory Services T&E Framework Contract Call off contract for financial advice on ad-hoc basis including: - 1. Borrowing advice repayment of the pension increase debts 2. Report providing the indicative debt capacity of the seven wholly or partly owned companies	£132,331 (expenditure between 2018-2020)	24 months
No	Project Bailiwick (T&E) Urgent C19 response. Advice on raising a new debt facility.	Up to £400,000	3 months

*As the contract outlined is for a specific role the contract value has been omitted to not breach commercial confidentiality.

3.2 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence of the Chief Minister regarding Government of Jersey contracts with J3 Limited: (WQ.234/2020)

Question

Will the Chief Minister advise how many Government of Jersey contracts have been awarded to the construction consortium J3 Limited since 1st January 2018 and, in relation to all such contracts awarded to J3 Limited, will the Chief Minister advise –

(a) whether a tender process was carried out;

(b) what the purpose of the contract was;

(d) what the duration of each contract was?

Answer

J3 Ltd have been awarded a total of 4 contracts since 1st January 2018.

The first two contracts were; contract for Future Hospital Project Pre PCSA Part 1 and contract for Future Hospital Project Pre PCSA Part 2.

Both contracts were awarded as a result of a competitive tender process.

The purpose of the two contracts was to assist the project team with the preparation and submission of a revised outline planning application for the Future Hospital Project as well as progression of the design in preparation to commence the project in anticipation of the possibility of a positive planning submission outcome.

The combined value of the contracts was £2.8m

The duration of the contract for Future Hospital Project Pre PCSA Part 1 was 3 months

The duration of the contract for Future Hospital Project Pre PCSA Part 2 was 10 months

The third contract was Property Services.

J3 were procured under exemption from Financial Directions.

The purpose of the contract was for the development of a draft Island Public Estates Strategy.

The value of the contract was £676,000

The duration of the contract was 7 months

The fourth contract was The Construction of a Temporary 180 Bed Acute Respiratory Field Hospital (Nightingale Hospital)

J3 were procured under exemption from The Public Finances Manual.

The purpose of the contract was to design and construct a temporary 180 bed Acute Respiratory field hospital utilising a Neptunus Evolution II modular design for the management of COVID-19 patients.

The value of the contract is £5,900,000 (estimate based on latest cost forecast)

The duration of the contract is 4 months

Contract Title	Supplementary Information if Required
Pre PCSA Pt 1	J3 were chosen as a result of their success in the open procurement competition to identify and appoint a design and delivery contractor for the Future Hospital Project
Pre PCSA Pt 2
Property Services	J3 were procured under exemption from the Public Finances Manual due to the urgent nature of the work required and the availability of J3's well-resourced and experienced on-Island team. Following a critical C&AG Report on Operational Land and Building the Public Accounts Committee insisted on prompt action and progress ahead of a further review meeting in June 2019. As well as the definitive time pressures insisted upon by PAC the work around the IPES was an essential piece of work to support the Economic Framework, Island Plan, infrastructure fund and Government plan. The J3 team of experienced professionals with the capability and capacity were available following the cessation of the hospital project to carry out the required services associated with the IPES. To ensure suitability of the J3 team, due diligence on the capacity and capability took place ahead of placing a contract as well as securing an improved blended day rate from that charged on the Future Hospital Project.
Nightingale Hospital	J3 were procured under exemption from the Public Finances Manual due to the urgent nature of the work required and the availability of J3's well-resourced and experienced on-Island team. Of the estimated £5.9m total contract value over 90% of this will have been spent by J3 on behalf of GoJ in the local supply market. This approach was beneficial to the industry during this difficult time. 520 locally employed construction workers worked on the project and 83 of the 89 supply chain partners were jersey businesses. The approximate value of this contract to J3 themselves is £550,000 which consisted of the agreed mark-up for management of the supply chain and their own labour rates. J3 are also a locally registered business. Through J3’s links with Sir Robert McAlpine they had access to current up to date knowledge and lessons learned from UK Nightingale Hospitals that were under construction in Manchester and elsewhere. This saved the project approximately 4 weeks of design allowing construction to commence just 8 days after the initial briefing from the GoJ. The J3 team were available to commence work immediately which gave us leverage to renegotiate pricing leading to rates being negotiated down from previously tendered rates in 2017 for the Future Hospital Project. The J3 team have good working knowledge of the Island and relevant supply chain which was critical to the success of the project as well as experience of working with GoJ. The Completion date for the works was early May, however, the contract will still be in effect until GoJ sign off the final payment which is estimated to be end of July 2020.

3.3 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the use of U.K. companies for the laying of road surfaces in Jersey: (WQ.235/2020)

Question

Will the Minister advise whether any U.K. companies have been used to lay road surfaces in Jersey since 1st January 2017; and if so, will the Minister provide a list of the projects on which they were engaged, the value of the contracts and the reasons why non-Jersey companies were used?

Answer

A UK based company has been employed to lay a product called “Gripfibre” on certain Government of Jersey roads since 1st January 2017. Gripfibre is a specialist road surfacing product generically referred to as micro-asphalt.

Micro asphalts are applied to existing road surfaces which are “tired” and have a polished and slippery surface, joints caused by service interventions which can let damaging water into the structure, but which have a residual strength and life. Micro-asphalt extends the life of such road surfaces in a cost-effective way by sealing the road surface from the ingress of water, adding a thin layer of asphalt to slow the oxidation of the existing asphalt layers and return the skid resistance of the road to an as new condition.

Extending the life of existing road structures with residual strength is not only a cost-effective technique, but also more environmentally sustainable than the alternative of removing and dumping the existing asphalt at the La Collette landfill, and replacing it with freshly quarried aggregate.

The laying of Micro-asphalt surfacing is also a fast process, and this can be advantageous by reducing the time that roadworks impact on and disrupt the public.

There are currently no local suppliers of Gripfibre micro-asphalt or an accredited equivalent on Jersey, this is a nationally accredited process (British Board of Agrement) requiring specialist skills and plant. Suppliers of this type of specialist product typically work nationally, rather than within local areas.

The projects where micro asphalt has been used since 2017, with costs, are:

Year	Roads to which Gripfibre was applied	Value of the contract
2019	Rue des Sapin La Route des Hetres La Route de Trodez La Route de Millais	£460,000
2018	St Peters Valley Le Mont de la Pulente La Rue de Sergente La Rue de Bel Air and Eden Lane	£530,000
2017	La Route d'Ebenezer La Rue de la Petite Falaise.	£220,000

Note: Included in the sums paid for the micro-asphalt are monies paid to local subcontractors employed by the UK Contractor for certain operations required as part of the work, such as white line removal, ironwork adjustments, road sweeping, white lining replacement and traffic management. Local asphalt laying companies are also used in advance of the micro asphalt works to correct any defects in the road surface that the micro-asphalt cannot correct.

Typically £4.5 to £6.5 million is spent on planned highway maintenance per annum.

3.4 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Education regarding the provision of virtual learning materials to schoolchildren: (WQ.236/2020)

Question

Will the Minister advise what work, if any, will be undertaken during the school holidays to invest in better virtual learning materials for schoolchildren, to address the prospect of a second wave of Covid-19 later this year that would further disrupt their education?

Answer

Wide ranging, significant, financial and non-financial investment has already been made to improve virtual learning for school children.

Staff and students at all schools now have Microsoft Teams and all staff email accounts have now been migrated to Office 365 enabling access on any internet enabled device, at any time. Staff training has taken place to increase knowledge and skills with new or current software that enable virtual learning.

The Learning at Home website was launched 30th April and has been accessed by over 4,500 users with over 15,000 unique page views.

https://learningathome.gov.je/

Digital Jersey has worked with the local Telecoms companies to enable a free broadband offer for school children, adult learners and those leaving care who do not currently have a broadband connection.

https://www.gov.je/news/2020/pages/freebroadband.aspx

From the start of lock down schools were loaning devices out to families and currently have in excess of 300 devices out on loan. Additionally, 300 more devices have been ordered to increase the stock available to loan to children who do not have access to a suitable device.

https://www.gov.je/News/2020/Pages/OnlineDevicesOrdered.aspx

A second wave is seen internationally as likely to happen during the winter, however, with our current test and trace approach we are following a strategy of very low active cases and interrupting any spread of new infections through the contain strategy. Any mitigation measures will be considered based on the nature of a new outbreak, the location and numbers. Based on international research and studies, it has been shown that generic school closures and indeed the opening of schools, did not have a considerable impact on the spread of the infection as children are unlikely to get infected and to pass the infection on if infected.

Schools as welcoming all year groups of children back last week and this, with a focus on their well-being. Once returned to school, teachers and staff are also assessing any learning loss that may have occurred and will be planning to address this with officers in my Department. Due consideration will be given here, once we can fully assess our children and young people.

3.5 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the Covid Related Emergency Support Scheme: (WQ.237/2020)

Question

With regards to the recipients of Covid Related Emergency Support Scheme (C.R.E.S.S.) who receive payments via the Bankers’ Automated Clearing System (B.A.C.S.), will the Minister advise –

(a) how frequently are such payments made;

(b) if an applicant’s payment is rejected or fails, how promptly are payments re-issued;

(c) in the event of a failed or rejected payment, does the Government proactively notify the recipient or does responsibility lie with the recipient to contact the Government;

(d) how many individuals have contacted the Government about missing payments; and

(e) how many of these missing payments have not yet been followed up or re-issued?

Answer

(a) CRESS Payments are paid weekly in arrears.

(b) Payment re-issues will depend on the circumstances of why the BACS payment was rejected. See (d) for more detail.

(c) Re-issues are agreed with the claimant on a case by case basis, typically by providing a double payment of benefit in the following week. If a customer indicates that they are in immediate hardship and cannot wait this long, the customer can arrange to collect a cash payment from CLS by appointment.

(d) Where CLS is aware of a returned BACS payment staff will investigate the reason for rejection and contact the customer where possible. If a customer is missing a payment of benefit and has not received any communication from CLS about this, they should contact the CRESS team.

(e) The question does not specify what is meant by “missing payments”. The most common reason for a BACS payment failure is that the payee’s account details provided by the customer are incorrect. If a customer provided incorrect bank account details on their application submission, CLS staff will contact the customer to confirm the correct account details. CLS does not hold records that would make it possible to report on the specific reasons that individuals have contacted the CRESS team.

(f) When CLS is aware of a BACS payment being returned, this will be followed up and re-issued where applicable. Of the approximately 2,550 payments of CRESS benefit up to the 21/06/2020 there have been 53 BACS rejected payments, reflecting less than 3% of total payments. All of these rejected payments have had appropriate action taken.

3.6 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Children and Housing regarding provisions for accessibility in newly-built social housing: (WQ.238/2020)

Question

Will the Minister advise whether new social housing under construction includes disabled access and adaptable living environments to suit a range of disabilities, including access difficulties that result from ageing; and if so, how many units (and what percentage of the total) conform to these criteria?

Answer

All new social housing must meet the ‘Lifetime Home Standard’ and be designed to ensure that individuals with supported housing needs, including older people and people with disabilities, are able to access living environments that are suitable for their needs.

Where an individual has a demonstrable housing need that cannot be readily met in social housing, agencies, including Andium Homes, the Housing Gateway, and Health and Community Services – will work together to develop a bespoke housing option for the individual.

Andium Homes is currently on site delivering over 700 new homes. All such homes are developed in line with current Jersey Building Byelaws, which require new homes to be accessible by all and adaptable for the aging population. This is in line with the Discrimination (Disability) (Jersey) Regulations.

The Building Byelaws set standards which aim to ensure the health and safety of people in and around the buildings, promote energy efficiency and aim to provide access for all, which will include disabilities. Whilst the Byelaws cater for the majority of disabilities, individuals may have very specific needs. Andium has a dedicated Medical Adaptation budget for this purpose.

Andium Homes is also: -

Working with Health and Social Services to deliver a new purpose-built facility for two clients with significant complex medical and social needs.

Working with Health and Social Services to deliver 10 x apartments at the newly built Le Squez Phase 4 for clients with Learning disabilities, whilst seeking additional opportunities on future developments that may be suitable for those with varying needs and support.

Working with Children’s Respite Service at Eden House to deliver an extension to the existing facility, whilst seeking opportunities to provide an additional building on future developments.

Working with Autism Jersey to deliver a new purpose-built facility from which it can deliver its support services, along with several “autism friendly” homes within the development of the Ann Street Brewery site.

Working with Age Concern Jersey to deliver a new purpose built and fully accessible headquarters for the charity.

The only social housing provider with a dedicated annual budget of £220k for medical adaptations in existing housing stock, 168 such adaptations were carried out in 2019.

Andium works closely with the Occupational Therapy Services to ensure adaptations are carried out to the specific needs of the client.

Andium Homes will also offer clients in bedsits and one bed apartments the choice of a bath or shower as part of its Bathroom Replacement Programme, and larger units if there is a medical need.

3.7 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the Drugs and Alcohol Strategy: (WQ.239/2020)

Question

Will the Minister provide an update on the current activity of, and any recent outcomes from, the Drugs and Alcohol Strategy?

Answer

I can confirm that we are currently working to the Building a Safer Society Strategy (BaSS), specifically Strategic Priority 3: ‘To minimise the harm to individuals, families and communities caused by drugs and alcohol’. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/BaSS%202016%20-2019.pdf

The following is a summary of the current activity and recent outcomes from an Alcohol and Drug Service (A&D) perspective based on the objectives which relate to the service:

The team has the following established pathways:

- Alcohol Pathway

- Opiate Substitute Treatment

- Arrest Referral

- Needle Exchange and harm reduction

- Young Persons Substance Misuse Worker (YPSMW)

The A&D Service has an established multi-disciplinary team – a dedicated Consultant Psychiatrist, Consultant Psychologist and Social Worker (established under BaSS)
The A&D Service, through the Alcohol Pathway, runs clinics in GP surgeries and other community clinics (away from traditional A&D location to reduce stigma). Hospital Alcohol Liaison Nurses work from within the Emergency Department and wards in JGH
The A&D Service was running a Shelter Clinic at Aztec House (suspended in the last few months)
The A&D Service has developed close working relationships with Jersey Probation and After Care Service (JPACS) and the States of Jersey Police Service (SoJPS)
Under Strategic Priority 3 the following have been met by A&D service:

Objective 1 – A YPSMW is now in post and works alongside the youth services providing support. The Service provides holistic support for people under the age of 25 who wish to address their dependence or harmful polysubstance misuse.

Objective 2 – A Court Liaison Officer was in post working from both A&D and JPACS, funded through JPACS. Both agencies looking to review the post, but needs (deferred decisions and Parish Hall enquiries) are temporarily met by A&D

- The A&D Service has an established Opiate substitute programme with dedicated prescribers (Consultant Psychiatrist, sessional GP and Nurse Prescriber) and 4 Substance Misuse Nurses

Objective 3 – Needle Exchange and harm reduction workers provide all equipment required by people who inject drugs, including harm reduction advice and overdose prevention advice. They also provide Blood Borne Virus (BBV) advice including offer of testing for BBV through dry blood spot testing. Specific support and information are also given to steroid users. A Specialist BBV Nurse clinic is run from the A&D Service, offering treatments for Hepatitis C, including additional liver screens

- 2 GP prescribers were recruited (although one has since retired) to prescribe for drug users

- the WellWoman and GUM clinic offer contraceptive support to A&D clients. A&D also continues to provide free contraceptives and sexual health advice to service users. Pre-Covid 19, plans were being put in place to develop a sexual health clinic at the A&D Service

Question

Will the Minister advise –

(a) how errors in the level of payments made to claimants by Customer and Local Services are monitored, including how such errors are recorded and how they are reported to the Minister for any decisions required about the enforcement or cancellation of repayments; and

(b) who takes the final decision regarding the enforcement of a repayment following an over-payment made to a claimant?

Answer

Customer and Local Services administers a wide variety of services for a number of Ministers covering a range of legislation.

For all services and payments, the potential risks are assessed, and an appropriate level of control and checking is put in place to reduce potential errors (both customer and departmental) and fraud. Monitoring of performance (and therefore errors) takes place through a range of approaches, including colleague appraisals, team meetings, performance meetings, relevant exception reports, write off logs and quarterly risk meetings. All payment transactions, customer interactions and therefore any payment errors are recorded on the appropriate departmental business system. The department proactively seeks feedback from customers on the service it provides. In addition, the OneGov customer feedback policy also sets out the process for handling customer complaints.

If a benefit claimant wishes to challenge a decision about their benefits, they can first request that their decision is reviewed by a different officer. Following a second decision, there is the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. For benefit payments, Determining Officers can refer cases that have exceptional circumstances and fall outside of guidelines to the Minister for Social Security for a Ministerial Decision. This can include decisions about the enforcement or cancellation of repayments.

Final decisions about enforcement of overpayments to a claimant are made by the relevant Determining Officer according to departmental guidelines and within the financial limits of the departmental scheme of delegation.

3.12 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding administration of the loans provided to Andium Homes: (WQ.244/2020)

Question

Will the Minister, as shareholder representative, state –

(a) how much has been repaid to the States by Andium Homes in each of the last 5 years; and

(b) how much of the loan debt has been repaid as a result and what the remaining balance is of this loan?

Answer

(a) Capital repayments made by Andium on States Loans are detailed below for each of the last 5 years:

2015	£927,000.00
2016	£3,433,000.00
2017	£1,550,000.00
2018	£8,898,000.00
2019	£23,044,000.00

(b) Loans are issued to Andium on a project by project basis. Repayments from Andium back to the Housing Development Fund are then used to fund subsequent loans to Andium to progress new projects. The total repayments in the last five years are £37,852,000.00. The total outstanding capital value of loans as at 31/5/20 is £204,791,000.

3.13 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for the Environment regarding the Government’s consideration of measures to address climate change: (WQ.245/2020)

Question

Given the pressure on monies put aside to tackle climate change, as agreed by the States Assembly, and the discussions over the nature of the recovery from Covid-19, will the Minister advise what consideration or discussion, if any, has taken place either at the Council of Ministers or within his Department in relation to –

(a) the ‘Climate Change and Small States: Parliamentarian’s Toolkit’ produced by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; and

(b) the U.N.’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals?

Answer

Due to the redeployment of staff into the COVID-19 public health policy response this has not yet been explored by officers or been bought to the Council of Ministers. It is recognised that this is important and as staff and effort returns to business to usual levels this workstream will be re-considered as part of the resumption of the Climate Emergency work.

3.14 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the statue of Sir George de Carteret in St. Peter: (WQ.246/2020)

Question

Will the Minister state what Government grant, if any, was given to fund the statue of George de Carteret in St. Peter; and, if such a grant was given, will the Minister advise who requested it, who approved it and what due diligence, if any, was undertaken before the grant was agreed?

Answer

No Government grant was given to fund the statue of George de Carteret in St. Peter.

3.15 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Children and Housing regarding the waiting list for social housing: (WQ.247/2020)

Question

Will the Minister advise Members of the current social housing situation in the Island and in particular –

(a) the number of people on the social housing waiting list and the average waiting time on the list;

(b) the demand for 1-bed, 2-bed and 3-bed accommodation;

(d) how he plans to meet the demand for housing over the next 5 years?

Answer

(a) 2547 people are currently waiting on the Housing Gateway list.

1645 of those are on Band 5 which is the assisted purchase scheme.

902 are those waiting for social housing provision

Below is the table showing the average waiting time in months.

Average of Avg Waiting (Months)	Bedrooms Requested
Band	0	1	2	3	4	5	Grand Total
Band 1	11	23	19	8	15	13	19
Band 2	18	27	17	21	23	0	21
Band 3	26	34	23	27	26		29
Band 4		28					28
Band 6	12	15	19	42			17
Grand Total	16	26	20	17	20	11	22

Please note the average waiting time would not be useful information as there are clients on the list who have waited years due to not expressing interest or due to the type of property that they require.

