Hansard Official Report

contracts Health and Community Services has entered into with charitable or other third sector organisations (WQ 256/2024) Question “Will the Minister provide details for each of the last three years of all contracts Health and Community Services has entered into with charitable or other third sector organisations, including – (a) the names of the contracted organisations; (b) the start date for each contract and its duration; (c) what product or service each contract provides; (d) the contract price for each product or service; (e) the tendering process followed for each contract; and (f) what evaluation is undertaken on the quality and value for money of each contract?” Answer Health and community services have contracts with several charitable and third sector organisations*.

Please see below table for corresponding answers: Question Question (b) Question (c) Question (e) (a) 2021 2022 2023 Contracted Contract Contract Contract Service description Commercial organisatio start date start date & start date & route n & duration. duration.

duration.

Age 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Provision of hot meals five days Concern a week, + a weekly frozen meal Direct award 1 year 1 year 3 years service for islanders not attending centre Brook 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Integrated Sexual health service Jersey for young people aged 21 years Direct award 1 year 1 year 1 year and under Communic 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Indirect support of friendship are club and exercise classes by Direct award 1 year 1 year 3 years funding the rental costs of rooms Dementia 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Structured well-being Jersey programme for people who have 1 year 1 year 1 year been recently diagnosed or who have mild symptoms of Direct award dementia and family or friends in caring roles. Providing support to the development of the Dementia Strategy.

Family 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 District Nursing Service, Rapid Nursing & Response and Reablement Home Care 1 year 1 year 1 year Service, community health Direct award services for children and young people aged 0-19 Good 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Companionship and social Companion activities for individuals aged Direct award s Club 1 year 1 year 3 years 55 years and over who are socially isolated Headway 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Provision of craft classes, entertainment, exercise classes, 1 year 1 year 3 years food and beverages, other Direct award therapeutic and social activities and independent advocacy for people affected by brain injury.

Jersey 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Contribution to Specialist Hospice Palliative Care Team, Inpatient Direct award 1 year 1 year 3 years and bereavement services MIND 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Support services for carers of people with mental health Direct award 1 year 1 year 1 year problems MyVoice 01/01/21 Independent advocacy services for people with significant 3 years mental health problems or those Open market who lack capacity and do not tender have support from a significant other Jersey 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 Provision of educational courses Recovery for people experiencing mental Direct award College 1 year 1 year 1.25 years health issues and their carers Silkworth 01/01/21 01/01/22 01/01/23 12 bedded residential service providing an abstinence-based Direct award 1 year 1 year 1 year relapse prevention programme to support people recovering from drug and or alcohol dependency Per contracts £10,717,6 £10,371,773 £12,404,75 Question To be 0 To be (d)updated to** updated actual Actual to actual £14,232,62 At the end of 2023 a mental health services provider framework was set up, with 14 providers onboarded (charities and private sector organisations). A number of mental health services will be commissioned via the framework going forwards. One service has been commissioned via the framework in 2024 for a term of 3 years.

(f) Commissioners employ a number of methods of evaluating quality and value for money of all contracted services: • key performance indicators are included within each contract and monitored on a quarterly (or more often) basis.

• providers are requested to gather service user feedback on service performance, and commissioners collect feedback from system partners.

• qualitative information such as case studies and complaints/compliments are used to supplement quantitative data to get a more rounded view of services.

• quarterly or bi-annual service review meetings are held with each provider, where a range of issues are discussed, including what is and isn't working well, service performance against KPIs, workforce issues, financial issues and service developments.

• commissioners undertake benchmarking of service performance and cost against best practice in other organisations/jurisdictions to assess quality and value for money.

*‘Third sector organisations’ is a term used to describe the range of organisations that are neither public sector nor private sector. It includes voluntary and community organisations (both registered charities and other organisations such as associations, self-help groups and community groups), social enterprises, mutuals and co-operatives. (UK National Audit Office) ** Total figure included as contract price for each product or service is commercially sensitive

Families regarding the number of children who attend school on areduced timetable (WQ 257/2024) Question “Will the Minister state the number of children who attend school on a reduced timetable due to their complex clinical and education needs and detail the support available, if any, for these children during school hours when they are not at school; and should any support exist, will he further advise – (a) who the providers of such services are; (b) how the Government supports and works with these providers; (c) which Government departments work with these providers; (d) the level of Government funding that is available to support these children, and what has been included in the 2025-2028 Government Plan; and (e) how much funding each provider has received and how many children they have supported, for each of the last 5 years?” Answer In line with the Part time timetable policy: A reduced timetable refers to those circumstances when a decision is made to reduce a pupil’s ‘overall’ curriculum offer. As part of this arrangement, the pupil continues to attend school full time.

Cases where children are placed on a reduced timetable are likely to be rare and unique in each individual case.

A part time timetable refers to those circumstances where a decision is made to limit the amount of time a pupil spends in school accessing education (on site or otherwise). As part of this arrangement, and the pupil is not accessing a full-time education. The need to safeguard a pupil must be considered before a part-time timetable is agreed and safeguarding measures built into the plan.

Furthermore, in circumstances where a pupil has a serious medical condition and regular ongoing medical intervention is required, or recovery is the priority outcome, educational arrangements will be reflected in a ‘medical/care plan’ agreed between school, health and other relevant professionals.

This plan may be implemented for a short-term medical condition that requires a period of recovery or for a long-term medical condition that requires ongoing medical support. These plans are not reduced or part-time timetables.

Out of the above, schools are only required to register pupils on part – time timetables.

In 2023-2024 43 pupils where registered for a parttime table, 10 of which are now closed.

The GoJ provide many opportunities to support the above scenarios which are free. These include: • SKILLS Jersey • Jersey Youth Service • JET • CAMHS Early Intervention • Inclusion Service Teams (ASCIT, EWOS, SEMHIT, VI, Wellbeing team, HDST, Eps) • Move On Café • Jersey Library Education outsource the following activities which include private providers and charitable providers (this is not an exhaustive list) Some of these are at a cost; others are free: • Happy Hooves Equine Therapy • Healing Waves • Wet Wheels • Birdsong • Skate School • Boxing • Absolute Adventures • Chestnut Farm • Paddle tennis • Jump Jersey (often offered uncharged) • Zoo • Aqua splash • Les Quennevais Swimming/Sports • Yoga • Art Therapy • Amazin Maize • Jersey Sports • Jonno’s Watersports • Camp Bosdet • Eyecan activities • Surf School • Jersey Heritage Education outsource the following tutoring companies: • Word and Numbers • Kings Interhigh online tutoring • Core Education As Schools and Inclusion fund these from either their school budgets, SEND funding, RoN funding, JP funding which includes Virtual School funding, it is not possible to provide the costs.

These plans are individualised and bespoke to each child and young person’s health and development needs.

Beaulieu School annual accounts (WQ 258/2024) Question “In relation to Beaulieu School, will the Minister advise whether – (a) the 2022 and 2023 annual accounts have been received by the Government, and if so, when they will be published; (b) the school has repaid the two loans issued in 2008 and 2014, totalling £1 million, that were due for repayment in 2022; (c) repayments are being made relating to the £7.3 million loan facility taken out in 2019; and (d) he is aware of any reason for the delay to the publication of the accounts?” Answer (a) We have received management accounts from Beaulieu Convent School Limited, but are yet to receive the final audited accounts. I will publish the accounts once I have received the audited and signed version.

