Hansard Official Report

[9:30] The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER Tribute to former Deputy Margaret Le Geyt Members will have noted, perhaps, that former Deputy Margaret Le Geyt passed away last week.

Mrs. Le Geyt was born and raised in Oxford, and it was there that she met her husband, Brian, while she was studying at university. The couple set up home in Jersey in the 1950s and raised 2 sons. Her early career was in nursing, and she spent many years owning and running several pre-school nurseries, providing school holiday care for younger children. In 1990, she stood successfully for election, the first time as Deputy for St. Saviour District 2, and she was subsequently re-elected in 1993 and in 1996, before losing her seat in November 1999. But during her time in the Assembly, she was active in supporting low income and disadvantaged families, rallying against the lack of support for tenants facing eviction. She served on the Tourism, Sport, Leisure and Recreation, Agricultural and Fisheries, Social Security and Housing Committees. Outside of the States, Mrs. Le Geyt was a supporter and keen participant in the Jersey branch of the Royal Air Force Association.

She died peacefully on Saturday, 20th April, aged 87, following a long battle with Parkinson’s disease. We send our sincerest condolences to her family at this time, and I ask Members to rise for a minute’s silence. [Silence] May she rest in peace.

Can I raise the défaut on Deputy Tadier?

Sir, I have a medical appointment at 11 o’clock. I wondered if the Assembly might allow me to take my Oral Question 12 at the start of question time.

I am grateful.

QUESTIONS

Question “Further to the recently-lodged Common Strategic Policy 2024-2026, and the priority to “extend nursery and childcare provision”, will the Chief Minister advise – regarding the universal offer of nursery care to all children aged 2 to 3 years –(a) the proposed timeline for implementation;(i) how many hours per child will be offered;(ii) the cost of providing this offer;(iii) whether funding proposals will be included in the Government Plan 2025-2028;(iv) regarding the extension of nursery care to children aged 2 to 3 years old with additional(b) needs – what additional needs are being considered and whether this includes financial(i) need; the number of children currently accessing nursery care in each of the last 3(ii) years and the expected number following the extension; the total funding allocated to this extension; and(iii) in relation to the pilot scheme to access unused spaces in primary school nurseries –(c) which schools are included in the pilot scheme;(i) whether changes have been made to the pilot which was under development(ii) in 2023 and if so, details of the changes; and whether this scheme has commenced, and if not, why not?”(iii) Answer regarding the universal offer of nursery care to all children aged 2 to 3 years –(a) the proposed timeline for implementation;(i) The timeline for a universal offer for all children aged 2-3 years is currently being planned and implementation will be phased. Further work is needed to develop a full understanding of the current capacity within the childcare and early years sector and the providers’ ability to meet the increased demand. It is important to ensure the offer will be of a high standard and is deliverable.

how many hours per child will be offered;(ii) From an educational perspective, the optimum number of hours is a part-time offer, between 12 and 20 hours to secure positive outcomes and the desired impact on children’s cognitive, social and linguistic development. This is based on research and both national and local evidence, including the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project and the Study of Early Education and Development (SEED). The provision needs to be sustainable and to represent value for money as well as meeting children’s developmental needs.

the cost of providing this offer;(iii) Costs are yet to be determined in detail. Many variables will influence the cost of a universal provision and one of the benefits of a phased approach is that it will help provide greater certainty over potential costs over a period of time. Variables include the proportion of parents that take up the offer, the number of hours and weeks provided, the cost of provision and whether increments should be added to reflect additional needs.

whether funding proposals will be included in the Government Plan 2025-2028;(iv) Yes, this will be factored into funding proposals for the Government Plan 2025 – 2028 and is one of the 12 priorities that this Government and Council of Ministers want to initiate as soon as possible.

regarding the extension of nursery care to children aged 2 to 3 years old with additional(b) needs – what additional needs are being considered and whether this includes financial(i) need; The term ‘additional needs’ does not specifically relate to special educational needs, for instance, but can be applied to all aspects of potential vulnerability or perceived potential disadvantage. This will include financial needs. Consideration is already given to families with a range of additional needs through the Best Start Nursery Plus scheme and the Government to expand an already successful initiative in supporting 2–3-year-olds which considers the child’s learning needs, the wider financial needs or circumstances of the family and any health or developmental needs.

the number of children currently accessing nursery care in each of the last 3(ii) years and the expected number following the extension; An independent childcare provider survey carried out in December 2023-January 2024 showed that 620 places are currently taken up by 2–3-year-olds across all types of childcare providers. This includes nurseries, childminders and nannies. The current number of registered places available in nurseries for this age group is 353 and there is the potential to work with other providers, including childminders to offer more places if required. To meet additional need, work is under way to look at further opportunities to recruit, retain and build capacity. Continued engagement with stakeholders, including parents, will be a key ongoing activity to understand childcare needs in more detail so that provision can be accurately planned.

the total funding allocated to this extension; and(iii) The funding allocation is yet to be determined and will be considered as part of the Government Plan process.

in relation to the pilot scheme to access unused spaces in primary school nurseries –(c) which schools are included in the pilot scheme;(i) A number of schools have shown interest in taking part in a pilot initiative to consider how best their nursery provision can respond to and meet the needs of children and families in their community.

Planning is under way with a number of those schools to implement pilot initiatives from September 2024.

whether changes have been made to the pilot which was under(ii) development in 2023 and if so, details of the changes; and There have been no changes to the pilot.

whether this scheme has commenced, and if not, why not?”(iii) Scoping for this scheme is in the final stages and was awaiting key data, such as the numbers of children to be admitted to each early years class in September 2024. This information has not been available at an earlier stage bust is now being considered to take the scheme forward.

Question “Will the Minister state the estimated total cost of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme (NHFP), and if not, why not?” Answer The estimated total cost of phase 1 of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme is £710m, as outlined in the Government Plan 2024-28. This will deliver the inpatient and emergency hospital at Overdale (also known as acute) and enable progress on and design and delivery work to progress on the Kensington Place and St Saviour’s Health Village sites.

The programme has been split into phases, which will be more affordable at any one time for taxpayers than a single high value contract. This approach reduces exposure to economic uncertainty, including changes to the commercial approach by a single delivery partner.

Therefore, it is not possible to disclose a full cost figure of Programme spend beyond its first phase, as design work for future phases has not yet been completed.

Question “Further to the UK Government’s plan to introduce a new tax on vapes, will the Minister advise whether she intends to introduce such a tax in Jersey on all or any vaping products?

Answer The 2024-2027 Government Plan committed to undertaking a study into how taxation could influence consumption of nicotine through vaping. This review is underway and will include consideration of a tax on vapes. Such a tax would not be introduced before 2026 at the earliest.

As the Deputy will know, the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure are currently consulting on a proposal to ban disposal vapes. Any recommendation ultimately made with respect to taxing vapes will take account of this work. The health advice has remained consistent: “if you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.

The Government should therefore ensure that vaping remains accessible for those looking for an effective way to reduce their tobacco consumption.

Question “Will the Minister provide the monthly figures for the number of private aircraft movements through the airport (not including the Jersey Aero Club) over the last three years?” Answer 2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GAMA 186 161 221 319 567 678 592 592 703 652 593 529 5,793 Self-handled 130 52 64 100 89 123 101 101 163 73 123 82 1,201 2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GAMA 421 442 515 555 644 702 667 589 659 657 444 462 6,757 Self-handled 77 53 103 99 117 157 134 136 159 131 87 92 1,345 2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total GAMA 364 367 450 489 521 636 619 505 601 519 419 395 5,885 Self-handled 64 96 107 87 112 128 118 126 102 83 49 59 1,131 Total YTD2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec GAMA 360 339 461 1,160 Self-handled 64 56 69 189 Notes Monthly figures represent the total sectors, i.e. each arrival and each departure1.

GAMA figures represent those local and visiting private aircraft handled by GAMA2.

Self-handled figures are those private aircraft that are not handled by GAMA or the Aero3.

Club Aero Club figures and therefore the majority of local and visiting aircraft under three4.

tonnes are excluded As part of Government’s Policy Framework for the Ports Sector, Ports of Jersey are exploring how its tariff structures will be used to support the transition to cleaner technologies for both aviation and ferry services.

Question “Further to information provided by the Minister to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel regarding the decision not to extend the UK’s Online Safety Act to Jersey, will the Minister state who made this decision?” Answer The Minister for Sustainable Economic Development made the decision in September 2022 not to pursue a Permissive Extent Clause in the Online Safety Act. This followed a review of the UK legislation and corresponding Jersey law which indicated that Jersey could legislate locally for the same purposes (if desired). Officers in Economy and Justice and Home Affairs are scoping legislation to protect against digital harms, alongside incorporating recommendations from the Violence Against Women and Girls Task Force.

Question “Further to the recently-lodged Common Strategic Policy 2024-2026, and the priority to “Reduce red tape, enhance opportunities for business and strengthen Jersey’s international reputation”, will the Chief Minister advise what consideration, if any, is being given to ensuring the rights of seasonal workers are protected and to reviewing the recruitment process Jersey businesses need to follow when employing seasonal workers?” Answer The employment rights of seasonal workers are protected in the same way as all other workers in Jersey. This applies to seasonal workers who require immigration permission as well as those who do not require an immigration visa to work in Jersey, such as British and Irish citizens.

The current work permit policy provides certain protections from exploitation, by ensuring that: Employees receive equal pay for equal work• Employers adopt robust and ethical recruitment practices to ensure only• appropriately skilled employees are recruited with the relevant qualification and experience to undertake the role for which they are being employed Employers give due consideration to the welfare of their employees inside and outside• of work and that they are accommodated to a standard that supports their health and well-being All employers who apply for work permits must evidence their recruitment processes• when required to do so and provide the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service with signed copies of contracts.

These protections are aimed at preventing behaviours that are recognised as contributing to modern-day slavery and exploitation.

In addition, the Work Permit Holder Welfare Review Panel’s review (S.R.2/2023) made a number of recommendations to strengthen current arrangements to enhance the welfare of work permit holders. While the review identified that the majority of work permit holders have a positive experience of their time in Jersey, it is recognised that this is not the case for all individuals.

Therefore, the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs is working with other Ministers to consider options for implementing the Panel’s recommendations, including the introduction of specific legislation to enhance the protections already provided. The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs has committed to prioritising this work and to ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between the needs of businesses and the rights and welfare of those employed on work permits.

Question “Will the Chair confirm the current number of employees employed in each Government department, the number of vacancies in each department, and advise what plans, if any, there are to freeze public sector recruitment?” Answer Headcount and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) figures by Department are shown below. These are figures as at 31 March 2024. There is no intention to freeze public sector recruitment because of the need to fill vacancies in essential front-line services. Vacancies in other roles are being monitored and managed.

Live Vacancie Department Headcoun FTE s* t Cabinet Office Total 646 621 3 CABO: Chief Operating Office 379 371 2 CABO: Office of the Chief 75 73 1 Executive CABO: Strategic Policy, 192 177 0 Planning and Performance Children, Young People, 2789 2339 67 Education &Skills Customer and Local Services 294 275 1 Department for the Economy 77 75 4 Department of External Relations 12 12 1 Health and Community Services 2556 2405 138 Infrastructure and Environment 699 676 8 Justice and Home Affairs 803 784 2 Non-executives and Legislature 289 267 5 Treasury and Exchequer 357 350 2 Total by Department 8522 7804 231 Total (variance of 21 is due to employees 8501 having roles across multiple departments) *Live Vacancies are position which are currently being advertised and are therefore vacant posts.

regarding the number of call outs to the States of Jersey Ambulance Service (WQ.147/2024) Question “Will the Minister confirm the total number of call outs to the States of Jersey Ambulance Service over the last 5-year period and, of these, how many were hoax calls?” Answer In the last full 5-year period (2019-2023), the States of Jersey Ambulance Service (SoJAS) attended 53,578 calls. Within this period, 53 hoax calls were received, of which 12 were attended by at least one Ambulance crew (Table 1).

In Q1 of 2024, the States of Jersey Ambulance Service attended 2,869 calls. Within this period, there were 7 hoax calls received, of which 1 was attended by at least one Ambulance crew.

It is to be acknowledged that the number of hoax calls may be higher as there may be calls which could not be identified as ‘hoax’ by Controllers. It is also important to clarify that calls that are made in good faith, but do not require an emergency response are not recorded as hoax calls.

Year Emergency Hoax Calls Hoax Calls Calls Received Attended Attended 2019 9,845 3 1 2020 9,880 9 5 2021 11,081 11 1 2022 11,667 13 4 2023 11,105 17 1 Q1 2024 2,869 7 1 Table 1: Emergency calls attended and hoax calls 2019-01-01 to 2024-03-31. Source: C3 Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD).

To provide context, most NHS Ambulance Services do not frequently publish the number of hoax calls received. The South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWAST) has published an FOI with hoax call data for 2018 (and partial 2019). SWAST reported having received 861 hoax calls in 2018, from a total of 820,860 incidents with a face-to-face response (taken from A56 in AbmSYS Time Series published by NHS), giving a hoax call rate of 0.1%.

The number of incidents with a face-to-face response is the closest comparison to calls attended for SoJAS. Between 2019 and 2023, SoJAS received 53 hoax calls, from a total of 53,578 calls attended, giving a hoax call rate of 0.1%. This is not a comprehensive comparison but infers the hoax call rate received by SoJAS is not too dissimilar to SWAST.

Sources States of Jersey Ambulance Service Data taken from C3 Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD). Hoax calls are identified where controllers have closed the call with a Call Stopped Reason of “Hoax Call” or “Cancelled - HOAX Identified before mobilisation”.

Frequently asked FOI questions | SWAST Website Statistics » Ambulance Quality Indicators (england.nhs.uk)

Question “Will the Minister advise whether consideration is being given to ending the Social Security Standards Earnings Limit (SEL), and if not, why not?” Answer As Minister, I have no plans to remove the SEL from the contributory system. Making such a consideration would require a full analysis to identify the benefits and risks, and I do not have the staff or financial resources available to undertake this work, as it has not been identified as a priority.

Question “Will the Minister advise how many children classed as resident of Jersey, are being educated off Island, broken down by children under 11 years of age, 11 to 13 years of age, and above 13 years of age?” Answer CYPES do not hold this information, as we do not maintain “destinations” data for children who have left on-island education, with the exception of a small number of children in care who reside off-island. There are fourteen children in total, and their education is monitored closely by the Virtual School.

We collect pupil census information every term, which includes details of all children educated on island, and consequently we would be aware of children leaving the local education system, but we are unable to determine for all children if they have left the island altogether, or are attending boarding school, or if they leave to attend boarding school but their residency subsequently changes.