(b) 1 bed = 397

2 bed = 261

3 bed = 134

(c) Andium Homes is planning to develop more than 1,100 new homes between now and 2024. This will make a significant contribution towards meeting the demand for social housing over the next 5 years, including homes for rent and assisted purchase.

I anticipate that the demand for social housing over the next five years will be met through the acquisition and development of new sites, including Government-owned sites that are no longer required and through regeneration in St. Helier; and intensification of development on existing social housing sites.

The Housing Policy Development Board is due to report with recommendations about how to meet the island’s future housing needs. The Board’s work has been postponed due to Covid-19, but it is expected to report with its recommendations in Q4 2020. The Board will recommend a range of potential measures to increase housing supply, including the release of sites for housing, potential funding arrangements and new tenure models.

The Board’s work, alongside the 2019 Objective Assessment of Housing Need Report, is helping to inform the Island Plan Review programme.

3.16 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding ventilators and continuous positive airway pressure units: (WQ.248/2020)

Question

Will the Minister advise members of –

(a) the current number of ventilators and continuous positive airway pressure (C.P.A.P) units available for use in the Island;

(b) the current stock of personal protective equipment (P.P.E.) available to meet a potential new wave of Covid-19 (or another infectious virus); and

Answer

a) The Government of Jersey has 36 invasive ventilators, 39 non-invasive ventilators and 40 Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (C.P.A.P.) units.

b) The sufficiency of the current stock of PPE available to meet a potential new wave of Covid-19 would need to account for several factors relating to the extent of that new wave, such as incidence, prevalence, severity of disease, length of second wave and the purposes for which the PPE is used (treatment, testing, prevention and so on). Notwithstanding the extent of these currently unknown factors, the key items of the current stock of PPE are:

FFP3/FFP2 Masks (providing protection against aerosol generating procedures)	51,560
Surgical Masks (providing protection in more general less high-risk environments)	1,374,150
Gloves	2,069,960
Sterile Gowns	9,320
Non-Sterile Gowns	144,810
Plastic Aprons	1,445,000
Visors	333,145
Goggles	6,319
Hand Sanitiser	33,000 litres

Stock at 23 June 2020

This level of stock, managed through the Government of Jersey PPE Portal, is currently sufficient to be able to respond to risks associated with a potential new wave of COVID-19.

Current waiting times for PPE Stock are under one week as this is sourced via the quality assured Global Pandemic Stock held by the UK Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC). This also gives us the ability to source emergency stock if required.

3.17 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the early release of prisoners during the Covid-19 pandemic: (WQ.249/2020)

Question

Will the Minister advise members how many prisoners, if any, were released early from H.M.P. La Moye in line with his proposals for dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic?

Answer

No prisoners have been released early from H.M.P La Moye to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The States of Jersey Prison Service’s plan for dealing with covid-19 has been effective and has meant that Covid-19 has not entered the prison. Therefore no one has needed to be released to help manage accommodation and/or protect medically vulnerable prisoners.

3.18 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for the Environment regarding the organisation of, and the number of employees in, his department: (WQ.250/2020)

Question

Will the Minister provide members with an organisation chart for his department and set out for members the arrangement of his department in terms of full-time equivalent (F.T.E.) employees; and will he explain how this has changed over the last four years?

Answer

I regret that I am not able to provide the information the Deputy has requested in the limited timeframe available, due to circumstances beyond my control.

The current organisational chart of officers currently working on services for which I have political responsibility i.e. Environment and Regulation teams within the GHE department is awaiting finalisation as part of work on the Target Operating Model. The recently appointed acting DG is currently actively working on this with the Corporate People team.

The question also requires a retrospective analysis of historic staffing numbers for the previous four years before the Environment department was disbanded and partly absorbed into GHE in June 2018. This is a complex task because neither the old and new FTE’s nor services included are comparable. The policy planning, historic building and environmental policy teams were moved out to the SP3 Department (the central policy team) for which I don’t have responsibility, and there were regulatory functions transferred in. I have instructed that this research be carried out as quickly as possible.

I offer the Deputy my apologies and undertake to provide the information to all States members as soon as possible.

3.19 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the organisation of, and the number of employees in, his department: (WQ.251/2020)

Question

Will the Minister provide members with an organisational chart for the Department of Justice and Home Affairs, including each division such as the States of Jersey Police, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service, Customs and Immigration and H.M.P. La Moye; and will he also set out for members the structure of this Department in terms of full-time equivalent (F.T.E.) employees and explain how the arrangement has changed in each division of the Department over the last four years?

Answer

An organisational chart for the Department of Justice and Home Affairs including States of Jersey Police, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service, Customs and Immigration and H.M.P. La Moye is set out below -

Please note that the structure of each division below the heads of service is still under development. Once the arrangements have been finalised, I will share the final structure with the Deputy.

The structure of the Department in terms of full time equivalent (F.T.E) employees and how these arrangements have changed in each division of the Department over the last five years is set out below -

	Actual FTE
	Prison	JCIS	Fire & Rescue	Ambulance	Police	Police Officers	Police Staff
2016	158.9	86.8	76.5	64.1	318.7	214.8	103.9
2017	145.5	85.8	73.5	66.3	311.4	207.7	103.7
2018	150.3	85.8	67.1	73.5	294.7	194.2	100.5
2019	158.9	81.9	67.1	77.1	300.8	192.6	108.2
2020	145.9	77.68	69.18	81.3	316.2	199.3	116.9

Please note that these figures represent actual FTE. The numbers therefore vary from year to year depending on the number of leavers and joiners in a given year. For the years 2019 to 2016, the number is the position at the end of the year. For 2020, the number is the position on the 25th June.

3.20 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the Household Living Costs and Income Survey: (WQ.252/2020)

Question

Further to the responses to Written Question 226/2020 and Oral Question 159/2020, will the Chief Minister –

(a) Outline what actions, if any, he will be undertaking, in conjunction with Statistics Jersey, to ensure that the results of the Household Living Costs and Income Survey will be published early in Quarter 4 of 2020 so that an informed debate on the subject of reducing income inequality can be incorporated within the Assembly’s consideration of the Government Plan for 2021; and

(b) state whether it is his assessment, as others such as the Resolution Foundation have found, that the Covid-19 pandemic has had the greatest impact on the living standards of the young and those on the lowest incomes?

Answer

(a) The Chief Minister is unable to “ensure” that the results are published early in quarter 4 of 2020. As stated in the answer to Written Question 226/2020 and Oral Question 159/2020, as per the Statistics and Census (Jersey) Law 2018 “In exercising any of its functions, Statistics Jersey has the right to act independently.” The nature of the work and reporting timelines of Statistics Jersey are based on statistical considerations, as determined by the Chief Statistician, not dates and timelines set by the Government of Jersey.

The Chief Minister will however, continue to work closely with Statistics Jersey in delivering this piece of work.

(b) We do not yet have the breakdown of the impact in this level of detail. However, the Jersey Opinion and Lifestyle Survey (JOLS) was launched on 19 June 2020 and the results of this survey will address, to some extent, this question. It is anticipated that the results will enable analysis of the broad effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on individuals and households broken down by categories including age, sex and income.

I have also accepted the recommendation for the income and spending survey to recommence its work as soon as possible in 2021, in order to provide pertinent updated information on the relative living standards of individuals and households in the Island.

3.21 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the cost of primary care for people on low incomes and those with chronic illnesses: (WQ.253/2020)

Question

What measures, if any, does the Minister have under consideration to further reduce the costs of primary care for people on low incomes and those with chronic illnesses?

Answer

I refer Members to my response to both OQ158/2020 and WQ228/2020 that cover similar ground to this question.

With the temporary contract with GPs set to expire in August this year, officers are currently working with primary care colleagues to learn from the real and practical experience we have gained from working differently during the Covid-19 pandemic. By referencing principles within the Jersey Care Model (JCM) and in P.125/2019, an assessment will be made of the best way forward to improve access and service sustainability. As the negotiations on future working arrangements are underway, the outcome should not be pre-judged, but the principles set out in both P.125/2019 and the JCM will help inform the deliberations.

3.22 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding mental health services for young men: (WQ.254/2020)

Question

Given that suicide is reportedly the single biggest killer of men under 45, what is the Minister doing, or what does he plan to do, to address mental health issues amongst this specific demographic?

Answer

Suicide is a relatively rare but tragic event that has an impact across our community. Demographic profiles of deaths from suicide have local, regional and national differences. It is important to develop collaborative strategy and interventions in relation to the local situation and we continue to be vigilant to changes in the at-risk populations. Previous research and audit in Jersey reveals that there is a vulnerable cohort of men under 45.

As with other jurisdictions, we recognise that the reasons why people die from suicide are complex and vary. They usually involve multiple factors which lead to an elevated risk. These include social issues such as isolation, debt, unemployment (and, conversely, high stress employment – for example, health workers), health issues – both physical and mental, psychological factors including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and problematic alcohol and substance use. We work with a significant number of males under 45 who have existing vulnerabilities, which do not result in a risk of suicide. There is, however, an upward trend in the percentage of all assessments that indicate elevated risk of suicidality. We work with those who are in distress and at risk of suicide to reduce these risks.

Improving mental health and wellbeing in this vulnerable group is the primary objective in Prevention of Suicide in Jersey: A Framework for Action 2015-2020 which has framed the work being done in relation to suicide. Objective three of the framework is to reduce the risk of suicide in high-risk individuals. Although suicide prevention is essentially a public health function, the Mental Health Care Group (MHCG) is supporting the work and the development of other prevention of suicide community initiatives. The MHCG has appointed a suicide lead who is responsible for MHCG (18+) input and action on the framework. The MHCG suicide lead is also the interim chair of the suicide prevention steering group.

The MHCG conducts a real time audit of deaths of service users by suicide. It also works to identify ‘at risk’ populations and emerging trends. There is ongoing review and publication of annual suicide rates completed in compliance with international best practice approaches (please see supporting information below).

Ongoing staff training by the Suicide Prevention Lead has supported awareness and increased competence in both risk assessment and safety planning around self-harm. The service continues to develop a heightened awareness of the potential increased risk of suicide amongst clients, particularly men, with addiction. In response to Covid-19, there is senior management support for Zerosuicide online awareness training. Planning for implementation is being led by the MHCG suicide lead. Business planning is to start for the introduction of the ‘Suicide Status Form’ CAMS training.

Reduction in deaths from suicide and the number of people at risk requires a whole community approach. There is no one answer. Multiple initiatives, across the life span, that make populations less vulnerable to suicidality are most likely to succeed. MHCG aims to continue a multi-agency co-ordinated approach. Raising awareness and reducing the stigma about seeking help is integral to realising this. Development of the Jersey Suicide Alliance is currently on hold because of Covid-19. There has however already been support from community partners, including the third sector and Parishes. It is recognised that development of the Alliance is urgent as Covid-19 itself will impact upon suicidality through its direct impact on isolated individuals and the wider impact upon the economy.

Supporting information

The latest public reporting into deaths in Jersey is available here: https://www.gov.je/Government/JerseyInFigures/Health/Pages/MortalityLifeExpectancy.aspx

This includes reporting on deaths by suicide between 2007 and 2017. The number reported in 2017 was 7. Because of the low numbers involved, a demographic breakdown is not provided.

4. Oral Questions

4.1 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the use of disinfectant vehicles: (OQ.180/2020)

Following the report in the Jersey Evening Post of 24th June 2020 regarding 3 disinfectant vehicles with a capacity to cover 2,400 square metres in one hour with disinfectant, will the Minister confirm which areas it is proposed will be disinfected with these devices and identify who has control over the decision to take such action?

Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Infrastructure):

The article referred to by the Deputy that appeared in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) business section on Wednesday, 24th June, related to a private cleaning company and its commercial operational capabilities, not G.H.E. (Growth, Housing and Environment). One of the disinfecting machines mentioned in the article has been purchased by G.H.E. from this company so that the department has the capability of carrying out disinfecting work efficiently should it be required. I am pleased to confirm that at present the actions taken to contain the virus within the Island have been effective and that there are no plans for the widespread use of this machine in the areas of the Island that are administered by G.H.E.

[9:45]

Should the situation change, the operational decision on when and where any such work was to be carried out on or on behalf of G.H.E. would be taken by G.H.E. head of technical support services, having consulted with the teams supporting the Minister for Health and Social Services, Environmental Protection and Jersey Water. Risk assessments and method statements, including environmental impact considerations, have been addressed to ensure staff safety, public and environmental safety.

4.1.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Certainly I would appreciate seeing a list of the larger applications. That is the ones that have the 13-week deadline.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are you content to provide that list, Minister?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, I will but I think the fact that I have not brought in, during this kind of situation it has also been difficult for the Planning Application Committee to deal with major planning applications, which normally attract very large numbers of members of the public and the people are unable at the present time to attend in those large gatherings. So that has been difficult and therefore that has restricted the number of major applications that we can handle at the moment. I think that is going to continue for some time and it is the same thing for planning appeals where at the moment I am not able to get inspectors into the Island and so third party appeals effectively put those applications completely on hold. I am sorry that is the case. I am absolutely working on this and I will do my best to do it but if the Member wants a list okay, but I am not sure that entirely helps. But I will do it.

The Connétable of St. Helier:

Can I refine my request for a list to those applications which were overdue before the onset of the pandemic in the first week of March?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, I will do that.

4.3.2 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:

I thank the Minister for his answers, I probably understand the challenges he faces. But the construction industry is worth hundreds of millions of pounds every year. Can I press the Minister to speak to the powers that be to encourage them as quickly as possible to get the Minister a full team back on board at the time when we are trying to encourage our local economy back into production again? What we cannot have is an industry that is ready to go but held back by delays in planning applications because officers are off doing other work within government. Can I ask the Minister, please ask as hard as you can to get your officers and a full team back at the Planning Department?

Deputy J.H. Young:

The Deputy and I are entirely in agreement. What I have found difficult throughout, and it is even more difficult now, is to go through our corporate processes that we now have in place under this target operating model and it is impenetrable. I am really getting to the point where I may have to bring a proposition to the States. I hope that is not necessary. At the moment we seem to be going in reverse direction, processes to review spending and reduce costs. But thankfully I have got an undertaking that there would be no more loss of staff. So I will do exactly as the Member says and I hope those that have control of our H.R. (human resources) matters are listening. I know our director general feels exactly the same as I.

4.3.3 The Connétable of St. Helier:

It is in 2 parts, if may. First, does the Minister agree with me that nothing in my question is intended to detract from the fantastic job that his officers do in determining applications in these current circumstances, in particular. Secondly, does he agree with me that the impatience of some applicants to have their proposals determined is indicative of the tremendous confidence that local developers and builders and businesses have in Jersey’s economy and that confidence is something we need to encourage and facilitate as a States?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Following the latest report by Statistics Jersey of the Island’s projected population figures, will the Chief Minister bring forward the Government’s policy on population and migration as a matter of urgency?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister):

As I am sure the Deputy understands, work on the new migration policy has been on hold since March 2020 while resources were diverted to COVID-19 policy and legislation. As I informed Members on 27th May, which was in response to a question from Deputy Truscott, it is my intention to bring the migration policy debate before the end of the year. I have instructed officers to recommence the work. Allowing for the summer recess and the required scrutiny process I anticipate that the debate will take place in November and the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel have been informed of this.

4.5.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

I thank the Chief Minister. The more we can get the message out to the public the better of what is going on with this very important debate that we will have, not that all debates are important obviously. But can the Chief Minister give us, from the information and the way he sees things now, what the impact will have on this piece of work of the pandemic in terms of migration numbers and obviously the situation we will be debating in the next couple of days? Can he give us any insight at this stage of the impact of COVID-19 on that piece of work and the Island’s population as a whole?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

If I have got it correctly there are 2 questions there. One is the impact and the work and one is the impact on Island population. Obviously the work has been delayed, as I indicated. It is very much still focusing on controls and so therefore pre-COVID was about slowing the rate of increase significantly. That still, at this stage, remains the intention. In terms of the impact on the population of the Island, it is a bit difficult to anticipate this where we are in the whole COVID-19 crisis. It appears to be the case a number of people have left the Island and it will therefore depend on the recovery element of what happens over the next few months and into next year as to what happens to the population and migration side. What I will say is that irrespective of short-term impacts of COVID-19, it is very clear that the migration policy absolutely needs to be updated and the controls reinforced. That remains for me a priority and, as I said, it is the intention that we have recommenced the work, that that can now start progressing over the course of the summer and that it will then go to obviously Scrutiny, States Members and then it will be lodged in time for a debate. I anticipate that to be in November.

4.6 Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasuring and Resources regarding the online purchase of goods in Jersey from large online retailers: (OQ.182/2020)

I would suggest ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have had your final supplementary, Senator, and your questions have been answered by the Minister.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

No, she has not said exactly when she is going to get started on this. It is no use saying 2021, please. We do need a degree of urgency.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Following the adoption of the COVID-19 (Safe Distancing) (Jersey) Regulations on 27th May 2020, will the Minister state how many fines, if any, were levied under these Regulations; and, of those issued, how many were imposed upon individuals with a responsibility for children as described under Article 3 of the Regulations?

The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

I am pleased to advise the Deputy that no fines have been levied under the Regulations mentioned.

4.9 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Chair of the States Employment Board regarding the mental health support provided to States of Jersey employees working at home during the Covid-19 pandemic: (OQ.167/2020)

Will the chair provide details of any mental health support that is being given to workers from all Government departments who are working from home, or who have not been able to go into their normal work environment, (such as schools and offices) due to the current COVID-19 crisis?

[10:30]

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (Chair, States Employment Board):

The Connétable of St. Ouen, as vice-chair, is taking the question.

Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen (Vice-Chair, States Employment Board - rapporteur):

I thank the Deputy for allowing me to answer this question. During the coronavirus pandemic, employers have had and continue to have access to a full range of mental health support. This includes 24/7 access to the Be Supportive employee assistance programme and access to local face-to-face, now of course virtual, support and telephone and counselling support for employees in crisis. Staff well-being, both mental and physical, has been a primary concern for the States Employment Board during lockdown. During the crisis we have helped colleagues to build and maintain good mental health through tailored one-to-one support by using digital events and tools, such as webinars, and the Thrive app, which I have to say I have personally used and found very helpful. That just goes to prove that even States Members are not exempt from mental health issues. Regular all-staff communications also detail steps colleagues could take to improve or maintain their mental health. As we prepare for gradual return to office work for some colleagues healthy working assessments have been prepared for their use. These include prompts around mental health for workers who remain at home, people who may suffer from anxiety from returning to the workplace and those who have struggled during lockdown. Individuals can do their own assessment and share these with their line managers or use one of the other channels I have mentioned before. In addition, a welcome pack to the workplace guide for employers making the return transition from home to the workplace has also been launched to provide further assistance.

4.9.1 Deputy C.S. Alves:

I have personally heard from numerous employees who have not had any communication passed on to them regarding mental health, access to mental health provisions, which the Constable has outlined in his response. Can the Constable state how was this information passed on to staff? Was it passed on regularly and was it passed on to not just those who have access to the intranet, for example?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

My understanding was that most of this information would have been passed to ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Connétable, can you start it because we did not hear the beginning of your answer. Do you want to start your answer again?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I thank the Deputy for her additional question. My understanding is that all staff were communicated largely electronically with this information and those that we know who did not have access were written to. But I am concerned about her remarks and obviously I will take it away and investigate and find out where, if anything, has gone wrong.