(b) On inception of the 2019 loan the outstanding loan balance of £293,488 owed by the school was incorporated into the new loan.

(c) In line with P.26-2019, capital repayments on the 2019 loan are only due on completion of the full project, once the final drawdown on the loan facility is made. As such, I am advised that no capital repayments are currently due.

(d) I am aware of the delay in the publication of the accounts which is attributable to a delay in the completion and sign-off of the audit.

use lithium batteries (WQ 259/2024) Question “In relation to single use lithium batteries, will the Minister advise what processes are in place for their safe disposal and whether any accidents or incidents have occurred at the Island’s recycling facilities, or energy from waste plant, due to these batteries being disposed of with general waste?” Answer Provision for the disposal of single use lithium batteries is facilitated through two established routes: Drop off point at Household Recycling Centre (HRC); Battery tube drop off points at various locations around the Island (currently 114 sites).

Lithium batteries are segregated from other chemistry types (Alkaline/Nickel Cadmium) when moved to the lower yard area of the HRC. Here they are packaged by chemistry type into ADR (International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road) compliant containers and stored separately pending shipping to a treatment facility. The shipping and treatment of the batteries is carried out under EU Waste Shipment Regulations and a Transfrontier Shipment Notification (TFS) is required to cover these movements.

There have been no recorded accidents or incidents at the HRC or the Energy Recovery Facility due to single use lithium batteries

cyber security risks (WQ 260/2024) Question “In relation to cyber security risks, will the Chief Minister advise – (a) what measures and Government funding exists to protect public services, Government departments and States Members; (b) what training and support is provided to those using States of Jersey provided products and applications; and (c) which, if any, UK bodies the Government is working with in relation to managing these risks?” Answer a. The internal response to cyber security risks for Government provided systems and services is managed by the Government of Jersey and led by Modernisation and Digital (M&D).

As part of increasing the cyber protection for Government departments and public services delivered by the Government of Jersey, there has been investment in Cyber Security through capital funding as part of the Cyber Security Programmes, as detailed in recent Government Plans. This investment has delivered improvements, including a Security Operations Centre, monitoring systems events and risk assessing alerts for remedial action.

Operational day-to-day technical protection measures for Government of Jersey systems are provided by the Modernisation and Digital (M&D) technical operational teams and their work in ensuring sufficient security measures are in place across Government devices. These technical protection measures include firewalls, encryption, anti-virus and anti-malware software to name a few. These are supplemented by the Security Standards and Policies which are in place across Government public services and extend to subjects such as physical security and the role of all staff in maintaining security.

The Jersey Cyber Security Centre (JCSC) is an arm’s length capability which promotes and improves the Island’s cyber resilience, supporting the critical national infrastructure, public services, business communities and citizens to prepare, protect and defend Jersey from cyber threats both at home and abroad.

b. As part of the Government of Jersey’s corporate statutory and mandatory staff training, which is available to States Members, there is a Cyber Security focussed training module which covers important information related to keeping data safe, security awareness in the office, good password practice and safe ways of using email. The training in place is in addition to the Security Standards and Policies referred to earlier in the response which provides an additional layer of support to public services which are in place across public services and extend to subjects such as physical security and the role of all staff in maintaining security.

c. The Jersey Cyber Security Centre works closely with the UK National Cyber Security Centre, which is the UK Government body which provides advice and support to the public and private sector for the avoidance of computer security threats. In addition, Government departments and other public bodies work closely with their UK counterparts. For example, the Jersey Competition and Regulatory Authority (JCRA) and the Department for the Economy work closely with NCSC and the UK telecommunications regulator OFCOM on matters of telecoms security. JCSC, States of Jersey Police and the Financial Intelligence Unit - Jersey (FIUJ) also work and share intelligence with their UK counterparts on wider matters related to national security, cybercrime, counter terrorism and computer fraud. JCSC also engages with international bodies such as the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) of which NCSC is also part and co-operates directly with NCSC on cyber incident response.

regarding the Government Care Leavers Offer (WQ 261/2024) Question “In respect of the Government Care Leavers Offer, will the Minister provide a detailed breakdown of the annual budget and expenditure for the period 2020 to 2024, including any increases in budget, and advise what plans, if any, he has to update the Care Leavers Offer, and if there are no such plans, explain why not?” Answer Below are the budget v actual costs for years 2020 – 2024. 2024 is the full year budget but the spend figure are the costs in the ledger from 01.01.24 – 30.06.24.

Year Budget £Actual Spend Variance £ £ 2020 327,000 86,624 240,376 2021 486,000 483,561 2,439 2022 511,000 564,635 -53,635 2023 636,000 957,154 -321,154 2024 699,000 327,371 371,629 01.01.26 - 30.06.24 The increase in the budget provided each year accounts for the increase in the numbers of care leavers, which is currently at 118. It is expected by the end of December 2024 to rise to 127.

The offer is currently under review and Jersey Cares have been commissioned to consult with are leavers regarding the offer to support the review process. So far, there have a number of initiatives completed with care leavers and young people to gain feedback on the current published care leaver offer, but this work is not yet complete. The link to the care leavers offer is below and this sets out the current offer to a young person in Jersey identified as a care leaver.

Guide for Young People Leaving Care

regarding the Health and Community Services Turnaround Team (WQ 262/2024) Question “Further to his answers during questions without Notice on 6th June, in relation to the Health and Community Services Turnaround Team, will the Minister advise - (a) what actions have been completed by the Team since its formation in 2023; (b) how the impact of the Team is assessed; (c) the Team’s objectives and Key Performance Indicators for July to December 2024; (d) the itemised costs for the Team from its formation in 2023 until 1st June 2024; and (e) the agreed cost estimates for the Team for the remainder of 2024 and for 2025?” Answer (a) The Change team’s objectives were focused on supporting the clinical and operational leadership teams to address the recommendations from the Review of Health and Community Services (HCS) Clinical Governance Arrangements within Secondary Care (R.117/2022), the actions set out by the Minister for Health and Social Services in response to the review (R.117/2022 res; R.133/2022) and the financial and operational challenges.

This has included but has not been limited to: • Support for executive and clinical leadership to prioritise and consolidate improvement recommendations; • Support to develop and implement an organisational culture programme; • Identification of key clinical governance recommendations and related actions plans working closely with clinical and operational teams and the Quality & Safety team; • Support for the review and improvement of series incidents and complaints review processes; • Supporting processes to improve clinical governance, for example, adoption and implementation of NICE guidelines, use of best practice and benchmarking standards; • Supporting medical job planning; • Support for identifying improvement actions with regards to safeguarding concerns; • Support and expertise for the development of Board reports; • Support and expertise for the development of the specialty improvement plans.

• Leadership on the Financial Recovery Plan Below are examples of measurable actions that have been completed: • The introduction of NICE and Royal College Guidelines as the default mechanism for care.

• Re -profiling of the complaints and patient feedback process. This has resulted in a reduction in unresolved complaints from 84 (February 2023) to 11(July 2024) with only 4 complaints over seven days.

