Will the Minister advise whether a contract has been awarded with the aim of reducing the waiting list for cataract surgery, and if so, will he state –

(a) the cost of the quote for this work;

(b) the amount paid for this work;

(d) the amount of time spent in Jersey by anyone contracted to undertake the work; and

(e) whether there have been any issues with the treatment carried out in Jersey, and if so, what those issue have been?

Answer

a) circa £260,000

b) Health and Community Services (HCS) is awaiting the final invoice.

c) The contract was based on a volume of clinical activity.

d) Clinical activity took place over an 18-day period.

e) HCS does not comment on matters to do with individual patients, their treatment, treatment outcomes or other special category health data matters.

2.2 Senator S.W. Pallet of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the provision of rehabilitation services in Jersey (WQ.506/2021)

Question

Will the Minister provide the following information with regard to the provision of rehabilitation services in Jersey –

(a) the number of patients requiring rehabilitation services on Samarès Ward for the 12-month period prior to the closure of the ward in May 2020, broken down by month;

(b) the number of patients requiring rehabilitation services on Plémont Ward at the General Hospital for the 12-month period after the of closure of Samarès Ward in May 2020, broken down by month;

(d) following the relocation of rehabilitation services to Plémont Ward, how many individual appointments for care were made for patients with the following services in the subsequent 12 months –

(i) physiotherapists;

(ii) occupational therapists;

(iii) speech therapists; and

(e) following discharge from Plémont Ward, the number of individual appointments made for care at home delivered by the services detailed in (i), (ii) and (iii) between May 2020 and May 2021?

Answer

(a) The last patient recorded in the specialty “Rehabilitation” was discharged from Samares Ward in March 2020 so the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 has been used. Please note that there were less than 5 patients where the specialty was not “Rehabilitation” – these patients have been excluded from this analysis.

During the early days of the pandemic, Samares Ward was provisioned, but not used, as an acute ward. This was superseded with the decision to build the Nightingale Hospital. As previously stated, the decision to close Samares was taken in May 2020.

As stated in the answer to WQ495/2021, patients can be transferred to a rehabilitation ward when they do not need rehabilitation. This is to place all patients within the hospital in the ward that best cares for their needs. This includes patients waiting for community residential/nursing home placement or care at home provision. These patients are classified as ‘Rehabilitation’ on TrakCare, so form part of the figures in total discharges.

Table 1: Number of patients discharged from Samares Ward, April 2019- March 2020

Discharge Month	Number of discharges
Apr-19	22
May-19	26
Jun-19	18
Jul-19	21
Aug-19	19
Sep-19	23
Oct-19	20
Nov-19	26
Dec-19	26
Jan-20	30
Feb-20	22
Mar-20	38

Data Source: Hospital Patient Administration System (TrakCare, Report ATD5L)

b) The first patient recorded on Plemont Ward was admitted in July 2020. The period from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 has therefore been used, noting that the first discharge was in August 2020. Not every patient is recorded in the specialty of Rehabilitation. Table 2 below shows the count of all* patients discharged from Plemont Ward per month.

Table 2: Number of patients discharged from Plemont Ward, July 2020 – June 2021

Discharge Month	Number of discharges
Aug-20	10
Sep-20	21
Oct-20	27
Nov-20	10
Dec-20	26
Jan-21	28
Feb-21	23
Mar-21	21
Apr-21	20
May-21	8
Jun-21	15

Data Source: Hospital Patient Administration System (TrakCare, Report ATD5L)

*It should be noted as in part (a) that not all patients discharged from Plemont Ward were admitted for rehabilitation. To maintain the comparability, the data in Table 2 includes all patients discharged from Plemont Ward, irrespective of the specialty they are recorded in.

c) The question has been interpreted as referring to care packages provided under the long-term care scheme. Of the 209 unique patients discharged between July 2020 and June 2021 (excluding patients who died in Hospital), 109 have been recorded as having new or revised long-term care packages since the date of admission (at any point up to 30th November 2021), of which 75 were within 30 days of discharge.

It should be noted that rehabilitation covers a wide variety of conditions and not all patients will require support under the long-term care scheme. Some patients may also have already had a package of care in place when admitted. Please note that not all patients discharged from Plemont Ward were admitted for rehabilitation.

d) Table 3 shows the count of appointments/contacts recorded for patients discharged from Plemont Ward and is split based on whether the contact occurred during their inpatient stay or after discharge. Please note that much of the inpatient activity that occurs on the ward will be recorded in the patient’s bedside notes and therefore may not be in the Electronic Patient Record where these figures are drawn from – the figures for the inpatient part of the care will therefore be undercounted.

‘Contact’ data is defined as telephone contacts as well as face to face contacts with the patient and may not be related to the reason for admission. It is not possible to extrapolate information from this relating to inpatient stay to community follow-up pathways as these are not held within a single system.

Table 3: Number of contacts by therapists to patients admitted to/discharged from Plemont Ward, by month of contact and therapist type, July 2020 – June 2021

	During Inpatient Stay			After Discharge from Plemont Ward
Month of contact	Occupational Therapy	Physiotherapy	Speech & Language Therapy	Occupational Therapy	Physiotherapy	Speech & Language Therapy
Jul-20	8	2	58	N/A (No Discharged Pts)	N/A	N/A
Aug-20	52	6	60	7	16	0
Sep-20	113	9	51	57	113	15
Oct-20	99	10	69	81	189	24
Nov-20	192	0	29	112	199	19
Dec-20	222	6	46	120	174	10
Jan-21	246	21	56	220	251	39
Feb-21	262	16	52	172	214	39
Mar-21	259	24	85	193	345	41
Apr-21	203	22	34	123	308	54
May-21	162	17	21	115	229	39
Jun-21	109	13	9	129	203	23

Data Sources: Hospital Patient Administration System (TrakCare, Reports ATD5L, BKG1A); Community Electronic Client Record (CarePartner, Activity Report)

Therapy services have recently been defined as a Care Group within HCS and a structured cycle of review and development has commenced, continuing into 2022. This includes the review of performance indicators and development of integrated therapies pathways. Focus is being given to systems capturing key data across Therapies to enable efficient reporting to support service delivery. This work has commenced and is planned for completion within the first quarter of 2022.

e) Due to limitations in recording, we are not able to identify whether appointments/contacts occurred in the patient’s home or in an alternative setting, such as an outpatient appointment.

3. Oral Questions

3.1 Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding damage to the Energy for Waste plant (OQ.4/2022)

Will the Minister provide an update in relation to any recent damage to the Energy from Waste plant, including the costs of any required repairs to date and the projected date by which such repairs will be completed?

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

Hairline cracks were found on the turbine generator during a routine service and inspection. In order to ensure that these cracks do not develop any further, and to ensure the safety of the staff and plant, the generator has been taken offline. The root cause of the cracks is not yet known. An independent turbine specialist has been contacted to assess the problem and advise on a solution. We will only be able to estimate the cost and time required to make repairs once the turbine specialist has completed their assessment.

3.1.1 Deputy I. Gardiner:

When thinking about an 11 year-old waste plant, is it something to be expected, and also would the Minister clarify the timeline for an inspector to come over and to assess?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

As the Deputy quite rightly says, the plant has been running successfully for over 10 years without any major problems with the generating system. It was during a routine shutdown these cracks were spotted. They are hairline cracks and barely visible to the naked eye but they are there. During the routine shutdown, a specialist team were inspecting the plant as a routine inspection and these cracks were found. We do have some forensic inspectors, if you like, who will examine the minutiae of the generators coming over either this week or next week to give us the all clear, hopefully.

3.1.2 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier:

May I ask the Minister what funds the repairs will come out of, the cost of the repairs will come out of please?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

We do have a special fund for the Energy from Waste plant that will come out of our reserves there. Once the forensic inspectors have had a look then they will give us either the go or no-go on that. It is a matter of safety for the team down at the Energy from Waste plant. We have had a provisional okay to start up but it will be at our own risk. Obviously staff safety is paramount and we need to get the official all clear from the forensic inspectors, which will also obviously give comfort to our insurers.

3.1.3 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I think only the first part of that answered the question. Can the Minister confirm what this special fund is, and also to ask him whether it would be better to spend such money on modern technology that is less polluting rather than old increasingly redundant technology and make a step forward for this Island rather than just making yet another step backward?

3.5 Senator K.L. Moore of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding spinal cord injury patients (OQ.16//2022)

Will the Minister advise the Assembly how many spinal cord injury patients there are in the Island, whether they have to travel off-Island to see a specialist and, if so, why?