(WQ.150/2024) Question “Will the Chief Minister advise if the Council of Ministers intend to deliver the actions set out in the Ministerial Plans document published in September 2023, and if not, will Ministers be publishing new Ministerial Plans for 2024, and if not, why not?” Answer The Council of Ministers is focussing on the 12 actions set out in the Common Strategic Policy (CSP) for the next two years in order to achieve meaningful and measurable progress in key areas.

Ministers will also deliver the essential business-as-usual services in their Departments, drive forward improvements, and respond to the concerns of Islanders.

In doing this, Ministers will consider the plans published by the last Government, and then decide their own priorities for inclusion in Departmental Business Plans. These documents, to be published in the summer, will combine key Ministerial and departmental objectives.

Question “Regarding Proposal 29 within the Bridging Island Plan (March 2022), will the Minister advise what progress has been made, if any, in developing a play strategy for the Island?” Answer Early in 2023, there was an agreement initially between CYPES Ministerial team and Economy and Sport that the development of a Play Strategy for Jersey would be a positive step in recognising and prioritising children’s play across the Island. Two officers representing Sport/Economy and CYPES, both with relevant knowledge, interest and passion who tasked with initiating this work. A Strategy Group with members from a range of Gov.je departments, including Planning, Economy, IHE, CYPES was convened to progress this.

In May 2023 officers met with the Youth Parliament and research and work was undertaken to discover the scope of developing Jersey’s Play Strategy. It was agreed that the writing of an all-encompassing policy for play would be a huge undertaking. It was evident that play has been high on the agenda in many other jurisdictions and that Big Lottery funding had been provided to local councils in the UK as part of their Play Strategy.

To progress, it was agreed that a Play Policy should come first, to take the development of a Strategy to the next level, which officers felt would be a full-time role for somebody with specialist knowledge. A draft Play Policy received Ministerial approval and I am aware that CYPES offered support to progress this further. Unfortunately, due to the changes in COM and the need to prioritise, this has not been progressed but that is not because I am uncommitted. It remains an important area of development that I am keen to support in my role as Minister for the Environment as I am fully aware of the impact that outdoor play opportunities have on the physical, emotional, and social wellbeing of children of all ages.

Question “Will the Minister provide a breakdown by Parish of the funding allocated to the provision of play facilities?” Answer The budget for running and inspecting the department’s play facilities forms part of the base revenue budget and repairs and minor replacements “like for like” are undertaken where necessary. It is not possible to break this down by parish. In the most recent Government Plan there is also a capital budget set aside for improvements to play facilities over 2024- 2027.

The department is currently working on the programme of reviewing and replacing equipment for the coming 4 years, with early works including replacement of some of the “older children’s” play equipment and play surfacing in Coronation Park; consultation, design and planning approval for replacement of Longbeach and Millennium Town Park play equipment; and further planning approvals design and development for other areas under the remit of Parks and Gardens. This will then form the basis of upgrade and replacement works over the period 2025-2027 as funding becomes available through the Government Plan period.

Project estimates for 2024/5 include: Operations &Transport (Parks &Gardens) St Lawrence Coronation Park play equipment/surfacing £100k Grouville Long beach play area £158k St Helier Millennium Town Park play area £230k Operations &Transport (Sport) St Helier Springfield Playground £170k St Brelade Les Quennevais Playground £130k (including costs incurred in 2023 for equipment procurement, installation in 2024) Property Multiple sites Any projects to replace or upgrade play facilities will be led by the operational areas (eg schools).

Question “Further to publication of the Royal College of Physicians - Jersey Rheumatology Report, will the Minister advise if any criminal investigation is underway, and the likely duration of any investigation, and if not, why not?” Answer No criminal investigation is underway at this stage. The States of Jersey Police routinely considers any referral which may be made to them, including whether any requisite legal thresholds/tests have been met.

regarding the Cost of Living Strategy agenda and minutes (WQ.154/2024) Question “Further to Written Question 303/2023, and the Council of Ministers commitment to increasing transparency, will the Chief Minister consider publishing the Cost of Living Strategy agenda and minutes and if not, why not?” Answer The position outlined in Written Question 303/2023 remains applicable under the new Government.

As outlined in 2023, the minutes are kept for internal record keeping and to record actions and are not published. This is to provide a confidential space in which to explore ideas and develop policy. Ministers are then accountable in the Assembly for their actions. Minutes of the group are not published in order to maintain a confidential safe space that provides for frank, candid and open discussions between Ministers, including considering sensitive matters around economic policy and the development of fiscal policy. Ministers and officers must be at liberty to express their views, without being unduly influenced by the publication of minutes, and introducing an observed element to the decision-making process could have an impact on the content and nature of discussions. This is the same treatment applied to Part B Council of Minister’s minutes.

Question “Further to Written Question 33/2022, will the Chief Minister explain what progress, if any, has been made on establishing a public digital register of all commercial and residential properties in Jersey, and the estimated date for delivering the register?” Answer An independent report was published in May 2023 by the previous Government, which concluded that the creation of the register would encounter significant practical difficulties, especially in relation to changes in ownership of company and trust owned properties, and be of limited value to the public.

In addition, the cost of a register was estimated to be £500,000, excluding on-going maintenance to keep the register up to date. In view of the current pressures on public finance, the Council of Ministers has not identified this project as a key priority in the current, shortened term of office.

I will be discussing with the Housing Minister how to progress, given the register was a States decision.

Question “Will the Minister confirm the number of pupils in each primary and secondary school in Jersey with English as an additional language, who have Romanian as a first language, broken down by year group?” Answer If a pupil experiences more than one language (which may include English) during early development, then they are deemed to be a Multi-lingual learner (MLL) and the language/languages other than English are recorded as their Home Language (introduced in Jersey in 2022) or First Language.

The data in this report includes all pupils in Primary, Secondary, Private and• Special schools in Jersey as of the Spring census 2023/2024 (19/01/2024).

The schools that haven't been listed do not have any pupils with Romanian as• an additional language.

Inconsistencies can be observed in MLL data submission for Private schools as it is• not mandatory for Private schools to submit MLL data.

The data has been provided as follows: Total pupils with Romanian as a Home Language by School• Total pupils with Romanian as a Home Language by Year Group• Total pupils with Romanian as a Home Language or First Language by School• Total pupils with Romanian as a Home Language or First Language by Year Group• The “Romanian as a Home Language” group includes all pupils that have Romanian in the Home Language field. The “Romanian as a Home Language or a First language” group includes all pupils that have Romanian in either the Home Language or in the First language fields.

Both categories could include pupils that have another additional language (which may not be English). In total, there are 217 children with Romanian as their home or first language.

Disclosure control Unfortunately, we are not able to provide the data by school and year group due to low numbers. We have applied disclosure controls to avoid publishing any numbers fewer than 5 which could identify individuals.

Question “In relation to Jersey’s new healthcare facilities, will the Chief Minister advise – his assessment of the preferred model;(a) any proposed changes to the planned multi-site option;(b) the basis for any proposed changes; and(c) the estimated total cost of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme (NHFP)?”(d) Answer The previous Government decided not to proceed with the single-site hospital ata) Overdale and changed the project to a multi-site option with a smaller acute hospital at Overdale and outpatient facilities at other locations. Given the urgent need to deliver this facility and avoid further delay or unnecessary expense, it is my assessment that the Council of Ministers must proceed with the current proposal.

Detailed assessments of this model were communicated in: R.154/2022 - A Review of the Our Hospital Project R.111/2023 - New Healthcare Facilities Summary Strategic Outline Case R.112/2023 – New Healthcare Facilities Programme Feasibility Study.

There have been no changes of note to the planned multi-site option since RIBA2b) Concept Designs were shared with States Members in March 2024.

Please see (b) above.c) The estimated total cost of Phase 1 of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme isd) £710 million, as outlined in the Government Plan 2024-27. This will deliver the Acute Hospital at Overdale (inpatient and emergency services) and enable progress on design and delivery of the Kensington Place and St Saviour’s Health Village sites.

Detailed briefing and design work for future phases of the healthcare facilities has not yet been completed so it is not possible to provide total costings at this stage.

The programme has been divided into phases, with the intention that this will be more affordable than a single high-value contract. This approach reduces exposure to economic uncertainty and the risks of utilising a single delivery partner.

Question “Following the announcement that 6.08% of the Island’s working age population was being prescribed cannabis-based products for medicinal use, will the Chief Minister advise what consideration, if any, is being given to compulsory drug testing of certain professions (such as doctors, teachers, police officers, ambulance drivers and heavy goods drivers), and if not, why not?” Answer Compulsory and voluntary drug testing, depending on a person’s role and their capability, is being considered as part of a broader update of the Substance Misuse Policy which applies to all public servants. The specifics of the policy and its application in different sectors with respect to medicinal cannabis in particular is being developed with input from unions, staff groups and Occupational Health.

Question “Will the Chief Minister advise what plans, if any, he has to control spending across Government?” Answer As outlined in the Common Strategic Policy (“CSP”) the Council of Ministers is planning to reprioritise existing budgets where appropriate to deliver the objectives. It is also the intention to curb further growth in the public sector and rely less on external consultants.

The Council of Ministers is now commencing the 2025 budget process, aiming to lodge before the summer recess. That will include more information on the plans to ensure that public finances are sustainable.

Question “Will the Minister advise if children from Jersey who are placed in care in the UK, are able to benefit from the same assistance upon leaving care that Jersey-based care leavers receive, and if not, why not?” Answer Provided the young person meets the criteria as a care leaver (as defined below), Jersey, care experienced young people that are placed in the UK will receive the full leaving care offer if they return to Jersey. Where they choose not to, we endeavour to give them equivalent, but this varies from county to country and UK local authorities.

The offer available to Jersey care experienced young people will vary depending on the local authority they are residing in and their own personal experiences as well.

The definition of a young person is.

“Young person” means – subject to paragraph (2), an individual aged 16 up to (but not including)(a) the age of 25 who has been looked after by the Minister for a minimum period of 13 weeks, whether in aggregate or consecutively, from the age of 14 up to (but not including) the age of 18; or an individual who is of such description as the Minister may by Order(b) specify, and who at any time before the age of 18 was looked after by the Minister but ceased to be so looked after before that age.

A young person’s eligibility for the care leaver’s offer can be determined through checking the Young Person’s personal record on Mosaic (Mosaic is an electronic data base that holds information/records of anyone that has been involved in Children’s Social Care (“CSC”) and reviewing the period that they have spent in care and at what age.

Further to the adoption of paragraph (a) of P.87/2023, will the Minister advise what progress, if any, is being made in increasing the minimum residential space standards for one-bedroom apartments?

The approval of part (a) of P.87/2023 requires me, as Minister for the Environment, to review the residential space standards and consider making the minimum standard of a one-bedroom, 2-person apartment; the minimum standard for all one-bedroom apartments. I am well aware of the need to do this work, and I have been provided with an initial briefing by officers. Site visits are currently being arranged so that I can see and understand the realities of different residential standards in new developments. I believe these visits to be essential before I can make an informed decision about how best to move forward and, once I have done this, I commit to providing an update to the Assembly.

Does the Minister accept that the will of the Assembly was to see them become standard to suit 2 residents rather than just a single occupancy?

I believe that to be the case but, as I said before, I think it is important to take a practical view of these things. I really welcome the opportunity to look at the differences in these 2 types of units. I did abstain on the original proposition as a vice-chairman of the Planning Committee, and I am not going to express a view one way or the other here now. But I will say to the Deputy that I am absolutely aware of the need for proper space in any units - and usable space at that - as tight corners do not always ... they may add up to square footage, but they do not ever always come to a usable space.

Is the Minister of the view that increasing minimum size standards will have an impact on prices of one-bedroom units?

Absolutely. Any increase in minimum standards will allow for less units to be built on a specific site, regardless of how small the increase might be. So we do have to take that into account. But I do think it is absolutely right that the population of Jersey should be entitled to the right amount of space in a unit, and we need to realise that minimum standards will be the size that developers will build to. It is very nice to say: “Here are the minimum standards, but of course they will do a little bit more than minimum.” In reality, that will not happen. So we need to be very conscious of the fact that where we set the minimum standards will be what is built out.

[9:45] As I said previously, I think it is important to make sure that those minimum sizes take out tight corners that are completely unusable. That is why I say it is important to look at the variations.

Does the Minister respect the consultation that was completed by the previous Minister for the Environment, and does he indeed respect the findings of that consultation as well?

Absolutely. I am sure if I issued the same consultation I would probably get the same result. So why would I not take notice of it? I will take everything into account if I decide further down the line that changes need to be made.

Will the Minister indicate what kind of timeline this work will come to fruition, and is it on his priorities pile?

It was not on my priority list, but I do not see this as a big piece of work. I just need officers to arrange visits to 2 suitable units, ideally next door to each other, so that the comparison is easily made. I can then go away, look at the paperwork that I need to compare the previous consultation, and come to a conclusion.

Just to confirm with the Minister that he believes that before the end of this year, we will be seeing the standards coming to us?

Absolutely. I am very happy to commit to before the end of this year.

Is it the intention of the Minister to bring any proposition to the Assembly in relation to this matter, or will he simply be producing guidance?

I am happy to tell the Deputy that I will come back to the Assembly with it. Whether that is a statement to say this is what I intend to do or whether it is a proposition, which asks for the Assembly’s agreement, I am not sure at this stage.

Would the Minister consider, given the need to achieve some kind of consensus in the Assembly on this, arranging visits to suitable apartments for States Members in order to perhaps help Members understand some of the issues involved?

Certainly. I think if the work that I am going to do in the next few months ends up with a proposition to the Assembly, it would be only right that States Members could themselves go and view the 2 differences to reach their own personal conclusion.

In response to Deputy Andrews’ supplementary, the Minister said we should expect ... “We would wish to see developments exceed the minimum, but it is only likely to expect we will see them only meet it.” Does the Minister not agree it is well within the department’s gift to assess sites on a case- by-case basis, and refuse applications that fail to deliver the correct housing stock for that given site?

The demand for units, whether that is one-bed, 2-bed, 3-bed changes week by week, month by month, and certain developers are certainly very good at changing developments mid-flow and coming up with the sort of units which are in demand at the time, and may not be the units they had the original permission for. I go back to my original answer to the Deputy about minimum sizes. Whatever minimum sizes we set is what we will get. I think we need to bear that in mind. But certainly, when it comes to the different sizes of units, whether that is one-bed, 2-bed, 3-bed, the situation changes all the time. But I think it is right that we target the ones in most demand.

The Minister indicates that he is likely to be fairly fluid on these standards. I remind him that these are standards set by the States and should be enforced and not at the whim of developers.

No. Too early in the morning for me.

Will the Minister advise what steps, if any, are being taken to determine how the living wage rate will be set and indicate what the timetable for this will be?