• Reviewed and implemented a weekly Serious Incident review process. This has resulted in a reduction in unresolved serious incidents older than 12 months from 12 (February 2023) to 3 (July 2024) All of the remaining 3 are close to completion. 100% of Serious Incidents have now a multi professional safety huddle with dedicated actions to ensure learning and immediate change within 48hrs of the declaration.

• Maternity improvement: o Establishment of a maternity improvement plan and continued support in delivering the actions. This has resulted in 104 recommendations (out of 127) being fully completed (as of July 2024) with evidence of sustained improvement with an embedded assurance process developed.

o At the Coroner's Inquest relating to the death of a baby The Coroner highlighted that changes had taken place within the maternity service and because of the changes The Coroner did not issue a Prevent Future Death ruling (This ruling can occur when the coroner does not believe that significant improvement actions have taken place) o Year on Year improvement in Jersey maternity patient survey results.

o Contribution and leadership support to produce the Maternity Strategy.

• Establishment of Ward level Care Assurance Process. The introduction of weekly Chief Nurse and Senior Nurse presence on wards and the introduction of monthly peer reviews of Clinical areas has resulted in the following: o Tissue viability improvement in care 0.6 incident per 1000 bed days (February 2023) reduced to 0.4 incidents per 1000 bed days (July 2024); o Reduction in care related complaints; o Reduction in number of Falls with Harm reported; o Increased number of compliments received; o Sustained high levels of compliance with Infection Control indicators C.Diff and MRSA o Improved inpatient survey results 2023/2024 • Establishment and clinical leadership support for the Medicines Improvement plan in first half of 2024 (on-going).

• Establishment of a new procedure for Medical Appraisal in partnership with Wessex Appraisal services.

• The Job planning process has been reviewed. The job planning process for 2025 will commence with external scrutiny and oversight in August 2024.

• Introduction and establishment of Executive Lead monthly Clinical Governance review process which includes the monthly review of Clinical Incidents, complaints, claims, Clinical care indicators, National audit compliance, NICE and Royal college recommendations and benchmarking compliance all triangulated against the JCC Safe Assessment Framework Standards. Future work will involve additional items, such as compliance reporting, organisational learning, evidence of change and improvement.

• Introduction and implementation of a Statutory and Mandatory training Framework.

Monitoring of compliance will be undertaken regularly.

• Review and reprofile of the HCS safeguarding committee included: o A full review of all legacy (up to 10 years old) outstanding Serious Case Review Recommendations. The review ensured all legacy actions were completed and evidence of implementation provided. A bimonthly process has been established to maintain scrutiny and oversight of recommendations • Support for the island-wide Safeguarding Partnership Board which led to a reduction in recommendations that had not been addressed or implemented. As of July 2024, all indicators that are not fully met yet are underway for completion with a positive peer review undertaken.

• Professional and Leadership support for Interim Chief Nurse including o JCC inspection preparation; o Development of improved care metrics for on-going monitoring; o Development of ward leadership programme for senior Nurse Leaders; o Review of Education processes to promote on-island nurse recruitment; o Proactive links made with outstanding UK NHS Trusts for peer support; o Opportunities for shadowing and leadership arranged for senior nurses, members of the safeguarding/complaints team and board secretary. A peer-to-peer learning visit was arranged for the patient safety team who visited an outstanding Trust to review the incident process.

• Culture and workforce o Support for reconciling key worker accommodation; o Identification of contract harmonisation need (now being progressed by Interim Director of HCS Workforce) o Implementation of listening events in Maternity which acted as a catalyst for the culture plan.

o Mentoring of senior HR team o Supporting the development of the cultural change programme o Supporting recruitment plans • Financial Recovery Plan – Objectives and Deliverables in 2023 (b) The impact of change team members is being assessed on a regular basis by the Chief Officer, HCS through 1:1s and weekly team meetings with the change team members and the executive team to review and maintain progress. Improvements supported are also visible in the HCS Advisory Board and Senior Leadership Team meeting papers and contributions. The answers in (a) are key performance indicators of impact.

(c) Below are the specific change team objectives and Key Performance Indicators for July to December 2024 for the two change team members in post, Chief Nurse Lead and the Director of Finance/FRP lead. The replacement for the Medical Director Change lead is currently in process to focus on consultant job planning and mentoring medical leaders until December 24.

Chief Nurse Lead: Ensure the ongoing sustainability of processes related to: o Maternity o Safeguarding o Complaints o Nurse Quality care indicators o Serious incident review management o Clinical Governance review assurance o NICE compliance o Embed National Audit programme In addition: o Work with the HCS compliance team to ensure organisational readiness for JCC inspection of the hospital; o Ensure launch of the Nursing Strategy; o Support the implementation of the Nurse Associate programme; o Maintain improvements within the Medicine Improvement plan in line with the success of the Maternity improvement plan; o Support the review of the nurse establishment.

Director of Financial Recovery Ensure the delivery of the Financial Recovery Plan (FRP) and the on-going sustainability of processes for financial management, including: o Delivery of £5,000,000 FRP savings; o Delivery of FY24 Budget of £24.5m deficit.

(d) Expenditure for the Change Team from its formation in 2023 until 1st June 2024 were: £880,000 in 2023 £370,000 for the period 1 January to 30 June 2024 The agreed cost estimates for the change team are £375,000 for the period 1 July to 31 December 2024. For 2025, no budget has been set yet.

legislating for amaximum number of hours to be worked by aperson across adesignated period of time (WQ 263/2024) Question “Will the Minister advise what consideration, if any, has been given to legislating for a maximum number of hours to be worked by a person across a designated period of time and, if no consideration has been given, why not; and will the Minister further advise whether she is aware of any cases involving the exploitation of workers who are forced to work long hours?” Answer On coming into office, I sought to identify areas where Jersey employment legislation is lagging behind other countries. I am also prioritising the existing decisions of the Assembly including, in this area, a review to identify appropriate whistleblowing protection for local employees.

Whereas it is true that there is no local legislation in respective of maximum working hours, we do have protection for employees in term of rest breaks during a working day, rest days across a weekly cycle and paid annual leave. Each of these applies to all employees from the first day of employment.

Employers are also subject to a common law duty of care towards their employees, including the duty to take reasonable steps to safeguard their employees’ health and safety. The overriding requirement is to balance protections and rights with sufficient workplace flexibility for businesses and employees in Jersey. I am confident that the law as it currently stands strikes a good balance.

I am not aware of any cases of the exploitation of an employee in terms of hours worked. If the Deputy has such evidence, I encourage him to provide details so it can be investigated. However, in the absence of any local issues being raised, at present this is not an area that I am earmarking for review.

In my evidence to the Scrutiny Panel in May 2024 I discussed various areas where I will be looking to update employment protection including improved compensation awards to employees and a future review to consider the provision of statutory leave to support workers who are ill or have caring responsibilities.

regarding abreakdown of the membership of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) Diversity Forum Sub- Committee in terms of diversity (WQ 264/2024) Question “Will the Chair – (a) provide a breakdown of the membership of the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) Diversity Forum Sub-Committee in terms of diversity (including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs) compared to the membership of the States Assembly and the population of Jersey; and (b) outline what measures PPC and the Diversity Forum are taking to ensure that it is engaging with and effectively representing those people who are not represented or who are underrepresented on the Sub-Committee?” Answer (a) PPC does not formally monitor or record the characteristics of Diversity Forum Members, although, informally, attempts were made when constituting the Sub-Committee to ensure it was diverse and representative; and PPC is aware of some of the characteristics of Sub-Committee Members.

