We come on to F, which is Appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels. In accordance with Standing Order 117 the Assembly is due to appoint a new Minister for Education. Members have received notice of the Chief Minister’s nomination. Chief Minister, would you like to make the nomination?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am delighted to nominate Deputy Maçon for the position of Minister for Education.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sorry to interrupt, Sir. I did put something in the chat regards a question for you regards Written Questions.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Ward, I was going to take that when we got to Questions. You are looking for a ruling which I will have to consider over lunch at least.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

It was more procedure, Sir. Sorry, I was not sure when it fits in.

The Bailiff:

No, I was going to deal with it when we got to Questions. Is the nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations then I invite Deputy Maçon to speak for up to 10 minutes, after which there is a question period of up to 20 minutes.

2.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:

I would like to thank Members for their support. Just for the benefit of the media, as I have been elected I automatically cease being Minister for Children and Housing although the Chief Minister has committed to transferring by Order the remit of Minister for Children across, in line with the Children’s Commissioner’s and others recommendation. Members will have read and understood the Standing Orders around this and I can confirm that Madam Jackie Weaver has no authority here. Members will be aware that I have served as a member, vice-chair and chair of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. Our suspension review resulted in increased provision for children with autism, the review into special educational need to trigger the creation of the Parent Carer Forum, which provides the department with a co-ordinated voice for children and families who have special educational needs. By providing robust and evidence-based reports we have reversed cuts to the Education Department in the States Assembly and by persistently reviewing higher education funding it triggered the last Government to produce the current scheme, which has resulted in around 20 per cent more students pursuing a higher education. I believe this shows my dedication in this area of policy. I was honoured to be asked to be Senator Vallois’ Assistant Minister and would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her commitment to education. Members will be aware, as a ministerial team led by Senator Vallois, we have achieved over £40 million of funding over 4 years extra to the department through the independent school funding review. This set out the vision to have a world-class education system. We have achieved, alongside our colleagues in External Relations, the U.K. (United Kingdom) agreeing to class Channel island students as home students when applying for university fees (although there are some exceptions). I would like to thank officers from both departments for what has been an unfairness for a long time. While serving as Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services with the team, we achieved funding for the mental health nurse training programme and also for senior nursing programme skills, which we all know our community so desperately needs. While I could list many things that I would like to achieve as Minister for Education we also have to be realistic about the time left in this term and what can be achieved. The Economic Recovery Group has already identified funding to support skills and training to support Islanders post-pandemic. This will help marry many of the commitments in the Government Plan to develop the retraining strategy. The retraining strategy will be one of my top priorities. As we all know, the pandemic has hit young people hard and many will not have the same opportunities for summer or weekend jobs that they might have to put into their C.V. (curriculum vitae). I have been there and I know when applying for jobs you can be in that situation where if you do not have the experience you cannot get a job but then no one is prepared to give you the experience. It seems to me that we need to quickly develop schemes for internship, apprenticeship and training opportunities, even if only for short periods through both the public and private sector, in order to support our young people in order to gain the skills of work and also being able to demonstrate that on their C.V.s, which will open the road for their futures. As we know, the department has already begun the education reform programme. Members agreed the funding towards that in the Government Plan. There are many strands within that area and I would just like to take a moment to focus in on one of the recommendations, which the department has already started on, which is the inclusion review. As Members recall, when I stood for Minister for Children and Housing I spoke about how I am dyslexic and dyspraxic so I have a keen interest in the inclusion review. While that does not only focus on special educational need students it also incorporates other aspects, such as children who might need emotional behavioural support, who might have English as an additional language. It is all wrapped up in that crucial bit of work and that is also something which will require great attention from the Minister for Education. Of course there are other key things within the education reform programme. These will include the Teacher Excellence Fund. This is about investing in our local teachers in order to provide the highest quality of teaching that we can. There is also of course extra funding within that to support the well-being and mental health of students within schools. As I have stated out, additional educational need and support and other various aspects within that programme. So it is a very exciting time to be involved within the Education Department. Members will also be aware that the Early Years’ Policy Development Board still need to publish their report. That is something which will also be a top priority as we know that the recommendations within that report need to be considered by the Assembly and by the Council of Ministers where appropriate. The recommendations need to be considered holistically. As we all know, whether it is the 1,001 Days programme, the other aspects about investing in early years, putting money towards the early years, the evidence all shows that it is the best outcome for our children.

[9:45]

The Minister is stating things that I know are not correct because the 30 hours funding was secured in the Government Plan. Am I taking from the Minister that he is not going to be driving that forward? I just wanted a yes or a no, whether he was sticking to that 30 hours that is in the Government Plan and will be provided, will that be continued on in subsequent years?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

The money provided in the Government Plan was to support the Early Years Policy Development Board recommendations. One of the recommendations is the 30 hours intention to achieve that, but that was all subject to consultation with the industry. Of course I have not dropped that, as the Deputy is asking for, but we also need to consider the other recommendations within that report for the best outcomes of children.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

That is not an answer.

2.1.11 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence:

Just to Deputy Ward, your microphone is on.

The Bailiff:

Could I just interrupt? Could any Members who are not actually asking questions or speaking in answer across could they turn their microphones off for the time being? Deputy Morel, your voice is extremely faint.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

I do apologise.

The Bailiff:

I am not sure how much I can say and I cannot say. I am going to say what I need to say because this conversation is pointless in terms of what is in the Housing Policy Development Board report. I have to say what they have done is put rental stabilisation on the agenda, it is there, I am looking at it now. They have also put on the agenda, investigating reform of the social rent setting, the 90 per cent. But I think the Deputy is referring probably to rental in the private sector and we have got to work on tenants’ rights, as I referenced earlier, security of tenure. For some people we want them to view their tenancy as a long-term tenancy, that they are secure there. I have referenced young people a lot but especially for older people. They might want to know: “I am not going to have to move again” and we want to help them do that. Perhaps with me, a fresh face ... and Deputy Huelin said to me yesterday when I bumped into him, he congratulated me and said: “I think you are a good appointment because you are persuasive and you are coercive.” If I am, I want to use those qualities as much as I can to work with the landlords in the private sector and also the tenants. We want to try not to get entrenchment, we want to try and find common ground and see if we can make some progress on helping people in their tenancies, not in rental stress, which is a terrible thing to live with, and it is difficult. I am a landlord, my property is in the U.K., I rent it out, I never put the rents up between tenancies. I only ever do that if I am able to with a change of tenant. The reason I do not put it up is because it is a lot of bother, I think it is a bit unfair, and also I want my tenants to stay. Now, if they do not stay ...

The Bailiff:

Deputy, could I ask you to bring your answer to a close? We are almost at 7 minutes, I am conscious we have only had 2 questions so far and we are more than a quarter of a way through the time available period.

Deputy R. Labey:

Yes. It costs to change tenants, it is better to keep them for as long as possible.

3.1.3 Deputy K.F. Morel:

The Deputy mentioned the Housing Policy Development Board report essentially as a way of not being able to read from it, so when will he publish that report? Because we are in a slightly ridiculous situation where I am asking a question which he is essentially not answering despite the fact that he has got the answer right next to him.

Deputy R. Labey:

Well I have answered because the report puts those things on the agenda. It does not specifically say, I do not think, exactly what should be done but it is putting them out there. I think the report is due to be published in a couple of weeks, if not less time. It is just waiting on the Chief Minister, I believe, but I think it is good.

The Bailiff:

Very well. I propose, as I have at least 10 Members who wish to ask questions and not very much time available, I am not going to allow any supplemental questions. If Members could just ask their main question.

3.1.4 Deputy R.J. Ward:

It is a shame we do not have a supplementary. Can I ask the Minister, does he believe that there should be a licensing system of landlords on the Island?

Deputy R. Labey:

Yes, it has faltered, has it not? I struggled to find anybody yesterday who could tell me exactly what is happening with licensing or a register of landlords but I think we have to do something like that. We have to do something like that, yes.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Any chance of a supplementary because it was quick, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Well it was quick. It is quite difficult, there are going to be some Members who probably will not get to their questions but, all right, I will permit supplementaries if we can keep the answers concise.

3.1.5 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Given that the Chief Minister voted against the licensing, what does the Minister have in common with policy on housing with the Chief Minister?

Deputy R. Labey:

I have got to be honest, I am struggling with the difference between licensing and registering but I am going to look into that.

3.1.6 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

The candidate has referred to the Housing Policy Development Board and its recommendation on rent stabilisation, could he give his definition of what rent stabilisation is?

Deputy R. Labey:

Well rent stabilisation is rent control but in the public sector. It is intervention to cap rents or stabilise them and prevent them from moving up and it is used ... the massive debate about that is, I think one economist said that rent control is the most effective technique to ruin a city apart from bombing it. But we have moved on from that and lots of places do use rent stabilisation or rent control measures. Given Jersey is so special, you hit the sea and no more properties, I think intervention should be looked at.

3.1.7 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

Not a great answer but it is his first day so we will hopefully give him time to learn what the definition is because it is not what he said it was. He does have money allocated in the Government Plan to deliver on rent stabilisation, could he confirm whether he believes he has the support of his soon-to-be ministerial colleagues to go ahead with that or does he anticipate that they will stab him in the back like they did the Minister for the Environment on the landlord licensing scheme?

Deputy Truscott, very briefly, we have very little time left.

3.1.15 Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade:

I will be brief. Heartfelt congratulations to the Minister; 6½ years on the Planning Committee, an absolute honour to serve with you, Deputy. Of those 6½ years, what from that experience will you take to the ministerial table?

Deputy R. Labey:

Well I just think this: if you get an application right in the planning stage before it becomes an application, if you get these things right and you do not have to go through multiple applications and appeals, you save money and you save time. So anything I can do to help in that direction I would happily do but obviously keeping within the protocols. I thank the Deputy very much for serving with me for all that time. It is a wrench for me and I know that leaving the committee in his and Constable Le Sueur’s hands, it is in very good hands.

The Bailiff:

That brings the period available for questions to Deputy Labey to an end. There are no other nominations. As the speaking period for questions has been completed, I confirm that Deputy Labey has been selected for appointment as Minister for Children and Housing.

Deputy R. Labey:

Might I just thank Members for their support and also thank you for all the help and support and invaluable advice you have given me as P.P.C. chair. It has been an absolute joy working with you and we all know how brilliantly you have performed operating these virtual sittings; to the Greffe staff too. I hope it is not going to be goodbye, just adieu, and that I will be back helping P.P.C. To my officer, the incomparable Peter Le Gresley, and all those I have served with on the Planning Committee, it is a wrench, as I have said, to leave. We are doing great work and long that may continue. Thank you.

The Bailiff:

I shall be turning the colour of my robe if you continue with that but thank you very much indeed. Deputy Truscott, you have a point of order?

Deputy G.J. Truscott:

Yes, it is just, as I understand it, on the departure of the Planning Committee chair, the committee falls away and a new committee will have to be re-elected.

The Bailiff:

I was going to come on to that, Deputy, if that assists.

Deputy G.J. Truscott:

That is fine, thank you.

The Bailiff:

Then if you still have a point of order after that then say. As a result of Deputy Labey’s new appointment, there are, as Deputy Truscott has indicated, vacancies for the chair of the Planning Committee and chair of P.P.C. These are, as Members will be fully aware, very busy committees indeed, and I would therefore be inclined to arrange for elections to take place as quickly as possible. It seems to me if that is to happen at this sitting, then the possibilities are at some time during the course of the afternoon, after the period of questions without notice is concluded or immediately at the start of business tomorrow morning as it is likely that business will adjourn overnight, almost inevitable, I would have thought. But perhaps Members could email the Greffier if they wish to argue that elections should be deferred until the next meeting and at that point the Greffier and I will consider the matter and announce at lunchtime when the elections will take place. So the options for dealing with it this time would be after questions, but of course there is a period where the individual will need to give a speech and be open for questions. It is up to people to feel whether that is enough time, or tomorrow morning, or the next meeting. So the answer is if Members would let the Greffier know by email, then we can deal with that and I will announce it after lunch hour as to what it is we will be doing. Very well, there is nothing under G and H. We come to questions and you had a point that you wish to raise Deputy Ward?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

It is really Standing Order 12(4)(a), when a written question is not answered, was clearly applicable when written questions were attached to a sitting. I have seen from the Order Paper today that there are some written questions attached to the sitting but because we have questions within the 3 weeks, can I ask you what the procedure is if one does not believe a written question has been answered appropriately because we only have a chance every 3 weeks to raise it? It is just a point, I do not know what you would call it, a point of clarification or process. Thank you.

The Bailiff:

Can I add that to my lunchtime jobs and give you a view on that after the lunchtime adjournment?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Of course.

The Bailiff:

I will have to check back as to precisely what you asked because I am afraid I was only half-focused; other things occupied me. So, it might be helpful if you could add that into an email and send it to me so that I could review it again. Thank you very much indeed.

4. Appointment of an unelected member of the Public Accounts Committee

The Bailiff:

Very well, before we come on to Questions, I am sorry, I had forgotten that there is a nomination by the chair of the Public Accounts Committee for the appointment of an unelected member of the committee. It is a requirement under Standing Orders 124(1) that at least 14 days before the meeting during which the unelected members are to be appointed, notice be given to the Greffier of the intended nominees and the nominations must be distributed to Members. Those requirements have been met in this case, Chair; therefore, can I ask you to make the nomination?

[10:45]

4.1 Deputy I. Gardiner (Chair, Public Accounts Committee):

Yes, I would like to nominate Mr. Paul Van Bodegom as the fourth unelected member to the Public Accounts Committee.

The Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Well under Standing Order 124(2) nominations from any other Members could be considered but notice would have been given at least 2 clear working days before the relevant meeting. No nominations were received and therefore I declare that Mr. Paul Van Bodegom has been duly elected as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Sorry, I put something in the chat but I appreciate it might not have been seen yet, so it is a question about appointments.

The Bailiff:

Yes, Deputy.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I wonder if it might be helpful for Assembly Members to know while we are still on this item, if we are, whether there is going to be just one candidate for each of the vacancies at P.P.C. and Planning or more. It seems to me that if there is only one, it might be sensible to either proceed now or later today but if there are likely to be multiple Members that it would be sensible to give those candidates sufficient time to prepare. But I know Members will have of course been thinking about it over the last couple of days already.

The Bailiff:

Yes, on the understanding of human nature, Deputy, quite often people only come into focus on precisely what their plans are when presenting with the potential actuality of the whole thing, I suppose. It may be that Members will wish to reflect on that before they can and I am not sure who can give a definitive answer as to whether there shall be one nomination or more than one nomination at this point. We will clearly know that better after luncheon because we will understand more ... hopefully people will indicate to us whether they are intending to put forward other individuals or one individual or more than one individual. I am not sure how we can firm up on that at this point. But if Members are able to do so outside the 4 corners of the meeting by email and the like, well then that I am sure is something that can happen offline, if I can put it that way.

QUESTIONS

5. Written Questions

5.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding taxpayers earning in excess of £1 million per year (WQ.1/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide details of the number of taxpayers earning in excess of £1 million per year for each of the last 10 years?

Answer

Year	Number of individuals with earned income declared over £1m
2010	21
2011	<12
2012	<12
2013	<12
2014	<12
2015	13
2016	12
2017	17
2018	15
2019	36

Notes

This data set represents individuals who earned more than £1 million annually (and so excludes married people and civil partners whose joint income exceeds £1 million.)
Data sets <12 are not reported in line with the Comptroller’s standing policy to guard taxpayer confidentiality.
Data largely comprises earned income but will include some unearned income.
For this purpose, “Earned Income” includes:
- Salaries
- Wages
- Directors fees and similar remuneration from companies
- Profits from self-employment
- Share of profits from partnerships
Unearned Income includes:
- All investment income such as:
  - Bank interest
  - Distributions from companies
  - Income from let property
- Income from pensions

The marked increase in 2019 remains subject to audit and peer-review and may partly be explained by differences in the way data is managed in the new Revenue Management System.

5.2 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence of the Chief Minister regarding the plans to manage a Winter outbreak of Covid-19. (WQ.2/2021)

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide the Assembly with copies of any risk management plans created with a view to the management of a Winter outbreak of Covid-19, including any information regarding the actions to be taken to mitigate individual risks and the dates, if any, on which these actions were taken or commenced?

Answer

As a first step, I would be pleased to arrange an initial briefing for the Deputy on the approach to risk management and planning adopted during the pandemic, which can then inform the production of a briefing to States members on this important area.

Indeed, additional winter pressures were identified in the corporate risk register in September, and appropriate actions and mitigations were introduced, including developing and delivering the Winter Strategy, and the Department of Health and Community Services Winter and COVID Preparedness Plan 2020/21.

I would however emphasise that I do want to ensure that our overall focus remains on delivering the vaccine to as many Islanders as possible, with the continued objective of having all those of 50 and over (and other high risk individuals) having received their first jab by the end of March which is approximately 9 weeks away.

There are also a number of important policies that need to be finalised in preparation for the time when a significant proportion of Islanders will have been vaccinated, and when it will no longer be necessary to restrict their civil liberties to the extent that we presently do.

In the meantime further details are provided below.

As with the first phase of COVID-19, the Government continued to deploy the governance framework and risks management response as it had during March – July. This was never fully stood down on the basis that the risk of a second wave was identified on the corporate risk register from September onwards. The risk management response was essentially in two interrelated parts; Health and Non-Health matters. The risks and issues arising were joined through the various co-ordinating groups within the governance structure.

The health element of the planning for a Winter outbreak of COVID-19 was contained within the Department of Health and Community Services Winter and COVID Preparedness Plan 2020/21. The risks are highlighted in this document and are reviewed on a regular basis by the Departmental Management Team and through the Departmental Quality Performance and Risk Committee. This plan was discussed and shared with all partners.

A range of areas were identified as high risk. Each risk has been subject to regular review and actions taken as appropriate. The risks identified related to recruitment of essential capacity; the potential for the number of cases to exceed the available capacity; workforce resilience and well-being; community capacity to support the health services; the reliability of the hospital estate due to additional pressures; and additional capacity to support the track and trace capability. Action has been reviewed on an on-going basis by the HCS management team.

The non-health risks were considered as part of a coordinated risk managed cross government response to the pandemic. The recognised emergency response measures in dealing with a critical, emerging or ongoing incident or event were set up through a Strategic Coordinating Group (SCG) and Tactical Coordinating Group (TCG). It was agreed that this would be overseen by the SCG, as the group comprises of all government dept’s and other agencies or stakeholders that are engaged depending on the scale, complexity and type of challenge to be dealt with.

One of the main risks arising from the pandemic was the business continuity of public services to continue to deliver to the island and keep critical and essential services going. This risk remained under review as part of the preparation for the winter pressures. The SCG coordinated the business continuity response through departmental plans and this was overseen by the Business Continuity lead. These plans have been constantly kept under review by the SCG and Departmental Management Teams.

During the Autumn the SCG added the additional risk of winter pressures and Brexit (No Further Negotiated Outcome) to its agenda to again provide a coordinated response to the risk of disruption to the supply chain of all essential goods such as medicines, food, fuel etc when considering the combined risk of COVID, winter pressures and Brexit.

These risks have been subject to regular review and action. For example, the Brexit Ministerial Group reviewed the potential risks of the combined risk (described as D20) of a second wave of COVID infections, the normal winter pressures on health and the potential of No Further Negotiated Outcome from Brexit.

5.3 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the President of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the attendance at Scrutiny Meetings in 2019 and 2020 (WQ.3/2021)

Question

Will the President provide a list of all the meetings held by the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, Scrutiny Panels, Review Panels and the Public Accounts Committee in 2019 and 2020, indicating the attendance of Panel or Committee members at these meetings?

Answer

SCRUTINY LIAISON COMMITTEE
Total Committee Meetings Held
2019	21
2020	21
COMMITTEE MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Senator Kristina Moore (President)	21	20
Deputy Kirsten Morel (Vice-President) – (Deputy Morel was appointed Assistant Minister for Economic Development on 27th November 2020 and ceased membership of the Committee)	17	18
Senator Sarah Ferguson (Senator Ferguson resigned as Chair of the PAC on 20th October 2020)	20	12
Connétable Mike Jackson	15	19
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat	21	19
Deputy Rob Ward	20	20
Connétable John Le Maistre (as Vice-Chair of EHI Panel)	1	-
Deputy David Johnson (as Vice-Chair of EIA Panel and acting Chair following Deputy Morel’s appointment as Assistant Minister for Economic Development)	1	2

STANDING PANELS

CHILDREN, EDUCATION AND HOME AFFAIRS PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		48
2020		65
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Deputy Rob Ward (Chair)	48		65
Deputy Rowland Huelin (Resigned from the Panel 14.09.2020)	38		37
Deputy Trevor Pointon (resigned from Panel from appointment as assistant Minister 27.11.2020)	46		60
Connétable Simon Crowcroft (resigned at States sitting previous to meeting on 14.10.2019)	7		-
Deputy Mike Higgins (Appointed to Panel at States sitting previous to meeting on 10.02.2020)	-		42
Deputy Louise Doublet (Appointed to Panel at States sitting previous to meeting on 10.02.2020)	-		37

CORPORATE SERVICES SCRUTINY PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	67
2020	77
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Senator Kristina Moore (Chair)	67	54
Deputy Steve Ahier (Vice-Chair)	61	57
Deputy Jess Perchard (Member until 30.11.2020)	49	35
Connétable Karen Shenton-Stone	46	43
Connétable Richard Vibert	49	45
Senator Sarah Ferguson (co-opted member Jan/Feb 2019)	8	-

ECONOMIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SCRUTINY PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	80
2020	92
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Deputy Kirsten Morel, Chair (Deputy Morel was appointed Assistant Minister for Economic Development on 27th November 2020)	78	92
Deputy David Johnson, Vice-Chair	74	82
Senator Kristina Moore	53	65
Deputy Scott Wickenden (Jan 2019 – 30th May 2019)	20	N/A
Deputy Jess Perchard (1st May 2019 – 21st September 2020)	34	38
Deputy Inna Gardner (21st September 2020 to present)	-	16
Deputy Steve Luce (21st September 2020 to present)	-	17
Deputy Louise Doublet (Co-opted for P.17/2019 review – 25th March 2019 – 9th April 2019)	-	-
Deputy Kevin Pamplin (30th June 2020 to present)	-	31

ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		29
2020		37
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
Name	2019		2020
Connétable Mike Jackson, Chair	25		35
Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair	21		34
Connétable Sadie Le Sueur-Rennard	20		23
Deputy Kirsten Morel (not part of the Panel from the 08.12.2020)	26		30
Deputy Inna Gardiner (Joined on 02.04.2019)	20		32

Note: The working practice of the EHI Panel is, whenever possible, to arrange meetings on one day. Therefore, a record of a meeting for one day may include multiple meetings such as Panel meetings, hearings and briefings.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY SCRUTINY PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	37
2020	59
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat, Chair	33	58
Deputy Kevin Pamplin, Vice-Chair	33	59
Deputy Carina Alves	31	53
Deputy Trevor Pointon	32	57
Deputy Geoff Southern (From 30th January 2020)	-	45

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	18
2020	18
COMMITTEE MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Senator Sarah Ferguson (Chair until 20th November 2020)	18	9
Deputy Inna Gardiner (Chair from 30th November 2020)	13	18
Constable John Le Bailly (Vice-Chair from 29th April 2019 to 20th November 2020; Acting Chair 21st September to 20th November 2020 upon fall of the Panel)	18	14
Constable Karen Shenton-Stone (Vice-Chair since 30th November 2020)	-	3
Deputy Carina Alves (resigned from Panel 11th March 2019)	0	-
Deputy Rowland Huelin (resigned from Panel upon appointment as Assistant Chief Minister)	17	11
Deputy Jess Perchard (resigned Committee upon appointment as Assistant Minister for Environment)	-	1
Constable Richard Vibert (Joined Committee on 30th November 2020)	-	2
Constable John Le Maistre (Joined Committee on 7th December 2020)	-	2
Adrian Lane (Lay Member)	18	18
Moz Scott (Lay Member) – ceased membership of Committee upon fall of PAC on 19th October 2020	14	14
Tim Rogers (Lay Member) – ceased membership of Committee upon fall of PAC on 19th October 2020	14	12
Dr Helen Miles (Joined Committee on 30th November 2020)	-	3
Graeme Phipps (Joined Committee on 30th November 2020)	-	3

REVIEW PANELS

BREXIT REVIEW PANEL*
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	12
2020	8
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Deputy Kirsten Morel, Chair	12	6
Deputy David Johnson, Vice-Chair	8	8
Deputy Rob Ward	10	6
Constable Mike Jackson	10	8
Senator Sarah Ferguson (resigned from Panel Membership on 20th October 2020)	5	3
Senator Kristina Moore	5	7
Deputy Mike Higgins	3	8
Deputy Inna Gardiner (appointed to the Panel on 20th October 2020 following Senator Ferguson’s resignation)	-	2

CARE OF CHILDREN IN JERSEY REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	41
2020	20
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019	2020
Deputy Rob Ward (Chair)	39	20
Deputy Kevin Pamplin (Vice-Chair)	36	18
Deputy Mike Higgins	27	14
Deputy Trevor Pointon (Deputy Pointon left the Panel on 27th November 2020 following his appointment as Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services)	37	17
Senator Kristina Moore (Senator Moore left the Panel on 3rd October 2019 due to other working commitments)	11	-
Deputy Louise Doublet (Deputy Doublet joined the Review Panel on 4th October 2019)	3	15

FUTURE HOSPITAL REVIEW PANEL**
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019	13
2020	11
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
Name	2019	2020
Deputy Kevin Pamplin, Chair (January 2019 – 8th May 2019)	3	-
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat	8	10
Connetable John Le Maistre (January 2019 – 29th September 2020)	6	-
Senator Kristina Moore, Chair (8th May 2019 to present)	8	10
Connetable Mike Jackson (8th May 2019 to present)	6	9
Senator Sarah Ferguson (8th May 2019 – resigned from Panel Membership 20th October 2020)	8	-
Deputy Rob Ward (8th May 2019 to present)	9	9
Deputy Kirsten Morel (8th May 2019 – 30th November 2020)	8	10
Deputy Inna Gardiner (2nd November to present)	-	3

*Senator Sarah Ferguson resigned from the Brexit Review Panel and the Future Hospital Review Panel and as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on 20th October 2020

**Deputy Inna Gardiner was appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on 20th October 2020 and took on the role previously held by Senator Sarah Ferguson on the Brexit Review Panel and Future Hospital Review Panel.