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

The total number of identified spinal cord injury patients is 27. They all have a range of levels of injury. Due to the small number of patients and the need for highly specialist input in the acute phase, and for patients who require ongoing invasive ventilation, these patients are supported off-Island in the specialist unit? Once patients are stabilised from the acute phase of injury they are returned to Jersey where their rehabilitation needs are met on-Island. Patients with a spinal cord injury work with our team of health professionals and have a tailored rehabilitation programme to continue their recovery and maximise their independence and abilities.

3.5.1 Senator K.L. Moore:

3.6.10 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Does the Minister feel that the balance between the actions that women have to take to prevent attacks is balanced with the actions that men should be taking who perpetrate those crimes? Does he see that that attitude needs to be addressed urgently in order to stop these crimes happening, rather than asking women yet again to take more action to protect themselves?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

I am sorry, I am trying to understand the question. Women should not be a victim, there is nothing that defines a woman as a victim and certainly we would not ask them to behave differently, to not be a victim; that makes very, very little sense, however, there are predators out there. Nobody in this Assembly, I guess - and it would be interesting to hear otherwise - leaves their front door open. I am not just saying unlocked but open. They know that there are very, very few people in the Island who would take advantage of that. Everybody needs to think about their own safety, however, we should not make females victims; they should not be natural victims. The notion of that is completely abhorrent, it should not be right that a female would feel herself as a natural victim. I cannot understand that and certainly it is nowhere where we can stop. Was that the question?

The Bailiff:

Could you bring that answer to a close, please, Minister? Once again we have passed the one minute 30 seconds. Do you have a supplementary question, Deputy Ward?

3.6.11 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Yes, Sir. It was not quite the question I was asking, let me put it in this way. Could I ask the Minister, does he feel that more work should be done with men, right from the beginning of their education in schools because of their attitudes to women, as a matter of urgency, so that we can address the attitudes that create offenders early on? I think that is probably a better wording of the question.

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, thank you very much and much more understandable for me. Definitely. We do know that we have a general cultural problem and that must be worked on, so absolutely. Certainly the one that is extremely important for me because it is the key to court cases, it is a notion of consent. Consent is absolutely paramount and it is something that we really, really need to teach and bring in at a very, very early age.

3.6.12 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I thank the Minister for his answers to all of the questions. In the Minister’s own estimation, would he say that women can feel safe in Jersey, particularly when out and about?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

I would say, yes. We have a lower level of crime than most places in the world, so Jersey is, in general, a safe place; 50 per cent of violence against a person is domestic abuse related and I think that is definitely a problem that we need to address. It seems to be still lower in Jersey than it is, for example, in the U.K. but we know that there is so little detection of cases; that it is definitely something we will need to work on. The new law will be an extremely good start for this because we have a proper and modern definition of domestic abuse and I really hope we can work on this.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much, Minister. It is a little bit before 10.30 a.m. when the Assembly is to adjourn. I propose, therefore, to adjourn now and to resume again at 2.15 p.m.

[10:26]

ADJOURNMENT

When people use the term “homeless” it is generally in relation to people who are roofless and sleeping rough. In fact we are doing well on that in Jersey in terms of identifying those people, helping them, taking them to G.P.s (general practitioners), taking them to our agencies, trying to get them a pathway into accommodation. Some are offered accommodation but for their own reasons do not take that up but we still look after them and we are in touch with all of them. The other categories ... so that is rooflessness. The others are being houseless, in insecure accommodation or in inadequate accommodation. I gave you the statistics for how many people we are temporarily housing at the moment. As the work of the Housing Advice Service continues, we will continue to gather and note the data.

3.8.7 Senator T.A. Vallois:

I appreciate the clarification from the Minister. I just wonder whether the Minister could advise, without having any form of expensive consultants or forms of other huge reviews that we tend to initiate, what is the Minister’s view on appropriate data analysis around the types of numbers and considering it against the Gateway that we have in place with regards to what used to be referred to as social housing, I would suggest that that is not necessarily what we have any longer since the 2013 decision?

Deputy R. Labey:

Will the Chair advise whether the States Employment Board agreed any policy to govern contact between senior managers and their direct reports outside of standard working hours and, if so, whether it is considered acceptable for senior managers to initiate such contact in the evening to provide feedback or criticism?

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

The vice-chair is taking this question, Sir.

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

I am sure the Senator is not going to be surprised by my response as she has already been in touch with officers previously about this case. We have advised her of the States Employment Board’s disapproval of the behaviour described in her question. Across the range of public service we have committed public servants who work a range of different working patterns to enable services to be delivered. Contact from senior managers outside agreed working patterns to provide feedback, as described in the question, is - and I stress- absolutely not acceptable and should not be happening. Our general advice where an occurrence such as this happens is that the staff member should initially try to resolve this informally but if that is not successful then there is sufficient scope within the States Employment Board code of conduct and, potentially, the bullying and harassment policy to provide a firm challenge for this sort of behaviour.

3.10.2 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

What does the S.E.B. (States Employment Board) intend to do to prevent such actions, given that such a complaint, from my experience of workings in the civil service, would result in the bullying of a junior member of staff?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

As I am sure the Senator is aware, there is sufficient scope within the bullying and harassment policy to resolve the issues, initially informally but if it is not resolved informally then there is scope within the bullying and harassment policy for it to be resolved formally and H.R. (human resources) officers would deal with that.

3.10.3 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Can I ask the Assistant Minister whether this extends his welcome words - he said this approach is not something that should be happening - extends to other areas of public service? For example, in teaching and lecturing, as education has moved into people’s homes with people working online, the likelihood of being contacted out of hours has increased. Does he extend that same intention to those areas of work?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Yes, I thank the Deputy for his question. I think we all understand that we are living in unusual and strange times and calls on our time come at unusual times. But as a general principle, senior managers or managers should not be harassing staff at unsociable and unreasonable hours to provide the sort of feedback that the Senator described in her question. Yes, the S.E.B. would certainly support staff members that had a problem of that nature.

3.10.4 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I think it is similar to the Senator’s question but how is he going to ensure that is not happening, given the pressures that staff are under across our public service?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I think, given that this issue has been highlighted to the States Employment Board, I have already asked officers to draft a note outlining that this sort of issue should not occur and that senior managers should have respect to more junior members of staff at private time and home time and that will be going out shortly.

3.10.5 Senator T.A. Vallois:

Can I ask the vice-chair how the States Employment Board determine whether the policies that he has referred to are being carried out in the spirit and the actual expectations of the States Employment Board, in that the culture required to ensure that this type of thing does not continue to happen, is kept up as expectations of that board that have agreed the policies?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

It is a difficult question to answer but normally we would initially expect to receive the sort of feedback that we have received from Senator Ferguson, which initially would raise concerns along these lines. But more formally we use, as the Senator knows, staff surveys to try and gauge staff reaction to their working conditions and we would use that as a feedback mechanism.

[14:45]

But certainly we would expect to get feedback through managers that this sort of problem is happening and as such we would take action to stop it.

3.10.6 Senator T.A. Vallois:

Can I ask the vice-chair whether they are satisfied that the customer feedback or the complaints mechanisms that are in place at present are sufficient to ensure that the culture that is being expected to be played out in the public sector is the one that is expected by the States Employment Board?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I will respond rather unusually to the Senator and say that we are never complacent about the policies we have in place and we are always alive and alert to feedback we receive from the staff, especially where that indicates that the intention of the States Employment Board in this respect is not taking place. Yes, the policies we have in place seem to be working but that does not mean to say that if it is demonstrated to us that it is not working we were not going to do something about it.

3.10.7 Deputy M. Tadier:

Does the chair agree that it is not necessarily a problem if emails are received from managers after working hours but it is also the expectation about whether or not somebody can be expected to respond or work after hours because of an email being sent? Is that his understanding of things?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I thank the Deputy for his question and that would be my understanding. As always in these situations it is about reasonableness. We are very lucky in the States that we have a very dedicated, loyal and a workforce that goes well above and beyond at times to achieve their aims. But that does not mean to say that managers should take advantage of that and should play on a staff member’s good nature. If that happens then we will take action.

3.10.8 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

In the private sector, as the vice-chair knows, managers are in fact sacked if they behave like this. Will the vice-chair come back to the Assembly to report on how S.E.B. will make senior managers understand that such behaviour is indefensible and will result in a warning on the personnel file?