There are currently 8 members of the PPC Diversity Forum Sub-Committee. Of these, and as far as the PPC is aware, 6 identify as female and 2 identify as male. The average age of members on the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee is 50 which compares to the average age of Members in the States Assembly of 58. The Census Report on the 2021 Jersey Census (R.45/2023) states the mean average age of Jersey residents was 42.3 years, the median average was 43 years with female residents having a slightly greater median age (44 years) than male residents (42 years).

With regards to the other matters raised of race, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs, the PPC does not hold this information. We have two Members within the Assembly who have spoken openly about being part of the LGBTQ+ community but we do not collate such information specifically.

Similarly, some have shared information about their disabilities which they themselves would not wish to be broadly known. The PPC does not believe that this is something for it to convey and it is a matter for the Members concerned how, and with whom, they wish to share this information. Whilst it’s vital we have a diverse Assembly with Committees and Panels which reflect the make-up of our community, we should also respect the privacy of Members, when they do not wish to disclose this information.

(b) The PPC does not believe at this time that minorities are underrepresented on the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee and, when established, the Sub-Committee was open to any Member who wished to join. The Diversity Forum Sub-Committee recently met with members of Liberate Jersey and discussed building diversity for voters and engaging with politics. Rebuilding trust in marginalised communities within Jersey was also discussed with research due to take place on enquiring as to what was currently in place to protect women and those in minority groups; following which, the Diversity Forum Sub-Committee will endeavour to undertake further work. The Diversity Forum Sub-Committee has recently approved the appointment of Deputy Malcolm Ferey, to join as a member. The Sub-Committee is also aware that the Assistant Chief Minister, Deputy Carina Alves, has been given responsibility within Government of working towards raising the profile of diversity, equality and inclusion over the next 2 years and it is very much hoped that cross-governmental working in these areas will be a priority with Deputy Ferey’s appointment acting as a conduit between the Sub-Committee and Government, allowing insight into these areas and how they are being developed as policy.

staff in the Health and Community Services department (WQ 265/2024) Question “Will the Minister advise – (a) how many staff in the Health and Community Services department are currently suspended; (b) how long each such member of staff has been suspended; and (c) how much the Department has spent paying staff who have been suspended in each of the last 5 years?” Answer (a) There are no staff suspensions currently in Health and Community Services (b) Not applicable as there are no current suspensions (c) Please see the table below confirming the payment made for suspensions in each of the last 5 years.

Year Cost 2019 £77,809.35 2020 £130,236.18 2021 £132,891.42 2022 £243,961.08 2023 £205,393.30 Total £790,291.32

Social Services regarding the Royal College of Physicians report (WQ 266/2024) Question “Further to the Minister’s response to Oral Question 121/2024 regarding the Royal College of Physicians report, will the Minister advise – (a) whether he has read the report and whether he accepts all of the report’s recommendations and, if not, which recommendations he does not accept; (b) whether he will be actioning the recommendations according to the timetable set out in the report and, if not, what timetable will be followed; and (c) what role he has in relation to ongoing reviews such as this within his department?” Answer (a) whether he has read the report and whether he accepts all of the report’s recommendations and, if not, which recommendations he does not accept; I can confirm that I have read the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) Report from the Invited Review of Rheumatology, and that I accept all of the recommendations contained within it.

(b) whether he will be actioning the recommendations according to the timetable set out in the report and, if not, what timetable will be followed; and A detailed update report was published yesterday (22 July), with the HCS Advisory Board papers.

This provides information on each of the RCP recommendations, and the progress made to date. The HCS Advisory Board report confirms that all of the ‘immediate’ recommendations were completed before the January Board meeting. Nine of the of the ‘short term’ and three of the ‘medium term’ RCP recommendations have been fully implemented, and a further eight ‘short term’ and two ‘medium term’ recommendations are significantly developed.

(c) what role he has in relation to ongoing reviews such as this within his department? As Minister for Health & Social Services, I am ultimately accountable for those services which are provided to Islanders. I take this accountability seriously; a key element of this is ensuring I am regularly briefed by Officers, including the Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director, regarding any reviews that are ongoing, and those that are planned, within Health & Community Services.

fountains at Les Jardins de la Mer (WQ 267/2024) Question “Will the Minister advise when the fountains at Les Jardins de la Mer will be turned on for the summer holidays and, if this is not the intention, will he explain why not?”

regarding use of the drug Kaftrio in the treatment of aspecific mutation of cystic fibrosis (OQ 154/2024) Further to the recent use of the drug Kaftrio in the treatment of a specific mutation of cystic fibrosis, will the Minister advise what mechanisms, if any, are in place to provide this treatment to other patients suffering from this long-term condition?

There is a mechanism in place that can facilitate the provision of treatment for the specific condition mentioned by the Deputy. It is the same one that was deployed in the case referred to in this question.

Given that the treatment involves a very high-cost drug, the patient’s clinician is required to submit an independent patient funding request, or I.P.F.R., to the I.P.F.R. panel. In the event that that does not prove successful, the clinician can then refer it to a separate I.P.F.R. appeal panel. This was the route taken recently for the first successful applicants, and I remain grateful to the Deputy for raising the issue in the Assembly, given that it gave rise to the successful appeal. Through this process, which applies to all such drugs, it is not unusual for a trial period to be approved so that the effectiveness of the treatment can be assessed and, in the event of it proving successful, ongoing treatment can then be sanctioned. Finally, I am happy to inform the Assembly that in this initial case the treatment has worked well and the ongoing treatment has been approved. In addition to that, 2 further patients have now been approved for a 3-month trial period. I think it is safe to assume that the application mechanism we have in place is working appropriately.

Just in general, to what extent do the U.K. (United Kingdom) N.I.C.E. (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines apply in Jersey and how independent is Jersey in order to assess such treatments?

I am aware that Deputy Southern keeps a very close eye on this and, as I have stated, I am grateful to him for doing so. There has been some correspondence in the middle of August relating to this.

It is not a matter I have had a chance to address but I have got an appointment with the deputy medical director on Monday to go into that in more detail. So, I am very happy to keep the Deputy informed as things progress.

2.2 Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding sharing the cost of a mail plane with Guernsey (OQ 153/2024) Further to the news that Guernsey may lose its mail plane due to Royal Mail funding cuts, will the Minister consider engaging with his Guernsey counterparts to discuss sharing the cost of a mail plane to both Islands; and if not, why not?

The short answer to that is yes, the Government would consider opening discussions along those lines. However, Government has not previously funded this service and there is no provision to do so, although successful talks could lead to a new provision being found. I have since discovered that the cost is no longer viable given the significant drop in the delivery of mail to and from the Island.

The annual costs for a mail plane was £6 million per annum with £1.2 million being covered by the Post Office in Jersey and the rest by Royal Mail, so I think commercially, while I am prepared to have discussions with Guernsey, being realistic, I think, it is going to be commercially unviable.

I thank the Chief Minister for his answer, but there are many daily flights from the U.K. - British Airways and many other flights - on a daily basis. Could some arrangement be made so that they could carry the mail to both Islands, obviously supplemented by both Islands?