GENDER PAY GAP REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		20
2020		2
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Deputy Louise Doublet, Chair	18		2
Deputy Kirsten Morel, Vice-Chair	16		2
Senator Kristina Moore	15		2
Deputy Jess Perchard	12		2

GOVERNMENT PLAN REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		10
2020		16
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Senator Kristina Moore (Chair)	9		16
Senator Sarah Ferguson (resigned from Panel on 20th October 2020)	9		4
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat	5		14
Connétable Mike Jackson	5		13
Deputy Steve Ahier	1		-
Deputy Kirsten Morel	5		14
Deputy Rob Ward	8		14
Deputy Inna Gardiner	-		5

GOVERNMENT PLAN EFFICIENCIES REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		0
2020		17
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Deputy Geoff Southern (Chair)	-		17
Deputy Mike Higgins	-		15
Connétable Richard Vibert	-		11

LEGAL AID REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		9
2020		1
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Deputy Steve Ahier (Chair)	9		1
Deputy Rob Ward	9		1
Connétable Richard Vibert	6		1
Deputy David Johnson	7		1

ONE GOV REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		15
2020		8
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Deputy Kevin Pamplin (Chair from 12.06.2020)	-		7
Senator Kristina Moore	10		6
Deputy Kirsten Morel	13		9
Deputy Rob Ward	9		9
Deputy Steve Ahier (Member from 12.06.2020)	-		7
Senator Sarah Ferguson	13		5
Connétable Karen Shenton-Stone (Chair to 12.06.2020)	15		3
Deputy Scott Wickenden (member to 07.06.2019)	7		-

SAFER TRAVEL GUIDELINES REVIEW PANEL
Total Panel Meetings Held
2019		-
2020		13
PANEL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
	2019		2020
Deputy Rob Ward (Chair)	-		13
Deputy Inna Gardiner	-		10
Deputy Mike Higgins	-		10
Deputy Kevin Pamplin	-		13
Deputy Trevor Pointon	-		12
Connétable Sadie Le Sueur-Rennard	-		4

5.4 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding safety measures around Jersey’s schools (WQ.4/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise –

(a) whether any road and / or safety improvement programmes around the Island’s schools are currently outstanding in terms of delivery; and, if so, which ones are outstanding and what is the proposed time span for completion of any such works; and

(b) whether any other safety improvements linked to schools are currently awaited and, if so, provide details of when these improvements will be implemented?

Answer

Part A – Works in hand

In November 2020, the Minister for Infrastructure published an Active Travel Update. This document provides information on the wide range of projects and schemes that have commenced or will be delivered in the near future. Actions are identified on improvements in cycling infrastructure; education, training and promotion; digital mobility; and policy initiatives. The relevant programmes of work are provided below and many of these includes elements of safety initiatives:

Initiative	Status
Bikability Training	Delivery of Bikeability and Ready Set Ride to primary school children teaching them how to ride a bicycle safely and giving them practical skills for today's roads	Ongoing
Cycling Officers	Recruitment of new staff to deliver Bikeability in schools, training courses for adults and disability cycle sessions to develop cycling skills and increase confidence to ride on roads.	2021 – 2022
School Travel Planning Initiaitves	Ongoing work with schools to respond to requests for cycling infrastructure and to promote active travel.	2021 – 2022 Travel restrictions permitting for specialist resource
Let's look out for each other	Campaign to encourage more responsible use of public spaces and promote safety.	2021 – Police resource permitting
Don Road / George Town Road Eastern Cycle Lane (ECN)	Undertake a feasibility study for a pilot cycle lane as part of the Eastern Cycle Network. This provides access to the St Saviours Schools	2021 - 2022
FB Fields (ECN)	Community consultation being prepared ahead of developing a planning application. This link would potentially complete the cycle route from St Clement's Parish Hall to George Town. This provides the link to the Le Rocquier School cluster	2022 – Covenant issues permitting
Midvale Road	Proposals for enhanced pedestrian safety to be implemented. This provides links bewtween the town and Janvrin/D'Auvergne schools.	2021 - 2022
Western Cycle Track	Infrastructure improvements between Les Jardins de la Mer and Bel Royal being developed. A feasibility study being undertaken into the pinch point near the bottom of La Haule hill and creating enough space for cyclists and pedestrians. This provides greater connectivity for students accessing town and then onwards travel to the St Saviour’s Schools cluster	Ongoing
Rue du Pont Marquet Crossing	Installing a toucan crossing on the railway walk to enhance safety and create safer routes. This provides safer routes to Les Quennevais and Mont Nicole Schools	2021
Hill Street Cycle Lane	The feasibility of a Hill Street contra-flow cycle lane from Halkett Place to La Motte Street is being investigated - an easier and and more direct route to / from the east side of the town centre.	2021
Covered Cycle Parking	Plans for five town locations are being acted upon, this work will continue to look at active travel infrastructure in schools including cycle parking.	2021
La Route Orange	Safer routes to school (Zebra Crossing Le Moye School) Phase 2	2021
Mont Nicole	Improved pedestrian crossing facilities on Route des Genets	2021
Grouville	Resurfacing Grouville cycle track with asphalt - Complete	2021
Pilot crossings on St John's Road	Safer routes to school (Zebra Crossing) One year pilot.	2020 - 2021
Active Travel Strategy	We will consult on, and publish, an active travel strategy setting out how walking and cycling will be promoted to all.	2021
Island Plan	The Island Plan sets out a proposals for the sustainable development to promote and enable more walking and cycling.	2021
St Helier Public Realm and Movement Strategy	Strategy being developed by Government of Jersey which will set the vision and principles for improving and enhancing movement and public realm within St Helier, with a focus on walking and cycling.	2021

On the 7th December 2020 the Government published an update to the Sustainable Transport Policy (STP) with the States Greffe. This is available as Report R.137/2020 on the States Assembly website and this document outlines progress to date on the STP and the impact of Covid-19 on this area of Government work.

The nature of transport projects means there are multiple constraints to their delivery which affect the timescales. Examples include the need to define the project, need and develop viable options with stakeholders including other authorities and in some cases landowners. There can also be long lead in times for equipment supply and contractor availability.

The government plan has identified increased workload in this area and increase capability and capacity, this is not something which can be built rapidly. The specialist expertise required to manage the design and development of transport and road safety projects requires a long programme of development of local employees and may require some recruitment of specialised and experienced expertise.

Safer Routes to School

The Government has been running a programme of works to create safer routes to schools for a number of years, to encourage walking and where appropriate cycling to school, to reduce school congestion and improve student health.

The table below identifies the projects that have been completed to date:

School	SRTS Completed schemes
La Moye	Raised table zebra crossing Park and stride from Les Creux Country Park
Bel Royal	Pelican crossing on La Vallee de St Pierre Virtual footway on La Vallee de St Pierre Virtual footway on La Rue de Haut
La Rocquier St Clement St Christopher	New footway linking school to St Clement’s Parish Hall along sports field Traffic calming measures on Pontorson Lane and Samares Lane Rue Maupertuis closed to through traffic New footway from Samare Nurseries development to Rue Maupertuis
St Lawrence	Village amenity car park to allow park and stride
Hautlieu	Virtual footway on Bagatelle Lane linking school with bus park Zebra crossing on Wellington Road
JCG VCP De La Salle Beaulieu	Virtual footway on Bagatelle Lane Zebra crossing on Wellington Road Additional Bus Layby on Wellington Road One-Way pick-up and drop off for system for Beaulieu
St Mary	New field footways linking residential areas to the school Road narrowing
Haute Vallee	Pilot raised table zebra crossing on St John’s Road Pedestrian island at Clarke Avenue Dropped kerbs, tactile paving and trip hazard removal on Clarke Avenue
D’Auvergne	Pilot raised table zebra crossing on St John’s Road Pedestrian island at Clarke Avenue Dropped kerbs, tactile paving and trip hazard removal on Clarke Avenue
Janvrin	Improved pelican crossing facilities on Rouge Bouillon Zebra crossing on Janvrin Road
Springfield	Zebra crossing on Janvrin Road
VCP	Speed reducing features on Pleasant Street
Les Quennevais	Cycle routes linking to existing off road track, Les Ormes and towards St Peter Resurfaced existing cycle route in tarmac
Rouge Bouillon	Footway widening on Rouge Bouillon New pelican crossing on Rouge Bouillon
Grainville St Saviour FCJ	Chasse Brunet closed to through traffic Zebra crossing on St Saviour’s Hill
Grouville	Surfacing Off road path alongside Royal Jersey Golf Course – Completed Jan 2021 La Rue de la Haye de Puits – Pedestrian Improvements
St Lukes	Route du Fort / St Clements Road Crossing (Banned Turn)

An extensive process has recently been undertaken to review speed limits outside of Schools in St Helier and St Saviour and IHE have worked collaboratively with Comité des Connétables on this.

Part B Future schemes at feasibility

The programmes of work identified above constitute the forward delivery programme. In addition to these projects, there are a number of other workstreams emerging, with schemes being looked at in terms of feasibility and design.

School	Future Schemes in feasibility
JCG Prep VCP	Walking bus
St Saviour’s Schools Cluster	School shuttle bus service from west of St Helier
St Luke	Traffic calming measures on Dicq Road
Rouge Bouillon Janvrin	Pedestrian improvements in Midvale Road
First Tower School	Crossings on the Inner Road
Plat Douet School	Crossings on Plat Douet Road
Trinity School	Ongoing talks with Parish representatives
Bel Royal	Improved junction crossing across Rue de Haut

We also anticipate that there will be a need to update school travel plans in the future to target improvements where there is an evidenced need for transport interventions.

The STP delivery team are also investigating the potential for schools to draw down on funding allocated in the Climate Emergency Fund for Sustainable Transport Infrastructure that will facilitate safe access to and from schools. This is a technically challenging and labour intensive process as a suitable framework for schools to bid for funding will need to be identified. This is required to ensure that proposals are assessed in a fair and objective way so that value for money is delivered in terms of carbon reductions. Funding will also need to be granted in line with strict monitoring and performance targets to ensure funding is not absorbed into general school revenue budgets.

Delivery of the above will be in line with available departmental resources, as explained above. In addition it is known that various parishes are planning and/or delivering schemes to promote safety near schools on their own roads within their own resources.

5.5 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Security regarding ambulance call-outs (WQ.5/2021)

Question

Will the Minister inform members –

(a) how many ambulance callouts occurred in each of 2018, 2019 and 2020;

(b) how many of these callouts resulted in the patient being taken to hospital;

(d) of those that travelled to the hospital, how many were classed as life threatening and, of those, how many occurred in total during the periods 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.;

and will he provide this information broken down by month and by reason for ambulance callout?

Answer

(a) Table 1 shows the number of calls attended by the ambulance service in each of 2018, 2019 and 2020 by year and month. Calls included are Emergency (999) and Urgent calls from a General Practitioner. The Emergency (999) calls are shown by category used in Jersey’s Ambulance Service:

Red1 – Situation is immediately life threatening
Red2 – Situation is serious or could be life-threatening
Green1 – Situation is serious but not immediately life-threatening
Green2 – Situation is less serious and not life-threatening
Green3 – Non-urgent calls

The category is based on the coding at the time of the call. The service undertakes regular review of the coding and a situation may change from one category to another at some point – this explains the increase in Red1 calls from July 2020, when a new code set was introduced to align Jersey with the latest national standards.

The data excludes routine calls when an ambulance is required to transport/transfer a patient from one hospital or healthcare site to another – e.g. from Jersey General Hospital to Overdale.

Table 1: Calls attended by Ambulance Service, by month and high-level reason, 2018, 2019 and 2020

		Number of calls received by Ambulance Service						Total
		Emergency (999) Calls					Urgent Calls
		Red1	Red2	Green1	Green2	Green3	Urgent Calls
2018	January	8	284	191	78	155	103	819
	February	6	241	187	60	132	91	717
	March	11	317	219	92	174	122	935
	April	9	276	207	84	168	120	864
	May	9	315	261	95	166	98	944
	June	8	283	238	102	181	97	909
	July	10	372	268	70	206	76	1002
	August	9	336	232	76	164	91	908
	September	2	301	251	80	166	94	894
	October	7	319	245	76	158	86	891
	November	12	290	226	85	150	110	873
	December	6	331	234	91	160	98	920
2018 Total		97	3665	2759	989	1980	1186	10676
2019	January	5	328	203	64	168	111	879
	February	4	286	210	75	127	94	796
	March	5	294	228	78	160	98	863
	April	5	299	244	93	176	95	912
	May	7	348	269	79	144	77	924
	June	10	299	248	85	161	98	901
	July	4	327	261	87	210	97	986
	August	8	372	254	83	183	85	985
	September	2	321	238	82	164	75	882
	October	3	357	249	98	187	107	1001
	November	9	317	246	74	156	112	914
	December	6	329	269	87	160	100	951
2019 Total		68	3877	2919	985	1996	1149	10994
2020	January	0	323	215	65	153	95	851
	February	5	299	213	79	153	78	827
	March	3	367	233	79	153	66	901
	April	6	267	219	46	138	67	743
	May	10	317	255	82	166	89	919
	June	2	310	214	94	173	83	876
	July	53	326	154	12	320	79	944
	August	65	371	189	23	369	80	1097
	September	45	269	156	22	331	63	886
	October	43	337	162	14	297	99	952
	November	43	343	146	19	284	62	897
	December	38	364	169	14	263	84	932
2020 Total		313	3893	2325	549	2800	945	10825

Source: Government of Jersey Ambulance Service Call and Dispatch System

Note: Category is based on the code set at the time of call; these are reviewed regularly, so incidents may be one category in one month/year but another category at another time. This explains the increase from July 2020 when the code set was introduced to align Jersey with the latest national standards.

(b) Table 2 shows the number of calls emergency and urgent calls where at least one patient has been conveyed to hospital in each of 2018, 2019 and 2020 by year and month.

Table 2: Calls attended by Ambulance Service which have resulted in Patients being conveyed to hospital

		Calls where Patients Taken To hospital		Total
		Emergency	Urgent	Total
2018	January	542	103	645
	February	448	90	538
	March	607	122	729
	April	551	120	671
	May	626	95	721
	June	585	93	678
	July	660	73	733
	August	571	88	659
	September	571	91	662
	October	555	85	640
	November	505	106	611
	December	574	97	671
2018 Total		6795	1163	7958
2019	January	524	108	632
	February	468	90	558
	March	506	97	603
	April	544	95	639
	May	572	75	647
	June	514	95	609
	July	577	94	671
	August	566	82	648
	September	541	71	612
	October	567	104	671
	November	520	109	629
	December	554	97	651
2019 Total		6453	1117	7570
2020	January	503	92	595
	February	507	74	581
	March	486	63	549
	April	308	61	369
	May	403	82	485
	June	455	74	529
	July	516	74	590
	August	628	76	704
	September	476	63	539
	October	533	96	629
	November	492	59	551
	December	454	78	532
2020 Total		5761	892	6653

Source: Government of Jersey Ambulance Service Call and Dispatch System

(c) Every patient conveyed to hospital will be admitted to the Emergency Department or to a ward if this has been previously arranged between the GP and the medial staff in the hospital. This question has therefore been assumed to refer to those patients who arrive at the Emergency Department by Ambulance and of these how many are admitted to Jersey General Hospital or Orchard House.

The data source for this is the Hospital’s Patient Administration System (PAS) – there is no integration between this and the Ambulance Call and Dispatch (CAD) system. This table differs from the above in that it counts patients where Tables 1 and 2 count calls – a call may have more than one patient.

Table 3: Emergency Department Attendances brought in by Ambulance, by Triage Category and Number of patients who were admitted to hospital, by month, 2018, 2019 and 2020

		Triage Category			Total	Number of ED patients brought in by ambulance who were admitted to hospital
		Major	Minor	Not Recorded	Total
2018	January	437	150	0	587	300
	February	367	133	0	500	255
	March	494	174	0	668	319
	April	471	132	0	603	288
	May	493	175	0	668	302
	June	439	186	0	625	276
	July	490	198	0	688	285
	August	450	177	0	627	253
	September	448	188	0	636	270
	October	422	171	0	593	235
	November	377	166	0	543	242
	December	429	150	0	579	273
2018 Total		5317	2000	0	7317	3298
2019	January	410	164	2	576	270
	February	360	146	1	507	260
	March	374	149	3	526	252
	April	417	139	2	558	252
	May	476	127	1	604	310
	June	444	124	1	569	286
	July	413	177	0	590	272
	August	413	170	4	587	259
	September	407	167	0	574	256
	October	397	204	0	601	258
	November	416	168	0	584	293
	December	416	171	0	587	278
2019 Total		4943	1906	14	6863	3246
2020	January	386	152	0	538	278
	February	357	149	0	506	258
	March	364	133	0	497	242
	April	252	69	0	321	156
	May	328	124	0	452	199
	June	357	145	0	502	229
	July	377	166	0	543	240
	August	458	197	0	655	289
	September	351	140	0	491	230
	October	431	136	0	567	293
	November	370	145	0	515	250
	December	354	135	0	489	254
2020 Total		4385	1691	0	6076	2918

Source: Jersey General Hospital Patient Administration System (TrakCare)

(d) Table 4 shows the number of calls where patients have been conveyed to hospital and the call is considered life threatening (Red1 or Red2) as well as the number of calls during the times in question

Table 4: Ambulance calls considered life threatening by time of day, 2018, 2019 and 2020

		Red1 and Red2 (life threatening) calls where patient conveyed to hospital
		Total Calls	Between 08:00 and 09:00	Between 16:00 and 18:00
2018	January	243	30	37
	February	194	20	29
	March	269	26	27
	April	221	18	33
	May	246	23	38
	June	217	26	25
	July	284	30	47
	August	260	26	37
	September	238	26	43
	October	238	27	31
	November	211	25	30
	December	254	25	44
2018 Total		2875	302	421
2019	January	237	33	35
	February	213	31	41
	March	209	23	31
	April	211	34	29
	May	257	29	46
	June	211	18	30
	July	232	24	29
	August	253	30	29
	September	229	28	38
	October	250	30	40
	November	220	18	37
	December	226	20	36
2019 Total		2748	318	421
2020	January	243	32	33
	February	213	20	38
	March	237	24	51
	April	123	8	24
	May	165	16	29
	June	184	21	33
	July	245	19	32
	August	275	24	43
	September	204	24	32
	October	259	35	44
	November	246	33	40
	December	232	36	32
2020 Total		2626	292	431

Source: Government of Jersey Ambulance Service Call and Dispatch System

5.6 Deputy G.P. Southern of St Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the impact of income inequality on the health and well-being of Islanders (WQ.6/2021)

Question

To what extent does the Chief Minister consider the findings of the report ‘Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 years on’, namely that widening inequities in power, money and resources have resulted in inequities in health generally and during the Covid-19 pandemic specifically, to be applicable to Jersey; and, in light of these findings, what measures will he take to reduce income inequality as the Government seeks to improve health and well-being in the coming 3 years of the current Government Plan?

Answer

The original Marmot Review was published in 2010. It reported on an independent review into health inequalities in England lead by Professor Sir Michael Marmot and commissioned by the UK Secretary of State for Health. The review proposed evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England.

In particular, it established 6 key areas for action

1. giving every child the best start in life
2. enabling all children, young people and adults to maximize their capabilities and have control over their lives
3. creating fair employment and good work for all
4. ensuring a healthy standard of living for all
5. creating and developing sustainable places and communities
6. strengthening the role and impact of ill-health prevention.

In February 2020, Professor Marmot published a further report, “Health equity in England: The Marmot review 10 years on”. This was just before the coronavirus pandemic. In December 2020, Professor Marmot published “Build Back Fairer: “The COVID-19 Marmot Review”. This report reflected on the impact of Covid on health inequalities in England.

The findings of the two reviews published in 2020 relate specifically to actions of the UK government including the government response to covid. As such, these findings may not be directly applicable to Jersey as education, housing, health and benefit policies and the covid responses are set locally and are designed to respond to local circumstances.

However, the six areas originally identified in 2010 and endorsed in 2020 as key priorities for action on the social determinants of health that are necessary to reduce health inequalities. These

are well aligned to recent government actions and the priorities set out in the current Common Strategic Policy and the 2021 Government Plan, as are ongoing efforts by Public Health to improve health and reduce health inequalities.

Improving health and wellbeing is a key priority for the Government.

In March 2020, a Health and Wellbeing Framework for Jersey was published (R.21/2020).

In November 2020, the Assembly approved a new Jersey Care Model (P.114/2020)

Actions to improve health and wellbeing are planned under the Common Strategic Priority: “We will improve Islanders’ wellbeing and mental and physical health by supporting Islanders to live healthier, active, longer lives, improving the quality of and access to mental health services, and by putting patients, families and carers at the heart of Jersey’s health and care system.”

Planned actions for 2021 include:

We will continue to deliver a range of preventative and proactive schemes focused on inspiring an ‘Active Jersey’, with a boost to alternative delivery methods in response to lockdown measures
We will continue to support the reduction of preventable disease, to reverse the current upward trend in overweight and obesity rates, to increase healthy eating, to reduce the rates of smoking and harmful alcohol consumption, and to deliver a range of preventative and proactive schemes
We will significantly improve access to mental health services, bringing parity of esteem to the mental health agenda, invest in our mental health environment and building infrastructure, implement initiatives for crisis support, a ‘listening lounge’, complex trauma, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and mental health legislation
We will continue to expand our 24-hour community nursing and primary care services, develop a preventative model of dental services for children and new models of care to support people with diabetes, and develop a model that improves access to primary care for financially vulnerable people
We will begin to implement the Jersey Care Model that will enable a shift to a more preventative health service, enabling it to better cope with forecast demand from demographic change
We will increase the investment in end of life health care to provide a range of services which are patient centred and delivered in accordance with their preferences

Separately, the government also plans actions under the Common Strategic Priority: “ We will reduce income inequality and improve the standard of living by improving the quality and affordability of housing, improving social inclusion, and by removing barriers to and at work.”

These actions address not just income inequality but housing, social inclusion and a fair labour market. These are all key factors to be addressed in supporting improvements in health and wellbeing.