4.10 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the impact on frontline services of the economic recovery plan: (OQ.185/2020)

Will the Chief Minister assure Members that there will be no cuts to front line services resulting from reductions in staff numbers, or otherwise, when devising the economic recovery plan to replace the 2020 Government Plan?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister):

As I have said previously, we are very much at the early stages of considering the Government Recovery Plan and this would have to be a comprehensive document to cover all the things we need to deliver including, but not limited to, economic recovery. We know there are significant financial pressures on the public finances, particularly in light of the measures we previously put in place to help individuals as well as businesses, but also as a consequence of the likely direct financial consequences of the crisis itself. Therefore, as I have said previously, everything remains on the table at this stage, nothing is in, nothing is out. But personally I do wish us to retain obviously front line services, their delivery may change as a result of what we have learned, but also as a result of the need to balance the books, but really it is simply too early to say any more than that at this stage.

4.10.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

What I am concerned about is that we see a repeat of the 2010 process, which did ascribe service cuts, for example a saving of 3.8 police posts back in 2010 at a saving of £220,000. Will the Minister assure us that we will not have a repeat of these types of cuts, which are definitely service cuts?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I do not think I can add much more to what I said in my first answer, which is at this stage it is too early to say much more than what I have said. Everything remains on the table; nothing is off it. We do have significant financial pressures, probably unprecedented in the last 70 years; it is of that order of magnitude. There are a variety of measures we have to take to get those books balanced and that is what we are presently working on. But from the perspective of impact on front line services I would hope we were all in the place that we wanted to try to make sure we continue to deliver those services and protect the front line jobs. But I cannot give a guarantee at this stage because we simply do not know. We will know over the next few months what the picture looks like but, as I said, from my personal perspective I do want to support front line services.

4.10.2 Senator K.L. Moore:

Notwithstanding the obvious pressures that the Council of Ministers have and the difficult decisions that face them, could the Chief Minister accept that making statements such as the one he has just given is quite unhelpful for the mental health and well-being of staff who may be concerned about their future roles in the organisation? We must remember at this time that they have been under considerable pressure in relation to the OneGov and the implementation of target operating models for the past 2 years and this will only impact on that situation.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just to pick up on the last point first; I am very much of the view that the changes in the structure to produce the OneGov structure, which was obviously approved essentially by the previous Council of Ministers in principle, is I am very much of the view that structure has assisted greatly in the ability of the Government and the Island to respond to the crisis as well as it has done and credit should be given where credit is due, and in particular it is the chief executive. So, from that perspective, I disagree with the inference of the Senator. But also we have to be honest, in these very challenging times one should not give false promises out there and so what I am saying is I cannot guarantee something until we have finalised the work that we need to do. But within all that lot I reiterate my personal view that we should be doing everything we can to protect front line services but equally there will be, I am sure, examples where services have been delivered differently over COVID-19 and that the service continues to be delivered but just in a different fashion. So all those are elements in the mix and, as I said, at this stage we have to make sure that everything remains on the table because of the magnitude of the problem we face. But my personal view is that we should be doing everything we can to support the delivery of the front line services.

4.10.3 Senator K.L. Moore:

If the Chief Minister could set a timeline with which he might delivery a high-level strategy so that at least there is some level of understanding of the direction of travel and the parameters with which the Council of Ministers are approaching this decision-making process to give some level of certainty to those people who may feel affected.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It will basically be laid out in the Government Plan.

4.10.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am a little bit concerned in one sense about the future direction when we do not even know where we are. I have asked 2 written questions today of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Home Affairs for details of the organisational structure and other information about the departments so I can understand where we are at the moment so we can judge by the changes that are going to happen. Neither could give me the information that I really required. They have given some but not all. Will the Chief Minister undertake to get that information to me and Members as soon as possible so we can understand what the structure is at the present and what changes have taken place?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I will endeavour to get it to the Deputy as quickly as practical. What I will say is that certainly some of the final elements of the restructuring were meant to have been taking place in the February/March/April period and therefore, along with a variety of other matters, as we will all expect, there have been delays because of the COVID-19 issues and I suspect that may well have been the reason that the Deputy did not get the answer he was looking for. But at the very least I can make sure he is presented with where we intend to get to and provide an update in due course.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would appreciate if you would get the existing information, which would be very useful, thank you.

4.10.5 Deputy R.J. Ward:

When deciding on possible removal of front line services, will the Chief Minister commit to consulting directly with those who provide these services on a day-to-day basis in order to fully understand the impact of possible removal of these front line services for the people of Jersey?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

As I have said, at this stage I cannot guarantee anything; everything remains on the table. If something does have to change then it will go through the normal process, which, as I have always understood it, does include consultation. That is really what we can say. We will have choices to make and it is ultimately going to be in the hands of the Assembly but the magnitude of the challenge should not be underestimated and we are all having to address how we deal with the magnitude of the problems we are going to be facing.

4.10.6 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Is that choice not best informed by those who provide services and see the genuine impact rather than those who sit in offices with spreadsheets and numbers and have no real connect with the day-to-day working of front line services and the genuine importance they have for the people who use those services? Can the Minister commit at least to talking to those staff and the people who receive services before they are removed?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

We have not said we are removing anything at this stage. What I have said is I cannot guarantee that nothing will be removed because it depends on the magnitude of what we are having to deal with. My preference is to deal with some very large strategic issues, which will significantly reduce the challenge that we face, but may not entirely remove it. It is at that point we will then have to address how we square that circle. The other issue of what the Deputy is talking about, and I do take the point he is making around people sitting effectively in darkened rooms with a spreadsheet - I hope that is not just accountants he is talking about - but the other issue on all of this is dealing with the overall strategic balance on the organisation and so it is absolutely true that there will be individuals who could be affected and we will look at things from their perspective and obviously their views will need to be taken into account. But it will mean that we do have to take account of the overall issues within the organisation, and it may not be a service, it may be in a new project and it may be a case that a particular project has to be deferred, for example, rather than cancelled, but by doing that that manages the cashflow issues that we will be facing and protects jobs in the wider sense. So there will be all those kinds of measures we have to take into account and, as I am trying to say at this stage, all I am saying is I cannot guarantee what the Deputy and Deputy Southern are looking for but I have said my preference is to ensure that we protect our front line services.

[10:45]

4.10.7 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Let us try a different form of words here, and we are not talking about transforming services and still delivering them, we are talking about deferring, reducing or ceasing them. Will the Chief Minister undertake to ensure that children and young people in particular are protected from any plans to reduce Government growth budgets and genuinely put children first instead of use it as a common old garden phrase?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Again, I cannot guarantee. As the Deputy fully knows, his party representative is in charge of those particular areas but it will be very much where we absolutely know we have to invest in Children’s Services. I do not see any reason why that investment is not going to continue because we know that, even though we face challenges, we also know that we faced under-resourcing in certain significant areas and Children’s Services was one of them. Whether that means, having said all that, a project starts fractionally later within a particular year, for example in 2021 or during 2020, I cannot state that at this point, but I am absolutely convinced that the Minister will be on top of that.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

So no protection to children then.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Eighteen people in one home sounds to me like it is overcrowding. If we are paying private landlords a supplement to house these people, or if they are being housed by Andium, surely something should flag up something in your department. I appreciate your answer and I have to be honest that, as you know I am on a Scrutiny Panel, and I will be following this through because I am not happy with 18 people in one home unless it is Government House.

Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I confess to not being exactly aware of that specific case so I would have to look into it. It may be the case that my department already is aware of it and taking action because I do not get updated on the fine details of every single case that comes to the department. But I can raise it with officers and see if it is one that they are aware of and if there are things being done to resolve that. But the Constable is right to point out the importance and helpfulness of the fact that my 2 remits of children and housing go together at the moment because that has meant that I have been able to get officers from the housing side and the children’s side working together in what I think has been quite an effective way, particularly over the last few months, in dealing with emergency cases. I would like to enshrine that in some sort of way so that carries on into the future as well.

The Connétable of St. Saviour:

Thank you for your answer but I will watch you on Scrutiny, Senator, thank you.

4.11.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

My question covers both housing and children. The commissioner’s comments highlighted that inequality still exists in terms of housing. So, despite the fact that the Assembly in March 2018 passed an in-principle decision to ban children being discriminated against in terms of renting with their families in the rental market, nothing has yet been done to effect that change. Does the Minister share my frustration of that and what steps will he be taking, urgent steps, to make sure that this is rectified?

Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I absolutely share that frustration and there will be officers who will be able to corroborate the terms under which I have expressed that frustration to them. Dealing with that is in phase 2 of the children’s legislative transformation programme. I am due to have a meeting in the next week I think with one of the new officers providing support on housing issues where I will be making it clear that I am really unhappy at how long it has taken to deal with this and how it has been difficult to find space in the schedule. That is not acceptable. The Assembly made a democratic decision and it is not right that it has not been carried out up until this point. It is ultimately meant to be a matter for the Discrimination Law, which does not fall within my ministerial remit, but I will still be pushing very strong for that to be pushed higher up on the agenda and dealt with quicker, because I am not happy at how long it has taken.

4.11.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

4.12.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Will the Minister undertake to provide that information to Members as soon as possible?

Senator T.A. Vallois:

As soon as this has been resolved in terms of the lead head teachers defining the model for the partnership that they lead, I am happy to share that information with fellow States Members.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Alves, do you have a final supplementary question for the Minister?

Deputy C.S. Alves:

No, thank you.

4.13 Deputy K.G. Pamplin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the Mental Health Strategy: (OQ.169/2020)

Will the Minister provide a statement on the progress of updating and enhancing the Mental Health Strategy following the adoption of my amendment to COVID-19 Elimination Strategy P.61/2020?

The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

With your permission, my Assistant Minister, Senator Pallett, will take this question.

Senator S.W. Pallett (Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):

I would again like to thank the Deputy for his dedication and support of the Mental Health Service. His amendment was welcomed by the Council of Ministers and resulted in the incorporation of a detailed outline of mental health provision that has been published in the COVID-19 Strategy 2020 document available on the States Assembly website. The amendment to P.61 did not request an updated enhancing of the Mental Health Strategy 2016 to 2020, although as part of my delegated responsibility a refresh of this strategy is included. The Mental Health Care Group and their officers are continuing the process of collecting data, detailed service data, to support the provision of enhanced services going forward. This includes direct service user contact and targeted surveying resulting from the COVID-19. We are on a period of development and aim to report the detail of any change to service delivery to the Assembly within this next coming quarter.

4.13.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

I thank the Senator as ever for his comments and, as he knows, in our assessment of mental health services, our review, we pushed very firmly to have somebody with responsibility and we were very glad that he was the person who had that. The point of that amendment, and the point of where he is, is backed up by the statistics I now have in front of me with the conversations I have had with third party charities and the Listening Lounge. There has been such an increase of referrals and people seeking support in the last 2 weeks, and this is only going to continue. Further to Deputy Alves’ question earlier today, does he agree with me that we need to see a much greater sense of urgency to support Islanders in the coming months ahead?

Senator S.W. Pallett:

I can assure the Deputy that there is an urgency within the service and within third-sector private organisations and charities to provide the level of service that the Island needs. He is aware of the work that the Listening Lounge is doing and they have been integral to ensuring that Islanders have been supported. But we are going currently through a period of transition with both Jersey Talking Therapies and our own psychology service. That will increase the level of support for Islanders and we will deliver that service in different ways. So there is no underestimation of the level of need or the level of support that is going to be required to get Islanders through these coming months and years.

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Final supplementary, if I may?

The Deputy Bailiff:

We are only allowing final supplementaries when other Members have asked a question, so just your question and a supplementary. Final supplementary is only when other Members have asked questions. Obviously there is a chance to ask further questions when we come to Questions without notice to all Ministers later on today.

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Sure.

4.14 Deputy I. Gardiner of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding the cost of heating oil in Jersey: (OQ.175/2020)

Given that, from January to May 2020, the average Jersey heating oil price per 1,000 litres decreased by approximately 10 pence, whereas in the United Kingdom during the same period there was a decrease of almost 25 pence, will the Minister advise whether any examination has been undertaken of the reasons for this significant difference in price and, if not, why not?

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture):

Current prices in Jersey as of 23rd June range from 48.5 pence to 51.62 pence per litre. I do note that prices in the United Kingdom vary considerably based on the delivery window that is required. A random online search showed prices ranging from 28.94 pence per litre to 48.74 pence per litre for delivery in Poole and Dorset area, for delivery ranging from next day, the cheapest prices, to 2 weeks. There are clearly some added costs applicable to local fuel suppliers versus a U.K. counterpart such as lack of scale to the business shopping costs in the U.K. to Jersey and the prevailing requirement that they stock-hold a certain number of days’ supply to provide resilience to the local market. I was going to ask the Deputy to supply her research so we could look at that, which she has very kindly done this morning, and I have forwarded that to officials and asked that they carry out some investigation to see if we can get a renewed idea on the price difference. I would say that, since the addition of an additional distributor in Jersey, we have seen more competitive prices and better services with the distribution.

4.14.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

During the years we usually have a very steady difference between the U.K. and Jersey and now it is increased. What can be done to ensure that all Islanders benefit from the drop in international oil prices and not just the local heating oil suppliers?

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Yes, I do, and I am troubled by several aspects of the Minister’s reply, not only the time this is taking, but the fact that we are now talking about competing interests. Does the Minister agree with me that the priority for this site must be the expansion of Rouge Bouillon School and that must be a top priority and the other competing interests, particularly he refers to more housing, more accommodation for key workers, these must surely be at the bottom of the list once the needs of the school are supplied? Does he not agree that amenity space for this densely populated part of St. Helier, and parking, must come second?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I would not agree at all. This is why we are having the review to find the best use for the area. I have read out a list of competing demands here; I have not said anything, which is a priority, and which does not form a priority. But that will come out as part of the review, which will be done in due course.

4.16 Deputy R.J. Ward of the Assistant Minister for Education regarding the support available to higher-education students facing financial difficulties during the Covid-19 pandemic: (OQ.181/2020)

Two elements on that. Would I like to see more funding towards education in the sense of university funding and vocational courses? Yes, absolutely, I would. Does that lead to a skills gap? Yes, it does. However, given the work that was done in the last term, particularly by my Scrutiny Panel and the now Minister for Education and Minister for Children and Housing, the new student finance grant does not bear out with the statistics of the Deputy’s final point, which we have seen hundreds more go to university with the existence of the current scheme. The Deputy is both right and slightly incorrect in his question.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Thank you to the Assistant Minister for a comprehensive reply.

4.16.5 Deputy C.S. Alves:

Can the Assistant Minister advise whether the loan companies for students are given access to schools and colleges to advertise their products?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I am not aware that that occurs within the Island, but I am happy to go back and seek further clarification, but I do not believe that occurs.

4.16.6 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Can I ask the Assistant Minister whether he would get his officers to look and engage with the loan companies that are being offered online in order that they can advise? Because I am very concerned about the high interest rates that young people could be getting themselves into problems with. They are very enticing, the adverts, but they do not give a lot of detail.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

We might be able to give guidance about how to approach loans and what to look for, but I would not want to put my officers in a position whereby they are asked to give financial advice when they are not qualified to do so. But I will ask my officers to seek perhaps some form of F.A.Q. (frequently asked questions) to help guide the students, if that is of help to the Deputy.

4.17 Deputy K.F. Morel of the Minister for the Environment regarding the protection of wildlife at Les Ecréhous: (OQ.177/2020)

Will the Minister update the Assembly on any work being undertaken to ensure that wildlife at Les Écréhous remains undisturbed by residents and visitors to the region? Will he confirm that where any endangered species are being disturbed, he will take the appropriate action to ensure that these disturbances quickly come to an end?

Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment):

I thank the Deputy for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to report the increase in the number of breeding birds in this colony this year, possibly due to the lack of human action during the period of lockdown, but of course that has led to particular areas of bringing those birds into issues of potential conflict with humans. In order to manage that during the nesting period, May to August, environmental officers have met with the Écréhous Residents’ Association and the St. Martin Honorary Police and worked with the ornithology section of the Société. Now, we do have a longstanding code of conduct in this S.S.I (Site of Special Interest), but recently we visited the reef and cordoned off the nesting areas where the nesting terns and Roseate terns are. Roseates are in fact one of the most scarce U.K. seabirds. With the support of the residents, we have done that. We have put out signs and also agreed the key messages. These are important: no dogs on the reef and no drones. Those are strong measures and also we provide co-ordination, support and enforcement and we work with the other parties. The terms of enforcement, we do have a Wildlife Law. It is an offence for people to damage or destroy any nest of a bird while it is in use or being built or obstruct access to that nest, but obviously that is the current law and that is difficult to enforce, particularly obviously we do not have a resident warden and we rely on external reports. But we will have the new law in progress, which is the new Wildlife Law, which will provide stronger measures of protections. Those are the actions.

4.17.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

The Minister mentioned that where nests are disturbed, there will be action taken. Could the Minister explain how this is done, as recently there have been reports of nests being disturbed and Roseate terns not returning to those nests? Would a warden not be a better way forward, rather than relying on reports?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, of course it would. I think a resident warden or at least a summer-only warden, particularly during the period of summer when the breeding birds form their colonies, yes, it would be a good idea, but I am afraid it comes down to resources. I know that Chausey does have a summer warden, but I cannot over-stress the importance of this particular colony. We understand that the one in St. Malo has failed due to rat predations, but this is an important one. Yes, it is on our list of how we can improve resources. We visit there as frequently as we can with the fishing team, but I want to praise the St. Martin Honorary Police and the local residents, who are really helping us in this.

4.17.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am grateful to the Minister for those words, but will he agree with me that over the years, large areas of the Les Écréhous are committed over to birds and nesting and that we have to work together to find a way forward here for the residents to be able to enjoy their huts and the birds to be able to nest in peace and quiet?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, I do. I was reading up about these birds. I am not a great expert, but they do form these very, very close colonies and when those colonies are, if you like, affected by human beings, then they defend their nests fiercely by bombing people and so on. But we are a victim of our success here. It is such a beautiful place, we have got the increase in numbers, but I think the only way is to find an accommodation. The way I have said, I cannot see any other way to do it. I suppose we could have a webcam out there where we could watch offenders and follow up that evidence, but at the moment we do not have. That would be a very expensive thing to do. We rely on local devices with local recording.

The Deputy of St. Martin:

A supplementary, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff:

If you do not mind, I would like to bring this question to an end now. Obviously other Members can ask further questions when we get to Questions to Ministers without notice. The reason that I say that is that we can deal with questions 18 and 19 when we come to Questions to Ministers without notice, but question 20 can only be dealt with at all in this session, so I am going to move on to question 20 now, otherwise that question simply will not be asked today and we only have 2 or 3 minutes left of Oral Questions with notice. I am going to move now to question 20, which Deputy Tadier will put to the representative of the Jersey Community Relations Trust, who of course is not a Minister, so cannot be asked questions in the Question Time that follows to all Ministers. Deputy Tadier, question 20, please.

4.18 Deputy M. Tadier of the Representative of the Jersey Community Relations Trust regarding measures to achieve a more diverse States Assembly: (OQ.184/2020)

Thank you for your consideration in that. I was thinking along the same lines. Has the Jersey Community Relations Trust considered proposing the introduction of quotas to increase the number of women elected as Members of the States Assembly? If not, what other measures have been considered to achieve a more diverse Assembly?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (Representative, Jersey Community Relations Trust):

I thank Deputy Tadier for the question. This issue had not been specifically considered by J.C.R.T. but the trust has done lots of work in this area, beginning in 2014, I think, when the trust took on some work that had initially been initiated by the Deputy of Grouville. This centred on workshops for women, and I must stress it was for all women of any political colour or background, any women who had an interest in standing for election, and included how to plan an effective campaign, building confidence in speaking to the electorate and developing a working knowledge of the States Assembly. Notably, we did at that time - although I say “we”, I was not the representative at the time - but the trust at that time did open up the seminars to members of other minorities, for example, the Polish and Portuguese community. In 2018, the programme was renewed and J.C.R.T. took part with Women in Politics to host a seminar with Sophie Walker, who was the founding leader of the Women’s Equality Party. There are other events such as drop-ins with sitting politicians to discuss topical issues. We did reach out to all of the sitting women Members and many of them did get involved. We held a mock hustings and again that was open to any women at all. This work will continue and a plan is already being developed for the 2022 election by J.C.R.T., in conjunction with Women in Politics.