As the Assembly will know, reaching the living wage is indeed a priority for me, and I was pleased when the Council of Ministers agreed in its C.S.P. (Common Strategic Policy) commitment to bring the minimum wage to two-thirds of the median wage by this term of office, and I hope that the Assembly will support us in that when it comes to the C.S.P. debate. Statistics Jersey provide annual information on wage levels which will be used to set the two-thirds rate, and my current plan is to introduce an intermediate rate in 2025, with the full two-thirds rate achieved in January 2026. I have been working closely with the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development to work on what a suitable intermediate rate will be, and I will be shortly bringing regulations to the Assembly, asking the Assembly to enable me to set the rate without going to consultation with the Employment Forum.

I have met with the chair of the Employment Forum, and I am comforted that this will not be detrimental to setting an appropriate rate. The 2025 rate that I will agree with the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development will be introduced in the coming weeks. Also during 2025, I will be working with the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development to develop a set of minimum income standards for Jersey households. This will provide valuable local information which can be used to inform future living wage rates.

Will the Minister include the value of subsidised food and accommodation or benefits in kind into the calculation?

I have met with key stakeholders, including employee stakeholders and employer stakeholders, and the subject of offsets for accommodation and food has come up. I have committed to stakeholders that I will look at offsets, but that would be on the basis of quality. So any increase in offsets would also, I would hope, lead to an increase in quality of accommodation standards where required. Of course, when we do the work on the minimum income standards, all of those things will be considered.

Will the Minister outline for Members the means by which she intends to set minimum income standards. Will she accept that the setting of minimum income standards, because of the variability, for example, of rents, is a very, very difficult task? Is her target date actually doable?

I do accept that this is a difficult task. It will require detailed information, but I also believe that it is the only way that we can come to an agreed level of what is a decent minimum income standard for the Island. It will also be then available for us to inform potential changes to income support rates and also pensions. We cannot know that those rates are appropriate unless we know how much it costs to live on the Island, and a minimum income standard would enable us to do that.

The first has not been answered, I am afraid. What was the mechanism by which we are going to set minimum income standards?

The Minister for Sustainable Economic Development and myself, along with the Cost-of-Living Ministerial Group, will take Ministerial responsibility for that and we will be working with officers.

But that methodology has yet to be determined.

In interviews on this subject, it was suggested that support would be available to businesses who were unable to meet the new living wage. Could the Minister explain how this will be achieved and how it will be funded?

We are currently working through my department and the Department for Economy on support packages that could be available for both employers and employees, as we go through this transitionary process. We will be communicating those as we go through that process. We have been in consultation with employers, and one of the things that employment groups have said is very important to them is a clear direction and understanding at an earlier time of what minimum wage rates will be. So one of the key things that they have asked for us to do is to determine the rate at a much earlier part of the year than currently is done, so that they have the ability to plan for any change in rate.

So 2 per cent of the working population is being paid a minimum wage at present. What percentage of the working population would be earning less than two-thirds of the median wage?

I do not have the percentage in front of me right now, and I will let the Deputy know because we have been working on those calculations. I was indeed surprised that the calculations had not been done when I took office as Minister for Social Security, and it appears that the previous Government had been making decisions without such knowledge. So that is some data that I have requested since taking office.

Sir, in addition to circulating to the Member who asked the question could she circulate it to the rest of the States, please?

I am not having a good day.

The Minister talks about subsidies or help for businesses. Does she accept that there is a danger here of undermining the whole point of a living wage? If businesses are subsidised to achieve that, or given money and help in some way, then what is the incentive for businesses who currently pay the living wage, who will essentially be told: “Look, we have made the effort to pay the living wage and now our competitors are being given help to achieve the living wage”? It surely undermines the intent of the whole drive to a living wage, which is to encourage businesses to pay the living wage and build their businesses around that model.

We are in a transitionary process, and the change between the current minimum wage and the living wage is a significant one. I have taken advice from our Economics Unit to look at the risks. Part of the process of offering support to businesses is around mitigating those risks. I have to say this is a priority for this Government, but it was not a priority for the Government before. Therefore I have found myself in a situation where a lot of the groundwork to get us into this transitionary process has not been done. That is what I am doing now, and business support is required in order for us to mitigate those risks.

I am not sure that answered the question. Could I phrase it a different way? What message would she give to those companies who have paid the living wage to meet the standards that the Island expects and are now going to see their competitors potentially helped to do the same thing with government money.

It is always important that any subsidies or other processes to help businesses, or anybody that is receiving funding or any other support from Government, is undertaken in a fair process. So when we look at the processes for delivering that support, we will ensure that it is fair to all businesses that may well be impacted by the raise in the minimum wage.

Therefore, will the Minister confirm whether she is discarding the findings of the living wage and minimum wage investigatory report R.181 published in December 2023. If that is the case, if she is planning on releasing a new report to support the development of her proposals and if so, when?

The report that was issued last year that the Deputy referred to suggested that it was not feasible or desirable to move to a living wage. That is not a comment that I agree with on the basis that I now understand, that I have come into Ministerial office, that Ministers did not have basic information such as how many people were affected.

[10:00] I think that that evidence was somewhat lacking, and I will be moving forward with the commitment that has been made by the Council of Ministers and also the States Assembly in its decision to move to two-thirds of the median wage.

Sorry, Sir, the Minister was unable to answer my question about if she is going to be publishing a report to be able to back up her point.

Yes, I am disregarding the first one. I will not be redoing the work that had been done because my focus now is on reaching the State Assembly’s commitment of two-thirds of the median wage.

Could I lift the défaut on Deputy Alves?

Will the Minister advise whether he plans to progress the community schools’ pilot that was planned for 2024?

I thank the Deputy for her question. The community schools scope is very wide indeed. Indeed, the pilot mentioned in the question was not defined to a clear specification. When I look at the Ministerial Delivery Plan on page 4 of P1.2 - I want to read this to give a context - it says: “We will identify pilot schools in different contexts (primary, secondary, rural, urban) to understand how the community schools’ model can be developed to deliver ambitions of the Council of Ministers. We will work with partners across Government and the third sector to develop partnerships across health, care and community service, for the benefit of children and young people and their families. These partnerships will be modelled across different schools and begin to be delivered.” The pilot appears to be more about identifying what is part of a future project. I want to move away from this type of generic plan and move to actions. What we are doing regarding nurseries and some of the areas already in the action is more about doing exactly this. There is an element of community provision across all of our schools, and I would say that all of our schools are community schools, summer schools, after school clubs, wraparound nursery provision services embedded in the community like language therapy and mental health services. They are led by schools because our schools know their population and they understand their need. Indeed, I was at Samarès School the other day to watch their school elections, which I must say were absolutely fantastic. I want to give credit to all the children involved. It was interesting that they are providing community services such as language therapy nearby, so that parents do not have to go out to Les Quennevais. So these things are happening and they should be led by schools, and that should be what I am reacting to, to support it.

In short, yes, I do support the scope of community schools and the project. We need to get on with taking some actions rather than just planning.

Could the Deputy commit to some actions that would enable the extension of the school day in identified schools, where there will be a benefit, and the provision of extended activities for the pupils of those schools?

One of the ways in which we will extend is in our nursery provision, which is the first part of the C.S.P. We have already taken action on that by, for example, settling N.E.F. (Nursery Education Fund) payments for the next 4 years, which means that our negotiations are not spent on those, but are spent on developing that provision across our schools, using the facilities we have there, extending them across all of our providers to extend the school day for parents who need nursery provision. In terms of extending the school day for provision of other services in schools, that is already happening in so many schools. We see it all of the time. What we do have to do though, is build the confidence of our teaching staff after a really difficult time. We have also done that by settling a 4-year pay deal, so we do not have those negotiations in the future. They now know the priority that they have in my eyes and the eyes of this Government and, therefore, we can move forward to develop those projects in a wider sense.

Once again, I am really pleased to hear the continued focus on nurseries. I would just like to understand if any further schools have come on board from the original plans of extending the nursery hours since the previous questions.?

The initial plans were just generic plans. In terms of actual pilots, we are looking at some areas to pilot. It is difficult for me to talk about this because they are in ... I would like to make sure they are certain before I announce them, because as I have said before in nursery provision, we do not want to make promises we cannot keep. But what we have managed to do is start a dialogue, which is a positive dialogue with nursery providers. One of the most positive we have had for a long time by removing other negotiations, which were, to be quite frank, not what we wanted to spend our time on, and we now have a positive response, for example, from the Jersey Early Years’ Association.

We are very happy to put out that response, and we can now work with them to increase those nursery provisions, both in our secondary schools where those places are available to adapt them as necessary, and to try and free up, most importantly, places for 2 year-olds across our Island where there is a desperate need.

The dialogue which was happening for several months to get headteachers on board with the community nursery extension, is that dialogue going to result in any extension of nursery hours from September this year?

The original dialogue, yes, was very positive. But from that came, and I have mentioned this before, all we had before was a plan to plan in September. I am hoping that we can have some actual pilots in place in September, and we are working on those as we speak. It will be great to see some of those in place, so that we can model what goes into the future and try and extend that as early as we possibly can. I fully understand and support the need for nursery provision, and I would like to see the extension of the N.E.F. for 2 year-olds. But as I have said before, and I will continue to say, we will do that when we have the provision in place, we will not make the mistake of the U.K. (United Kingdom). When they made their promise they cannot keep, it disappointed parents and has created havoc throughout the sector in the U.K. We will not be doing that. We have a positive dialogue with the sector and we will continue that.

Given that the Minister’s answer on the community schools has been a large part focused on nurseries, does he have plans to reinstate plans for a nursery at Les Landes School, which I believe is currently the only state school without a nursery provision?

Thank you for the question. There is not a plan to build a nursery at Les Landes School because the school nurseries we have at the moment, we have 188 spare places. It would not be sensible to create that at the moment. If we develop those nursery places in the future across our other schools and are using them, and we find that need, then of course that is what we will try to do. I do not think that is the best direction of our funds at the moment, I am afraid.

Perhaps that school may get some other priority around building a community school if it does not have a nursery to provide that at. One of the barriers to access the school nurseries, and those may explain some of those spare places there, is around the times of the day. I know that from speaking to parents. Does the Minister have any plans to address that?

I feel like I am repeating myself. First of all, the community school is wider than the nursery, so because the school does not have a nursery does not mean it will not be a community school. A generic term defined by the last Government, without a lot of substance to it, more about vibe. I do not want that type of politics. I want to get on and do something. Our schools are community schools.

When we build new schools, we will build them as community schools as well. In terms of the wraparound time, yes, that is an essential part of our nursery provision. But to do that, what we need is the co-operation of all sectors. I believe we have that co-operation. We have an extremely positive relationship with all sectors - third sector, private sector and our state schools - and we can move that forward. In the background, there is an enormous amount of work being done to try and push that as quickly as possible.

I am grateful for the Minister, that he is taking forward the community school and recognises in his last answer that enormous work was done previously. Can the Minister agree that he will be not able to progress with delivery without planning? The planning is essential. Second, has the Minister asked officers to share all practical work that has been done from 23rd July to deliver wraparound care at 3 schools from 24th September, including the numbers that were in place.

There was a lot to that; I lost the first part. My apologies, sorry.

Does the Minister agree that needs planning? Second, has the Minister seen the numbers and practical delivery that has been developed from 23rd July to be able to deliver wraparound care in 3 schools as a pilot from 24th September?

I still have not got the first bit, I apologise. The planning of course is essential, but it comes to a point where you have to stop planning and you have to start acting. That is the point. Our schools are community schools. Our schools have been doing this for years. Our schools for years have been providing sports facilities, outreach, support for children, educational psychologists, language therapy, counselling services, support for families. They continue to do that. Just because a term “community school” was suggested by the last Government, or indeed any Government, does not mean it is something new that has been happening. What we need to do is support that as best we can. Indeed, I look at the Constable of St. John, and I remember - it has come back to my memory - that we have a meeting soon - very soon, it may well be next week - about sports facilities in schools and how we can extend those. Yes, work is being done, but not just planning, but actual work is being done. In terms of the 3 schools, yes, I am aware there are plans, but my priority with the C.S.P.

was to get that number one in the C.S.P. Then we can take action on those plans, if they existed. I was not clear as to what those plans were doing, if I am absolutely honest. But I am not going to dismiss anything. Yes, I know we have really positive dialogue with the headteachers in the state schools and we will develop that. There is no obstacle in the way to us doing this, apart from taking the action. We have been through the planning. We know what we need to do. I want to see us get on and do it. It is the number one in the C.S.P. to do that.

Unfortunately I think the Minister did not answer the questions. He gave the prepared answer about vision. My question was very simple. Has the Minister been presented by the officers numbers and very clear practical delivery that was developed from 23rd July to get 3 pilots in 24th September? It was very simple question, without going into this detail.

I think the answer to that is it is another one of those generic plans that happened without enough detail in it. I wanted to see some actual detail on what was going to happen. We have had an enormous amount of talk about what is going to happen in nursery schools and schools and community schools, but we have not seen a great deal happening. I am hoping that we have projects in place for September 2024. I am hoping we can extend that and we can model them correctly. One of the biggest obstacles to this happening was the constant negotiations around the N.E.F. The first thing I have done in the first week of negotiations with J.E.Y.A. (Jersey Early Years’ Association) is to sort the N.E.F. for the next 4 years, so we are not using officers’ time, J.E.Y.A.’s time, but we are talking about developing those nurseries. What we are getting is a rather ... I do not know. I just think that we can move forward. I would not throw anything away from the past. If it is positive, we will use it because we are all coming from the same place. We want to see what is best for our young people, and we will put that in place as soon as possible. If the Deputy wants to take credit as previous Minister, that is absolutely fine. We want to put things in place. But we have not got a lot in place at the moment, and I have only been in the job a couple of months and we are actually putting something in place.

There does seem to be slight confusion here in these answers. On the one hand, the Minister is saying that we already have community schools, but I think the argument we would make is simply saying a school is a community school does not make it so. The idea of community schools would be perhaps to open them for sports facilities and so on. He says he wants to get on with things. What things is he actually going to get on with to extend the range of community provision through schools?

Perhaps I should speak more clearly, I realise I have a slight accent but I should be careful in what I say again. Community schools, as the Deputy says - I absolutely agree with him - do not exist just because we have said it. But when you look at Ministerial Plans, that seems to be what we are doing.

Community schools are there because they are schools at the centre of our community. They already provide significant numbers of services, and they have done for years. What are we doing about expanding that? Let me give you an example. I am meeting the Constable of St. John. We can look at practical ways to extend access to sports facilities across our school facilities ... estate is the word I am searching for.