Actions for 2021 include:

We will begin to develop detailed plans to implement agreed recommendations following the publication of the Housing Development Board’s review of housing in Jersey
We will continue to improve support and protection for tenants
We will develop proposals to better support disabled adults living at home, and their informal carers
We will fund the forecast overspend on Income Support in 2021-24 as a result of Covid-19 in line with the economic forecast
We will fund the Co-Funded Payroll Scheme through to it being phased out in March 2021
We will implement actions to modernise the Island’s personal income tax system, in particular to modernise the tax treatment of married women and people in same-sex relationships
We will continue to deliver the disability strategy alongside improving community-based services and supporting diversity
We will develop a new approach to supporting workers with long-term health conditions to return to or remain in employment
We will review the way in which the minimum wage is agreed

5.7 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence of the Minister for the Environment regarding vacant units within the Island’s housing stock (WQ.7/2021)

Question

In terms of informing the Bridging Island Plan, will the Minister advise what studies, if any, have been undertaken to assess the number of vacant units within the Island’s existing housing stock and, furthermore, what studies have been undertaken to assess the flexibility of the Island’s existing housing stock in terms of its capability to accommodate more people; and if any such studies have been undertaken, will the Minister provide them to the Assembly?

Answer

The planning policy framework provided by an island plan relates to the development of land and buildings and, as such, cannot directly affect levels of occupation and vacancy within the island’s housing stock.

It is, however, recognised that the better use of existing homes can help to reduce the number of new homes that are required to be provided to meet the island’s housing needs. Because of this, the Minister for the Environment is keen to better understand and work to develop integrated policy across government that helps to ensure optimal use of new and existing homes.

The 2011 Census revealed that one in fourteen (7%) of all private dwellings were vacant on census day – a total of 3,103 dwellings.[1] Although there was no requirement for householders to give reasons for properties being vacant, some reasons were provided for around half of properties listed as vacant. Where data was provided: over a quarter (29%) were vacant due to being between tenants, and nearly a quarter (23%) were second or holiday homes. Around one in five were in the process of being built or renovated.

Figure 1: Vacant dwellings by reason (2011 Census)

Information about the level of vacancy within the Island’s housing stock will be updated by the 2021 Census to provide a more up-to-date picture of this issue.

In the meantime, work is being undertaken, with one of the Island’s utility providers in the Island, to explore the possibility of additional data being provided about vacancy levels within the existing housing stock based on the use of utility supplies.

5.8 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the food served in Jersey hospitals (WQ.8/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether any processes are in place (such as surveys, questionnaires and so on) which the Health and Community Services Department uses to measure patients’ satisfaction with the food served in Jersey’s hospitals; and if any such processes are in place, will he provide the Assembly with a summary of the responses received since 1st January 2018

Answer

A questionnaire is used to measure patient satisfaction with the food served in Jersey’s hospitals (see below):

The collation of quantitative responses to these questionnaires has not been systematically undertaken from 1st January 2018 to date. However, each submission is reviewed by the HCS Catering Manager and actioned accordingly. Qualitative responses provide helpful feedback on food matters as diverse as the quality of batter on fried fish, choice of desserts, range of choices more generally, limited choices for those with specific dietary needs e.g. low residue diet and so on. Patients also provide helpful feedback to the Catering Team expressing their appreciation for the food they have received, the efforts of the staff and acknowledge that the food is provided within a budget.

For the last six months, due to Covid-19 and patients not completing their own menu cards to reduce the risk of cross-contamination, these questionnaires have not been presented to patients.

From 1 March 1 2021, revised feedback forms will be distributed in the General Hospital. Quantitative and qualitative feedback will be collated by the HCS Catering Team. This feedback will form part of the Non-Clinical Services dashboard reported to the HCS Operational Management Group.

When Covid-safe, the patient menu choice system can be re-instated. The reverse side of these menu choice cards contains a patient feedback form for patients to complete. This data will be collated by the HCS Catering Team.

5.9 Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Social Security regarding the value of Income Support components (WQ.9/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide a list stating how much each Income Support component was worth in 2014, followed by how much they were actually uprated in each year since, and how much they would have been uprated by if they had been updated to match inflation?

Answer

The Income Support scheme is based on a combination of components and disregards, ensuring that each household claim takes full account of the size and nature of the household and its income and other assets.

There have been many changes to the income support scheme since 2014. The disregard applied to earned income has increased from 20% to 26% over this period. For each £100 of wages received in a week, an income support claimant now retains £26, compared to a retention of £20 in 2014. The income disregard now applies to earned income, pension income and maintenance income received by household members.

A list of all component rates at the start of each year is provided below.

The RPI for December 2013 was 156.4. The RPI for December 2020 was 181.4. Components would have been uprated by 16% if they had been updated to match inflation.

The average income support weekly claim amount over the same time has increased by 18% from £218 per week to £257 per week.

Category	Component	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Basic Rates	Adult	92.12	92.12	92.12	92.12	94.85	97.72	99.61	99.61
Basic Rates	Single Parent (Adult + single parent supplement)	132.51	132.51	122.43	112.35	105.00	138.11	140.00	140.00
Basic Rates	First Child	63.98	63.98	63.98	63.98	65.87	72.94	77.98	77.98
Basic Rates	Subsequent Child	63.98	63.98	63.98	63.98	65.87	67.90	69.23	69.23
Basic Rates	Household	51.31	51.31	51.31	51.31	52.85	54.46	55.51	55.51
Carer Rate	Carer	46.97	46.97	46.97	46.97	48.37	49.84	50.82	50.82
Housing Rental Caps	Hostel	80.64	80.64	95.13	100.10	103.04	106.19	108.22	108.22
Housing Rental Caps	Lodgings	115.71	125.30	125.30	131.88	135.73	139.86	142.52	142.52
Housing Rental Caps	Rented Bedsit	115.71	125.30	125.30	131.88	135.73	139.86	142.52	142.52
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 1 Bed Flat	165.27	181.30	181.30	194.46	200.13	206.15	210.07	210.07
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 2 Bed Flat	207.90	235.48	235.48	248.99	256.27	263.97	269.01	269.01
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 3 Bed Flat	236.18	242.20	242.20	267.26	275.03	283.29	288.68	288.68
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 1 Bed House	187.74	208.88	208.88	222.88	229.39	236.32	240.87	240.87
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 2 Bed House	244.58	273.56	273.56	283.01	291.27	300.02	305.76	305.76
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 3 Bed House	272.79	324.24	324.24	330.54	340.13	350.35	357.07	357.07
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 4 Bed House	295.19	341.25	341.25	360.29	370.79	381.92	389.20	389.20
Housing Rental Caps	Rented 5 Bed House	321.16	387.87	387.87	398.86	410.48	422.80	430.85	430.85
Social Housing	All types	Uncapped from April 2014
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied Bedsit	6.02	6.02	6.02	6.37	6.58	6.79	6.93	6.93
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 1 Bed Flat	6.02	6.02	6.02	6.37	6.58	6.79	6.93	6.93
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 2 Bed Flat	6.02	6.02	6.02	6.37	6.58	6.79	6.93	6.93
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 3 Bed Flat	8.54	8.54	8.54	9.03	9.31	9.59	9.80	9.80
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 4 Bed Flat	12.11	12.11	12.11	12.74	13.16	13.58	13.86	13.86
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 1 Bed House	6.02	6.02	6.02	6.37	6.58	6.79	6.93	6.93
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 2 Bed House	8.54	8.54	8.54	9.03	9.31	9.59	9.80	9.80
Housing Owner Occupied Rates	Owner Occupied 3 Bed House	12.11	12.11	12.11	12.74	13.16	13.58	13.86	13.86
Impairment Rates	Personal Care Level 1	22.96	22.96	22.96	22.96	23.66	24.43	24.92	24.92
Impairment Rates	Personal Care Level 2	101.15	101.15	101.15	101.15	104.09	107.24	109.34	109.34
Impairment Rates	Personal Care Level 3	145.25	145.25	145.25	145.25	149.52	154.07	157.01	157.01
Impairment Rates	Mobility Level 1	22.96	22.96	22.96	22.96	23.66	24.43	24.92	24.92
Impairment Rates	Mobility Level 2	45.92	45.92	45.92	45.92	47.32	48.79	49.77	49.77
Impairment Rates	Clinical Costs Level 1	3.15	3.15	3.15	3.15	3.29	3.43	3.50	3.50
Impairment Rates	Clinical Costs Level 2	6.30	6.30	6.30	6.30	6.58	6.86	7.00	7.00
Childcare Hourly rate	Child Day Care Age 0 - 2	6.27	6.27	6.48	6.59	6.79	7.00	7.14	7.14
Childcare Hourly rate	Child Day Care Age 3 - 4	4.90	4.90	5.06	5.15	5.30	5.46	5.57	5.57
Childcare Hourly rate	Child Day Care Age 5 - 11	4.85	4.85	5.06	5.15	5.30	5.46	5.57	5.57

Note that the private sector housing rental caps are maximum values paid

5.10 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the link between austerity measures and public health (WQ.10/2021)

Question

What consideration, if any, has the Chief Minister given to the impact that the austerity programme implemented by the previous U.K. Government over the past decade had on the health of the U.K. population; and will he commit to ensuring that the level of public service funding over the coming years is sufficient to ensure that the health of the Island’s population is not worsened by any such austerity measures?

Answer

The impact of U.K. government policies on U.K. citizens is a matter for the U.K. Government.

As set out in the answer to Written Question 6/2021 asked by the Deputy last week, the Marmot reviews identified six key areas for action to reduce health inequalities:

giving every child the best start in life
enabling all children, young people and adults to maximize their capabilities and have control over their lives
creating fair employment and good work for all
ensuring a healthy standard of living for all
creating and developing sustainable places and communities
strengthening the role and impact of ill-health prevention.

These areas are well aligned to recent government actions and the priorities set out in the current Common Strategic Policy and the 2021 Government Plan, as are ongoing efforts by Public Health to improve health and reduce health inequalities.

Significant funding is identified in the 2021 Government Plan to support these areas. For example, under the CSP priorities of “Putting Children First” and “Improving Health and Wellbeing”, additional funding of over £260 million is identified over the period 2021 to 2024.

The Jersey Government has no plans to impose austerity measures and is currently making a generational investment in the health of islanders through the Jersey Care Model and the Our Hospital projects.

5.11 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Children and Housing regarding parental responsibility for same-sex parents (WQ.11/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise when he plans to issue law-drafting instructions to reform the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in respect of parental responsibility for same-sex parents, and will he state the timetable for bringing such reforms to the Assembly for debate?

Answer

Law drafting instructions are currently subject to consultation with key professional stakeholders including;

Children’s Services
JFCAS
Family Court Registrar
Law Officers’ Safeguarding and Advice Teams

It is anticipated that the law drafting instructions will be issued to the law draftsman before the end of February.

5.12 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for the Environment regarding the monitoring of air pollution (WQ.12/2021)

Question

In respect of Island-wide monitoring of pollution, will the Minister give an update on the commitments made in answer to Oral Questions 160/2019 and 123/2020 to prioritise progress on installing real-time air quality monitoring in key sites around the Island (such as the Tunnel) and on the commitments made in response to Written Questions 210/2019 and 282/2019 – that sensors would be in place at every school in the Island before the start of September 2019; and if these targets have not been achieved to date, will the Minister explain why not?

Answer

I can confirm that as of 15th January 2020, 45 real time air monitors have been fitted to every school in the Island with the exception of one site which is a listed building. An alternative position for mounting the air monitor unit is being explored.

The remaining 11 units supplied on Island have been fitted to other sites as part of Phase II. The tunnel will be selected when further units are supplied, and work is done to source power at the specific location.

Other real time monitoring is undertaken in the Central Market and Howard Davis Park. These monitoring results are published on the Government of Jersey website.

There are still a number of steps that need to be completed before data is made available. This includes ensuring the 56 installed units are operating and reporting data. This is all within the control of the owners of the equipment which the Government of Jersey has not had to contribute financially towards.

A significant number of units are not transmitting data and Covid has prevented the attendance of specialist engineers and technicians from attending the Island.

Despite pressures placed on Environmental Health who formed the Contact Tracing Team, Officers have still been out when time permits to complete the installations in phase I.

Once the units are working as expected, it will allow for further extension of the network, correlation audits with a UK institute to determine accuracy and the provision of the data portal which we have been advised includes an initial single screen output suitable for use in schools. Work is also ongoing with the suppliers to compare the data from the units to an established air quality recorder from the Central Market, supplied by Government.

Only when all parties are satisfied with the quality of data can contractual terms be agreed for access.

5.13 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the freephone service to access the Covid-19 and Social Security helplines (WQ.13/2021)

Question

Will the Minister state what work if any, is being undertaken to create a freephone service for the Covid-19 helpline and Social Security helpline (especially during the closure of the building in La Motte Street) to allow people who do not have a landline number to access these services without incurring charges?

Answer

I am pleased that a free phone number, 0800 735 5566. is now in place for the Coronavirus helpline. I thank Jersey Telecom for offering this service at no cost to Government.

With regards to the Customer and Local Services 444444 number, I can reassure the Deputy that calls are answered very quickly (on average in less than 20 seconds) and officers are always happy to call an individual back. In the unlikely event that someone is waiting for 2 minutes there is an automated call back facility.

Customer and Local Services also offer support over email and Islanders are still able to book a face to face appointment.

Jersey Telecom have for some time allowed Islanders to make free local calls from any public payphone and therefore customers can telephone the department free of charge via this route.

Officers will continue to monitor this to understand whether any further actions are required.

5.14 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Education regarding testing for Covid-19 in schools (WQ.14/2021)

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the precise arrangements in place for Covid-19 testing in schools for children and staff in terms of the following –

(a) the year groups that will be tested;

(b) the staff who will be tested;

(d) the expected accuracy of the tests; and

(e) the action that will be taken on receiving positive tests?

Answer

It is assumed that the Deputy is referring to planned screening testing rather than reactive testing such as contact tracing which is available to all students and staff

(a) Year 11, 12 and 13 students are currently offered weekly Lateral Flow Device (LFD) testing.

(b) All primary and secondary school staff are also offered weekly LFD testing as well as regular PCR testing every six weeks.

(d) LFD accuracy

An evaluation run jointly by PHE Porton Down and Oxford University found that “the performance characteristics of the Innova LFD in the evaluations performed to date are good, with a low failure rate, high specificity (99.6%) and high viral antigen detection.”

In the UK they have identified 27,000 infected people who would not otherwise have had to self-isolate.

Accuracy Summary:

⁃ Test specificity = 99.6%

⁃ Test sensitivity = In controlled conditions the test sensitivity was recorded at 76.8% overall for all PCR positive individuals, and over 90% of those with a high viral load.

⁃ In field evaluations, these tests still perform effectively and detect at least 50% of all PCR positive individuals and more than 70% of individuals with higher viral loads.

⁃ There is minimal difference in detection between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

(e) If a student or staff member receives a positive LFD test result they will be required to take a PCR test to confirm. If the PCR test confirms a positive result, isolation and appropriate contact tracing will take place as required.

If a staff member received a positive PCR test result as part regular routine screening, they would be required to isolate and appropriate contact tracing will take place as required.

In both of the above scenarios deep cleaning of the area may also be required and actioned as appropriate.

5.15 Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier of the Assistant Chief Minister regarding the consideration of a two-site option for the Future Hospital (WQ.15/2021)

Question

Will the Assistant Chief Minister state what consideration, if any, has been given to returning to a two-site option for the proposed Future Hospital, given the pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of largely single site hospital operation; and is it the Minister’s assessment that the separation of services to allow for isolation in the event of future pandemics or other operational needs, thereby allowing a continuance of business as usual, is a strategic imperative?

Answer

We are not considering a two-site option for Our Hospital. This is because there are significant logistical, staffing and cost challenges when working across more than one site. These challenges include:

Operating over multiple sites would result in splitting the clinical adjacencies which support hospital facilities to operate efficiently and provide business continuity during ‘normal’ times as well as during emergencies such as a pandemic
Equipping multiple sites with often expensive equipment – for example x-ray and other diagnostic machines – and the associated maintenance
Staffing multiple sites presents both cost and recruitment challenges and Jersey already experiences challenges in recruiting to many professional groups

A single-site option was overwhelmingly supported by professional groups of clinical staff in user group meetings.

5.16 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Education regarding the access to computers and iPads by the Island’s school children (WQ.16/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise members how many children in the Island’s schools have been assessed as not having access to a computer or iPad, and explain what steps he and the Government are taking to overcome any educational disadvantage these children are experiencing with regards to home learning, especially during the pandemic?

Answer

The latest information that we have after surveying all GOJ schools in January 2021 is that they need 1200 devices. Schools have done a tremendous amount in reducing the original figures that they shared in March 2020 through re-directing their budgets or petitioning Jersey organisations for financial support.

Schools have an excellent understanding of how to mitigate against the challenges of supporting their children who do not have access or full access to a device. They have provided ‘hard’ copies of work that has been set on a weekly basis. They have also encouraged the use of phones by photographing written responses to work that is set and then responding to the photographic images. Naturally, this is not ideal but it shows how schools have tried to address the matter.

The Director General CYPES is working with Modernisation and Digital and others to source funding to purchase additional devices as required.

Currently, the vast majority of children are attending school. The experiences of the past year means that for most of these children, moving to a full closure or part closure would be managed effectively by schools. The teachers have been trained in online learning and they are experienced in preparing hard copies for those children who do not have access to devices.

5.17 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Children and Housing regarding the provision of housing (WQ.17/2021)

Question

Will the Minister state –

(a) the number of people currently waiting for housing on the Housing Gateway and the number of houses / apartments expected to come on stream in the next 3 months;

(b) the number of properties currently vacant due to housing movement (such as the gap between one tenant leaving and another taking their place) and the average vacancy period over the last 2 years;

(d) the number of people currently estimated to be ‘sofa surfing’ or having to live in a hotel;

(e) the number of people estimated to be homeless or sleeping rough in the Island or intermittently in housing shelters;

(f) the daily capacity of housing shelters and their actual occupancy; and

(g) how many people have been evicted since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and what steps, if any, the Government is taking to prevent people being evicted during this period?

Answer

(a) There are currently 945 active rental applications on the Housing Gateway across all bands.

Andium Homes will deliver 138 new homes over the next three months: -

36 affordable sales to Band 5 purchasers

102 rental homes

Les Vaux Housing have no new stock coming on stream in the next 3 months.

Brunel Management have no new stock coming online this year.

(b) Andium Homes and the Housing Trusts manage their housing stock and re-let to applicants on the Housing Gateway as soon as a suitable property becomes available. The number of properties void varies from day-to-day.

At the time of drafting this response, Andium Homes had 12 “non-standard” void properties undergoing extensive works with contractors, 13 x “standard voids” undergoing standard void works with contractors and 9 x voids which are ready to let, pending viewing and signup. The average vacancy period between tenancies has been 24.5 days. This figure is higher than usual given the limited void turnaround during the lockdown period in 2020 when moves were not permitted. Average for 2019 was 18 days, average for 2020 was 31 days.

At the time of drafting Les Vaux have one 2 bed flat available due to housing movement and conducting viewings, they expect it to be let shortly. Their average vacancy period over the last years is 0.2%.

Brunel confirmed that there average re-let time is 18 days – the effects of Covid have increased the turn around times.

(c) Officers never advise customers to sofa-surf. Given the number of applicants registered on the waiting list, officers may ask a customer to consider all their available housing options, including staying with family or friends provided it is safe to do so; alternative private rented accommodation; and other temporary accommodation options. This is always suggested as a short-term, temporary measure whilst the applicant looks for long term accommodation, including being offered social housing.

(d) The Housing Gateway currently has 56 active applications where a customer is deemed to be “homeless”. This categorisation means that they do not have rights to their current accommodation, which could, therefore, mean the person is under an eviction order or living in temporary accommodation such as a hotel or “sofa-surfing”. Sofa-surfing and the use hotels are not considered to be “policy alternatives” to preventing evictions. However, an officer may suggest these as an alternative to resolve emergency housing situations. These would only ever be for a short-term measure. When cases involve children for instance recommendations to reside in a hotel or with a family member would be suggested over homelessness. The use of hotels puts a roof over people’s heads and supports their health, safety and welfare.

(e) The Gateway currently has 56 applicants; we only hold records of customers who have applied to the Gateway.

The Shelter Trust has capacity for 124 residents. Presently, the Shelter accommodates approximately 115 per night and supports a further 14 individuals through outreach, including hotels and guest houses.

The number of rough sleepers is not currently known. Efforts have been made over the years to address entrenched rough sleeping, although there continue to be sporadic cases of people sleeping rough.

(f) As of 15 January, Shelter Trust slept 115 people across 8 Trust sites.

A further 14 people are being supported via Outreach, 9 of whom are located in hotels.

A further 5 people are community based

Further updated stats are pending and will be shared upon receipt.

(g) Evictions did not take place in Jersey from 10 April - 30 September 2020 as a result of the emergency COVID-19 legislation introduced by the Government. The legislation lapsed on 30 September 2020 and no additional action is being taken to prevent evictions.

The Court directed guidance on evictions continues to apply. The Government has published this guidance online, which is there to ensure that tenants and landlords know their rights and responsibilities. For example, there is a requirement by landlords to ensure that they have engaged with tenants to try and exhaust all avenues that fall short of eviction prior to approaching the Court. The Courts have the power to ensure that all evictions are lawful.

Since September:

16 evictions have been lodged with the court.
14 of which related to non-payment of rent and/or Anti-Social Behaviour.
12 of these cases resulted in eviction, 4 cases have been adjourned.
5 of these cases were private tenancy agreements and 11 were through Social housing providers.
The Social Housing providers have confirmed that none of the eviction cases relate to arrears accrued through Covid.

Since March 2020, The Gateway have received 60 applications from customers who have been given notice from their landlord. Only a handful of customers have received court eviction notices, the rest have been letters from landlords. Out of the 60 applications 27 have been housed through the gateway.

5.18 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the operation of a Digital Commercial and Residential Property Register (WQ.18/2021)

Question

Will the Chief Minister advise the Assembly who has been appointed, or is to be appointed, to establish and operate a Digital Commercial and Residential Property Register in the Island by the end of 2021 and will he provide a progress report in respect of their efforts to date?

Answer

Political and operational responsibility for this project is still under discussion. There were unforeseen delays as a result of the rise in COVID-19 cases during the end of 2020 and the changes in Ministerial responsibility which have occurred since October. The project plan is scheduled to be completed before the end of Q1 2021 and we anticipate confirming the political lead in the same timeframe.

As soon as the project plan is ready, I would be delighted to offer the Deputy a separate briefing.

5.19 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the exemptions from the requirement to self-isolate due to Covid-19 (WQ.19/2021)

Question

Will the Minister state –

(a) the number of requests for exemption from self-isolation that were made between 15th October 2020 and January 2021 and, of these, how many were granted and how many were refused;

(b) the reasons for granting any such exemptions, specifying the industries / categories involved;

(c) the number of positive tests, if any, subsequently obtained from those who had been granted exemptions, specifying the industries / categories involved;

(d) if any employees working in healthcare and / or medical professions were granted exemptions, whether they were required to wait for a first negative result prior to starting work with Jersey residents;

(e) whether there is a mandatory requirement to have a negative P.C.R. test 72 hours prior to arrival in Jersey as a pre-requisite for exemption from self-isolation and, if not, whether there is any plan to introduce this measure;

(f) the number of people required to self-isolate as a result of being a direct contact;

(g) what protocols, if any, are in place for testing contacts within identified groups should this happen; and

(h) whether those contacts have then to self-isolate until a negative test result comes through?

Answer

(a) For clarification, individuals granted an exemption are only granted the exemption for a specified reason. They are not granted exemption from general requirements to self-isolate.

At all other times this exemption does not apply and the person must self-isolate as required by self-isolation guidance. For example, the exemption allows only for the individual to travel to work, attend work and return directly home.

The Contact Tracing, Monitoring and Enforcement team, in partnership with colleagues from Jersey Customs & Immigration Service and States of Jersey Police, undertakes checks to confirm the individual is in self-isolation outside of the exemption allowance.

The Contact Tracing, Monitoring and Enforcement Team took on the role of administering the processing of requests for exemptions for workers to attend their premises of work on 26/10/2020.

For the period 26/10/2020 to 21/01/2021, 477 exemptions were approved, representing 841 workers*

*The 841 are not all individual workers; many of these are the same individuals granted exemption on more than one occasion as employers make repeat applications for the same workers. For example, we have identified ~80 workers from the construction sector working on a rotation.

(b) The reasons why exemptions are granted are the following:

- The person is travelling to Jersey for the purpose of completing critical work

- The worker’s presence is critical to keep the island or a business running

- The worker’s skills are not available in Jersey

- It would be impossible, unreasonable or dangerous for the worker to complete the isolation period before attending their workplace.

The main sectors are construction, sewage and critical healthcare (engineers/maintenance support, specialist visiting consultants).