4.18.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I appreciate it is the good work that Women in Politics do and it must be so difficult, given the fact that they are not a party themselves, to know which women to promote and where their politics come from, but that notwithstanding, does the Member agree with me that without any kind of structural change in our electoral system, if we just rely on education and public goodwill, it could take centuries before we have parity? Therefore, does the Member agree with me that there is an opportunity when looking at electoral reform that we build equality into the system so that half of the seats that are contested can be only won by women and the other half can only be won by men?

[11:45]

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

I must stress that the work done by J.C.R.T. and Women in Politics does not and did not promote any particular women, but was neutral and accessible to all women in an equal way, so all women who wanted to stand for election and wanted to access that support. But yes, we did have a discussion about this yesterday and we touched on the electoral system, and I think it is fair to say that the trustees present, there was some agreement that reform of our electoral system is needed because the current system is indeed a barrier to having a diverse Assembly which adequately represents the population, so that large districts would be infinitely better. Can the Deputy just repeat the other part of the question, please?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Essentially to do with structuring the seats in an election so that half of the seats would be available for somebody who identifies as a woman and the other half for somebody who identifies as a man.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

We did talk about this and we spoke about how this could be done far more easily by the U.K., which does have a party system, and that is because the parties in the U.K. are the gatekeepers, in a sense. But we do have gatekeepers in a similar way in Jersey. We of course have one political party, but the other gatekeepers are all of us, States Members generally. This is something that Professor Sarah Childs raised in her Good Parliament Report. One of the things that the trustees wanted all Members to do was to take this work upon themselves and if they are mentoring people and looking towards the next election, which we all know that that happens, but then the trust urges all States Members, current and past, and anybody who is in a position to mentor somebody for these roles to look for diversity and seek out people who are perhaps a bit different to yourselves and to try to take that on as individuals and as a body, the States Assembly, to increase that diversity in that way.

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Social Security

The Deputy Bailiff:

Apologies to Members who wished to ask questions of Deputy Doublet; we have now reached the end of the 2 hours. We move to Questions to Ministers without notice, for which there is 30 minutes, and the first period are questions to the Minister for Social Security.

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister assure Members that there will be no reduction in front line Social Security services, as there was in the last round of cuts in 2010, which saw some £1.2 million of such services as G.S.T. bonus, Christmas bonus and a freezing of the rental components on income support?

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier (The Minister for Social Security):

I am going to probably disappoint the Deputy. I have gone through everything that Social Security does and I have some very, very tough red lines, but there are things that could be done differently. At the moment I think the things the Deputy has just outlined are quite safe, but again, it goes back to we have to look at what is on the table. We are not collecting half the money that we normally would. I cannot give him a 100 per cent guarantee, but the Deputy knows that I will not be bringing things back that have been to the Assembly a couple of times because this Minister literally knows the mood of the Assembly.

5.2 The Connétable of St. Saviour:

Could the Minister please advise me as to why on the Back to Work scheme if you employ somebody they are not obliged to tell you if they have a conviction?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

There are checks done down at the office for different ... obviously where we are sending people, we will do the checks. I am not sure about the individual and the questions asked by the employer. I can check further into that for the Constable. She makes a very good point. Obviously we would not want to be sending ... there are a complete range of different convictions, past convictions, that may be quite suitable, but I will look into that for the Constable.

5.2.1 The Connétable of St. Saviour:

I do understand that there is sort of something where you cannot just let everybody know, but I have been affected by this very badly and I am very disappointed that I was not informed in the beginning. I would have thought that if it was somebody on probation, the probation officer should have contacted me and spoken to me. I would like the Minister to look into this, please.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I give the Constable absolute assurance that I will look into this. As I say, I do not know the full details of the case but we can talk about that, absolutely.

The Connétable of St. Saviour:

I would just ask the Minister to make a commitment that any negative changes to benefits that would directly affect children would be opposed and therefore not undertaken.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I thank the Deputy. As I say, I have laid my red lines down and that is one of them, the children. If I can support children more I will, and I have no plans to cut any benefits.

5.9 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Could the Minister advise the Assembly as to whether the department has undertaken an analysis of whether there would be any savings from the income support budget should a living wage be introduced in Jersey? If so, how much is the value of those savings?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I thank the Deputy. I think we had a written question along these lines. From memory, it was Deputy Southern. It was a really good question. It is about the amount of hours. Not everybody is on this amount of hours because of different children, but I will ask officers. I mean, it could be a general ... obviously there is going to be savings. If someone is doing their 35 hours on the minimum, average £8, whatever the amount is, to the living wage, which I think is around £10.50 now, it is going to be a saving. But at the end of the day you weigh that up with people who say that they cannot provide jobs. Now, who is saving? We have to do the big, big analysis, but I thank the Deputy for his question and I will see if I can get any outline figures to him and obviously other States Members.

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

6.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Given the importance of the debates looming on this Assembly, can the Chief Minister right here, right now back up his claims to the Scrutiny Panel of the pressure if we do not open the borders on 3rd July, and I paraphrase, that we will lose easyJet and those routes which he claims are at high risk?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister):

Sorry, Sir, I did not hear the first point. Was it confirm or clarify and expand on?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Can you clarify that?

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Yes, to help the Chief Minister, can he right now this moment provide the evidence and clarify his statement of the position he mentioned about easyJet to the Scrutiny Panel?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I can confirm absolutely that my view is that if we were to delay opening the borders from the 3rd, there would be consequences which have the potential to cause us to lose connectivity with the Island. Can I give the Deputy evidence? No, there is obviously not going to be a letter that has been produced by whichever airline we are talking about that says: “If you do not do X on such and such a time, we will not be coming to the Island” because that is not the way it works. What I can say, which is what we have said to Scrutiny, is firstly there have been many communications - I would suspect mainly verbal - between Ports and the operators who come into the Island and Ports then have advised us as to the probabilities of the consequences of certain actions. What I can also apply is the logic. That logic says that if one is dealing with 500 routes, for the sake of argument, that one is trying to open up in the first wave or the second wave of routes that one is trying to operate within the European sphere - which would include the U.K. for these purposes - that if there is one route that says: “We cannot give you certainty that it will be opening up on such and such a date” and even you might like that destination, you might like those individuals, but given the financial pressures that the airlines are operating under, they will give their priorities to where they know they have got certainty. What happens is then there potentially might be consequences. It will not be a matter of: “We will come in on 10th July” or whatever date is there, it will be: “It might be the end of July, it might be the end of August.” It will then depend on the profiling that is going on. There is then a risk - hopefully a lower risk, but there is still a risk - of permanent damage to connectivity to the Island as a consequence of that.

6.1.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Just so I have got this straight, that there is no evidence that the Chief Minister can provide from either airline that serves this Island that if the borders do not open on 3rd July that those airlines will pull out of this Island?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I think the Deputy misses the point. There will not be evidence one way or another because the Deputy presumably cannot provide me with evidence that a delay to 10th July will not have any consequences. As we have said all the way through, this is about balance of risks. The balance of risks on this is we have moved away from the issues around COVID-19 because we have those well under control, as we know, and we will shortly be seeing the results cascading down to Members on where we are on cases today, but we then have to take account of the consequences. The balance of the risks means the consequence of doing something versus the consequence of not doing something. If the consequence of not doing something, for example, a delay, is that it could damage the economic well-being of the Island, that then has further consequences. Stats do take account of economic matters in terms of health because if, for example, it was to damage the economy and cause greater risks of people losing jobs, somebody losing their job, that has a mental health consequence on them. It is all in the round, but that is the very likely outcome of delay, based on the advice and information we have been given.

6.2 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Has the Chief Minister had a chance to read the letter that was sent to him from the J.C.R.T. on 16th June, which highlighted some of the inequalities that have arisen as a result of the recent crisis, for example, among young people, women, the older generation and people with disabilities and also issues around race and ethnicity? Is he willing to meet with the trustees to discuss some possible solutions to some of these inequalities that have arisen?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The response to the letter, as the Deputy I believe has been advised, is in my tray waiting for me to sign, which will either be today or tomorrow and she will have the full response on that sort of timescale.

6.2.1 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Is the Chief Minister prepared to meet with the trustees to discuss the issues that were raised in the letter?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Whether it is myself or, for example, the Constable of St. Ouen who deals with these from the employment perspective, or in conjunction with the Minister for Social Security, who is dealing with diversity as well, I think, and also Deputy Labey, but we will put a meeting together.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Tadier, you have a point of order?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes. It did not need to be read out, it is just I had put my light on, so to speak, at the very beginning and I was just wondering if you had seen it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I have got you after Deputy Morel, so I am simply asking people to ask questions in the order which I have them on the chat in front of me.

6.3 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Will the Chief Minister advise the Assembly as to the current status of the prison governor? Is he in post? Is he currently working? Is he suspended?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

As the Deputy should be aware, we do not comment on personnel matters while any process is undergone and that is the position. That has been the public position, firstly reported in the media today, but also as informed to the S.L.C. (Scrutiny Liaison Committee), as the Deputy full well knows, yesterday.

6.3.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Would the Chief Minister confirm that he said to me yesterday that the current prison governor is not currently working? If so, would he advise the Assembly as to why?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The Deputy should be aware that any potential conversations that take place at the S.L.C. are meant to be confidential. On that basis, I make the same comment I made yesterday, that we do not comment on personnel matters.

6.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

This is to do with borders and travel relating to COVID. Can the Chief Minister confirm whether any consideration has been given to asking the carriers, the airlines and the boats, to test people before they get on at their point of entry? If not, why not?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, consideration has been given. I will break it down between ferries, water-based transport, and the airlines. The practicalities with the airlines, which we do continue to explore, is getting somebody tested effectively airside, for the sake of argument, in Gatwick Airport and the logistics just do not work on that front. We have said in the guidance notes that obviously we would accept effectively an appropriate certificate from someone who has been tested 72 hours before travel and that obviously still remains the case. In terms of the ferries, I am not up-to-date on the latest position, but I do know that they were considering firstly whether one could test during the trip to Jersey. The way it was put to me is the practicalities of swab testing on a boat - in other words, putting a swab down somebody’s throat, near enough - while the boat was potentially moving relatively unstably through the water was not the best option for all sorts of reasons, including if somebody was not particularly well as a result of the journey anyway. The other one that was being looked at - I do not know the present position - was whether tests could be done, for example, on car drivers while they were waiting in the port in the U.K., for example. My understanding is that the operator was less keen on that position, principally because it would require passengers to arrive one or 2 hours earlier. I do not know what the present update on that position is, so the short answer, they have all been looked at. The practicalities to date are that it is better to do it on arrival at the port in Jersey.

[12:15]

6.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

It seems that the practicalities for them are very much being taken into consideration rather than the practicalities for the recipient jurisdiction and the potential health hazard, the risk that we would be taking. Have the carriers not been asked to at least do some form of preliminary test, which may not be 100 per cent efficacious, but, for example, the temperature test on the forehead to determine somebody has a fever? It takes just a moment and would at least be some form of triage which could then perhaps precipitate a secondary test, if necessary. Can the Chief Minister give us an assurance that this will still be looked at?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

What I will say is that we are looking to try and improve all the way through, to keep improving on the testing processes we have. That means that the testing we have is good and is robust, but can we improve it and make it even more efficient? In terms of the example that the Deputy has alluded to already, for example, on temperature testing, the difficulty on that, as has always been said to me by the medical officers, is that the temperature testing is not sufficiently reliable. It gives an indication, but if someone wanted to try and spoof the system, effectively, essentially one could take ... I do not want to use the brand name, but a tablet which reduces your temperature for a few hours, which is a normal over the counter remedy. Also I think, to go back to the main point, passengers who are feeling unwell and are showing any symptoms should not be travelling. That is the fundamental principle of all the measures we have got in place, but I am very happy to just really give that reassurance that we do keep pushing and challenging on the technology and as the advice changes, what I have said is the advice to date.

6.5 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Over the current crisis, a large number of our States employees from across all departments have been working from home. How many of those people does the Chief Minister expect to stay working at home once we get back to the new normal?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

At this stage I cannot give a specific number. It is very likely that those who do have underlying health conditions will still remain operating from home. As my understanding is in terms of the percentage of employees that have not been coming into their posts, it is in the order of around 9 per cent, I think, or 10 per cent. I think there is more on the absenteeism rates.

6.5.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Given that reduction in number, does the Chief Minister agree with me that the best place to move when we move to a centralised office block now, given the reduction in number, would be - and the most cost-effective option would be - to move to the Waterfront, to the office building that has most recently been approved?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Not necessarily. The point is that there are bids out there at the moment. I know there will be certain Members who are absolutely convinced that that is the only solution that will work, but we have gone out, we are in the middle of a process. I am sure that the Waterfront is one of those sites. We do the evaluation. I am expecting that to come back to me or come back into the system by 31st July and therefore once that has been through the evaluation it will go to Ministers in September. At that point, we will be delighted to be informing Members as to where we are and what the best outcome is. But the outcomes that come through on this is, first, overall cost of the package; second, obviously the return to the States or the public; and third, the best economic impact for the people of St. Helier, because there will be regenerative aspects on St. Helier, particularly the high street, according to the location you put it. Those 3 elements need to be brought together, so it is not a given and we need to know the outcomes, as I said, of the bids when they come through around 31st July.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That concludes the period for asking questions to the Chief Minister without notice. Before we move on to Questions to Ministers without notice, I understand from the Greffier that Senator Gorst has a proposition to make in relation to the rest of today’s business.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I had intended to take it just before lunch, but it seems reasonable to take it now. The proposal is this: that Members will be aware that the Council of Ministers has lodged the safer travel period. The S.L.C. have lodged an Amendment, as has Deputy Ward, so we will need to make the decision to take all of those items early at this current States sitting. I hope that Members will support that, but it strikes me that the most sensible course of action would be to agree that we will not start the safer travel period and the Amendments debate until tomorrow morning and then we could agree to sit and complete all of those items during the course of Wednesday. That would of course mean that we would also be required to agree to take Deputy Labey’s airport proposal this afternoon. We could complete that business. If we do complete that business, we can then rise early. If we do not, then we can complete it tomorrow morning and then get on to the safer travel period. I am not sure how you would like me to make that proposition. Hopefully it stands together and can be taken as I have just explained it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

As currently listed on the Consolidated Order Paper, the first item of Public Business is the reappointment of a commissioner for the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission, then we have a number of matters in relation to Deputy Maçon’s proposition in relation to the lifting of travel restrictions, many of which, as I understand, will fall away, although Deputy Maçon wishes to address the Assembly in relation to his original proposition. Are you inviting the Assembly to take the proposed airport redevelopment review immediately after the appointment of the new commissioner for J.O.A.C. (Jersey Overseas Aid Commission) or are you simply asking the Assembly to proceed in accordance with what is currently listed? Because as currently listed, P.84 will of course be debated after the proposed airport development review.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

As listed, Sir. I stand to listen to Deputy Maçon’s view about how he would wish to deal with his item, but I think, as listed, it will give Members time to consider the Amendments and ensure that the debate is not broken up.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Your proposal is simply that we proceed as listed, but not take P.84 until tomorrow?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

That is correct, Sir. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on this proposition? If Members could indicate in general terms in the chat if they are content. Are they content with this proposition?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Could I ask what the intentions of the Scrutiny Panel are? We had an email last evening telling us that there were intended to be some Amendments on this substantive debate, subject to this discussion we are having now. Could I ask whether we have any news of that from the Scrutiny Panel, whether they intend to do that today?

The Deputy Bailiff:

I think the Amendments have been lodged by the Scrutiny Panel, approved for lodging and lodged and circulated.

Deputy J.H. Young:

But they were not included on the Order Paper. That is why I ask.

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, the Order Paper was prepared too late in the day for that, but I think it is the intention of the Scrutiny Panel to make the same application as the Council of Ministers so as to ensure that their Amendments can be debated tomorrow.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I am grateful to you for clarifying it, because I could not see those either in the States email this morning, unless I have them now. You have clarified, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. Deputy of St. John, do you have a question for Senator Gorst in connection with this matter or in relation to the Questions to Ministers without notice that is to follow this?

The Deputy of St. John:

Questions to Ministers to follow.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. Accordingly, the proposition is agreed by Members and we will debate P.84 tomorrow and otherwise we will proceed in accordance with what is listed. Yes, of course the Assembly will need to agree that P.84 be taken, but if it does, then it will be debated tomorrow. So we now move on to ...

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sorry, before we go forward, may I ask a quick question on that point?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Would it be sensible to agree that those propositions would be taken today so we do not come back for no reason whatsoever? I do not know how this works but it is strange times, I think.

The Deputy Bailiff:

What I was going to do at the end of the period of Questions to all Ministers without notice was to deal in one go, as it were, with all the matters on the agenda which need the Assembly’s permission to be debated today or tomorrow because that applies not merely to P.84 and the Amendment to it, but also to P.71 itself because the lodging there was slightly late as well. So we will deal with all those issues collectively at the end of the next period of Question Time.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

May I ask a question?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

I did understand that Senator Gorst was asking the Assembly to agree that we did take the proposition and take it tomorrow morning. That was all.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. The debate on the proposition will be tomorrow, but it may make sense to deal with whether or not we should have that debate at all today in the sense that permission is required of the Assembly for that matter to be debated.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Sorry, I understand Senator Gorst did ask that we do agree to take that debate and take it tomorrow morning. Perhaps the Senator could clarify for Members.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Senator Gorst, was it your intention to have the discussion about reducing the lodging period and the like tomorrow morning or this afternoon at some point?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

It is entirely my fault for not being clear. I had thought that in making the case, I was rolling it all into one. I am quite happy to, if that was not clear, make the case again. I felt I was making the case on behalf of all Members’ propositions that were lodged, Deputy Labey needing to have approval to take it today, which we have agreed, and Ministers and the Amendments having approval to be taken tomorrow. If you feel that a further case is required to be made, then of course I am happy to do so, be that now or after the period of questions without notice.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. Let us deal with that issue after the period of questions without notice. We will proceed to questions without notice and the first question without notice is the question that we did not reach in oral questions earlier on today and that was question 18, which the Deputy of St. John will ask of the Minister for External Relations. Deputy of St. John.

7. Questions to Ministers without notice

7.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Will the Minister advise what plans, if any, are in place to recommence consultation either with the public generally or with the finance industry specifically in relation to the regulation of pensions?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Minister for External Relations):

Under normal circumstances, I would have asked my Assistant Minister to answer this question, because he is the political lead on pensions, but that is of course not possible under this section of Question Time, so I shall do my best.

[12:30]

The Government recognises the importance of regulating pensions effectively and intends to issue one further consultation on the draft legislation itself. They are aiming to producing a draft law in the next few months, in collaboration with both industry and the J.F.S.C. (Jersey Financial Services Commission). The draft law will expand the regulatory scope of the J.F.S.C. to include the regulation of pensions investment business. This is stage one of pensions regulation in Jersey and is aimed at closing off perceived gaps in the regulation of existing pensions business. It is anticipated this consultation will take place in the next quarter and that it will have a shorter period of consultation as both the Government and the J.F.S.C. have consulted on this topic over the past few years. We will also be publishing a summary of responses to the earlier consultation at this time.

7.1.1 The Deputy of St. John:

Would the Minister agree that all pension business customers deserve the same protection as investment business customers which would be provided via regulation by the J.F.S.C. rather than via law within the Tax Law, as it is at present?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

We support the Deputy’s view and that is what my Assistant Minister, the Constable of St. Ouen, will be bringing forward and proposing.