I am not sure what the freight carrying capacity arrangements in relation to the commercial air passenger services are, but I know officials have discussed the matter with the Post Office, who feel that the new arrangements have settled down well with no disruption to the service. But I will undertake to have those discussions and report back to the Constable.

Economic Development regarding guidelines to small businesses to transition to the ‘living wage’ (OQ 149/2024) Further to the announcement that the minimum wage will be set as a ‘living wage’, will the Minister advise what guidelines will be provided to small businesses to ensure that they are fully aware of all the steps they are required to take to access the proposed Government package to help employers transition to a higher minimum wage; and when will the guidelines be available?

Economic Development) I thank the Deputy for her question. Further information on the Living Wage Transition Fund will be published in the coming weeks. This will let businesses know more detail about the different packages available, the activity that grants will look to support and the application process. All details on the process will be communicated to businesses, including small businesses, by the end of the year, to raise awareness of the support available ahead of the grants going live in January next year. In the meantime, we have been, for a number of months, liaising with professional bodies in the Island, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Jersey Farmers Union, the Hospitality Association, et cetera, to apprise them of the details, so that they can inform their members as well.

[9:45]

Thank you for the Minister for giving details for the businesses and small businesses. Would the Minister advise if the charitable sector would be included in this Living Wage Transition Fund?

Very good question, I thank the Deputy for that question. The answer is that, yes, charitable organisations will be able to access at least some of the funds, and the reason I say at least some of them is because one of them, for instance, is a revamped Tourism Development Fund, so that would be for visitor economy businesses. Unless there is a charitable organisation operating within the visitor economy, it then would not be able to access that fund. But certainly other ones, such as productivity support, scheme training and so on, they will be able to access it.

Thank you for the Minister, and it is good news that the charitable sector would be included. I know until now it was engagement with the businesses and the Minister had meetings. Have any meetings taken place to explore transition to the living wage with the charitable sector?

Personally I have not had any personal meetings with them. I would have to check with officers as to whether they have had or not but I will find out and be able to tell the Deputy. I fear the answer is actually we have not.

Building on that question, can the Minister give assurances that the funds that will be put in place will be available and targeted, not just at the obvious rural economy and hospitality sectors, but at all businesses, particularly small businesses operating in other sectors so that they are also targeted and made aware of the possibility?

What I can say is that is absolutely the case, that certainly certain elements of the funding will be available to all businesses in the Island and there will not be a distinction as to whether they were a minimum wage payer before or not. The opportunity that arises with this move to the living wage is the opportunity to move towards a more resilient and robust economy. We want to do that by helping businesses become more productive and therefore taking away some of their reliance on labour, which should therefore reduce the impact of the minimum wage. Funds such as the productivity support scheme will be absolutely available to all businesses, particularly small businesses, and they are the ones that we would be seeking to support. So there will not be the case that some businesses will not be able to. But obviously, where there are themed funds, such as the aforementioned Tourism Development Fund, that would be only for businesses within that sector of the economy. But the productivity support scheme will be available to all.

I wonder if the Minister could explain a little bit more about the way in which he is going to ensure that the funds are targeted in such a way that they do not disadvantage businesses that are already paying the living wage and will now be competing with businesses that are being subsidised to pay the living wage.

I am very pleased with that question and I thank the Deputy. The reason is because the Deputy used the word ‘subsidy’ and the whole point of this support scheme is that it is not a subsidy and it is not targeted solely at businesses that pay the living wage or currently pay the minimum wage. The support scheme is there to help businesses, organisations and employers become more productive, and that is where the opportunity to have a more resilient and productive economy lies. These funds will be available to all organisations that employ people, and there will be no distinction as to whether the organisation paid the minimum wage or did not pay the minimum wage. This is neither the subsidy for the minimum wage, it is grant giving to enable businesses to become more productive and resilient.

I am sorry, Sir, I pressed my button and I thought you nodded towards me.

Deputy Renouf and then the Minister’s answers actually helped with a number of questions; so very short. The Minister mentioned that it would be grants. Will there be a mixture of grants and loans - we are about to talk about agricultural loans later - or will it just be grants within this package?

I thank the Deputy for the question. At the moment it is envisaged to be a matched grant, so a proportion paid by the employer and to some extent matched by the Government. That is how it is envisaged at the moment, but the actual ... with what we are looking at, at the moment, it is perhaps something along the lines of 75 per cent from the Government, 25 per cent from the employer.

A minor question but it might be an important one. I thought I heard in the Minister’s answer him refer to information will be available in the coming weeks, plural, and it might have been week, which is a vast difference. Which was it? Was it in the coming weeks or coming week?

I thank Deputy Southern. It is weeks, plural; so end of this month, beginning of next month.

Deputy Southern has asked the same question as I would, but may I just clarify, for the avoidance of any doubt - I am just looking at Standing Orders in the Public Finances Law - there are limitations on the ability for Members to amend propositions brought by the Council under the Public Finances Law, this presumably deals with funds and other matters. Could the Minister clarify beyond doubt kindly whether or not all of the information for the setting up of all of the funds and the detail will be available in that month that he says, because we are 11 weeks away from the Budget and there are limitations about when things can be amended? I think that is what Deputy Southern was wanting.

So could he maybe set out a timetable of what is going to come out when, so Members are clear?

I thank the Deputy because I think that is an excellent request, and certainly we will make all that detail available. Like I said, it should be at the end of this month, beginning of next month.

The Minister said ... I know he is being careful. He said “should be”. Will he upgrade that to a “will be” in order to facilitate the Assembly being able to make necessary scrutiny arrangements and amendments as necessary?

I say “should” purely because if a piece of information was missing at the point of publication then that is why I say it. So the intention is that all the information will be available. In the event that an error means that something is not available, that is why I say should. The intention is absolutely to make it all available to everybody in the States Assembly and outside. There is no intention to hide anything or hold anything back, but obviously sometimes errors occur and that was the sole reason for the word “should”.

The Minister has mentioned about ... we are talking about the transition to a living wage and talked about productivity gains. Are there any support mechanisms in place or will there be some in place for those employees unfortunate enough to lose their jobs as a result of these productivity gains?

That would be a question better placed for the Minister for Social Security. From the perspective of this support scheme, I do not believe there is any element which is aimed at employees who lose jobs as a result of it. They would be passed into the social security system and would gain access to funding that way, not through this support scheme.

Will the Minister clarify the role of the States of Jersey Development Company in the redevelopment of Fort Regent, including details of who will finance any work, under which specific budget it will fall, what deliverables have been agreed with the company, and when the Assembly will have sight of any proposed plans?

I thank the Deputy for her question. The Fort is at a crossroads in its life, and successive Governments have grappled with bringing forward a viable plan that will ensure its future as an asset for Islanders and visitors to enjoy. We are working along similar lines to the previous Government. At the Regeneration Steering Group’s first meeting in May this year, it was agreed that the States of Jersey Development Company would take on the role of project manager to develop new plans aimed at breathing life back into Fort Regent in a way that is both sustainable and viable. At this time, States of Jersey Development Company’s role is to progress plans for essential refurbishment works to the structure, while simultaneously developing a viable plan for its future use, which will be consulted on. That planning work is being funded by the States of Jersey Development Company, utilising the remaining funds from the College Gardens development, and the longer-term funding for the delivery of the project remains under consideration and will be brought to the Assembly in due course.