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

Yes, I can respond to that question and I thank the Senator for her questions, and I can respond immediately. As I have already indicated, we will be sending out a reminder to managers exactly along the lines that the Senator lays out because it is not acceptable and it is playing on loyal staff members’ good nature to do this sort of thing.

3.11 Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for the Environment regarding the Norfolk Police Investigation (OQ.6//2022)

Will the Minister advise Members what, if anything, he has learnt from the Norfolk Police investigation into his department and explain whether he considers it necessary to take any action to ensure the public has confidence and faith in the department going forward?

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

The 3½-year independent police investigation, as the Deputy knows, was in respect of historic cases. In the intervening 14 years the planning system has had many substantive changes and improvements. The department has an ongoing improvement programme with recommendations, which come from the regular external reviews. It is my intention to publish a report on this implementation programme, the changes made I have mentioned and those in the pipeline because there certainly needs to be a process to continue improvements. However, the publication of that report will need to wait a while because, as the Deputy knows, one of the complainants in the matter investigating the Norfolk Police did lodge a civil claim, which was previously stayed until that stay was lifted by the Royal Court this week. There is an active there for a piece of live litigation, which means that I am restricted in what I say about that matter but it is my intention, as I have said, to publish that report.

3.11.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Norfolk Police have stated that although their investigation did not meet the very high criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt, required by a criminal prosecution, it did say that the department was massively inconsistent, dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. They also stated that one officer wilfully lied to the court as a prosecution witness. Surely any lies told in court taint the evidence of all officers giving evidence and the case as a whole and reflect badly on the public service. Would the Minister accept that no officer should lie in court and state what action, if any, has been taken against the officer who wilfully lied under oath in the court and was still working in the department?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think the Deputy’s supplementary question seems to re-run the entire inquiry, repeating many allegations which were made in the court. As the Deputy knows, he and I both had a briefing from the 3 police officers concerned and the stakeholders and there were allegations of perjury and misconduct in public office, which the investigation has concluded no foundation sufficient for a prosecution, so they were not upheld. I think that is very, very important. Of course it is absolutely right that the planning system, the integrity of everybody is above question. There is no question that those are the standards we aspire for. But of course the planning system is not perfect, it involves judgment, as the Deputy knows, and there is always that subjectivity in that and individuals are going to differ. Personally, frankly, I think that each of the police officers did of course a bit, they are not experts in the planning system. At the moment I would rely upon judgment of those that are in this matter. As I said, I will be publishing a report on that.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sir, the Minister did not answer the question.

The Bailiff:

You will have a further supplemental at the end. You have a further supplemental at the end, Deputy Higgins. You can come back and explore the answer in greater detail.

3.11.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

I believe the Norfolk Police also said that there were a number of issues relevant to the implementation of planning legislation during the time period they were investigating, including questionable processes, procedure and conduct of individuals. What action will be taken to rectify the issues described?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I have of course had to because those comments were made at the briefing. As I said, I have got my reservations about them because obviously the police investigation was a criminal one. It was not run by those who had an understanding of the planning system. But, nonetheless, I have written to the chair of the States Employment Board and invited him to discuss the report that they have heard. I have also had a chance to talk to the director general of the department about the matter and I have subsequently written to further and I said my opinion is that I do not think that since these matters are historic and that a number of the staff who were named who are no longer employed, that I do not consider there is a case for further investigation of any disciplinary matter but, nonetheless, that is how things lie.

3.11.3 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Minister agree to review the planning decisions taken by his officers following the statement of the Norfolk Police?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think what would …

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sir, I have not finished my question yet.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sorry, my apologies.

The Bailiff:

Yes, let us wait for the Deputy to finish his question.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sorry, apologies, it may be a delay and that is not helping. Will the Minister agree to review the planning decisions taken by his officers and also the statement that different officers were applying the same rules differently, which has led to some people being denied planning permission for which other people were granted planning permission?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think the premise of the Deputy’s question in that final sentence I could not accept, that, therefore, there was differentiating treatment under law. I do not believe there was any evidence to suggest that was the case. There were in fact different judgments of how planning policies would be applied, which in my experience is a normal characteristic of a planning system; it requires judgment, as I said. It is not a simple one way or the other. I do not believe there is any evidence or suggestion of contravening the law but, nonetheless, there are improvements which need to be made. Therefore, I said I shall be publishing the report of that programme that is in place to try and do that. I think that is the best answer I can give at the moment.

3.11.4 Deputy K.F. Morel:

In his answer to Deputy Higgins the Minister mentioned the importance of integrity in the planning system. Does the Minister believe, following things such as the Norfolk investigation and other concerns, that individual members of the Island have raised particular issues and complaints about the system, does he believe that Islanders feel that the planning system has integrity?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think with any planning system it relies on public confidence in it. Deputy Higgins, of course, he is absolutely entitled to do this, has been very clear and I believe there were, I think, 15 complainants, and I think Deputy Higgins represented them. There has been a 3½-year in-depth investigation involving interviews and so on. My reluctance to concede any things that require further investigation is because simply we would be repeating the same. Thousands of planning decisions are made and of course he is entirely happy for any of these matters for people to come with new applications which the planning system will do. Yes, I want to keep the confidence. If I felt that I lacked that confidence I would say so; I do not. I have confidence in the officers that are currently in place and also the system changes that have been introduced to improve them. But it is not better.

3.11.5 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Does the Minister believe that a lack of planning officers and planning enforcement officers is eroding the faith of Islanders in the planning system?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Certainly, the issue of enforcement has been a problem area. Historically, there were complaints, and I think these have been upheld, about very heavy-handed processes done by previous enforcement officers who are no longer employed by the Government. New rules and standards and different training has been introduced for people now who do that enforcement work, so I feel much more content with that than things that went on in the past that are still subject to the investigation. There has been a shortage of resource. We could do with more planning officers because when people are put under pressure and are carrying twice the workload that normally should be required, it is inevitable that mistakes be made, and I am hopeful now the Government Plan has given us decent resources that can be put right in the improvement plan and that would be our undertaking to do so.

3.11.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I must admit I have been absolutely amazed by the Minister’s answers, especially as he has known from the beginning the problems that were going on there and did nothing. Norfolk Police also said there are still current issues regarding people working in the department and 2 of those were interviewed under caution by them as part of their investigation. What is the Minister proposing to do about these problems or does he consider it is no one’s fault and no one should be held to account for the failures of the department, which includes, I may add, the chief officer or the Minister himself, who are responsible for the oversight of the department? The Minister had direct knowledge of these problems since 2014, before he became the Minister and had direct contact with the people making the complaints. How he can say this, I find it amazing.

The Bailiff:

The question is the report said this and what will he do about it? Is that right?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Certainly the report said the police said one of the officers wilfully lied under oath. It may have not met the test of perjury but they wilfully lied under oath. What will he do about that person and who will take responsibility for this fiasco?

Deputy J.H. Young:

What can I say? The Deputy now repeats his allegations, despite the findings of the police inquiry. He says things that have not been substantiated, including he makes allegations against me personally, that I strongly reject and I would need a separate occasion to be able to answer those, not now. Frankly, I am speechless about the way he has approached that. Nonetheless, what will I do? There are improvements. The States Employment Board has the matter on the agenda. I have asked them to discuss it and if the States Employment Board feel there is a case for further disciplinary investigation into these matters that will be looked at, then the board will trigger that. I brought that to their attention.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I should like to bring a vote of no confidence—

The Bailiff:

Comment at the end of questions not in accordance with Standing Orders is an abuse of the question system.

Can I ask the Minister, he referred to a summation being expected between old and new plans; what types of things does he expect to be seen in that summation in terms of the fact that we have seen the rejection of a previous hospital plan on the current site and now a planned new build on the new site that may be higher than we expect? What kind of summation does the Minister expect to see from an independent inspector?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I think I should probably explain my remarks earlier about public interest test a bit better. My expectation would be, and I have not seen the draft statement yet but it will be produced, will set out policies such as green zone policy, the green backdrop zone policy, the skyline policy and so on. Those policies will not be very substantially changed but the policies do include a specific policy that says such considerations can be set aside if they are in the overriding public interest. That is now proposed to be an explicit policy in those new policies in the draft plan. That was never the case an explicit one but it has always been, in all consideration, a test in law, a public interest test. So, please wait for the statement. Senator, and that will be there as soon as I can get it out there.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Morel, you were seeking a point of clarification. I am afraid that is not possible within the context of an answer to a question. You can only seek a point of clarification from a speech if the speaker gives way.

