Will the Chair advise what safeguarding training is provided to Parish staff who are in regular contact with members of the public, and whether such training is mandatory?

Answer

Protecting children and vulnerable adults from harm, abuse and neglect is important for all. Training on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and adults for all staff working with or in contact with children, adults, families and carers should therefore be appropriate and in line with the recommendations of the Safeguarding Board’s training strategy.

Safeguarding training is provided and is mandatory for Parish staff employed to work in residential homes and nurseries, for example Westmount Day Nursery, St Ewolds Residential Home, and Maison St Brelade.

St Ewolds Residential Home – Care staff – Safeguarding Partnership Board- Working together to safeguard adults at risk
- All Home staff - Ihasco online training -Safeguarding level 2
Westmount Day Nursery – Nursery Staff – 6 hours of safeguarding and child protection training from Virtual College, followed by annual updates - Ihasco online training -Safeguarding level 2
- All Nursery Staff (online with Virtual College) Jersey Children’s first Level 1: Introduction
- Level 2: Essentials
The Designated safeguarding leads, in addition complete the following:
- Early Help Well-being Assessment (3 hours in person)
- Role and responsibility of the Lead worker (6 hours in person)
- Using and Sharing Chronologies (3 hours in person)

Maison St Brelade - Safeguarding Foundation Course, mandatory for all staff, provided by in-house qualified trainer.

For Parish staff undertaking a general customer service role who have limited contact with members of the public on an occasional, or ad hoc, basis training may be desirable and be offered, but is not mandatory e.g. Community Services Staff – Government of Jersey, Level 2 Safeguarding.

In relation to volunteers, including those serving their Parish in an honorary capacity, training is provided to members of the Honorary Police and to Community Support volunteers. Honorary Police training has previously been delivered by SPB (the Safeguarding Partnership Board - Level 1 (children) training courses) and by the States of Jersey Police (Safeguarding and vulnerability training (adult safeguarding)). Two members of the Honorary Police have completed the ‘Train the Trainer’ Course to deliver training in-house in the future.

1.2 Deputy M.B. Andrews of St Helier North of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding expenditure incurred by the Government as a result of storm Ciarán. (WQ.247/2024)

Question

Will the Minister advise the total additional expenditure incurred by the Government as a result of storm Ciarán?

Answer

As a result of the Jersey Met Office forecast in October 2024, a number of Government departments and external organisations worked together to support the preparation for Storm Ciarán, and subsequent emergency response and recovery phases.

It should be noted that the restorative works in relation to Storm Ciarán are still ongoing in 2024 within the Government of Jersey estate portfolio and open public spaces. A total of £2.74 million was spent on clear up/repairs, restorative works and accommodation for displaced residents from the incident in October 2023 through to 31 May 2024.

The financial impacts of the Storm have been mitigated to some extent by the Government insurance policy, with receipts totalling circa £1.1 million, of which £0.4 million is still to be received during the year once repair works are completed.

1.3 Deputy M.B. Andrews of St Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding Jersey’s nurseries and other pre-school settings. (WQ.249/2024)

Question

In respect of Jersey’s nurseries and other pre-school settings, will the Minister advise –

(a) what plans, if any, he has to address staff shortages;

(b) what Government funding, if any, is currently offered to support staff in this sector to obtain childcare qualifications; and

(c) what consideration, if any, is being given to offering grants to people entitled to work in Jersey (and who are registered as unemployed) to undertake childcare qualifications, and, if this is not being considered, why not?

Answer

(a) An early years ‘workforce’ working group was stood up in 2022 to address this issue as we have been monitoring this for some time. Through the work of the Best Start Partnership, a group of key stakeholders enabled the independent publication of the first Childcare Providers Survey at the end of 2023/24. This has given an accurate insight into key themes relating to this sector, including staffing, available places, and registered numbers. We know that in 2023 there was a 78% vacancy rate.

The actions of the group to date have included:

Funding for over 50 new places for students to study Early childhood Education and Care qualifications at Highlands College for both Level 2 and Level 3 pathways.

Support from Skills Jersey to mentor apprentices following this part-time route for a Level 3 qualification.

Working with the childcare industry through the Jersey Early Years Association (JEYA) to enable options to be considered that has allowed nurseries to employ and work with colleagues that might not have the qualification but do have relevant and current experience.

Following proposals from JEYA members, changes have been made to the work permits that now include ‘nursery practitioner’ as an eligible category. This has enabled a number of Kenyan childcare practitioners to join the childcare workforce. This has been a positive collaboration between JEYA, and the CYPES Childcare and Early Years Service (CEYS) and a local recruitment company.

Highlands College host and attend regular meetings with the owners and managers of nursery settings to provide direct feedback on student uptake, performance and course content to ensure high quality graduates are entering the sector.

A recruitment campaign is planned to attract people into the sector.

JEYA, CEYS and the Best Start Partnership have and will continue to attend all secondary school’s careers fairs to target school leavers.

(b) The Covid Recovery Fund (2022-2024) fully funded all students wanting to study a Level 3 and a Level 2 course at Highlands College.

Recruitment and retention initiatives saw childminders receive up to £500 retention benefit to address cost of living pressures in 2023 and CYPES launched their childminder incentive scheme which covers ‘start up costs’ for new applicant childminders up to £1,500.

CYPES fully fund all professional development courses that are offered to all early years staff from both nursery settings and schools. This has been possible due to the financial commitment from the Education Reform Programme to direct funding into CPD for the early years sector. To date, £200,000 has been made available and co-ordinated between CEYS and the JCCT to enable and facilitate training. In 2024 this funding has provided access to:

Makaton level 1
MAYBO safer and positive approaches to behaviour in the Early Years
Support for Early Literacy, Communication and Language through Helicopter Stories, A Fresh Approach to Making it REAL and The Drawing Club with Gregg Botterill (an expert off island trainer.
Self-Regulation webinar
SENCO support package
Good Autism Practice
Knowledge Makes Change Seminars – an opportunity to hear from early years specialists and share best local, national and international practice.

The Government has funded the Level 3 Early Years SENCO qualification for all nursery settings to have at least one member of staff trained and qualified to enhance the quality and provision for all children as well as those with SEND.

Eligible applicates can receive government funding for degree level courses such as the BA Hons Childhood Studies offered by University College Jersey, via Student Finance. The Maximum annual grant amounts are £9,250 for course fees and £8,915 for maintenance.

(c) Back to work teams work with childcare providers to seek suitable opportunities for those seeking a return to the workplace. This does require careful planning and consideration as the needs of young children have to be prioritised and safely and appropriately met. Practitioners require an enhanced DBS check, First Aid training and Safeguarding training in addition to some knowledge of child development. A risk benefit assessment will be undertaken to ensure that any suitable candidates are supported to take up an opportunity, if and when appropriate.

The Registered Childminder ‘start-up grant’ is currently available to all new applicants which covers all costs associated with becoming a childminder, including the Level 3 qualification in Home-Based care.

1.4 Deputy M.B. Andrews of St Helier North of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding the introduction of a points-based immigration system. (WQ.250/2024)

Question

Will the Minister advise whether consideration is being given to introducing a points-based immigration system, and if not, why not?

Answer

The Jersey Customs and Immigration Service have explored the possibility of adopting a points-based immigration systems for foreign nationals to take employment in the Island. They determined that adopting such a system would increase bureaucracy and be more complex, both for employers and JCIS, and less flexible than current Jersey immigration systems. The current systems have enabled the creation of Jersey specific temporary routes that do not exist in the UK and has enabled the development of safeguards to be introduced to limit the risks of employee exploitation. It is important to highlight the Jersey Business report on Barriers to Business. This report identified that increased Government bureaucracy hindered businesses therefore it is appropriate at this time not to adopt a points-based immigration system but to constantly review current systems to ensure they remain fit for purpose in maintaining the safety and security of our borders.

1.5 Deputy M.B. Andrews of St Helier North of the Minister for Social Security regarding the Community Cost Bonus. (WQ.251/2024)

Question

In respect of households which can claim the Community Cost Bonus, will the Minister advise whether consideration is being given to increasing the tax liability figure of £2,735 in line with inflation, as a means of making the Bonus more accessible; and if not, why not?

Answer

The Community Costs Bonus was made more accessible in 2022, when I brought an amendment to the Government Plan to increase the number of people who would be eligible for the bonus, to include people in households on a relatively low income. As the threshold for tax liability has increased by over 20% since 2022, I am confident that the current tax liability still meets the aim of my original amendment.

1.6 Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South of the Minister for Housing regarding ‘Affordable and Right-Size Housing Provision on the Waterfront’ (P.37/2024). (WQ.252/2024)

Question

In respect of ‘Affordable and Right-Size Housing Provision on the Waterfront’ (P.37/2024), which was adopted as amended, will the Minister explain what evidence was used to ascertain the need for first-time buyer homes and that consequently led him to support the proposition?

Answer

I have long held a position that Jersey is experiencing a housing crisis and that a greater proportion of the homes built on the Waterfront should be designated for first-time buyers to help alleviate this crisis. Therefore, no extra evidence was necessary to persuade me that supporting P.37/2024 was the right thing to do.

The proposition was in line with my manifesto commitments, which I believe are important to uphold. It is also important to recognise that the Waterfront development is a long-term programme, and the Assembly will be able to make a revised decision in the future should we find ourselves in the position of demand for first-time buyer homes being satisfied. If we do find ourselves in such a position, I would see this as a measure of success, not failure.

1.7 Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding ‘A Review of Sport and Physical Activity in Jersey’. (WQ.253/2024)

Question

Further to A Review of Sport and Physical Activity in Jersey, will the Minister provide an update and delivery timeline for each of the 21 recommendations?

Answer

The Assistant Minister with responsibility for Sport agreed timelines and ownership for delivering each of the recommendations in March.

We continue to work with Jersey Sport and with colleagues in HCS and CYPES on the recommendations from the review of sport and physical activity and a budget and programme review is underway.

Of the 21 recommendations, 6 are complete, 10 are in progress and 3 are yet to be commenced and 2 recommendations were rejected:

Complete recommendations:

R2: Jersey Sport should review its internal reporting arrangements

R4: a review of Jersey Sport’s budget should be carried out

R5: Jersey Sport should publish a fundraising strategy

R8: establishment of a ministerial group for sport and physical activity

R9: the Government of Jersey should identify a single point of contact for Jersey Sport

R12: Jersey Sport should publish its Board of Directors skills matrix

Recommendations in progress, with a target completion date of December 2024 unless otherwise indicated:

R1: the Government of Jersey should review the skills required of its staff carrying out the oversight function with Jersey Sport. (Ongoing)

R3: review of arm’s length arrangement with regard to audit requirements. (December 2025)

R 11: Jersey Sport should undertake a review of its delivery function.

R13: review of safeguarding and child protection in sport.

R14: Jersey Sport should review its provision for sport.

R15: Jersey Sport should consider the suitability of separate branding for the Move More programme.

R17: the Government of Jersey should develop a new strategy for sport and physical activity.

R18: the Government of Jersey should set revised KPIs for Jersey Sport and develop a value for money indicator for the funding Jersey Sport receives.

R19: Jersey Sport should publish policies on equality and inclusion.

R20: the Government of Jersey should review its direct delivery approach for facilities.

The following recommendations have not yet been started:

R7: review of Channel Islands Lottery funding for sport (to be actioned in 2025)

R16: strengthen school sport and PE (to be actioned in 2026)

R21: future delivery of sport and physical activity (to be actioned in 2025)

Recommendations 6 (ringfence 1% Government budget for sport) and 10 (establish the work of sport and facilities team into one Department) were rejected.

1.8 Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding maintenance undertaken by Jersey Property Holdings. (WQ.254/2024)

Question

Will the Minister detail –

(a) the number of maintenance requests made by business tenants of Jersey Property Holdings for each of the last 3 years;

(b) his department’s annual expenditure on minor and major works for each of the last 3 years; and

Answer

(a) the number of maintenance requests made by business tenants of Jersey Property Holdings for each of the last 3 years;

Since Jan 2021 – YTD there have been 102 helpdesk requests (classified as reactive works) across the portfolio for the properties classified as ‘cafes’.

Helpdesk calls are received both internally and externally by the public, building users, internal JPH staff or via 3rd parties so it is difficult to determine whether they are direct from the business tenant as the work requests are input by the JPH administration team.

However, it is estimated that 80% of the reactive helpdesk calls came from the business tenant.

The number of helpdesk calls received/logged has been documented by site below.

Site		Number of Helpdesk calls Jan 21 – Jul 24
Plemont Bay Cafe		4
Le Braye Cafe		0
First Tower (Lookout) Cafe		1
Old Station Cafe (Millbrook)		1
Driftwood Cafe		2
Greve de Lecq Cafe Groundsite (Colleen's)		0
St Aubin's Promenade Cafe and Public Toilets		36
Gunsite Cafe & Bunker		3
Liberty Wharf - Move On Café		0
Havre des Pas Bathing Pool and Cafe		55
La Fregate Cafe		0
Seaside Cafe and Car Park		0

(b) his department’s annual expenditure on minor and major works for each of the last 3 years;

The expenditure can be separated into 3 distinct categories, Reactive, Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) and Project Delivery.

There were 302 Works orders created between Jan 21 – Jul 24, totalling a spend of £553,051.

The split is shown below by year:

	Reactive	PPM	Project delivery
2021	£173,950	£1,043	£108,205
2022	£9,109	£1,832	£22,877
2023	£56,761	£3,526	£1,105
2024	£75,593	£14,240	£84,810
Total	£315,413	£20,641	£216,997

It can also be shown by site:

Site		Sum of Commitment
Havre des Pas Bathing Pool and Cafe		£356,000
Greve de Lecq Cafe Groundsite (Colleen's)		£106,819
First Tower (Lookout) Cafe		£24,021
St Aubin's Promenade Cafe and Public Toilets		£17,081
Old Station Cafe (Millbrook)		£18,300
Plemont Bay Cafe		£13,647
Le Braye Cafe		£2,054
Liberty Wharf		£1,237
Gunsite Cafe & Bunker		£1,015
Plemont Bay Café		£300
Driftwood Cafe		£276
Seaside Cafe and Car Park		£30
La Fregate Cafe		£18
Greve de Lecq Former Cafe Groundsite (Parking)		£12,259

Pre-Planned Maintenance schedules are in place to ensure our sites are compliant and scheduled in a way to ensure our statutory obligations are achieved. JPH manages c.8,250 PPM activities a year across the portfolio.

However, reactive and projects works order will be prioritised by the allocated site maintenance officer.

Criteria considered will include building use, operational impact, public use, reputational impact and, most importantly, consideration of the health & safety of site users.

The various priorities and split from Jan 21 – Jul 24 is shown below:

Priority Type		Emergency - In core hours (9-5)		5 working days		10 working days		15 working days		30 working days		90 working days		Planned		Projects
Number of Work Orders		30		72		31		6		17		2		142		20

1.9 Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the public realm taskforce. (WQ.255/2024)

Question

In respect to the Island’s public realm, and reference to a public realm taskforce during Questions Without Notice on 25th June 2024, will the Minister state –

(a) the membership of the public realm taskforce;

(b) the lead States Member on the taskforce;

(d) what role, if any, the Deputy Chief Minister has on the taskforce; and

(e) what budget has been allocated to this work in the coming year?

Answer

In line with the Common Strategic Plan priority to ‘deliver a plan to revitalise Town’, a group or taskforce will be formed to focus on this work.

(a) the membership of the public realm taskforce will be discussed at the next meeting of the Regeneration Steering Group;

(b) the lead States Member is expected to be the Infrastructure Minister;

(c) the Accountable Officer responsible for delivering the public realm strategy is the Chief Officer of the Infrastructure and Environment Department;

(d) the Deputy Chief Minister’s role in this new group will be discussed at the RSG meeting;

(e) the funding will principally be drawn from existing budgets and discussions are ongoing with the Council of Ministers regarding future funding.

For clarification, the delivery of the Public Realm Strategy remains the responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister. This new group will focus on the wider strategic priority of revitalising town and will involve the Connétable of St Helier and the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development.

Separately, the Deputy Chief Minister is undertaking initial exploratory work to look at potential improvements across a range of areas to benefit the community, including a more adventurous public realm programme, sport facilities and illness prevention. At this early concept stage, there is no requirement for an independent budget or resources. As this project progresses, it will be submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval, and the Assembly will be updated accordingly.

2. Oral Questions

2.1 Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the public car park at Cyril Le Marquand Court (OQ.136/2024)

Will the Minister explain why the public car park at Cyril Le Marquand Court remains closed despite the housing development being completed; and will he state when the public car park will be opened?

Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John (The Minister for Infrastructure):

I thank the Deputy for his question. The Cyril Le Marquand Court development has been undertaken by Andium, and included within its design was the construction of a 136 public space car park to be provided to Jersey Car Parks under a leasing agreement. Members will be aware the development has been the subject of delays emanating from the COVID pandemic and then the contractor going out of business, all of which have been reported in the media. The delay to the car park construction programme has been a direct result of these unfortunate events. Currently Andium’s new contractor is undertaking the snagging works to bring the car park to the required standards to allow Jersey Car Parks to take occupancy and commence the lease. The developers latest programme for these works show us taking occupancy and the final commissioning during August, at which point Charles Street Car Park will be open to the public.

2.1.1 Deputy D.J. Warr:

I thank the Minister for his answer. When was the Minister first made aware of the delay in the reopening of the public car park and did he make any effort to communicate this with the business community of St. Helier, given the economic impact the lack of parking in town is having on traders? If not, why not?