Could the Minister confirm whether all the land currently comprising Fort Regent will remain under public ownership once the regeneration of Fort Regent begins, and whether any part of it is planned to transfer to S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company)?

It is my belief that all of the land will belong to the Government. There have been no discussions about transferring any of the land.

What consultation or input will the likes of Jersey Heritage and perhaps other organisations, like the National Trust, but predominantly the former, have in the plans for developing or regenerating Fort Regent?

The organisations mentioned by the Deputy clearly are key stakeholders. The Fort is not only a great asset to us, it is an important historical monument for the Island. In fact, it is one of the best examples in Europe. We will be consulting widely with key stakeholder groups, including the 2 mentioned by the Deputy, and a wider group as well.

Has consideration been given to the somewhat radical idea of reverting Fort Regent to become primarily, and perhaps even exclusively, a historic fort and nothing else?

I believe that the Fort can provide a lot more than being an historic monument. There is lots of opportunity for both Islanders and visitors alike at the Fort, and for us to maintain the Fort and make sure that it is viable, we need to make sure that it is revenue incoming, thank you.

The Minister said that the project would use funds from the College Garden development. Does the Minister agree it would be better for S.o.J.D.C. to return profits from any developments to the Government who could then redisperse either to S.o.J.D.C. or other developers for Fort Regent with greater transparency?

It is an interesting question. We were looking for funding for this project and we have identified the monies from the College Gardens development as being suitable to carry on with the work. What we want to do is proceed as quickly as we possibly can.

Will the Minister commit to ensuring then that any proposed costs borne by the States of Jersey Development Company for feasibility, planning and predevelopment work are published in advance of that work and shared with Members of the States Assembly, in the same way that feasibility projects within the Government are on page 54 of the Budget 2025?

I think that is an important point that the Deputy raises. As I mentioned earlier, the longer-term funding for the delivery of the project remains under consideration before it is brought back to the Assembly, and I would imagine when it is brought back to the Assembly we will explain what has been spent by this Government to date.

Does the brief given to the S.o.J.D.C. include the return of sport to the Fort and, if so, in what capacity?

It is certainly my intention that there will be an element of sport at Fort Regent. I think it is too early to say the details of that but certainly I know an area that the Deputy and I are both keen on is having some skate facility in St. Helier, and that is certainly part of the brief.

Does the Minister believe that there is still a need for large, flexible indoor public spaces such as those currently provided at the Fort by the Queen’s and Gloucester Halls for our sporting community as well as for others?

I do.

Following the brief that was given to S.o.J.D.C., the brief identified that the ramparts and outdoor spaces will continue to be freely accessible as a public space in St. Helier.

The ramparts give a great opportunity to view both the east and west of the Island as well as St.

Helier, and I would like to think that they would get far more usage from both residents and visitors alike.

The question was: would it be continued in the brief to be freely accessible whatever development will be done?

Discussions about the funding for Fort Regent are ongoing. Thank you. Ideally, it would be free, but I cannot make that commitment today.

Has there been consideration to any other publicly-owned land that would be beneficial for S.o.J.D.C.

to support the Government with their regeneration plans?

[10:00] Could the Minister provide an idea of what these could be?

Today we are talking about Fort Regent, and that is what I am here to talk about.

Learning regarding the publication of the Early Years nursery provision action plan (OQ 165/2024) Will the Minister state whether he intends to publish a report detailing the Early Years nursery provision action plan as set out on page 10 of the Government Plan 2024-2027; and if not, why not?

I thank the Deputy for her question. While this was a commitment in the previous Government Plan, I will be pleased to provide the Assembly with an action plan on early years’ provisions. It will provide details of and progression against the ambitions I have set out in the Common Strategic Policy. Currently, I have asked officers to prioritise delivery of a series of pilots that show that we can make a positive impact at pace. I will present the plan by the end of October to help inform the debate on the Budget, which includes the financial implications of these plans.

I am pleased that the Minister is intending to produce this action plan. Could he outline whether his long-term vision would be contained within that, and give us some insight as to what the long-term vision for early years is beyond the targeted 2 to 3 funding that is in the current proposals?

The crux of that plan would be to focus on the aims of the C.S.P. (Common Strategic Policy) and the delivery of 2 to 3 year-old spaces and increased provision that is both sustainable and appropriate for what we need on the Island. Beyond that, extending that into lower ages - is the best phrase I can think of - babies and so on, would absolutely be an ambition and aim. Whether that will happen before the end of this term, being realistic, I am not so sure because we have a lot of work to do in providing the nursery provision first. As the Deputy knows, it can be a challenging area because of the nuances of increasing that need and making it a sustainable provision in the long term.

My panel brought this amendment to the Government Plan with the intention of enabling the department to have sufficient time to compose a plan, and we consider a deadline would be beneficial.

Bearing in mind that an extension of childcare is a principal aim of this Government, does the Minister not think that this should have been prioritised and continue to be prioritised?

I thank the Deputy. There are 2 types of priority. There is prioritising producing plans and ideas and there is prioritising delivery of actual actions. I have prioritised the delivery of actions which we will be reporting on, and I am quite happy with that.

Will the Minister confirm that the plan will have included full consultation with all nursery providers?

Yes, it absolutely does. There was communication with all nursery providers that is ongoing.

However, we also need to lead in terms of the nursery provision that is required, and that will mean actually starting pilots, testing their appropriateness, whether they are working, whether they are sustainable, and then trying to engage everybody so that we can increase that provision. We have a very wide provision of nursery on the Island, from private to schools to third sector, which is probably the wrong term, but I think everybody knows what I mean by that. We have to bring all of those together in terms to do that work.

The Minister in his answer used the word “realistic”. Would the Minister advise to the Assembly what he see as realistic to deliver by 2026 within this.

I am pleased with that question because it is about realism but within that realism there must be some ambition, and the ambition is to deliver a sustainable structure of nursery provision for 2 to 3 year- olds so that we can introduce a N.E.F. (Nursery Education Fund) provision. At the moment, the plan is 15 hours because that will help parents. I think that by piloting, by engaging in the way that we are, by looking at where that provision is, we will be able to do that. Plus it will also uncover what that provision actually is. I personally believe that if we provide more nursery places, make them available for 2 to 3 year-olds, there may be families that at the moment are not saying that they want nursery provision, but when it is there they may want to use it. Those numbers may change as well so we have to be adaptable and realistic but the ambition is by 2026 I hope that we can introduce the 15 hours of N.E.F. funding. But we will do that as appropriate.

Just making sure that I understood correct, that the ambition and hopefully realistic is to introduce 15 hours N.E.F. for 2 to 3 year-olds. When I looked into the Government Plan, and I would like to check if the budget is realistic or we would need to require more budget; the rough calculation N.E.F.

to 3 to 4 year-olds is approximately just under £4 million, which half of it will require £2 million for 15 hours. We know that 2 to 3 year-old provision is more expensive to deliver than 3 to 4 year-old provision. What budget does the Minister have in mind to deliver 15 hours 2 to 3 year-old provision.

The C.S.P. revenue expenditure growth table for extended nursery and childcare provision puts aside £1.517 million in 2025, £2.358 million in 2026, £3.423 million in 2027 and £4.629 million in 2028.