3.12.6 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Is it the Minister’s intention to determine this application during the States recess after 10th May?

Deputy J.H. Young:

I will take that decision at the time the inspector’s report comes. I do not want to prejudge that. I want to get to the point where the inquiry has happened, it has been dealt fairly, and then the inspector has a chance to properly produce that report for my consideration and I will make that decision at that time. I should tell Members, if it turns out that the bridging Island Plan gets modified it will be open to me to postpone the inquiry. I want to see the thing through the various stages.

3.12.7 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Maybe I should rephrase the question like this. Would it be the Minister’s intention to determine this application after 10th May if the inspector’s recommendation does not arrive on his desk by that date?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Could you clarify the question? What date is the Deputy referring to?

The Bailiff:

10th May.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I am unable to answer that question at the moment. The answer is it depends on the circumstances. I do not want to be bound on something and committed irretrievably before I have seen the substance of what I am being asked to decide.

3.12.8 Deputy K.F. Morel:

In reference to my point, the Minister said that Overdale was chosen by the States in 2018 but it was in 2020. I wanted to give him the opportunity to correct that on the record.

The Bailiff:

Do you wish to ask a question, Deputy?

Deputy K.F. Morel:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff:

If you would ask your question, then.

Deputy K.F. Morel:

As Senator Vallois mentioned, I have also received plenty of communications concerned about the situation with the bridging Island Plan and the existing Island Plan and the new hospital planning inquiry. In reference to my previous supplementary questions, is the Minister at all concerned that Islanders could lose faith in the integrity of the planning system if they are not satisfied that this is a very fair planning inquiry for the hospital?

My understanding is there are groundworks involved. The wish would be to demolish many of the present buildings at Overdale at an early stage.

3.13.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Samarès Ward is contained in one of the best buildings on the site and I am sure it could be worked around that it could be maintained for as long as possible to provide some of these services. Will the Minister investigate and report back to the States?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I would disagree with the Deputy, I am afraid. Maintaining a building which has got to come down at some time in the middle of a building site, a huge building site where there has to be ground levelling and all sorts of investigation. This building we want demolished because we want to create the better picture of building a new hospital for the Island which is so desperately needed. So, it seems to me, we need to concentrate on services; we need to concentrate on patient outcomes, and not on a building and a disruption caused by going backwards and forwards to different buildings all the time.

3.13.6 Senator T.A. Vallois:

Other than the Jersey Care Model rhetoric around rehabilitation, what are the long-term plans for rehabilitation in terms of secondary care with regards to the health service?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I know Members have received a letter from our Island’s medical director and chief nurse which set out their vision for the delivery of rehabilitation in all scenarios in healthcare. So from the very moment somebody comes into healthcare services thought should be given to their rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is far more than just care after stroke or therapies after injury; it is about restoring somebody to the condition they were before, or as near as possible. That covers all healthcare interventions and is something that the medical director and chief nurse want to deliver as a whole service in all settings and not in a standalone building.

3.13.7 Senator T.A. Vallois:

Rehabilitation is more than about community services and community care. I have not heard anything about the work of Health and Social Services working with the likes of Sports Jersey or other areas ...

The Bailiff:

Senator, there has to be a question, I am afraid. At the moment there is a series of statements.

Senator T.A. Vallois:

The Minister referred to patient outcomes. Members of the public want to see those good patient outcomes like they saw at Samarès Ward. So what does the Minister expect to see without Samarès Ward going forward?

[15:30]

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

On the first part of the Senator’s question, that there is work that has been carried out with Jersey Sport. The programme called Move More takes patients - organised by Jersey Sport but in conjunction with H.C.S. (Health and Community Services) - helps people to recover their ability to walk and to be mobile. I am just trying to reach for the second part of the Senator’s question. I am sorry; I have lost it.

The Bailiff:

I am afraid I do not remember it either.

Senator T.A. Vallois:

If I may, it was in reference to without Samarès Ward what does the Minister expect to see in terms of rehabilitation services as part of the Jersey Care Model.

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Yes, because I remember the Senator referred to my reference to patient outcomes. This is the difficulty; there was good care delivered on Samarès Ward but there was no recording of patient outcomes. There were no clinical parameters that were set out there and we are now in a position where we are recording patient outcomes in the rehabilitation service, as we are trying to do throughout H.C.S., to be able to measure our services and give assurance that we are achieving. As I have said in answer to the petition and other answers, we are part of what is called S.S.N.A.P. (Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme) which is a U.K. stroke rehabilitation assessment scheme, and we feed into that and provide the results of our outcomes for recording throughout the U.K. and assessing how best to provide stroke services throughout the U.K.

3.13.8 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Given the public outcry suggesting the mood of Samarès Ward to Plémont Ward at Gloucester Street has been grossly mishandled will the Minister be reviewing the performance of staff who have been directing the process?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

What I am doing, and what I said in the response to the petition, is that I am asking for external eyes to report to me. So I am putting in place an external adviser with expertise and proficiency in rehabilitation services to take full view of our provision in Jersey and report to me. I am looking forward to receiving that report; it will be valuable.

3.13.9 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

The Minister has yet to put forward a satisfactory interim facility prior to the completion of our hospital. Is it his intention to do so given that Plémont Ward is far from satisfactory?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

With regard to the Jersey Care Model, does the Minister believe what he has just stated that those with long-term conditions have the availability and the initiative and understanding in terms of how to work within an economy that we work in, in Jersey, in terms of living, their life expectancy and their requirements around management of their conditions considering the cost of care, particularly with regards to primary care in our model of Health and Social Services?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

That is a long question. So many people living with long-term conditions can access help from primary care but from family nursing, from a charitable provision, from specialist clinics in secondary care. So those with long-term conditions can get a feel for what is available. We have only concluded the first year of a 5-year programme, which is the Jersey Care Model, so there is much work still to do. As to the costs of accessing services, well it is primary care principally, that is the issue here, is it not?

[15:45]

The primary care providers are part of the Jersey Care Model, they are working with us to deliver these services in the best way for the Island and we are coming forward with proposals for sustainable healthcare and work is being carried out on that this year with a view to it coming before the next Council of Ministers and being incorporated in a future Government Plan. So these issues are known and are being worked through.

3.14.3 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Before the public engagement can go further, can I ask the Minister that the independent Chair that has been delayed being appointed has now been put in place before any further public communication can go forward?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Yes, that will be in place. The chair has been appointed and the Scrutiny Panel, including Deputy Pamplin, will be invited to meet him. I have yet to meet him. The process has taken much longer than we all anticipated due to reasons that have been given to the Scrutiny Panel and States Members in previous questions.

3.14.4 Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

I thank the Minister for the news and the update. Could he also update us on has there been a specific employment on somebody on to navigate and manage the communication of the Care Model for the public?

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

Yes, we have a comms office within the team that are working on the Jersey Care Model.

3.14.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Perhaps the Minister for Health and Social Services might recognise who I am talking about when I talk about a constituent who has been told that if she stays in the public sector for a knee scan, a simple knee scan, to work out what is wrong with her knee, then it will take 30 to 40 weeks’ waiting. But, if she was to take a private route into accessing that scan, she can do it next Sunday.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry, Deputy, that is nothing to do with the question that is the main question, which is to do with public engagement in connection with the Jersey Care Model. It has nothing to do with specific cases or waiting lists or anything like that I am afraid. I have to rule that question out of order.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I accept your judgement, thank you. The point is made.

3.14.6 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I would like to follow up with the Minister what his response is that the public accept the Jersey Care Model and they need to move to the community. I would raise the Minister’s attention that during the public hearing on 17th June with the Public Accounts Committee, the Director General for Housing and Communities firstly agrees that the public is confused and even fear the Jersey Care Model. Would the Minister explain where is his evidence the public accepted and welcomed the Jersey Care Model? It is not about the Jersey Care Model, it is about the public perception.

The Deputy of St. Ouen:

What I am trying to say is that the public accept the premise behind the Jersey Care Model; the name of it perhaps does not matter. It could be called something else. But the premise is that more care needs to be delivered in the community; that people are living with longer-term conditions and they need to live independently. We want to give them that support. I think that is increasingly being understood. So I hope that answers the Deputy’s question.

3.15 Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the Havre des Pas roadworks (OQ.3/2022)

What actions, if any, has the Minister taken to mitigate the disruption caused by the roadworks taking place at Havre des Pas?