The Connétable of St. John:

I am not sure the date that I was made aware that there was a problem but we do not have a lease starting until we take that lease from the current contractor. It is not in our hands at the moment. I am delighted to say in terms of parking that the hopper bus has seen the usage double since we started to promote the hopper bus, and encourage the Deputy and other Deputies in St. Helier to continue to promote the hopper bus so that more and more people can get in and around town.

2.1.2 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

I think it arises from the supplementaries, but there are lots of areas in town which are not accessible by car and presumably people with mobility issues still manage to get around. Would the Minister look holistically about arrangements for accessibility in town and where car parking is either not available at all or roads are not available to cars to make sure there is infrastructure so that mobility can be assured in all parts of St. Helier?

The Connétable of St. John:

We are working with the representative of the blue badge holder to see if we can improve parking for those communities. I am answering a question about that later. I have to recommend Shop Mobility, which is based at Sand Street Car Park, which does enable lots of people to get in and around the precincts, in and around town, using their services.

2.1.3 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North:

My supplementary also is coming from the Minister’s response to the supplementary. We all welcome the hopper bus service that has been mentioned by the Minister. There is a difficulty to find online very quickly the route of the hopper bus. Would the Minister ensure that it has been published widely because the elderly people asked me and I could not find it immediately?

The Connétable of St. John:

I am more than happy to do that. I am also going to encourage both LibertyBus and my department to promote the hopper bus some more.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Final supplementary, Deputy Warr.

Deputy D.J. Warr:

No, thank you.

2.2 Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding an update on the Haut du Mont explosion investigation (OQ.144.2024)

Will the Minister provide an update on the Haut du Mont explosion investigation and state when the public will be informed of the likely cause of the incident?

I hope the Minister agrees with me, and I think most people, that the cost at the moment is not the most important matter here in this, but there is information that could be put in the public domain. Does the Minister agree with that? Would she consider releasing information which would not be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation about the cause and the progress made to date and also the content of that report about the cause of the explosion, so that there can be some progress made towards closure, not just for the families, but also for the wider public in this matter?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

At this stage, I would not want information to be put into the public domain that could have any impact at all on any process that will happen thereafter. I will speak to the investigating team and will ask that question but, as far as I am concerned, the most important thing at this time is that the investigation can be continued unimpeded and that whatever the result is, is that it is important that there is nothing that has come out prior to anything that may happen following the review of the file and the decisions that are made. I would want to be totally sure that that would not impede it in any way shape or form because for me that is the priority.

2.3 Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding the drafting of hate crime legislation (OQ.133/2024)

Further to the response to Written Question 136/2024, will the Minister advise what progress, if any, has been made regarding the drafting of hate crime legislation, and the estimated timeline for lodging?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs):

As Members will be aware, the hate crime legislation has been a component part of the Prejudice and Public Order Law, which dealt with the issues of public order as well as crimes motivated by prejudice. The offences in our draft law were mostly based on those in force in England and Wales, which sit in the Public Order Act 1986. Since the initial development of the law, other jurisdictions have introduced comparable legislation, which provides more effective and future-proofed ways of describing hate crime offences. In light of these developments, officers of the Cabinet Office are working on the Law Officer’s Department to redevelop the offences in the hate crime law into an effective and modern form. This work is ongoing and I am still committed to finalising this legislation within this term of office. However, there are still significant questions to be answered around the treatment of sex and gender, as well as how we deal with the issue of stirring up hatred. I intend to develop a plan, with consultation in due course, and to complete the legislation as soon as practicably possible.

2.3.1 Deputy H.L. Jeune:

Could the Minister advise what is the current state of hate crime in Jersey and have there been any notable trends or changes in recent years?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

My apologies, Sir. Can the Deputy repeat the question please?

Deputy H.L. Jeune:

I said, could the Minister advise what the current state of hate crime is in Jersey, seeing as there is not legislation at the moment, and have there been any notable trends or changes in recent years?

The Deputy Bailiff:

The question is about drafting hate crime legislation, Deputy. It is important that supplementaries are focused on the question. I am not sure the Minister can answer this. Can you answer this, Minister?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

No, Sir, I cannot.

2.3.2 Deputy H.L. Jeune:

Okay, then please can I have another follow-up question? In that sense, because there is yet to be legislation specifically focused on hate crime, what are the policies and strategies that are currently in place to help prevent hate crime and to support victims of Jersey currently?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

Of course legislation already within ... the States of Jersey Police already have legislation which will cover hate crime offences. Of course what we need to do is make specific legislation which can deal with these offences as opposed to using other legislation to actually deal with them. So that is why the legislation is being brought forward. There are lots of parts of it that need to be clarified. As we said, in relation to other parts of the country the law has had its challenges, so we need to make sure that whatever we bring forward for Jersey is right and suitable for our own selves.

2.3.3 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:

Is the Minister aware of recent attacks on members of the L.G.B.T.Q.+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer plus) community? Is she concerned about this and will she ensure that they are protected under this new legislation?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

I thank the Deputy for the question and it is not something that was brought to my attention. I have met with the new C.E.O. (chief executive officer) of the L.G.B.T.Q. community and I would anticipate that that will be a regular meeting to keep updated with. At this stage, as I said, I was not aware of that, but I would ensure and I would be totally committed that the States of Jersey will investigate these offences to the best of their ability to ensure that they are treated with dignity and also that they are investigated properly and those offenders brought to court.

2.3.4 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Please could the Minister confirm which characteristics will be protected under the proposed new legislation?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

As I said, we are going to do a consultation to establish what actual characteristics the consultation process will bring. Mostly because, as I said, there have been challenges in other jurisdictions. One would want a legislation that was going to incorporate everything, but we obviously need to ensure that what we do include is actually what the people that we consult think is appropriate. Obviously the people that we will be consulting are the people like the L.G.B.T.Q. community alongside other groups who have an interest in this subject.

2.3.5 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I do not think anybody in Health can ever give a 100 per cent guarantee about anything. The one thing I can guarantee 100 per cent is that this is receiving my absolute attention. From a political perspective, there are limits to what you can do. But I recognise that there is a problem. I think it is public knowledge that there is a problem, and I am in the process of dealing with it. I can do no more than that.

2.4.5 Deputy H.L. Jeune:

During the last States Assembly, the Minister acknowledged that there were a number of elements surrounding the report that he did not have full knowledge of at that precise moment - the process taken to contact different affected patients, the accountability process and outstanding actions from the report - but he did say that he would share the answers with those asking the questions, and I would hope the wider Assembly and the public. Has the Minister been able to share the answers to the questions that he was unable to answer at that time? If not, why not?

Deputy T. Binet:

I am not sure that that relates to the initial question, does it, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, the question ... actually, you are right. It related to the publication of the full report.

Deputy T. Binet:

It is very simple, why have I not published the report and ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Sorry, let me finish, Minister. The question is about publication of the full report, and Members have asked you about radiology services in general, which I thought was appropriate in the circumstances, but of course you are right to say that the question was about publication, and if you are unable to answer questions that are not directly on that issue, then of course, that is a matter for you.

Deputy T. Binet:

I would be very happy to say that there is a very comprehensive report going to be published on 18th July that is ready for the board next week. I think most of those questions will be answered in those reports. If any Member finds that there is anything that has been asked that is not in those reports, then if they contact me directly, I will be very happy to answer them.

2.4.6 Deputy I. Gardiner.

I will ask a follow-up question. At the previous States sitting, answering to my question, the Minister committed to publish the action plan as a response to the radiology report. Would the Minister confirm that this action plan would be published alongside with the report?

Deputy T. Binet:

Yes, the action plan, the intention is for that to be published on Thursday as well.

2.4.7 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

My recollection is that the Minister was appointed in January. He informed the Assembly in earlier answers that he was informed about this issue in March. Why the delay, if I may ask?

[10:15]

Deputy T. Binet:

I think that would have to be a question for somebody else. In life, if you are not aware of something and you do not know that it is there you do not go looking for it and you have to rely on somebody else telling you. For the purposes of this question, I did look up where I could find any evidence of having been informed. If I had been informed about it verbally I cannot recall but in writing it was during the course of March that I was informed.

2.4.8 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Could he inform the Assembly who informed him of this?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well it would be unusual to ask for a name

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Not a name, but a postholder. Of course, one would never deal with a name.

Deputy T. Binet:

Off the top of my head, I asked my Ministerial secretary to look it up for me, and they just came back and told me that I was first informed in March. I did not think to ask who it was that had told me, but if the Deputy is really that interested I can find out for him.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I thank the Minister for his answers. Will the Minister allow blue badge holders to have access to Broad Street, for example, for collecting sedated patients from the dental practice?

The Connétable of St. John:

I am not sure what currently happens at the moment. I am sure that is a challenge for both able and non-able-bodied people so I need to take that away and come back to the Deputy.

2.6 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding the provision of 15 hours additional nursery care (OQ.142/2024)

Further to his response to Oral Question 61/2024, will the Minister provide an update in respect of the work to develop the provision of 15 hours additional nursery care for 2 to 3 year-olds and the establishment of a pilot scheme to access empty primary school nursery places?

Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central (The Minister for Education and lifelong Learning):

I thank the Deputy for her question. When I answered the Oral Question 61 in April this year, I advised that if there was any way to have some pilots in place by September, rather than only the plan to do so, it would be acted upon. I am pleased to advise the Deputy that 3 primary school nurseries will be extending hours; they are open each day from September, October this year. Plat Douet will be expanding the wraparound provision to include nursery children from September 2024. Their plan is to open from 7.30 to 5.30 p.m. for 48 to 50 weeks a year. d’Auvergne will be extending their wraparound provision to 6.00 p.m. to include nursery children. This may need to be from October half-term due to staffing. I am awaiting confirmation of the staffing on this. Trinity already had an early years breakfast club for their nursery children from 7.45 a.m. and will be extending the day to 6.00 p.m. to meet parental demands. Date of commencement will be confirmed this week by the headteacher. Let me look at my ... I want to give accurate numbers. These extended provisions at 3 primary schools will offer more hours to 79 existing users of the nursery, young children, and hopefully incentivise parents to take up some or all of the 32 unused spaces. I want to stress though that the plans we have to continue with respect to the extended childcare and early education will be underpinned by the principles of choice, affordability and accessibility for families. Maintaining high-quality services are the key to success of any policy development in early years.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Could the Minister address the entirety of the question, including the part about the 15 hours for 2 to 3 year-olds, please?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

To extend the hours to 2 to 3 year-olds, we have to open nursery places. The first thing to do is to extend the hours in our 3 year-old spaces and use the unused spaces in primary schools, in our state schools. That is exactly what the previous answer to the question was about, in order to hopefully free up spaces for 2 year-olds in other sectors. But as I said previously, I am not going to offer 15 hours of universal care when the provision is simply not there. I want to ensure that we have a measured approach which maintains the ability to have quality early years provision across the sector as we increase 2 year-old provision. When that is in place, at a point where I believe that we are a sustainable place to do that, then that is the time to offer the 15 hours of care. I will remind the Deputy that there are over 100 eligible children that now benefit from funded part-time places within the registered child care sector or registered child care minder that come from the Best Start Nursery Plus scheme that is in place. We are on our way to starting to extend those hours and I hope that is understood.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Supplementary please.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have had a supplementary, Deputy Doublet.

2.6.1 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

No, sorry, Sir. That was just asking the Minister to answer the entirety of the question. My supplementary would be: could the Minister just confirm that the 15 hours additional care for 2 to 3 year-olds that was committed to will not be delivered by this autumn? I just want to check my understanding of that.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

This autumn, if the Deputy refers to September 2024, then no, it would not. I think the Deputy is fully aware that nursery places really are applied for in February and March. There were no previous plans at all ready for a previous February and March, which really need to be in place the year before to extend that nursery provision. What we have managed to do, and which I am pushing officers very hard to do, indeed there are more meetings happening this week during this meeting where we may be able to announce some other areas of provision, but that needs to be done at speed, but it needs to be done in a meaningful way. We are starting really from scratch in terms of the practical provision of places. The plan was in place, the ideas were in place, the report is in place and I accept all of those things, and that was excellent work done across the sector. But in terms of providing the places, there was no way they were going to be available for autumn this term, but we are working as quickly as we can and that is what we will continue to do.

2.6.2 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I would like to congratulate the Minister to get through the 3 pilots this year. As the Minister is aware that 2 to 3 year-olds are delivered by the private sector, would the Minister advise what engagement he had with Jersey Early Years Association?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

I believe we have a very positive relationship with J.E.Y.A. (Jersey Early Years Association). Certainly following negotiations over ... I was going to say solidifying the offer from the N.E.F. (Nursery Education Fund), but I cannot think of the word. Verifying so they know where we are. Yes, the private sector will be really important in delivery of 2 to 3 year-olds, but we need to work together with our state schools and that conversation is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing, so we can provide the best possible facilities and use the facilities that we have in the best possible way. I am pleased to state in this Assembly that we do need the co-operation of the private sector, the state schools and, importantly, the third sector, those charity provisions that provide a lot of nursery care as well. If we can get those 3 areas working together, we can extend the provision to 2 to 3 year-olds, and that would be a really positive thing for the Island.

2.6.3 Deputy I. Gardiner:

It is absolutely important to utilise places at the state schools. Can the Minister advise what feedback did he have from the Jersey Early Years Association and from the charitable sector? What needs to be done to be able to deliver free 15 hours for 2 to 3 years old?

I am grateful for confirmation that we do have an Island-wide assessment methodology. I do understand that we did have some drifts or, I would say, inconsistencies. What steps will the chair take to ensure there are no more drifts or inconsistencies in implementation of this methodology?

In terms of ratepayers, could the chair of the Comité advise whether those individuals who the Constables are corporate parents for, typically those who are care leavers up to the age of 25, whether those individuals are exempted from paying rates?

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

This is a discussion that has come up before. I think the agreement was those care leavers would be accommodated within other benefits.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Your light is on Deputy Ozouf, you have had a question, though.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Will the Minister clarify whether there is any test of reasonableness in writing off overpayments currently? So if an overpayment was greater by a magnitude, for example, where an operator had typed in an extra zero, would such a clear overpayment be still considered written off or expected to be noticed by the recipient?

Deputy L.V. Feltham:

Could the Minister give some indication of what she believes the timeline will be to deliver all of the recommendations, please?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

We are progressing well and I would like to be able to have as many of the recommendations completed before 2026, when there will be an election. We do not want any of those recommendations to slip through the loop. We want to ensure that the task force review and its recommendations have all been completed, and that is my aim.

2.10.4 Deputy H.L. Jeune:

Following up on my question to the Minister before about independent reviews of the criminal justice system. Could the Minister give an indication of the discussions that she has had with stakeholders and the steps that she will take in the independent review related to the Family Court review that is urgently needed?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

I have met with all of the participants within the Family Court, there was a round table discussion with 15 to 20 people and, as I said, I have had consultation with a U.K. barrister. We will sit down to look at … and also I have officers within the policy team who are looking at terms of reference. We will look at some of the things that have clearly already been resolved and then I, with her, will actually then come up with a plan and she will then look at reviewing the Family Courts as well as all of the other courts within this process.

2.11 Deputy M.B. Andrews of the Chief Minister regarding non-public entities’ gender pay gap data and income ratio reporting (OQ.135/2024)

Will the Chief Minister advise what plans, if any, he has to engage with non-public entities regarding the need for gender pay gap data and income ratio reporting?

[11:15]

Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter (The Chief Minister):

I thought that I had answered that when I said that the intention was to lodge them this year.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Sir, just to clarify, they could be lodged by the end of the year and then debated next year. My question was: will they be lodged and debated before the end of 2024 or will the debate happen in early 2025?

The Connétable of St. Peter:

The Deputy will remember that, initially, 33 consequential amendments were identified before the decision was taken to concentrate on developing the law and, consequently, amend the legislation at a later date. This was a decision taken by the Deputy when she was an Assistant Minister with delegated responsibility for the work. Since the work on searching the statute book for necessary consequential amendments restarted, a further 20 further consequential amendments have been identified. The Law Officers’ Department is currently finalising the search activity and considering the nature of the amendments ahead of the law drafting. Despite this, as I said, the aim is still, as previously mentioned, to lodge the consequential regulations this year. That may, depending on the ability of the Law Officers and the Law Drafting Department, of course, result in the regulations being debated in 2025. However, as I have stated now twice, it is my intention to lodge them this year.

2.13 Deputy C.D. Curtis of the Minister of Infrastructure regarding expanding the existing legislation requiring compulsory helmets for children (OQ.141/2024)

Will the Minister advise whether he intends to expand the existing legislation requiring compulsory helmets for children when cycling to cover any vehicle with wheels, such as skateboards and scooters; and if not, why not?

The Connétable of St. John (The Minister for Infrastructure):

Again, I thank the Deputy for her question. The safety of our children is of paramount importance and we continuously review our policies to ensure we are providing the safest environment possible. I am aware of the popularity of skateboards and scooters among children and recognise the potential risks associated with these activities. At this stage, I do not intend to expand the existing helmet legislation to include other wheeled vehicles such as skateboards and scooters. I am, however, committed to promoting parental responsibility in relation to the voluntary use of helmets and other protective gear when children are using skateboards and scooters. I believe that raising awareness among parents about the benefits of wearing helmets can be a positive and immediate step towards improving safety rather than criminalisation of guardians and potentially introducing barriers to this type of activity, which should be accessible to all.

2.13.1 Deputy C.D. Curtis:

Would the Minister agree, though, that a comprehensive government helmet policy for children could help to prevent potentially serious injuries and would assist parents in keeping their children safe?

The Connétable of St. John:

I do believe we do have a policy. We encourage people who use our skate park, for example, to wear helmets. A policy is different to legislation and I believe our policy is to encourage people to wear protective gear.