The list of industries applying for exemptions includes, but is not limited to:

- Animal welfare

- Aircraft engineering

- Removals

- Repair of critical equipment (factory, general hospital)

- Marine engineering

- Geotechnical engineering

- Pharmacy

The application must include details of how the worker will self-isolate outside of work and what provisions are in place to support this, how they will get to and from work without using public transport / shared lifts, what measures are in place to ensure they isolate away from Jersey residents when in the workplace and how they remain Covid-secure when interacting with other colleagues. The Health and Safety Inspectorate undertakes inspections of businesses to assess levels of compliance with the exemption application.

(d) All workers are required to be tested on arrival in Jersey and to isolate until they receive a negative test result before they undertake any work. In very exceptional circumstances, such as a medical emergency, if they’ve had a negative PCR test result within 72 hours prior to their arrival in Jersey and provided all the necessary precautions are taken i.e. full PPE etc, they may not be required to isolate until they receive a first negative result. Any such instances are dealt with on a case by case basis with a thorough review of the circumstances, including any risk mitigations that may be in place. If such a situation is identified within the healthcare sector, this is undertaken in conjunction with the Acting Medical Officer of Health.

(e) Following medical advice, from 11 February critical workers will be required to provide evidence of a negative pre-arrival PCR test as a condition of their permission to leave isolation for the purposes of work; they will still be required to wait for a negative arrival (day 0) result before attending the workplace. The pre-arrival test requirement will be waived in exceptional or emergency circumstances.

(f) Fewer than 5 individuals have been isolated as a result of being a direct contact of a person granted exemption.

(g) Should anyone who has been granted an exemption subsequently test positive or become a direct contact, the exemption is immediately withdrawn and exactly the same protocols that apply to the general public are applied.

(h) They are instructed to isolate and undergo a series of PCR tests on days 0, 5 and 10. If they choose not to be tested, they will be instructed to isolate for the full 14 days.

5.20 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding expenditure addressing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic (WQ.20/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide an updated breakdown of the actual monies spent due to the Covid pandemic up to 31st December 2020 in contrast to the forecast per departments / projects as itemised in the Government Plan 2020-2023 (Appendix 2)?

Answer

Data for 2020 is currently subject to audit so cannot be released at this stage. It will be published in early April, in the Annual Report and Accounts (ARA). In the event that the ARA does not include the analysis in the format requested by Deputy Gardiner, that information will be separately published to the Assembly as an addendum to this answer.

5.21 Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the system for recording patient details (WQ.21/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide the following details in respect of re the new EMIS system for recording patient details;

(a) the date that the system was installed;

(b) the date that the system became operational;

(d) the total costs of training staff to use the system;

(e) the total running costs, including annual fees;

(f) the contract period for provision of this service; and

(g) whether there any additional ancillary costs associated with the establishment of the system?

Answer

The Jersey Summary Care Record is a service provided to Hospital clinicians via the EMIS platform and went operational on January 25th 2021.

EMIS is the primary platform used across primary care for the storing and management of patient information. It was commissioned in Jersey in 2014. The Jersey Summary Care Record was developed on the EMIS platform as an enhanced service offering to the Hospital, providing a summary of a patient’s primary care GP record in real time to authorised hospital clinicians.

The operational costs associated with the Jersey Summary Care Record are as follows:

No additional training costs as training has been provided internally
Total running costs on current levels of 20 clinicians = £7Kpa
Contract period is 5 years, beginning May 1st 2019
Additional ancillary costs e.g. for additional users = £350pa per user.

5.22 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the waiting times for specialist treatment (WQ.22/2021)

Question

Further to his response to Oral Question 17/2021, will the Minister provide details of the waiting times, in weeks, for referrals for specialist treatment; and the waiting times for the subsequent receipt of that treatment?

Answer

The details sought by the Deputy are available on the gov.je website at:

https://www.gov.je/Health/WaitingLists/Pages/index.aspx

This data can be broken down by specialty, with the drop down boxes above the figures allowing the selection of a specialty and subsequently filtering of the data.

5.23 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding economic activity in the hospitality and retail sectors from 2017 to 2019 (WQ.23/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide an economic activity breakdown, showing income for November and December in the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 for the hospitality and retail sectors?

Answer

While economic activity data is not available in the precise form asked for by the Deputy, I am pleased to report that in November 2020 Statistics Jersey published its first estimates of quarterly revenue and GVA. This first report presents estimates for the non-finance sectors of Jersey’s economy. These sectors represent approximately 40% of the total Jersey economy.

In particular, Table 5 in the appendix to that report includes quarterly sectoral splits for ‘hotels, restaurants and bars’ and ‘wholesale and retail trades.’ The table is reproduced below for Members’ convenience.

Table 5

Statistics Jersey has committed to work towards the production of estimates for additional sectors in future reports, so that monitoring of the entire economy can be presented on a quarterly basis.

5.24 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding economic activity in the retail sector in 2020 (WQ.24/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide estimate figures for the economic activity, including any income generated, of Visit Jersey and the retail sector for the period 1st January to 30th September 2020, and will he provide the same data for the same period in 2019 for comparison?

Answer

I invite the Deputy to refer to my answer to Written Question 23/2021, which refers to the November 2020 publication by Statistics Jersey of its first estimates of quarterly revenue and GVA.

With respect to our visitor economy, additional context might ordinarily have been drawn from the informative exit surveys commissioned by Visit Jersey. For the period January – September 2019, Visit Jersey advises that on-island visitor expenditure was estimated at £240.6m. One sadly unavoidable consequence of the arrival of COVID in Jersey was the suspension of Exit Survey activity mid-way through March 2020.

While a comparable visitor expenditure estimate for January - September 2020 is not available, the data that is available to Visit Jersey indicates that visitor expenditure during Q1 2020 may have fallen by over a third relative to 2019.

The 2019 Visit Jersey Exit Survey summary is available online at –

https://business.jersey.com/sites/default/files/components/pdf_download_row/Exit%20Survey%20Analysis%20Jan-Dec%202019%20_0.pdf

5.25 Senator S.W. Pallett of the Chief Minister regarding Government of Jersey staff wellbeing measures (WQ.25/2021)

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide, since the outbreak of Covid-19, for Government of Jersey staff –

(a) a list detailing any mental health, wellbeing and welfare support measures that have been made available to members of staff of all grades;

(b) the number of staff members who voluntarily used any such measures;

(d) the number of alerts that have been raised by Managers in relation to the wellbeing of individual members of staff;

(e) details of any advice, training or other support measures that have been provided to those in managerial roles within the Government of Jersey, to assist in identifying and supporting staff that may be suffering from poor mental health; and

(f) details of any enhanced mental health, wellbeing and welfare support measures that have been made available to those in senior positions, including the Director Generals?

Answer

a) a list detailing any mental health, wellbeing and welfare support measures that have been made available to members of staff of all grades;

Before the coronavirus pandemic, employees had and continue to have access to a range of mental health support. This includes 24/7 access to the ‘Be Supported’ Employee Assistance Programme and access to local face to face, and telephone counselling support for employees in crisis. In addition, we have provided off island 1:1 support to colleagues who have expressed a preference for off island support. During this period, we have helped colleagues to build and maintain good mental health and provided tools such as webinars, the ‘Thrive’ App, and an employee support pack (which signposts where help is available both internally and externally on island). Through regular communications such as ‘Wellbeing Wednesday’ and regular newsletters we have detailed steps that colleagues can take to improve and maintain good mental and physical health. We have taken steps to grow and improve our network of mental health first aiders with the aim of ensuring that everyone has a listening ear.

We arranged access, after an assessment, to independently provided peer to peer support and counselling for employees.

Recognising that many of our colleagues are working in different locations both at home and in the office, we have carried out healthy working assessments which include prompts around mental health with regards to:

Those remaining at home
Anyone suffering from anxiety about returning to the workplace
Supporting those who have struggled during the COVID period.

Individuals can share with their line manager or if they prefer seek support as outlined above. A simple to use stress risk assessment process is available to all staff as a means of promoting conversations about wellbeing.

Current provision of Wellbeing support for employees:

Be Supported

Employee Assistance programme 24/7 & 365 freephone helpline
Covers all employees and immediate family members
Provides support for any problem e.g. stress, work issues, financial problems, addictions, carer worries.
Includes Health at Hand – specific help and advice about health issues (does not offer treatment service)
Includes counselling support (e-counselling, online counselling, telephone counselling and face to face on island counselling)
Offers up to 6 sessions free 1:1 then 4 further sessions depending on individual need
Counselling determined by triage

Off island 1:1 support (provided May-Sept 2020)

Independent peer to peer support or counselling accessed via an assessment of need.

On Island Counselling

Offers up to 6 sessions free 1:1 then 4 further sessions depending on individual need. We have received very positive feedback on this service.

Island life

Additional support offered depending on reason for the referral

Thrive

Free to use app used by NHS

Evidence-based, providing in-depth tools and support for anyone to improve their mental wellbeing

Available to all employees

Employee Support Pack

Two versions – one for HCS staff and more a general version for all others

Slimmed down version as Welcome back to work pack for those returning to the workplace

Mental Health First Aider (‘MHFA’) Network

Available across all depts – a list is available on MyStates

Regular update sessions held for MHFAs to support their skills

Linked to MIND Jersey

A Separate network being developed for schools

Approximately 200 will be trained by the end of March (169 at present). The aim is to provide a network of ‘listening ears’ and sign-posters to appropriate further support

Know Your Numbers

Primarily geared to fitness, this is also used as a way of supporting colleagues to build resilience and

develop coping strategies for managing stress

Training

General MH awareness via the Cardinus platform

Available for all employees

1 hr duration

Mental Health Awareness (MH England First Aid Light Equivalent)

For Managers

4 hrs duration (equivalent to managing H&S for managers)

Mental Health First Aider (MH England)

Training for MH first Aiders who form part of the MHFA network

2 days

Trauma Risk Incident Management (‘TRIM’)

Some TRIM practitioners in HCS and JHA.

Rationalising in progress to cover across all departments

This training is due to be updated in Fire and Ambulance

b) the number of staff members who voluntarily used any such measures;

161 colleagues accessed counselling (telephone, face to face and e-counselling) support through the BeSupported service in 2020. 300 calls in total were made to the service.

Many colleagues requesting support do so in confidence and hence the numbers receiving support, for example via Mental Health First Aiders, are not logged.

c) the number of referrals of staff to such measures;

Staff self-refer themselves for most of these interventions or support. Information about referrals will be held confidentially by the team or organisation to whom the referral is made and are not available to the Government.

However, during 2020 approximately 60 colleagues received face to face counselling on Island. 9 colleagues received independent support via an assessment. A further 200 referrals were made to Occupational Health by managers where stress, anxiety or depression were flagged by their staff.

d) the number of alerts that have been raised by Managers in relation to the wellbeing of individual members of staff;

We do not keep details of such alerts as many concerns are raised in confidence.

e) details of any advice, training or other support measures that have been provided to those in managerial roles within the Government of Jersey, to assist in identifying and supporting staff that may be suffering from poor mental health; and

As noted previously, we provide:

general mental health awareness training for all employees via our Cardinus platform.
A Mental Health England first aid ‘light course’ is now available to all managers.
Opportunities to train as a Mental Health First Aider

f) details of any enhanced mental health, wellbeing and welfare support measures that have been made available to those in senior positions, including the Director Generals?

We treat all colleagues who may be experiencing any wellbeing issue with the same level of dignity and respect.

Director General’s and other senior colleagues were provided with access to 1:1 coaching support at the peak of the pandemic response through the Team Jersey programme

5.26 Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding the Chief Minister’s meetings with external stakeholders (WQ.26/2021)

Question

Further to the adoption of Common Strategic Policy, in which it was stated that “we will work in partnership with Parishes, churches, faith groups, community groups, the third sector, volunteers, businesses, trade unions and key stakeholders”, will the Chief Minister detail how many scheduled meetings he has personally had with faith groups, business representative groups and trade union representatives?

Answer

Since my election to Chief Minister in June 2018, I have undertaken a number of engagements with the groups listed in the above question.

This has included three meetings with faith groups and over fifty meetings with business and third sector representatives and two with trade union representatives.

The States Employment Board, which I Chair, has established robust arrangements for engagement between officers, on behalf of SEB, and trade union representatives. SEB does not negotiate directly with trade unions. Officers meet unions frequently on a full range of issues, including weekly on health matters throughout the pandemic.

I have also attended the Economic Council which includes both business and trade union representatives.

As part of my regular engagement I have also undertaken a number of speaking and or Q&A sessions with a variety of bodies including; JFL, the IoD, Jersey Chamber of Commerce, Jersey Mutual, Digital Jersey, Jersey Heritage and the European Association for Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA).

Additionally, I hosted a reception for the Island’s charitable sector and honorary consuls in January 2020 and intend to conduct Parish visits to each of the Island’s parishes this year.

Alongside these events I have engaged in regular correspondence with representatives of each of the groups listed both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.27 Senator S.W Palllett of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the exemptions from Covid-19 restrictions applied to critical worker (WQ.27/2021)

Question

Following recent news reports that a new Covid-19 variant has been discovered in Rennes, France, will the Minister –

(a) advise Members whether he intends to suspend the exemption that currently permits ‘critical’ construction workers to undertake work immediately upon arrival in the Island without any period of self-isolation; and if not, why not;

(b) set out why such construction workers are deemed as ‘critical’, particularly in current circumstances; and

Answer

(a) There is no exemption that permits critical construction workers to undertake work immediately upon arrival in the Island. From 11 February, critical workers will be required to provide evidence of a negative pre-arrival PCR test as a condition of their permission to leave isolation for the purposes of work. They will still be required to wait for a negative arrival (day 0) result before travelling to and attending the workplace. Only once this has provided a negative result are they permitted to leave self-isolation for that work. The only exemption is if the work is time critical – where, for example, a delay in undertaking the work before that initial negative result is a risk to life. Then the company must provide details of all measures to be implemented to minimise the risk associated with that time-critical work. There is no present intention to change the exemption process.

(b) Construction workers are deemed ‘critical’ where the company has made the case that these workers cannot be recruited locally and where the time-critical nature of the work is such that those workers are needed now ie they are not available locally within the critical timescale of the project.

the person’s physical presence is required to keep services or businesses running
and the person’s specific skill is not readily available in Jersey
the work is time-critical in terms of urgency and/or duration of work
it would be impossible, unreasonable or dangerous for the worker to complete the isolation period before beginning work.

5.28 Connétable of St. Martin of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding the Jersey Cannabis Agency and the Jersey Cannabis Services Advisory Group (WQ.28/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide the following information on the Jersey Cannabis Agency and the Jersey Cannabis Services Advisory Group –

(a) their respective terms of reference;

(b) details of any annual funding provided by the Government of Jersey;

(d) details of membership, where possible, including any Ministerial responsibilities that may have been assigned?

Answer

(a) The UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 mandates that signatories establish national cannabis agencies to regulate cannabis cultivation. The UK Home Office has designated its Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit (DFLU) to serve as National Cannabis Agency for the UK. On the basis that the UK is the State Party to the Convention in respect of the Channel Islands, the DFLU – and by extension the Home Office – is directly concerned with the standards of regulation to be applied to cannabis cultivation in Jersey. The Jersey Cannabis Agency is established under an MoU with the UK Home Office which allows the Island to issue licenses to cultivate, possess and supply cannabis-based product for medicinal use as a regulatory authority (a sub-agency) in its own right. The Jersey Cannabis Services Advisory Group is currently an informal industry-led body that has been established to provide Govt. with a view on commercial industry development issues.

(b) The ‘Jersey Cannabis Agency’ is simply the licensing authority in respect of licenses to cultivate and is administered by the Chief Pharmacist. No Government funding is provided to the Jersey Cannabis Services Advisory Group.

(c) An Economic Development Framework for Cannabis Investment in Jersey is under development and which is anticipated to be completed in Q2 with an associated communication plan that will specify the roles and responsibilities of the various associated agencies.

(d) The Jersey Cannabis Agency is effectively the Health Minister under MOU with the UK Home Office.

5.29 Connétable of St. Martin of the Minister of the Environment regarding Environmental Impact Assessments for sites used for the protection of medicinal cannabis (WQ.29/2021)

Question

Will the Minister explain whether Environmental Impact Assessments were undertaken on sites used, or intended to be used, by firms that have recently been awarded licences for the commercial cultivation of medicinal cannabis; and will he state whether the results of any such assessments will be made publicly available?

Answer

The requirements for licenses to cultivate cannabis are a matter for the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and do not fall under the portfolio of the Minister for the Environment (‘the Minister’).

In regard to the regulatory aspects which are within the portfolio of the Minister, there are no requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment under either the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 or the Planning and Building (Environmental Impact) (Jersey) Order 2006 for the commercial cultivation of medicinal cannabis on existing agricultural land.

This is regarded, in planning terms, as an agricultural activity similar to the growing of any other arable crop. It does not constitute a material change of use of land, or operational development, and it follows that planning permission is not required.

At this moment in time, there have been no planning applications for the commercial cultivation of cannabis which required Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’).

It should be noted that the cultivation and processing of cannabis are considered separately in planning terms. If there were a proposal to process medicinal cannabis this may, depending on the site and other factors, require a planning application which may, in turn, require an EIA if the proposal met the ‘Prescribed development requiring an environment impact statement’.

The planning register which records applications and supporting documentation (which includes EIAs) is already publicly available and can be found on gov.je.

5.30 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the availability of Covid-19 vaccines via private healthcare (WQ.30/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise whether any Covid-19 vaccinations will be made accessible to people through private health care arrangements in advance of the Government’s planned vaccination timetable?

Answer

There are no plans for Covid-19 vaccines to be made available through private healthcare arrangements. All vaccines are supplied by the UK to the Government of Jersey and received by our hospital pharmacy/chief pharmacist and deployed in accordance with the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s priority groupings, which we have adopted in Jersey.

5.31 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister of the Environment regarding the charges levied on solar panels (WQ.31/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise what charges are currently levied on the installation of solar panels on buildings; and will he also advise what work, if any, is being undertaken to lower or remove these charges in order to encourage the use of renewable energy products in both new builds and home improvements?

Answer

Part 4 of Schedule 1 of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011 already grants planning permission for solar panels on buildings where:

The building is not protected for its heritage value;
The building is not within the final approach zones for the airport runway;
The panels do not project more than 20 cm from the sloping plane of the roof; and,
No more than 90% of the surface area of the roof is covered.

Where these criteria cannot be met, planning permission is required. In such cases, the fee charged for an application is £64.60 per item, subject to a maximum of 6 items.

Having considered and received officer advice on the matter of lower or no charges to encourage the use of renewable energy, I have decided that the Environment (2022 Fees) (Jersey) Order 2021 will no longer incur a fee on applicants wishing to install solar panels for domestic use; except for where there are safety concerns related to the airport runway.

As technology continues to improve and other environmentally positive products become available, we will look to synergise regulation with the Island’s wider environmental ambitions where possible and appropriate. For example, what recommendations, if any, come from the Citizens’ Assembly as part of Government’s Carbon Neutral Strategy work and relate to regulation.

5.32 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the provision of freephone telephone line to access the Customer and Local Services Department (WQ.32/2021)

Question

Will the Minister explain what communication, if any, has occurred with JT, or what plans have been made, to enable the provision of a freephone telephone line for those needing to access the Customer and Local Services Department for assistance and information?

Answer

I have recently met with Jersey Telecom, and discussion included the cost of local call charges for those out of contract/package.

As explained in my previous answer to written question 13, Customer and Local Services calls are answered very quickly with an average wait time of less than 20 seconds. Officers will always call individual’s back, and there is an automated call back facility for anyone who has waited for 2 minutes at peak call times.

Customer and Local Services also offer e-mail support and individuals can book face to face appointments.

Jersey Telecom have for some time allowed islanders to make free local calls from any public payphone and therefore customers can telephone the department free of charge via this route

The Customer and Local Services Department has a wide range of customers, both individuals and businesses, who access services for a variety of different reasons. Officers are continuing to monitor calls, and the level of service provided to customers, to understand whether any further action is required.

5.33 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the citizenship of children of non-British residents (WQ.33/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise whether non-British residents in Jersey are advised that, if they have a child and did not work at some point in the 5 years preceding the child’s birth, the child cannot obtain British citizenship or a British passport; and, if so, will he explain what support and options are consequently made available to those who fall into this category, but who have been in Jersey for significant number of years or hold residential qualifications?

Answer

Prior to 2021, for a child to be automatically eligible as a British citizen to non-British parents, one of the parents must have been either, working, studying or been self-sufficient in Jersey or the UK for 5 years prior to the birth of the child (these requirements were in place to prevent someone from coming to the UK or Islands and living dependent on state support for 5 years to enable a child to be automatically eligible for British citizenship).

These requirements are determined by the British Nationality Act which has identical requirements whether a person is resident in the UK or any of the Crown Dependencies.

EU national children who were not eligible for British citizenship due to the requirements of the British Nationality Act, but who were resident in Jersey prior to 2021, are eligible to the settlement scheme. Settled status is granted to any EU national who has had 5 continuous years residency in Jersey and does not require applicants to have been working, studying or self-sufficient during that period. Anyone granted settled status will be eligible to apply for British citizenship after 1 year.

Any child born in Jersey to a person who has been granted settled status is immediately eligible for British citizenship.

Advice regarding eligibility for British citizenship and how to obtain a British passport is available from the Immigration and Nationality section of the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service (JCIS).

Where foreign nationals resident in Jersey require advice in relation to obtaining identity documents, they should contact the consular service appropriate to their country of origin. JCIS may be able to advise on whether there is a Jersey based Honorary Consul who can be contacted in the first instance.

Jersey’s residential qualifications, or those from any other British jurisdiction, do not have any bearing on a person’s eligibility for British citizenship.

5.34 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding capacity of patients in care homes (WQ.34/2021)

Question

For the period March 2020 to date, will the Minister advise how many patients living in care homes under the care of the Health and Community Services Department have been assessed as lacking capacity?

Answer

Capacity means being able to make a particular decision at that time for oneself. One of the five core principles of the Capacity and Self-Determination Law (CSDL) is that everyone aged 16 and over has capacity unless it can be proven otherwise. Capacity can fluctuate depending on the impact of the impairment, time, and also the type of decision. As such, a person may have capacity to make some decisions, but not others, depending on what the decision is and when it needs to be made. Therefore, no person ubiquitously does not have capacity.

A person can only be deemed to lack capacity where there is an inability to use information given, at that time, to make that decision because of an evidenced disorder or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. The identified impairment has to be the direct cause of the problem with one or more of the legally defined areas that constitute decision-making. Therefore, a patient in a care home will have their capacity constantly assessed each time, in relation to each decision, ranging from what to wear, to consenting to care, treatment and residence. Given the time and decision-specific nature of capacity, it must remain under constant review.

Therefore, this reply focuses on assessments in relation to the decision: Can the individual (“P”) validly consent to their care and treatment in their current address? Under Part 5 of the Capacity and Self-Determination Law (2016) (“CSDL”), this decision requires formal assessment when P is being significantly restricted of their liberty, by a Capacity and Liberty Assessor (a qualified professional such as a social worker, OT, or nurse) and a Mental Health Assessor (an approved psychiatrist), the second of which is the person’s capacity (checking they fall under the auspices of the law, i.e. being 16 or over is the first).

In the care homes managed by HCS, since March 2020 there have been 11 duly made applications for authorisation of Significant Restrictions on Liberty (“SRoL”). All of these were assessed as lacking capacity to make the relevant decision (as stated above) at the time of assessment.

As advised, ‘capacity assessments’ are constantly undertaken for a multitude of decisions across Health and Community Services, with these ordinarily recorded in case notes and decision-making records as assessing capacity is not a discrete event but an ongoing process. For example, a dentist will assess an individual’s capacity to consent to dental treatment and record this assessment in their own notes; a healthcare assistant will assess an individual’s capacity to consent to partaking in a social activity and record the outcome in the relevant notes – both are capacity assessments. More formal capacity assessments take place for bigger decisions, such as moving home, serious medical treatment and managing finances (not an exhaustive list).

5.35 Connétable of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the taxation of growing and processing medicinal cannabis (WQ.35/2021)

Question

Further to undertakings made in the Government Plan 2021-2024, will the Minister -

(a) provide the Assembly with an update on the progress, if any, that has been made in respect of proposals for a scheme to tax the growing and processing of medicinal cannabis;

(b) advise, in particular, whether any tax incurred by people on the profits made from the growing and processing of medicinal cannabis will be separate from, or additional to, any other tax paid by these people; and

(c) advise whether any tax levied on the growing and production of medicinal cannabis will be at the full standard rate without set off?