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

The department planned the work in the early months of the year as traffic figures demonstrate that this is a quiet period for the road network and would have the least impact on the bus service. Officers are liaising daily with our contractor to ensure the work can be completed as efficiently and as soon as possible. I will continue to receive regular updates from the principal engineer while these works are ongoing.

3.15.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

Can the Minister confirm whether he is receiving much feedback from the people who live in the area or commuters who pass through it, given that there have been reports in recent days of people facing quite severe disruption and is he open to hearing from them so that they can take in that feedback and consider whether there is more that his department can do to ease some of the problems being caused by that congestion?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Fair comment but that is already happening. We anticipated this all along. It was work that could not be put off. It was work that had to be done. There is drainage work going on. We had a model to work by. Many years ago, we had the collapse of the rock wall at Mount Bingham and that was over 3 months. Thank goodness this is going to be weeks, not months. The disruption then was quite phenomenal. Lots of people who live in St. Clement and Grouville come through Havre des Pas, over Mount Bingham and off to their work or whatever that way. But now everything has to come up La Route du Fort and through the tunnel, which is where the congestion is. It is being done in sections at Havre des Pas and it is being monitored carefully. The principal engineer is doing all he can to mitigate the disruption that is happening at the moment. We apologise for the delay but the team are working as hard as they can to mitigate that.

The Bailiff:

Thank you very much. That brings questions with notice to an end. We move on to questions without notice. The first period is questions addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I am assuming that those who have indicated so far a desire to ask a question. Deputy Tadier, do you have a question for the Minister for Home Affairs?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sorry, that is an error. It was not for him.

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs

Senator S.Y. Mézec:

It is a question. Would the Minister like to consider his comments that he has just made given that they are outrageous and they are not a reflection of the French residents who are valued members of our community in Jersey? Would he like to give some consideration to whether what he may well have thought was a clever joke but was a very silly and insensitive comment. Would he like to reflect on how that may make valued members of our community feel?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

I would like to remind the Senator that I am myself a French person and I feel totally habilitated to express my displeasure with my fellow citizens if I want to. The French Government will have many, many opportunities to mend the relationship with Jersey but they are really not trying hard now. So I am sorry, I will not.

4.5 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

Can the Minister detail what understanding he has of the term “rape culture” and how it might apply to Jersey? If he is not familiar with this term, would he commit to seeking assistance from his officers to educate himself on this term and associated issues please?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

When I am not familiar with something I tend to immediately study it. So the first time I heard this I was extremely shocked at the use of an extremely abusive term. I researched it and it seems to be something that has been invented in America in a completely different context than the one it is used here. We have a patriarchal culture in Europe, which also exists in Jersey. This is something that can be worked on and that can be fixed over the years. So there is a problem that we can fix. The term “rape culture,” I am sorry, is still offensive to me.

4.5.1 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet:

I agree with the Minister that rape is an offensive act and we should work together to eradicate it. Does the Minister agree with me that we should be aiming for a complete eradication of crimes of this nature?

5.1 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Indeed, there are certain lampshades, for want of a better word, that reflect light away from residential areas and I am very keen for these to be fitted where appropriate and more than happy to pass that on.

[16:15]

5.6 Deputy G.J. Truscott:

Work has started at Fort Regent to renovate the gardens. Could the Minister confirm that this piece of work went out to tender and, if not, why not?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

I think part of it was sent out to tender, but a lot of it is being done in-house with our own arborlogical team. We have our own tree experts.

5.7 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

Could the Minister update the Assembly on progress made towards implementing the decision he made in the Government Plan debate to introduce a bus pass for students and can he say when parents and those students will be able to purchase those bus passes?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

It does sound quite simple in the voting, but it is an amazingly complex piece of work. We have our own team put together, a project team that is liaising with LibertyBus. LibertyBus are working very hard on this also. There is lots of work to do. There is a new computer programme that needs doing, new smart cards need to be profiled, and it is quite complicated inasmuch as each individual card has to be programmed. But when it does come out, they can transfer any balance from the previous smart card by way of topping this one up as part of the £20 fee, for instance. So that is not a problem. There is lots of work to do because lots of students, for example, transfer from the regular bus service to the school bus service, plus this applies to people of 18 years of age and under. It would also apply to people who are going to work. So the impact on the regular bus service and the school bus service has to be taken into account. Do we need more buses? Do we need more drivers? There is an awful lot of work to do. Obviously it was not possible to do this within the time that it is voted for it and 1st January. Obviously a lot of departments were closed down, ours was still going, but also we had obviously Christmas and New Year right in the middle of this 2½-week period. So both teams, our own team in Infrastructure, and indeed LibertyBus, are working very, very hard to get this up and running and I am very keen to get the whole system running as soon as possible.

5.7.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

He says: “As soon as possible.” When exactly is that and why is it so much more complicated than the existing schemes, which already exist for bus passes, whether it is for disabled Islanders or pensioners where similar schemes already exist? Why is it so complicated?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

As I have just pointed out, it is a new system that has to be time-expired because it will expire when somebody reaches the age of 20. So the dates have to be programmed into the computer otherwise somebody could have a student card and that will last them the rest of their life, which obviously is not part of the proposition and we simply cannot afford it. Things have to be programmed. There is an awful lot of work to do with getting the whole system up and running. There are lots of things that have been done of late, obviously we have senior citizens cards, we have the disabled persons card, I recently signed the docket for assistance for a disabled person or an immobile person. That has all gone through. But this is particularly different and it will take a few weeks to set up. I cannot give an exact date. All I can say is, as soon as we can get it going we will get it going. There is also work that needs to be done with Treasury. This has to be paid for. Every time the card is used we have to reimburse LibertyBus. LibertyBus is a private company. It does not belong to us because we have to renegotiate the contract. That is step one. But we are proceeding as fast as we can.

The Bailiff:

In fact I hope, Deputy Morel, you are not typing out your letter, because that now brings the time for questions to this Minister to an end. We have a question period for the Chief Minister.

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

6.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:

The Chief Minister is pictured in today’s paper welcoming the opportunity to increase the size of the park in his home Parish. Senator Le Fondré will be aware that Andium Homes has invited the Government to share in its vision of incorporating the Jersey Gas Site in its entirety to double the size of the Millennium Town Park in St. Helier. Yet he has not yet embraced this golden opportunity. Are St. Helier residents less entitled to reap the benefits of an expanded park than those in St. Lawrence?

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

I do not think I can add anything more to the response I have given.

6.4 Deputy I. Gardiner:

In answer to my question, the Minister for Children and Education back in November advised that the draft report of the primary school estate review would be considered by the Regeneration Steering Group at the beginning of December. Would the Chief Minister advise if any progress was made and if we have a way forward from these matters?

A small number of people have mistakenly claimed from the co-funded payroll scheme and are now being asked to repay the full sum over a very short period. Does the Chief Minister believe that they should be allowed the right of appeal against this decision?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It is difficult to comment. I am not fully appraised of the specifics. It is very difficult to comment without knowing the details. It comes down to whether if it was mistaken versus in wilful ignorance, shall we say, so it will depend on the circumstances and it will also depend on the amounts involved and what the impact of those amounts are on the survivability of their business. Those are illustrative examples. Without knowing the details behind that, I do not think I would be willing to comment at this stage. But we have followed a stance of supporting many, many businesses through this pandemic and we continue to do so. So I hope that would give an indication of the likely direction of travel that we have. It very much depends on the circumstances of the individual cases.

The Bailiff:

That brings the period of time allocated for questions to the Chief Minister to an end. We now move on to other matters on the Order Paper. There is nothing under J and K. We come to L, which is Public Business.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Bailiff:

The first item of Public Business is the changes to the objects and purpose of the Ann Alice Rayner Fund, P.92 reissue, lodged by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. The main responders are the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, so Senator Moore, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

7. Reduction of lodging period

Deputy M. Tadier:

It is Deputy Tadier. Before the proposition is read, I was wondering if I could seek clarification on whether or not my item could be taken at this sitting and indeed when we might take it. It would just be very helpful to be able to prepare for that.

The Bailiff:

Your item being the last so far on the Order Party, is it?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes, that is right. So I need to get leave for it to be taken at this hearing.

The Bailiff:

Yes, I see. We do normally deal with that at the beginning of business so Members know what they are to deal with during the course of the sitting. I had not spotted that we needed to get that matter sorted out. So you wish to propose and you wish to seek the leave of the Assembly, Deputy, for the lodging period to be truncated and for Members to agree to take the item at this sitting, yes?

Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes please.

The Bailiff:

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

Deputy M. Tadier:

Do I need to say why?

The Bailiff:

I thank those who spoke. I appreciate the Minister, who I think is a democrat, we do not necessarily agree with the way forward in terms of the outcome of this proposition, but he will at least allow it to be debated. I am concerned with some of Deputy Martin’s comments because from my conversations with the Minister it has become quite clear that the ban on visitors has nothing to do with the staff having been abused, or allegedly being abused, by some people who were asked to produce a vaccine status or rather a lateral flow test status, for example. But it has been more so to do with, I am told now, about infection on the wards and the risk of spreading it from patients who have already got it to visitors. So perhaps not what we initially thought. Indeed, just to correct Deputy Martin, I have also come across people who have said that: “We have had a test done and when we have offered to show the test result to the ward staff they have said: ‘No, do not worry, we do not need to see the test.’” So there is a big question about a robust procedure being in place and I would have hoped that all Members, including Deputy Martin, would want to know that there are robust processes in place so that we make sure that COVID is not spread at the hospital and that we make sure that everybody knows what is required of them when going to the hospital so that there is no ill feeling on either side. So I do maintain the proposition to have this taken at this sitting.

[16:45]

The Bailiff:

In which case I ask the Greffier to place a link into the chat and I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the normal way. A vote pour will be a vote to permit Deputy Tadier to take this proposition P.8/2022 at this sitting at the end of the list. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes ... Connétable of St. Ouen, you have asked for a point of clarification. I have opened the voting. I am afraid it is too late for that. Unless it is a ruling from the Chair you are asking for. I am not quite sure which it is.

The Connétable of St. Ouen:

If I could just perhaps explain a little further. I have a very personal interest in this in that I have a relative currently in the hospital, so I would personally benefit from any decision that was made on this subject. I just wonder whether I am conflicted in that respect.

The Bailiff:

No, you are not, because this is a decision as to whether we plan the matter for debate this week or not next week. It is not a decision in which you have a direct interest. It is not a question of if it is debated. It is a question of when and it is not, in any sense, a financial interest as far as I am aware so, no, you do not have a conflict. Very well, if Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition has been adopted. Therefore P.8 will be dealt with during the course of this sitting.

POUR: 37	CONTRE: 7	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator I.J. Gorst	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator T.A. Vallois	Connétable of St. Peter
Senator K.L. Moore	Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Senator S.W. Pallett	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Senator S.Y. Mézec	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Connétable of St. Helier	Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of St. Mary
Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Clement
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
Deputy J.H. Young (B)
Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy of St. John
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)
Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)
Deputy K.G. Pamplin (S)
Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting contre in the link are: Deputy Pinel, Deputy Wickenden, Deputy Martin, Deputy Ash, Senator Ferguson and the Connétable of St. Peter.

The Bailiff:

Very well, we now resume.

8. Covid-19 hospital patients visitor access (P.8/2022) - Bring forward on Order Paper

8.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Excuse me, Sir. It is me again. I put a comment in the chat earlier but could we now resolve whereabouts on the Order Paper this is taken? I would propose that it is taken as the first item tomorrow morning and the reason for that is twofold. I think that it is important that we get this resolved as swiftly as possible so that the staff on the ward, the patients and visitors know where they are with the matter and it can be resolved. But, secondly, I know that the Minister wants to put comments in and I think that there should have been a sound enough written rationale provided up until now to justify the decision which could be shared with us by tomorrow morning, so the Minister would have overnight to do that rather than taking it as the first item now.

The Bailiff:

So you would like to make a proposition to deal with the matter as the first item tomorrow morning.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Yes, please.

The Bailiff:

If that proposition fails, then it will remain unchanged from its current listing, which is at the end of the week. In other words, we cannot have a succession of propositions to say: “Well, if not tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon. If not tomorrow afternoon, then Wednesday morning.” I think it needs to be ...

Deputy M. Tadier:

I think that is right, Sir.

The Bailiff:

Very well. You have made that proposition then. Is it seconded? [Seconded]

8.1.1 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Sorry to come in, Sir, but while I do not have any great issues with the principle of debating this during the course of this sitting, it was only lodged yesterday in terms of the wording. We make the point against clinical advice to deal with an outbreak and yet the Deputy is literally suggesting essentially that we have been debating this something like ... I am trying to do the maths, but I would say 16 hours from now, give or take. I think it is appalling and frankly, I think the Minister for Health and Social Services, as the Deputy himself said, is respectful of having the debate. I am pleased we are trying to have an informed debate but the Minister for Health and Social Services did say it was supportive on the basis that it was in the order that it was on the Order Paper, which was the last item. I think we should stick with that and very strongly stick with that at the very least in an attempt to have an informed debate.

8.1.2 Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, I absolutely agree. When Deputy Tadier was summing up, he sort of completely changed the goalposts from what C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) were told exactly a week ago today as to why urgent visiting needs are stopped because, when people were being asked, there was quite a bit of abuse to staff of all different levels. Deputy Tadier said that he has had a conversation and that is not right. Now we are making a medical decision here. I want the best and most up-to-date information and the Minister for Health and Social Services said he was quite happy for the debate to go ahead. Obviously different to me but it looks like it is going ahead now but I want it to go at the end when I know that the best medical advice has come from the hospital and it has been gathered together, as the Minister said, at the end of the sitting. So I certainly cannot go for tomorrow morning. Be very careful. We have just had 2 completely conflicted stories. I want to know which one is right. I am not putting anyone in danger and I do not think anybody else would want to do that so if we can get the best advice from the Minister and then we vote.

8.1.3 Deputy K.C. Lewis:

My apologies if I have misheard, but to my reckoning, the Minister for Health and Social Services I believe stated that he would be happy to accept it as long as it was at the very end of business on this particular occasion and greeted by silence. I assumed that was accepted and I voted pour on that understanding.

8.1.4 Senator T.A. Vallois:

I just want to make a couple of comments with regards to the arguments that have been made by Deputy Martin or the Chief Minister in regards to why this cannot be debated sooner. So as I understand it, this is in regards to COVID restrictions and, as I understand, COVID restrictions were in part debated over the last 20 months. There are a number of requirements that have not required such expectations as Deputy Martin and the Chief Minister have stated in their exclamations during this debate around the requirements for how and why we do certain things on clinical grounds. Whether that is minutes through S.T.A.C. (Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell) or whether that is through questions in the States Assembly, that position might be differentiated from different people. So I am not convinced of the argument that is being made from the Executive as to why I should not support this proposition in terms of allowing it to go ahead sooner rather than later.

8.1.5 Senator S.Y. Mézec:

I am looking at the wording of the proposition which Deputy Tadier has lodged, which says in it very clearly that it is about: “... urgently putting a system in place which keeps people who have COVID out of hospital and not able to visit people but allows people who do not have COVID to be able to go into hospital and, as a matter of urgency, the Minister should instigate a robust system.” So just reading that wording, it strikes me that we are not about to enter a debate about risk because it is factored into the wording of the proposition that this should be done in a way which is risk free. So what I think the crucial point here is that should sway us into enabling this debate to go ahead or not is this is about whether we consider this a matter that is worth urgently being considered or one that can be considered at leisure by the Government, while we know there are people in hospital whose well-being is being severely impacted by the fact that many of them who are vulnerable and going through extremely difficult times are not able to have people come and visit them who may be perfectly safe to go into the hospital and visit them. It strikes me that the earlier we can give an indication on whether we want an urgent approach or a non-urgent approach is surely better for those health professionals so they know what steer they are going to get so that they can go on and both instigate a robust system and do so urgently. So some of the messaging that has crept into this debate about the risk I think is misplaced because it is factored into the wording of this proposition that it is not about that. So I think that it is fair to ask us to deal with this point as early as possible so we can give that steer to the health professionals who can then go on and instigate that system. Leaving it for days on end means that we are leaving the vulnerable in the hospital hanging and not knowing sooner rather than later whether they are going to have the support of their loved ones in person in hospital to help them get through the difficult things that they are, and this is something that matters a great deal. It is okay to a small number of people but to a small number of people whose interest we really ought to be considering, and considering quickly, so I would urge Members to support the proposition to debate this tomorrow morning.