2.13.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

Talking of the skate parks, where there is a public skate park potentially administered by the Government or a locality, does the Minister believe that it might well be reasonable to have it as a requirement, that protective equipment, including certainly head protection, is mandatory.

The Connétable of St. John:

I can speak from experience, having run a skate park in St. John for a good number of years. The challenge is policing, because often these sites are not manned and therefore people will use the sites when there is nobody there. The encouragement for people to wear helmets is always made, as is the use of guards on elbows, et cetera.

2.13.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Notwithstanding the issue of policing, does the Minister not agree that most citizens are law-abiding and if there is signage saying that there is a requirement to wear a helmet, that most people will do it? Most parents would also then tell their children to wear a helmet. There is also, I suppose, a question of insurance and liability from the Parish or the Government in that regard. Would the Minister give it further consideration?

The Connétable of St. John:

To my knowledge, there is signage recommending exactly that, both at the new skate park at Les Quennevais and the skate park in St. John that I am familiar with. It is always encouraged and we encourage those people who are more experienced to encourage other participants to wear helmets.

2.13.4 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Minister mentioned criminalisation and to not criminalise people. Thinking about the law, it is not illegal but there is a requirement not to ride on the pavements. We all know that there are not many fines issued for people riding on the pavements, at the same time there is a public clear message that people can be stopped and told you are not allowed to ride on the pavement. Would something similar not encourage young people to wear helmets as well?

The Deputy Bailiff:

I think the current practice is that you then produce a brief translation for those who did not follow what you said.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I was going to do Jersey French but …

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well try English first.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Okay. [Laughter] I …

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sorry, can I have a point of order? Just a point of order. I do think, and I do say this as President of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie, that when we insist on a translation for what is just another official language of the Assembly [Approbation] we are in danger of setting a hierarchy of language, and that our French needs to have an equal statute to English in this Assembly because we do not ask for a translation of English speeches into French and we should not be doing this from French into English. I do not necessarily ask you to change your ruling, but I do ask that it be given consideration in future, because my understanding was that we did do that for Jèrriais but French has been a long-standing language of the Assembly before English ever was.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well I entirely take your point. I will discuss it with the Bailiff but I think I am acting in accordance with current practice, which is to ensure that, not only people here but people listening, most of whom have English as a first language, can understand what is going on in the Chamber, so a brief translation.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Je pourrais demander un point d’ordre ; si l’ordre que vous avez fait, M. le Député-Bailli, est en effet la règle que vous devriez dire à un Membre de l’Assemblée qui a la capacité de parler français s’il veut?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. Well please just produce a short translation to your question.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I meant to ask whether or not the point of order was a point of order, whether or not it was a requirement to translate, I will do, but I take the point that the President of the A.P.F. (Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie) makes. What I wanted to ask was: was the Minister of the view that Islanders’ knowledge of the French language was good enough in advancing our interests in relation to economic matters to do with France? That is why I asked it in French, and I meant it in French, and I will repeat it in French, if necessary.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

For brevity sake, I will answer in English. I appreciate Deputy Ozouf asking the question in French, and the ability to speak in this Assembly in French is something that I will absolutely defend. In my view - and it is only my view, certainly not a Government view - I am concerned about the level of language-speaking in the Island, particularly with regard to French. I have said this before, there is a reality about Jersey’s geography, we are right next to France; that is never going to change. We have to have good relations with France. In my view, the fact that we have lost our southern supply routes is a massive strategic mistake for this Island and it is something that I am trying to rectify. It helps a great deal if we can go over and speak in French to our counterparts in France. There is, I must say, no doubt in my mind though, that as we are talking in huge generalisations here - I am talking about the general level of language-speaking in the Island - I do not believe it is where it needs to be. That is my perspective, I may be wrong, but it is my perspective.

[12:00]

I would say as well, my experience in France is that most of the either politicians, civil servants or business people I speak to, their level of English has increased dramatically over the past few decades which makes it in itself easier to engage when we have people in the party who perhaps do not speak French, as was the case when I travelled to France a couple of weeks ago. There were people in my party who did not speak French but it is a lot easier now because the level of English in France has increased greatly from my perspective.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That brings the time for oral questions to an end, unfortunately, so I am sorry you did not get a supplementary; I am sorry I did not get to your question.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Do I not get a supplementary?

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, the time has expired a minute ago. I let the Minister finish his answer, so I do apologise you did not get your … [Laughter] or the point of order, one of the 2.

Deputy S.M. Ahier:

Sorry, before you move on to questions.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, we were, Deputy, I was going to deal with your oral question now, as you have been communicated with, but the Minister did not get the message so we will need to deal with that oral question after questions to Ministers without notice. All right? So we will need to turn to that. The first period of questions without notice are for the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs and the first question is from Deputy Ahier.

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs

At this stage we are not sure whether the new electronic system will operate with anything other than passports. Obviously that will need to be looked at, and that is part of the work that is ongoing in relation to the Immigration Department. As I said, it is an ongoing project and at this stage these things have not been ironed out but they continue to work on them.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Moore, there is 40 seconds left; your question, is it a short question?

3.10 Deputy K.L. Moore:

Let us try. Given that law drafting instructions for hate crime were completed some years ago, could the Minister confirm that her reason for going back to consultation on this matter is in order to amend those law drafting instructions?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat:

No. I think obviously the hate crime was part of the Public Order legislation that was brought forward this year and that part of it was removed. The reason that I think it is appropriate to go back to consultation was due to the number of factors because it was decided at that time that Scotland had some really good legislation. Obviously there was then some impact on some of those communities and there were some issues that were brought out. From my perspective, I think we need to ensure that whatever legislation that Jersey brings in is that we make sure it is the most up to date and it is best for us as an Island.

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

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are there any final questions for this Minister before we move on to the Chief Minister?

[12:30]

4.10 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Following the adopted amendment for the Common Strategic Policy about ageing population and including disability to ensure there are health provisions to protect the common prosperity of the Island, would the Minister advise what work has started to make sure that we do have a strategic plan in place to address the ageing population and disabilities?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Minister? It was still within your time, Minister. Do you want the question repeated?

Deputy L.V. Feltham:

Yes, please.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, repeat the question, please.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Following the adoption of the amendment to the Common Strategic Policy regarding ageing population and disability to ensure the health funding is supported, would the Minister advise what work has been done, or planned to be done this year/next year, to ensure that we have resilience of the health system for the ageing population and disabilities?

Deputy L.V. Feltham:

My apologies, when I heard the Chief Minister mentioned, I had not listened to the question properly. I am currently working collaboratively with many Ministers to look at our concerns around the ageing population. That is one of the key priorities and focuses of the Homeworker Plus group. It is also one of the ongoing items for discussion that I have with the Minister for Health and Social Services in our regular meetings. I am conscious that there are lots of overlapping areas of work between myself and the Minister for Health and Social Services in these areas and it is really important that I work collaboratively with him in doing that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Minister. We now move on to questions for the Chief Minister.

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

5.1 Deputy D.J. Warr:

At the last States sitting I highlighted the outrageous and not commercially viable 300 per cent-plus rent increase attempted to be forced on the tenant at the Lido at Havre des Pas, which is essentially a sign-or-get-out ultimatum or, in the Minister for Housing’s parlance, a revenge eviction. Unbelievably, the tenant was then informed late last Friday, just ahead of the Havre des Pas festival and the bank holiday weekend, that their tenancy was being terminated despite the Minister for Infrastructure having previously agreed in principle to an entirely different set of terms just weeks ago. This action completely contravenes P.61/2022 passed by this Assembly and appears to undermine the will of this Assembly. Such cynical and unethical behaviour is something, I believe, you would only find in a school playground or a soap opera. Sadly, the reality is this has real world consequences for people’s livelihoods and their health. Does the Chief Minister condone this type of behaviour and why has he allowed this situation, which he has been aware of for years, to continue unabated?

Deputy L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister):

This is a matter that is being dealt with by the Minister for Infrastructure and the Constable of St. Helier in his position as Assistant Minister with delegated responsibility, as I understand it, for the Lido. This Assembly will know that both myself as Minister for Economic Development and the Constable of St. Helier have been strong supporters of the current tenant in support of their work to develop the Lido, not least through COVID, but time has moved on. I am not familiar with all of the latest details. The Minister for Infrastructure is leading it and I very much hope that the course plotted for the Lido will be in the best interests of the Island. I understand the current tenant has been informed that the site will go out to tender at the end of October, and I presume the current tenant would be most welcome to participate in that tender process.

5.1.1 Deputy D.J. Warr:

When will the Chief Minister start to stand up for the small businesses of this Island, the backbone of our economy?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Warr, you need to make your questions shorter. Your first took an entire minute. Other Members will be affected.

Deputy D.J. Warr:

What guidance or procedure has been put in place around that consultation part with Ministers? At what point in the process is it meant to happen? Is every department working to the same process?

Deputy L.J. Farnham:

I do not think there is any specific guidance. One would expect senior civil servants and Ministers to be able to work those sort of details out in the normal course of their business and I would expect every Minister and every department to have done that in a productive way. I am not aware of any incidents where Ministers and departments are finding themselves with any juxtapositions on that. If they are, I would be pleased to learn about it but I understand things are progressing smoothly.

[12:45]

5.7 Deputy I. Gardiner:

The Chief Minister’s answer to my question at the last sitting regarding the view on vocational education funding: “I would need to have a conversation with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning so I can probably articulate my views on that.” The Minister for Education and Lifelong in writing to myself about possible options to amendments confirmed: “I will accept option 2.” This option was rejected several days later by the same Minister based on the Council of Ministers’ decision. Would the Chief Minister advise who are the key people or person on the Council of Ministers that the Members of the Assembly, the Back-Benchers, will need to confirm an agreed way forward with any of the Ministers?

Deputy L.J. Farnham:

I am not sure I fully understand the question but the key person, the key decision-maker in this is the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. So she perhaps needs to seek clarity from him on that. He is leading on it and he has my support and the support of the Council of Ministers, which we have made clear in our position to oppose the proposition that is currently sitting before this Assembly.

5.7.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I would be happy to share with the Chief Minister the email where it said that the Minister would be happy to support and after the email saying that the Council of Ministers decided to reject. I think that it was some misunderstanding and we will sort it out.

The Deputy Bailiff:

We are now at the 15 minutes barrier for questions. That concludes the questions for the Chief Minister. Is the adjournment proposed?

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are Members content to adjourn now? Adjourned until 2.15 p.m.

[12:47]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:17]

6. Urgent Oral Question

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now move to an urgent oral question. There being no provision in Standing Orders in relation to the duration of this matter, I will allow 15 minutes for this question. Deputy Renouf will put it to the Minister for Health and Social Services.

6.1 Deputy J. Renouf of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding issues raised by former health leaders at the Health and Social Security Health Panel hearing on 10th July 2024

Will the Minister respond to the issues raised by former health leaders at the Health and Social Security Health Panel hearing on 10th July particularly relating to public safety, clinical standards and governance?

Deputy T. Binet (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

I am not looking to question anyone’s judgment in this matter but I am a little surprised to find that this question has passed the test of urgency. I think the reason for that might become apparent when I explain that my response to those particular issues, public safety, clinical standards and governance, is no different now than it was the last time I commented on them or than it would have been had the Deputy and his colleagues not chosen to bring these 3 individuals’ views to public attention. My response is that I will simply continue to drive fundamental restructuring of the health system, which will make it more efficient and accountable, continue to do all I can to obtain the money required to ensure that the entire service is digitally connected and I will carry on building bridges between the remaining factions that need to come together to ensure standards are raised. Finally, subsequent to the recent public hearing focused on our health services, the one additional thing that will require my immediate unplanned and wholehearted attention is the task of repairing the damage that has been done to public confidence and health staff morale by this carefully organised exercise, the outcome of which was completely predictable.

6.1.1 Deputy J. Renouf:

I must say I am disappointed by the tone the Minister has taken. It is of fundamental significance, I think, that the Health Panel should hold Ministers to account. In fact, I received a letter just after the hearings from the person who helped set up the Scrutiny system saying that this was exactly what the Scrutiny system had been designed to achieve. I will ask, if I may, as a follow-up if this is action that the ... if this is old news to the Minister, can he clearly state what actions he has taken to support his officers in tackling poor behaviours among a number of consultants and the culture of resistance to change that has been identified over and over again as so damaging for patients’ safety?

Deputy T. Binet:

I do not have a list of the various things that I have done. I have been in the job for 6 months. It has taken me a while to find my feet to understand the organisation and to understand the problems and I have had a series of meetings with management and with clinicians because if we do not listen to both sides we are going to get nowhere. I am using my best endeavours to bring the threads of those things together. I have to say that the public outcry over this, if it has had one benefit at all it is the fact that people who would have been perhaps at each other’s throats previously are now uniting to stand up for one another because there is some good work going on in the health service. A lot of the storm now is about things that have been revealed that have been going on for a number of years and what we are simply doing is saying: “This is what has gone on, these are our findings and this is how we are going to put it together.” There are various reports. There are recommendations that people are going to have access to as of the 18th, Thursday of this week, and those are the recommendations that we will be implementing.

6.1.2 Deputy H.L. Jeune:

Has the Minister or his Assistant Ministers been contacted and lobbied by clinicians who were opposed to conclusions of the Mascie-Taylor report or who were opposed to the adoption of N.I.C.E. (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) clinical guidelines? If so, how did he respond to this lobbying?

Deputy T. Binet:

I have not been lobbied in that specific regard.

6.1.3 Deputy P.M. Bailhache:

Would the Minister agree that the statements of 2 of the former leaders that they would not seek medical treatment in Jersey were inflammatory, inappropriate and ought not to have been made? [Approbation]

Deputy T. Binet:

In simple terms, I would agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I thank the Deputy for making it.

6.1.4 Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson:

Does the Minister agree with the assessment that Jersey’s health system is broken and letting Islanders and staff down? The staff bit is important and I believe that all 3 of the health leaders who gave evidence last week did pay tribute to the many staff working in the department and said that it was not pointing the finger at everybody working within it. Are we letting all those people down? If he does not agree with that assessment, why not?

Deputy T. Binet:

Would the Deputy be kind enough to explain what she means when she says “we” are letting these people down, because that is a slightly confusing question?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Do you want to give that clarification, Deputy Stephenson?

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson:

As an Island. The question is as I have written it: does the Minister agree with the assessment that Jersey’s health system is broken and letting Islanders and staff down? The staff bit is really important and if not, why not? I will take out the “we” if it is easier.

Deputy T. Binet:

The staff bit involves the very people who are delivering the service and a complication here is that you have got a lot of very good staff doing some very good work in a system that has not really had sufficient attention or sufficient money for some considerable period of time. We are very reliant on the good staff within the system to come together and help to make these things a little better. That is why, if my tone was not perhaps as nice as it might have been in relation to what happened last week, it is simply because it really did cause some damage. It did really lower morale and I have been contacted by a number of people in the service in that regard and a number of members of the public who also felt that it had done a great deal to diminish people’s confidence in what is, I think, a quite fast-improving service.

6.1.5 Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson:

I do not believe the Minister answered the question. Does he agree with the assessment that Jersey’s healthcare system is broken and letting down Islanders and staff and, if not, why not?

Deputy T. Binet:

It cannot be completely broken because it is still providing a pretty good service. I have said a number of times that it is not perfect and there are some problems. I have made that very, very plain and I have said that we are doing everything we can. Is it letting Islanders down? I do not think it is. It is providing the best service that it can at this point in time.

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson:

Speaking truth to power is often a painful experience and it calls for accountability and transparency at the highest level. Can the Minister accept that these 3 people who have made these comments about our health service, with years and years of experience, with international reputations, accreditations, clinical backgrounds, senior level positions in health systems, have done this? While he may not agree with all that has been said, does he maintain that the position that they have taken is ... or does he support that the position that they have taken was in the interests of patient safety and not a personal attack on himself?

Deputy T. Binet:

I do not know that I am entirely happy to support that at all. We have to look at people. I have employed an awful lot of people in my time and I have seen some very impressive C.V.s (curricula vitae) and they have not always delivered that which one might expect. I will just have a quick look at what we are dealing with here.

[14:30]

We have got 3 people, 2 of them were ... and I will focus on those 2 because the other one has not had anything to do with Jersey healthcare since last year so I will focus on the other 2. If this is in the public interest and patient safety and staff in the hospital, they made no significant mention at all of the many improvements that are currently underway. However well qualified they are, I think that is unforgiveable. I have got some other comments but I think I will leave it at that.

6.1.11 Deputy K.M. Wilson:

The point is not about saying nice things. The point is about trying to illustrate in helpful ways where things can be improved. Does the Minister accept that some of what these 3 respected individuals have said does have some merit?

Deputy T. Binet:

There is nothing very clever about saying that some of it had some merit. Of course it had some merit.

6.1.12 Deputy J. Renouf:

I think a point was raised earlier that you cannot deal with a problem if you do not acknowledge it, and that was a point raised by the people who appeared before the panel. I too was contacted by people after those hearings who were grateful that finally the problem had been so clearly stated without varnish and without being sugar coated. Part of the leadership role of a Minister is surely to set the culture and to set standards. We have a culture of consultants in the H.C.S. of resistance to standards that are universally accepted elsewhere. That is why the experts spoke out. For the sake of those who do accept those standards, who understand how important they are for patient safety and are trying to implement them within the department, will the Minister unequivocally state that there is no place in H.C.S. for consultants who will not accept clinical guidelines and who reject the findings of Royal College reports, as we apparently hear is going to be the case with radiology?