Answer

(a) Article 16 of the Finance (2021 Budget) Law 2020 enables the States to make Regulations providing for the taxation of the profits of companies whose business involves or relates to medicinal cannabis or its derivatives. No substantive work is yet under way to develop draft Regulations.

(b) & (c) It is not therefore possible at this early stage for the Treasury to make any commitments regarding the drafting of those Regulations.

5.36 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding genomic testing of Covid-19 (WQ.36/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise, in relation to genomic testing –

(a) where the Covid-19 samples are sent to be tested and the time interval from dispatch to receipt of the results;

(b) how many samples of Covid-19 have been sent to the U.K. each week since 1st December 2020 to determine whether any variant strain of the virus has reached the Island; and

Answer

(a) Samples are sent to Public Health England (PHE) for sequencing. The time interval is currently around 7 to 10 days.

(b) Initially the maximum number of samples PHE would accept for sequencing per week was 10, but from 1/2/21 it is accepting up to 50 per week.

(c) The presence of the UK Kent variant (B.1.1.7) in Jersey has now been confirmed in 4 of the last 25 samples sent to the UK. No particular Jersey-specific strain has been noted. No other variants of concern have yet been noted, but we are, of course, continually monitoring for these.

5.37 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the spread of Covid-19 in the hospital (WQ.37/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise, in relation to the number of cases of Covid-19 discovered in the Hospital since the start of the pandemic –

(a) what system has been in place to screen patients before they are admitted;

(b) whether any ongoing testing for the virus takes place in wards for longer-term patients and, if so, at what frequency; and

Answer

Patients who are coming into hospital as planned admissions, for example, for surgery, are PCR-tested for Covid-19, 3 days prior to admission. The ‘To Come In’ (TCI) team books the patient’s swab date and inform the patient by letter as to the appointment date and time. The patient attends the Overdale site for their swab to be taken by the swabbing team. The patient is then requested to self-isolate until the day of their admission to hospital.

For children and those patients who are unable to attend the Overdale site, arrangements are made for them to attend the swabbing centre at the airport.

Patients who are admitted to hospital as an emergency are screened on their arrival at hospital.

Ongoing testing for Covid-19 does take place; inpatients are routinely tested every 3 days during their hospital stay.

Where a patient has tested positive during their inpatient stay, they are categorised as outlined in the table below, dependent upon what day following admission to hospital they test positive.

Community-Onset, not Healthcare-

Associated

Positive specimen date on day of

admission or up to 2 days after

admission.

Hospital-Onset Indeterminate

Healthcare-Associated

Positive specimen date 3-7 days after

admission, with no prior hospital

admission in previous 14 days

Hospital-Onset Probable Healthcare-

Associated

Positive specimen date 8-14 days after

admission or specimen date 3-14 days

after admission, with prior admission in

previous 14 days

Hospital-Onset Definite Healthcare-

Associated

Positive specimen date 15 or more days

after admission

Once a patient has tested positive for Covid-19 they are not retested.

If a probable or definite hospital onset of COVID-19 is found, we have a set procedure to follow to investigate the root cause. To date, we have not identified any definite transmission of Covid-19 from any member of staff.

5.38 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding access to medical specialists allowed for under the Jersey Care Model (WQ.38/2021)

Question

Will the Minister advise whether the implementation of the Jersey Care Model will allow for patients to access medical specialists on-Island in all areas that may be required; and, if not, will he explain why not and state what options will be available to patients to see specialists in their required area?

Answer

Living on an island requires Health and Community Services (HCS) to commission UK tertiary centres to provide some areas of specialist advice, diagnostic interventions and surgical and non-surgical treatment for a number of our patients. This model is common to many Health Authorities in the UK, where patients would be required to travel to specialist centres for specialist treatment.

The inability to provide certain specialist expertise on Island is, in the main, a consequence of not having the specialist equipment or facilities currently available, for example Radiotherapy, and/or the specific medical skills and knowledge that enables interventions and/or treatments to be undertaken without risk, for example, specialist surgery.

It is unlikely that implementation of the Jersey Care Model (JCM) will ensure patient access to all of the medical specialists we need on-Island. Consideration will be given to repatriating some tertiary services back on-Island, but this needs to be balanced against associated costs, the feasibility, and viability around delivery of these specialist medical services. Factors that can influence this position include workforce supply, Royal College guidelines and best practice such as NICE guidance.

The options need to be looked at in the context of the number of patients requiring specialist treatment, and for some specialties these numbers are low due to the complexity of the intervention or treatment. To be able to confidently perform infrequent specialist surgery requires clinicians to maintain the required skills with minimal risks and upmost patient safety. In reality, for HCS to provide intervention or treatment for every known speciality would not be feasible, safe, or cost-effective. However, HCS is considering expanding the number of visiting consultants to provide additional specialist treatment and surgery on-Island that is presently undertaken in the UK.

As part of the JCM, HCS will be required to undertake an in-depth analysis of any potential treatment or procedure considered for repatriation on-Island. Until this analysis is completed, we are unable to provide details as to what could be provided at this point in time.

As is currently being provided, the options of face to face appointments, surgical intervention, diagnostics, and medical treatment (including radiotherapy) off-Island would continue.

6. Oral Questions

6.1 Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen of the Attorney General regarding potential legal threats to the Overdale Hospital project (OQ.29/2021)

Will the H.M. Attorney General please advise whether there is any potential legal threat to the Overdale Hospital project from the 2 avenues of legal action, under the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961 and the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, outlined in Blakeley Legal’s letter of 31st January 2021, a copy of which I forwarded to him and in fact I forwarded to all Members?

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

I thank the Constable for his question. Blakeley Legal’s letter of 31st January does indeed make legal threats. I am advising the hospital project and the political oversight group on those threats but my advice is confidential and subject to legal privilege. Thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I am guessing the Constable does not have a supplementary.

The Bailiff:

Well if people do not ask for a supplementary then I assume that they are not asking for one and move on.

6.1.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

That is fine, I just did not want to jump the queue. I think this is related because it is related to the legal letter that has been going out do with the road at Overdale and the project. Is he aware that Mr. Blakely has been writing to residents of the area saying that there is a Parish meeting coming up and that they can give him power of attorney to vote for them at the Parish Assembly? If the Attorney General is aware of that, can he advise whether it is possible for members of any Parish to give power of attorney to another individual to vote on their behalf at such a Parish Assembly?

The Bailiff:

I thank the Deputy for his question. The long-term care scheme provides benefits for adults of all ages who satisfy the conditions of the scheme. Four levels of payments are provided based on care assessments of the individual. A separate payment is provided in respect of the living costs in a care home. Benefit levels were originally set in July 2014 based on the predecessor’s benefits and arrangements that the scheme replaced. This places long-term care benefits at a good, basic level within the overall care market and the funding for the scheme is based on this assumption. Benefit levels are regularly reviewed and were last increased at the start of 2021. I have the 4 levels: level 1 is £394.73, level 2 £602.28, level 3 £870.59 and level 4 £1,094.52.

6.2.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I would ask the Minister to answer the last part of my question which is: are these benefit levels set in relation to the cost of care services that are available in the Island today?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

The cost of the care package does cover some care homes, it does not cover all care homes.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

A final supplementary, please, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Well, that is not normal, Deputy. We normally have a final supplementary if no one else has asked an intervening supplementary. There has not been an intervening supplementary, so we move on to the next question. But you have a point of order, Deputy Young?

Deputy J.H. Young:

No, sorry, my point of order was in relation to the first oral question because it did occur to me that Members may wish to have the opportunity to consider an answer in camera. We have passed on that now but I do think it is an important question.

The Bailiff:

I am very grateful to Deputy Ward for his excellent supplementary question which leads to my final supplementary question to the Minister who was chief officer at Planning when I was asked as a young Deputy to chair the Urban Renewal Subcommittee. He will remember that the previous Planning Committee had an urban taskforce. Does the Minister believe that we have the right political structure in place to achieve the coherent and holistic planning for town that is necessary or are we in danger of being fragmented and seeing the money that is being generated by projects being spent on a variety of “nice to have” projects rather than on the central matters that we have been discussing this morning?

Deputy J.H. Young:

It seems a lifetime ago when I was a civil servant and there was indeed division of an Urban Renewal Committee, I think it was called, and there were very substantial public funds allocated to it. The States also had available money to buy land, which I think was anything up to £100 million, and sites were acquired and developed in accordance with that work, so it was very progressive, ahead of its time. Sadly, a lot of that, in fact nearly all of it, has withered on the vine. I think now with the Island Plan, and I think with Deputy Labey’s energy and the support of the Connétable, there is every chance that in the future we can try and retain some of that in new structures. But realistically, we have only got just over a year to go and I think we are unlikely to get that full machinery in place at the moment but certainly the Island Plan will provide the model for the way forward.

The Bailiff:

I apologise, Deputy Doublet, I think I missed your point of order that you raised earlier. I am sorry, sometimes things get lost in the flurry of comment on the chat. You have a point of order?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Yes, thank you, and other Members did allude to it, but I just wanted to know what Standing Orders say about when the Assembly seeks legal advice. What other avenues are there if the A.G. (Attorney General) is not able to answer? Can the question perhaps be answered by the S.G. (Solicitor General) and what would be the normal procedure if the A.G. feels he cannot answer?

The Bailiff:

Well I would need to give that some consideration, Deputy. It is not something that I need to make a ruling on immediately but you may be aware that there is a request for an urgent oral question in the same terms to be directed to the Solicitor General. I will be giving consideration to that over the luncheon adjournment and perhaps that will deal with this particular matter.

6.4 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Children and Housing regarding the safeguards in place to protect tenants who found themselves homeless (OQ.37/2021)

Will the Minister advise what safeguards, if any, are in place for tenants who find themselves homeless due to a fire or other event not of their making; and is it in his assessment that there are sufficient protections in place for tenants?

The Bailiff:

Minister. Deputy Labey?

Deputy R. Labey:

I am so sorry, I was having issues.

The Bailiff:

I wondered if you had forgotten you had just been elected as Minister, Deputy.

Deputy R. Labey (The Minister for Children and Housing):

That too, sorry. Well obviously one sympathises with anyone who finds themselves in this type of difficult situation which we all hope is a rare occurrence on the Island. The Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Law 2011 regulates the relationship between private parties who enter into a contractual arrangement in the letting of residential property. The law sets out the basic terms that a tenancy must contain and regulates the termination of tenancies. The law provides that if a property becomes uninhabitable through no fault of the tenant, then the tenant is not required to pay any rent during the period when the property is uninhabitable and that both the tenant and the landlord have recourse to approach the court to either vary the length of the tenancy or end it. In line with the Common Strategic Policy and the Government Plan of 2020/2021, I am committed to improving the rights of tenants and this issue will be part of that project. I give that commitment to the Deputy. It may be that the circumstances here have uncovered a flaw in the Residential Tenancy Law, that it may be defective and may need updating, and I will make that one of my first priorities.

6.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I thank the new Minister for answering that question. It is probably his first official duty of his new role and he seems to be already well briefed on that. He is quite right to say that Article 9 of the Residential Tenancy Law obviously provides, say, for example, if there has been a fire, and there certainly was a fire in the Parish that I represent where 6 households found themselves homeless, so of course they do not pay rent there because they have nowhere to inhabit. But there is nothing in the law which says that the landlord must provide them with suitable alternative accommodation for the rest of their tenancy. So while there is, as he says, a recourse to the court, not just to vary the length of the tenancy but to vary the tenancy if either party wants to do that, does he agree that it is quite an arduous process and not an automatic one and that there should be a presumption in the law that if what you are renting becomes unavailable that the person you are renting it off should provide something equivalent or better at no additional cost to the tenant?

Deputy R. Labey:

Well, yes, I have to agree. Having to go to court to resolve this in an emergency situation is certainly not ideal.

The Bailiff:

We now come on to question 5 that the Connétable of St. Martin will ask of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture. I am sorry, excuse me, Deputy of St. Peter, did you have a question in connection with the Minister for Children and Housing?

Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter:

No, sorry. I am a bit slow on the button, I apologise.

The Bailiff:

Or fast on the button, perhaps, I am not sure.

6.5 Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding the position of capital allowances in relation to the growing and processing of medical cannabis (OQ.25/2021)

I am not sure if that relates to the initial question. But as part of the licensing application and process, environmental impact studies are required. There has been a lot of misinformation and concern about the sector and I would encourage Members to visit facilities in relation to just how the crop is grown. It is certainly a far-more friendly and sustainable use of the land than many other types of agriculture we currently deploy.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Ward, I allowed that question in. That slipped past me into the net I am afraid. I do not think it related to the original subject matter. So I will not allow a supplementary on it.

6.5.7 Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:

For the benefit of the Assembly, will the Minister confirm that he and his officers gave a presentation to the Economic and Industrial Affairs Scrutiny Panel less than 2 weeks ago and that he has committed to replying to some further questions we are about to raise, which are fairly imminent I might suggest? Will he confirm that these will be duly answered perhaps in anticipation of the panel conducting further work on this subject?

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Absolutely yes.

6.5.8 The Connétable of St. Martin:

What work has been carried out to prove that the production of hybrid medicinal cannabis will be a significant economic benefit? Bearing in mind the tax position on local companies and the structuring of investment companies within trusts where it is difficult to see any significant economic benefit for the Island.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Sorry, could the Connétable just elucidate that question? I am not sure I understood it.

The Connétable of St. Martin:

What work has been carried out on the production of high-grade medicinal cannabis to prove that there will be a significant economic benefit? Bearing in mind local tax positions on local companies and structuring of investment companies within trusts. It is not always so straightforward, so has work been carried out to prove that there will be a significant economic benefit?

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Thank you to the Connétable just for explaining that a little more clearly. Work has been ongoing on this project for almost 3 years now. It was originally identified in the rural economy strategy that we must drive towards the cultivation and production of higher-value crops. A considerable amount of work has been done, not just on cannabis, but other crops as well. We have many papers and evidence based on facts in relation to the potential financial benefits of such a market. But not just to the Treasury, creating new employment streams, new skillsets. It is not just about cultivation and growth. It is about scientific research, intellectual property, so there are lots of other elements to the industry that could benefit the Island and Islanders. But of course happy to share that information with Members if they so wish. A lot of work has been done. But I would also stress, it is a relatively new industry and we have to monitor it closely. This is a long-term business development programme and I ask Members to support it and help it grow, if you will excuse the pun.

The Bailiff:

I understand that question 6 now is being deferred, Deputy Pamplin?

Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Yes, thank you. For the benefit of Members, I thank the Chief Minister for contacting me and, further to my email to the Greffier, this question will be asked by the Chief Minister in questions without notice. My second question later on in the order will be deferred for the new Minister when he has that responsibility in place in a couple of weeks’ time.

The Bailiff:

Senator Gorst, you had a point of order.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I did. I hope it is a point of order. Things were inferred in the previous question in regard to cannabis, which I do not think are correct. I wonder if you could rule, tax rates and fiscal matters are purely a domestic matter for the decision by the States of Jersey and not, as intimated by a questioner in that previous question, so I wonder if you can just rule on that?

The Bailiff:

I cannot rule on that. No matter what view I might take of the matter, Senator Gorst, it is not a matter on which the Presiding Officer can make a determination or the application of Standing Orders. Effectively that is a matter to be clarified outside of the course of questioning.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

To be helpful, I did allude to that in my answer. I did say, maybe not forcibly enough, that tax matters were a matter for the States.

I am slightly confused by the question. I think the Senator is saying that the department caved in at threat of a tribunal and then changed the amount or changed the redetermination. I do not think that has ever happened. I am not quite clear on what the Senator is intimating.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Southern, you have asked for a supplementary question. Generally, we do not allow a second supplementary question because there is normally simply not enough time for them and it would end up a simple question and answer. I can allow one on this occasion though, there is a little bit of time left allocated.

6.8.8 Deputy G.P. Southern:

It is a very simple question. Does the Minister consider that, where it is shown that her department has made a mistake, this insistence on seeing that paid back of an overpayment is fair treatment of these clients who are very vulnerable?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

The Deputy has made 2 statements there. That everyone who has had an overpayment are a vulnerable client. That is definitely not true. The fairness comes in that all the income support payments, the £80 million of it, comes from the taxpayer. So, I am sorry, mistakes will be made on both sides and the repayments have to be repaid.

6.8.9 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Does the Minister agree that it is the problem with the Social Security Law that puts the onus on the claimant fully understanding every aspect of the claim and claiming back if they perceive an error that leads to so many of these overpayments? Would she not agree that the policy of we will reclaim overpayments regardless is putting many people into serious financial debt and trapping them in a cycle of poverty?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

On every single letter that goes out we remind the client that: “If your circumstances change at all, either you get more money in or you get less money in, contact the department straight away.” We do renegotiate payments, it can be as low as £3 per day, and I know that some people will find that hard. But they may have had 3 weeks prior an extra £200 or £300 a week in their payments. So where has the money gone? It has to be repaid back. I cannot let everybody not pay an overpayment back and then not be able to have enough money to pay on to the next person in need of the safety net.

6.9 Deputy M.R. Higgins of H.M. Attorney General regarding the confidentiality or otherwise of Government of Jersey contracts (OQ.42/2021)

With regard to major contracts, such as for the new hospital, where there is a major public interest due to the cost or impact of the project, will Her Majesty’s Attorney General advise members of the legal position of whether each individual contract as a whole is confidential or whether only certain clauses are required to be; and in what circumstances and for what time period does such information remain confidential?

The Attorney General:

In a nutshell, the answer depends on each case and it depends on what the parties have agreed. I have researched practice in the United Kingdom in relation to hospital construction contracts. I have not been able to find any examples of contracts where either the whole of the contract or parts of the contracts have been published. That suggests that the practice there, where they also have freedom of information legislation, which is similar to ours, is not to publish such contracts. In terms of the duration, the period of time in which restrictions on disclosure of information apply, that is covered by Article 19 of our Freedom of Information Law, which provides in summary that, where an exception in the law has been relied on for a scheduled public authority to not publish the requested information, then the information must be published after 30 years. I hope that assists the Deputy to some extent in relation to his question.

[12:00]

6.9.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I must say I am surprised at the Attorney General’s answer. I am sure I will be coming back at him on it. Could he tell me though, for example, is there anything to prevent the cash sum involved in a contract being revealed to the public? So, in other words, if you have a main contractor who is being paid X-money for providing the hospital that his sum will not be disclosed? Or in the case of a subcontractor, the amount of money that he is being paid for a particular activity is not disclosed to the public?

The Attorney General:

That information, as I say, I have not been able to find examples of that being published in the U.K. Obviously, there are issues concerning the commercial sensitivity of that information. A contractor may insist that sort of information is not published in relation to a particular construction project. These are bargains that are struck between the parties, between the contractor, subcontractors, and the authority that is commissioning the project. So these are matters for negotiation between the parties. But certainly, from the research that we have done, we have not been able to find examples where that sort of information the Deputy has referred to has been published.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Final supplementary.

The Bailiff:

The way it works is that there is only a final supplementary if there is someone else has asked a question in between, otherwise your last supplementary was the final supplementary.

6.10 Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the benefit payments that had been available to those employees who had been unableto work due to Covid-19 (OQ.38/2021)

Will the Minister advise what benefit payments have been available to employees who have not been able to work as a result of contracting COVID-19, or having to self-isolate to protect vulnerable family members; together with the number of any successful claims and the total overall benefit amount paid?

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

No, I cannot provide that information. That information is with our design and delivery partners and the Parish, so I do not have that information to hand. I could not understand the second part; was it in relation to the bowling club, could he just make that clear?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, when did you communicate to the Parish that the bowling club would be lost as a consequence of the adoption of the Westmount Road approach?

Senator L.J. Farnham:

P.P.E. is provided by the Government for relevant staff groups according to Public Health England guidance, upon which local guidance is based.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I can hardly understand what the Minister is saying. There is interference.

The Bailiff:

I wonder if you can find a way of speaking slightly more loudly or closer to the microphone or something like that, Minister, because it is quite difficult to hear you. If you could start your answer again that would be helpful, I think.

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Yes, I am sorry. I hope this will be clearer.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

There is an echo, a severe echo.

The Bailiff:

The Bailiff:

A supplementary, Senator?

Senator S.Y. Mézec:

No, thank you. I thank the Assistant Minister for his answer and look forward to that invitation.

6.15.3 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Partly I would like to do the same as Senator Mézec and ask for that consultation and involvement with the Deputy, but also can I ask him to consider the effect on traffic flow and the possible increase in traffic - particularly with Springfield School being so close by and them having serious problems with safety outside of the school - and a real inertia from the department that seems to be dealing with that? Will he commit to ensuring that all of the impacts of these changes will be considered before anything is proceeded with and full consultation is undertaken?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Thank you, Deputy. At the bottom of my notes I had written that in most of these cases where we have this situation, traffic flow and carparking is mostly a central theme. The other thing, as you appreciate, is that if you have bigger attendances we will have a traffic flow problem, though I would certainly consider it, especially with the school being just around the corner. I have no hesitation in making sure that we make everything work, with your assistance.

6.15.4 The Connétable of St. Helier:

Is the Assistant Minister aware that last time when green space was threatened at Springfield by the installation of the artificial pitch, I brought a proposition to the States to make sure that there was no net loss of green space? His predecessor, former Deputy Patrick Ryan, was willing to make sure that there was not a loss of space and to adjust the plans to prevent the matter requiring a States debate. Will the Assistant Minister agree that it would be far better to guarantee no loss of space or trees to avoid this matter having to be debated by the States?

The Deputy of Trinity:

Thank you, Connétable. I would be delighted to guarantee it. The only thing is that I just need to - and I think with your help - get the overall plan of what we are trying to do and then hopefully we can come to some arrangement. But I would certainly guarantee there will be no loss of space. As I say, the one thing that is slightly worrying me is the trees. It would be silly of me to guarantee it if we have to adapt to sort the trees, but we would be more than happy, because I cannot see the point of having a debate when we are all on the same side. I will take your views and look forward to meeting up with you and discussing it.

6.16 Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding the proposed extension of the Millenium Town Park over the Gas Works site (OQ.41/2021)

Will the Chief Minister advise whether the Government remains committed to extending the Millennium Town Park over the Gas Works site, and what support, if any, will be provided to Andium Homes to ensure their plans to achieve this remain viable?

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

Yes, we do remain committed to the decision of the Assembly from January 2018, which requested Andium Homes, subject to planning permission, to make an extension of the Millennium Town Park, providing additional park and homes. Obviously the Government have previously supported Andium Homes via a £250 million bond and I am confident the new position of the Minister for Housing and Communities will allow for additional political focus to be directed to projects such as this. The Minister will be expected to work closely with Andium. I understand the current proposal will then form part of an ongoing planning application, obviously. It is important due process is respected and is mindful of the heritage considerations. At this stage, it is a little bit too early to tell what, if any, support or any further support is required by Andium, but in much the same way that the heritage considerations were considered when the current Millennium Town Park was constructed, I - or perhaps more appropriately the Minister for Treasury and Resources, as the guarantor - would certainly welcome further dialogue with Andium on this matter. That is being followed up.

6.16.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I welcome the Chief Minister’s answer there. Would he agree that a worst-case scenario, which is that the plans become unviable because of those heritage concerns that he has rightly raised, and the scheme were to be abandoned and a previous planning application were to be reinstated that involve no extra green space and piling in of unaffordable homes on to that site must not be allowed to happen? Will he guarantee the Assembly and the residents of that part of St. Helier they can count on the support of the Government to ensure that that does not happen and that we will have an extension of the Millennium Park one way or another?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am always very cautious about giving guarantees at 20 seconds’ notice, but what I will say is that the decision of the Assembly from January 2018, it was approved, it was made. On that basis, I see no reason why the Government should not be supporting that, which would therefore obviously include the extension to the Millennium Town Park. What I do want to understand is what the financial considerations are. Obviously for any planning development, including the one he has just referred to, they will also have to take account of the heritage sensitivity of the site.

6.16.2 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I have mentioned this to the Chief Minister already, but should not the States, as a matter of urgency, involve the geological section to do radar surveys of the site and perhaps do other excavations onsite to determine the extent of the heritage aspects, in other words, the dolmen, where they are located, and other finds? Because that information will be vital in determining, first, the planning application, and second, whether it can be incorporated within the scheme, as they have done in cities like Liverpool, Lincoln and London, where they can be, for example, viewed in the underground carpark so people can preserve them, see them, but at the same time not prevent the scheme going ahead.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The short answer, personally I do support the kind of work that the Deputy refers to. I would be very interested to know what was underneath. I do have to caveat that personal position, first understanding what the financial consequences are: is it the right approach from the heritage perspective? The reason I put it that way, we had a preliminary discussion with Heritage on this matter and I believe one of the suggestions at the moment is letting the planning process run, but it is something I am having some very, very preliminary conversations on and obviously will be guided by the professional advice on it. But on a personal perspective, I am not in disagreement with what the Deputy has referred to.