[10:15] In terms of other areas which are working, as I mentioned, Samarès School. I want to continue to support their provision of language therapy close to the school. That is a really good model of what sort of things we can do. What can we provide very close to the school so that parents do not have to make their way out to Edith Quenault Centre, for example, and it becomes an integral part of the school. The other really crucial thing, is we need to push ahead with the building of new facilities.

When we do that, they will be available as community schools for our communities, particularly in the centre of St. Helier. That is the other really key point to what we are going to do. I would invite Members of this Assembly to come and see the schools with me to see what they are doing before we stand up in the Assembly, and say ...

So there is an open invitation.

I feel like that was a bit of progress because there were some specifics in there. Can he say when he will be doing these pilots, so that we can judge whether or not there has been a success or not? There was Samarès School and meetings with St. John’s.

In terms of the pilots for nursery, I think I have covered that. In terms of the pilots for sports facilities, we have to have the meeting first to see what is available and see what we can start with. So that will be as soon as possible. But I would say again, to the Deputy, we seem to forget what our schools are actually doing. Across our school estate, schools are providing after school clubs, summer clubs, support for parents, support for families, opportunities for Best Start to be involved, opportunities in nursery, wraparound care. There are so many things already going on. The key is to support the things they are doing, embed them and then extend them where it is best targeted. That is what we intend to do. That is exactly what we intend to do. This is not something new, because it was thought of at the last Government or the Government before or the Government before that, and it is not something new because I will mention it and the next Government will mention it. This is something that is integral to what our schools do. What we need to do is support our schools, support our school staff, and build appropriately modern school facilities so that all of our children have the best start in life and the best access to education.

We have heard a lot from the Minister. I am grateful to him for his answers, I think. But if I could provide an interpretation and ask him to accept whether he thinks this is the right one. It appears that the Minister is taking a slightly new approach in terms of rather than taking evidence and building an evidence base for taking action and providing a standardised provision for every child in this Island to benefit, he prefers a piecemeal approach that will result in a postcode lottery for children.

A simple answer, I could not disagree more with the Deputy’s interpretation of what I have just said.

It is completely and utterly wrong. What is piecemeal is creating generic plans with good vibe, but then having no substance to what has happened. I want to move away from that. I want to appreciate the work that is being done in schools, appreciate teachers. The last Government failed dramatically to do that because they had an industrial dispute for years, which they did not settle, and just made worse with the letters that they sent. We settled that. We prioritised what our schools do. That is what we would be doing in the future. That is not piecemeal. That is called understanding - lived experience for myself - schools, understanding need for education, and understanding what needs to be done. It is certainly not piecemeal. That is planning ahead, that is looking ahead, and that is having a Common Strategic Policy that can be acted on.

Male Speaker Could I raise the défaut on the Constable of St. Helier, please?

I will do my best on brevity, Sir. Further to his response to Written Question 30/2024, will the Minister advise what “value for money” assessment has been undertaken, compared to alternative treatments, in relation to the medicine Kaftrio, used to treat patients who have cystic fibrosis?”

I had a formal response to this question prepared by the appropriate person at H.C.S. (Health and Community Services) and it is rather long and rather complicated. So I have done my best to summarise it. In relation to the use of Kaftrio, the value-for-money assessment has not taken place yet because N.I.C.E. (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines have not yet approved in this particular case to which the Deputy refers. It is my understanding that the value- for-money assessment will take place when the case is reviewed during the course of the impending independent patient funding requests.

I am just wondering where to go after that response. Does the Minister accept that there have been a number of trials of this particular treatment covering countries such as France, Scotland, Israel and even Guernsey, where it has proved to be very successful at improving lung function? Will the Minister ensure that this assessment does come to the fore in terms of how valid this is?

Yes, I am very comfortable with that. I think the Deputy knows that I am privately supportive of this, and I shall do what I can. Obviously there are limitations as to what I can do, but I do keep in touch with the Deputy on this particular matter.

The Minister mentions N.I.C.E. guidelines but, as we see from our proposition coming forward, that we do not always follow N.I.C.E. guidelines. Are there any other opportunities and deviations from N.I.C.E. guidelines that he has used previously and approved medications?

Will the Minister explain why the Improving Residential Tenancies in Jersey: Residential Tenancy Law Reform Proposal - Findings Report was released in full in April, despite the Minister asserting in the Assembly on 7th February that it would be “reframed” and the reasons behind the delay in publication since this “reframing” did not occur?

The reframing did occur.

In the recently published Findings document, it says: “The draft law will be published for further consultation.” In the Scrutiny hearing, the Minister suggested that this would now not be the case.

Why does the Minister believe that relying on anecdotes, opinion and ad hoc meetings that evades both scrutiny and the Scrutiny Panel is better than gathering hard evidence and data in a transparent way to ensure that we get a Residential Tenancy Law that works for all?

For the second time in a matter of seconds, the Deputy has stated a falsehood about statements that I have made. That is not an accurate reflection of what I said in that Scrutiny hearing.

Will the Minister advise what communication, if any, he has had with EVie regarding the suspension of its electric bike rental service, and what assistance, if any, the Government can provide to resolve the insurance cover challenge EVie is facing?”

Together with the Minister for the Environment, we met with EVie in February and then there was an exchange of emails with the Chief Executive of Evie in mid-March, around a proposal to the Government around a shared mobility bike fleet, which presented a number of alternatives for the EVie dockless electric bike business. However, on the basis of the information provided by Evie, there was not a strong business case for Government involvement and the matter was not pursued.

In terms of insurance, specifically, officers in the insurance team in Treasury and Exchequer provided assistance to EVie regarding insurance of their motor fleet towards the end of 2023. As far as I am aware, to date, EVie have not requested any further assistance regarding bike insurance per se.

Similar to the motor fleet situation, I understand Treasury officers would be happy to provide assistance where they can to help EVie resolve the bike insurance issue. This does not mean it would be possible to place the EVie bikes under the Government of Jersey insurance programme.

I find it slightly disappointing that there have been no follow-up meetings since February. The Sustainable Transport Policy next steps document includes the following Ministerial commitment to: “Continue to encourage shared mobility as an alternative to private car ownership.” It even mentions, on page 46, working explicitly with EVie, to this end Should the Minister not be engaging actively with EVie to try and avoid the loss of this important service?

I thank the Deputy for his question. We are happy to continue discussions with EVie. In fact, we are discussing different options with EVie. There are, I should say, a number of local businesses who provide cycles, be they traditional or electric cycles for hire. They offer collection and delivery, and we are happy to work with any of those providers.

What data does the Minister have to understand the demographics of the people who are making use of these vehicles?

I thank the Deputy for her question. I understand that 56 per cent of the users are local. I do have the ages somewhere. I believe the average age is between 20 and 40.

Does the Minister share my concerns that those on low income would not be able to have the same accessibility to these types of bikes if the scheme is not continued?

There are, as I said earlier, other providers. It will depend on the usage of the bike. The bus service is a cheap alternative to cycles. But what we are not able to do is support a business case where the numbers do not stack up for us to purchase part or all of the service.

Is the Minister aware that it will be far harder to start a new shared e-bike scheme than to keep an existing service going? Should he not therefore be exploring every possible mechanism EVie’s insurance issue?

I will repeat, we have not been asked to resolve EVie’s insurance issue for bikes; we were asked whether we would invest in the business. If EVie want help with their insurance then it is the Treasury Department that would be the people to help them.

Does the Minister recognise there is a big difference between the hire company and the scheme provided by EVie as an e-bike which is available now in most places around the world for locals who are not able to buy an electric bike to use it on a daily basis? If the Minister does recognise the difference between hire and the scheme, would he explore every possible mechanism to solve EVie’s difficulties and to allow the service to continue?

I do recognise the difference because when I visit other locations I will often hire a bike and visit sites of interest, so I am very familiar with that, and I am very familiar with the different levels of quality in those provisions. What we cannot do is spend money. At a time when we have other demands on government finances, it is not something I believe the Government should be involved in, propping up this business.

I agree that there needs to be consideration always to the public money and we need to be prudent with the public funds. Would the Minister engage with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and with EVie Bikes to explore an option to save this business before it disappears?

We are happy to explore anything with the provider.

[10:30] We have suggested that, like other jurisdictions, they go and seek sponsorship for the services, whether that is from perhaps a local electric company, Visit Jersey or anyone else that may be interested in that. You will see around the country and around Europe that a lot of these schemes are sponsored by local businesses, and we have suggested that to the current provider.

I am not sure I fully agree with the Better Way position of nationalising Evie, but if I could ask the Minister: where is the line that needs to be drawn when it comes to supporting one particular business which has been struggling over others in the market which may also be operating successfully?

I thank the Deputy for his question. The business case would have to demonstrate it is sustainable and we have not seen evidence of that to date.

I think I am very disappointed that the language the Minister is using here, he has referenced the possibility of other providers, he has talked about a bus service, he has talked about not propping up this business but he has had no other contact since February with the business. I checked last night with EVie and it seems to me that this is not a Government that is working flat ... a Minister that is working flat out ...

It is about to be a question.

The whole point of my earlier point was, as a strategic policy, that it puts a long-term strategy as a priority; is he happy to see the business die on his watch?

As I mentioned in my original answer, we exchanged emails in mid-March, I have had exchanges on LinkedIn in April, so it is wrong to say that the last correspondence was in February.

Will the Minister advise whether any conviction regarding an act of homosexuality has ever been quashed or overturned?

I thank the Deputy for the question, which has not been straightforward to answer. Article 1 of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 1990 was registered on 28th September 1990 and enacted the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in private. The law does not give a person convicted of an offence of homosexuality prior to 1990 the right of appeal to have that conviction quashed. Following the enactment of the 1990 law, it is therefore unclear whether such an appeal is possible. If there was such an appeal it is more likely that it would have to take place in the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal. Appeals for the Magistrates Court convictions are dealt with in the Royal Court; appeals from the Royal Court convictions are dealt with in the Court of Appeal. Officers in the Judicial Greffe have reviewed judgments of the Royal Court and Court of Appeal which post-date 1990 and have not been able to find evidence of any such appeal having taken place.

In 2017 the U.K. introduced the Turing Law, named after Alan Turing, the computer pioneer, and was expanded again in 2023 by the Home Office. Would the Minister commit to investigating whether such a law could be passed over here to allow easy and simple overturns and quashing of these convictions?

Simple answer to that question; yes, I am more than happy to have a look and I am fully aware of this legislation.

While the answer might have been partly given, the first answer really referred to appeals being necessary for individuals to get convictions overturned. Does the Minister really acknowledge that this misses the point; it should not be up to an individual to appeal a conviction which we now, I think, would all find morally objectionable, especially if that person may no longer be alive to do the appeal, that there should be an automatic system where all of these convictions are quashed on a wholesale basis?

I do not disagree with the principle of what the Deputy is saying. I think the only concern I might have is that there is different legislation, as in different terminology and words used. As an example, prior to the decriminalisation in 1990, the law provides that the criminal offence used was to be charged as sodomy. I can see what the Deputy is asking but my only concern is that because the data may not be up to what it should be, I am just concerned that we may miss some opportunity because there will be different terminologies and different words used and a search has been made. What I can verify as well is that the States of Jersey Police do not have any of the data either, so I think it might be a piece of work that will need to be done to see what we can do, if that makes sense, working with this and see if there is anything we can do to move this forward.

I think the answer is helpful, first of all. In practical terms for individuals who are still around, it may be a simple case of making sure that those who have got a criminal record and for whom that criminal record is relevant and perhaps searchable and declarable, they need a way to make sure that it is no longer on their criminal record as a first step. Would the Minister agree that might be an area to look at?

Yes, I do. To me it does make sense and I think it would be the right thing to do.

Does the Minister agree with me that if there are any pardons or if any sentences are going to be quashed that this should be accompanied by a full and unreserved apology to the victims of this institutionalised discrimination? Indeed, would she offer an apology today as a gesture on behalf of Government for the historic harms that have been caused?

I can make an apology on my own behalf but I think it would be inappropriate for me to make an apology on the behalf of anybody else. From my perspective, I think it is right and proper that an apology should be made for criminalising people in these sorts of circumstances. So, I, from my own perspective, would be quite happy to do that but I think it would be wrong and inappropriate for me to make a generic apology on behalf of anybody else.

Would the Minister agree to engage with members of the L.G.B.T.Q.+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer plus) community, both within the Assembly and in the community, to help resolve this matter?

Yes, of course.

Will the Minister agree to keep this Assembly informed as to the progress to have this legislation review?

Yes.

Will the Chief Minister provide an update on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strand of work and advise how this will be progressed?

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion work programme continues to be an important area of focus.

Deputy Alves, as an Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department, has recently been delegated as a political lead for this work and will take up the task of raising the equality and diversity agenda, including addressing such issues as the gender pay gap. This change has been made with the agreement of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs. Deputy Alves will be reviewing the work programme of the previous Government and progressing accordingly. Just to reiterate, this Government is committed to pursuing diversity, equity and inclusion for the benefit of both the community and our own employees. Thanks to the work of a number of dedicated officers we have completed a draft of the D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) strategy for Government, which is currently being reviewed before publication.

I thank the Chief Minister for his answer and I am delighted to see that Deputy Alves has been given responsibility for this work and that it will continue. Could the Chief Minister confirm whether the previous action plan that was being progressed by myself and Deputy Jeune under the delegation from the previous Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, whether all the areas in that action plan will be continued, whether any areas will be stopped or changed?

I cannot confirm that level of detail but I can confirm that Deputy Alves, I believe, is keen for the continuity of the programme, so I feel confident it will progress as planned.

Is the Chief Minister aware the Jersey International Cultural Centre has been created a year-and-a- half ago to support inclusion of the minority communities in Jersey? The work was put on hold in January to review. Can the Chief Minister confirm that he made the decision and the work of the Jersey International Cultural Centre can progress?

Yes, I can. We are going to continue to support that work but not with a similar budget to what it had previously. I am mindful that I am due to meet with the Deputy and other interested Members in due course to clarify the position and agree a way forward, so there will be a continuity but not in its previous format.

The Chief Minister and myself have had a discussion in February and I thought that we have agreed on the updated budget and updated work. The community in the meantime are wondering why the project that was shortlisted to a Difera event as a government project stopped because currently none of the work that happened is happening.

It did stop due to some concern of previous aspects of the I.C.C. (International Culture Centre). Part of the new Government’s ...

I do apologise, it is taking a little longer to agree. I apologise for the delay but it is part of our work to reprioritise spending to make sure our spending is going absolutely to where it is needed, so I do undertake to get things back up to speed with that as soon as possible.

I am also pleased to hear that Deputy Alves has been given this responsibility. Can the Chief Minister confirm, does she have resources to support her in progressing this agenda, please?