Deputy T. Binet:

I really am going to be sounding like a broken record. Was the Deputy not listening to the question that I answered from Deputy Gardiner? I have already answered this question; I am very happy to answer it again. It is a very straightforward yes.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

7. Reduction of lodging period

The Deputy Bailiff:

Before we start Public Business, a decision needs to be made about whether to reduce the minimum lodging period in respect of a matter listed on the Order Paper, New Healthcare Facilities Programme, P.43, lodged by the Hospital Review Panel. Deputy Renouf, do you wish to make the proposition under Standing Order 26(7) that the lodging period be reduced to allow this matter to be debated at this sitting?

Deputy J. Renouf:

Yes, Sir, and if I may make a few comments to explain why.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am grateful to those who have contributed and I thank Members for doing so. I think we can move to the vote if that is okay. I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting on reduction of the lodging period under Standing Order 26(7). If all Members have had the chance of voting, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the proposition has been adopted: 41 votes pour, one vote contre and one abstention.

POUR: 41	CONTRE: 1	ABSTAIN: 1
Connétable of Trinity	Deputy B. Ward	Deputy M.R. Scott
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy K.F. Morel
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

The Greffier of the States:

Deputy Scott abstained and Deputy Barbara Ward voted contre.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The Greffier will preside over the next item.

8. Draft Unlawful Public Entertainments (Jersey) Regulations 202-. (P.24/2024)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The next item is the Draft Unlawful Public Entertainments (Jersey) Regulations 202-, P.24/2024, lodged by the Minister for Sustainable Development, and the main respondent is the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. The debate resumes following the adoption of the principles on 11th June and the subsequent referral to the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel under Standing Order 72(1). So we return to the matter in hand. How do you wish to propose the regulations, Minister?

8.1 Deputy K.F. Morel (The Minister for Sustainable Economic Development):

Thank you. I will be proposing them en bloc.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that you are making the recommendation ...

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Sorry, I thought you asked ... [Laughter] sorry, Ma’am, I thought you asked a straight question, how will I be proposing them. En bloc is the answer.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you wish to propose them now then, Minister?

Deputy K.F. Morel:

I would like to propose them if that is okay. Thank you very much.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you wish to make a speech? [Laughter]

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Sorry, I apologise. I was expecting Deputy Tadier to have to say something at some point. That was why, having called amendments ...

Deputy M. Tadier:

You will not be disappointed. [Laughter]

Deputy K.F. Morel:

I rarely am if Deputy Tadier gets to speak, so no, absolutely. So, thank you, Ma’am. I will just pull up my notes as well. Apologies. So first of all I would like to thank the Scrutiny Panel for their work and for bringing back these regulations in a timely fashion. I would like to thank them for their ... clearly, they have done a good review and, in colloquial terms, got under the bonnet of the issues. So I am really pleased with that and I will be reading the comments paper with interest and will certainly look through their recommendations and decide which of those that we can take forward. With regard to the regulations being proposed today, I would just like to quickly summarise them. Regulation 1 establishes the Bailiff’s role in granting permission for public entertainment with conditions and provides for the offence of holding a public entertainment without permission. Regulation 2 gives meaning to those conditions by providing that breaching them is an offence, unless it was out of the organiser’s control, having taken all reasonable precautions. Regulation 3 is intended to ensure that a person can be held responsible where the relevant offences are committed by a company or partnership. Regulation 4 clarifies that the regulations do not alter any customary law offence, and regulation 5 specifies the expiry date of the regulations as 20th July 2027. But as Members will know, having read through the comments paper and also heard the debates previously, it is my intention, and certainly the Scrutiny Panel’s wish, that we do not have to renew these on 30th July or before 30th July 2027. So, with that, I would like to make the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are regulations 1 to 6 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations?

8.1.1 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am sorry if I am the only person who seems to be putting their light on. I was greatly interested in hearing the Scrutiny. I was somewhat perturbed when I was online, I think, and the Scrutiny Panel called the matter in because it is a relatively simple set of regulations which, of course, have been before this Assembly on a triennial basis for a number of years. But where I think it is relevant and perhaps while it has not been possible to make any amendments to the regulations, where it is clear is that there is an absence of policy in respect of entertainments and it is the absence of policy which puts the Presiding Officer, the Bailiff, in a difficult position. The Bailiff does not make the decisions. They are upon advice, and they are upon advice on matters of public safety, which is clear. I thought that my own experience of the Bailiff’s panel in organising events has been good. But what I think Scrutiny ... and I am sure the chair of Scrutiny is going to speak, and the Minister can sum up also. Where they are clearly in hindsight deficient is the absence of a policy and that is a Ministerial policy on entertainments, which can guide the Bailiff’s panel or whoever authority is ultimately going to be deciding upon whether or not an event is happening, is what sort of policy the Island and the democratically-elected Members of the Island are going to permit. Are they going to permit ... this originally was raves.

[14:45]

That was a matter of safety because of the link with drugs, et cetera, as I understand it, and public order, although alcohol, of course, is another fuelling of rave-like events. They have been continued. That was the reason for the original triennial regulations. I well recall the president of the then ... not Home Affairs but I think it was whatever president it was, then a Senator, bringing forward the triennial regulations and explaining the reasons that it was raves. We did not have anything before then. I know that Deputy Sir Philip Bailhache will be filling in any gaps in relation to that, but it does seem to me that the current arrangements are working well in terms of safety and the panel that the Bailiff convenes and all the articles are clear in relation to that. But what is missing is a strategy and a strategy for events and entertainments that is something that the Minister himself I know feels very important about. I think that would be seriously helpful and then could be reflected in any further legislation that is brought forward, because the Bailiff’s panel or whoever competent authority should have regard to a publicly and democratically approved policy of entertainments. That is different from the public safety, which is a matter for experts.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy Bailhache, I saw your light on earlier. Would you like to speak?

8.1.2 Deputy P.M. Bailhache:

I am slightly sorry that the Scrutiny Panel has withdrawn its amendment because I was intending to support it. Because I think it is high time that the nettle of dealing with unlawful public entertainment or dealing with public entertainment, indeed, was actually grasped by the Minister. I remember very well when these regulations were introduced for the first time in 1992 because I was the Attorney General at the time. The urgent problem of the day was illegal raves, where young people would secretly organise large parties in places which were undoubtedly very exciting but also dangerous. One was held on a cliff edge on the north coast, where there was a serious risk of youngsters falling over and being killed or badly hurt. The problem was how to stop the raves because nobody, of course, asked the Bailiff for permission before a rave took place. It was impossible, very often, for the police to find out who was actually in charge. The only means of controlling the situation was to confer a power on the police to seize and ultimately confiscate the amplifiers, speakers and other expensive equipment which made the fun possible. This was valuable equipment and many owners did not obviously want to lose it, and illegal raves were killed stone dead by these regulations. Interestingly, the power to seize and forfeit equipment has been omitted from the current draft regulations, I imagine because the power is now contained in the Proceeds of Crime Regulations, or Law, which was passed in 1999, or maybe some other legislation. So I am not sure that these regulations actually serve any useful purpose. They preserve the customary law offences and the power of a Bailiff to license public entertainment, but that adds nothing to what is there already. If the regulations were rejected, the Bailiff would still have the power to license public entertainment, subject to appropriate conditions. So do we need the legislation at all? Well, yes, we do and possibly for 2 reasons, but the first reason seems to me to have the greatest importance. That is to remove from the Bailiff the power to license public entertainment. This has been a policy aim for decades and it is absurd that the nettle has not yet been grasped and that some agreement has been reached as to who should have the power to license public entertainment in the place of the Bailiff. The answer, it seems to me, is that it should be a Minister, whether the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister for Economic Development, whatever he is now called, I am sorry. One of those 2 Ministers probably fits the bill. To achieve that end is a one-page, or 2 page at the most, projet de loi. In practice, the Minister will have no more to do with licensing public entertainment than does the Bailiff currently. It is an administrative function where the Bailiff’s chief officer or, indeed, an appropriate senior official in a Minister’s department can bring together key officials from the police, fire, health and other departments to ensure that the event does not constitute a risk to public safety. The only other purpose of legislation, and this I think was referred to by Deputy Ozouf and is referred to in the Minister’s report, is a longstanding desire to develop an alternative route for the management and approval of events in the public domain, including a single, centrally-managed register to manage the use of public space. I must confess that I have absolutely no enthusiasm for this particular project, which seems to me to involve the creation of lots more work for civil servants, lots more expense to achieve comparatively little, but that is an argument for another day. I am sorry that the Minister is succeeding in bringing forward legislation, regulations which are going to last for 3 years, which will have the effect only of kicking this matter into the long grass beyond the next elections and failing to deal with a problem which, frankly, should have been dealt with years ago.

8.1.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

I am just going to start my own timer because I do not have one otherwise for this speech, although it is timed for me, apparently. It is not always the case for the main respondent to have that facility, but they make an exception for me for some reason. Members can be reassured that I will not speak for any longer than necessary, but this is the first review that our newly formed Scrutiny Panel has conducted and concluded and it has done so in a short period of time, indeed probably an abridged period of time, given that we would have liked to have had longer to look at this, albeit that it is quite a restricted and finite review compared to potentially some others. If I can start by addressing maybe some of the comments that Deputy Bailhache made because I understand why some Members may feel disappointed that the Scrutiny Panel’s amendment has been withdrawn. I will perhaps explain why we have done that first of all. So our initial position as a panel was very much that ... and we have said it in our comments so I will happily read this out before anyone else points it out. Initially, we said that the panel was confident that the necessary changes could be made within the current terms of Government. On looking at it, it is not that we necessarily do not believe that anymore, but we thought it is necessary to call this in for information and to have an evidence basis and that on balance, as chair and I think as a panel, we felt that we had some very good evidence presented to us by the key stakeholders, including the Minister, for which we are very thankful. We thank all those who attended upon the panel in this time period. If I am honest, it is probably quite marginal to say that the legislative changes that the Minister and the department needs to make can necessarily be done holistically within the 2-year timeframe before the next election. I think it is important that Scrutiny Panels are prepared to take their own medicine, so if we say that Ministerial propositions need to be evidence based, then similarly we must make sure that we have categorical evidence when we are making our recommendations. That does not mean, of course, that we do not think the Minister could do this and that the department with a fair wind could bring forward both primary legislation, a framework for a new entertainments law, and the subsequent regulations and secondary law, therefore, that needs to go with it, but we recognise that there will need to be quite a piece of work of consultation that goes on, not simply with industry professionals but, of course, with stakeholders in the various Parishes. It is important that Constables and also I think parishioners are taken along with this. There also needs to be consideration as to what extent other additional legislation such as alcohol licensing and subsequent changes that might need to be brought forward are also put into the mix and what is done later on perhaps as separate considerations. From a personal point of view, I think I owed the Minister a slight apology because the last time I spoke I probably had not fully realised the shortened timescale in which the Minister had inherited this responsibility from Home Affairs. I know it did used to fall under Home Affairs, so we accept that the Minister has a piece of work here. Nonetheless, the strong message, if I may turn to the recommendations that we have made during the review, are that we have put forward a number of recommendations, which the Minister has already referred to. So if I can take Members through those 5 recommendations initially, I think that would be helpful. So the first recommendation is that the Minister - and this is the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development in each case - should prior to 30th September this year and also in consultation with the Bailiff’s Chamber arrange for clear communication of guidelines for the definition of public entertainments to be put forward to the hospitality industry and published on the relevant pages of the Government website. One of the issues that we acknowledge is that there is not necessarily a clear definition in every case of what entertainment means in every case and, therefore, what an act of unlawful entertainment might be. The second recommendation is that the Minister, again in consultation with the Bailiff’s Chambers, should arrange for clear communication of the expectations of what should be included in an application to hold public entertainments so that it is a checklist, if you like. Again, the information should be forwarded to the hospitality industry and published on the relevant pages of the Government website. The third recommendation is that the Minister should, in developing any new legislation regarding this area, consider revising the penalties for breaches of the regulations to make them more proportionate. I will come back to that in a moment. The fourth recommendation is that the Minister should do his utmost to bring both primary and secondary legislation forward for debate during this term of office, so we emphasise that. We were happy to withdraw our amendment on the basis that the Minister again should strive to do that. Also, we think that this would be a safeguard contained in recommendation 4. Something we hope the Minister would accept is that he should make a statement to the Assembly if he is unable to achieve this prior to the 2026 election period. The fifth and final recommendation is that the Minister should by the end of August this year indicate by way of a public letter his proposed timeframe for consultation, production of law drafting instructions, debates and implementation on public entertainments, permitting the system and associated legislation. I am not going to speak, of course, to the whole of the comments paper. That stands in its own right and Members, if they have not had a chance to look at it, can look at it perhaps over the summer holidays if you need a bit of holiday reading. Certainly, take that away with you; it should be quite illuminating. Going back to the third recommendation regarding the penalties, one thing I would highlight to Members now ... because we are, of course, talking about the regulations. We have 6 regulations before us that we need to vote on today.

[15:00]

The evidence that we had before us is that the penalties that we are re-enacting today for having an event unlawfully is either 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine or both. The thing is while the term of imprisonment is limited to 6 months, the fine itself is unlimited. So I think that is questionable. I think the panel has found that it seems very disproportionate that you can have an unlimited fine for, I say, simply having an event without permission from the Bailiff. One suggestion we had from the industry was that it might be more effective, and it is something the Minister might wish to consider in the future when replacing these penalties potentially, that a ban or a temporary ban on somebody who does not have permission or runs an event in a way that is not perhaps health and safety or law compliant, there could be a temporary ban for that person. It might be more proportionate and more effective than simply a fine. I do leave the comments there because I think a lot, as I have said, is contained within the workings of and the findings of the paper. I would simply like to thank the Scrutiny Panel because, as I have said, it is a piece of work which was done in short order. We had lots of plates being spun at the same time. We have other reviews that are going on. We have quarterly hearings, of course, which have also been taking place. So I would like to put on record our thanks as a panel to our Scrutiny officer and the administrative support that we have had. I know that he has been very busy particularly and this has added to his workload, but I think he has done that in an exemplary way. Also, thank you to my panel members, who I think have also given their attention to this, and the Minister and the stakeholders who have engaged with this. In conclusion, I would say and possibly encourage Members, if they do have concerns about any particular regulations ... and certainly when it comes to regulation 1(1) about the levels of fine that can be imposed, I probably will not be supporting that myself. I think I will abstain because we need to have something in place, but I think having an unlimited fine is not sustainable. I will also be abstaining on Article 6 to do with the timeline because I wish to send a message to the Minister that I would strongly encourage him to come forward with this new legislation as soon as possible. To conclude, as a Scrutiny Panel we will be doing our utmost as the critical friend that we are to hold the Minister to his aspiration of bringing in at least a framework but preferably a whole new piece of legislation to deal with this area so that we do not have to be in a position of leaving this in the hands of the future Assembly, which may, of course, not be any of us that are currently present.

Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade:

I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General, please. Because I believe, or at least I got the ... it seemed to be suggested by Deputy Bailhache that these regulations would not change the law in any way, unless I misunderstood that. So I just wondered if the Attorney General could just confirm that or just respond to that. If these regulations were not passed, what difference would it make?

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

Yes, I am happy to answer that question. What these regulations do is to establish a statutory offence, which is an alternative to an existing customary law offence. So they do not abolish the customary law and under customary law, yes, the Bailiff did have a customary law power to control unlawful public entertainments. There is a difference between the statutory power and the customary law power in that the sentence for contravening the customary law offence is at large, which means it is undefined. Theoretically, there could be a sentence of imprisonment, a very significant sentence of imprisonment. Whereas the statutory offence, it defines the maximum sentencing powers of the court as a term of imprisonment of 6 months and an unlimited fine. So that is a difference to the customary law offence where the sentence is at large. So that is perhaps the only relevant difference between a customary law offence and the statutory one in these regulations.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you. Do you wish to continue your speech, Deputy?

8.1.4 Deputy M.R. Scott:

Yes, thank you, Ma’am. So, having heard - and thank you to the Attorney General for clarifying this position - I hope that States Members do accept that these regulations do provide for a more proportionate response to a breach and, therefore, will give the regulations their support.

8.1.5 Deputy K.M. Wilson:

I would just like to comment on the review process itself, which was my first Scrutiny review, and to formally thank Deputy Tadier for his leadership of it and also fellow panel members and Scrutiny Officers. There were some doubts as to why the review was undertaken, but as you have heard from Deputy Tadier it enabled greater insight into the purpose and intention behind the regulations and why things needed to change, as we have heard from Deputy Bailhache so eloquently in the way he summarised those. But I just want to reiterate that as a panel we will hold the Minister to account for his timetable and the way in which he has committed to bringing forward new laws. We have learnt a lot. It has been a very fast-paced piece of scrutiny and I think we have demonstrated that it can be done and that there are some interesting perspectives which we hope we could share with others in terms of being able to support Ministers to develop their legislative programme. We do not believe that working under pressure has reduced the quality of the review process. One of the things that we are pleased is that we have developed an evidence base for this which is relevant to moving things forward.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? If no other Member wishes to speak, I close the debate on the regulations and call upon the Minister to reply.