6.16.3 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

With a previous hat of having developed the original town park, is the Minister cognisant of the pollution beneath the area of the old gasworks, notwithstanding the Jersey Heritage aspects?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

In a former life - to capture a certain phrase used by one of our unfortunately late Members - I have not only smelt and watched the old works when I think it was the Grand Marché development took place, which certainly brought to light very physically the level of pollution that is in place down there. Whatever development takes place down there will have to be mindful of the contamination and the pollution on that side, but equally, as we are aware, I think it is the highest level of protection granted for that site due to the nature or potential nature of the heritage that is down there. The Connétable is absolutely correct. I rather assume that was taken into account when those planning applications were put in place.

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I thank the Minister.

6.17 Deputy R.J. Ward of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the importation of RD100 renewable diesel fuel to the Island (OQ.32/2021)

Will the Minister state the volume, in litres, of RD100 renewable diesel fuel that has been imported to the Island in 2021 to date; and also state the total amount of this fuel imported and sold in 2020?

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

The second-generation renewable diesel supply has imported nearly 1,750,000 litres in 2020 to Jersey, selling around 100,000 litres. In 2021, no further fuel has been imported to date.

6.17.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Given the opposition to removing of duty was due to the possible massive increase in fuel being imported, can I ask the Minister why this has not happened? Would he rethink the removal of duty on this fuel, because is that not the obstacle to it being used more thoroughly on the Island?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It is one of the obstacles, but of course the more popular the biofuel becomes, the cheaper it will become, but obviously there is a price difference at the moment. I believe it is around 20 pence per litre, but this hopefully will come down in the not-too-distant future. As I say, obviously with COVID there has been less uptake of fuels generally, but I would like to thank the supplier for allowing this information to be made public, as in normal circumstances it would be commercially confidential, so I thank them for that. As I say, moving forward we hope that prices will come down in the not-too-distant future.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

A supplementary?

The Bailiff:

I thought that was your supplementary, Deputy.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

It is just I would like to speak in favour of holding the votes for the chairs tomorrow rather than today. Really, notwithstanding Deputy Tadier’s comments, to me it seems the only fair way to do it. I speak from slightly personal experience in that I was this morning considering standing for one of the positions and thought: “No, I will not, because I do not have time to prepare as I would like to.” To me, that shows without doubt in my mind that there could well be other people in that position as well, so to rush through does seem to me to be essentially disenfranchising people. Just to slightly correct Deputy Tadier’s assertion that we only kind of knew about this very quickly or very recently is that I know the Chief Minister sent an email to States Members to confirm his nomination of Deputy Maçon and he said in that email - this is a number of days ago, perhaps 5 or 6 days ago, maybe even a bit more - also he would then be seeking to nominate someone for the Minister for Children and Housing, so we did know a number of days ago that Deputy Maçon and somebody else would be nominated as Minister for Children and Housing. Had someone wanted to stand against either nomination they definitely did have time to prepare for that because they knew today we would be undertaking those votes. On the other hand, what we did not know is whether Deputy Labey would be successful or indeed that Deputy Maçon would be successful, and so we did not know that their seats on the various committees would be vacant until the successful votes this morning. It is for that reason that I feel it is only fair that people are given the chance to consider and to prepare if they do wish to stand for one of the vacant positions on P.P.C. or the Planning Committee. Just as a slight aside, I would be delighted to know about your secret political party. Maybe Senator Gorst can inform States Members about that or indeed Deputy Tadier could inform States Members about that, as he does seem to know a lot about it and I, sadly, am in the dark. I will definitely will be voting to hold the votes tomorrow.

Deputy G.J. Truscott:

I just want to understand the logistics and ramifications of taking the vote tomorrow. First, I am very aware that there is an awful lot of work backing up for the committee to attend to at the end of the month and it would be unfortunate if we were to lose that meeting. I just need to know if tomorrow we could achieve the chairing posts and if tomorrow he could select his committee as well. I think that would be crucial, in my thinking, but I would like your opinion on that, please, Sir.

The Bailiff:

I think the position is that we could certainly list the election for chair for early in the morning and whoever is selected for chair, if they are in a position to bring their committee together in the afternoon, we could deal with that then. It does not seem to me there is any difficulty in Standing Orders of achieving that, Deputy Truscott.

The Deputy of St. Mary:

I speak as someone having had a not dissimilar experience a few weeks ago, in that I was vice-chair of one panel and the former chairman moved on. That was slightly curious in the sense that the former chair delayed his taking up responsibility of his new position until such time as the ... or to a certain time and that enabled the acting chair, which was at the time myself, to continue. My concern is that if we do adopt a situation where we hold it over until the next States sitting, my understanding is - and I stand to be corrected on this - that both committees would fall away and we will be without guidance in that respect. That surely cannot be allowed to happen. I did, for the benefit of Members, email your good self, Sir, over the lunch adjournment to say I will be in favour of the election this afternoon, but I do take note of the proposition made by the Deputy of Grouville, as supported by Senator Gorst. I can see that in the interests of democracy it might appear to be sensible to wait, as Senator Gorst said. It is not really a delay if we wait 24 hours. I note Deputy Tadier’s point, but I do not for one moment think this is a party issue or giving a chance to any other candidate. I think that the sitting vice-chairs, as it were, will have a very ... they are in a strong position and I doubt anyone else entering the fray would have much chance, but that is a personal view. But I would like to keep the question of party politics out of it, in the sense I think the Assembly will make a proper judgment according to the ability of the candidates themselves. For my own part, I will be happy to support the proposition now made by the Deputy of Grouville.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think the criteria for this decision for me is whether or not we are able to appoint the committees in full, because if we find ourselves without a Planning Committee, then the volume of business there is going to be seriously problematic and also we have to have a P.P.C. that is operational. If it is true that those committees fall away as a result of them at the present time not having a chair, it seems to me that it is really important that we will fill those chairs as soon as possible. I assume that we are going to sit obviously today and tomorrow, but after that we will then have to wait for a further chance if, for whatever reason, we get the same set of arguments. I imagine that we are thinking about appointing a number of members, so to me this leans very much in favour of doing it at the end of this afternoon’s session, as we discussed earlier and nobody objected to, and then that gives time overnight for Members that are potential members of those committees to be considered so we have the complete election and end up tomorrow with a full house, so to speak. I can see the political arguments. I do not really like us being in this situation, but frankly, I am really strongly feeling we should stay where we are and do this at the end of the afternoon. It is still the afternoon for anybody who wants to consider it and anybody wants to do email lobbying or so on, that can be done.

[14:30]

The Bailiff:

It is open - I just wanted to clarify in case it was not clear what I said before - it would be possible to hold an election for the chairs tomorrow morning and if the person elected as chair of any particular committee is prepared to put together their committee over the course of the day, that could be dealt with in the afternoon, so one could have, in theory, a fully constituted committee at the end of tomorrow in both cases, but that does require the elected chair to be able to proceed with that measure of haste. I hope that is of assistance to Members.

Senator S.Y. Mézec:

It follows on from what you have just said and also what Deputy Young said, that to get committees constituted as quickly as possible is obviously in our interests. The 2 candidates who have so far indicated that they would wish to go for the Planning Committee and P.P.C., in one case it is a vice-chair wanting to step up to chair. Forgive me, I do not know if the candidate has indicated that interest in standing is currently vice-chair of that committee, but certainly a member of it. There is incumbency there and it may well be the case that other incumbents would wish to carry on in their roles. The Assembly is obviously entitled to pick different candidates for those. But if they did turn out to be non-incumbents then there would need to be a greater period of time to determine who would be on the newly-constituted committee if they were seeking to effect some sort of change there. It would strike me that sort of discussion would be best held with more time than to do it in between agenda items on one sitting when we will be debating and trying to listen in to other people’s speeches. So, it does make sense to me to get the initial appointments done by this afternoon and then the membership done tomorrow.

The Bailiff:

You have a point of order, Deputy Tadier?

Deputy M. Tadier:

I do not need to ask it anymore, thank you.

The Deputy of St. Peter:

I just feel I ought to declare an interest. I have an outstanding planning application, which obviously has to be heard by the Planning Committee. So obviously it is in my best interests for a committee to be constituted to avoid no further delay. I just felt I ought to share that with you.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

I wonder whether there is a compromise position on this for the sake of practicality and whether we can, if there are nominations by the end of the day for the 2 chairs, or even for one of them or both of them, then it can be postponed until tomorrow. But if we can get on with one of the panels if there is no opposition, then that helps the chair of that panel to get their panel together tomorrow. Because it is not an easy thing to do because there are not a huge number of Members who are available for panels. Being a chair of a panel and trying to fill that panel is not always easy. I just wondered whether there is an opportunity to amend what is proposed here. I absolutely agree, if people want to stand, give them some time until the morning. That is absolutely fine. But, if they do not, or if it is only one of the 2 panels, perhaps we can get some of this work out of the way early and move forward. I would have thought that people would know whether they want to stand within a few hours or a couple of hours or from the beginning of today, to be honest, because we knew this was coming up. But I understand some time to prepare a speech if they do decide they want to stand. Thank you, I hope that makes sense.

The Bailiff:

It does, Deputy, but I am not sure there is a mechanism really for amending a proposition. The correct course, if Members wish to consider dealing with the matter differently, is to vote against this proposition and then to make a different proposition. This is a procedural matter and it is a matter for the Assembly to regulate its own procedure. I cannot say more than that at this point. Do you have a procedural question, Deputy Tadier?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes. It might be similar to what you have just said. I do not want to phrase it in terms of a second speech, because it is not. Tomorrow, if we elect the chairs tomorrow, we do not have to then elect the panels and the committees in full tomorrow, do we?

The Bailiff:

No, there is no requirement. In fact that could only really happen if the chairs were ready to bring a list or Members before the Assembly.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I am wondering if maybe the Deputy of Grouville could address that point when she comes back. Because that might be material about how some Members vote.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Deputy. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Deputy of Grouville to respond.

The Deputy of Grouville:

I am not going to make a huge speech. It was a simple request I was asking for. I did not consider a 24-hour overnight stopgap for the appointment of these positions to be an unreasonable one. Especially, as you have indicated, the appointment of the committee members can be dealt with at the end of this session. I do not necessarily agree with Deputy Young, who said that the person interested could be garnering support during this session. It needs a clear head and a clear mind and the candidates may wish to do some research and consider whatever support they might have for the positions. So, with that, I make the proposition for a 24-hour delay in sitting.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. I ask the Greffier to post a link into the chat.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I do have a question.

The Bailiff:

What is your question, Deputy Tadier? Is it a point of clarification?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Just to make sure we are clear on what we are voting for. The Deputy said 24 hours, is that from now?

The Deputy of Grouville:

I was just going to say it is 24 hours since we appointed 2 ministerial positions and, unlike the Deputy was saying earlier that it is one rule for Ministers and one rule for others. I do not get that. The Minister for Children and Housing, the vacancy has been there for a considerable length of time, weeks even.

The Bailiff:

The position is, from the point of view of the Presiding Officer in any event, a decision not to take it today must mean that we take it at a convenient time tomorrow. It seems to me that, in order to afford any elected chair the best opportunity of putting together a panel, the election for chair should happen as the first item of business tomorrow morning. Therefore they would then, whoever the elected chair is, would have the rest of the day arguably, or at least until business otherwise concluded, to put together the panel and put it before the Assembly if they wish to do so. I would be interpreting the proposition not strictly 24 hours unless the Deputy of Grouville wishes to argue for a strict interpretation of her proposition and Members will then vote accordingly. But my interpretation would be that it be listed as the first item of business in the morning. Do you have any difficulty with that, Deputy of Grouville?

The Deputy of Grouville:

No, absolutely not. That is exactly what I meant. Because the items for the appointments for the Ministers were the first item today and I just felt the appointments of chairs would be the first item tomorrow.

The Bailiff:

The voting link is in the chat. A vote pour is to defer the appointment of the 2 vacant chairmanships of the committees until tomorrow morning, first thing. A vote contre is to maintain my original indication that we would deal with it today. Therefore, I ask the Greffier to open the voting and I ask Members to vote.

Senator L.J. Farnham:

Just double checking, pour is for tomorrow?

The Bailiff:

Pour is for tomorrow, yes. Pour is for tomorrow. Contre is for today. Abstention means you do not really mind. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition has been adopted: 33 votes pour, 9 votes contre, 2 abstentions. Therefore, we will deal with the election of the chair of the panels first thing tomorrow morning.

POUR: 33	CONTRE: 9	ABSTAIN: 2
Senator I.J. Gorst	Senator S.W. Pallett	Connétable of St. Mary
Senator L.J. Farnham	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Deputy of St. Peter
Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré	Deputy of St. Martin
Senator T.A. Vallois	Deputy R. Labey (H)
Senator K.L. Moore	Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
Senator S.Y. Mézec	Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Connétable of St. Lawrence	Deputy of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Connétable of St. Brelade	Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Peter
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 S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The Greffier of the States:

The 9 votes contre were: Deputy Maçon, Deputy Labey, Deputy of St. John, Deputy of St. Martin, Deputy Truscott, Deputy Le Hegarat, Deputy Young, Senator Pallett and Deputy Perchard. The abstentions were the Constable of Trinity and Deputy of St. Peter.

The Bailiff:

There were another 2 matters on which I was to give consideration over the luncheon adjournment. The first was on the presentation of an urgent oral question in the same terms as question 1 on the oral questions indicated today. I have allowed that as an urgent oral question and that will be taken at the end of the oral questions, before we move to questions without notice, so quite shortly in fact. That will be taken by the Solicitor General. The last point was the point that Deputy Ward raised about the ability to challenge questions, which had been lodged outside the ordinary timeframe for the various sittings of the Assembly, given that we sit less frequently now. In my view, helpful guidance has been given to Deputy Ward over the email by the Greffier, with which I agree. In my view, the correct way to challenge questions is to present that challenge to me by email, copied to the Judicial Greffe, within 24 hours of the answers being posted on the website. In other words, when the answers are posted outside the normal sitting round, as it were, there is 24 hours from the time they are posted to challenge. Then I will make a ruling as soon as I am able to do so as to whether they need to be amended. I hope that assists, Deputy Ward.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Yes. Just to say that does assume that we will be notified when they are posted or they are posted all at the same time by the set one week after the question has been set. Because I thought that one of the things about the change is they may be posted at any time, up to the deadline. That is all. Because the website is not sophisticated enough to give updates in that way; that was all.

The Bailiff:

My understanding is that they are effectively posted en bloc on the Monday after, around about lunch time on the Monday after the deadline for their provision. We now come on to concluding the questions with notice and the remaining 2 questions.

6.18 The Connétable of St. Martin of the Minister for the Environment regarding the sites that had been identified as suitable for the growing and processing of medical cannabis (OQ.44/2021)

The Deputy is raising very good issues. I can deal with the question of the water consumption. Yes, that is a regulated matter because such activities have the potential to reduce the water table level from surrounding domestic boreholes that people rely on for drinking water. Obviously, that would be a problem. Those impacts would be assessed. In terms of the other issues of pests and diseases, we have a very capable phytosanitary team, who are monitoring and will deal with those matters. But, in terms of an audit, then these are issues that are going to have to be set down in a policy and, as I said, this has to be included as well as the planning issues.

[15:00]

6.18.9 The Connétable of St. Martin:

I am grateful to the Minister that he said that he will seek legal advice on this subject about what is industry and what is agriculture. I just wanted to ask for clarification on exactly who in Government is responsible for the awarding of these licences. Because the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture told me that it was the Minister for Health and Social Services. Then the Minister for the Environment in answer to my Written Question 29 and just now has said that it is the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture. So I would really appreciate clarity on who does handle these licences.

Deputy J.H. Young:

The brief to me is that the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture has the responsibility for that licensing. But I understand, I listened to his answers earlier, this is done under arrangements, which our Minister for Health and Social Services agrees. So I am afraid I cannot give a definitive answer. But I can say it is most definitely not myself. Planning and the other environmental issues do come under the Minister for the Environment.

6.19 Deputy K.F. Morel of the Minister for Social Security regarding the role of the Government of Jersey in the regulation of the cost of private care for the elderly (OQ.28/2021)

Will the Minister explain what role, if any, the Government has in regulating the cost of private care for the elderly, whether in a person’s home or in a residential home; and furthermore, will she inform Members how the Government ensures that any increase in long-term care payments is not taken by the care sector as a signal to increase their charges?

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

Long-term care is for all adults over the age of 18 who require care, not just for the elderly. The Government does not regulate the cost of private care. Care homes are private businesses who set their own fees. Social care for adults in Jersey is provided by the Health and Community Services Department, some Parishes, commercial companies and also charities. The Government does not control the cost of fees charged for social care. Social care providers are regulated by the Jersey Care Commission, which requires a scale of fees to be published.

6.19.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I take it from the answer that, as well as the Government not regulating the cost of care, the Care Commissioner also does not regulate the cost of care, only requiring a scale of fees to be published. Would the Minister explain how then Islanders are protected from care providers overcharging or charging unreasonable sums for their care?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

I will try to answer that question. At the moment, we know that the highest fee, which is the £1,094.52, we can still find places for people in the care section. The question asked is do we interfere or not; that the long-term care payments are not taken by the care sector as a signal to increase their charges? I understand where the Deputy is coming from, where I take the first question from the Deputy today. If the Deputy wants to sit down with me, if our model is wrong, I would love his input as the Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture.

6.19.2 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I would like to ask the Minister, have you not just demonstrated that what we have is a free-market free-for-all in the provision of care for our elderly community and for perhaps any of us who may find ourselves in that situation? It is creating real hardship and people having to put vast amounts of money in. Is it not time that there is some regulation of these costs, urgently?

Deputy J.A. Martin:

That would be true if the Deputy’s statement were completely correct that there is not care places out there that people can afford under the amounts of money they can get on long-term care. I am not saying I am being complacent. I can absolutely look into this and I have just given an undertaking to Deputy Morel, who, as I say, if we need to look at the economic model and there is more we need to regulate. But, again, these are private companies and most private companies for services that they provide are allowed to charge the going rate.

The Bailiff:

That brings the time available for questions with notice to an end. We now conclude questions with notice. As indicated earlier, I am proposing to deal with the urgent oral question now and allow 10 minutes for that. Then we can move on to questions to Ministers in the normal way.

7. Urgent Oral Question

7.1 Deputy I. Gardiner of the Solicitor General regarding any potential legal threats to the Overdale Hospital project

I fear only in the broadest terms. Assuming any challenge were brought, then whatever the outcome at first instance; that is to say in the Royal Court, there may be an appeal thereafter. It is not obvious necessarily how far an appeal process might go. It is not necessarily obvious in any case, never mind this case, how long a timetable would be to reach an end of legal proceedings. All I can say, I suspect, and probably it is not a matter for me, but where a legal challenge engages a point of general public importance, then one would think that the Judicial Greffier would be keen to ensure that the legal process was expedited so that there was not undue delay in giving effect to any public policy decision. I hope that is helpful.

8. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Education

The Bailiff:

We now come on to questions without notice in respect to which there is a total of 45 minutes, 15 minutes for each. The first period of questioning is for the Minister for Education. A number of Members have already indicated a desire to ask a question, the first of which is Senator Mézec.

8.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

The previous Minister for Education announced an extension to nursery hours provided through the N.E.F. (Nursery Education Fund). Can I ask the Minister what his plans are for implementing that and what Members can expect to see come from him and his department in the coming months?

Deputy J.M. Maçon (The Minister for Education):

Deputy Doublet raised this question during my nomination. Senator Vallois indeed announced her intention to reach a level of 30 hours, consulting and working with industry. But there are caveats in there. I want to produce the early years report and look at it holistically. So, as I said to Deputy Doublet at the time, I have not ditched the intention, but it does require consultation with industry as well as any change that might need to happen to the Nursery Education Fund. That may need to come back to the States for approval.

8.1.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

It was an important moment when the previous Minister for Education made that announcement and many families with particularly young children will be looking forward to that. Could he reassure those people that the plans to expand it are not at risk and, while there might be some fine detail to work out, the support we will be providing families with very young children will be increased in the coming months and years?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I can only reiterate, there are the usual processes, which will need to be gone through as normal policy development work occurs. We do need to work with the private sector on this. There are commercial interests, which need to be worked through. There are the other political processes that need to be worked through as well. So, as I say, the whole package needs to be looked at.

8.2 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Can I ask the Minister, given that the gap in spending between fee and non-paying schools is currently £15,000 across a school career per child, what does the Minister intend to do regards this inequality or does he feel it is justified?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

As indicated when I stood for election, there is a recommendation in the Independent School Funding Review to consider this matter. It says: “Change in the relationship between the Government of Jersey and fee-paying schools, including offering greater autonomy and potentially means-tested fees rather than offering subsidised fees, seeing education as a universal benefit.” As I have said during my election, that is something I would want to take to the Council of Ministers for political sounding. Because there is no point wasting a lot of political time on it if it is just going to go nowhere.

8.2.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

With respect, that has not answered the question regards the current inequality of £15,000 for a child across their school career. Is the Minister intending to increase the funding for non-fee-paying schools so there is equity of spending on all of our children and thus putting all of our children first?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

8.7 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Can the Minister confirm if it is his will to have 30 hours’ funding or he is going back on that commitment for the nurseries?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I do not want to extinguish the intention. But I want to look at the holistic Early Years Policy Board report to be produced, to look at those recommendations, bring them to consultation with appropriate stakeholders, and to see what is practical. Because I would highlight to Members of the Assembly, when the U.K. introduced this policy, it led to a closure of many nurseries and led to less choice to parents. So the thing needs to be done in consultation with private-sector providers, et cetera.

8.7.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

As much as I am aware I remember on that, the Minister is himself on the policy board. So, if I understood correctly his answer, he is saying that he is not confident that he can achieve it because the recommendation was that it will be 30 hours, from my previous knowledge.

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Yes, I can confirm I was on the Early Years Policy Development Board. But there are caveats. It is not just the 30 hours, it is what you do with the Nursery Education Fund rate, et cetera, how that works with industry. So simply having the policy of: “We will move to 30 hours” without properly consulting on any of the implications of that, it still needs to be done, in my view.

8.8 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Does the Minister believe that the provision of a healthy free school meal for all children at school will be beneficial to their health and their well-being? If so, what measures would he take to ensure this happens?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Deputy Ward and the Assembly will know my views on these matters, which is no one wants to see any of our children go hungry in the Island. But I do think that, in the first instance, it is the parents’ responsibility to provide that. Where they are unable or unwilling to do so, it is appropriate for the States to step in. As the Deputy would know, we have a pilot programme being conducted at the moment to best understand how it is best to deliver and where there is demand in the Island for such services. Of course, I will design any policy following the results of that pilot programme. Because, as the Deputy pointed out in the debate, he said I believe it was something like 46 per cent uptake, which means that there is a still a significant number of children not benefiting from that. It is a wider issue. There are other things we might need to do.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Supplementary.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Deputy. That brings the time available for ...

Deputy R.J. Ward:

He has not answered a single question.

The Bailiff:

... oral questions to an end. We now have questions for the Minister for the Environment. First to pose a question, the Connétable of St. Helier.

9. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for the Environment

9.4 Deputy S.M. Ahier:

Will the Minister be carrying out an environment impact assessment on the Westmount Road development?

Deputy J.H. Young:

This is a difficult one because I have declared an interest in every single meeting that has taken place, either the States or the Council of Ministers, on the applications for both the hospital and the enabling works. I have made it plain, in my supplementary guidance that I issued, I indicated - more than indicated - there will be a planning inquiry into the hospital application when it comes forward. I have made it clear that I expect that the road and the access will be part of that application. Because I do not consider it is acceptable to have separate applications coming forward and put the inspector in a position of having to judge one without the other.

[15:45]

The 2 go together. Part and parcel of that will be the impact. The factors to be taken into account in the impact were set out in the supplementary planning guidance I issued and in the Island Plan. That is the best answer I can give the Deputy at the present time.

9.4.1 Deputy S.M. Ahier:

Is the Minister aware of any habitats that may be lost, if any, by the road-widening proposal?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I am not personally aware of wildlife habitats but I would not be surprised if there are some. Because obviously we have a woodland area in there and surrounding. An environmental impact would always work the same way, is that there would need to be a baseline assessment of what is there before the development and assessment of identifying what is there and what the impact is and what is possible to be mitigated or not in any development.