8.1.6 Deputy I. Gardiner:

I do believe it is urgent and the urgency was raised that the proposition was lodged yesterday and we are debating it for tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. We have 29 people with COVID in the hospital and I do believe we need to debate this proposition with a bit more information also from the health side. We are all agreed that people should be allowed to visit people in the hospital. It is not about people visiting or not visiting. It is about creating a robust system. On the procedural matter, I had a full day yesterday and I started to consider this proposition last night when I become aware and I am not sure if I will do it or not. Probably not. But it is an option for Members to put an en bloc amendment, I have done it twice. Maybe the Government would like to put an amendment. The first thing that came into my mind maybe if we were to add 2 or 3 people with presenting how they seek confirmation or maybe comply. I do not know. I am not suggesting but I think it is just fair to give the Government at least 24 hours or 48 hours to consider this matter, and it is urgent, and to come back to us with a bit more information. So I agree we have to debate this urgently but I do not think that it needs to be debated first thing tomorrow morning because everyone should consider if anything else that needs to be done with the proposition that was launched just yesterday.

8.1.7 Senator I.J. Gorst:

Well, I am pleased to follow the last speaker because she really encapsulated everything that I wanted to say. It is urgent but it would be inappropriate for us to take it tomorrow morning. If the Deputy wished to say we start it at the end of the day or we take it as the first item on Thursday morning, that would allow considered comments to be made because we are talking, in reality, about saying that the hospital would have to put in place a testing regime which would have a significant detrimental effect on visitors as well.

[17:00]

For example, a visitor going to the pharmacy to drop off a prescription and then going later in the day to pick it up would have to of course have 2 tests if we were going to deal with it appropriately. How would we test individuals? Let us say, for argument’s sake, there are between 400 and 500 individuals that go into the hospital precinct during the course of 24 hours. Regarding the logistics of such a holding pen where people were sat together and tested is one might test negative and another might test positive. How is that to be managed because that is what the Deputy is asking for? I think it would do a disservice to his request if we did not allow the Minister for Health and Social Services and his officials to provide a thoughtful and practical approach one way or the other. So in the words of Deputy Gardiner, it is urgent, we do need to debate it but we will not have the best debate and we will not be able to deal with it appropriately. I, for one, if we have to take it tomorrow, will simply say: “We stick with where we are.” It might be the minds that help them come up with a solution over the course of the next day but we would not be allowing them to do that if we took the debate first thing in the morning..

8.1.8 Deputy S.J. Pinel:

This follows neatly on from Senator Gorst inasmuch as just for the Assembly’s information, we have a C.A.M. (Competent Authorities Ministers) meeting tomorrow lunchtime which was organised last week because we agreed, because of the COVID infection in the hospital, that we would close the hospital for a week to non-essential visitors, and I must make that quite clear. There were many exceptions to the visitors allowed in with maternity and end-of-life care just to mention a couple. So we are having a meeting anyway tomorrow lunchtime to decide and be advised by the scientific and medical staff. Why have those experts if you are not going to take their advice, which is what we did because of the infection on the ward? So we are meeting tomorrow lunchtime to review that decision so it could be decided without this proposition anyway. That is just my opinion. The second one is just operational, Sir, and wanting your advice that if we start the changes to the Ann Alice Rayner Fund this afternoon in the next 10 minutes or so, would that then be put off until after this proposition tomorrow? I am not quite clear where we would go with it so I would like your advice please.

The Bailiff:

I think the reality of the situation is that if we start debating a substantial piece of work now, it would not be good order other than in truly emergency circumstances to interrupt that debate. So I think the reality of Deputy Tadier’s proposition is that if we started the Ann Alice Rayner Fund now, it would follow on after the end of that debate, whenever that might be, because I am not sure that it is practical or in good order to do it otherwise. That is my provisional ruling on that.

8.1.9 Deputy J.H. Young:

Just following on briefly from Deputy Gardiner, I think Deputy Gardiner was spot on there. As a non-competent Minister, obviously I had an opportunity to take part in this Council of Ministers decision that brought this in. I personally went along with it and endorsed it because of the clinical advice that experience has been that a number of vulnerable patients had picked up the infection from visitors and that there had been incidents of abuse and so on, but I did ask for 2 things. I asked for exceptions because there will be exceptional cases, and we have heard some of those, but I also asked for assistance. So I said: “Having it for a week, it gives a week for the Minister for Health and Social Services to come up with a system” because I do not think it is impossible to solve the problems that Senator Gorst has come up with and I think that the Minister for Health and Social Services should be given 24 hours to come up with a way in which to do that. They have many ways they can organise some system, and that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about people hanging around corridors. We are talking about going on to wards where there are vulnerable people who are in care, who have been checked out properly, and they are not carrying the infection. I think we need to make sure of that so I would put that at 24 hours at least if that means at the end of tomorrow afternoon. I am not going to vote for Deputy Tadier saying that we do it first thing tomorrow. The Minister for Health and Social Services needs time to be able to sort that out.

8.1.10 The Deputy of St. Ouen:

I believe it was incumbent on Deputy Tadier, when making his first application, to tell us that he intended to make a second application. It was the case that I think he reasonably assumed that it would follow the normal rule that an item lodged late, and which had been given, would be taken at the end of the list. Deputy Tadier did not advise us to the contrary. I confirm, as I said, that I have an infection control team contributing to a comments paper but of course they have had all sorts of other issues to deal with which are not purely managerial. They are clinical people managing COVID in a general hospital. I would like to give them sufficient time to put together a reasoned explanation of their best advice and, therefore, I ask again that we take this item at the end of the Order Paper.

8.1.11 Senator K.L. Moore:

Without wanting to prolong this at all, I do have some sympathy for the Minister for Health and Social Services. However, it does puzzle me. This is not a brand new issue. This is an issue that has been a matter of public discussion and debate for a considerable number of days. Therefore one would have expected a health service that is focused on delivery and delivering for its patients and the community of the Island to have come up with these solutions prior to being forced to do so by a debate of this nature. I would be supporting Deputy Tadier’s move to be debated after the Ann Alice Rayner Fund proposition.

8.1.12 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I must say it is always interesting to see. There are times when I wonder whether there is opposition to certain things from Deputy Tadier for the sake of opposition from the Government. If you read the proposition it is very well-worded: “To agree that people who do not have COVID-19 should be allowed to visit people in hospital and to request, as a matter of urgency, the Minister for Health and Social Services to instigate a robust system to keep people who do have COVID-19 from visiting people in hospital.” One of the comments I will make is that Senator Gorst seemed to be mixing things up very well, which I think is a common approach when you want to undermine a proposition. But we are not talking about people just going in to collect things. We are talking about people visiting those who are in hospital. We have talked about the balance of risks so often in this pandemic and the risk of people being isolated in hospital if they are ill and needing their loved ones near them is a great risk. We have a lateral flow testing system. I, for one, whenever I go to any event at the moment I am testing daily because I meet constituents, to try and be as safe as we possibly can with masks on. I test every day with a lateral flow test to confirm that I have not got COVID and I am triple vaccinated, et cetera. These are possible, they are doable. The schemes are there. Yet again, what we are getting from Government is an over-complication. Let us bide time so we can put a comments paper together to undermine. Deputy Tadier has had to bring this to the Assembly because he is genuinely concerned about what is happening with this blanket ban. Let us remember that. Let us see the good in that. Let us see the positive nature in that and the genuine underlying concern that this is developed from. I think the earlier we debate this the better. The other way to look at this is then it gives the Health Department more time to act upon it. Therefore, debating quickly after the Ann Alice Rayner Fund would be the best thing to do here, rather than waiting a day and a half so that we can use yet another comments paper that undermines. We have seen this so often in Government. What we actually want is some action to enable people to have the best outcomes.

8.1.13 The Connétable of St. Ouen:

I am firstly delighted that Deputy Ward is doing his lateral flow tests before he goes to hospital because the last few days, as Members will know, when I have circulated anywhere around is that is not the case for a lot people. My elderly parents ended up in hospital and in fact both have now got COVID, as have a number of my other relatives, and they tested negative before they went in. I think there are some serious issues. I, for one, would want to wait at least to give the Minister for Health and Social Services 24 hours to consider those issues and come back and tell us that he is able to put in place a robust system to make sure that COVID is not brought into the hospital. Because I can assure you that I am seriously concerned because I am now faced with a situation where my elderly father, who went home with COVID, has now had to go back into hospital with complications. I do not think we should underestimate the risks involved. Yes, I am very pleased Deputy Tadier has brought this proposal because I think it is a debate that we have to have. But I think we need to consider all the facts before we have the debate so that we can make a sound and balanced judgment as to whether we approve his suggestion, which I think is very sensibly worded, but I think we need to give the Minister for Health and Social Services a chance to consider the options in front of him and come back to tell us that he can do it. Because what I see at the moment is certainly precautions are not happening, from what I have seen, with very patchy requests for test results and indeed stories of people wandering into the wards who have COVID and spreading it around among the patients. I think we should not underestimate the difficulty and we need to make sure that what we both want is based on facts the Minister for Health and Social Services I am sure will supply us within the next day or so.