7.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister assure Members that there will be no reduction in front line health services as a result of any staff cuts included in the economic recovery plan as the means of reducing expenditure and will he explain how he intends to safeguard those services during the development of the plan?

The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

The Government are considering their recovery plan and indeed what revisions may need to be made to the Government Plan. This will be a comprehensive plan that covers all of the things the Government needs to deliver, including, but not limited to, economic recovery. There are significant pressures on public finances, particularly in the light of the measures the Assembly has endorsed to protect individuals and businesses during the COVID emergency. Personally, I wish to retain front line health services, but we can also deliver those services differently and so more efficiently and effectively. It is too early in our planning to say anything in detail other than to give an assurance of a clear focus on providing services of a high quality and in a financially sustainable way.

7.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Again, I make the analogy between what happened in 2010 and what is happening now. In those days they cut £200,000 from the budget and 5 posts went in particular sectors, for example, removing a vacant counsellor post and removing a vacant C.A.M.H.S. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) post. Will the Minister assure Members that we will not see that sort of salami-slicing on this budget?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

As I said, it is far too early to give any sort of detail. But you must bear in mind that, as a signatory in the budget within the health service, there are significant numbers of staff, which means that people are constantly leaving and posts can be reviewed. We can deliver services more effectively. We can work differently. We are trying to co-ordinate our services with G.P.s (general practitioners), which the Deputy is most interested in and we are trying to bring forward the Jersey Care Model. All these things will inform the way we wish to proceed into the future and that is the answer I can give at this stage.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Sir, if I may?

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have had a supplementary and there are lots of other Members who wish to ask a question. Deputy Labey, you have a question for the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

7.3 Deputy R. Labey:

Could the Minister for Treasury and Resources, in her capacity as shareholder representative of Ports of Jersey, confirm that the Airport director has left after 18 months in post?

Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

The short answer is, no, I cannot confirm that. I could find out and get back to the Deputy later but at the moment I cannot confirm that.

7.3.1 Deputy R. Labey:

I would be grateful to the Minister if she were able to do that and perhaps at the same time find out if the ex-director has been retained now as a regulatory consultant and whether she will be working from the U.K. in that role.

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I will get both answers to the questions the Deputy asked.

7.4 Deputy G.J. Truscott:

I am sure the Minister has read the half-page announcement in last night’s J.E.P. entitled “Changing Jersey’s Healthcare Model by stealth”. Would the Minister like to comment on the article, please?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I am saddened and disappointed that these 5 individuals have published falsehoods, which I believe are there to pursue an agenda that they wish to put forward. I take issue with many of the statements that they have made. I believe that many are inaccurate. We will continue to engage with members of the public and, as we bring forward the Jersey Care Model, as I have said before, that has been validated now by work involving PwC. It is being considered by Scrutiny. I have assured Members that there will be a debate in the Chamber at which all these issues can be raised. But I would like to take the opportunity to assure Members that we are not proposing to nationalise G.P.s. There will still be the personal service that G.P.s have given over generations in this Island and we do not want to change that. But we want to improve access to primary care and we want to co-ordinate our health services with primary care practitioners. The recent COVID emergency has allowed us an insight as to how we could do that. Building on that good work, we are in serious discussions with the G.P.s about the way forward and those discussions have to be concluded before any firm proposals come forward.

7.4.1 Deputy G.J. Truscott:

I had a number of phone calls yesterday from concerned constituents and, put simply, my constituents do not want to lose their doctor of choice. The Minister has already indicated and given his assurances but can he again reiterate and give the Assembly the assurance that no such plans are afoot to nationalise all doctors’ practices?

7.7.1 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

It is. What Amendments would the Chief Minister make at the conclusion of the crisis in terms of adding or removing members from the Emergencies Council in the Emergency Powers Law?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Again, as I said to, I think, Scrutiny yesterday, the Emergency Powers Law was due for review. I cannot remember if it was this year but obviously it is now going to be next year because of the delays with COVID-19 and we will look at it at that point. I will say that I believe the system has worked, the membership has worked very well. But, of course, each emergency will be different and so it may well be that one needs flexibility, which we kind of do have as to who one brings in and who does not. The crucial thing is that it has got to be able to be flexible, it has also got to be able to move swiftly and under the competent authorities structure that is what has happened under this particular crisis.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. The adjournment has been proposed and seconded and there is no suggestion that we should not adjourn now. Before we do adjourn until 2.15 p.m., I would just like to indicate which names I have got written down to ask questions in this particular session. I do that for 2 reasons, firstly, I may not have got all the names down, as there was a lot going on in the chat. Secondly, as you may know, the names are often wiped during the short adjournments. These are the names I have and the order in which I am going to invite people to ask their questions: Deputy Gardiner for the Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Pamplin for the same Minister, the Deputy of St. John for the Minister for External Relations, Deputy Truscott for the Chief Minister, Deputy Southern for the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Connétable of St. Lawrence for the Chief Minister, the Connétable of St. Helier for the Minister for Infrastructure, the Deputy of St. Martin for the Minister for the Environment and the Connétable of St. Saviour for the Chief Minister. If I have missed anyone out, then please could you indicate in the chat? Deputy Doublet has just raised if Members are minded to extend the sitting into the evening, could this be proposed now, rather than at the end of the day? I know this is something that since we have moved to this forum is thought to be appropriate to be resolved sooner rather than later, so that individuals can make domestic arrangements if necessary. It may well be that P.71 will take a while. Is there a proposal that we sit late tonight or are Members content to adjourn at 5.30 p.m. or 5.45 p.m. or thereabouts in the usual way? Deputy Labey.

Deputy R. Labey:

Sir, I do not see why we should not be able to finish P.71 by 5.30 p.m. or even sooner. The only thing I would really caution against, and I would be upset if this happened to me, is that I do not believe it is right for a debate not to finish in one session and for it to be held overnight. Some proposers are happy with that, I am not. I always try to gauge at this juncture, the juncture at 5.30 p.m., whether the proposer is happy to finish and can continue in the morning or whether the proposer would prefer his or her proposition to be finished in this session because we all know what nefarious dealings can go on overnight; that is the only thing I would say. I cannot imagine it is going to take more than 2 or 3 hours to do this proposition and the one before it is very, very short indeed with a good wind. But could I just say that if we had to get to 6.30 p.m. to finish or 6.00 p.m., then I think we should do that and then we start fresh in the morning with the proposition on the borders? I am not trying to be difficult here and I understand the family pressure and that but I always feel that it is right to consult the proposer of the debate on that; that is just my feeling.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. There are obviously 2 competing views in the chat. Some Members think that it will be appropriate to finish the debate at 5.30 p.m. in any event and others would wish to sit to finish P.71.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

If Deputy Labey is minded to make that as a proposition, I am happy to second it.

Deputy R. Labey:

I am happy to make that proposition. If they can just tell me, I have not got a very long speech for this one. While it is a technical subject and complicated, the actual proposal for a review is simplicity itself, so I will not be banging on for too long.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Instead of having a debate about timing now, shall we leave matters on the footing that Members have heard what has been said and that Members, collectively, wish to finish P.71 by 5.30 p.m. and will do their best to achieve that?

Deputy R. Labey:

Yes, Sir, I would be happy with that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

If we are content with that then we will leave things there and we will adjourn until 2.15 p.m. The States stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m.

[12:52]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:15]

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now resume questions to all Ministers without notice. I understand from the Greffier that the Minister for Treasury and Resources now does have an answer to give to the question that was put by Deputy Labey. Deputy Pinel? Perhaps she is not attending yet. In that case, can I ask Deputy Gardiner to put her question to the Minister for Infrastructure?

7.8 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Would the Minister advise what progress has been made in relation to parking for hospital staff before Patriotic Street will be reopened?

Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Infrastructure):

Tomorrow obviously things return to some kind of normality where we will start charging for parking. I have made arrangements that an entire floor should be made available in the not too distant future for the hospital staff, possibly the first and second floors if the demand is there.

7.8.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Does it mean that from tomorrow the hospital staff will need to pay for their parking if they are needed in the hospital for longer hours than would be expected?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I think this will become clearer as we come into the autumn and plan around the Government Plan. The economic recovery will be a large feature of the Government Plan and obviously proposals would be developed in time for that.

7.11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister, as part of his answer, talked about staffing number levels. Could he indicate how few staff he believes he may need compared to the current staffing levels on which he is operating?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

First of all, I do not believe I referred to staffing levels in my previous answer this morning - well, if I did, I am sorry - but I am not in a position, as I would have indicated this morning, to go into that level of detail, if indeed there needs to be any change to staffing levels.

7.12 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:

I did indicate this for the Chief Minister but it may well be for the Minister for External Relations. Between them I am sure they will decide. I understand that the U.K. is likely to introduce a traffic light scheme for foreign travel, negotiated on a reciprocal basis. Green would be for straightforward travel and red would essentially be no travel. The amber part of the system would include some registration requirements, restrictions or quarantine measures. I understand, for instance, that Cyprus, as an example, would require a certificated negative P.C.R. (polymerase chain reaction) test from within the previous 72 hours in order to allow entry. My question to whichever Minister is able to answer is: will we, as a Government, be enabling P.C.R. testing for those travellers who require such certification?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I take great delight in suggesting that is definitely in the remit of the Minister for External Relations, who I am sure will be delighted to answer the question.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I have been in correspondence with one of the Constable’s constituents. I think I replied to an email this morning. It is a very good question and it is not something that we in Government have yet considered, whether we should be providing P.C.R.s in this way. It is a new issue that has now arisen because the private P.C.R. testing regime has indicated that it is going to close from the end of this week. I gave the assurance to the Constable’s constituent or parishioner that we would review the situation and undertake to investigate what was possible in regard to allowing, even if it was on a reduced cost basis, private citizens who needed such a test to enable them to travel, to see whether that was possible. I also undertook to review further the issue of whether everyone should treat Jersey in the same way that they were treating the United Kingdom because, of course, here Islanders have been much more successful and managed the way that they have behaved so that the virus has been suppressed. Today, in the last hour we have had the official notification that cases are down to zero and that is a positive thing. We need to maintain that suppression so I also undertook to have further conversations with other countries to see if we could be treated in a different manner. However, it should be noted that we did have those conversations with our French colleagues and because of the French process, which is you can travel with a voluntary isolation, it was felt that there was no need to differentiate.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence:

I thank the Minister for his response. I did ask the question on behalf of my parishioner.

7.13 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Minister supports, as I do, the part-time pedestrianisation of Broad Street for reasons of physical distancing and also the regeneration of the street. However, he knows that I have concerns about the loss of the central bus stop and I wonder if he would be willing to have a trial bringing the number 19 back into the town centre, allowing it to unload and load passengers in Library Place near the Le Sueur Obelisk and then returning via Church Street and Mulcaster Street back on to its normal route.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

We have put this suggestion forward to LibertyBus and they have replied. They say they have some difficulties with this, so this is something we are actively working on to alleviate the problem.

7.13.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I would just be very glad if the Minister would agree at least to trial doing this because I know many people are concerned who want to use the department stores and do not want to walk all the way back to the bus station or up to Savile Street. A town centre bus stop would be extremely useful for them and the area around the Le Sueur Obelisk has plenty of seating and is probably a better place for a bus stop than Broad Street ever was. Does the Minister agree?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I was just saying, this is something that we have put forward to LibertyBus and is something they are investigating. There are problems with taking a bus around Library Place, Church Street and on to Mulcaster Street, but it is something we are working through with LibertyBus.

7.14 The Deputy of St. Martin:

If I could, I would like to return to the issue of nesting birds at the Les Écréhous. This morning, in his answers, the Minister alluded on 2 occasions to damage to nests that birds were sitting on. Does he have any factual evidence that that is actually happening?

[14:30]

Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment):

No. If I said that I am going to have to withdraw that. I think that the evidence that I have had is disturbance and whether that is damage … as I said earlier, the law gives powers if somebody interferes with a nest or a bird seeking to use a nest, but the evidence I have had is disturbance and that is the situation. I want to correct that point.

7.14.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I thank the Minister for his answer. It may well be me that misinterpreted his use of the words, but can I ask the Minister if he will in future just make sure that anything he acts on is evidence-based and comes from his officers?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Absolutely, had there been the evidence. We have investigated it and there is not hard enough evidence to act by way of referring papers through for prosecution. That is not so. If we wanted to go that way I think we would have to have video cameras on there and so on to be able to get that evidence. At the moment, I do not have it. But disturbance is serious enough because that could result in birds leaving the nests and obviously with very rare species that is not a thing we want to happen.

7.15 The Connétable of St. Saviour:

When the virus first hit us we rushed through a lot of laws, which we were told at the time were needed and that they were going to fall away in September. Now we hear that the Law regarding the doctors is possibly going to stay and it is going to be under the control of the Government. Does the Government have any ideas for the other laws that we rushed through temporarily until September, because I did not vote for things to go on for ever? I voted for them to be withdrawn in September and not to continue. If I had have known that we were going to be browbeaten and things were going to change I would not have voted for them to be implemented until September anyway.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I do share the Connétable’s concerns in terms of the ways she has expressed them. I would say there are 2 distinctions. One is to give the absolute assurance that all the laws we brought relative to COVID-19, or at least all the ones relevant, have said they will expire on 30th September. That absolutely remains the case and there is nothing we can do about it - “we” being the Government or the Council of Ministers - without the support of the Assembly. In other words, if circumstances were to change and we needed to extend something that was due to expire on 30th September, that would have to be brought back to the Assembly and the argument made at that point. I hope that gives the Connétable the assurance she is seeking. In relation to the doctors - this is my recollection, I hasten to add - that was very much more a contract negotiation. I believe it has been extended for a period of time and obviously beyond that extension is then very much a matter what, if anything, is negotiated. I suspect if it was anything significant it would have to come to the Assembly at some point for some form of endorsement, because I think it would be a significant change and particularly if it was wrapped up into the Jersey Care Model. The Minister has undertaken already that that would be subject to some form of debate within the Assembly.

7.15.1 The Connétable of St. Saviour:

Could I have a bit of clarification, please? I thought that the doctors were brought under the one umbrella to make it more convenient for what was going on and I am a little bit disturbed, as a lot of my parishioners are, that this may not be happening. So I would like to know for sure that if something does go belly up we are going to vote back on this and we are not going to be given a fait accompli that: “We are now looking after the doctors and you are going to have to do as we say.” If the Minister could just put my mind at rest, please.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Firstly, we are always in the hands of the Assembly to give that absolute assurance. Secondly, the original measures that took place in March, I think it was, in relation to the doctors were to deal with the crisis. They have worked very well but, as I said, I hope I am giving the assurance to the Connétable that nothing can change to that system without the support of the Assembly.

The Connétable of St. Saviour:

Thank you very much, Minister.

7.16 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

First of all, I would like to say that I welcome the fact that we have no further active cases of the virus in the Island. However, my question is to do with the number of test results that are outstanding. According to the latest thing we have had, there are now 415, up 202 since yesterday. How long have they been outstanding and when will we get the results?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

It is likely that many of those test results will be through by tomorrow. There has very commonly been delay on a Monday because of lesser weekend working. So it is not unusual to see a large number outstanding on a Monday but they are cleared to a great extent within the day.

7.17 The Connétable of St. Helier:

I am not sure if this is for the Chief Minister but he can reroute the question perhaps. I think many Islanders are concerned that the proposed drive-in cinema that was going to happen at the R.J.A. and H.S. (Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society) has been ruled out. I wondered whether there was anything that could be done to ask the Bailiff’s Panel to reconsider, given that everyone would be in their cars and it is the kind of Jersey entrepreneurship that we should be encouraging at this difficult time.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I do not think it directly falls under my remit, but I am very happy for either myself or - not that it is his direct responsibility but he has had direct experience in these type of things - to ask the Minister for Infrastructure, but probably wearing a slightly different hat, to look into the matter and work with the Connétable on it.

7.18 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Can the Minister confirm or deny that the request from the Prison Governor to place H.M.P. La Moye into full lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic has been refused by the Director General?

The Connétable of St. Clement:

I can deny that totally and absolutely. I have to say that the Prison Governor’s reaction to COVID and the fact that we have had no cases at the prison whatsoever, that the moves that he put into place, the actions that he took, were fully supported by the Director General of the Justice and Home Affairs Department.

7.19 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Further to Deputy Higgins’ question to the Minister for Health and Social Services, again echoing the great news today of zero active and asymptomatic cases on the Island, can the Minister give a reassurance to the public that testing will continue for the essential workforce, carers and people who work in our health departments, alongside the increased testing at the borders if and when it gets approved?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Yes, I can give that assurance. It has been a fundamental plank of our policy of opening the borders that that would not be to the detriment of local testing and I have seen that work through and all the proposals for border testing has not meant that we have had to limit our local testing. In fact, the local testing has increased and we have plans to further enhance it.

7.19.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Will he join with me, and I am sure all of us, at this moment in paying tribute to Dr. Muscat for getting us to this point, and everybody involved but particularly Dr. Muscat who really should be thanked on behalf of all of us at this moment, and I am sure you would like the moment to do that?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I thank the Deputy for that opportunity. I would certainly align myself in commending Dr. Muscat for the guidance and expertise that he has given to enable the Island to navigate this difficult period and our thanks are very much due to him.

7.20 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Could the Minister for Infrastructure advise the Assembly as to whether he consulted with retailers before making the decision to reintroduce parking for the multi-storey car parks in town?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I believe there was quite a bit of work done by officers, not everybody, but it was advertised extensively and a lot of research was done. There are 2 schools of thought on this but basically we need the turnover of cars parked to create more people coming into town. I walked past Sand Street car park when it was free and there was only I think 20 spaces left, so in a car park that size it is not particularly good for retailers. By introducing charging, we are getting a turnover of cars and that will help with business in town.

7.20.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

That is a very interesting answer to the question and I thank the Minister for that, but does he have any concerns? Obviously our retailers in Jersey are extremely hard hit and footfall in town has not increased substantially yet. Is he concerned that this measure could have an adverse effect on attracting Islanders into St. Helier for their shopping?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I am very concerned about it and I have officers working on it and doing a lot of number crunching. But as I just mentioned, we think the opposite is true, that we need to have charging in place so that there is a regular turnover of vehicles, people come into town, do their shopping and leave again and their cars are not left there indefinitely, taking up the space. Obviously we listen very carefully to people who are isolating and many cars have been there for some time, and I would advise people to check their cars because there will be a few flat batteries after this time. But as I say, we need the turnover of vehicles and the turnover of people coming into town to create business again.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Pinel, do you have a chance now to respond to the question that was posed to you before the short adjournment by Deputy Labey?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

The Deputy Bailiff:

That concludes questions for Ministers without notice. There are no Personal Statements under J. Under K, the Minister for Children and Housing will make a statement regarding Children’s Day.