8.1.6 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Thanks to all Members who have spoken in the debate. I will start in the order that the points were raised. Deputy Ozouf asked about policy and he is, I believe, absolutely correct. There is an absence of policy around this and that is certainly something that I will be seeking to bring in with the laws at the end of this term. I think it is correct. Similarly to the liquor licensing law, the States has not really provided a policy framework around the laws and that does need to be changed. Deputy Bailhache, I must admit I was slightly wounded by Deputy Bailhache’s comments [Laughter] because I absolutely have grasped the nettle. As Deputy Tadier mentioned, these regulations did not sit under the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development until September last year. They have always sat under the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, but precisely because change had been promised and promised but never delivered in that department with regard to these regulations, in Economic Development, where we were being asked by industry particularly: “We need new regulations in this area. We need a better framework for holding events” we asked, formally requested the transfer of these regulations from Home Affairs to Economic Development, which I am really pleased that that transfer took place late last year, in September last year. As a result, I am now bringing forward these regulations for what will be the last time. My department is already working on the new regulations and it is our intention entirely to, as we have said, definitely bring forward the primary law this term but make every effort to bring forward the regulations as well this term. It is only from a perspective of caution because, as with any law drafting ... and when I say “law drafting” I mean any creation of new laws. I am not speaking specifically about law drafting. Any creation of new laws, there are elements of that which are definitely outside the Minister’s control. As a result, I did not want to sit and make promises about timelines when I knew a lot of those timelines were not in my control. That was the only reason for that caution and I am really grateful that in their review ... and perhaps I am reading into it a little bit, but I believe the Scrutiny Panel have, through their review, understood why I was erring on the side of caution and, therefore, asking for the full 3 years. It is not in any way to kick this into touch. It is not in any way to kick the can down the road. It is absolutely grasping the nettle and saying now that I am Minister and finally that I have hold of these regulations, I am bringing changes to these laws. So, I hope that Deputy Bailhache will leave the Chamber with a different opinion of my ability to grasp nettles than the one he entered with. Deputy Tadier, thank you, and thank you to the Scrutiny Panel as well for their hard work on this. There is no doubt in my mind that the review, which is of high quality, will help inform the future regulations as well and the new legal framework for holding events in Jersey. That, of course, goes to Deputy Wilson as well for her work on that panel. Deputy Scott, thank you very much for asking the Attorney General the question. It is very kind. Thank you. So, with that, I was going to propose the regulations en bloc when I was misunderstanding the question earlier, but given Deputy Tadier’s request on Articles 1 and 6, if we could take Articles 1 and 6 separately and the rest en bloc. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well. So if Members would like to return to their seats and the voting will shortly open on regulation 1 only. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had an opportunity to cast their vote, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that regulation 1 has been adopted. There were 46 votes pour and one abstention.

POUR: 46	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 1
Connétable of St. Helier		Deputy M. Tadier
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy G.P. Southern
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy K.F. Morel
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy M.R. Scott
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

I will give the Greffier a moment to reset the system. Are you content to take Articles 2 to 5 en bloc, Minister?

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Yes, Ma’am.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So if the Greffier would open the voting and Members can vote on regulations 2 to 5. If all Members have had an opportunity to cast their votes, I will ask the Greffier to close the voting. Those regulations have also been adopted: 46 votes pour and one abstention.

POUR: 46	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 1
Connétable of St. Helier		Deputy M. Tadier
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy G.P. Southern
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy K.F. Morel
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy M.R. Scott
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Deputy Tadier abstained.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Finally, regulation 6, if the Greffier could open the voting. If all Members have now cast their vote, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Regulation 6 has been adopted: 45 votes pour and one abstention.

POUR: 45	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 1
Connétable of St. Helier		Deputy M. Tadier
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy G.P. Southern
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy K.F. Morel
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy M.R. Scott
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

So the regulations have been adopted. We move to the matter in Third Reading?

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Yes, Ma’am. [Laughter]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you wish to propose the regulations in Third Reading?

8.2 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I do wish to propose the regulations in Third Reading and just to thank all Members for their contributions. I would also just like to say, because I have to mention it, following my history of the regulations being passed from one department to the other, the former Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Miles, has just pointed an email to me in October 2022 where she asked me if I would take over the regulations rather than me asking her. So, apologies there. We believe that that was the formal order in which things happened. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Are the regulations seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

[15:15]

8.2.1 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I wonder whether the Minister in the Third Reading would commit in advance of the Government Plan to bring forward ... he said kindly that there is not a policy which one can point to in relation to events. Would he in advance of the Government Plan, so that Members can understand where public money is going in public events, bring forward something that actually is understandable and explainable in terms of what the policy of his department is? I include the responsibility for his department allocating money to the ... I do not know what they are called. They are called non-government, non-something organisations, but in other words Jersey Sport, Visit Jersey, et cetera. Because there is an overall issue that his department is responsible for, which seems to me it is a multiple of what it was years ago when Economic Development started. I wonder whether or not it would be helpful for him to say, now he has accepted there is no policy, could he bring something in advance of the Government Plan?

8.2.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

I rise just to say that now that the work has been scrutinised ... and this is the process that should ordinarily happen for all legislation and that is why it is important I think that laws are lodged to allow for scrutiny to take place. We hope that this is, of course, the last time that we need to debate these regulations ever in Jersey and that the next time that this issue is before the Assembly it is because we have a completely new law in place with a new set of regulations and a new apparatus in place to do the work. I will say at the moment it is going to be incumbent on the Minister to reassure everybody who might have used the entertainment facilities, for want of a better word, or this law and the Bailiff’s Department. Because we received evidence on the one hand which said that the system works very well and so, of course, there will be a need to convince people why change is necessary, notwithstanding the fact that there have already been some very good points made about the archaic way that this sits perhaps with the customary powers of the Bailiff when the Bailiff is also the civic head of the Island. Yesterday we saw that very clearly. He has other roles to do that do not involve the Parliament directly that also involve the courts, and that may not mean that he is the best placed to be dealing with administrative matters in this way. But we are also mindful of the way that it is a very streamlined system, that for £40 for an entertainment licence you probably get quite a lot for your money in terms of value. On the other hand, we do have an industry, not simply the Hospitality Association but we know that event organisers can also be individuals. They may be inexperienced on occasions, who are not doing it for commercial reasons, who wish to have a system in place which is administrative and as straightforward as possible and fit for the 21st century. So in adopting this in the Third Reading, we hope that it is the last time we will need to give consent to these triennial regulations because I think whoever is in post either as Minister or in Scrutiny next time would probably not tolerate another iteration of this form of customary law being brought forward or this, rather, antidote to customary law being lodged in this way.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak on this matter in Third Reading? If no other Member wishes to speak, I close the debate and I call on the Minister to reply.

8.2.3 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I am going to pick up Deputy Tadier’s last sentence; I think it was, an antidote to customary law. I do not believe customary law is toxic. Therefore, I do not believe it needs an antidote, so to speak. I am quite relaxed about the fact that Jersey still operates customary law in different areas. I do not think that was the point the Deputy was necessarily trying to make, but I certainly ran through the logic of that statement. Absolutely, as the Deputy says, I really, really want this to be the very last time that these triennial regulations are brought to the Assembly. It is a long time since illegal raves were a problem on the cliffs and we need to move to a different way of doing these things. With regard to the comments by Deputy Ozouf, I cannot make the commitment that Deputy Ozouf is asking for and the reason is because Deputy Ozouf has gone from asking for an events policy to asking for a written statement about the grant funding of all arm’s length organisations. That is absolutely not the same thing as an events policy and has nothing to do with an events policy, I am afraid, Deputy Ozouf, so that is not a commitment that I can make in regard to an events policy. An events policy would be looking at events and the framework under which they are allowed to take place or not allowed to take place. That is what an event policy is, and possibly could have something in there about the types of events that Jersey prefer to hold or not hold. Thank you, Ma’am. With that in mind, I do thank Members for their help with this and I do ask that the proposition be taken forward.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you call for an appel?

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Why not, Ma’am, yes. [Laughter]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The appel has been called for. I ask Members to return to their seats and for the Greffier to open the voting on this matter in Third Reading. If all Members have cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the regulations have been adopted: 46 votes pour and one abstention.

POUR: 45	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 1
Connétable of St. Helier		Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy G.P. Southern
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy K.F. Morel
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy M.R. Scott
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can we have the one abstention?

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Deputy Ozouf abstained.

9. Draft Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202-. (P.32/2024)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The next item is the Draft Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202-, P.32/2024, lodged by the Minister for the Environment, and the main respondent is the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202-. The States make these regulations under Articles 2 and 6 of the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994.

9.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):

The Deputy Bailiff:

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

9.3.1 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I was just wondering if the Deputy might enlighten us as to some of the points that he dangled in front of the Assembly. [Laughter] I am sure we would all like to know more.

9.3.2 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Would the Minister please confirm the size of the lobster held by the Queen yesterday? [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff:

A good question. Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading?

9.3.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

In summing up, would the Minister remind us of the punchline to the joke which goes that the lobster came into a bar and the barman said: “I am sorry, I am not going to serve you”? [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Anyone else? [Laughter] I call upon the Minister to reply.

9.3.4 Deputy S.G. Luce:

Because I do not know the answer to Deputy Tadier’s question, I am just going to say that this is a very serious subject and I do not want to make light of it. As for the lobster held by Her Majesty yesterday, I am assured that it must have been over the minimum landing size, otherwise it would not have been on land. In response to Deputy Morel, I might tempt Members with a couple of pieces of information. Lobsters come to breeding size at about 80 millimetres in carapace length, so increasing that size further will allow the lobsters that are in the sea to reproduce a number of times before they are caught. I would be looking to maybe set a maximum size of 135, which is a substantial size of lobster, but if one would be lucky enough to get to that size it can be returned to the sea after being caught, possibly after being tagged and noted. Members might like to know that in the lobster report issued earlier this year that there is the potential for nearly 75,000 lobster pots in our territorial water, which I found quite an interesting and large figure. Certainly, I think that we have the ability to reduce down to around 50,000 without having any effect on the industry. But there were other measures that we could put in place and I very much look forward to bringing them to the Assembly to try to sustain the lobster stock as much as I possibly can for the benefit of everybody, especially the local fishing fleet.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Would the Minister give way before we finish this?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are you prepared to give way?

Deputy S.G. Luce:

Of course, Sir.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I am sure it slipped his mind but of course the lobster, he says: “You come in here, giving it all this.” [Laughter]

Deputy S.G. Luce:

I thank the Deputy for his answer and I ask for the vote.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The appel has been called for. Do you call for the appel?

Deputy S.G. Luce:

Yes, Sir, thank you, I would like to have the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The appel has been called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted unanimously: 41 votes pour.

POUR: 42	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy K.F. Morel
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy M.R. Scott
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

10. Draft States of Jersey (Deputy Chief Minister) Amendment Law 202- (P.33/2024)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item is the Draft States of Jersey (Deputy Chief Minister) Amendment Law lodged by the Chief Minister. The main respondent is the chair of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. I invite the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft States of Jersey (Deputy Chief Minister) Amendment Law 202-. A law to amend further the States of Jersey Law 2005 to provide for the delegation and functions to, and the resignation of, the Deputy Chief Minister and for connected purposes. The States, subject to the sanction of His Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The Chief Minister will propose the principles.

10.1 Deputy L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister):

This amendment to the States of Jersey Law has been lodged alongside an amendment to Standing Orders. Collectively these proposals would allow for the delegation of legal functions from the Chief Minister to the Deputy Chief Minister and for the Deputy Chief Minister to be held accountable to the States for any such delegated functions. This would mirror the existing arrangements for Assistant Ministers to the Chief Minister and indeed in respect of an Assistant Minister to any other Minister. The Amendment Law also addresses a lacuna in the current law which presently allows the appointment and dismissal of the Chief Minister but not for the resignation of the Deputy Chief Minister. As a comparison, the law currently includes resignation provisions for the Chief Minister, Ministers and Assistant Ministers. It is just the Deputy Chief Minister for who the exception presently exists. I assure Members that this particular amendment to the law is to ensure consistency and good order and is in no way to be taken as a hint, nudge or encouragement to the incumbent; far from it in fact. Indeed these are proposals that have been picked up and finalised from the work that has taken place under previous Governments. The amendment also denotes a number of Articles in the States of Jersey Law, which are now spent and no longer relevant. I can come to those in a little more detail in the Second Reading should Members wish. This amendment simplifies and clarifies the position, ensuring that the Chief Minister can delegate responsibilities directly to the Deputy Chief Minister on the same basis that can be done for any other Assistant Minister, just to confirm that. With this additional responsibility of course come the associated accountability, and this is delivered through the related amendment to Standing Orders, which I will speak to in P.34. Can I just note and thank the Scrutiny for their comments, which have been noted and are helpful? After that, I move the principles of the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Chief Minister. Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles? If no Member wishes to speak on the principles, those Members in favour kindly show. Thank you very much. The principles are adopted. Deputy Miles, does the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel wish to scrutinise this matter?

Deputy H.M. Miles (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. Chief Minister, how do you wish to propose the Articles in Second Reading?

10.2 Deputy L.J. Farnham:

I would like to propose the Articles en bloc. I am happy to cover them very briefly; it will take about a minute. Articles 1 and 2 are the interpretation provisions. Articles 3 and 4 in the 2005 Law, Articles 5A and 21B make the transitional provision. Article 5 of the amendment substitutes Article 24 of the law. This is to include provision for the Deputy Chief Minister to resign from the office in writing to the Chief Minister and for notice to be given to the States in such a scenario. Article 6 of the amendment amends the heading of Article 25 better to reflect the content of the Article which includes provision for Assistant Ministers to resign, as well as being appointed and dismissed. Articles 7, 9 and 10 make minor consequential amendments to account for Article 28 on the power to delegate a function being split into 2 separate Articles covering the Chief Minister and Ministers separately. Thank you, and I propose in the Second Reading.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. Are the Articles seconded? [Seconded] Thank you very much. Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles in Second Reading? Those in favour of adopting the Articles in Second Reading kindly show. Thank you. The Articles are adopted in Second Reading. Chief Minister, do you with to propose the matter in Third Reading?

10.3 Deputy L.J. Farnham:

Yes, please, Sir. There is nothing in particular in addition to mention in Third Reading but I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those involved in preparing the amendment, the Drafting Office, Law Officers, the previous and current Corporate Services Panel and of course the previous Government. I make the proposition in the Third Reading. Can I have the appel, please, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff:

When it has been seconded. Is the matter seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles as adopted in Third Reading? The appel has been called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the law has been adopted in Third Reading: 41 votes pour, no votes contre and no abstentions.

POUR: 41	CONTRE: 0	ABSTAIN: 0
Connétable of St. Helier
Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy S.G. Luce
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy D.J. Warr
Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy M.R. Scott
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy M.B. Andrews

11. Amendments to Standing Orders - Deputy Chief Minister (P.34/2024)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item is Amendments to Standing Orders - Deputy Chief Minister lodged by the Chief Minister and the main respondent is the chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to make the following amendments to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey with immediate effect.

11.1 Deputy L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister):

The Deputy Chief Minister has formally had to do so … bear with me. Right, thank you. Standing Orders currently allow for an Assistant Minister to propose a proposition of the Council where they have delegated responsibility and/or for an Assistant Chief Minister to propose a proposition to the Chief Minister. If the Deputy Chief Minister were permitted to receive delegated functions on the same basis as the Assistant Ministers, as previously discussed, it is logical for the Deputy Chief Minister to be permitted parallel permission to act as rapporteur in that capacity. As part of these changes to the role of Deputy Chief Minister and given that the Deputy Chief Minister is a member of the Council of Ministers, it is seen as appropriate to place the same restrictions in respect of nominations and elections to Scrutiny Panels on the Deputy Chief Minister, as apply to the Chief Minister. This is achieved through an amendment to the Standing Order 120, which then has a consequential impact on Standing Order 120(1A). The panels impacted are Corporate Services and Economic and International Affairs. I move the amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition to amend Standing Orders? Those in favour of adopting the proposition kindly show. Thank you. The proposition is adopted and the Standing Orders are amended.

12. Draft Employment (Minimum Wage and Benefits in kind) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.36/2024)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item is P.36, Draft Employment (Minimum Wage and Benefits in kind) (Jersey) Amendment Law, lodged by the Minister for Social Security. The main respondent is the chair of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel. I invite the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Employment (Minimum Wage and Benefits in kind) (Jersey) Amendment Law 202-. A law to exclude requirements from applying to the making of an order before 1st April 2026, prescribing the hourly rate of the minimum wage or amounts relating to benefits in kind. The States, subject to the sanction of His Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

12.1 Deputy L.V. Feltham (The Minister for Social Security):

In November 2021 the previous Assembly set a target of raising the minimum wage to two-thirds of average median wages. In our Common Strategic Policy document this Government and, by its approval of that Common Strategic Policy, this States Assembly has taken a decision to make that target a reality. This amendment to legislation enables me to set rates over the next 2 years to fulfil that commitment. I am very pleased to be supported by the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development who is working with employer representative groups to develop a transitional support package for employers with low-wage employees. Given that it is a political commitment that has been made, it would not be appropriate to ask the Employment Forum to consult, and that is why this amendment is time-limited and temporary. This amendment automatically falls away at the end of March 2026 and all the provisions in the Employment Law which require the Minister to direct the forum to consult on minimum wage rates will apply again.