So money has been put aside to address nursery provision as that provision grows. Plus also we will go through another process of government funding next year, and if the provision is in place before 2026 there will be an opportunity there. I will say, and I am going to say it again, I keep saying it about education, I do not like the word ‘cost’. I think we should use the word ‘investment’. So if we have to go for more investment in this, it is a good investment, it is a good investment for our families, it is a good investment for our young people, it is a good investment for our economy and therefore it is a good investment for our Island.

The ambition of the Minister is undoubted. I am aware, I think, that there was an indication that the plan would be available by 1st September, and we are past that. But I wonder whether the Minister could inform the Assembly that in order to deliver nursery as is envisaged, the staff will be required in the nurseries that are going to be funded there. What is the Minister’s view of the capacity, availability and actions they are going to take in order to ensure that the staff are there; moreover, that they are appropriately remunerated?

I do thank the Deputy because it gives me a chance to plug the campaign that we will be starting very soon for early years’ recruitment. I recorded a little piece myself. Perhaps Members can ignore that piece and move on to the more detailed piece. But certainly, one of the successes, for example, was to recruit teaching assistants in a similar way. So we are using the same process to look at recruiting for early years. The number of places of training in early years at Highlands College has increased.

Please do not ask me the number because I genuinely do not know it off the top of my head. We also though want to try and attract a different demographic. There will be people who are returning to the workplace who may want to get involved with early years and train to that satisfying role with dealing with our young people. There may be certain people who have brought up their own families, are returning to work and have skills that with a bit of training they can use within this sector. I think there is a demographic, there is a workforce outlet that we can attract. Of course one of the benefits of a living wage is exactly that, in all of our sectors we will have a living wage.

I thank the Minister for his reply but I wonder whether or not he would assist me and other Members in providing some data. We all laud his ambition to get locals into childcare; that sounds a great idea.

But the reality is that there is going to be inevitably a requirement for inbound migrant workers. Is he able to provide some statistics of the split of existing childcare workers? How many are local?

How many are under the 5-year rule? How many are subject to work permits? How that might change even despite his ambitions. If he could set out what his ambitions are in terms of local recruitment.

The simple answer is no, I cannot produce that here at this moment. That is an interesting piece of data, I think exactly the type of data we will be looking at because we need that if we are going to train our own. We will always have a balance between those coming on to the Island to work, those who are training here, but one of the things I do want to target is those who live on-Island and might want to return to work and enter that sector. Because the simple reason is that they are already living here, they have housing, they may have families, there is a stable workforce, and it is also a workforce that can train here. I have no problem with workers coming from abroad, we will always need that to some extent. But I think that balance will be there. In terms of the data and what that balance is now and what it will be into the future, I have to say I think that will be a very transient number because it depends on what we need and how successful we are in the provision of nursery places.

Just to make sure my question was answered, I did just ask the Minister kindly to produce the data, not on his feet, but could he commit to at least producing the data that is now, which was the subject of my question?

I would ask the Deputy to email me with the specifics of what data he is talking about because, if I am honest, I cannot remember what he said.

From the Minister’s answers to Oral Question 142/2024 in the States Assembly on 16th July, the Minister made it very clear that the parents need to sign up to nursery places in February and March for the following September, so any actions that would happen would have to focus on February and March. So could the Minister give assurance to parents that there will be changes in February and March and there will be progression? Not an action plan but actually action, and we will see this in February and March when those places will come up for September 2025, and if not why not?

The simple answer is yes, but on top of that it depends what you mean by nursery places. If you mean 2 to 3 year-olds, there was also ... there are places for babies as well, which are much more flexible in terms of when they start. I think we need to build some flexibility into our system, so when nursery places become available throughout the year they may be available to parents. My answer would be yes, but when things come onstream, I would like to have the flexibility that they come in when they are needed. I know that is difficult, but when my kids were young and we were looking for nursery places, we would have snapped up any place at any time, to be quite frank, and worked around it, and I know that is what parents are doing all of the time anyway.

Just to ask the Minister: so, will anything new and additional be happening to help parents in February, March to sign up for nursery places in September or will it continue as it is at present and was last year? Is there anything new that we can see an increase in additional for February, March.

If the Deputy is referring to next February, March, which she must do because we cannot go back in time, yes, I would hope that there would be more of those places available in September 2026, absolutely. My issue was that they are not available early enough, and so we are trying to introduce some earlier in 2025. Yes, absolutely, certainly in 2026, that is what will be available. Of course they will be applied for in February, March 2025. Yes, I do not see any change to that system. I hope I have answered the Deputy’s question.

I wish the Minister luck with delivering all these priorities. What I wanted to understand was the growth money in the proposed Budget. Is that to serve families who are not already receiving any 2 to 3 spaces or is this a continuation for families who are already accessing this for their children?

The main element of it would be to extend because it does say extend nursery and child care provision in the line, so it is about extending. This is the point, we could ... I mean there is a decision to be made: do we introduce the 15 hours now and just pay what is already there and not extend or do we want to target the money to extend nursery provision so it is more across working families? Then we can make that decision as to how we are going to support families when they want that provision.

But, yes, the C.S.P. is about extending those places.

update on the status of the West of Island Planning Framework as set out in Strategic Proposal 4of the Bridging Island Plan (OQ 155/2024) Further to the announcement by Lloyds Bank that it is to close its St. Brelade branch and the level of empty commercial properties in Les Quennevais Precinct and Parade, will the Minister provide an update on the status of the West of Island Planning Framework as set out in Strategic Proposal 4 of the Bridging Island Plan?

The development of the West of Island Planning Framework is one of 40 proposals in the Bridging Island Plan and has yet to commence.

[10:15] Previous Island Plans have sought to focus much of the Island’s development needs on St. Helier, but the purpose of developing a master plan for the west of the Island is to explore whether there is current or increased potential for the west of the Island, which of course includes Les Quennevais, to provide new development opportunities for homes, business and community facilities. I can tell the Deputy that of the 40 Bridging Island Plan proposals, 7 have been completed, 22 are in progress and 11 have yet to commence.

I thank the Minister for the answer. Given that a quarter of the population of the Island live out west - this is not just a St. Brelade issue - does the Minister agree that maintaining services in the west of the Island is critical to reducing traffic congestion in town, and therefore consistent with reducing our carbon footprint? If so, will he consider allocating funds to accelerate the development of the West of Island Plan?

Certainly. The facts that the Deputy posed, a lot of people live in the west of the Island, there is a centre there already and the Bridging Island Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the viability and the vitality of these areas. But it is a challenge. The internet has changed the way people shop, but the current Bridging Island Plan seeks to retain retail development in these areas, but it also provides flexibility to allow other forms of development to be used under a series of tests. The answer is yes.

Obviously, there is a future for Les Quennevais, an important future for the retail area of Les Quennevais. It is a difficult balance to try to protect it when it is not used. We do not want to give it away through change of use to other uses but, at the same time, we need to provide the facilities there for the residents. So I say to the Deputy, as soon as I have the money I will do this work.

Obviously, there are 11 pieces of work still to be commenced. That work will have to be done before the next Island Plan debate.

This question ultimately is about Lloyds Bank, and the closure of the branch at Red Houses. Can the Minister advise whether or not such change of use or closure of key facilities in what has been billed as Jersey’s second urban centre is what was envisaged under the Bridging Island Plan?