She will do. I had a conversation with Deputy Alves about that very issue yesterday, and officials, to ensure she is properly resourced to do the work.

Could the Minister keep the Assembly updated on the progress of this work?

Yes.

Will the Minister advise what progress, if any, has been made in extending the pilot scheme allowing French nationals to travel to Jersey using a French national identity card, to stay in Jersey for up to 3 days?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The French Day Trip Scheme which was launched in 2023 has been very successful with approximately 49,800 day trips from France to Jersey and 17,600 of those trips, as in 35 per cent, was where travellers used the I.D. (Identification) card. It is aligned with the new Council of Ministers’ commitment to develop the visitor economy and our links with our French neighbours, but we are also part of the Common Travel Area, which is a responsibility that we share.

Together with Customs and Immigration I have explored options to expand the existing day trip scheme; however, there is significant security and operational risks that cannot satisfactorily be mitigated and I do not, therefore, envisage that the scheme will be widened to allow visits of up to 3 days. I will keep this under review but can confirm the existing arrangements for the day trips will continue until the end of September.

I thank the Minister for her response. I completely agree that we need to assess the risks; we all know about the risks. We also need to consider how we do manage the risk. Would the Minister advise how many discussions or emails she personally had with her counterpart at Westminster for discussions to maintain or expand the possible schemes and discussion about the risks?

[10:45]

In relation to Westminster, there have been 2 letters, which were received previously, which both raised concerns in relation to not only the day trip but extending it further beyond what was already the case. There is continuing work by the Immigration Department to see what we are going to be able to achieve when, at the latter part of this year, we introduce an Electronic Travel Authority because obviously at the moment our biggest want would be to be able to continue with the 24-hour day trip. Therefore, that is a priority at this stage and that is ongoing work that Customs and Immigration have had with that department. Personally I have had no direct contact with Westminster but there are 2 letters, one from a previous Minister from Westminster and one from a current one, raising concerns in relation to this particular project.

I am sorry, had you closed the previous question, Sir?

Will the Minister advise what approach, if any, the Government is taking to optimise the benefits of artificial intelligence in Jersey’s economy?

Economic Development) It is a really interesting question because there is no question in my mind that artificial intelligence will be a key technology to helping the Island address its main economic challenges, especially around the issues of increasing the productivity of our economy but also many other areas. To fully benefit from artificial intelligence and optimise its benefits, at the moment we are focusing on the adoption of artificial intelligence as a tool by companies, particularly small and medium enterprises.

We are also looking at the adaptation of our legislative framework where necessary to ensure a safe and innovative ecosystem. In that respect, I think we need to look towards places such as the European Union that have brought in a wide range of initiatives around that. Also we are focused on creating an environment where particularly innovative companies are able to develop artificial intelligence-based innovations that put Jersey at the forefront of technical innovation as part of our technology setup.

Thank you to the Minister for his answer; it is encouraging to hear. Could I ask the Minister whether he thinks there is going to be an impact on the Island’s workforce and what he might do about this, how he will prepare the workforce for the introduction and development of A.I. (artificial intelligence) across the Island?

There is no question that artificial intelligence has the capacity to create significant changes in the workforce and have significant impacts on the workforce, but these can be very positive in many different ways, freeing people up to focus on other, often more creative tasks than they are engaged in today. There is no question in my mind, financial services, legal profession, anywhere in the technology sector, the medical sector and the health sector, these are areas where you will find artificial intelligence both enabling greater processing and therefore creating greater evidence, particularly in the healthcare sector ... enabling greater analysis, is what I mean, of the situation in Jersey. In areas such as the financial and legal sectors, it could speed up and potentially have an impact on jobs in the administration areas of all those areas. There is a great deal written about the impact of artificial intelligence on employment and I do think it is something that, as we look back over history, whenever technology has come in and changed the workplace, we, as people who have moved on to engage in different jobs and adapt to those changes, there has not been a technology that has particularly put everyone out of work and then work not to be available afterwards, which is often the great fear of artificial intelligence. I subscribe to the view that jobs will change rather than jobs will disappear for ever.

We talk of A.I. as if it is something that is going to happen in the future, but of course we know that A.I. is already with us and it is just developing at an incredible rate. Does the Minister believe that Government is ready in terms of government structures but also the impact that artificial intelligence will have on government structures itself to make sure that we are all ready for those changes that it might bring about?

I am not well placed to know whether Government as a whole is ready. What I do know is that Government is beginning to adopt the use of artificial intelligence in different areas. The use of tools such as those packaged with our existing Microsoft products that enable quicker processing of emails, things like this, that is beginning to take place within Government. My impression, but it is only an impression, is that we as a Government have a long way to go before fully understanding how we could use artificial intelligence within the administration of the Island and the impacts that it could have, but I may be mistaken because I am not best placed to have that view.

In terms of the economy, we are often told that, and I suppose the economy and taxation, people pay taxes, not companies, generally in Jersey. If we are moving to a situation where there is more productivity but because of A.I. and artificial intelligence are doing some of the jobs, has any consideration been given to how we tax work that might be being done by A.I. and the profits that might be created through A.I. which might have been ending up in people’s salaries before may not happen in the future? Has consideration been given to that?

Another fascinating question. Unfortunately, as taxation does not fall under my remit, I am not aware of any work that has been done in that area. The Minister for Treasury and Resources may be more aware of that but certainly I am not aware of any work in that area, but it is an interesting question and one that I believe as politicians the Assembly probably does need to think about.

Could I ask the Minister if he would give some consideration to some sort of a taskforce or policy think tank of some kind to explore all of the issues that have just been raised through these couple of questions?

Absolutely. We will be publishing the digital economy strategy next month, and part of that refers to artificial intelligence. I agree with the Deputy that having a range of minds looking at this would be a good idea. I do believe that in Jersey we have so many people who are already experts in this field or using artificial intelligence in different ways that we almost certainly have a lot of that expertise on-Island. I do think that is a good idea and I will look to progress that.

Will the Minister advise what changes, if any, he intends to make to the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974, to simplify and improve the law?

Work is underway to bring forward a series of amendments to the existing Licensing Law rather than replacing the existing law with a new law, as was attempted in 2017 but ultimately failed. Many of these changes will be focused on the constituted policy commitment to reduce red tape and lower the barriers to business. Amendments are likely to include changes to the licence categories, the Licensing Assembly in the way that that operates, and also the regulation of drinks promotions, among others. Amendments will be shaped through engagement with the industry and other sectors of government.

In his Ministerial statement, part 3, he said that he intends to review the Tourism (Jersey) Law 1948, the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 to ensure they are fit for purpose and enable businesses to operate efficiently within the sector. When does he intend to have such a review and, if he does intend to have such a review, how long does he believe it will take?

I am seeking to fast forward that. I do not want to go down the road of just a review that takes a year and then pushes things back further. I think it was mentioned recently in the media that a great deal of work has been done, and that is quite correct, on the Licensing Law, including the failed 2017 attempt to bring in a new law. We will use the work that has already been done, we will use a lot of knowledge that we already have, such as: are the licence categories fit for purpose? Almost certainly not. They were created in 1974 and things have changed since then. I think the approach that I am asking my officers to undertake is one which is more directly focused on changes to the law rather than reviewing, but we will be doing that in conjunction with the hospitality sector because they obviously need to feed into that and also areas such as the police who have to police these things as well.

Will the Minister state whether he thinks under the law things like minimum unit pricing of alcohol, opening hours and drinks promotions, who should be the people that make decisions on those kind of questions and what does the current law allow for?

As I understand it, the current law allows for the Licensing Assembly to address such questions, and the Attorney General, I believe, with drinks promotions, that is what has happened in the past. I see future amendments to the Licensing Law taking that away from the Licensing Assembly and vesting it here, as we passed a proposition in the last Assembly which asked for political control of such things as drinks promotions, and so on, so that is what I intend to try to bring forward.

We see that Government and even law drafting can act very quickly in certain areas such as cybersecurity, digital fintech, financial services laws that need to be drafted in relatively short order and which are well resourced to be able to do that. When it comes to things like unlawful entertainments and licensing laws, often these things go back 20, 25 years when the first recommendations were made and we are still being told by this Minister that it is going to take maybe 3 years in the next Government before any changes are happening in this area. Can the Minister explain perhaps why there seems to be a difference in approach to getting laws passed, on the one hand very quickly, and on the other very slowly?

I believe the answer there is well above my pay grade because I do not have a view of the Law Officers’ Department, the Law Drafting Office, the Government and the judiciary to understand why some things are prioritised. I am not the Chief Minister, I cannot prioritise legislation particularly myself, so I do not have that view and do not understand that. What I will say is that I have not said it will take 3 years to bring forward all of the changes, I would like to see these changes brought in before the end of this term. With regard to the triennial regulations, the reason they are being asked for 3 years is just to make sure we have the comfort because things such as Law Drafting Officers’ time are not under my control. I cannot know whether we will be able to control that or not, so that is purely for comfort. It is my intention to get this delivered in this Assembly because I do not want these changes which have been talked about ... as I mentioned earlier, in 2017 there was an attempt to change the Licensing Law. It failed, it went nowhere, maybe it has gone back 25 years, these discussions, I do not know, but I would like to see us make significant changes in this term.

Can I just clarify something I said? I was not suggesting the problem was at the law drafting stage, I think it is before things get to the law ... it is just to clarify ...

Following Deputy Tadier’s second question there: could the Minister identify why he believes it would take so long to bring changes, even to be lodged by 2026, given the abundant evidence and knowledge base within the community about what needs to be done?

I am pleased the Deputy believes that there is abundant evidence in the community and agreement, I suggest, he is implying. I am not so sure that there is such clear agreement. I think it does depend on where you turn and who is asked. I think it is really important. I have not at any point suggested that this will take longer than this term of office. That is not something I have suggested, that seems to have come from somewhere else.

Assuming that there is not such widespread agreement, does the Minister not agree that some very simple elements of the Licensing Law, if the law is to be amended rather than replaced, could be presented by the end of this year?

I will not make a commitment to the end of this year but I will make a commitment to as soon as possible.

Will the Minister state whether he is of the opinion that the licensing decisions currently taken centrally by law officers and so on could be delegated to Parishes and, if so, would he put that in his list of things to be actioned before the end of this term?

[11:00]

I am not convinced that delegating further to Parishes would make life easier for any businesses. The delegation to Parishes creates 12 different Licensing Assemblies. I believe the system at the moment where Parishes have their own Licensing Assembly and provide their recommendation according to what they see as the impact on their local area is appropriate, and I think that should be maintained.

I do not see delegation going any further because that, I believe, will fragment things further than they are currently are.

Maybe there is a trade-off here; the Minister has spoken about his desire to reduce red tape. Having one Parish Licensing Assembly recommending to another Licensing Assembly seems to me to be an example of red tape. Could he not at least trial perhaps with St. Helier the idea of a Licensing Assembly at a Parish level?

I have to go back to the idea that 12 different Licensing Assemblies as the ultimate authorities will only create confusion for the business community. We are being told constantly that it is so difficult to know where the people are meant to turn when they are applying for things such as licences, so I do not agree with that. When the Deputy suggests that there is red tape in the Parish Licensing Assembly providing a recommendation to another Licensing Assembly, I understand what he is saying, but I believe that what the Parish does is give the very local view as to the impact of that licence on the Parish and the neighbourhood. I think that is really important and I think that is important to be maintained. The Licensing Assembly, in whichever form that takes, having the knowledge that the local area is for or against a particular licence, I think is really valuable knowledge.

We have heard a lot about the economy strategy and tourism, can the Minister give us some reassurance that the public health aspects of the Licensing Law will be appropriately considered?

I believe there may be some role for Public Health in this but I believe that the Licensing Law is to be primarily focused on the licensing of premises and the sale of alcohol. I believe that Public Health’s role is in the education of the Island around alcohol and its impacts rather than having a direct role, particularly in licensing.

As regards the failure of the previous draft law in 2017 to which the Minister refers, does he accept that such failure arose from the actual withdrawal of the proposition by the Minister of the day in the face of constructive comments from the Scrutiny Panel of the day? Looking forward, will he confirm, if he is able to do so, that any future Licensing Assembly will not be made up of States Members as was envisaged by such draft law?

It strikes fear in my heart that States Members would sit on a licensing panel. I do not think that is a particularly good way to ... I do not think politicians should be tasked with awarding licences or not.

There are so many dangers around that, that I would not take that sort of suggestion forward.

I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. Thank you.

When the Minister considers amendments, will he be considering the “no dancing on Good Friday” and other anomalies in the Licensing Law?

Is that because the Deputy wishes us to maintain the “no dancing on Good Friday” or otherwise?

[Laughter] I do believe some things which - I use this word in its loosest sense and not demeaning in any way at all - but some things which some people would view as anachronistic, this is an opportunity to look at those sorts of situations and, yes, I do believe that does need to be looked at.

If people have objections obviously to dancing on Good Friday, then they should make us aware of that, but my stance would be that dancing can take place on any day. Every day is a good day to celebrate with dance.

Let us see if we can get this one right. Will the Minister advise if he consulted the Chief Minister or the chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee before offering Deputy Bailhache responsibility for certain health matters, what responsibility the Deputy has been given, and what impact, if any, this has had on the Troy Rule which limits the number of Deputies in Government?

I have not appointed Deputy Bailhache as an Assistant Minister or offered him any Ministerial responsibilities for health matters. As such, I do not believe my actions have any impact on the Troy Rule and did not require me to consult with the Chief Minister or the chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Could I ask again then: what responsibility has the Deputy been given by the Minister and what limits has this had on the Troy Rule?

I think I can do no more at this stage than to repeat what I have just said that Deputy Bailhache was not appointed for any Ministerial responsibilities for health matters.

A point of order, the question was surely what kind of responsibilities had been delegated? That is what I understood the follow-up question to be.

I shall stand up, no formal responsibilities for health matters.

What I said in the first instance, no Ministerial responsibilities. Apologies for that mistake.

Clearly Deputy Bailhache has been asked to do something. No one is questioning the right of a Minister to ask people to try and find out information but why did the Minister not, in this instance, use his civil servants to do the work or, failing that, ask one of his Assistant Ministers’ team? Is it not the case that if the report or work or whatever it is had been commissioned through official channels, then it would have greater weight?

The work related solely to taking a series of statements of people who wanted to speak to me. I only have a limited amount of hours in the day and it appeared that an awful lot of people wanted to make their points known to me. I thought it was appropriate to pick somebody like Deputy Bailhache who was independent of the Ministerial team and would be held in high regard for the purpose. I thought it was a good choice and it was a fairly simple request to undertake that particular piece of work.