[15:45]

I recognise that some Members will have doubts about the course I am proposing with this amendment but it is the most effective way of ensuring both the Assembly’s and the Government’s commitment to those on the lowest wages is met within a realistic timescale. One piece of consistent feedback that we have heard from employer representatives is to provide certainty at the earliest opportunity of what rates will be. This is what this proposition will enable me to do. I commend the proposition to the Assembly and maintain the principles.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Minister. Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

12.1.1 Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour:

Along with my friend and colleague in front of me, Deputy Barbara Ward, we spent 9 years on the Employment Forum. During that time we consulted regularly, obviously every year, on minimum wage. Although it was a very rewarding part of the work, there were other employment issues that could have taken precedence and could have affected in a positive way a lot more workers in Jersey. We understood that it was a necessity to complete the review of minimum wage each year. Indeed, at one point we did consider having a 2-year recommendation for the minimum wage to give businesses that surety and to be able to plan for the next 2 years. We never found that the economic conditions were right to be able to make a 2-year recommendation. Although at the time I was really keen to push that forward and allow the forum to consult on wider employment issues, we never got to that end point. All that I would ask of the Minister is if this proposition does get accepted that she uses that time, that 2-year timeframe, effectively, to put the forum to really good use and unleash them on some works that perhaps they would not have had the opportunity to do so otherwise. I am aware that they are currently working on whistleblowing provisions and I am sure they will have an in-depth consultation and recommendation on that. But perhaps a full review of the family-friendly legislation might be appropriate at this time to see if the Employment Forum can recommend further positive changes to increase the provision of family-friendly legislation in Jersey. Also, earlier this morning we were talking about zero-hours contracts; it could be a good time to have a proper consultation on zero-hours contracts to see what is working and what can be improved. I know that zero-hours contracts was always a favourite of Deputy Barbara Ward. I am sure she would like to see that come to fruition. In relation to the offsets, I am aware from all those consultations that we had over the years that the 2 main areas or industries that are affected by minimum wage are of course agriculture and hospitality. Of course the offsets are a mechanism that they have to make a difference when the rate goes up. We looked at increasing the offsets above the rate of minimum wage to allow for that flexibility for employers in those industries. But what we found at the time - and I still believe this to be the case - is very few employers in those industries use the offsets to their maximum as it stands. I do not think that mechanism will work unless things have dramatically changed. Because such is the competitiveness of the workers in the agricultural industry, in particular that most employers just cannot use the offsets to their maximum, I do not think that will have the desired effect. But we can try and if employers understand how to use them properly, as long as the employer is not financially disadvantaged from where they are now. Because all that will happen otherwise is those workers will take themselves off to another farm that does not maximise the use of the offsets. I think it will find its own level. But, generally speaking, if this does get adopted I think it will give the Employment Forum a lot more time and space to do changes, it will put forward the recommendations to changes to the Employment Law that will make a difference for a lot of workers in Jersey.

12.1.2 Deputy H.L. Jeune:

I am really pleased that Deputy Ferey was able to go before me because one of the questions - I really have more questions than anything else to the Minister - was about what the Employment Forum says on this matter. It would be good to hear and it was good to hear from the Deputy about this. But it would be really useful to hear from the Minister her conversations with the current Employment Forum and how they feel about this particular proposition. Will there also be consultation on the whole package that will come with the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development? Will this whole package be consulted at some point or will this mean that because it is in the C.S.P. it will not be consulted at all in the round? It would be useful to know. Third, this question came to me, as Deputy Ferey was talking, about some of the kind of ways that, potentially, could be tweaked in the future around the Employment Forum and looking at the subject of minimum wage. What happens in March 2026? Will you also be using this time between now and then to also maybe amending as such or using that opportunity to see how that will change in the future or will it go back to what it was before? Then of course, as we have heard from Deputy Ferey about his concerns around that and around what happens at the moment, so could use the time to amend it and become more efficient as well into the future.

12.1.3 Deputy P.M. Bailhache:

My party, the Jersey Liberal Conservatives, like the Reform Party and indeed many independent Members, are in favour of the principle of making the minimum wage a living wage. As the J.L.C. (Jersey Liberal Conservatives) stated in its manifesto, a living wage is important for workers’ self-respect. It should not be necessary for wages to be supplemented by the Government. But I have to say that the agricultural industry is deeply concerned about the haste with which the Government is moving to introduce the living wage. The Retail Price Index has advanced by 26 per cent between March 2021 and March 2024. The minimum wage has increased to during the same period by 40 per cent. Farmers’ incomes have not increased by anything like 40 per cent. I do not have the figures but I doubt that they have in fact increased even to the extent of the R.P.I. (retail price index). The supermarkets have rigorous price controls. The farmers are being squeezed. Their costs are rising hugely but their incomes are not. They are in a different position from the hospitality industry and even the retailers where there is at least the opportunity to increase incomes by putting up prices, yet the Government appears to be adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. I heard the Minister this morning say that she had been consulting with the agricultural industry. I hope that the Jersey Farmers Union has been included in that consultation. I hope that the Minister will, if this proposition is adopted and the farmers no longer have the opportunity of going to the Employment Forum to articulate their concerns, will listen personally to the concerns which they have. The agricultural industry, it does not need to be said really, is so important to this community and to this Island. It would be a catastrophe if some members of the industry were pushed into a position where they felt that it was not economically possible to continue; that must be avoided. I look to the Minister for assurances that she will, if this proposition is adopted, consult very fully with all those who have responsibility for the well-being of the agricultural industry.

12.1.4 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I would like to echo Deputy Bailhache’s comments about consultation and add to the list the Construction Council, that I have had meetings with them and they express great concern. Again, myself, I voted and I do support the living wage and it is something that is important. Saying this, the concerns that were raised by the Construction Council that is specifically also around the apprenticeship. Because the apprentices who are much needed in the Construction Council and the living wage would be required to be paid, they need to be assured that their concerns will be met and they will get also included in the consultation and a solution will be found. Because from their perspective it is needed to be looked at as well.

12.1.5 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I too flag up warnings that Government interference in private enterprise is never a good thing. The situation in the Island at the moment where it is very difficult to get staff and unless staff are paid a reasonable wage well we simply will not have any. I do regard this interference as superfluous at this present time. Notwithstanding that I do not believe that the public should support businesses who do not pay a reasonable rate but I just care and I do not feel I can sensibly support this proposition at the moment.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Connétable. I call upon the Minister to reply.

12.1.6 Deputy L.V. Feltham:

I will try and answer all the questions that I have been asked. Firstly, Deputy Ferey, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment that the time of the Employment Forum during these 2 years should be utilised at its best to effectively look at what other areas of employment legislation can be consulted upon. As you quite rightly said, they are currently looking at the whistleblowing legislation which has been approved, which we agreed within the Assembly to move forward with. I understand where the Deputy was coming from with regard to offsets. I have also heard that in some industries offsets are not being used to their fullness. However, that was one thing that I heard loud and clear from the industry representatives that we have consulted with already. Deputy Jeune asked me what the Employment Forum view was. I have met with the chair of the Employment Forum twice. When I met with her last week I discussed this particular proposition and she brought no concerns to me about it. She also feels that this next 2 years can be put to good use and the forum can use this time to concentrate on other matters. She also recognised that this is a political decision that has been taken. In essence, it would not be a good use of time for the forum to undertake a consultation on a decision that we have already made politically to move forward with. I hope that answers that Deputy’s questions that she asked me. I understand Deputy Bailhache’s points about the agricultural industry.

[16:00]

Yes, I have met with the Jersey Farmers Union twice myself. I know that the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development and his team have also been meeting with them. In the packages that they will be bringing forward they will be considering how they can make this transition appropriate and help this incredibly important industry. Deputy Gardiner, to answer Deputy Gardiner’s question, I have not personally met with the Construction Council. I will endeavour to find out whether the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development’s team has done so, and if they have not been consulted with to date I will ask that they are added to that list. Constable Jackson commented that there are businesses that are currently finding it difficult to get staff. One of the things that I think is most important about us moving to a living wage here is our competitiveness as a jurisdiction and being known as a jurisdiction where people can afford to live. We know that we have a high cost of living and I think moving towards a living wage is an important element of that. I have just realised that I had not answered all of Deputy Jeune’s questions. She asked about, what was happening during this 2-year period? I think Deputy Ferey also alluded to this. We will be undertaking some work around minimum income standards so that we can have better data and better information available to us about what it costs to live on the Island on a day-to-day and then what a reasonable income standard to live on the Island will be. That will then enable us over this 2-year period to then think through how we work with the Employment Forum on an ongoing basis and then the appropriate method of consultation that they may take forward post this change elapsing. I hope that that answers everybody’s questions, and I ask the Assembly to support me in this matter so that I can move forward and deliver on the decisions that we have already made.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the appel called for?

Deputy L.V. Feltham:

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting on the principles. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

Connétable D. Johnson of St. Mary:

Sir, I am afraid my device is not working m afraid. Would I be permitted to vote verbally?

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am afraid not, I do not think that is possible when the vote is closed. I can announce that the principles have been adopted: 32 votes pour, 8 votes contre and 3 abstentions.

POUR: 32	CONTRE: 8	ABSTAIN: 3
Connétable of St. Helier	Connétable of Grouville	Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Peter	Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy L.M.C. Doublet	Deputy M.R. Scott
Connétable of St. John	Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy D.J. Warr
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy H.M. Miles
Deputy G.P. Southern	Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy C.F. Labey	Deputy M.B. Andrews
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson

The Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre online: Deputy Andrews and Deputy Doublet. Those voting in the Assembly: the Connétables of Grouville and St. Ouen, Deputies Bailhache, Warr, Miles and Wilson. The abstentions were the Connétable of St. Brelade, Deputy Ozouf and Deputy Scott.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, may I raise a point of order?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I think this is a relevant time to make a point of order because I was not here for the start of the debate and I do not know whether any conflicts of interest statements were obtained or made. I abstained because I would have made a declaration of interest that I have an interest in a business that, potentially, is affected by this.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you very much.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I would invite other Members to do the same.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Do the Health and Social Security Panel wish to scrutinise this matter, Deputy Doublet?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel):

No, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, thank you. Deputy Rose Binet, you wish to make a declaration or …

Deputy R. Binet of Grouville and St. Martin:

Yes, Sir. I have an interest in a business that can be affected by the recent proposition.

Deputy T. Binet:

I have to say the same, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are you asking for a ruling in relation to the nature of the interests you have or not?

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter:

Indeed I am, Sir, because I have an interest in a business but no employees are paid at the minimum or living wage rate. I am not quite sure what it is that the declaration the Members are making is.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. Let me remind Members what Standing Order 106 says: “A Member of the States who has or whose spouse or civil partner or cohabitee has an interest in the subject matter of a proposition must (a) if it is a direct financial interest, declare the interest and withdraw from the Chamber for the duration of the debate and any vote on the proposition, (b) if it is not a direct financial interest but a financial interest which is general, indirect or shared with a large class of persons, declare the interest. If it is an interest which is not financial declare the interest. All declarations made as soon as possible and a financial interest in the subject matter is direct if it is immediate or personal to the person concerned.” That is what Standing Order 106 says.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sir, the question is the matter before the Assembly, was the setting of a minimum wage.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Therefore, any decisions to bring the minimum wage upwards to levels that might compromise the financial interest, which I think is the issue that Deputy Gorst, the Minister for External Relations, was making. It is a could not a will and that is why out of abundance of caution I made my declaration because basically we are in the unknown.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, I follow what you are saying. Yes, as the proposition has no direct effect on any person’s financial interest, then the proposition, as currently drawn, whether adopted or not, will only have an indirect financial interest. In those circumstances persons should declare that interest. They may of course if they wish abstain but they may if they wish contribute to the debate and vote. As of this stage it does not give rise to any Member having a direct financial interest in the outcome of this debate.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am grateful for your ruling, Sir.

Connétable M. O’D. Troy of St. Clement:

Sir, may I speak? My wife and I have a financial interest in a hospitality business but I voted for the increase.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes.

The Connétable of St. Clement:

I do understand that this is already in law. Did you not say, Minister, that …

The Deputy Bailiff:

Through the Chair, through the Chair.

The Connétable of St. Clement:

Through the Chair, I beg your pardon.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You have voted and you were entitled to vote but we note your interest.

The Connétable of St. Clement:

That is fine, okay, thank you.

Deputy A.F. Curtis:

Sir, I think people are pretty much declaring if they are employers who pay anything is we change the consultation, right. I can declare I am an employer but I will state that is at the living wage but I am an employer.

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

In concert with the previous speaker I am an employer but not at below the minimum wage.

Male Speaker:

I am an employer as well, Sir.

Deputy R.S. Kovacs:

Similarly, my husband and I have a business in hospitality but, as the Constable said, voting for it cancels any financial possible gain.

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Sir, I am a director of a company that does employ people.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, thank you very much.

Deputy K.L. Moore:

Sir, my husband and I employ people but well above the living wage.

Deputy M.R. Scott:

Sir, I employ somebody part time but above the living wage. If it is employment, she is self-employed.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, thank you very much. There is someone online, Deputy Porée, yes. Do you want to make a declaration?

Deputy B.B. de S.DV.M. Porée of St. Helier:

Yes. Yes, I would like to declare that I also run a business and I do pay my staff already above the living wage.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Yes, Minister, do you wish to propose the Articles in Second Reading?

12.2 Deputy L.V. Feltham:

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

En bloc. Are the Articles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Articles in Second Reading?

12.2.1 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am sorry that I have made my declaration of interest and I am pleased that other Members have also for the avoidance of … it is the kind of issue that members of the public would want us to adhere to in terms of declarations, as indirect as it is. In this Third Reading, may I ask that the Minister in now having got approval of the Assembly to not consult with the bodies that she had to previously and will unilaterally be able set the minimum wage herself. It is currently regarded as the minimum wage under legislation. I know it is going to be moving to the level of the living wage but I do not need to be corrected by the Deputy because the legislation says minimum wage, as I recall. My issue in the Third Reading that I would ask the Minister to take account of is whether or not there is an adherence to the minimum wage by all employers in the Island, having regard to the offsets. I just ask the Minister if she is aware of some concerns, as I have heard myself, of offsets not being appropriate in terms of the living wage. The minimum wage is what it says, it is a minimum hourly rate of which only social security, income tax and lodging and living accommodation can be done. But as I understand it, that there are other offsets that are falling below that of the minimum wage and there is probably a widespread issue that the Minister may want to be seized upon. It is certainly something which the Scrutiny Panel has brought to the attention of the Assembly too and I am very concerned about it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Does any other Member wish to speak on the Articles in Second Reading? I call upon the Minister to reply.

12.2.2 Deputy L.V. Feltham:

Just to answer Deputy Ozouf’s question, if he is aware of any issues with regard to the treatment of offsets I would encourage him or any other Member to bring them to my attention so they can be dealt with appropriately within the employment legislation.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is the appel called for in Second Reading?

Deputy L.V. Feltham:

Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Thank you. I can announce the Articles have been adopted in Second Reading: 33 votes pour, 7 votes contre and 4 abstentions.

POUR: 33	CONTRE: 7	ABSTAIN: 4
Connétable of St. Helier	Connétable of Grouville	Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Peter	Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy L.M.C. Doublet	Deputy M.R. Scott
Connétable of St. John	Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache	Deputy K.M. Wilson
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy D.J. Warr
Connétable of St. Mary	Deputy H.M. Miles
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy M.B. Andrews
Deputy G.P. Southern
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson

I will start with the points raised by Deputy Ozouf around work-permit holders. The Assembly I am sure will be aware that I was on the Scrutiny Panel that looked into the work permits policy. Now I am in a Ministerial position I do work collaboratively and I will work closely with the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs to allay any issues that there may well be in relation to work-permit holders. The other 2 speakers, Deputy Ferey and Deputy Tadier, I think, were calling upon me to ensure that in this and other future consultations there was equal weight given to both employee voices, as well as employer voices. I hope it gives both of those Deputies some comfort to know that in my consultations I have also met with trade unions, as well as employer representatives. It was one of the conversations that I have had with the chair of the Employer Forum, that notwithstanding all of the efforts that were very well described by Deputy Ferey, the forum is not always able to consult with as many people as it has hoped for in the past. I would hope that over the coming years we will be able to work on that to ensure that voices are heard equally and it is not just the ones that have the loudest voices. To go back to Deputy Ozouf’s points, I think the point around the living wage and knowing it is being correctly applied and is a suitable wage to live, that is where we come down to the minimum income standards piece of work that I described earlier. I hope that that gives the Deputy some comfort in that. I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The appel has been called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I announce that the law has been adopted in Third Reading: 34 votes pour, 7 votes contre and 4 abstentions.

POUR: 34	CONTRE: 7	ABSTAIN: 4
Connétable of St. Helier	Connétable of Grouville	Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. Peter	Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Martin	Deputy L.M.C. Doublet	Deputy M.R. Scott
Connétable of St. John	Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache	Deputy K.M. Wilson
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy D.J. Warr
Connétable of St. Mary	Deputy H.M. Miles
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy M.B. Andrews
Deputy G.P. Southern
Deputy C.F. Labey
Deputy M. Tadier
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat
Deputy S.M. Ahier
Deputy R.J. Ward
Deputy C.S. Alves
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy K.L. Moore
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy A. Howell
Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy B. Ward
Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson

13. Fully Funding Education or Training for all 16 to 18 year-olds (P.38/2024)

The Deputy Bailiff:

The next item is Fully Funded Education or Training for all 16 to 18 year-olds, P.38, lodged by Deputy Gardiner. The main respondent is the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. Deputy Gardiner, you have lodged an amendment, do you wish for the proposition to be read as amended?

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Sir, as I am rising I am thinking because I have had an exchange with the Minister when I offered 2 options for the amendment. When I now read the email, following the exchange during the lunchtime, there are 2 paragraphs. One is: “I would respectfully request you to put faith in me as a Minister to deliver. On this basis consider withdrawing the proposition. If you do not share my confidence of my commitment to make change and want to continue with P.38 on this basis, then I will accept option 2.” Option 2 was lodged as an amendment. It is not about personalities, commitment of faith from me, it is the privacy from the Assembly. As I speak and after the conversation with the Minister, I am withdrawing my amendment and I would debate my original proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You withdraw the amendment and you wish for the Assembly to consider your proposition as it was originally lodged. Yes, thank you, Greffier. Please, read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) that all 16 to 18 year-olds should be eligible for fully-funded education or professional training in Jersey and to request the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to implement any necessary changes to the existing provision prior to September 2025; (b) to request the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to include any necessary long-term additional funding within the Government Plan 2026-2029 and; (c) to request the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to undertake a review of education legislation and policy with a view to increasing participation in education or professional training for all young people up to the age of 18.