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

8. The Minister for Children and Housing will make a statement regarding Children’s Day

8.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec (The Minister for Children and Housing):

As Members will recall, the publication of the 2017 report from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry was a wake-up call for everyone with responsibility for children in care in Jersey. The report identified individual and systemic failings and gave a voice to all those who suffered abuse. It revealed the true extent to which Jersey’s institutions failed our children and their families. The subsequent 2-year review published by the Care Inquiry panel in September 2019 shows progress and future challenges in equal measure in our Government Plan to put children first. Children’s Day was one of the recommendations made by a citizens’ panel, who are a group of Islanders who have been working with and advising the Government to help deliver this important act of remembrance and celebration. One of the 8 recommendations of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry was that Jersey should find a way to acknowledge the children and young people who were failed by the Island’s childcare system. An independent citizens’ panel was commissioned in 2018 to develop proposals to address this recommendation. I would like to pay tribute to the citizens’ panel who have been instrumental in forging links with the State to ensure that children and people who have experienced trauma are not forgotten. One of their key recommendations is Jersey’s Children’s Day, which the citizens’ panel say is a wonderful opportunity to both remember the survivors and victims and provide a focus on children and young people living in the Island now. Through this day, the citizens’ panel hope people will recognise how vital it is that young people’s voices are heard and their opinions valued by us all. The panel also say that they hope this day will inspire children and adults to try new things and think in new ways, leaving a positive footprint for future generations. The focus of Children’s Day 2020 in schools and nurseries is centred around regeneration and growth. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the arrangements for the inaugural Children’s Day this year have had to be scaled back. Nonetheless, in recognition of the importance of what will become an annual event, the Government of Jersey, working closely with the citizens’ panel, have been working on a plan to ensure that 3rd July still goes ahead as a day to remember the lessons of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry and to celebrate the talents and the potential of the Island’s children and young people. All schools and nurseries have been invited to choose a tree, which they will be planting in their grounds to celebrate and mark Jersey’s first Children’s Day on 3rd July. Children and young people have also been invited to take part in a creative tree project to celebrate childhood, using the symbols of roots, growth and blossom through various pieces of work such as posters, poems, artwork, models or song. As the Minister for Children and Housing, I am proud to commemorate this important landmark in our Island’s history and will continue to work tirelessly with other Ministers, elected States Members and officers to improve any areas where the panel remains concerned. The theme of Children’s Day links with the views from children and young people during a recent survey in which they shared their experiences of the COVID-19 lockdown and their hopes for the future. I would again like to express my sincere gratitude to the thousands of children and young people who took part in our survey and may I take this moment to congratulate every single child and young person in Jersey for the way they accepted and adapted to the changes during the coronavirus crisis. In the blink of an eye, their lives were turned upside down and they were asked to follow rules they had never known and live a life they could never have imagined. They stayed indoors without really understanding why they could not go out and see their families and friends, yet they accepted these changes with real resilience, courage, hope and empathy. I am sure my fellow Members will agree just how exceptional our Island’s children and young people have been throughout the unprecedented period of disruption. I want to take this opportunity to thank our children and young people for helping to play their part in following the health guidelines and for their patience and understanding during the most serious health issue the Island has ever faced. Thank you to Jersey’s children and young people, our unsung heroes.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Members now have the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister for up to 15 minutes. Are there any questions for the Minister?

8.1.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I am sure there will be others. Did the Minister give any consideration to making future Children’s Days a public holiday in Jersey so that families, especially those that have to work several jobs to survive in Jersey’s expensive community, can spend some time with their children on that day and the wider community can also be taught as to the importance of that day?

Senator S.Y. Mézec:

It is an interesting suggestion and the Deputy will know that I am somebody who is of the view that we could do with a few more public holidays in Jersey, given that many of our neighbours and other places around the world have more than we do. This, in my view, could well have been a good opportunity for that. But what I have to say is that I have absolutely no intention of dictating the terms under which Children’s Day becomes a part of Jersey’s calendar. I think that that needs to be a piece of work that is not led by one Minister just deciding what happens and that is why I am led by what the citizens’ panel propose. They have not suggested that, certainly in the short term, I think partly on the basis that they think that being able to have children in school provides a place for them to be able to learn and enjoy the things that Children’s Day is about and provide that whereas potentially in the early stages of Children’s Day in our calendar that might otherwise not have been recognised, so I am led by what they say in this instance.

8.1.2 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

I want to thank the Minister for actually speaking to children in the statement that he has made.

[15:00]

9. Reduction of lodging period

The Deputy Bailiff:

That concludes the question time available for this Minister in relation to the statement. Before we commence Public Business, there are certain items listed for consideration that have not been lodged with the requisite time period and therefore the lodging period will need to be reduced in accordance with Standing Order 26(7), which you will recall is an application of a public interest test if they are to be considered at the present meeting. The first item in that category is the proposition of Deputy Labey, P.71, and it is appropriate to determine now whether the lodging period will be reduced. Deputy, do you wish to make that Proposition?

9.1 Deputy R. Labey:

Yes, I do, Sir. If I could just remind Members that P.71 would have fulfilled its 4-week proper lodging period tomorrow on 1st July and with the volume of propositions down on the Order Paper I fully expected it to be debated on 1st July, so it is only one day. I make that Proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that Proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the Proposition? Thank you. Accordingly, I will ask the Greffier to add a vote into the chat channel of the meeting. This is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. You are voting pour if you are in favour of reducing the lodging period and contre if you are against the Proposition.

POUR: 43	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator K.L. Moore
Senator S.Y. Mézec
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Deputy R. Labey (H)
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy of St. John
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The second item is the Proposition lodged by the Council of Ministers entitled A safer travel period, P.84/2020. Chief Minister, this item was not listed for this meeting, so if you wish the Proposition to be debated, firstly under Standing Order 80 you will need to invite the Assembly to agree to suspend Standing Order 32 in order that it may be listed for debate at this meeting and then - and one vote will be sufficient - under Standing Order 26(7) to reduce the minimum lodging period in order that it can be taken at this meeting. Chief Minister, if you wished, you could also make the same Proposition in relation to the 2 Amendments dated today, the Amendment lodged by Deputy Ward and the Amendment lodged by the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, and taking all those matters in that way will mean that the Assembly will be voting once and not 6 times. Chief Minister, are you content to proceed in that way?

9.2 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Absolutely, Sir, thank you, and thank you for the advice.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the Proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Proposition?

9.2.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

While it is clearly a matter of public interest as to whether or not and to what extent travel restrictions should be lifted after this long period of isolation and also what safeguards should be put in place, I think on balance the public interest does not lie with reducing the lodging period. I think the public interest lies with a proper period for this Proposition having been lodged so that all parties, and not just within the States, can give it consideration. I think we have all seen how important this issue is. It has been divisive and it has also been very worrying for the public, especially those with vulnerabilities and underlying health issues, who have been in contact. I do not think that it does our public any services when we rush through something which could and should have had perhaps a longer lead-in period than this. So, I think the public interest test has not been made in this case and I think it lies in the default position of a proper lodging period or at least a longer lodging period than this so that proper scrutiny and due diligence can be applied to the Proposition.

9.2.2 Senator K.L. Moore:

I am interested to hear the perspective of Deputy Tadier, but slightly do not understand how that would progress in reality as if that were to happen what would happen with the borders this coming week? Unfortunately, and it is a matter of regret, we do find ourselves dealing with this issue in very short order. I am sure the Chief Minister will give further explanation regarding that himself when the time comes, but we at scrutiny have found a method of sorts to discuss this between ourselves and to propose some very relevant and, I hope, pertinent Amendments that will seek to have a proper and thorough debate on the subject. We did, of course, consider asking the Assembly to delay and asking the Council of Ministers to requisition a sitting just later this week so that we could at least achieve the 3 working days, which was the agreed amount of time that we were going to set as an Assembly to debate matters such as this. However, it has not been possible and we were mindful that that would likely have been lost. So, we endeavoured to do our very best in the time allowed. It has not been easy, I can vouch for that in no uncertain terms, but I see that in order to maintain some sense of clarity, particularly for those businesses and members of the population who really want to know where they stand in relation to the borders, then we really have no other option but to progress today.

9.2.3 Deputy J.A. Martin:

It was really interesting to listen to Senator Moore there. I think under the pressure and given I know it is not exactly the same Proposition, but we have known a debate was coming on the borders this week. It is much fairer that it was brought by C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) because this would have rested on a Back-Bencher/Assistant Minister but it was not fair. I do not know where Deputy Tadier thinks this is not ... this will be the biggest decision we need to make and unfortunately we have all worked with the candles burning over the weekend to get this right. I really do appreciate Scrutiny has not been the full working days, but I know they have put time in outside those hours. We need the debate. People need certainty. You vote with the advice. You vote with what you think is best. Is there a right answer? We will find out, but we must have the debate. We start tomorrow like was proposed. The Chief Minister has gone with everything we want, the proper full debate on the Proposition and all the Amendments to come in. We have the debate this week. We know what is going on for the future.

The Deputy Bailiff:

If no other Member wishes to speak, I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

9.2.4 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It does go without saying that, as I said previously, we continue to live in extraordinary times and speed is critical. I was going to say important, but it is actually critical and I will explain why I have changed my definition very briefly in summing up. We have already explained to Members in the 2 briefings we have done last week and this week as to why this is so important and why it is necessary to operate at the speed we are operating at. We also felt it was absolutely right, particularly given Deputy Maçon’s proposals, that it should be a debate with the full backing of Council of Ministers to the Assembly. I do also absolutely agree with the comments made by Senator Moore in relation to the comments by Deputy Tadier. The reason I make the point about changing my definition from it being speed being important to being critical is Members may or may not be aware that in the last hour easyJet have announced - and obviously they are one of the main airlines that come into the Island - that they are closing or potentially closing hubs at Stansted, Southend and Newcastle. The headline I am presently reading suggests they are going to be making 727 pilots redundant and potentially making 5,000 cuts in staff. What I am trying to say is that time here is critical. Certainty is absolutely critical and it is, therefore, absolutely vital and in the public interest that we have this debate and, as proposed by Senator Gorst, that we do it first thing tomorrow morning. I would, therefore, like to maintain the Proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I ask the Greffier then, please, to place a vote into the chat channel of the meeting. The voting is now open, and if Members are in favour of suspending Standing Order 32 under Standing Order 80 so that this may be debated at this meeting, and then also under Standing Order 26(7) to reduce the lodging period in relation to the Proposition and the 2 Amendments to it, they will vote pour, and if they are against then they will vote contre.

POUR: 45	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 1
Senator I.J. Gorst	Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator T.A. Vallois
Senator K.L. Moore
Senator S.W. Pallett
Senator S.Y. Mézec
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy R. Labey (H)
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

10. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: re-appointment of Commissioner (P.67/2020)

The Deputy Bailiff:

Going back to the Consolidated Order Paper, the first item of business is Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: re-appointment of Commissioner, P.67/2020, lodged by the Minister for International Development. I invite the Greffier to read the Proposition. Greffier, I shall read the Proposition if that would make it slightly easier for you. The Greffier has lost Teams. The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to appoint Mr. Douglas Melville as a non-States Commissioner for a further period of 3 years, in accordance with clause 7.4 of the Constitution of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission (Jersey) Law 2005.

10.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (The Minister for International Development):

I would like to propose the reappointment of Mr. Doug Melville as non-States Commissioner to Jersey Overseas Aid for a further 3 years. Mr. Melville was first appointed to the board in 2015 and he joined a very diverse commission. As well as his financial and legal qualifications and skillset, he also brings a vast range of experience in overseas aid, including work with the Canadian International Development Agency, the World Bank and the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). It should be noted that all Jersey Overseas Aid non-States Commissioners give their time, and a lot of it, in an honorary capacity. I would, therefore, like to thank Mr. Doug Melville for all his hard work to date and for offering his considerable expertise for another term. I make the Proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the Proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Proposition?

10.1.1 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I would just like to endorse the Minister’s recommendation of Mr. Melville. I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Melville when he was and continues to be in charge of the Financial Ombudsman. He is a very capable and able person and possesses common sense in spades, and I personally believe he will be a very valuable continuing addition to the Overseas Aid Commission. I would like to endorse his appointment.

[15:30]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on the Proposition? Accordingly, I call upon the Minister to reply.

10.1.2 The Deputy of Grouville:

I would like to thank the Assembly. It is a fairly straightforward Proposition and I am delighted to have Doug Melville back for another 3 years.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Accordingly, I will ask the Greffier to add a vote into the chat channel, which has been done. The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes. I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

POUR: 46	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator T.A. Vallois
Senator K.L. Moore
Senator S.W. Pallett
Senator S.Y. Mézec
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Deputy R. Labey (H)
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy of St. John
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

11. Lifting of travel restrictions: States Assembly approval (P.68/2020)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next matter on the Order Paper is the Proposition of Deputy Maçon entitled Lifting of travel restrictions: States Assembly approval, P.68/2020, and I ask the Greffier to read the Proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Lifting of travel restrictions: States Assembly approval. The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - (a) that the current travel restrictions allowing only those who are undertaking necessary travel to and from Jersey should not be lifted without the prior approval of the States Assembly; (b) that no one should be allowed to travel to Jersey without having first been tested for COVID-19 and providing proof thereof; (c) to request the Council of Ministers to develop a proposed policy for travel to and from Jersey (incorporating a detailed plan of action for implementation and monitoring of the policy) to permit more, safe travel to and from Jersey; and (d) to request the Council of Ministers to distribute the proposed policy to States Members at least 5 days before the debate on any proposition seeking the Assembly’s approval of lifting the current travel restrictions.

11.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I left this on the Order Paper in order to retain a right to speak today and address the Assembly. As we know in this situation, this will be a significant decision for the Island and it was coming down the line. I had a concern that this announcement might be made by the Emergencies Council or whatever it is called, which quite rightly under the present circumstances have been making a lot of decisions because these are the times when such a rapid nature has to happen. But given the situation that was arising with the borders, I felt that it was important that this debate was brought to the Assembly in order to give clarity to businesses and especially Islanders. In my report, I stress the importance towards people’s mental health and well-being about being able to access travel on and off the Island. Turning towards the Proposition now, in effect the Council of Ministers have accepted my Proposition, maybe not entirely but in essence. They have lodged a policy for debate which States Members have. Obviously, the detail we will debate in due course now, so I would just like to thank the collaborative and co-operative stance from the Council of Ministers and, in particular, the Minister for External Relations for the way that he and other officers have worked in updating me on the progress and, of course, C.O.M. for their decision in wanting this to be lodged as a States debate. So, therefore - and I thank Members for their indulgence - I will be withdrawing my Proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, you are entitled to withdraw your Proposition without leave of the Assembly as the Proposition has not yet been moved under Standing Order 69, and that you have done.

12. Proposed Airport Redevelopment: review (P.71/2020)

The Deputy Bailiff:

A small comment. A contact I have in the air travel industry has pointed out that the amount of traffic at the airport is apparently insufficient to justify £42 million. Certainly when I was flying it was the second or third busiest airport in the U.K.. It is well down the list now. Also the plans for the developed airport are to increase the distance that the troisième âge will have to walk to get to the departure hall and that from the plane to arrivals is difficult for the older generation. Yes, I am all in favour of a re-examination of it, because we have to look at what is good for the customer, not what is good for the organisation. It is what matters to the customers. We should jolly well keep that in mind when we are looking at these things. I am greatly in favour of it being reviewed.

12.1.6 Deputy J.H. Young:

I was not going to speak because one of the items, (c), is a request to me and I did not want to prejudge and I will not, but I had better give a bit of guidance because of Deputy Doublet’s question. I think there are a couple of things that Members should consider when making the decision on item (c). Planning permission was approved by a previous Minister and that was in 2014. That was in the days when Ministers called in decisions for themselves and made decisions directly. That is before we changed the law to bring in independent planning inquiries. The previous Minister was in a position where he had to resolve the conflicting issues of the heritage value and the operational issues affecting the airport. Clearly I have had the opportunity, I had hoped that I could wait until after the States decision on this Proposition and then do the in-depth, but this is a very complicated business. It is not simple. There is a lot of documentation on it. Deputy Doublet asked about what happened in 2014, and I have looked through the Ministerial Decision that was made then and the documentation that is on the website and the report. It is quite clear planning in those days had its own Heritage Officers. The listing of the building is done by the Jersey Heritage Trust. That separation was made a long time ago, so the idea is you have independence there between those that set the values on our important heritage artefacts and those who have the responsibility for advising on where applications come forward. Many of those, of course the majority of them, resolve satisfactorily but here was one with an absolutely clear conflict. The Minister made a decision that he believed that the operational requirements of the airport had override in this exceptional case. So it is an exceptional case in the Island Plan and the Island Plan policies and on that basis, as the law permits and he sets out his reasons, he did so. After that the development commenced and it has been lawfully complied with, as Deputy Pinel as the Minister for Treasury and Resources, said. That point was asked to be clarified; if all the conditions had been met on the permit and so on, and the answer is yes and that has been confirmed in writing and that was done in 2018. Obviously the works have now stopped, stopped before, as I see it, the proposition of Deputy Labey came up. So the works have not been completed. As I understand it Deputy Labey is bringing that Proposition to say that there should be a further review because he has produced evidence that was presented by former Deputy Alistair Layzell and the Jersey Heritage group, who are a very valuable organisation to us and they commissioned an expert report. He said: “Well, I think I would like somebody to look at this independently because we are now 6 years on.” Now, I did make a request to our Regulator and you have seen the reply, but there are a lot of technical documents attached to that; a very substantial volume here. I have been asking myself if the States approve this what would happen then? As I see it potentially there would need to be an independent brought in to look through and the question then would arise according to whether it is a recommendation or not, shall things stay as they are or should there be a modification or even a revocation of that? That would be the recommendation of an independent person. I can say that recommendation under the law, and I have checked it, would not come to me. Under the current Planning Law it comes to the Chief Officer. I am not quite clear where that leads us. If the States approve they ask the Minister to instigate the review. Obviously if that was the States instruction my view would be that I would want to agree to do that. That is not a straightforward matter. I do not want to express a view at the moment but I do believe that the heritage issues were very well known previously, but of course the question is what is the balance? This is the key thing that always happens in planning decisions. What is the balance and the relative weight of these factors? It becomes quite a subtle judgment.

[16:30]

Words “whether”, “should”, “shall”, “will”, “may” all these types of words: “something in future”. In other words, is this an issue for future or is it current? It is trying to establish that and I do not feel competent to go through these huge numbers of papers and take a view. It would have to be an independent investigation. The way I see it is logically and maybe this drives from the 3 parts of the proposition. If the States want the Ports of Jersey to look again at the substance of the project for all the reasons, the business reasons, that the Deputy’s Proposition under (a) set out and the proposer spoke of then it is logical that (c) will also go along. I hope Members will find that comment useful and I think that is the best I can offer at the moment. The heritage is absolutely important and you have seen the reports on that, but there is a lot of complexity to weigh up.

12.1.7 The Connétable of St. Saviour:

I am going to take a slightly different tack on this. In the early 1960s a Pan American DC-10 came and airlifted over 40 cattle from here to America via Ireland. Later on a Seaboard & Western came with a Super Constellation and they also lifted 45, maybe 50 head of cattle out to America. Both aircraft landed here, both aircraft took off with a full load of animals and both attracted a lot of interest because the aircraft were so huge to have arrived in the Island. What I am trying to say is both aircraft lived to tell the tale, and so did my father who was transporting with the cattle to make sure they arrived safe into New Jersey. All this thing about safety and the building being in the way, I think we have to also consider that these larger aircraft no longer exist really because things are much more shallow, and we do not have as much air traffic coming through and I do not mind what anybody says, we will not go back to the days where we were really because we do not have hotels. Having said that, we must remember that a Pan American aircraft came here in the early 1960s, I know some of us in the Assembly were not even born, but they came and they transported animals out and Seaboard & Western came and they transported animals out with a Super Constellation and everybody is still alive and the airport is still there. I really think we should consider very carefully if we have to demolish this building. I do not think it should go. It is part of our heritage. My family farm was there and it was commandeered in the first place to build the airport. Strangely enough we have just sold the last strip of land to help build Les Quennevais School so it just shows how long we had land up there and I still have got the bell that my great grandparents had for the farm. There is a lot of heritage up there and we have lost so many fabulous things on this Island because “nobody” cared because money was more important. These 2 aircraft made it safely here and back with a load of animals and people on board. I think that has to be taken into consideration.