Could the Minister clarify whether or not he spoke to his Chief Officer about this work before it was commissioned? Would he agree that the lack of formal commissioning, terms of reference or oversight means that this was just an exercise in gathering gossip, and that is not necessarily going to be particularly helpful to draw conclusions?

That is an interesting turn of phrase “gathering gossip”. In the end, 30 senior consultants have come forward to speak to me. I would venture to suggest that there is probably nobody in this Assembly that has not been treated by one of these people or certainly one of their family members. I think they are held in high regard and I think these people have got better things to do with their time than indulge in gossip.

Could the Minister please clarify if there were any written terms of reference for Deputy Bailhache to follow, including what follow up, how he will present his findings to the Minister and, if not, why not?

No, there were no formal written terms of reference because it was a simple request to take some statements. In the end it ran into a larger piece of work than I was expecting because more people wanted to speak to me than I had thought in the first instance. I did ask if Deputy Bailhache would be kind enough to just summarise his findings for me for convenience.

Is the Minister aware that he was asking Deputy Bailhache to tread in the very sensitive matters of employment relating to employer/employee relations and this could compromise discussions going on elsewhere of which Deputy Bailhache may not have been aware?

No, this was simply an exercise in conveying messages from people to me because of the volume of work that I have and the fact that I was unable to do it. It involved no more than taking statements from people for that to be passed on to me.

It is strange to say that Deputy Bailhache is not doing any Ministerial work because of course he is not a Minister, therefore, he cannot be doing any Ministerial work, so the question still needs to be answered: why is a member of the Health Scrutiny Panel doing departmental work for the Minister for Health and Social Services?

At the time of commencement, Deputy Bailhache was not a member of the Panel.

There is a wider problem here, and I am wondering if the Minister sees it as a conflict of interest which I think so many other Members do, hence why this question seems to have been lodged, that, if you are not a member of the Executive it is very strange to be asking somebody to act effectively as a private secretary for you, which might be the case in other Parliaments, when the Minister has his own fairly large Ministerial team to do that work and also civil servants to do that. Would the Minister agree to publish the nature of the work that is being done and also ask for that work to cease immediately so that this Assembly is not brought into disrepute?

I do not think for a moment that this Assembly has been brought into disrepute. I think there were 4 or 5 requests there and I may need to be reminded of them. I will start with the last one first because I can still remember it. The work has been concluded. I will make a further statement insofar as I spoke to the chair of the Scrutiny Committee and we had an exchange of emails. I explained the nature of the work and I received on 4th April an email stating the following: “Given the fact that this work was already undertaken before the Panel was formed, we discussed the timings around when it could be concluded. I am content to give a reasonable timeframe for the work to conclude and for any conflicts to then be avoided.” On that basis, we continued. I have to say, if the work was to be discontinued that was a matter for the chair of the Scrutiny Panel, between the chair and Deputy Bailhache.

Would the Minister agree that very heavy weather is being made of this issue and that in a collegiate and co-operative Assembly any Backbench Member is free to offer assistance to any Minister without attracting carping criticism from other Members?

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Can the Minister please confirm that I had asked for the work to be stopped as soon as I was aware of the full nature of the work? I asked for this in a telephone conversation where I explained to the Minister the Troy Rule. I followed this up with an email where I once again explained the Troy Rule.

I also requested that the work should be made fully transparent. Can the Minister confirm this, please?

I cannot confirm the latter because that was not where the conversation ended. I am certainly happy to publish the email exchanged between us. Sorry, there was another part to the question which I have forgotten, but I am certainly happy to make the email exchanged public.

The Minister did not hear part of my question. What I had asked was: can the Minister confirm that when I asked for the work to stop that I also asked for it to be made fully transparent?

As far as the transparency is concerned, I think everything is contained in this email exchange. When people approach me to talk privately about their concerns, I certainly do not expect Members of this Assembly to ask for that to be made public. It would be similar in another way to asking the Speak Up Guardian to make public all the comments that have been made to the Speak Up Guardian. I think that is totally out of order, if I may say so.

I can clarify. In my letter I asked for the terms of reference, membership, agendas, minutes and reports of any work undertaken in a similar way to the Policy Development Board and indeed the Women’s Health Strategy Group, which is also under the Minister for Health and Social Services.

There were not any minutes or agendas. They were not formal meetings, as such. It was simply Deputy Bailhache listening to people’s concerns, putting them on paper, and then handing them to me for my attention. There is a pretty serious problem in H.C.S. that I am trying to address and it is strange that Members in the Assembly seem to want to focus unnecessarily on a very simple process rather than being concerned about the issues that I am trying to resolve.

Nobody is questioning that a Member of the Assembly can do work, the question is why this has not been made in the proper way, requesting if Deputy Bailhache can undertake specific work with the terms of reference for the Minister and explaining the reasons why the Minister cannot use the 3 Assistant Ministers, why the Minister cannot use Speak Up Guardian, why the Minister does not use the Health Board that needs to listen to the concerns and why that Deputy Bailhache was the only Member of the States who could listen to the employees which the States Employment Board is available for?

I think I counted 7 points there; I have got a very bad memory, I cannot remember them all. I will ...

I will start with the Speak Up Guardian. Could we not assume that these 30 people that have passed on their thoughts to me are intelligent people? If they thought it was appropriate to use the Speak Up Guardian I suggest they would have done; there must have been reasons why they did not. I was not aware of a formal process for asking for this sort of what I would consider to be relatively minor work to be undertaken. It is simply conveying people’s thoughts to me. As I say, if there is a process, I am not aware of it.

The Minister may be inadvertently misleading the Assembly because I made it very clear in my email to him what the process would be.

The Minister did not respond why his 3 Assistant Ministers could not ... just a minute, can I finish the question, please? Why 3 Assistant Ministers could not undertake this work and why the Health Board could not undertake this work.

I will take them in reverse order. The Health Board could not undertake this work because, as an elected representative, we do live in a democracy and people have got a right to speak to me. I did start to speak to some of these consultants myself and I quickly realised that I would not have the time, so there we are. In terms of why not the Assistant Ministers, I wanted to keep this work separate from the team so that I could not be accused of meddling in any way and I thought that Deputy Bailhache was an appropriate appointment for this purpose. I make no apology for this either because it is an important piece of work and I want it to be done properly.

What I think I have heard is that the Minister is unaware of any mechanism by which he can legitimately consult with his consultants which operate the health service in the hospital in particular, is that the case? Is there no mechanism by which the Minister can consult with his consultants?

The question is: am I free to do what I have done and I believe that I was.

I am certainly not ... I did make that statement before, I am not aware of one.

Further to the adoption of P.72/2023 as amended, will the Minister advise what progress, if any, is being made in extending the hosiery dressing scheme to include wound dressings to those with medical needs?

As I hope the Deputy is aware, the funded dressing scheme is one of my key priorities and I am pleased to report that we are now making good progress. There is now a dedicated team allocated to this project who are providing me personally with feedback on developments, and I am continuing to monitor this progress very closely and I will be providing updates as soon as they become available. The Assembly has agreed that funding should come through the H.I.F. (Health Insurance Fund). This does require that appropriate governance and legal frameworks are in place before funds can be released but the team is doing everything that they can to implement an initial phase of the scheme as quickly as possible. We have spoken to key stakeholders, Family Nursing and Home Care and pharmacy contractors and we are looking to launch the first stage of the scheme through a number of local pharmacies as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister for her answer, it is reassuring that it is progressing. Can the Minister confirm that she has full backing from the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Chief Minister with the £1 million funds that was allocated to this scheme?

The funding has been allocated through the Health Insurance Fund and we have backing through the Assembly, as this amendment was approved as part of the Government Plan in December and the budgets approved within the Government Plan, but of course, as Minister for Social Security, I am responsible for the Health Insurance Fund.

Can the Minister say what recent communication she had with the pharmacies to see how they can collaborate in order to be able to deliver through them such a scheme as soon as possible?

My team has been involved in active workshops with both Family Nursing and Home Care and has been in close dialogue with pharmacies. The first phase that we are looking at in the first instance will focus on existing Family Nursing and Home Care clients, as the evidence suggests that those clients have the more longer-term need for dressings and the dressings will be provided from a local pharmacy. We are still working on contractual details but we are aiming to get that stage launched within the coming weeks.

Just for clarification, the Minister responded that the Assembly obviously approved the budget in the Government Plan, does she have full support from the Minister for Treasury and Resources, Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to use these funds?

I am confident that I do have the support of my fellow Ministers in relation to these funds.

Will the Minister provide an update on the development of the Women’s Health Strategy and confirm when this will be published?

Social Services -rapporteur) If I am able to respond on behalf of the Minister because he has given me a delegation for Women’s and Children’s Health. The Minister has proposed that officers do not progress the production of a standalone unfunded women’s health strategy. This decision was supported by the Women’s Health Political Advisory Group that are meeting in early April. The group recognise that there are limited staff resources to allocate to the development of a standalone strategy and agree to focus on work that is already in train. This work includes a review of the Termination of Pregnancy Law and funding for I.V.F. (in vitro fertilisation) and contraception services. The group also decided that once we have an opportunity to reflect on the findings of the ongoing Women’s Health and Well-being public consultation, we will publish a statement of intent setting out other priorities that we will seek to address once we have supported delivery of our current activity.

Please could the Assistant Minister outline which areas will not be progressed?

It is very hard to say at the moment because we have not at the moment received the result of the Women’s Health and Wellbeing consultation.

Sorry, could I clarify, I meant the areas that were being considered by the W.H.A.G. (Women’s Health Advisory Group) to go in that strategy, which of those areas will not be progressed?

I think I explained what we are going to be doing and what we will be taking further when we have the result of the consultation.

Does the Assistant Minister not agree with me that to be able to bid for funding, including when the Minister is trying to get funding for women’s health within the Council of Ministers, that a strategy would be a good idea, a document to understand the way forward for women’s health and therefore be easier to get funding than to stop both?

I believe that Deputy Jeune is also a member of my Women’s Health Advisory Group, and it is across the States Assembly, this group, and we will be deciding together what we should be taking forward and what we should be asking for further funding for.

I thank the Assistant Minister for reminding me I am part of that group. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to meet that meeting and, of course, I would like to put on the record I would not have agreed to this ...

Yes. But I would not have agreed to that decision.

So will the Minister explain ...

Yes. So will the Assistant Minister explain what concrete steps she will take to reduce the concern by Jersey women that women’s health, yet again, is being kicked down the road and not given the necessary priority or funding?

The decision not to develop a standalone strategy does not equate to a failure to recognise the importance of women’s health; the opposite is the case. The Minister and I want to focus limited resource on delivering real change in key women’s services as opposed to producing yet another unfunded strategy. The Women’s Health Advisory Group supports that position and I welcome the fact that Deputy Jeune will be part of the next meeting.

Does the Assistant Minister agree with the process to make sure that you need a strategy which will link to the plan, which will link to submitting a business case to ensure that the funding cannot come before the strategy? Does the Assistant Minister agree?

We will be meeting very soon for our next group and we will discuss all this but we will be asking for funding for further things for women’s health going forward.

My question was not answered. My question was: does the Minister agree that the strategy will need to be able to produce a business case to be able to find the finding? This was the question.

Yes, I said that we will have a strategy but it will not be a standalone strategy.

Thank you, Sir,

Could the Assistant Minister please inform the members of the public that are filling in the currently open consultation on women’s health and who are expecting a women’s health strategy, what form this statement of intent will take, what it will look like, how long it will be, how much detail and, critically, will it be an evidence-based approach that can secure funding to make the real changes that women of this Island need in their healthcare?

We are very minded that we should listen to the voice of women and girls on this Island. As a group, we promise that we will be really prioritising all that they say in their responses to our consultation; we take it very seriously and we are very grateful for all of those who are filling in the survey as we speak. It goes on until the end of May - May 21st - and then we will analyse what we are being told.

It will be evidence-based going forward and I really prioritise women’s and girls’ health on this Island.

Sorry Sir, my question was what form will the statement of intent take, what length will it be and what will it contain?

I think we just will have to work as an advisory group. I cannot give you the detail at this time.

Sir, the Minister is not present.

I do apologise, Sir.

Will the Minister advise if sufficient funding will be provided for palliative care in the Island before the implementation of any assisted dying legislation, and if not, why not?

In 2023, the States Assembly agreed as part of the Government Plan to spend an additional between £2 million and £3 million per year on end of life and domiciliary care services in Jersey, thereby driving improvements in the quality of palliative care and end of life care in advance of decisions being taken in the Assembly on assisted dying. The money is supporting the delivery of Jersey’s Palliative and End of Life Care Strategy, which is already helping to drive improvements to the services. At the point at which a draft Assisted Dying Law is presented to the Assembly, Members will be asked to agree that the law should not be brought into force until the Assembly is satisfied that the additional monies are delivering improvements in those services. If this cannot be evidenced, it would be for the Assembly to determine if more money should be provided to support these services. Furthermore, as explained in the assisted dying proposals, consideration is being given to bringing forward a new statutory duty requiring palliative care and end-of-life care to be provided by the Minister for Health and Social Services. It is envisaged that this statutory duty would form part of the proposed Adult Safeguarding Law, which is currently in development.

We heard from the Minister that £2 million to £3 million has already been invested in 2023. Is the Minister aware that palliative care is only available for 5 days a week, and does he think this is an acceptable level of service?

I was not aware that that was the case, and I am not entirely sure that it is. If that is the case, then it is not ideal, but that money is in the process of being spent and the improvements are being made on an ongoing basis. We are not at the point at which that money has been fully invested.

Further to recent media coverage regarding Durrell, will the Minister advise what consideration, if any, has been given to the economic and social impact to the Island of Jersey Zoo closing its doors, or Durrell moving from Jersey?

To my knowledge, I do not know of any work that has been undertaken to assess that impact.

Obviously, it would be a terrible tragedy for the Island were Durrell to close its doors, and I do not think that is how we should be thinking. There is obviously a situation going on within the Trust itself, and it is for the Trust to work that through. I do not think that we should, as an Assembly, be jumping to a conclusion of where that may lead, because I would not like us to add to any of those problems. As a registered charity, the Trust is regulated by the Charities Commissioner; as such, they may possess such data, but we do not.

Further to the publication of the Royal College of Physicians’ Jersey Rheumatology Report, will the Minister provide an update on the investigation into the care provided by the Rheumatology Department to former patients?

The investigation into past care and treatment provided by the Rheumatology Department is ongoing.