13.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

Again, I would like to apologise before my speech with all the Members of the Assembly about some confusion. The difference between my amendment that I thought that the Minister accepted was a compromise, was that paragraph (a) was taken out. Paragraph (a), it is the policy intention which is asking for 16 to 18 should be eligible for fully-funded education or professional training in Jersey. Reflecting on this, the part (a) can be done by the Minister without bringing the law in legislative change and can be done quicker and can be done within the Government Plan. When we agreed the amendment I said, okay, we can have a policy and legislative change in one thing. If Members were considering to vote for my amended proposition it would be paragraphs (b) and (c). The main difference that happened would be a compromise; that I withdraw paragraph (a) but I do believe it is important to the debate. I would like to read a quote, it is not my quote, it is got from Deputy Ward’s blog from 18th May 2023 under the name: “The slow death of the democratic Assembly. What are the consequences of believing that propositions are unnecessary for the Government? First of all, we lose the unique democracy we have in Jersey, where non-Government, now called non-Executive Members of the Assembly, can bring any proposition and have it debated within 6 weeks. This is important and unique, as it delivers direct democracy for Members of our society and it gives unique and responsible roles to all Members of the Assembly. We can make genuine change or at least attempt to and remember one fact, the Assembly has primacy in the governance of our Island.” This is why for me it was important to bring this debate about education, funding for education for 16 to 18 year-olds to the Assembly. It has not been debated in this Assembly for a long, long time, several terms. At least for Ministers, including myself, and Scrutiny, including Deputy Ward, we are working on it for the last 5 years.

[16:30]

What I found out when I lodged the proposition when I had a discussion with the Members, because it was between Ministers and Scrutiny and not in the public domain, there are some facts that Members were not aware of. It is very complex. It is very complex. It is very difficult to put a formula together and I know this. I am going to ask a couple of questions; obviously in the setting of the States Assembly it is very difficult, compared to the workshop to get the answers. I would like if each Member will check: are they aware and what they are thinking about this position on the Island? At the moment A-Level students in Government schools get the full cost of their education. It is, on average, between £7,500 to £8,000 a year per student funded by the taxpayer. Again, because the formula is very complex, I have seen the numbers but if you are taking the total budget of school, how much Hautlieu School received a year and how many students a year. We can calculate approximately, it may be a bit more a bit less, but it is between £7,000 to £8,000 a year. But students doing apprenticeship training only get £1,600 towards the cost of their courses. It is an average 3 times less than the cost of the course. If Members are aware about this, maybe yes, maybe no. We go with Tracker and if you will track my Written Question 24 confirmed this. What does it mean that students doing apprenticeship training will get some funds that will be reallocated within the system? Some of the expenses will be paid by the employers to match the cost of the course and some will be self-funded. The answer to one of the written questions, 14 students did not go through because the funding has run out. I am not sure it is the right situation for Jersey. Okay, this is the first fact and check how much you were aware about this fact because I also learned it. I would like now, Members, if they have the proposition in front of them on their computer or devices to open the report to my proposition on page 8. On page 8 you can find a table that I have calculated based on the answers from the Minister to Written Question 23 and Written Question 113. You can see how much funding was allocated, for example, for childcare, the number of students, actual cost per learner and what the deficit is. The deficit needs to be covered. Sometimes it is covered from the fund, sometimes it is not and again the differences in cost per course are linked to the different number of learning hours. I am saying again that the numbers are not precise. The funding allocation cannot be accurately compared due to the difference in methodology. In fact, it is acknowledged that it is really complex and we need to find the whole jigsaw puzzle. I have seen the numbers but it was Ministerial submissions and it is policy and development, so the numbers are not shared with the public but I definitely know there is a deficit in the funding for the vocational education and apprenticeship. It was also highlighted, not by me, in the Actionable Agenda, the independent review of the school funding that concluded that 16 to 18 year-olds at Highlands College received less per capita funding than the same group in schools including Hautlieu. This has clear implications for the regard in which vocational education is held compared to academic provision and it is deeply unfair, given the overall level of disadvantage among students at the college: “The costs of apprenticeship provision in Jersey is notably opaque, and most likely significantly underfunded, being effectively cross-subsidised from other funding schemes within Highlands College.” This is a quote from the Actionable Agenda independent review finding that was published previously. This is the first paragraph (a), which is that we as the States would like to support the Minister and would like to make sure that regardless of the paths that young people are taking their education will be funded fully. We can see that most of the vocational courses there are around £5,400. I am moving now to paragraph (c) because there was another confusion there, what is the participation age, because we do not have in our laws “participation age” as a term. There is a substantial difference between compulsory education and participation. It is not mandatory. I do not believe in mandatory but I do believe that the young people and their parents should not be fined but strongly encouraged and it is the Government’s duty to fund. Jersey is an outlier from the U.K. and most of the O.E.C.D. countries where education and training are funded until 18. Participation age in the U.K. was raised to 18 in 2013. The U.K. law requires young people to continue some form of education or professional training until the age of 18. There are multiple options available in the U.K. to study full-time at school, a college or training provider and it is full-time education of 540 hours, full-time employment or volunteering. Full-time is counted as more than 20 hours a week and enrolment in an apprenticeship or traineeship or supported internship. This is the legislative change. The Education Law would need to be changed; it might take a long time and we see there is a big and complex way forward but it is possible and it is important because it is on the cards for a long time. This proposition does not mention reducing funding to A-Levels or to affect in any shape or form A-Level funding. It is important that A-Level funding will remain. This proposition does not propose an Open U course or to pay for courses that are not economically viable. This proposition proposes a simple policy direction and intention and if this Assembly believes that we need to bridge the gap and make it fair that all 16 to 18 year-olds will be funded regardless of the path that they choose. I believe this is the right time for the Assembly to express their views and to debate provision for the funding and take decisive steps with regards the education provision for the young people who are the Island’s future and I am looking forward to the debate.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

13.1.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I think I was taken by surprise, probably as most Members, that the amendment was being withdrawn, so we revert to the original proposition. I must admit that when I first read this, and as I still do read it, I find that I do not really know how to react to part (a) because I think it is quite revolutionary. What it seems to be proposing to me is potentially a blank cheque here and that we should potentially be nationalising all of our 6th form provision in Jersey and ultimately abolishing fee-paying schools in Jersey, because of course if we read the wording of the proposition it says that all 16 to 18 year-olds in Jersey - so that is all of them, not some of them - should be eligible for fully-funded education or professional training in Jersey and then of course it talks about bringing funding forward in part (b). So that means if you are a student at Victoria College or De La Salle or Beaulieu or J.C.G. (Jersey College for Girls) or St. Michael’s that you can then turn to the Minister and say: “Well, the Assembly has passed a proposition yesterday and you have agreed to fully fund my daughter or my son’s education in Jersey. Thank you very much for that, so here is the bill” and of course it would be questionable as to why anybody who has 16 to 18 year-old children at those schools would want to therefore pay for an education for their children when the Government are offering to pay for it for free. Now, that is how I read what is being proposed there because that is what it says, which is interesting because I remember before the last elections I had some quite interesting policy debates with a running mate of mine, and he will not mind me saying it, I am sure, about what we should do with the fee-paying schools in an ideal world. One school of thought has always been that if they are fee-paying then they should be completely fee-paying and we should remove the subsidies from those schools, and of course the downside of that would be that they become properly elite, in a sense, because it would only be the ones who could really afford to send their children there who could do it, because the fees would be so much more expensive, and his suggestion was: “Well, have you considered doing it the other way around and making the 6th form colleges entirely free so that everybody can get a free education at what are somewhat selective schools and you could argue are somewhat elitist schools at the moment?” and that is what Deputy Gardiner is proposing here. I think it is quite radical and the socialist in me thinks that maybe that is the way to go. Maybe we should go that way but I am not sure necessarily that it has been costed and that the Minister has necessarily got the budget and would necessarily get support from the rest of the Council of Ministers to do that, even if he were minded to do that himself. I will be looking forward to what the Minister has got to say on this. I know that the Minister is progressive but I do not know if he is quite that progressive or that bold at the moment to want to abolish all of the fee-paying schools in Jersey. I wait to hear from him but if that is the direction he wants to take us in then I am willing to entertain it, if he can find the money, of course. It needs to be fiscally responsible.

13.1.2 Deputy D.J. Warr:

It is an interesting speech to follow Deputy Tadier. Education is about hope, giving people of all backgrounds the opportunity to succeed in any walk of life they choose. Giving them hope is a powerful word. The importance of education is also recognised by my political colleagues and I quote: “Education is the greatest investment a Government can make in its people. Reform Jersey wishes to see an education system which enables every Islander to reach their full potential and provides opportunities for everyone to gain the skills they need to thrive in the modern economy. We must address the false separation between academic and vocational education that does not fit modern economies. We will seek to widen the scope of qualifications offered to embrace the need for vocational training for the Island’s needs and the changing needs of a digital world.” Hope. Let us then take a look at what the proposition is asking. Part (a) is: “… asking the Assembly to agree that all 16 to 18 year-olds to be eligible for fully funded education or training in the Island.” The same is true for most European nations. Since when did Jersey become an outlier? Is this really the message we want to send to our young people? We constantly hear of Islanders forced to leave the place of their birth, the biggest reason the cost of living. There is a clear correlation between better education and better economic outcomes, and that is borne out by figure 32 in the report of this proposition. I therefore find it extraordinary that Deputy Ward, who constantly reminds this Assembly that when we talk about education we should see it as an investment and not as a cost to our society, cannot find it within himself to support this proposition. I hope he will explain to all those 16 to 18 year-olds what it is he has against giving them the opportunity to prosper in our society. I remind him education is about hope.

[16:45]

I look across at my colleague, or I would do if he was here, the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development, in the hope that he understands the economic consequences of not investing in our young people. I do hope that he has a speech prepared - I am assuming he does not as he is not in the Assembly - that demonstrates his understanding that what happens in education very much impacts on his portfolio. This is a cross-cutting issue and the relevant Minister must stand up and be counted. Next I turn to the Minister for Housing who spoke about the inequity of the 2-tiered housing market in a recent speech and I ask him how does he think rejecting this proposition helps his portfolio? Instead of investing in our own society for whom the 2-tier housing market is irrelevant we instead carry on as we have always done, relying on importing the labour we refuse to train in-house, thereby perpetuating the very issue he so eloquently derides. A typical case of exploiting problems but not solving them. Does no one in the current Government have the vision to see that supporting this proposition as originally set out gives hope to Islanders? They desperately want to see a Government willing to invest in their future. Education is about hope and so is politics. I urge Members to support the young people of this Island and to support the original proposition.

Deputy M.R. Scott:

These are a couple of points of order rather than a speech. First, this interpretation of (a), which I had read the same way as Deputy Tadier. We are to read this that basically any child over the age of 16 will have their school fees funded even if they are in private education. Could we please confirm that? I would like to understand, and if this is the case should we not be declaring any conflicts of interest for those of us who have got children in private education locally at the moment?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, Deputy Gardiner, do you want to make …

Deputy I. Gardiner:

Yes, I would like to make a comment.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sorry, I am not sure if this is procedure.

Deputy M.R. Scott:

I asked for an interpretation of the proposition as I understand it, not as the Member interprets it. I want to understand what I am voting for, please.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, Deputy Scott, well, I think the easy part is your second question, which is whether people who have 16 to 18 year-olds in private education should make a declaration of interest. I think the answer to that question is yes. Whether or not at this stage it is right for me to rule that paragraph (a) has the effect that it is suggested it may have, namely if adopted by the Assembly and then implemented it would mean that there would be fully funded education for 16 to 18 year-olds, and that means effectively free education for 16 to 18 year-olds is not something I think is appropriate for me to express an opinion on at this stage in the debate and possibly at all. Members will need to make their mind up as to what is intended by paragraph (a) not heard from the proposer in her closing remarks to the Assembly. I do not think I can give you any assistance in relation to how I think Members ought to interpret subparagraph (a). Members will need to look at that subparagraph themselves, but I do agree in the circumstances having regard to the potential effect of paragraph (a) if adopted and then subject to legislation or some other form of implementation it is appropriate for Members to indicate whether or not they have 16 to 18 year-old children who might benefit from subparagraph (a) if it is adopted and has the effect that you and others have suggested it might.

Deputy M.R. Scott:

Sir, why would that be limited to 16 year-olds if somebody has got a 15 year-old who may next year be 16?

The Deputy Bailiff:

I suppose you are right about that. It might affect any … yes, in that case it applies to anyone with a child under the age of 18 who may attend a fee-paying school in due course.

Deputy J. Renouf:

Sir, could I ask for a further point of order?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, absolutely, yes.

Deputy J. Renouf:

Could I ask for your interpretation given the use of the words “eligible for” in that section? Eligible for implies to me, as is the current situation, that all 16 to 18 year-olds are eligible currently for free education in a secondary school, namely Hautlieu and therefore there is no change implied in the current situation with regard to private schools, no necessary change implied in any case.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That is another interpretation, which is why I have not given a direction as to what this paragraph means.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

I think what people may be being confused about and certainly when I speak I will cover this, is the phrase “fully funded” so everyone is eligible but not everyone is fully funded in terms of the funding for education. Some are part-funded for grants, some part-funded for the States assisted process, so it is the fully-funded phrase.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, but I mean fully-funded by whom is the question as well. There are all sorts of …

Deputy R.J. Ward:

I think it is my department, Sir, to be quite frank.

Deputy M. Tadier:

May I continue the point of order? I would suggest that is exactly why we are here, to have the debate on what this means.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. I do not think it is for me to tell Members what this particular subparagraph means as there is obviously a spectrum of opinions as to what it means.

Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Sir, in light of your ruling I fear I must do nothing other than declare I apparently have a conflict because I have got daughters under the age of 18.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. Does anyone else want to make a declaration?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the declaration fall into the category of being so broad as to be shared by a large section of society? I think it is so broad that it would be a slight nonsense to have to declare an interest. I am happy to be directed on that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, well, this proposition does not have direct effect in the sense it is asking for Members to decide if their opinion that 16 to 18 year-olds should be eligible for fully-funded education does not have that immediate effect, whatever that means. Accordingly I rule that it is not a direct financial interest but a financial interest that is general, indirect or shared with a large class of persons. Nonetheless under Standing Order 106(b) you still need to declare the interest. It does mean that you are able to participate in the debate and vote on the proposition. Attorney General, is your light on? No particular reason?

The Attorney General:

No, Sir. [Laughter].

The Deputy Bailiff:

Good, all right. You cannot declare an interest because you cannot vote.

Deputy K.L. Moore:

Given your ruling I shall declare that I have one child remaining who is under the age of 18.

Deputy R.S. Kovacs:

Equally, I have 2 under 18.

Deputy L.V. Feltham:

I have one daughter who is 10.

Deputy C.D. Curtis:

I have a son who is 17.

Deputy H.L. Jeune:

I have 2 boys. I am not quite sure of their age but they are under 18. [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff:

You will soon find out tonight when you get home.

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson:

I have children, Sir, under 18.

The Connétable of St. Mary:

I have no children under 18 but I have grandchildren under 18. Am I caught?

The Deputy Bailiff:

I do not think we are doing grandchildren.

Deputy J. Renouf:

Yes, Sir, I have 2 children in the state system.

Deputy I. Gardiner:

I have a child under 18.

Male Speaker:

I have 2 grandchildren.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I do not think we need to do grandchildren. Deputy Howell, you want to declare an interest? Maybe not.

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

I have a child under the age of 18.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. All right. Who wants to speak next on this proposition?

13.1.3 Deputy C.D. Curtis:

As chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel I can confirm that the whole panel is very concerned about education and training opportunities for all young people. Personally, while I very much appreciate Deputy Gardiner’s intention in bringing this proposition, I believe that the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning is already working on plans to support young people in education and training and therefore this proposition at this time is unnecessary and there is also some confusion regarding paragraph (a), so I am not minded to support the proposition.

13.1.4 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

I was particularly grateful to listen to Deputy Warr quoting extensively from our manifesto earlier. It is wonderful to hear him talk such good sense. [Approbation] Speaking of sense, unfortunately I struggle to find much of it when I look at this proposition and in particular how it is worded. Of course the aspiration for a properly funded education system - we will get to health another day - a properly funded education system, and I use the word “properly” rather than “fully” for nuanced reasons that I will come to in a moment, is obviously something that is in the vital interests of the Island’s social and economic well-being to ensure that every young person has the ability to achieve their potential, whatever that potential is. This use of the term “fully funded” is highly confusing and it is abundantly clear from the questions that have been asked so far that it is not clear what it means. As the system currently stands for children below the age of 16, there is already a great deal of inefficiency and inequity in how funding for their education is distributed and yet they are not considered in this proposition. There is various formula for working out how much funding is allocated per pupil and it highly varies across the state system. You have those who are in the fee-paying schools, whether they are fully private or the States-owned ones. You have a different formula attached to how their tuition is funded from public funds to those in the state system and, of course, we have the Pupil Premium where extra funding is allocated. So which of those is the fully-funded one? Are those who are not eligible for Pupil Premium getting shortchanged in not being fully funded? Of course not, because the system has all sorts of variances in them to ensure that the proper funding goes to them, so it is absolutely not clear what she is even asking for in this proposition. It is also the case that a young person going through the education route of an apprenticeship as opposed to an A-Level is having a different style of education in that for their day-to-day life and how they are educated is different to that of their A-Levels in that they are spending an amount of their time working and there is an employer contribution to their life as they are being educated, which of course you do not get while you are doing your A-Levels apart from possibly a Saturday job, and that does not count as part of your formal education in that sense.