12.1.8 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

These sorts of debates end up being really interesting, because many Members can find completely different reasons for reaching the same conclusion. I do not want to touch on some of the subjects that other Members have used as their justifications for either supporting or opposing the proposition. I certainly will not touch on the heritage argument because I just do not feel I am well-informed enough on that basis. My support for this Proposition is based on democratic considerations. I felt provoked to ask to speak because of just how wrong I thought the Constable of St. Peter was in his speech where he repeatedly suggested that it was inappropriate for us to be interfering in the independence of the Ports of Jersey. I have to tell him and others who might also believe that, that the sovereign decision-making body of the Island of Jersey is not the Board of Directors in some room somewhere making decisions in private. The sovereign decision-making body of the Island of Jersey is the States Assembly elected by the people and it is our decision whether we have a new airport, or if we do have a new airport what it looks like. That is our decision and it is not inappropriate in any sense whatsoever to look at what a Government-owned company plans to do and decide that we would prefer something different or we would prefer more information before signing something off. I do not feel that I, as an elected representative of the people, have had a democratic say in what is a fundamentally big issue for the Island, a very large amount of money going on an institution that is incredibly important for the economic and social well-being of Islanders. The Ports of Jersey as an entity exists to deliver on our strategic ambitions and we have the right to set those strategic ambitions. Those ambitions can legitimately change, either after elections or because of changing landscape out there. I personally have never been convinced that spending £42 million on a new airport was completely necessary. I do not particularly like what has come up as a suggestion. When it comes to the point of the 1937 building I think I had been prepared to stomach getting rid of it on the basis of us being told that it was essential for safety and meeting international standards, but now we hear that that point is contested. If I am to make an informed decision on this I would like to know why it is contested and try to get to the bottom of that. I think the situation that Jersey is in today is very different to when the work started on the airport project for several reasons. For a start, we have since then declared a climate emergency and we have set ambitions on reaching carbon neutrality. That is a subject that many countries around the world are considering very seriously as well and that is inevitably going to have an impact on people’s travel habits. I think that ought to be part of our thinking on what sort of airport facility we want. Of course we have also got the coronavirus crisis and everything that has gone alongside that. We are having lots of discussions about the economic boost that we are going to need after this and the Constable of St. Peter referred to this as well, about how this is a project that would be helpful for that. Of course a big project like that would be helpful for economic stimulus, but again it is down to the democratically-elected representatives of the people to decide how we want to facilitate that economic stimulus, where we want the focus to be, and we have got to be careful not to do what happened after the last crisis, which is to overheat parts of the construction industry and so there is a legitimate democratic debate to be had about how we phase some of that work and what we might choose to de-prioritise in order to allow other things to go on. I have a worry that when we have got big projects on the horizon like the hospital project, which is incredibly important and must go ahead, like the prospect of a new Government office and so on as well, but also the desperate need we have for new homes to be built in the Island for people here to live in and have happy lives, I would be worried about what I see as something that is potentially unnecessary, potentially over-extravagant for our needs to end up getting priority and squeezing out some of that capacity we need for housing, which as far as I am concerned is a much more pressing need. I would like to have an ability to have the facts at my disposal to make sensible decisions on that and so when I read Deputy Labey’s Proposition, the word that I was using to describe it to my colleagues is that it is a “safe” Proposition in that it seeks to give us more information, it seeks to pause things from going ahead too soon given the completely economic, health and social landscape that we are looking at for our Island and the wider world, and on that basis I think it makes sense. It is our democratic right to say that this project needs a second look, because of where we find ourselves, because of what our priorities are, and so for all of those reasons I will be supporting Deputy Labey’s Proposition.

12.1.9 Senator L.J. Farnham:

I would like to try to gently bring Members back on to what this should really be about and that is safety. The decisions to demolish buildings at airports are often based around this, because as we know flying and the rules around flying are extremely important. I am quite surprised that in the middle of a medical pandemic when we talk about little else than protecting people Members seem to be drifting away from what this is really about. The 1937 building was and is an iconic piece of architecture and I think we would all like to save it if we could. However, we cannot because we cannot accept the risk it poses to passenger safety at the airport. I have consulted the Director of Civil Aviation and I have spoken to him again today and he is clear and unequivocal that the building must be removed on safety grounds. The majority of the content of the report commissioned by Save Jersey’s Heritage relates to flight operations, particularly arrival and approaches to landing. The Director of the D.C.A., if I can refer to him as that, is not particularly concerned with the points raised in this regard. He has stated that the principal safety risk from the position of the building relates to the movement of aircraft on the ground, not approaching aircraft, the movement of aircraft on the ground and the safety of that manoeuvring. The taxiway at Jersey Airport has a kink, has a curve, to the north around the 1937 building bringing aircraft unacceptably close to the runway. The building also means that the apron is not fully visible from the air traffic control tower in low visibility conditions. This is a particular issue in low visibility conditions where aircraft have to wait at key points on the taxiway and apron, creating backlogs and traffic jams and have to take it in turns because the kink brings the aircraft unacceptably close together. Improved technology means that there will be more flights operating in low visibility in the future, so this will be an increasing problem. It cannot be adequately mitigated, sadly, if the building stays in place. The final chapters of the Save Jersey’s Heritage report suggest that the taxiway can be straightened without removing the main part of the building. While it could be compliant in theory the edge of the taxiway strip would then be right up against the building, and that is simply not operationally acceptable on a number of grounds, including safety grounds, to the D.C.A. because of the need also for vehicular and emergency vehicle access. No account has been taken of the need for roads around the taxiway that are needed for essential servicing and emergency vehicles. We have got to remember, to put it in its simplest form, we cannot risk aircraft coming too close together. Large lumps of metal with wheels and jets and engines and propellers, full of people, is quite a logistical challenge to manage. We need to plan ahead and we must also be mindful of the fact that technology in aircraft is changing as well. Aircraft are becoming lighter in their build and therefore aircraft will get bigger and they will be able to carry more people with less fuel, be more environmentally friendly and require less length of runway for take-off and landing. Part of the move behind what the airport is proposing is to ensure that we can provide the correct facilities and resources to continue to ensure we have really good strong transport links into the future.

[16:45]

I just want to quickly turn to some points of clarification. The Office of the Director of Civil Aviation has accountability for the safe operation of Jersey Airport, not Ports of Jersey, the D.C.A. The Ports are the operator and they are required to operate within the guidance of the D.C.A. by law. It is inappropriate I think for Ports of Jersey to comment in public on matters relating to safety because that would serve to undermine the role of the Regulator. The Director of Civil Aviation is informed by both the Civil Aviation Authority in the U.K. and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and they are the experts in these particular fields. Planning permission was given in 2014 following due process. Confirmation that the planning approval was lawfully activated in March 2019 has also been given. The report of Save Jersey’s Heritage has been reviewed and considered not to be providing additional information to change the regulator’s decision. It is about safety. Of course it will be a great shame to remove the building, but it has to be done in the interests of safety and in the interests of future transport links for this Island.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Sir, I would like to propose a guillotine motion.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I will just check the Standing Orders. Thank you very much, so we will come back to you in half an hour.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Thank you.

12.1.10 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The public’s view of the States today, and I do not know how many Members are aware of this, is fairly infuriated that we have not made a decision about our borders. That is not our fault. That is just the way the story has broken in the media, but what it does tell us is that the Jersey public is incredibly concerned on whichever side of the debate they fall about our borders, about our ports, about St. Helier port and about the airport at St. Peter. These are really important for Islanders, both in terms of our ability to “get off the rock” as we call it, and for people to come here to Jersey. I was somewhat dismayed by some of the speeches certainly in the latter part of this debate that appear to be casting doubt on the ability of the Ports of Jersey to run the show. Not many Members, perhaps only the Constable of St. Clement and I, remember how bad it used to be when the airport in particular was run by a committee. There never seemed to be enough money and we were constantly pouring money into it. We saw very little hope and then when Ports of Jersey was created we were suddenly in a new world of an airport that has got the finances to expand, that it is getting new routes and how pleased we all were I think when we saw the first of those orange planes starting to bring tourists in particular into Jersey from all parts of the United Kingdom who had never come before. We have seen improvements as well at the port, perhaps not as many as you would have hoped, but certainly as a States Member I have not felt the constant need to put one’s hand in one’s pocket to try to find money for a failing airport. That is down to the work of Ports of Jersey and I do not hold a candle to that particular arm’s length body, but nor am I paranoid and nor do I feel that in some way the decision has been taken away from the States of Jersey today. Members will know that I do criticise some of the things that the Ports do. I do not agree with their use of parking in St. Helier. I do not agree with the current state of the Steam Clock site, but I have to say, and I think the Constable of St. Peter will probably endorse this, that as the Constable responsible for the port I have frequent consultation from both the past Chief Executive, who has now gone to prepare the U.K. for Brexit in Dover, and the new Chief Executive, who has made several trips to see me and to explain their plans. I have confidence in what Ports of Jersey are doing. I think they are doing a good job for Jersey, they are making sure that we are able to welcome increasing numbers of tourists, which is important for our economy, they are also making sure that we can get away, that our children can get away to university and that we can get away to see our loved ones and our families. I think we need to give the body that we have set up some credit for what they are doing and I think we need to have some confidence that the scheme that they have for the airport to take it into the 21st century is the right one. Like other speakers, I am sorry that we are losing the heritage buildings and we all wish that could be avoided but we have to be realistic. Safety has to come first, as the Minister has just said. I urge Members not to deprecate the work that the Ports of Jersey are doing and to give them the ability to continue their good work at the airport. Therefore I will not be supporting the Proposition.

12.1.11 Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary:

I was going to have a very brief speech, but in fact Senator Farnham has answered all my concerns. I would not support a building of this description just because it is deemed aesthetically special for heritage. Safety has to be paramount and I will go with the Senator’s recommendations.

12.1.12 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:

I find it alarming that with the greatest respect the Minister for Treasury and Resources in her response received last night indicates that the present global experience is that of a short-term experience with a reduced number of flights. She suggests industry forecasts show the aviation industry growing back to pre-COVID levels over the next 18 to 24 months. I suggest that is pure and utter wishful thinking, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and tends to raise suspicion over the detail in the remainder of the report and the advice proffered to her. I find it incredibly surprising that the Minister suggests further in her report that changed global landscape because of COVID-19 is not an appropriate rationale for review of the scale, detail and viability of the current scheme. I would contend that in the light of COVID that a review of the project must be undertaken and taking what seems to many to be the adoption of this ostrich-like approach is far from sensible. There is no doubt that the proposed £42 million redevelopment of the airport terminal must be called into question due to the lack of significant income in the last 3 months to the ports. I am surprised that the board have not given the Minister for Treasury and Resources realistic worst-case scenario cashflow projections and also surprised that this information was not given to States Members in the presentation a few days ago. There is no doubt that a degree of upgrading in various areas of the airport is absolutely necessary, but of course the post-pandemic needs will need to be covered by a review. It does seem surprising and regrettable that neither the Minister or indeed the Director of Civil Aviation appear to acknowledge the comprehensive A.S.A.P. (Aeronautical Services and Procedures) aeronautical study on the 1937 terminal building dated March of this year. It may be that it has not been read, but for Members’ information it clearly shows in the greatest of detail that the 1937 terminal building does not adversely affect the safety of flight operations at Jersey Airport. Safety is often used as an excuse and while I am no expert I do feel it does merit consideration. Looking at the plans I have in front of me it seems that the removal of the 1937 building and realignment of the taxiway will simply put it at the same distance from the present departure hall as it is from the 1937 building, so there is little to be gained. There is much detail in the report regarding low visibility operations and such and it seems clear that navigation and technology has changed in the last few years and I wonder whether in fact the latest G.P.S. (Global Positioning System) methodology and wide-area augmentation system technology is incorporated in the D.C.A.’s views on the safety issues being discussed. There is indeed some doubt in this report whether the new control tower and indeed St. Peter’s Church spire compromise the various regulations but no doubt derogations will have been put in place to deal with those, so if that is the case can it not be done for the 1937 terminal? Many Jersey people are used to our airport and its readily recognisable features of the 1937 Art Deco passenger terminal. I am aware that the Board and the Executive are, apart from one or 2, either not resident or possibly only recently and consequently will not understand the empathy that we all have with the building. So many people have worked there or had family connected with it, and it has become part of the fabric of Jersey. Indeed, my father worked there in air traffic control from 1946 and safety aspects of the airport’s operations are engrained in my psyche. He was, as it happens, the Air Traffic Controller on duty when the DC3 hit the approach lights in 1963 with accompanying fatalities. I fear that the replacement proposed will simply be a characterless edifice with little to differentiate Jersey from the thousands of other airports in the world. It is regrettable that the architects could not incorporate any of the styles of the 1937 building in their proposals, or if they did it was cunningly disguised. I suggest that, in conclusion, a review as suggested by Deputy Labey is entirely appropriate and indeed necessary at this time and urge Members to support the Proposition.

12.1.13 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:

I speak on much the same lines as the Constable of St. Brelade. I speak also as a former member of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, the Ports of Jersey incorporation being the first project it entertained on its formation. The Constable’s speech is quite right, that the purpose of the incorporation was to enable a Board to make commercial decisions on its activity and to that extent he is correct. As again said, Senator Mézec has a point in that the States of Jersey are of course the shareholder and the Board will be expected to carry out its operations in accordance with a strategy determined by the shareholder through its shareholder representative. This brings me on to the central point. At the time of incorporation our final review did criticise the resources available to exercise that shareholder function and that was accepted by the Minister for Treasury and Resources of the day. Further resources were to be made available. Without casting any aspersions on anyone currently involved, I am not satisfied that the shareholder function not just for Ports of Jersey but for States bodies generally is now sufficiently robust to be able to adequately monitor the performance of our States-owned bodies, and that is one reason why I wish to speak, to highlight it. As to the need for review, I would assume that almost automatically the COVID crisis caused the board of Ports of Jersey to reflect and I would be surprised if this has not already been discussed with the Minister for Treasury and Resources. In fact at a States sitting several weeks ago the Chief Minister in response to a question as to further cuts or savings, or however you like to call it, did say that nothing was off the table and everything was on the table. I sought clarification by asking if that statement covered States-owned bodies as well and if I understood the Chief Minister correctly; he said it did. On that basis on the one hand I do not think that by passing part (a) of this Proposition we are saying anything more than has already been committed. On the other, do we need to pass it, given that the Chief Minister has already made a commitment to that effect?

[17:00]

Maybe he would like to comment on that, but either way my real concern, and I do have some sympathy with Senator Mézec on this, is that it is through the Minister for Treasury and Resources that the public have comfort in knowing that the board of Ports of Jersey are acting in accordance with the general public’s wishes. I do return to this point, therefore, as to whether the shareholder function is adequately covered in Treasury and I appreciate she is not going to be able to reply on that now but I do flag that as a point for the future. I say I would be interested to know from the Chief Minister or someone else as to whether the commitments required in part (a) of the Proposition has in fact already been given.

12.1.14 The Deputy of St. Martin:

This project has been already on the go for 10 years now and when the then Deputy Duhamel was Minister for Planning and Environment he had the job in 2014 of making the decision on this project. I have to say to Members, those who were not in the Chamber at the time, that he was a very environmental Minister for Planning and Environment, if I can put it that way; I am sure people will understand. I can assure Members that every option was investigated. The Minister of the day even investigated the possibility of moving the runway further away from the building in order to get the one in 7 and retain the building; that is how hard he looked at it. But at the end of the day he was in possession of all the facts and he could find no alternative but to do what we are doing in proposing to take down the 1937 building. It is a straightforward decision between leaving the building up for the benefits of history and for the pleasure of aesthetics or going along with safety and the rules and regulations of air travel. We need to look to the future and future-proof our air links for the future generations. I want to look to the future and not to the past. If there was ever an opportunity to do that, then it is now. We know we are going to have a short period of time with less air passengers and what we need to do is to get on and use that time to start to redevelop our airport. As with all small island economies, connectivity is everything. As we have seen with the fibre rollout to every home, that virtual connectivity that our Islanders enjoy. The connectivity through the airport and the harbour are also absolutely vital and they are going to be increasingly vital into the future. The projects that Ports have got lined up at both St. Helier and St. Peter have to continue. We are seeing and we will continue to see airlines specifically picking and choosing where they go and never more so than in these days and weeks after COVID. It will not be just the quality and quantity of airports, arrivals and departures, it will be the speed of turnaround and maybe, most importantly, able to fly the right aircraft in here. In the not too distant future we are going to see larger planes, more economic to run, more environmentally friendly. But we will only see them if we have got the right facilities and infrastructure and if safety of our runway and buildings are of a correct standard. We need to make no mistake, air travel will be back. It has gone away at the moment but it will be back and we need to be ready. We need to be connected like never before. As I said just now, connectivity for small island economies is everything and we cannot get left behind. Moving the taxiway is essential, it is vital and absolutely necessary. The decision to demolish the 1930s building was unfortunate but we have debated this over and over. For 10 years now we have spent £6 million and really we must not and cannot go back. Technology is not going to provide a way to allow us to keep the building and operate the runway and the taxiway as is safe. If we do not solve the physical separation of planes, then we will face the safety issues which are going to give us real problems. For the future of air travel in and out of Jersey and for future connectivity for tourism, for finance, for general members of the public who just want to go away and visit families, very much like they are now in these days of lockdown easing, I ask Members to vote against this Proposition and to support Ports in their attempts to provide current infrastructure which is fit for the future. The Chief Minister earlier today has alluded to easyJet is about lose 5,000 jobs. Airbus have announced today tens of thousands of jobs that are going; they are losing major hubs. We just cannot do anything here now that could put any further doubt in the minds of those airlines that want to fly to our Island. Again, I would just ask Members, do not negotiate on safety. This is too important to have airlines pull away now just because we are considering this Proposition. Finally, I have been critical of Ports in the past. I was not necessarily greatly in favour of incorporation but finally now I accept that they are doing what we wanted and what they said on the tin; they are getting on and they are making improvements to our airport and to our harbour at St. Helier, installing the infrastructures for the future. Let us not hold back on them now, just as they are about to get going. This is not about the past, this is about the future and I would urge Members to vote against.