H.C.S. have now completed the review of all patients who were on biologic drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or who were otherwise under the care of the doctors referred to in the Royal College of Physicians’ report during the period concerned. We are now reviewing the case notes of patients seen by the 2 doctors in the period from January 2019 and who have subsequently died. To be clear, this would include many patients whose cause of death had nothing whatsoever to do with their rheumatology care. This final review involves a clinical audit to be followed by a mortality learning review for any case where concerns are raised. A further update will be provided once this final review is complete. All patients who were cared for under the Rheumatology Department in the period concerned, or were seen as outpatients under the care of either clinician whose practice was referred to in the Royal College of Physicians’ invited review, have been offered a review appointment and have now been seen. Work continues to determine levels of harm that may potentially have been caused to patients. We still have a duty to write to any patient who has suffered significant harm as a result of the treatment by H.C.S. staff. This is part of the duty of candour. We will, of course, be writing to any such patients very shortly. Mindful that some patients may wish to seek legal redress, H.C.S. is working with lawyers to consider the most appropriate approach to medico-legal matters related to rheumatology. Our intention is to develop an approach that is patient friendly, not overly protracted, and which represents a patient’s right to seek independent legal recourse.

Can the Minister provide a little more detail about the process that is currently underway to assess whether patients were harmed as a result of treatment in the Rheumatology Department, and in particular, are any outside organisations, such as the G.M.C. (General Medical Council) or the B.M.A. (British Medical Association) involved in assessing patients.

These are technical points that would probably be more usefully dealt with in Written Questions.

The G.M.C. and the B.M.A. I am sure have been involved in this process, but points of detail of that sort would be better submitted, I think, as a written question.

What information does the Minister hold on the scale of harm suffered by patients and what action is he taking to address the seriousness of what is being discovered by the review process?

I personally am not taking any action. There is a process underway and we will be having a look at the results of that when that process is completed. I hope that in the course of my first response that I detailed what that process was.

When we talk about the nature of the harms caused to the patients who have received care and treatment in the rheumatology service over the last 25 years, is he aware of any instances where patients may have died from that treatment?

These investigations are on-going and I think, in any event, it would not be appropriate for me to make comments on that sort of question in the Assembly.

Will the Minister advise whether he has contacted his counterpart in the U.K. Government and what progress, if any, has been made to achieve a reciprocal agreement for Jersey children who are in care?

I thank the Deputy for this question. Further to the Ministerial correspondence on 4th December with David Johnston O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire), M.P. (Member of Parliament), Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing, officers from both Governments have been working to progress the shared objectives of strengthening the legislative arrangements for those children in care placed off-Island. The scope of the proposed amendment to the Children (Prescribed Orders - Northern Ireland, Guernsey and Isle of Man) Regulations 1991 has been agreed locally and communicated to officers at the Department of Education on 11th April. I have therefore not found it necessary to contact the Minister, David Johnston, as officers are engaged in this and we are moving forward. The office of the Children’s Commissioner for Jersey has also been notified and briefed on the extent of the amendments sought, as I am mindful that this work is consistent with the recent concluding observations report by the U.N. (United Nations) Committee, which made specific recommendations to strengthen the governance relating to off-Island alternative care. In fact, I spoke with the Children’s Commissioner in one of my first meetings with the new commissioner, saying how important I thought that it was to strengthen our position and to get these amendments made.

Officers from the Department for Education have been requested to provide further advice regarding the next steps in this bilateral process, and we await their response to our communications of 11th April. The aim is to complete this project by the end of this year.

I thank the Minister for his answer and update to the Assembly. I would simply ask whether he has given a private briefing to the relevant Scrutiny Panel.

As yet I have not, but I am quite happy to do so, and I can make arrangements for that to happen.

Thank you very much.

Could the Chief Minister advise what government support will be provided to businesses to help them move from the minimum wage to the living wage, and how much this is likely to cost.

Moving to a living wage at two-thirds of the median wages previously approved by the Assembly is - as we have heard earlier - and remains a priority in the timetable that has been laid out by the Minister for Social Security. Support will include targeted support to employees and employers during the transition period and this will be achieved through focused support to individual sectors.

I cannot give much more detail than that at the moment because the detail is currently being worked up by the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development. But this Government has been clear that we understand that businesses, especially in certain sectors, will need some bridging financial support to help achieve the journey to living wage, which in turn will benefit society and produce a more productive living wage economy.

Could the Minister advise if he believes that some businesses may not survive as a result of moving to living wage, and has he done any assessment of the likely impact on those who would struggle even with government support?

Assessments have been done along these lines in the past and I think it is likely that we will see job losses. I hope we do not see businesses close. I hope support can be put in place to help businesses manage the transfer. When I say “job losses”, I think we might see job losses in certain businesses as they restructure themselves to make sure they are remaining viable as a business. But we do have capacity in the economy, so while some businesses might restructure and lose jobs, I believe those jobs will be taken up in other areas of the economy so we will not see an increase in unemployment.

Can the Minister confirm whether one of the forms of support he is looking at is subsidies to business to help them pay the living wage?

I do not believe we will be going to direct cash subsidies as we did during the COVID pandemic. I think the Ministers are going to be targeting different types of support which help businesses to become more productive and provide financial support in different ways. As I said, I cannot give the detail yet because the Ministers are working that up, but I am looking forward to receiving their report in due course.

Can I then ask the same question I asked the Minister for Social Security, which is: given that some businesses have already gone the extra mile and made the living wage commitment, what message does he have to those businesses who will now see their competitors potentially receive government support to achieve what they did without support?

Well, I commend all businesses that have made that step. Businesses will make decisions based on their own circumstances and I would like businesses to be able to do that in a free market economy with as little interference as possible. But the facts of the situation are that if we are going to legislate for a living wage, then some small businesses who cannot afford to get there because of their business models and their levels of income and their current staff structure will need help to get there. My message to businesses that are operating at that level is to congratulate them on their success and thank them for moving there. But I also want to give a message to businesses that are concerned about this that we will provide as much support to them as possible.

The Minister referred to a free market economy. Does the Minister not consider that in the free market economy, it is generally the job of a business to determine its own viability, and if it is not viable in the current conditions, then it is a matter for them to decide how to deal with that, rather than to seek further government subsidy?

[11:45]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that principle, with a caveat. When a Government or an Assembly imposes a new procedure which imposes in some instances significant costs on businesses with which they have no choice, I think we are duty bound to provide support for a short period of time for those businesses to bridge the gaps. After that, then we are back to the free market economy principles.

Whether it would be a true living wage in those circumstances is obviously a matter for some debate, and I imagine the Minister will bring that to the Assembly in the Government Plan, which we understand is due to be published shortly. Perhaps the Minister might tell the Assembly how much has been allocated in the Government Plan to provide this additional subsidy.

I will gladly tell the Assembly that when we have made the allocation. We have not started the work yet on the Government Plan; that starts this Thursday morning at 9.30 a.m., I believe. We will keep Assembly Members informed of the process and of course lodge the Government Plan in ... I think we are aiming for July.

The Chief Minister has alluded to financial support being given to Jersey’s low wage economy businesses. However, as part of the transition, how will the Council of Ministers ensure that those businesses can be financially independent at the end of the term that no assistance then will be given?

At the end of the day, I do not think there are any guarantees that businesses will remain viable. It is up to the business owners and the business models and the way they operate their business. What I think we are duty bound to do is help them make that transition. As I said in the previous answer, once they have made that transition, then it is up to them.

The Chief Minister, in his previous answers, alluded to the fact that he will come to the Assembly to make these decisions on potential subsidies for businesses to go towards living wage. Yet his Minister for Social Security has said that he ... to stop the investigatory report that was published in December 2023. Can the Chief Minister assure the Assembly that evidence will be provided to the Assembly to help make those decisions, including the data that himself and the Minister for Social Security have been saying has been done since December, and also that consultations have been done with businesses around this potential subsidy and living wage, and if we will receive those results as well.

I am not sure I fully understood the question. Ultimately, any allocations to provide support to business will need the approval of the Assembly because that will have to be budgeted in the forthcoming Government Plan. I am sorry, Sir, could the Deputy simplify the other part of the question?

Yes, of course. I am asking if, when coming with that proposal to the Assembly and the Government Plan, there will be evidence to back this proposal?

Yes, we will endeavour to provide as much relevant evidence and information as possible to support our proposal.

A lot of the arguments that are being made about businesses not being able to cope or being affected by a living wage may well have been made back in 2003 when the minimum wage, which was set at £4.80, was introduced. To what extent does the Minister believe that it is Government’s job to assist industries which cannot comply with minimum standards in terms of payment? If so, what is that intervention from Government going to look like?

We still do not know what that intervention is going to look like. It is going to be quite a challenge because, for example, it is difficult to look at something like social security reductions because it is very difficult to manage that by specific business or sector. As I have said a number of times, we are not sure what that is going to look like, but as soon as we do we will share that with Members.

Ordinarily, it is not down to Government to prop up and support businesses; we like the economy to manage and run itself successfully. In every economy, you see great business successes and unfortunately you see business failures, but when we are changing legislation at relatively short notice, over the next 2 years, that will have a significant impact - critical impact, perhaps on smaller businesses - I think we are duty bound to help where we can. As soon as we have a model for that help, we will share it.

Could I ask the Chief Minister: will he give some consideration to the employers who will suffer as a consequence of this transition in terms of support for skills training and the kind of diversification, and also does he envisage any particular impact on the wider benefit system as a result of the introduction of the living wage?

I can give assurances that skills development is likely to play a key part in improving productivity and helping businesses bridge the gap. The second part of the question, could you remind me please, Deputy?

It was to do with the impact that it will have on the wider benefit system. Will we see an increase in the benefits that people will need to access if they are no longer able to either be employed through living wage? Will it require a different review of the wider benefit system as a consequence of introducing the living wage?

It is my understanding that it will not, because we do have capacity in the economy, that we should not see an increase in unemployment. Also, we should be mindful of the benefit to society of a living wage economy, which should take more people off having to rely on support.

What progress has the Minister made in regard to the funding and development of a therapeutic children’s home and services?

I thank Deputy Ahier for that question. I inherited the therapeutic home from the previous Minister and indeed supported the concept of a therapeutic home at the time. I think all of us at the time thought: “Is this not marvellous? We will be able to provide therapy for children.” There were some delays in acquiring the building - and I will come to that later - but that gave us time to do more research. The outcome was that, in fact, we did not believe we needed a therapeutic home of the nature that had originally been envisaged. So, as part of the transformation programme, work is now underway to scope a therapeutic offer to all children in the care of the Minister and those that are at the edge of care. This includes funding for a service led by C.A.M.H.S. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service), who will oversee a multidisciplinary team to support children and young people that sit within the Getting Risk Support part of the emotional, well-being and mental health Thrive model. These are children and young people who will be looked after or at the edge of care.

The team will offer therapeutic interventions, case supervision, care co-ordination and support to the children’s workforce, including foster and connected carers. It has been agreed that all these placements - residential, foster care and off-Island - must be therapeutic in nature and therefore plans are being put forward to repurpose some of the original funding proposed for the therapeutic residential children’s home into a specialist, enhanced multidisciplinary therapeutic team. This team will provide care, co-ordination and outreach into the key services that support our most vulnerable children and young people who sit within the Getting Risk Support part of the Thrive model. In deciding not to proceed with the purchase of a single therapeutic home we considered up-to-date sufficiency modelling and planning is required, as demand is currently below 2022, which formed the basis of the forecast presented in the social care reform case. This is being investigated ...

Sorry, Sir. I can say that, with regard to the home, issues that arose were issues in regard to change of use planning application. The owner became unwilling to sign the owner consent form, neighbours started to raise concerns and objections, and the property, after a survey, did not lend itself to wider social care usage, such as residential leaving care or semi-independent living. What I would like to say is that what we propose, I believe, will be the best offer for our vulnerable children.

Nothing further, Sir.

The Minister recently ran a campaign to fund foster carers for teenagers. Could you please enlighten the Assembly about the Minister’s plans for the service?

I thank the Connétable for that question, as I am particularly close to and have made fostering a key part of my Ministry. We recently launched a campaign, Time for Teens, to recruit more foster carers specifically to provide homes for teenagers. The aim is to encourage more people to consider fostering teenagers, which could help change those children’s lives. What is more important than having a caring family around you during what are some of the most important times of your life as you gradually move into adulthood and prepare for independence? It is particularly sad that for some children this does not happen and this can have a dramatic effect on not just your teenage years, but also in adulthood. We currently have 10 teenage children who require foster carers. Would it not be wonderful if all those children would find a home? Care homes, of course, provide a loving and caring environment, but it simply is not the same as having a family from which you can learn many of the things we take for granted. The campaign highlighted that fostering a teenager can be a hugely rewarding role and can actually be less demanding than caring for younger children, who are often more popular with foster carers, but teenagers are usually more independent. The main role for carers during this time is to provide a secure base and focusing their energy on helping young people; that is a lot easier to achieve when you are part of a family.

Thank you, Sir. Our campaigns are already showing some successes. So far we have 6 approvals this year, 3 more coming on, 7 more in assessment, and 2 additional approvals for connected care.

From the current campaign we had 17, I think, in total people who were interested and 6 applications have so far come through.

My question was very similar but I am not sure, hearing the Minister, whether we got a full understanding of an update on the professional foster care scheme, what framework the Minister is using, how many professional foster carers the Minister believes are needed, and when will he see professional foster carers coming into the system.

Thank you for that question. Professional foster carers are, of course, something that I believe we should have and we are currently looking at packages. At this point, I do not have a great deal of detail on that, but it is my belief that we should move from a position of care homes - there may always be a need for one or 2 possible care homes - move from the position of multiple care homes to a fostering service. As part of that, as I have said, we do need professionals, particularly in some of the more complex cases. I am happy to come back to the Assembly when we have a framework for that and a package agreed.

[12:00]

Please could the Minister explain what happens to those children while they will be waiting for professional foster carers to be trained, this framework to be put in place, and a timetable to be put, and I assume funding to be found.

Well, of course those children are in our care already. They are in our care homes where we obviously try to provide a family-type environment. But, as I said in my first response, it can never be the same as being with a family. Now, the move to foster caring is a change in policy and that is going to require training people. In the interim, those children still receive the very best care that we are able to give them today. I am aware, as I have already said, that they would be better in foster care, but we cannot train that number of people in a very short space of time. Also, fostering is something where you receive your training, but you cannot then go immediately into a situation of, for instance, intensive foster care. It takes some time to build up. Foster carers usually will take a child for a short time initially, and then gradually build up to having children full time. Some foster carers will keep them for years; the positions are different. But you can be assured that you have my commitment ...

... to make this a reality. Thank you very much.

Is the Minister aware of recent research on the harms caused to children by screen use and, in particular, social media? What does he plan to do to address this?

I have heard very briefly about such a report; if Deputy Doublet has that report, then I would be very pleased to receive that. At this point, I do not have a great deal of information, but I would say that absolutely anything that harms our children needs to be addressed. I would be very pleased to receive that report from her.