[17:00]

Are we suggesting if it is to be fully funded that those going through apprenticeships no longer get paid by the employers for that but instead get paid by taxpayer funds for that time? Maybe that is a brilliant idea, maybe it is not. I do not know, but I am certainly none the wiser for having listened to Deputy Gardiner’s opening speech on this, where I do not think an adequate case on it was made at all. It is an imperative that part (a) be rejected and something better thought through comes back to the Assembly in one form or another, preferably by the Minister, but from wherever anything comes I hope it is better written than part (a) here. Part (b) of course naturally follows part (a) and is the normal funding process for these things anyway so it is superfluous if you are rejecting part (a). Part (c) of course is tempting. You could look at it and argue that it causes no harm, and I will not begrudge any Member that reads it and thinks that too, but it must be acknowledged that it is superfluous and the evidence is provided in the comments to the amendment that Deputy Ward was able to publish where he cited Hansard. Where he has been asked in this Assembly about this particular policy area and has already to some degree outlined the initial aspects of his plan, which is that he is going to do this anyway and that we can all eagerly wait in anticipation because it is not going to be that long before he produces that anyway. So in that sense part (c) of the proposition is a complete and utter waste of time and simply asks us to affirm what is happening anyway. The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning has been absolutely clear about that. I hope Members will reject all parts of this proposition and we can move on to other debates and get a better use out of our time because what we have before us, I am sorry to say, has been completely incoherent.

13.1.5 Deputy M.R. Scott:

I might well say something about the position of the economy given that there was a bit of a pop taken at the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development for not being in the room, but of course he supports skills training, of course. I believe we all do and I am absolutely sure and confident that our own Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning does. I think what I am seeing in this proposition is that there is a lot that need not be said, which means one has to question why it is here in the first place. When I read part (a) I find it is a bit meaningless that 16 to 18 year-olds should be eligible for fully-funded education, which I believe they are, or professional training. Well, maybe if those words alone … but here we go, I find I am trying to rewrite this proposition to make it meaningful and in the end I conclude it is not. It is just not meaningful and, more than that, that in the introduction that was given by the Member, Deputy Gardiner, in her speech, she read some correspondence with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning that more or less indicated that if she did not have confidence in him she could take a certain action. I feel like I am being asked to express a vote of confidence now in the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning if I vote for this, which I really feel I am confident that this is somebody who is incredibly passionate about supporting education. If this is a meaningless proposition or even something that is saying: “Right, okay, we support education” my concern is that I do not really feel comfortable about supporting a proposition that basically at the end of the day is just something that the Deputy might wave around and say: “I got this. Is that not great for me?” when in fact it was happening anyway. While I admire anyone who supports education I will not be supporting this proposition.

13.1.6 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I could wait and play the game but I think, if I may use a footballing term, we need to put our foot on the ball here a little and recognise what we are doing here. Let us bring this debate back to the sort of level it should be at in this Assembly, which is about the proposition, the wording and the implications of what we are trying to do as an Assembly and what I am trying to do as the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, something added to the remit that I will bring up in the beginning. A couple of things I want to start with, because I have got a melange of speeches here because I was not expecting the amendment to be withdrawn in this way. I apologise to Members for not circulating the comments paper in the original proposition, which is here, because I did not think we would be debating the original proposition, so I circulated what is the relevant comments paper, because it is unusual for a Member to remove their own amendment to their proposition at the last minute. I do apologise to Members that we could not circulate that, but I will try to explain as much as possible. I will also try to keep your attention at the end of a long day, which is going to be a challenge, but I have done that for 25 years and I will try it again. One of the things that I must mention is conversations I have had with officers in terms of the demands that we make through propositions that are coming. When speaking to officers when we were working on P.12, the last amendment that was brought to direct education for me and I paraphrase: “A review of the relevant law as outlined in Ministerial obligations and powers related to post-16 education has commenced. However, this work has been paused to prioritise the commitments made following adoption of P.12/2024 in which Deputy Gardiner committed me to review several elements of the law governing entitlement of financial support for higher education. While the review of the Education Law was temporarily paused it is important to note that at an operational level work is still underway in this area, specifically Skills Jersey are diligently enhancing the existing wraparound services for early intervention with a focus on students at risk of disengagement. This aligns with the goals of the future policy work related to the age participation specifically by providing support and encouragement to students to remain in education.” An enormous amount is going on trying to balance the directional propositions that are coming forward and I recognise that there were things brought to the last Council of Ministers by the Minister that were simply not accepted around apprentice funding, so the last Council of Ministers rejected those. I am having to look at these issues myself. However there is one difference, and that is the fact that I do have a strong commitment to education. I care enormously about every single child that we teach and I will rise above comments that I might consider to be slightly personal and ill-informed, but in leadership one has to take that on board and one has to lead the way, not follow. I ask Members to reject this for many reasons. I will start by making clear that simply making some amendments would be tinkering with the fundamentally flawed position and would make for bad decision making, and that is why the decision to reject the amendment was taken. I will say that I went to the Council of Ministers regarding the amendment to say that we could probably accept it, that it is not doing anything and I was somewhat hoisted by my own petard by certain Members who suggested that before I have said we should not be accepting amendments that do nothing just for the sake of accepting and making things easier. I agreed with that, so what I have demonstrated is that in my leadership I am willing to change those simple things with unity. What was nice was to have the support and the confidence around the Council of Ministers. I did email the Deputy and ask her to have that same confidence in me. That is obviously not there but I hope that in the next few months and year or so I can gain that confidence from the Deputy and those who will probably speak to undermine that confidence today. I really will work hard to do that. Part (a) of the proposition does state that all 16 to 18 year-olds shall be eligible for fully-funded education or professional training in Jersey and to request myself to implement any necessary changes to the existing provision prior to September 2025. Let us talk about the details now. This creates huge ambiguity for all 16 to 18 year-olds referred to. The debate we have gone through, which got somewhat farcical at times with everyone having to declare that they have a child. I have 2 children who are older than that so I should declare that they might feel left out. I love them dearly, as indeed I love my wife. I have now got that into Hansard, as Deputy Coles did, so that is another one ticked off the box. In addition, the words “prior to September 2025”, these are serious issues. The timescale is unrealistic; it is 3 months to implement for the academic year 2024 because anything prior to 2025 will have to start at the beginning of the previous academic year. That is the way schools work and I have a huge knowledge of the way schools work. Funding issues. I have inherited funding from the last Government Plan where money for this change was not included. Indeed, I believe the bids for this were refused twice from the last Council of Ministers. To implement any change prior to 2025 raises the question of which service should the money be diverted from. We could be putting money into education that already exists and is running absolutely effectively, such as the apprenticeships at Highlands College. I want to say clearly the apprenticeships at Highlands College are extraordinarily successful and they are working very well. I would also add and at this point, it might be in my speech again but repetition does not hurt, in response to the report that the Deputy referred to about higher education, Highlands received recurring funding of £900,000 from recommendation 2 of that report towards delivering training, so that gap in funding was identified and was addressed. I will say as well that we have to be very careful with what we wish for. I know that as a head of science I used to fund science probably at a higher level than other subjects. It was simply because it was more expensive to fund science. That is true in any institution and if we adopt a sort of zero-based budgeting approach for apprenticeships and other courses up at Highlands we are at risk of losing some of those courses because they will not wipe their feet. Is that the phrase, wipe their feet? I think it is. Wipe their face, that is it. They will not wipe their face and so we end up with a very divided approach and the notion that because some money is diverted from some areas of the college to apprenticeships is the problem of funding elsewhere simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the way these institutions work and the complexity of a multimillion pound institution delivering education for thousands of students all of the time. That is a real issue that we have to address. If Highlands College as an institution want to change their funding model we will talk about that and we will come up with the best funding model. That is an effective way to do it. It does not specify in this proposition the type of educational revision for publicly-funded schools. Estimated costs only relate to apprenticeships, and I reiterate that we vote on the wording of the proposition. We are not here today to vote on what ifs and maybes. It is the wording of the proposition and the implications of that wording, and we have to think very carefully about what we are doing when we do that. People have already mentioned about the paid private schools. Trying to carve out a specific set of courses does not work. School and college funding enables a school leaver to have flexibility with their provision. Having said that, in order to target, and the lifelong learning remit is very important to me, one of the actions that are already being taken with the help of the Minister for Social Security is to remove the critical skills list from the Social Security Law and give me, if you like, control over that critical skills list in conjunction with the Economic Department to identify what skills and what training is needed on this Island long term. In that way we can direct the extra funding that comes from the C.S.P. commitment that I have made to lifelong learning towards that training to improve where we are in the Island and to improve provision on this Island. These propositions stand in the way of that with a simplified view of the way in which we fund. We need to be more intelligent in what we are funding, we need to be more intelligent in the way we address that funding. I urge Members to consider that point alone and reject this proposition to begin with. Is age-related entitlement the best approach? What if a student is ill until they are 19 years of age? It is a serious issue and the reason why the addition of a lifelong learning remit. What about people who are older than 16? Are they not going to receive any sort of funding for courses because that might be the only way in which we will train the people that we want to. Earlier today I answered a question about nurseries and I am trying to encourage people who are not so young - I am not going to use the “O” word, not so young - to perhaps return to the workforce and train in a particular way. This type of proposition that directs significant amounts of funding, undefined, no idea how much this is going to cost, I would say to Members please be careful on what you are voting on. You are voting for a blank cheque, which I simply do not have, and that will get in the way of that change that we desperately need, so there is another implication of this.

[17:15]

Should we target attainment levels? This is exactly what we are developing. Let us make sure we draw everybody’s attainment level and ability level up to what is needed for the Island and what enables people to really succeed in life. Apprenticeships are paid. Students are able to earn while they are studying. A-Levels are full time and students are not able to earn while they are studying apart from part-time jobs and many of them do those, so we are not comparing like with like. I think that is a very important point and one of the issues about charging for apprenticeships, the charges for apprenticeships with some employers are very low, about £20 a week in order to access that education. I do not know if anyone in this Assembly has managed to get training for £20 a week, because I have not. The effectiveness of that training is quite important. Also, some employers are quite happy to pay that because they can say to their employees: “I am paying for you to go to college. Make sure you turn up for college and make sure you do well” plus there is the fact that we cover the cost of many of the exams and many of the assessments, which can be extremely expensive. The system that is in place is effective. Yes, we will make changes but we will do that in a sustained, planned, considered, and intelligent way that addresses the needs of this Island so that we can have a long-term improvement to our workforce, and that is what I want to do as Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. Part (b) requests of me additional funding in the Government Plan. I cannot really say which funding this will be from this proposition because I have absolutely no idea how to cost it. It could be massively significant in the Government Plan. Also, as we develop the Government Plan, which is happening at the moment, we are already looking at C.S.P. priorities on lifelong learning and I hope with that, and even in the supporting of the minimum wage, some of that will go towards training. There are many aspects that we are trying to develop which will address exactly this issue, not this simplified version. We are restructuring the skills into direct Highlands line management and use of the excellent work to direct funding as to where it is best targeted. It is a much more effective approach than the generic funding which has already been put in place. I say again, I mentioned the thing about cross-funding all educational establishments and I say to anybody who has been involved in a large institution trying to deliver training, because there is very little profit in training, it is spend and it is outcomes that are less tangible, more esoteric in the long term - there is a lovely word that I managed to throw into my speech today - that you have to cross-fund within those organisations. I will give you an example. There was a period in the U.K. when the U.K. Government were obsessed with changing qualifications. They thought they would change them just about every year. I personally think it was because the exam boards were making an absolute fortune out of it. When it hit a subject within a school that school had to have extra funding at that time in order to address that change. If there was no flexibility in the way that schools could fund, that course would have been lost or they would not have been completing that course. If you take away flexibility you put institutions at risk. The Independent School Funding Review made a recommendation that addressed the levelling up of funding between vocational and academic education. This was subsequently referenced in the F.E. (Further Education) and Skills Actionable Agenda; that is the point I am repeating. This has been implemented with £900,000 allocated to Highlands, the final tranche of which has just been allocated in the last few weeks and months, so that money has gone into education. We can also add the skill funds, and I might be quite critical of the funding on that because it is not secured and it is not long term and that is what we are trying to do, come up with a funding formula that works. Part (c) - I am going to finish soon because I know I have gone on for too long - it is very important to me that I cover all of the points that I possibly can, particularly given the somewhat vehement assumptions that have been made about my role, which I hope I can convince people otherwise. The last part is about the review of education legislation and policy with a view to increasing participation in education. Successive Ministers have not addressed that, I have been through this before, I have answered questions on this, written questions, oral questions to the Scrutiny Panel. I have given a very clear indication of what we are going to do. We are going to make sure there is a sustainable approach to education and lifelong learning for every individual on this Island. That is what we have to do in the long term and then if we want to change the law to say up to 18 we can do that. It is not a problem, but there are nuances. I believe if you are on a Navy ship and you are only 16 or 17 does that count as being in full-time education? Do apprenticeships count as being in full-time education? There are nuances that we have to address. It was also in Ministerial plans 2 years ago but was not acted upon. So, we are currently looking at how a change in the age of participation would best be implemented, age-related or attainment-related? One-year residency requirements, review of requirement to be living with parents or a family member, immigration rules, who, what, where and to whom, is post-16 available for free? There are so many points that we have been addressing at the moment and that officers are undertaking, all of which will be addressed at the appropriate time. Put simply, we are already addressing part (c). I recognise, I genuinely recognise and I want to put this in the nicest possible way that I can, that it is difficult to mid-term have change. I recognise that. It is difficult mid-term to take on a role and so I would urge the Assembly to reject this proposition, support me in the way that I want to move forward, support in the C.S.P. priorities that I have made as Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, support and have some faith in the idea that I am going to take these things forward. I am very serious about taking these things forward, and the sustainable mechanism of funding is exactly what is going to happen. This proposition can be dangerous; it can be dangerous because it is undetermined. You will be voting on something that is unsecured, is unsure, no idea where the money is coming from, no idea of the impact it is going to have and will ride coach and horses over the planning and the work that is going on in the department to fundamentally address what we are doing in terms of learning beyond the age of 16. I urge Members to reject this proposition. Let me get on with the job and then judge me on that in a year or so’s time, and you are more than welcome to do that then. [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Members, I should indicate that I recollected after giving the ruling I did under Standing Order 106 that that Standing Order has been amended in its terms since the Standing Order that I read to Members some time ago. It makes no effect on the ruling that I gave. Under the current version of Standing Order 106 a Member must declare an interest, no reference to financial, just an interest, stating the nature of the interest if it is a matter the subject of a proposition and they are aware of that interest, so Members were correct to declare the interest that they did. There has been a change in effectively the definition of a financial interest, removal of the reference to direct and indirect interest and now in the event that the interest is a financial interest which is either personal to the Member or shared with a small number of other people, the Member shall not vote on a proposition. Of course none of the declarations met that test so all Members on both tests, the old one and the current one, are entitled to speak and vote on this proposition.

13.1.7 Deputy A.F. Curtis:

It is quite hard following the main respondent because you have got far less to say and I have got far less surety to say it with. I do not know how I will vote on this one so I raise more to ask some curious questions knowing we will adjourn and knowing that the proposer can come back with them later. We have heard challenges around words, we have heard about the importance of the principle, agreeing the word or otherwise. I would like to understand what eligibility is and what professional training is. I thought about the breadth of education that we could be talking about here and one that came to mind, far less perhaps front of mind, would be Jersey has got a wealth of dance schools and many of our Islanders go off to have careers in the arts - fruitful and very prosperous careers - and I look to Members who have family who have that, but the provision for professional training between 16 and 18 for dance or theatre on Island is probably quite limited for those looking for full-time education on that, but it is not to say it could not exist. My question is a genuine one. To what extent is eligibility intended here? Should it be about any qualification and then once that is provided is it the cheapest provider of that is met? Is it if one person offers an electrical qualification that is cheaper than another it must be taken by the cheaper party as the only one provided by the Government? I do not know and I would like to know more than just the technical, but some of the vision maybe from the proposer as to what she meant on this because it is not clear. It is not clear that if a professional qualification offered by only one provider on the Island comes in at £15,000 per student because of the niche element of it that the state should be obliged because eligibility for that can only be met by that provider. If we are to define a scope who right now should define that scope, and this is where often Ministers or Members bring some detail to that. I do want to make a comment more on how this debate might be perceived outside the Assembly once a vote takes place, regardless of how it goes. It is about how Members comment as either Members or the parties that operate here relay decisions made in this Assembly and what it does to having an informed and valuable debate. Members have already and no doubt will continue to outline varied positions, often one being said: “I support the principle but I will vote against for the reason X.” It could be the wording; it could be because they do not want to support propositions that they believe already have work going on. It is quite possible to imagine that Deputy Gardiner or another Member could publish a list of names who vote against and say: “These Members do not support funding 16 to 18 year-olds for their education.” Part of me says it might be in her right to do so because Members have faced that on the other end, but I hope she does not. I want nuanced debate to continue and I want Members to articulate what their perspective on this proposition is and regardless of how they vote work together on the right solution.

Deputy K.L. Moore:

Sir, may I propose the adjournment?

The Deputy Bailiff:

The adjournment is proposed. Seconded? [Seconded] Are Members content to adjourn now? The Assembly is adjourned until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:27]