12.1.15 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am very glad to follow the last speaker, I think he has shortened my speech, which would be a great relief to certain Members. I think what I will start with, which is dealing with what I will call a very great sentimental affection I, like many Members, had with the building. My father spent probably 25 years of his life up there when he was involved or using that building and when he was also based there, when he used to work for British Airways and the predecessors. Then in later life he became president of the Harbours and Airport Committee and was responsible for getting the funding both for the, I think it was, Elizabeth Terminal and the harbour and what is now called the John Le Fondré Departure Hall, which is named after him. In fact they achieved that funding on the same day. The point that was made by, I think, the Constable of St. Helier was the shared challenges that the committees of those days had in trying to prioritise, as we want to today, the difficulties of getting funding for what is the gateway for us for the rest of the world or the way in which many of the goods that we consume on this Island do come into the Island and that was one of the arguments that came through in the corporation. My father passed away in 1996 and that gives an indication of how long ago the last what I call significant investment, other than the air traffic control tower, was made into our very vital infrastructure. Also, I can remember as a child going up there and watching the Concorde doing its roll-by and the arguments as to whether the wheels touched the runway or not, which I believe they did. But that does not preclude the comments I am about to make. I think what I do want to address was in Deputy Labey’s opening remarks, I think he had kind of tried to infer was not all around the 1937 building but then went into quite a lot of detail around the 1937 building. He then referred to the previous Regulator. I think what I disagree with him is that he seemed to conveniently ignore the correspondence from the present Regulator dated 19th June of this year, which obviously is in the hands of all Members and I shall refer to that in a minute. But I think where I did agree with the Deputy he said: “It was absolutely not appropriate parameters to be making these kind of decisions”, I think was what he implied. I can remember other States Members in my political past talking about the States becoming a planning committee of 49 or in those days 53 Members and why it was not appropriate or was not always the best way of arriving at decisions but, equally, democracy is incredibly important. What I just think I would like to do and I will try and keep it pretty short, is, number one, just remind Members about what Senator Farnham repeated in his speech not that long ago, when he referred firstly to the report commissioned by Save Jersey’s Heritage and just said: “I remind Members that the majority of the content relates to flight operations, particularly arrival and approaches to landing. The C.I. (Channel Islands) Director of Civil Aviation is not concerned with the points raised in this regard. He has stated that the principal safety risk arising from the position of the 1937 building relates to the movement of aircraft on the ground and the safety of manoeuvring.” It is certainly my understanding that by far it is a very small element of that report, if any, that addresses the latter aspects. It is also worth repeating, and I will use the exact words shortly, that the Regulator repeated his advice - and that is the current Regulator, not the previous Regulator - after reviewing the latest report, the A.S.A.P. report, from Save Jersey’s Heritage. To quote Senator Farnham: “We are on a very slippery slope if we are going to start ignoring the directions of our safety regulators.” That, for me, was the crunch item. I think the Deputy of St. Martin has very well outlined all the debates and aspects that have been covered under this very long ongoing saga. In fact I was very recently reminded that a presentation was made to States Members on 22nd January this year and that in that presentation the original cost of the project was in the order of £65 million and obviously that has been reduced to the £42 million that is presently under discussion. It is also my understanding, and as confirmed by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and I hope this assists the Deputy of St. Mary, that Ports always and all the others keep capital projects under review, even when they have commenced, and particularly during the COVID-19 scenario. But Ports are the principal of this scheme, Ports remain satisfied with and that is what the Minister for Treasury and Resources said earlier. Really I think there is not much more I can add, other than perhaps to the crunch, as it were, but other than to say there has been some additional resource put into the shareholder function within Treasury. But I think I conclude by reminding Members of the exact words of the regulator on 19th June 2020 to the Minister for the Environment and that was circulated very recently to Members and to quote: “My view is that the current non-compliances to international standards needs to be addressed and that the obstacle [by which I take to be the 1937 building] is a hindrance which not only affects safety today but will be increasingly so in the future. My view is that if the obstacle remains, safety will continue and increasingly be compromised in the years ahead.” I do not think it can be said more succinctly than that. On that basis, with great reluctance from my perspective but for that very reason I will not be supporting any parts of this Proposition today and I do encourage Members to do the same but thank you to everybody for listening.

12.1.16 Deputy R.E. Le Huelin of St. Peter:

It appears we have conflicting views on safety from various experts; of course safety is a paramount consideration. This issue is not about killing the airport project but about our heritage and sound business practice. It makes sense and take a very brief check and balance of the proposed development post-COVID, is it still proportionate and appropriate? I think we most likely know the outcome and as all P.L.C.s (Public Limited Companies) will do, they will take stock and reassure their shareholders that post any significant change in circumstances their investment plans are still sound. We have heard from the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Chief Minister but I have not heard any review of that, or maybe I have missed it, but it has not been drawn to my attention that that review has taken place. From what I have read and from what I have heard it appears the planned removal of the 1937 building is for operational convenience, not necessarily safety. Therefore, I would like to see if that can be saved and made into a spectacular feature to celebrate our Island history. If there were any risk of the C.A.A. or D.A.C. or any other acronym halting operations and stopping flights in the short to near term, my view would be fundamentally different but I have heard nothing to that effect. I have listened to the comments from the Minister for the Environment saying part (c) may be onerous, otherwise I have not been told that this proposition will cause undue delay. Quite the opposite. It should give reassurance to the Island and the Assembly in the development of our hospital. Therefore, on the basis that it will be a quick review and not out of order and take too long and affect the long-term benefit to the Island and building the airport, I will be supporting Deputy Labey’s proposal.

12.1.17 The Deputy of St. John:

I have listened to the debate with some interest and although I have not come into the debate to make a contribution, it is becoming increasingly apparent that some of the stuff being put out here is not entirely true and that is probably unparliamentary. When we first came into this Assembly we were given a tour of the airport and some very clear information about the reasons why there was going to be a necessity for changes. Everyone has alluded to the safety element but the reasons for the changes were that the taxiway was too close to the runway. The taxiway was too close because it had to skirt around the old Jersey Airways building and the fire station, for want of a better term. It was not the old terminal that was the real problem. I bore that in mind and then decided to say something and in doing so I decided to get some of my own evidence, outside that that is circulated and very complex evidence that is circulating. I have before me Google Maps and I have a very clear picture of the taxiway that skirts around the old Jersey Airways building and the airport arrivals hall. The arrivals hall itself is large and cumbersome. The old 1937 building has a very small footprint. When you get out the rule and do a circular measurement of the distances from the taxiway, if you straighten the taxiway then there is very little difference.

[17:15]

Now, I am no expert. I have just got Google Maps up here - and thanks very much for Google Maps - but if you look at this pictorially, there is some doubt. I think given that there is new evidence, it is exceedingly important that we have a review of this decision, given the new evidence. That is not to say that we would not go ahead eventually and demolish the 1937 building, but given that there are few ... there is very little heritage evidence in relation to the airport, this would be a really sad event, to get rid of it, if the evidence suggested that we could keep it, making some minor adjustments and renovate it and bring it back to its former glory, which is the way that the Island sees this particular aspect of the airport. With that, I will end my contribution.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Gardiner, a little over half an hour has elapsed since you made your suggestion of a proposal to close the debate. Is that still your proposition?

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Yes, I think that the various arguments have been debated and it is time to move to sum it up, so I would propose to close the debate or to vote for everything.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, 18 Members have spoken. The criteria in Standing Order 84 have been met. There is no debate allowed on the Proposition to close the debate and if Members adopt the proposition, then we will move to the final speech from Deputy Labey and then a vote. If Members reject the Proposition, then the debate continues. I invite the Greffier to put a vote link in the chat. The Proposition is to close the debate under Standing Order 84. [Seconded] It has been seconded, thank you, by Deputy Doublet. The link is now open, so if you are in favour of closing the debate ...

Senator L.J. Farnham:

May I ask a question? Just to be clear, Sir, so if we vote to close the debate, then we revert straight back to Deputy Labey for summing up?

The Deputy Bailiff:

That is correct. The effect of closing the debate is simply that I invite the proposer of the Proposition to reply to the debate and the Proposition is put to the vote.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Could I just check as well? I had voted, but I was trying to get in. I could not see anybody else who had their name down to speak. Is that correct?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, there were 2 people had their names down to speak in the link: 18 people had spoken and there were 2 Members yet to speak. Of course there could have been more people who wished to speak, but there were 2 persons who had identified that they wished to speak and I had indicated that they would be invited to speak in due course. So 18 Members spoke and 2 were unable to before the proposal to close the debate. The vote is now open.

POUR: 37	CONTRE: 9	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator I.J. Gorst	Senator S.Y. Mézec
Senator L.J. Farnham	Connétable of St. John
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré	Deputy of Grouville
Senator T.A. Vallois	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Senator K.L. Moore	Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Senator S.W. Pallett	Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Connétable of St. Helier	Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy R.J. Ward (H)
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Deputy R. Labey (H)
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre: Senator Mézec, Deputy Le Hegarat, Deputy Tadier, Deputy Ash, Deputy Lewis, Deputy Ward, the Deputy of Grouville and the Constable of St. John.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. I call upon Deputy Labey to reply.

12.1.18 Deputy R. Labey:

I am sorry that we did not get a chance to hear Deputy Ash in full swing on this one, because I was looking forward to which Winston Churchill quote he would use, because he normally - invariably - does pick one in his speeches. I had a Winston Churchill quote to counter, which is: “A nation that forgets its past has no future”, Deputy Ash. We must not forget our past and I am going to come on to that in just a moment. Can I ask Members through you, Sir, please do not fall into this trap that the scaremongers are setting for you? There is nothing that we will do today and there was nothing that will come out of the review I am asking for which will result in anything being unsafe, nothing. It is the Regulator and the Civil Aviation Authority who have the final say, period. There is nothing I can do about that; there is nothing you can do about that. They have the final say. Deputy Lewis, while you are fresh in my mind: we have a dispute about the safety because we have an aeronautical study now compiled by an absolute expert in his field - please take a look at his biography - but we have a dispute because the aeronautical study was not completed in 2014 for the Minister’s benefit. Now, if Deputy Lewis was the Minister at the time and found this out later, subsequently, you would be fuming. I would be, as somebody who determines planning applications. I want to be in possession of all the facts and he was not. I think what has happened is this: Ports were not really ever very interested in keeping the 1937 terminal. They were not interested in keeping that and that is their prerogative. I disagree very, very strongly with that. That is what they wrote. In that scenario, I guess they were not going to do anything that might reprieve the 1937 building, because having decided it is a bit of an inconvenience in the way it would be cheaper and easier for us to get rid, they were not going to go down the path of an aeronautical study which has contradicted that. So we have had to wait years later and we have it now and we cannot ignore it. There will be nothing that is done here that will be unsafe, but let us honour that new study and let us take another look at it. It is a second chance. It does not have to delay the project, but it is a safety net and we owe it to the 1937 building and we owe it to the public, who still are not on board with this. Look at all those comments on social media about it. They have been left out of the picture. Now it is up to Ports to convince us. Who knows, they have probably got a very good chance of doing it. The new man who is running it, I have never met him, he looks like a really nice man who gives great interviews, and of course the staff of Ports of Jersey, the airport and the harbour, are wonderful, helpful, polite and very good people. This is not personal. One more thing for Deputy Lewis. The idea that we are going to scare off airlines looking to re-route back, to pick up again, the idea that reviewing this is going to scare them off is ludicrous, because all around the world ... I mentioned Singapore, I mentioned Guernsey; Bristol has completely shelved its redevelopment. All around the world airports are doing the sensible thing and taking a look at whether the figures work now that we have had the COVID crisis and do the plans work now that we know; look, this is not going to be the last pandemic we ever have. Somebody was talking about future-proofing, so when we have the next one, is it going to work for that? Has it got everything that we would wish our airport had today? It is not wrong or insulting to ask Ports to look at that. It is not infringing their independence to say: “Hang on a minute, I am just worried that this emperor does not have any clothes on. Could we just take a look and see?” I am not asking for an independent review. Now, what happens with air travel in the next few weeks, I have to point out, in this fluid period, we all want easyJet and B.A. (British Airways) to come back and so on. That does not affect this debate at all. We have got to plough on and do what we are doing and that does not have an effect on the longer term, this immediate bit, and it will not scare off people asking to re-route and come back here. It is the same airlines, they will think it is the sensible thing to do. Another very important clarification: I am not looking for an independent review. I am asking, as a shareholder, for a simple and quick review by the company itself, Ports of Jersey, about whether the scheme drawn up over the past 4 years is appropriate now. In the words of Senator Ferguson, we have to look at what is good for the customer, and I thank her for her contribution. The Minister for Treasury and Resources repeated much of what Members will have read in her notes circulated last night, and I hope the Assembly will forgive me for not going over that again. I think I covered it enough in my opening speech. She again relies on the edict of the first Director of Civil Aviation in 2010 to take a look at this. Clinging to that edict now, 10 years later, does not reflect the advances in technology in landing aids and they have been very great and embraced by Jersey Airport. The aeronautical study released this year, that document cannot be ignored. It is not appropriate to do so. We have a difference of opinion. Where there is the will, if we want to save the building, we go in for the derogations, for the compliance, the mitigations. I am sorry, but Senator Farnham and others and the Chief Minister, cherry-picking bits from what the Regulator might have said and using them here, please do not fall for that. It is simply not right. I am not issuing the verdict here; I am not making the judgment here. I am asking for the review so that the judgment can be made by professional people. As I said earlier, let us not all try to be amateur expert aeronautical engineers. I am sorry to say the Minister again cited the review of plans by consultants that took place before 2020. I do not know when, but it was well before any sniff of COVID-19 and that is being held up as justification. Things have changed. The Connétable of St. Peter: I am not looking to take political control of Ports of Jersey. Of course Ports must run its affairs but in these extraordinary times it must not be shy about sharing its figures and making its case with us, its shareholders. The pandemic calls for collaboration, a word I have used before. We do not have to be on different sides of this argument. We can be all on the same side of this argument getting the best result for the public, and along with that taking them with us and explaining it. What do they think when they are looking at this? Look at the debate. They are very uncertain about this. This is a chance to give them some certainty. The Constable of St. Peter is so terribly wrong about the architectural merit of the building and there being nothing left. Deputy Doublet made one of the most insightful contributions of the debate. Paraphrasing her, she basically said: “I cannot judge this and I doubt the Constable of St. Peter is an architectural heritage expert either.” Was there not somebody at the time who we employ? Yes, there was, Tracey Ingle, Historic Environment Officer, absolutely brilliant at her job, absolutely brilliant. She messaged me now, because I asked her: “What did you say?” She said: “I would have opposed this in the strongest terms, this demolition, opposed it in the strongest terms. There is plenty of merit left in that building.” Now, the Constable of St. Peter goes: “Oh, there is nothing left, it has all been changed.”

[17:30]

That is what they say about all these buildings that we try to save for our legacy, for our heritage. Look at Hue Street, which was an absolute ruin. They wanted to completely demolish it; it was an absolute ruin. But it was saveable, people are living in it now and it is a lovely little corner with Dumaresq Street and the foot buildings. “This is beyond repair.” People who want to preserve historic buildings hear that argument: “There is nothing left of merit, it is beyond repair.” They hear that argument the most and you would be surprised, the Constable of St. Peter would be surprised at what you can save. You can save complete ruins, you can restore buildings that you think will have been changed out of all recognition. You can do it and we should do it. That façade, those German officers coming through, in 20 years’ time it is going to be the Centenary. What a fantastic celebration we can have there. People will fly to Jersey to see that terminal. It is in our blood, it is part of our history. It has been here all my life. If it has to go because of the C.A.A. and the Regulator, it goes if they say that, but there is a chance here to be sure for our public, for ourselves. There is a chance to check it and be sure and say: “Hang on a minute, can we arrange some compliance here, pay this off with that and find a solution?” It need not delay the project. It is not due for demolition any minute now. Yes, Graham Dawbarn, the architect of that building, who also was the architect of the iconic 1930s BBC Television Centre, he would certainly recognise his creation. If we did restore it ... and there is plenty left inside that building, otherwise it would not have got a grade II listing. It did not get a Grade I listing because of the alterations and because of what is gone, but it got Grade II because there is enough there to restore it and we could bring it back as much to what originally was as we possibly can and the asbestos can be dealt with. I was very interested to hear what the Constable of Peter had to say but I am afraid I completely disagree with him on the architectural merit, but much of what he says about the new terminal building, I am excited by that, all that stuff. I want it. I spend a lot of time in airports and I would love ours to be state of art when I arrive, but I would also like to keep a piece of our heritage, but what we need to do is we need to hear that all from Ports of Jersey because I have not heard it from them. We have not discussed this much as a Chamber, have we? The Constable of St. Peter is wrong about the new landing technology. Jersey already has G.P.S. landing aids installed. The U.K. is moving rapidly towards a G.P.S.-based system throughout its airspace, starting with the south of the country. It is an important project for the C.A.A., so we have got that. Of course that changes the landscape too, modern technology. I expected compensation to be raised. It is used by any proponent of a scheme that Members dare to challenge. I heard a lot when I asked the Assembly to ditch Gloucester Street as the site for the hospital, and of course much of what had been spent would have been spent anyway. We are not saying there will not be a new airport arrivals hall; there will be. Presumably there can be no greater example of force majeure than a worldwide pandemic, and of course there will almost certainly be a redevelopment of Jersey Airport. To the Constable of St. Saviour, things have changed a bit since the days of her father exporting cattle in a DC7, but she is right to say the traffic is much lower now and will almost certainly continue to be. Her intervention allows me to say that our airport, even with the 1947 terminal in place, can accept the large airliners like it used to. It can. The Airbus 320, in fact, I think easyJet are operating a 320, it comes in and out today. Senator Farnham talked about safety but chose to ignore the new expert report because it is an inconvenient truth for him. He takes the Ports line. That is fine, that is his prerogative, but Members, we do not all have to take that line. We can ask for a review, a second chance, another look, a check and balance. The expert report on the 1937 terminal has been ignored by Ports of Jersey and the regulator and that is not right. It cannot be ignored. Unless someone can produce evidence to the contrary, it is the report that the airport should have done back in 2010 but did not. The fact that it taken 10 years to produce it and now only because a third-party organisation has sponsored it makes it no less important. Ports must not be allowed to ignore it and we have got to give it the respect it deserves because in it is the key to saving a piece of our history. Is that why some people do not want to look at it, because there is the key? Of course, ultimately it has got to be the C.A.A. and the Regulator who decide. I want the chance to put that to people who know more about it than me, to put that case. Senator Farnham attempted to shift the debate from the idea of the 1937 terminal being a hazard to landing aircraft towards the idea that it is a hazard to aircraft taxiing on the ground. The airport has been mitigating this problem for some time, as do other airports. It is no worse than very many airports operating around the world today. In fact, there is a list of those somewhere. I do not want to forget anyone that I should not do. Yes, Senator Farnham said you cannot see the apron from the new tower when there is fog. Yes, we all know that. What has that got to do with the price of fish or the removal of a historic building? Members have referred to the letter from the Director of the C.A.A., but if you unpick the letter, the first paragraph is all about low visibility approaches, in which he predicts an increase of such approaches, but fails to acknowledge that they will increasingly be conducted by more accurate G.P.S. landing aids, which are already installed, as I have said. Look, we are all facing a world change by this pandemic. Bravo to Senator Mézec, who put his finger on it: the world has changed. We all have an interest in how plans made before the virus arrived may need to be modified. We know that the Government Chief Executive is leading a taskforce looking at how the regeneration of our economy is best achieved. Its recommendations will come through the Council of Ministers to this Assembly. It is important that the Assembly takes a view but it is also important that large capital projects conducted by the arm’s-length companies, wholly owned by the Government of Jersey, do not escape proper and transparent scrutiny, that they do not proceed regardless, that we cannot scrutinise because it is interference or trying to take over. No way. As a shareholder, the Assembly is here to hold the companies we own to account. Let us do our job. There is nothing to fear from this. It is going to shed light and thus far our people have not been brought along with this project and it will help them to do so. If at the end of it we are exactly where we are today, I will be the first to champion this airport. If we have been through this process, we have done it, we have come out, if the result is very similar to what we have got today, hurrah. I will be the first to champion. I am not trying to stick a rod in the spokes of this. I commend the Proposition to the House, I maintain it and I ask for the appel.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I have a point of clarification? The proposer mentioned that we have an existing G.P.S. system. I do not believe that we have. We have an instrument landing system, which is totally different to a G.P.S. system. He would be misleading the House, I think, if he said otherwise.

Deputy R. Labey:

That is the information I have been given, but I bow to Deputy Higgins’ superior knowledge if that is not the case.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. The appel has been called for. I invite the Greffier to place the vote into the chat, which she has done so, and I invite her to open the voting.

POUR: 25	CONTRE: 20	ABSTAIN: 1
Senator S.C. Ferguson	Senator I.J. Gorst	Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Senator T.A. Vallois	Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator S.Y. Mézec	Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Connétable of St. Lawrence	Senator K.L. Moore
Connétable of St. Saviour	Senator S.W. Pallett
Connétable of St. Brelade	Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of Trinity	Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Martin	Connétable of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Connétable of St. John
Deputy of Grouville	Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy R. Labey (H)	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)	Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy J.H. Young (B)	Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)	Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Peter	Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy of Trinity	Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Deputy of St. John	Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the adjournment proposed? [Seconded] Thank you very much. I think we have already agreed that we will deal with the remainder of the business for this meeting tomorrow morning. Accordingly, the States stands adjourned until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:43]