It is not just one report; there is a growing body of evidence around this. For example, finding that social media could be as harmful to children as smoking or gambling and there are impacts in terms of depression, anxiety, misperception of body image, addiction and poor mental health outcomes.

Would the Minister agree to task one of his officers with collating this research, to help inform him on this matter so that he can look into what actions he might like to take?

Yes, I think I would be very happy to do that. I am aware of some of those issues; some of the effects of social media can be extremely harmful to our children. I know you have listed some of those, which I was ... and I would be very happy to do that.

Some children do not need to be placed into foster care because they stay with family members under residency orders. How does the payment to foster carers compare to those who look after children under residency orders? Are they comparative and if not, why not?

Thank you very much, Constable, because this is an issue that I became aware of very recently through my involvement with fostering, that in fact where a residency order with a connected family takes place they do not receive the same level of payment as a foster carer. While fostering is not something that you wish to make money from, it should at least cover your expenses. I was quite concerned when I learnt about this and it certainly is something that I intend to research and try to bring uniformity. I cannot understand why, if a family relative is fostering, then they would not have the same package as a foster carer.

I am pleased to hear the Minister admit that there is a disparity, which I obviously knew before I asked the question. My concern is that there are families who have struggled with the money paid to them from a residency order, and they see now those who foster receiving more financially than perhaps they did or are receiving. My concern is that some of those children on residency orders have missed out, because the money paid to them was a low amount. Will the Minister agree ... well, he has indicated that he is looking at this, but what will he do when he realises that there are families who have received far less financially than those who are now starting to foster? Will he make back payments to those whose children have missed out because they were on residency orders, rather than being fostered? I know of examples of that.

Thank you very much for that. First of all, we need to look at the situation. As I have said, I personally do not understand why there is a difference. Whether backdating can be considered, that is something that we would have to look at when we review this; I cannot make a commitment to that at the moment because I do not know the full facts. What I can say is, as I have said before, that I recently became aware of this and obviously I intended to look into it, to ask officers to review it and ...

Thank you.

Can I raise a point of order?

Can I ask, where Ministers have spoken for longer than the allotted 11⁄2 minutes do you have the facility to increase the time available for questions to that Minister?

The pupil-teacher ratio has decreased from 16 pupils per teacher in 2012 to 13 per teacher in 2024, while the number of teachers has increased over that period. Does the Minister believe that schools are now overstaffed?

To put my answer quickly, no I do not.

How many more teachers does the Minister believe that the schools need?

That is almost an impossible question to answer without knowing the cohort and what needs will be required. What I will say is the nature of education has changed, particularly in the last 10 years, with a much greater identification of need and much more addressing of that need. I wonder whether the Deputy’s figures include teaching assistants in terms of the ratio, because there has been an increase in teaching assistants, and I think it may well include that data. I am not questioning the Deputy’s data, I am just asking him to question that himself. That means there are more young people served with one to one or short group support within the classroom, and that enables them to access education. That is a really key thing. So if that is what the numbers are - and I believe that is where it may be - I think we just need to look at the needs that are available.

Sir, Deputy Gardiner had her light on for quite a while before me.

Is the Minister aware of what policies our schools have around the use of smartphones on school premises, either in lessons or outside of lessons? What does the Minister think schools should be doing with smartphones?

I genuinely thank the Deputy for the question because what happens at the moment ... the responsibility around smartphones really is to do with each individual school and I think that developed during the increase in what was referred to as autonomy in schools. I do believe that schools are doing their best in terms of use of smartphones; it is very difficult to police. Young people have smartphones at an early age, particularly in secondary schools, and there are good reasons to have a smartphone. You can contact parents on your way home, et cetera, and there is a safety feature. Many schools have a rule whereby smartphones are not used in classrooms; as simple as that. It may seem an idea to say: “All smartphones will be taken into the school office at the beginning of the day.” I was in a school once that tried that; it lasted 2 days because 826 smartphones had to be accounted for within the first few minutes of the day. It does not work. We also do rely on parents, and I think that is an area that we need to work with, educating and working with parents in that partnership with schools to look at the best use of smartphones and the risks around them, let us be honest about it.

Would the Minister agree to work with the Minister for Children and Families to understand the body of evidence around this and take on the serious consideration whether some policies need to be put in place in schools to protect our children across all schools?

Yes, absolutely. I think the Children’s Commissioner would be exactly the route to take. I would be wary about blanket policies in schools in terms of smartphones for all schools because it depends on what is being delivered as well. For example, within I.T. (information technology) when I was teaching I know that we were starting to develop a thing called Quizlet, which is a really good way of getting students engaged at the end, and for the last 5 minutes we might say, right, it is a way of going through information, so we need delicate balance to have. I believe as well that it is beyond just the use of smartphones; I think we need more intelligent policies - let me use that word - on screen time in schools as well. Because it is the nature of modern education, unfortunately, but there is a balance to be struck there. I would also say again I think it is so important that parents understand what is happening with their children and smartphones. There were some quite worrying headlines in the press yesterday and today.

Does the Minister agree that the La Passerelle Primary, Springfield School and Janvrin School replacement projects should be placed on hold to make way for a skate park and a youth club on the Gas Place site?

I do thank the Deputy for this question. No, I do not agree. I brought the original amendment to the bridging Island Plan to rezone Gas Place.

[12:15] I have been to La Passerelle Primary School and so, again, I would like to have an open invitation to any Member who wants to see the reality of what is happening in schools and the miracles that some schools are working with their young people. We desperately need to replace La Passerelle as part of the new development at Gas Place; that is in train. We do need to work on that and do it quickly.

Every Member is entitled to bring propositions but just as much as that, as a Minister, I am entitled to say I simply do not agree with it.

Is the Minister confident that our children are getting enough sport and physical exercise opportunities at school and of a high enough quality?

That is a good question. P.E. (physical education) is not my specialist subject and I have covered it in my time but there you go. I think there is a set curriculum in school, certainly in primary and secondary schools in terms of delivery of P.E. One of the big obstacles to delivery of P.E. is not simply time but it is facilities. I am not trying to shoehorn this in but I have to say it, in some of our town schools where there simply is not the space that is necessary, they are having to deliver P.E. in spaces that are simply not suitable for our young people; that would be the biggest risk to the delivery of P.E., I think, in our schools. The sooner we get on with improving those facilities the better.

However, the schools do undertake really good projects with the work of Jersey Sport as well with delivering some of the P.E. in schools. There is a dedicated P.E. lead in each year group, I believe, in primary schools and in secondary schools of course. We have P.E. teachers and P.E. on the curriculum all the way through key stage 3 and key stage 4, both for G.C.S.E.(General Certificate of General Education) and as a compulsory part of the curriculum in key stage 4.

Does the Minister have any plans to review any part of the current curriculum or the model, which I believe is quite a hybrid one where schools decide how they spend their money and whether they bring in coaches from Jersey Sport, for example?

I sort of get a shudder down my spine when I hear the word “review”, to be honest. But I think what I would like to do is ensure that we have a better understanding of the success or not of those models.

If they are working let us continue them, if they are not working let us look at replacement. I do not think one size fits all for our schools at the moment because of the nature of the facilities that they have. We have to be quite smart and adaptable in what we provide. Yes, I am happy to look at that.

I think a full-scale review is not necessary but I think as part of the development of Jersey curriculum as well, which is ongoing, it will be something that we need to look at.

Following Deputy Moore’s question, would the Minister confirm that he does have the support of the Council of Ministers to progress with the building of the school at Gas Place?

I believe that is the case. We have not been to the Council of Ministers with this, simply because I believe it was government policy which we agree with. I am happy to go back to the Council of Ministers to get that support because I believe I have a very, very, very, very, very - how long have I got, one minute, 30 seconds, keep saying very - strong case to support the development of a new school. Indeed my list of reasons for the school, which is in very small font - and to be honest with you it is too small a font for me - is here. I will not read them all out because that will take up the rest of this 15 minutes of time. There are significant reasons for that school happening and I firmly believe I can get the support of the Council of Ministers, and I believe that is where we need to go forward.

Continuing on that theme, there are at least 2 formal steps that will have to be taken to progress that school; one is to submit a planning application, one would be to buy the site from Andium. Can he provide any update on the timetable for doing either or both of those?

No, I cannot provide a formal update. However, one of the first things I have done is to sit down with officers and say: “We need to push this project along as quickly as we possibly can.” There was a meeting the other day between myself, the Minister for Infrastructure and Minister for Justice and Home Affairs where we talked about the wider projects as well in terms of Rouge Bouillon. It was a very pleasant end to that meeting where we had absolute common agreement on the way forward, not just for the next 2 years, not for the next 10 years but up to the next 40 years in terms of the provision of schools, ambulance, fire in the centre of St. Helier, and so that is one of the larger projects that we have. But, yes, I would like to pursue as quickly as possible the purchase of the land and the planning permission. I really hope that we can have that at least at the latest in place before the next election, so it is not an election issue and then we can get on with providing that.

Will he undertake to keep the Constable of St. Helier informed of his plans for those steps?

It is always a pleasure to meet with the Constable of St. Helier. We get on very well. We may have a difference of opinion on this but absolutely and indeed I would like to keep the Assembly informed.

But most importantly I would like to keep the schools and the children informed as to what is going on.

What plans does the Minister have under consideration in order to increase and improve equality in our school system?

One of the things that happens, and there have been actions, and that I am very pleased to support is the funding formula changes. What they did was they took the funding of schools just beyond the A.W.P.U. (Average Weighted Pupil Unit) to a much wider definition, which recognise the difference in need across our schools. Funding goes specifically towards need, as well as the number of pupils, the surface area of the school, the number of staff, et cetera. What that has done, that has focused funding into areas of more need in our 11 to 16 schools, for example. I think that has improved the level of equity in terms of funding to begin with. The second thing we need to do in that area is we need to look at our curriculum and we need to recognise that there is a false distinction between vocational and academic education and that one size does not fit all in our education system, thus, the lifelong learning remit, which I am very pleased to try and pursue.

The Minister has outlined to the Assembly his priority to deliver a new primary school in North St.

Helier but where within his priorities does the delivery of a youth centre in north St. Helier lie? Could he give us an update on that?

I am obviously very keen on a youth facility in north St. Helier. That is a delegated responsibility from the Minister for Children and Families to Deputy Ferey, and I know that he is pursuing that.

We communicate each week when we have our Ministerial meetings. We have a 30-minute overlap so we can communicate with each other but I know that is being pursued. Personally, I still hang on to Nelson Street as a site because that was in the Island Plan, but I hang on to a lot of hopes in this role and in my job. But I think there are other facilities that are becoming available that may work.

But, yes, I am very hopeful for a youth facility in the centre of St. Helier, simply because there were so many homes being built in that area; we need our children to have facilities.

I completely agree with the Minister that due to the number of homes there does need to be a youth facility. Will the Minister be able to tell the Assembly that he will push the Assistant Minister to deliver plans as quickly as possible and at least within the next year?

He is not my Assistant Minister but I do not think I have to push him because I think he is behind it as well. Yes, absolutely and that is something that we do want to do. I think what we have in the centre of St. Helier is the need to have some really joined-up thinking about the provision in terms of a new school, which opens up other areas around Rouge Bouillon area, that produces a new park at Springfield so we have more green space, a youth facility that provides for the young people in the growing catchment area and the growing numbers who are being concentrated into the centre of town because of building. I think that we are starting to get that plan together and really look at ways forward, not just for this term but way into the future. We have to think long term when it comes to education and young people.

Given the plans to increase the statutory age of education to 18, what plans does the Minister have to make sure this education is inclusive?

Again, it is that division between vocational and academic education, which is somewhat false, so we need an education system up to the age of 18 that meets our needs, meets the needs of young people and is focused on the needs of this Island and the future of this Island way beyond my term.

With the release of the labour market report today it is noted that there has been an increase in 450 jobs in the Government of Jersey. How does the Chief Minister justify this figure?

I cannot really justify that figure but I would remind the Deputy that, to the best of my knowledge, the labour report refers to December 2023, before this Government took office.

Will the Chief Minister, under his term of office, be increasing the amount of employees by the same amount and is this what he regards as reprioritising spending?

No. If I may draw the attention of the Deputy to our proposed Common Strategic Policy priorities - and I am looking for it here, I cannot find it without my glasses - is to curb the growth in the public sector is one of our key priorities. It is the age, I am afraid, sorry.

Given that the C.S.P. pledges to keep increases in government fees and charges low, why has the Government raised parking fees by 7.22 per cent when Jersey’s inflation was only 5.7 per cent?

That is a debate with the Minister for Infrastructure I had this week. There was a decision to do that, so it was made and put in train in January and we did when the R.P.I. (retail price index) was much higher. As it happened, the timing of that, the announcement was made on the day that we saw welcome news that the R.P.I. was beginning to fall, by which place all the arrangements had been made for the 7.7 per cent increase. We would, I think, have, had we foreseen it, looked to changing that. But what I can say is that that extra increase is being used for much needed capital investment in new parking law provision for electric vehicles and additional road safety measures while the department are doing work on the road safety strategy. I can also confirm that the Minister for Infrastructure has undertaken to make sure that the parking increase next year is much, much lower and will go some way to compensating for the slight increases over R.P.I. this time.

Given that the R.P.I. figures are produced regularly and quarterly, that maybe communication is the key problem with this as well with any parking strategy, road safety strategies, does the Chief Minister commit to better communication?

We always learn and we are always caught occasionally with funding like this. Yes, I undertake to continue to learn and I am learning daily on this job.

We heard earlier that the Chief Minister wants to help businesses adapt in the short term to rises in the living wage. Why is his Government not prepared to provide the same bridging help for EVie, the Island’s main shared transport provider, given the high priority that the Sustainable Transport Policy places on active and shared transport?

Deputy, repeat the question.

We heard earlier that the Chief Minister wants to help businesses adapt in the short term to rises in the living wage. Why is his Government not prepared to provide the same bridging help for EVie, the Island’s main shared transport provider, given the high priority that the Sustainable Transport Policy places on active and shared transport?

To be clear, by introducing the living wage we are putting, by law, increased costs on to businesses that operate specifically in certain sectors, but that is why we are undertaking to provide bridging support in that instance. With EVie that is not the case. I do not know the detail but I think the Infrastructure alluded to it and I align with his thoughts, despite the fact that EVie is a very welcome and innovative business, it embraces its environmental credentials. I do not believe it is in difficulty for any government policy or any further cost we are imposing upon it.

[12:30]

In his statements regarding the C.S.P., the Chief Minister said that the Government should focus on doing less. Are we now seeing the first fruits of that strategic focus on doing less and that, as a result, is he content that this means less in terms of supporting sustainable transport providers in?