8.1.14 Deputy K.F. Morel:

I agree with Deputy Ward that this is a good proposition. I agree with many of the previous speakers that it is right that we debate it. But like, I believe, every other Member in the States at the moment I am not a health professional. I do not have a great deal of health experience in terms of treating or preventing disease, and so I want to make the right decision for the Island. I cannot do that as an individual States Member if I do not hear what the Minister for Health and Social Services and his officers have to say about the proposition that will be in front of us. For that reason alone, the desire to make the right decision, get the facts before me, as an individual States Member, I have to say that I believe it is wrong to rush this in this way.

8.1.15 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The 3 key words for me in this debate about the debate is as a “matter of urgency”, and I believe that is what we should look at. We need to get on with this, we need to show that we are getting on with it, and helping people sort it out is what we are here for.

8.1.16 The Connétable of St. John:

I supported the proposal to take this proposal at this meeting. I think it is important that we make an informed decision. I am prepared to wait a few hours for us to have the complete information rather than taking it first thing. I should also like to give the competent authorities Ministers the opportunity to resolve the issue tomorrow and that may negate the need for a debate. A few hours delay to get this adopted is worth waiting for.

The Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on this proposition? No other Member wishes to speak, I close the debate and call on Deputy Tadier to respond?

8.1.17 Deputy M. Tadier:

I thank Members for their mostly considered comments. There are a couple of things that really worry me here and I think some Members have acknowledged and realised that this is an urgent issue. There is an alarm bell when I hear the argument being put forward by the Minister for Health and Social Services and others ... he is saying we need a reasonable explanation of their advice. We need a reasoned explanation of their advice, i.e. the health professionals, as to why they made a decision to stop visits. It is worrying that the Minister does not know or have that reasoned explanation already because when you make such a serious decision about stopping visits to people who would normally be able to visit, and it is not just about the visitors, it is about the patients being able to receive visits as well, which is normally one of their fundamental human rights under Article 8 as well as just a common-sense normal thing to have.

[17:15]

That should have been done with a reasoned explanation and it suggests to me that the Council of Ministers did not make this decision and that the Minister for Health and Social Services did not make this decision, and that it has been foisted upon them, upon us and upon the public, without us knowing why that has happened. I am glad that Deputy Ward has addressed some of the muddying of the waters that took place with Senator Gorst’s arguments because the proposition quite clearly states that this is about people visiting other people in the hospital. If you go into hospital to pick up a prescription you are not visiting somebody on a ward, you are going in there to pick up a prescription. You are a patient who has a legitimate reason. This proposition is not about stopping people who already go into the hospital and are allowed to go in the hospital routinely for professional or for patient purposes. This is about resuming visits for people who do not have COVID to visit other people who do not have COVID. Much more importantly, it is about putting a robust system in place as far as possible that stops any further spread of COVID. I will give one example about why I think this is so urgent that it needs to be taken as the first item. I have been told by the Minister that there are exemptions that apply and when I said: “Who do you have to ask to get an exemption?” he said you have to ask the ward staff. Again, that is really alarming. If you have to apply to the ward staff, presumably over the phone, to say: “Look, I want to be able to go in to visit my elderly sick husband” or wife or relative. First of all, even if you have the wherewithal to do that, which not everybody will, even if you can get through on the phone, it does not mean that you will be allowed to go in and see them. Imagine somebody going up to the ward and saying: “I have been told that I have to come here to speak to you to get an exemption because my husband is vulnerable, here is my lateral flow test.” That can happen now. Somebody could go up to the ward and do that tomorrow and create a scene on the ward even though all they are trying to achieve is their right to be able to be given an exemption by the ward staff. This whole situation needs to be cleared up as soon as possible and my concern is that what we are being asked for here is that the Government need to get their story straight because they do not really know why these visitor restrictions are being put in place. To address the comments to Deputy Martin specifically, is that I was as surprised as she was when I spoke to the Minister for Health and Social Services and he said: “Oh no, the reason we have put these restrictions in place is because we have now got COVID on the wards and we do not want visitors to catch COVID.” That was not what he said previously. We were led to believe that the reason for the restrictions being put in place is because visitors were not presenting tests and that they were spreading COVID on to the wards. But in fact now the arguments seem to have changed. If the Ministers really need time to get their story straight and provide the facts to us, that is fine, but these facts should have been presented on 12th January, at a time when this decision was made, and there should have been a written reasoning as to why this was a justified and proportionate decision, which already existed, which could then simply be presented to us as States Members now to have an informed debate tomorrow. I am quite prepared on my side to give a reasoned and informed debate tomorrow morning but I understand that if the Minister is not able to do that I respect his point of view. Without wanting to labour the point, I do maintain the proposition and I do that because I think it is important to get this resolved as soon as possible. But I do caveat that I have always said throughout this process on the Thursday, Friday, when I was in conversation with the Minister for Health and Social Services and other Members, that the department can come up with a workable system that enhances the position that they are in and allows visits to resume safely, that they should do that. I would also encourage the Minister for Health and Social Services’ colleagues to provide him with the resources that he needs to do that securely and effectively, if there is any way to avoid this debate from happening. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff:

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

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

May I ask what is the proposition now please?

The Bailiff:

The proposition is, in effect, to take Deputy Tadier’s proposition as the first item of business tomorrow morning unless, which looks increasingly unlikely, we had started the Ann Alice Rayner debate, in which case we would wait for the conclusion of that debate. But it now looks as if timing makes the starting of the Ann Alice Rayner debate possibly unlikely, but it will be the first new item of business in any event. Hopefully that is clear. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes. I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The proposition has been defeated.

POUR: 12	CONTRE: 32	ABSTAIN: 0
Senator L.J. Farnham	Senator I.J. Gorst
Senator T.A. Vallois	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator K.L. Moore	Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré
Senator S.Y. Mézec	Senator S.W. Pallett
Connétable of St. Mary	Connétable of St. Helier
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Connétable of St. Brelade
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Connétable of Grouville
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (S)	Connétable of St. Ouen
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat (H)	Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy R.J. Ward (H)	Connétable of St. John
Deputy C.S. Alves (H)	Connétable of St. Clement
	Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
	Deputy of Grouville
	Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
	Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
	Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
	Deputy of St. Martin
	Deputy of St. Ouen
	Deputy R. Labey (H)
	Deputy S.M. Wickenden (H)
	Deputy of St. Mary
	Deputy G.J. Truscott (B)
	Deputy J.H. Young (B)
	Deputy L.B.E. Ash (C)
	Deputy K.F. Morel (L)
	Deputy G.C.U. Guida (L)
	Deputy of St. Peter
	Deputy of St. John
	Deputy S.M. Ahier (H)
	Deputy J.H. Perchard (S)
	Deputy I. Gardiner (H)

Deputy Tadier asks for the pour votes to be read.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting pour: Deputy Ward, Deputy Doublet, Senator Mézec, Senator Moore, Deputy Alves, Senator Vallois, Deputy Le Hegarat, Senator Farnham, Deputy Tadier, Deputy Southern, the Connétable of St. Mary and Deputy Higgins.

The Bailiff:

Consequently the debate on Deputy Tadier’s proposition will take place at the end of Public Business where it is currently fixed. It is now 5.22 p.m. and we have not yet started the process of dealing with the Ann Alice Rayner Fund. If we were to do so then the Minister would need to deliver the speech and very possibly go well after 5.30 p.m. I suppose I am inviting if any Member wishes to propose the adjournment.

Senator K.L. Moore:

May I propose the adjournment?

The Bailiff:

I am afraid I took rather a long time to get there but the adjournment is proposed and it appears to have general accord. The Assembly stands adjourned until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNMENT

[17:23]

[1] English Translation: “I have to say that I have always liked France and also that the Minister is certainly a very passionate man; generally speaking but particularly on the subject of fishing – where there is a lot of passion on all sides of the debate. And that is all I can say on the subject.”