9.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Sadly, Jersey’s sea waters are not as clean as many Islanders and many States Members would like to believe. As we have seen recently, oyster fishermen, who have their oysters classified as grade B by the E.U., are struggling now to export them into France. Would the Minister please explain what the main sources of pollution are that are stopping Jersey’s oysters being classed as grade A and what measures he is taking to try to ensure that pollution into the sea is reduced?

Deputy J.H. Young:

It was my understanding that we do have a couple of grade A oyster beds. If that is not the case I will need to check back. But the Deputy, I am sure, will be aware, because he is obviously very well informed, that the environmental health team undertake monitoring of sea waters periodically, in accordance which is required on a stricter timetable tied in with the fisheries. Of course, that information has to be presented and of course if there are exceedances in the level of e-coli, for example, in the sea water, then that has the potential to downgrade those beds and that has been an ongoing issue. If there is a problem, I think that the published record has shown in the past that it has resulted in overflows from our S.T.W. (sewerage treatment works) system, which is where we have a problem with excess surface water, which, as it were, overloads our system and we get an outflow on a high tide, which then gets carried forward towards the east and picked up. But of course then those oysters would then need purging if they are to be removed. But of course at the moment the difficulties I do not believe are … there are the key difficulties at the moment with the oyster fishing is the situation then with Brexit, which is constantly changing at the moment.

The Bailiff:

That brings the time available for questions to the Minister for the Environment to an end and the next question period for the Chief Minister.

10. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

10.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Is the Chief Minister aware that part of the table of statistics for COVID cases should add both horizontally and vertically and does not? Could he get the I.T. (Information Technology) Department to examine the coding and report back to the States? If he wishes to tell me who to contact, I would be delighted to but it is almost impossible to see who to address this to. I have had a number of complaints about the statistics not adding up correctly.

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

I will say I am slightly concerned to hear that. If the Senator could forward me an extract of the table she is talking about, ideally circled with the bit she thinks does not cross-cast, I would be very happy to forward it through. I am sure it is just probably a formulaic error, if there is one or, if not, hopefully it would be very easy to clarify and we will get that sorted out as soon as possible. But, no, please send it through to me and we will look at it straightaway.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

10.5.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

Of course it is going to skew what work you are doing but surely part of that skew would be towards some of the most vulnerable people in Jersey who have been affected worse by this crisis and it will, in many instances, be those faith groups and trade union representatives who will have seen these people on the shop floor face-to-face and understand what their needs are. Will the Chief Minister commit to doing what the Assembly unanimously agreed in an amendment to the C.S.P. (Common Strategic Policy) and hold proper engagement sessions with these faith groups, with trade union groups as well, so that their perspectives can be included in Government thinking so that he is governing in the inclusive way that he promised Members he would?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just because I have not necessarily met personally, other than what we have talked about, it does not mean that meetings have not been taking place with Government. For example, since the pandemic, using the unions as an example, they have met, I believe, 137 meetings with Government of representatives; that does not mean there is no engagement. From recollection, my understanding is that unions ... and I do have to thank them for the way that there has been a lot of collaborative work in these areas. I have met, I think, weekly with generally officials and obviously with things like the Connect Me and even such as the homeless policy, there is a lot of engagement going on, particularly to address the vulnerable that the Senator is referring to. Indeed, we have commented on that on previous exchanges in questions without notice on the support that is being put in place.

10.6 Deputy G.J. Truscott:

Fort Regent has been identified as a potential regeneration project, could the Chief Minister advise when the much-awaited report on the Fort’s future will be released?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

There is a programme of announcements coming through over the next 2 to 3 months and the Deputy, I hope, will be delighted to know that Fort Regent is among those. As well as various other briefings that are in the pipeline for Members, there will be a briefing, several briefings I suspect, on either directly Fort Regent or projects that relate to Fort Regent over the next, I will say, 2 to 3 months. I do not have the strict timeline in front of me but in quite close time. I hope Members will be delighted with the plans that we will be announcing in due course.

10.6.1 Deputy G.T. Truscott:

In terms of millions, could the Chief Minister indicate how much will have to be spent on reviving the Fort, bringing it up to modern standards?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I cannot give a total figure because it very much depends on one’s timescale. There is funding in the Government Plan for some of the projects. There are one or 2 bits that are in the fiscal stimulus bid for moving some projects forward. Those are all achievable numbers and are doable within our present financing framework. The Deputy is right though in remembering that Fort Regent is a much-loved asset of the Island, has not been invested in for a long time and to remedy that properly will be another investment that we have to do. But the short-term measures that we can put in place mostly are either budgeted or can appear from the fiscal stimulus side.

10.7 Connétable S.A. Le Sueur-Rennard of St. Saviour:

Seeing as we are saying the Fort is a wonderful asset and great for the Island, what is the Chief Minister wanting to do about the opera house? The Jersey Opera House is going down into a dilapidated condition, which is very sad, and the Islanders have worked so hard to keep it as a theatre and it is well-admired by a theatre. With everything that is happening at the moment we could have had an electrician going through it and some of the work could have been done. Could the Chief Minister tell me what plans he has for the Jersey Opera House, please?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Similar to Fort Regent, and the Connétable will not know this but I did do, I do not know, in days gone by at least 2 or 3 shows in backstage and used to know my way around some of the ladders and back corridors of that part of the opera house quite well. It also has a very soft spot in my heart and what I can say is that in terms of getting the electrician to go around and see what needed doing, that work has been done. I think that was alluded to in the press very recently. That was the work that was commissioned before Christmas operationally from within the government. My understanding in terms of funding is that the opera house has completed an expression of interest for the Fiscal Stimulus Fund and they have been invited to submit a business case; that means they are on to the next stage of assessment. I believe that assessment then takes place over the next few weeks. Provided that funding is granted, I make no commitments on that at this stage but bearing in mind what I have just said, then that would allow that work to go ahead, I understand.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

11. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020)

The Bailiff:

That brings the period of time allocated to questions to the Chief Minister to an end and that is the end of the last questions to Ministers without notice. We now move on to Public Business. I will remind Members we adhere to the normal time limits that have become established and the first matter is the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- P.110, lodged by the Minister for the Environment. The draft law was previously adopted as to the principles but were referred to Scrutiny and the debate, therefore, continues in Second Reading in considering of the individual Articles. The main respondent will be the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. Two amendments have been lodged; one by you, Minister, as to Article 1 and presumably we will take that as amended then and to the first schedule and similarly; and one by the Deputy of St. Martin to Articles 8 and 34. Do you accept the Deputy of St. Martin’s amendments?

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

Sir, could I ask that Deputy Guida be the rapporteur for this item and deal with that question, Sir, may I do that?

Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence:

Yes. Sorry, no, I do not accept the amendment of Deputy Luce.

The Bailiff:

How do you wish to take the Articles, Deputy? Presumably 1 to 7 first and then we will come on to the amendment.

11.1 Deputy G.C. Guida (Assistant Minister for the Environment - rapporteur):

Absolutely. I will stop for Article 8, which is part of Deputy Luce’s amendment and I will stop for Article 35, which is also part of his amendment, if you accept should split it.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Then we will take Articles 1 to 7, Article 1 as amended by the Minister’s own amendment. Yes, do you wish to propose those Articles then, Deputy?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, Sir. I would like to speak about the Articles as well, is that …

The Bailiff:

Yes, Deputy, absolutely.

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, well the first thing I would like to do is to thank Scrutiny for their robust examination of this complex law and I am sincere in this, for giving us the time to alleviate the concerns of some of the stakeholders affected. We accept all of their recommendations and we will continue dialogue with the stakeholders where all the necessary guidance is written. I will now go through all the Articles, trying to be as quick as I can. Article 1 defines terms and concepts used in the law as a whole. One important innovation throughout this law is the concept of deliberate actions. Article 1 defines how “deliberately” is to be integrated. This is a change from the more traditional legal form of “intentionally”, which was revisited to remain compatible with European law. It is an important but very subtle difference, which we have tried to make more explicit with the small change of wording in our second amendment. Article 2 sets out the general purpose of the law, which confers 2 general levels of protection and Articles 3 and 4 define the protected wild animals, birds and plants which are protected at the highest level, while Article 5 provides higher levels of protection specific to certain wild animals present. Part 2 creates a number of offences, describes differences and introduces acts authorised by licence. Article 7 provides that it is an offence deliberately to kill, injure or take a protected wild animal, bird or insect. It gives exceptions when authorised by a licence or by the Animal Health (Jersey) Law 2016 or the Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004. I would like to propose Articles 1 to 7, as amended by us, again the amendments.

The Bailiff:

Are the Articles 1 to 7 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 1 to 7 or any of them?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Sir, if I may, the Connétable of Grouville will act as rapporteur for the panel on the Second Reading.

The Bailiff:

Yes, that is absolutely fine, the Connétable of St. Brelade. Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 1 to 7 or any of them? If no Members with to speak, the Connétable of Grouville.

11.1.1 Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville:

I am not quite sure, you might be able to advise me, am I allowed to speak on each of the Articles as they come up or is this counted as one speech for all of the Articles?

The Bailiff:

This is counted as one speech for Articles 1 to 7. Please, in this speech if you have any comments on Articles 1 through to 7, as amended, you can make any of those comments and observations but you have the opportunity to speak again when we move on to the other Articles, Connétable.

The Connétable of Grouville:

I should just make it quite plain, I am no longer actively involved in agriculture in any significant way but people probably know that I do have a background in farming and I keep a close ear to the farming community. The principles of this law were adopted by the States at the end of last year but at that time the E.H.I. (Environment, Housing and Infrastructure) Panel were aware of concerns that the farming community had regarding the effect the law would have on their day-to-day activities and so the panel called in the law for further scrutiny. Up until the autumn of last year the communication with the department to the farming and growing community on this subject had been poor. The restrictions proposed to combat the COVID virus did not help the situation. I am convinced that the Assistant Minister, Deputy Guida, was not aware of the lack of communication until recently but I know since the agricultural conference in the autumn he became aware of the situation and he has been meeting representatives of the dairy and growing industries, and he has been addressing their concerns. I know the industry is grateful for the time he has given to this subject over the last few months and they are looking forward to working with him to develop the practical guidelines that will be needed in order to make this law work. There were 2 main concerns that the farming community had. The first was the potential conflict between the legal requirements for farmers and landowners to cut their hedges in order to comply with the branchage law and the obligation to protect wildlife under this new law. It has been accepted that the branchage law would take precedence over the new Wildlife Law and draft guidelines have been drawn up, I understand, giving farmers some indication of what is expected of them. The guidelines drawn up reflect the new approach taken by farmers 2 years ago after discussions with the Environment Department and environmentalists and indeed the Comité des Connétables. In essence, these guidelines require farmers to carry out the minimum of cutting of hedges, while still complying with the branchage law, which is so necessary to allow the free and, more importantly, safe movement of cars, cyclists, pedestrians and all road users. The second area of concern is the new Wildlife Law’s impact on the day-to-day activities of farming. No guidelines have been set to cover these activities to date, that is my understanding, but I also understand that compliance with the law will be guaranteed if farmers are members of or follow the protocols of the L.E.A.F. (Linking Environment and Farming) organisation. L.E.A.F. is a body to which all farmers are obliged to join if they receive support from the States. L.E.A.F. is a body that sets out environmental best practice for farming and growing and they carry out independent audits on farms to ensure that farmers adhere … sorry, Sir, I can hear terrible feedback, apologies if I stutter a little bit.

The Bailiff:

Let me see if I can help.

The Connétable of Grouville:

Thank you, Sir. L.E.A.F. is a body that sets out environmental best practice for farming and growing and they carry out independent audits on farms to ensure that farmers adhere to the requirements of L.E.A.F. standards. Farmers have been members of such bodies, some of which were supermarket-led originally for many years and the farming community take their responsibility for taking care of the environment extremely seriously.

[16:15]

One area which did not occupy too much of our panel’s time, but one area that I am a little concerned of and somebody sent me an email only yesterday, is the control of non-native invasive species. There is provision in the law for the department to make funds available to control such species. One species that springs to mind is Japanese knotweed. It is thought that it was introduced into the Island as a garden plant and when people realised how persistent it was they put garden cuttings of the plants on the nearest field hedge to get rid of them. This led to the establishment of the plant in field hedgerows. It seems unfair that the farming community should have to pick up the cost of trying to rid their land of this pest. I urge the Minister to make adequate funds available, particularly in the next few years, so that landowners do not have to pick up the cost of solving a problem that was not of their making. Funds have been made available in the past but usually not adequate enough to follow the treatment through, so the affected area can be permanently cleared. In summary, the panel are fully in favour of this law and appreciate how important it is to update the 2000 law. Provided the Assistant Minister carries on his engagement with the agricultural community and continues to develop practical guidelines and that they are put in place so that farmers can follow them easily, I, therefore, ask all Members to support the Articles of the law.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on Articles 1 to 7? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and call on Deputy Guida to respond.

11.1.2 Deputy G.C. Guida:

I thank the Constable of Grouville for his kind words and 2 years ago when we started this journey it was already very, very clear to me that it would not happen without the support of the farming community. It is something that I revived a little bit a few months ago but this will not happen without the support of the farming community and I pledge that we will work with them to make sure that they can work with this law. With that, I propose the Articles.

The Bailiff:

I ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. The vote is on Articles 1 to 7 and I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Articles 1 to 7 have been adopted: 43 votes pour, no vote contre and no abstention in the link and an additional one indicated over the chat, which we will call it that.

POUR: 44	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator S.C Ferguson
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 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 G.J. Truscott (B)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
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 I. Gardiner (H)

We come to now Article 8, do you propose Article 8, Deputy Guida? There is an amendment …

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well. Is that seconded? [Seconded] I am sorry, Deputy, I cut you across, I did not know if you wanted to speak, given that we will have to take the amendment.

11.2 Deputy G.C. Guida:

I will just quickly describe Article 8, so that we know what it is about. Article 8 creates offences of interference with dens and nests of protected wild animals and birds. There are some exceptions when the act in question occurs within the living area of the dwelling house. With that I would like to propose Article 8, please.

The Bailiff:

Is Article 8 seconded? [Seconded]

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sorry, is that the Article 8 seconded, as proposed second, Sir?

The Bailiff:

Yes, so the second is proposed, then we will come on to consider the amendment.

11.3 Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020): amendment (P.110/2020 Amd.) - Article 8

The Bailiff:

Yes, then there is an amendment and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Page 33, Article 8, for Article 8(3) (prohibitions relating to dens and nests, et cetera) substitute - “(3) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply, except in relation to a bat of a species listed in Part 1 of Schedule 3, to anything done within - (a) the living area of a dwelling house; (b) the footprint of any domestic premises attached to a dwelling house; or (c) an area inside the curtilage of a dwelling house and extending to no further an 10 metres from the exterior of the house.”.

11.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I will not keep Members long. I just want to start at the outset and say that I am a great fan of this law; it is long overdue. We have a wonderful Island and we need to protect it and its animals and biodiversity as much as we possibly can. In my 3½ years as Minister, which came to an end 2 years ago, as the Assistant Minister has said, this law was in draft and I asked a number of times to see it but it was never quite ready in a good enough draft for me to look at. Consequently, I did not have time to look over it. But it is clear to me that this law has been put together by the senior officers in the Environment Department and reviewed greatly by other environmentalists. I am very keen to make sure that we will always have compromises. We all have to live on this Island, whether we are wild animals, domesticated animals, human beings. We need to be sure that we sometimes just do not go too far. I am keen to strike a balance and I am keen to make sure that humans on Jersey can enjoy the Island as much as all the wild animals can and that is the reason I brought this amendment. Members will know that this new Wildlife Law applies protections that do not apply within the living area of a dwelling house and that means to me everything that is outside of a dwelling house and this is where I have some concerns, and I think we need to find a small compromise and it is small. This outside area, outside of your dwelling house, could be your porch, in your car-parking area, it could be a pathway, it could be an access to your property. I want to remind Members and I am just going to read from the draft law, that under the protection of dens and nests it is now against the law: “Dens and nests may be in use, even if they are temporarily unoccupied.” A nest or an area does not even need to have an animal in it to be protected and that wild birds and animals are not allowed to be disturbed, whether they are in the vicinity of a nest or den or not. This, to me, is quite relevant and what I am asking here is that we have a very small amount of area around dwelling houses where people live, where the humans can have a little bit of protection to enjoy and access their property and just allow them a bit more freedom and a bit more latitude within the law to enjoy their access to their homes and to protect them in areas that are close to where they live. That is as far as I go at this point; this just makes a small area around people’s properties not liable for infraction under this Wildlife Law. I am not saying for one minute that people will use it and there will be many, many instances where the public will encourage wildlife. But it may just be that you could find a nest or a wild animal on an access that will stop you getting to your house, stop you parking your car, stop you parking your bike, stop you getting into your garden and I just want to make it a little bit easier for humans, given that this law is very predominantly in favour of wildlife and biodiversity.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

11.3.2 Deputy G.C. Guida:

I am afraid this amendment, unfortunately, goes a little bit too far. I sympathise with the idea in general and it is probably something that we should work together to write guidance about but as it is it is quite dangerous. Maybe the key is that there is no such thing today as a difference between human habitat and wildlife habitat; it is the same. We live in the same place, we share the same space. Of course, in a fairly urban area like Jersey it is even more the case but it is true of the entire world. We have just had a report from the U.K. where the introduction mentions a list for the statistics; 95 per cent of the mammals on the planet are humans and their livestock. Wild animals, wild mammals, the animals that we protect in this law, represent 5 per cent of the mammals on the planet. For the birds it is 70 per cent but all birds are poultry; they are our animals. When we mention the wild birds and wild mammals we are not talking about a very large part of what remains on the planet. Certainly, again, in a mostly urban area like Jersey, if we start denying them what we would consider our space, there is nothing left. I would like to talk about hirundines. Where would swallows go if you did not allow them to nest below roofs? What about house martins? What about house sparrows? They are called house, they need the houses to live in. Lizards use our walls, crapauds use our ponds. If we start denying protection in our environment wildlife will not have an environment. We can look at guidance for extreme cases. Again, in Jersey I cannot even think about one because you could have a badger set up on your door in the U.K. but it is not something that is likely to happen in Jersey. If puffins decide to nest under your wall, are you really going to try to move them along? Again, it is something that we can probably work together on using guidance but it is not something that we can accept and, something quite important, this law is not for humans. I apologise in advance but this law is for wildlife.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Deputy Tadier, you have a question for the Attorney General.

11.3.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes, Sir. If I can phrase my concerns and my thoughts first and then see if it is something that the Attorney General can answer, otherwise it would just be part of my speech at this point. I know where the Deputy of St. Martin is coming from on this issue, partly because I have recently dealt with a constituent who had an issue with bats living in her roof. I think it was resolved in the end by, essentially, her working with the Environment Department but it was not a very satisfactory process; it was long and drawn out. Ultimately, I think she was being asked to do things by the department, which they had no legal basis to do. I say those comments without prejudice but I have got some evidence for that. As I said, there was a need for it to be done by consensus. My concern here is that we all want to protect wildlife but it is important that the law is usable and that people do not find themselves pushed into unintended consequences and actions. It might well be, for example, if we put a law in place that is too strict and does not have any flexibility in it, people might simply choose to ignore the law and to break it.

[16:30]

While they would be committing an offence, of course that would rely on them being caught, whereas if there was a different approach taken, which was maybe perhaps more sensible, then it might encourage people to contact the department because they know that they would get a more sensible response simply than one saying: “No, the law says you are not allowed to touch this.” The example I would give and the question that I have in my mind, let us imagine you have …

The Bailiff:

Deputy, just a second, I appreciate you may have a question but I am taking this to be your speech. When you ask a question of the Attorney General and he answers it I will ask you if you wish to continue your speech.

Deputy M. Tadier:

That is fine, Sir.

The Bailiff:

You have not made a speech so far, very well.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes, sorry, Sir, I thought I would intertwine the 2 and I do not want to make a second speech. If I ask the question of the Attorney General I may wish to continue, depending on what he says but it is more so out of courtesy to give him prior notice that I would be asking a question, so I think I am coming to that. If I understand correctly, there is a difference between the domestic dwelling house, which will be covered in the law, but if somebody has, for example, a shed or an outbuilding which it is then discovered that there is some type of wildlife that lives in there but it is wildlife that is not wanted by the owner of the premises. Also, if they find themselves in there and they have moved in since the property was acquired and that, for example, the only reason that the wild animal is living in that place is because it had fallen into disrepair, for example, a hole had appeared in the roof or the wall, which under normal circumstances if there were no wildlife living in it the owner would normally wish to repair as soon as possible to keep that part of the property wind and watertight. Because that is what one does, as a good owner. Remember this could also apply to a landlord who is tenanting out a premises for rental, who would, at the same time, have an obligation under his tenancy and, potentially the Residential Tenancy Law, to keep his property wind and watertight and certainly there will be an ethical responsibility on him or her to do that for the enjoyment of his or her tenants. But at the same time there might be a conflict because this new law would say you cannot repair that roof now, and you would speak to the department and they say: “No, you cannot do that because there are now bats or there are now frogs or toads or whatever is now living in your shed”; the sheds which you might store your grain in or whatever. It might prevent the purpose of that shed being used just because a hole has inadvertently appeared in it and under normal circumstances you cannot repair it. You may not even be able to repair it, even if that bird or bat species migrates for the winter because the Environment Department will say: “But they are going to come back” or they will say: “They might come back, this is their home now.” I am asking the Attorney General, could we find ourselves in a situation without this amendment whereby an owner could find that they could never repair such a building, an outhouse, a shed because the law would prevent them from doing so? Because if they were to repair it they would be contravening and destroying that habitat of the creature. If that is the case, where does the law lie in terms of the proportionality and the enjoyment of one’s property vis-à-vis trying to protect wildlife, which I think we all want to do? That is my question. I am going to try and plug back in while the Attorney General is answering that because I am running out of battery.

The Bailiff:

All right. Mr. Attorney, are you able to answer that question?

The Attorney General:

I was not listening to all of the debate which preceded the Deputy’s question. But I do note that Article 8 includes a provision that the person does not commit an offence if the person acts under and in accordance with a licence. The safest course for a person in the circumstances, as outlined by Deputy Tadier, would really be to seek assistance from someone who does have a licence. In relation to the various situations that he suggested, I have to say it was not entirely clear to me whether we were dealing with an actual dwelling house, as referred to in the Article, or some sort of outhouse. It seems to me that the law is applying to someone’s dwelling house that they live in, rather than an outhouse. I think that is probably as far as I can take it at the moment but I am happy to answer any further questions that may arise in relation to what I have said.

Deputy M. Tadier:

That is helpful to a certain extent but I think the reason I was mentioning outhouses is because the way I read it is that the Deputy of St. Martin is keen that it does not just impact on the immediate dwelling house but that the domestic curtilage, which could include those kind of areas which still need maintenance. I am just seeking clarification about the proportionality of the balance between wishing to preserve nature’s habitat on one side versus those being able to have good maintenance of those areas. I hear what the Attorney General said about requiring a licence but it still is dependent on the department issuing a licence before being able to proceed, which there is no guarantee they would do. In my experience they may well say: “No, I am afraid we cannot give you a licence because our job as environment is to protect wildlife and that is what the law is there for, so you cannot have a licence.” Insofar as it impacts on the amendment that we have in front of us, I think that is where my question is coming from.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, that concludes your speech?

Deputy M. Tadier:

That is just my question really, that is reiterating my question.

The Bailiff:

Mr. Attorney, are you able to assist any further?

The Attorney General:

I am not sure that I can. I had thought that the Minister’s concern with the amendment was that if it was adopted we would not be in compliance with the relevant international standards, so that is the basis of his objection. In terms of, look, is this going to create some sort of problem for the future for owners of dwelling houses who cannot repair their houses if they have got bats in them? Then I think I would simply have to revert to my previous answer, that really if there is to be any work carried out it would seem the safest course to a homeowner in those circumstances or a home occupier that they would get assistance from someone who does have a licence. It may be that the Assistant Minister can help to clarify whether guidance that is to be issued will deal with this particular point. But I do not think I am able to amplify on my previous answers to the Deputy’s question, beyond what I have already said.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Deputy Tadier, have you finished your speech?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I thank the Attorney General for those answers? I will conclude there, just to add that I … the Deputy when he sums up, if that speech was germane and how he feels about the purpose of his amendment to address those kind of issues but that is my speech.

11.3.4 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I would like to thank the Deputy of St. Martin for bringing the amendment. It is definitely an interesting one, which does get to, I think, kind of the heart of a very important matter for this Island. That is sharing 45 square miles of rock between 110,000, and counting, people and the wildlife, which ordinarily would live here. We heard earlier today that 10,000 homes need to be built on this Island, which will only happen in concrete and various other forms of synthetic materials in the main, meaning that there will be less and less room for wildlife in this Island. As we build those thousands and thousands of concrete structures, we do not just push out wildlife from their natural habitats, we also replace that with new habitats. Those habitats are part of our homes, we have to accept that. The law itself, as presented by the Assistant Minister, clearly states already that the living areas of homes are exempted but it does not exempt areas like garages, sheds, outbuildings, et cetera that may be outside. I personally think that is absolutely correct because those areas, garages, sheds, people’s gardens become the new habitat for the wildlife that we are displacing through this constant concreting of this Island. In fact it was Deputy Guida in his initial response to the Deputy of St. Martin’s amendment mentioned house martins and that brought to mind someone who lived next door to one of my relatives who had a garage, which was detached from the property on a slightly separate piece of land, which housed a number of house martin nests. One day, just because he did not like the nests, that person went in and just destroyed and removed all of those nests. Personally, I find that an egregious example of destruction of wildlife habitat and I was incredibly saddened to see that happen. If he is worried about dirt on his car, then it is not very expensive to invest in a cover for the car; they are easily available at all garages. I do feel that as our population continues to grow in the absence of a population policy and as we continue to build more and more homes on this Island, many of which will have garages, many of which will have other outbuildings, we need to accept that those outbuildings, et cetera, become part of the new landscape which wildlife will seek to find homes in. I believe it is upon us to let them do so because if we do not do that, if we do not let them do so, then the Island’s wildlife will continue to shrink and will continue to suffer at our hands. I will not be supporting this amendment because I think the balance is already there in the original regulations as proposed. Perhaps the Deputy of St. Martin can respond to this if necessary. As I read the amendment some people have mentioned bats and I think that is a slight red herring because I believe the Deputy of St. Martin’s amendment kind of excludes those certain species of protected bats. If it was to be passed, then they would still enjoy protection within those areas, such as garages, et cetera. In that sense all talk of bats, I believe, is irrelevant to this conversation; it is other wildlife that is being discussed here. But for myself, personally, if there are some house martins nesting in your garage let them be, let them enjoy it. Enjoy the fact that you have the privilege or we, as Islanders, have the privilege of living so close to wildlife. But as we build we need to give that wildlife space to live and our garages are one of those spaces that I will be happy to share with wildlife. In fact I would be delighted to see nesting animals, et cetera in my garage.

11.3.5 Deputy G.J. Truscott:

I was not going to speak on this one but I thought I could offer an example of how this amendment could affect things. I am quite privileged, lucky, I have got a house that was built in 1950 and we are surrounded by a fairly large garden that is fully enclosed. But it is a nature reserve; we have got squirrels, we have got bats, we have got wild snakes, you name it, crapauds are everywhere.

[16:45]

I was out the other night, on a mild night, and I counted at least 30 crapauds out looking for company and it is marvellous, it really is. I have got a pond that is within 10 metres of the house, so it would be affected by this amendment. But it is an absolute haven of wildlife. We have got newts in there, it is like newt city; you can count them on 10 fingers quite easily, there are loads of them. It is just that with this amendment there would be nothing, effectively, stopping me from filling in that pond and destroying that wonderful wild habitat and I think that is fundamentally wrong. I do believe that Regulation 8 does protect that pond from such a thing and obviously I would not do that. I am very much into my environment and protecting it, as we all are. I just have that concern and that is why I do not think I will be supporting the Deputy’s amendment, but I know where he is coming from.

11.3.6 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

A couple of points really. I think that, with all due respect to Deputy Morel, my understanding from Article 8(3) is that it only applies to bats and our house martins will not be affected by the Deputy’s amendment. My point really is over the health issue. Information that has come to me indicates that there are concerns over the risks to the public with regard to the potential carrying of viruses by bats. It seems to me that it is something that the Deputy’s amendment covers off. While buildings play a part in the activities of some animals - and I do not deny that that should be the case - European directives and policies should not be assumed to support false provisions for wild animals in people’s homes. Now, I know that the Deputy is spreading that into close outbuildings, but it seems to be a dangerous assumption to assume that bringing bats closer to people is a safe thing to do. There is evidence that suggests that they can carry various viruses and diseases. That evidence is disputed by others, but of course as they are migratory species we cannot be sure that this will be the case for ever. I do feel this is a risk and the Deputy’s proposed amendment is a balancing act, which I think would be well worth supporting.

11.3.7 Deputy J.H. Young:

I am not going to be able to support the Deputy’s amendment, as I accept from what he says that it is well-meaning, but unfortunately it has very major consequences if it is adopted. It is very infrequently that we get to update a law like a wildlife law. It is 20 years since the last law was passed and it is really very important. The pressures on our environment have increased hugely in that time and we really do, as a civilised society, I think need to embrace and put into place the legal framework which meets the international conventions that Jersey has for many, many years signed up to. I think it is in the spirit of Jersey that we want to look after our wildlife. I would ask that if this amendment is passed, it would not be compliant, as the Attorney General says, but a second reason is I think a practical reason. I think, as I understand the Deputy’s amendment, he seeks to extend the existing extension, which at the moment applies in the living area of a dwelling house, to the footprint of any domestic premises attached, which is basically outbuildings. That must be garages, sheds, all sorts of things, annexes - of course we know Jersey has got a massive variety of such structures - and also an exemption then within 10 metres of the curtilage, and of course where do you draw that? I think my concern about that is that many of the ... Deputy Morel was absolutely spot on. I really, really absolutely agree with every word he said, but it is also true that over time those outbuildings get up for potential development and put into other uses, even into residences. That I think provides an opportunity for - and my fear is - developers who wish to clear any wildlife that they see when properties are required from the site so that they do not have to carry out assessments of the ecological value. I certainly experienced a very large number of complaints about that practice. I think if we were to enshrine that in law, the amendment, I think that would undermine potentially the sort of ... what we are trying to do is to do better for our wildlife. Now, the law gives us hierarchy. It is a very structured law. Deputy Guida has absolutely worked on this tirelessly and I think it is really ... there is a good structure there and I am worried about developers. Now, I think the Attorney General’s answer spoke about licences. When one is looking at regulations, I think one needs to have a very good and clear basis in the law, but where flexibility comes, if it is required in the individual circumstances, is in how the law is administered. We do have the opportunity to deal with licences, because there will be exceptional situations, but we also will need to have guidelines and rules as this law goes into effect, but it is going to serve the Island for a very long time, I suspect. I think that we should not go with the amendment and I think it is a bit of a shame that bats have come in. We all know the emotion of bats, we are all going through a pandemic and there is all this, lots of discussion about how the jump of viruses can happen between animal species and human beings and so on. Yes, it is a real shame, but there are lots of other animals and the law sets them out: toads, grass snakes and all the birds and so on. I absolutely empathise with what Deputy Truscott said. It is just wonderful to share that. I think, yes, let us please not dilute this law down with this change and let us rely - Deputy Guida I am sure will deal with this question - on how this law works in practice so that when exceptional and difficult circumstances ... I understand what Deputy Tadier is saying there. One does hear a question of, if you like, an over-bureaucratic approach and I do not want to be party to that and nor does Deputy Guida, I am absolutely sure, in what he spoke about, the way he has built the co-operation with the farming industry and so on. But I think for those reasons I really support Deputy Guida very much. He has taken a lead in this and I do not think we can go with the amendment.

11.3.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

As the Minister for the Environment is saying, we are busy coping with a bat-generated pandemic, so where is the evidence supporting this amendment with regard to our local bat population? If you want to change your wooden coffer to plastic ones, with this we are tying people to constant future expenditure. Is that fair? I do not know. I would like the Assistant Minister to comment on this, because I do not like sort of dictation from the powers that be that condemns me to future expenditure because you have to paint your pelmets around the house very frequently. If you live near the sea, you have got to paint them even more. Are we doing this in the interests of the population? I do not know. I would like a comment on it, please.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Senator. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? If no other Member wishes to speak on the amendment then I close the debate and call upon the Deputy of St. Martin to respond.

11.3.9 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Let me start by addressing Senator Ferguson, the Constable of St. Brelade and Deputy Morel about bats, because bats are not part of my amendment now, they are not in any way affected by the changes that I propose. I would comment though, given the opportunity to talk about bats, that they do concern me, as an owner of property who has spent a lot of money providing the equivalent of a Hilton hotel for bats, both inside and outside, a recent refurbishment. I am extremely concerned that people who are not officers, are not delegated any powers, but seem to wield great effect on applications to the Planning Department over bats, and that is something that needs to be looked into, but it is not for today and that is another time. Bats are not part of this amendment. To the Minister, Deputy Young, I hear his words and I share much of his concern, but it is a little bit disappointing that he has not come back and tried to meet me halfway here or propose any compromise. He talks about it depending on how the law is administered and I find that a very interesting thing to say. Is he saying on one hand that maybe it would be administered this way, and on the other hand maybe it might be administered so strongly on the other? I hate subjectivity in these matters, which is why when the Deputy, the Minister and his Assistant Minister mentioned guidance I get worried, because if you want to use guidance, well, let us see it. Why was the guidance not published with this draft law so we know exactly what these things mean? I do not like signing up until I have read the detail. If the Minister wants to use guidance, we should have seen it before he proposed this draft. Deputy Morel mentioned swallows and house martins and I have got those animals living here in my property and I certainly do not intend to ... in fact, I positively encourage them to stay, but the point I would make is that under this new law, there will now be an offence of deliberately disturbing wild birds, swallows and martins, whether they are in the vicinity of the nest or the den or obviously if they are in the den. At the moment dens and nests are protected, but this new law will make it an offence for me to walk into my garage and disturb a swallow or martin in such a way that it flies off. I am concerned about that. I take great enjoyment helping these birds to nest on my property, but somebody who was particularly overbearing could come in and say that when I go into my garage to get maybe a spade or to work in the garden and I disturb a bird, I will now be breaking the law, it will be an offence for me to do that.

[17:00]

Deputy Tadier mentioned very briefly where you are and where you are not causing an offence and under my amendment, my amendment extends the protection you get. The proposed law gives you protection inside your dwelling house. My amendment would extend that to other buildings attached to the dwelling house and take that protection out a distance away so that members of the public would not be breaking the very many new laws or creating the very many new offences which are created in this law. Finally, I come to the first person who responded, the Assistant Minister, Deputy Guida. Again, he mentioned guidance and it does worry me that guidance yet to be written will be used to administer, and I worry about the subjectivity. Deputy Guida said we have to share the habitat and everything on the Island is shared these days. I agree with him in many respects and I could jokingly say I am glad that I am not having to share my habitat outside my house today under such temperatures. But I would just finish by saying this: if things are so bad, why do we need to change the current law in the way we are proposing? Our bat population is increasing dramatically. I know my amendments do not refer to bats, but in many cases we are doing much, much, much better than we did in the past. So I ask Members here to support my amendment, an amendment that was just brought to try to find a small compromise and give a little bit of protection to the humans in this law, which is very, very heavily written. Well, it is written for the benefit of the wildlife and biodiversity of the Island. I call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. I ask the Greffier to place a link into the chat.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sorry, Sir, can I check that this is for the amendment that we are voting on?

The Bailiff:

Yes, we are voting for the amendment and then, as amended or not, we will continue to debate Article 8 thereafter. So the vote is on the amendment. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The amendment has been defeated: 13 votes pour, 32 votes contre and no abstentions.

POUR: 13	CONTRE: 32	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator S.C Ferguson	Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator T.A. Vallois	Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator S.W. Pallett	Senator K.L. Moore
Connétable of St. Brelade	Senator S.Y. Mézec
Connétable of Grouville	Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of St. John	Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Peter	Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Ouen	Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy of Grouville	Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Martin	Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy of St. Mary	Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of St. John	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)	Deputy M. Tadier (B)
	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
	Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
	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)

The Greffier of the States:

The Members who voted pour were as follows: Deputy of St. Martin, Deputy of Grouville, the Constable of St. John, Senator Pallett, Constable of St. Brelade, Constable of St. Ouen, Constable of Grouville, Senator Vallois, Constable of St. Peter, Constable of St. Mary, Senator Ferguson, the Deputy of St. John and Deputy Gardiner.

11.4 Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020) - resumption

The Bailiff:

We now return to the debate on Article 8. Does any other Member wish to speak on Article 8? If no Member wishes to speak on Article 8, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I started typing before you had finished speaking, Sir.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Senator, the rule is that once I have provided reasonable time for people to indicate a desire to speak and if they have not indicated before I say: “I close the debate” but we have now got ...

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I type very slowly. I will throw in the towel.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much indeed. I ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. The vote is on Article 8. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Article 8 has been adopted: 41 votes pour, 2 votes contre in the link and a further vote pour in the chat.

POUR: 42	CONTRE: 2	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator L.J. Farnham	Senator S.W. Pallett
Senator S.C Ferguson	Connétable of St. Mary
Senator T.A. Vallois
Senator K.L. Moore
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 St. Peter
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. 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 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 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)

Do you propose Articles 9 to 34, Deputy Guida?

11.5 Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, I would like to propose the following Articles. I will go very, very quickly through them. Basically the rest of the Articles offer different levels of protection to specific animals and birds, also their dens, nests, eggs and offspring. They also deal with trade in animals, import, export and selling or keeping animals that are protected. There is an Article on the use of devices and methods to kill, injure or take wild animals. Again, we have been talking with stakeholders about the use of these and I think that we are in agreement. Part 3, I will be very quick, it does exactly the same, but for plants, and also we talk about the control of invasive non-native species, which is greatly enhanced in this law. Part 4, that is quite important. Now, part 4 is about invasive non-native species control. Article 34, I will just mention this one in particular. It requires the Minister for the Environment to designate and publish strategies for the conservation of biodiversity, including a list of important habitats and species. Article 34(5) and (6) require a public body on which a duty to have regard to promoting conservation and biodiversity is imposed under Article 2, to publish a report on actions taken in pursuance of that duty on a 5-yearly basis. This is quite important because it is the first time that we have put this burden on the Government to take care of the Island’s biodiversity. I will stop at Article 44 and propose Articles 9 to 34 together.

The Bailiff:

Articles 9 to 34 are proposed. Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 9 to 34 or any one of them? If no Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to post a vote into the chat. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Articles 9 to 34 have been adopted: 42 votes pour, no votes contre and no abstentions in the link and a further 2 votes pour in the chat.

POUR: 44	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator S.C Ferguson
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. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
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. 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 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)

We come now to Article 35. Minister, do you propose Article 35? This is of course subject to a discussion on amendment. Do you propose Article 35?

11.6 Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, Article 35 empowers the Minister to make orders designating an Area of Special Protection and making further provision for protection within such areas of specified wild animals, wild birds or wild plants, including provisions restricting access and prohibiting particular acts or activities. Before making such an order, the Minister must give notice in writing of the proper designation to owners and occupiers of land falling within the protected area. Such notice must invite representations to the Minister and an order may not be made unless the owners have consented or have failed to raise objections within 28 days from the date of the notice. Again, there is also a right of appeal under Article 40. I would like to add that this is not a way to make stealth S.S.I.s (Site of Special Interest). This is a power for the Minister to act extremely quickly to protect transient species or species that have established recently in the Island. We have had an actual example very recently with the roseate terns nesting in the Écréhous and basically it is about that. We have not seen it very often in the Island and all of a sudden they decided to nest there. This Article would have allowed the Minister to protect them with a very, very short time. The residents of the Island who were consulted were all in agreement and were quite happy that we could raise the protection for these animals, but the law was postponed and we were not able to use it. We really hope that we will be able to use for those purposes in the next year. With that, I propose Article 35.

The Bailiff:

Is Article 35 seconded? [Seconded]

11.6 Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020): amendment (P.110/2020 Amd.) - Article 35

The Bailiff:

There is an amendment to Article 35 and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Page 50, Article 35 - In Article 35(6) (designation of Areas of Special Protection) for “28 days” substitute “3 months.”

11.6.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I do not think this amendment will keep Members very long. It is very straightforward. In the days when this draft law was lodged last year, I was still a Back-Bencher and I was not sitting on the Environment Scrutiny Panel. As I read through the draft law and the explanatory notes, I suddenly realised that something that had appeared quite satisfactory to me had been changed in the law itself. As the Members will see from my report, it was stated in the explanatory note that a 3-month period would be allowed for objections, which I thought was quite sensible and sort of the amount of time one would normally expect for something quite as serious as an Area of Special Protection, but then I noted that when it came to the wording of the law itself that that period had been reduced to 28 days. I found that quite surprising because 28 days is the amount of time people are allowed to object to a minor planning application, but I have to say to Members that Areas of Special Protection are not minor planning applications.

[17:15]

While I take the example that Deputy Guida has used of the Écréhous and saying the Minister needed to move quickly, it may well be that members of the public need a little bit more than 28 days for any particular reason because this law will empower the Minister to restrict access and prohibit particular acts or activities and it will be on somebody’s property. They may well object to that happening. I would say that something as serious as this, the creation of an Area of Special Protection, that members of the public should have more than 28 days to object. I would think that is perfectly normal. Somebody who was drafting this law obviously thought 3 months was the right period of time, because as I said at the outset, it was written in the explanatory notes that that period of time would be 3 months. I am disappointed obviously that the Minister has come back and gone for the 28 days. I am putting the case for 3 months and I will leave it there and see what Members have to say.

The Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

11.6.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Yes, please. I am trying to type. It is the Constable of St. Brelade. If I may, just to speak in support of this amendment, which is a logical amendment. We all know of the experiences we have had over the past few months with regard to times and delays and this just seems a very sensible route to go down, so I would urge Members to support it.

11.6.3 Deputy G.C. Guida:

Again, I would like to reiterate the fact that these powers were created to be emergency powers. If we waited for 3 months to protect roseate tern in the Écréhous, they would have been done with their offspring, given that they were lucky enough to bring them to term. We are really talking about things that need to be done very, very quickly. If a bald eagle decided to nest somewhere in the Island, we would probably be extremely happy to cordon the area and make sure that it raises its chicks properly. This is about an emergency. The 28 days is the time that we allow people to voice objections, but it does not mean that we can do it without the approval of the owners of the land.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and call upon the Deputy of St. Martin to respond.

11.6.4 The Deputy of St. Martin:

That noise was not from me, but I will happily continue. As I said to Members, I will not drag this one out. I thank the Constable of St. Brelade for his support. He, like me, thinks that 3 months is a better period of time. This is purely a decision for States Members to decide whether they think 3 months is better than 8 weeks. I would put forward the case that 28 days during a normal summer when people might be away or for whatever reason is quite a short period of time. It may not be noticed in the Gazette or members of the public may not realise what is going on and I much prefer the period of 3 months. I leave it there and call for the appel.

The Bailiff:

The appel is called for. I would ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The amendment has been defeated: 20 votes pour, 24 votes contre, no abstentions in the link and one vote each pour and contre in the chat.

POUR: 21	CONTRE: 25	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator S.C Ferguson	Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator T.A. Vallois	Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator K.L. Moore	Connétable of St. Clement
Senator S.W. Pallett	Connétable of St. Lawrence
Senator S.Y. Mézec	Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Connétable of St. Brelade	Deputy of Grouville
Connétable of Grouville	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Connétable of St. John	Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Connétable of St. Peter	Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Connétable of St. Mary	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Deputy of St. Martin	Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)	Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy of St. Mary	Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)	Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)	Deputy of Trinity
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)	Deputy of St. John
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)	Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
	Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
	Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
	Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
	Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

11.7 Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- (P.110/2020) - resumption

The Bailiff:

We return to the debate on Article 35. Does any Member wish to speak on Article 35 in its unamended form? If no Member wishes to speak on Article 35, then I will ask the Greffier to place a vote into the chat. I close the debate. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Article 35 has been adopted, 45 votes pour, one vote contre and no abstentions in the link and 2 votes pour in the chat.

POUR: 46	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator L.J. Farnham	Senator S.W. Pallett
Senator S.C Ferguson
Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator T.A. Vallois
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 G.P. Southern (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)

The Greffier of the States:

The one contre is Senator Pallett.

The Bailiff:

Minister, do you now propose Articles 36 to 54 plus the schedules, as amended by your own amendment, Deputy Guida?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, please.

The Bailiff:

Did you wish to speak to them, Deputy?

11.8 Deputy G.C. Guida:

Very quickly. Part 5 deals with licensing of activities, which would otherwise be an offence under the law and basically part 6 contains all the provisions for the operation of the law. One thing that is important about this law in general and of course that we try to apply in any new law is to make it a little bit more malleable, so this is much easier to modify. In particular, all the lists, especially the lists of protected animals, can be changed by Orders. That is quite important, that this is a law that depends on lot on its schedules and that the schedules can be modified. So with that, I propose Articles 36 to 54 and the schedules.

The Bailiff:

Are those Articles and the schedules seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on those Articles, any of them, or any of the schedules? If no Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the usual way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The remaining Articles and schedules have been adopted: 45 votes pour, no votes, no abstentions in the link and 2 further votes pour in the chat.

POUR: 47	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. Lawrence
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of Trinity
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. 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)

Do you wish to propose the matter in the Third Reading, Minister? Or Deputy Guida, I should say.

11.9 Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, please. I would like to propose it in the Third Reading.

The Bailiff:

Is it seconded for Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in the Third Reading?

11.9.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

The updating of this law has been long overdue and much work has been done by the department to address this. It is not unusual to find the devil in the detail, and it was these details which stimulated my panel to call the proposition for some further consideration. It is clear that the Minister is shy on resource to apply to the policing of this new law and it suggests that there will be an ongoing need for continued funding if what is being proposed is to work. Concern has also arisen over the ability for members of the public to be able to identify protected wild animals and birds in addition to the 78 protected plant species listed in schedule 8 of the law. I am fortunate in that I had a father and grandfather who were botanists, but notwithstanding that, it may be for the Education Department to include this subject in our school syllabus and I ask our new Minister for Education please to take note. The Minister has worked with the panel to satisfy its concerns and I am grateful to him and his team for their co-operation and particularly the Scrutiny officers involved in producing our comments.

11.9.2 Deputy J.H. Young:

I would like to thank the Scrutiny Panel, in the words of the Connétable. It is absolutely true that there is work to be done in the future and the Island will have to address the issue of the resources and the effort we put, but this law I believe, if Members approve it today in the Third Reading, which I sincerely hope they will, will be around for a long time. It lays a real strong framework which can help us look after our wildlife much better. I want to particularly highlight the work of my Assistant Minister in bringing us to this point, because when he and I were both elected, he was very clear that this was very much an issue which he, as my Assistant Minister, wanted to concentrate on. His background is very much in this area, and indeed as a farmer himself in a previous life. I know he has put tremendous effort into this and believe that that will pay dividends in the work with the farming industry and others in future. Picking up Members’ comments, that is what I meant when I said how important this law is being put into practice. I think that is the work to be done. I can remember when the previous law went through 20 years ago and indeed I think this is equally an important day. I do believe large numbers of members of our community in Jersey will really see this as very positive if we make this step today, which I sincerely hope we do. It brings us into line to be fully compliant with international conventions. With that, I would like to support the Third Reading proposal.

11.9.3 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I hate to sound like a complaining old minnie, but I would like to ask that the department listen to the public if they complain to them. Some 6 years ago I complained about Japanese knotweed and effectively I was told not to be stupid because it was all female Japanese knotweed and was not any problem because it did not proliferate and now it is still proliferating. I am glad to see they are talking about doing something, but please, if the public complain, listen to them. Sometimes they do know what they are talking about.

[17:30]

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Senator. Does any other Member wish to speak in the Third Reading? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and call upon Deputy Guida to respond.

11.9.4 Deputy G.C. Guida:

I would like to join my thanks to the Minister for the Scrutiny Panel and its chair. Yes, they have worked very well on our project and their input was extremely helpful. I would like to promise Senator Ferguson that after years of decline, the department is growing again and that we hope to help the people as much as we can, as much as we will help the natural environment. Having said that, I would like to propose the law in the Third Reading.

The Bailiff:

Very well. I ask the Greffier to place a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the usual way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The law has been adopted in the Third Reading: 41 votes pour, no votes contre, no abstentions in the link and a further 2 votes pour in the chat.

POUR: 43	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator L.J. Farnham
Senator S.C Ferguson
Senator T.A. Vallois
Senator K.L. Moore
Senator S.W. Pallett
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. 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. Tadier (B)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Deputy R. Labey (H)
Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
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 K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The adjournment is proposed and accordingly the Assembly stands adjourned until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:32]

[1] https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Chapter3Households%2020120808%20SU.pdf