I am not sure that I completely understand the question here. I do not think there is an expectation in the Bridging Island Plan that any bank was going to close. Obviously there is a massive challenge to banks with people moving from visiting banks on a weekly basis to then sitting at home in front of a P.C. (personal computer) to now people pay their bills while they are waiting for the bus or paying cheques while they are having a cup of coffee with friends. Banking is challenging.

Maintaining all these old traditional branches is a challenge. I think the Deputy’s question about change of use would be an interesting one, but I would imagine that banking would come under retail, so another retail outlet in that building would be allowed.

That does not provide much comfort, I do not think, just saying another retail, because, for example, if it were pharmacy, there are lots of pharmacies already in St. Brelade but banks seem to be moving out. I will ask specifically, the Island Plan on page 67 says that the Island’s second urban centre is Les Quennevais and it will be a key community focus for the provision of homes. Therefore the Island Plan is saying there will be more homes built around Les Quennevais over the next few years, but if there are fewer facilities, such as banking, in those areas is that not going to throw out the balance that is seeking to be struck in the Bridging Island Plan? Does that concern the Minister?

Obviously, planning is a particularly challenging thing, and the Deputy throws up a challenge here.

On one hand we want to protect the retail structures, if you like, in Les Quennevais in the Precinct and in the Parade. We could, I guess, convert them through change of use to housing and we create more housing with less retail. The plan at the moment will protect those retail shops, those retail buildings, if you like, for further retail until such a point as a change of use application comes in and an alternative use/better use is found. But at the moment, what we need to do is to protect those parts of Les Quennevais and parts of the west of the Island which are already in retail, so that when we build more houses, yes, those facilities are there for residents to use. What I would not want to see happen is the few, or maybe a few more than a few, retail outlets that are closed at the moment get the benefit of a change of use to housing, and then be lost for ever for retail. There has got to be a really good reason to have a change of use approved for these structures.

The Minister says that there were 40-odd action points in the Island Plan but there were only half a dozen or so strategic priorities and this West of Island Planning Framework was a strategic priority.

I therefore would push the Minister on this point. My Ministerial Plan, before I left office, included the West of Island Planning Framework in the workstream for 2025. Will he commit to continue that work in 2025?

I cannot give the Deputy that commitment today. Master-planning or development of guidance, there are a number of these proposals, including the St. Brelade’s Bay improvement plan, and I have spoken to Deputy Scott about this, development of Five Oaks master plan. They are there to inform the next Island Plan. None of them have commenced and even the St. Brelade’s Bay one, which had an actual timeframe on it of 2025, I had to explain to the Deputy that is not possible. I need to work on priorities. There is planning reform, water, P.F.A.S. (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), Marine Spatial Plan, supporting agriculture and fisheries and offshore wind. There is just a very short list of really important things I have to do, on top of which my Government has ... well the Government I am part of, have committed to reduce expenditure, committed to reduce the use of consultants. We have a number of priorities that we are trying to fit in here. I say to the Deputy, yes, this work will be done but I cannot commit to doing it in 2025 because my priorities for next year are already set.

I think Deputy Tadier raised some of the important issues here, that this is about conflicts and those are precisely the sorts of things that a master plan is designed to help resolve. There was widespread cynicism, I think, in St. Brelade when Les Quennevais was announced as the second urban centre and the West of Island Planning Framework was supposed to put the flesh on the bones. Can I therefore ask if the West of Island Planning Framework has been removed from the Ministerial work plan, why that decision was made ... the work plan for next year, why that decision was made and what was put in its place because it was clearly possible when I left office?

One of the reasons that it is possible to delay certain pieces of work, and in this case the west of Island, is the current planning policy of the Bridging Island Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the retail viability of the defined area of Les Quennevais. It includes the bank, it includes the Parade and the Precinct, and it does this by supporting protection and maintenance of those retail uses. However, it does also provide flexibility, as I have said, to allow other forms of development. If change of use application comes in there are a number of tests the application would have to be subject to and if it passes, then, yes, change of use will be allowed but this is a challenge. We do need to maintain retail centres for these areas, especially Les Quennevais and the west of the Island, and we do that through the current plan. So while a new strategy, a new plan for the west of Island, would be great it does not mean there is not protection, there are not plans in place, there are not policies in place in the current Bridging Island Plan to allow change and work to happen.

Point of order if I may.

Well, can I ask you to rule whether that answered the question? Because I did ask why the work had been removed from the work stream?

I am happy to clarify the 2 reasons. One you have already mentioned, there are a number of other priorities, but also the fact that there is currently, in the Bridging Island Plan, a policy that works for Les Quennevais at the moment. It is not as if there are no plans, there is no policy in the plan for that area currently.

The Minister has now touched on this but given he has confirmed the delaying of work on a West of Island Planning Framework, will he commit to ensuring that his department and planned decision makers do give full effect to the guidance around the protection of employment land and the tests he references, specifically with regard to the 2012 Protection of Employment Land: Supplementary Planning Guidance, and work with his department on a more robust process for consistent determination against this to retain the viability of units in the west of the Island until such a framework is delivered?

Yes, and it would be my hope, my ambition, that everybody in the department, whether that is from a junior planning officer that has just arrived in the department 6 months ago, all the way through senior planning officers, Planning Committee, inspectors and myself, would all take a consistent view of policies within the Island Plan. But the point I would make to the Deputy is that developing new guidance, if you like, in the same way that we develop supplementary planning guidance, cannot move away from the policies which are in the current Island Plan without coming back to this Assembly to change those policies. So while new guidance is really helpful and it puts more flesh on the bone, more detail for applicants and developers to come forward with their plans, the really important thing is that policies in the Island Plan, which are debated in this Assembly, cannot change.

Guidance, whether it is supplementary or otherwise, can only put detail in. It cannot change policy.

I completely agree, and I was not suggesting new guidance that deviates from the B.I.P. (Bridging Island Plan) policies. I would ask the Minister, again, if he would consider improving the processes around the documentation and recording of the tests of redundancy and the policy tests to ensure more consistent tests and to greater protect employment sites in the west of the Island?

I will do my best to do that. As the Deputy well knows, I really like consistency. I like the same rules to be applied to everybody at all times.

I thank the Minister for all of his answers. It strikes me that there may well be policies in place to protect and develop retail in the west but they are clearly not working. We have at least 7 empty properties, commercial units, in the Les Quennevais Precinct and Parade, and certainly there seems to be more units that are closing than opening. My question really is, all of his answers lead to the conclusion that a master plan is absolutely critical to community development in the west of the Island. He had already said that he needed to work on other priorities. I cannot speak for the western Connétables and the other western Deputies, but for my part we would consider this to be an absolute priority. Because this is a priority, would the Minister agree to consider at least moving the Western Planning Framework up his priority list?

I am very happy to consider moving the planning framework up the priority list. I will take the points the Deputy and others have made on board and go away and discuss it with officers.

Development regarding the procurement process for passenger and freight ferry services (OQ 156/2024) Will the Minister provide an update on the procurement process for the passenger and freight ferry services and state when the Assembly can expect to be informed as to who has been awarded the contract?

Economic Development) I thank the Deputy for his question. As Members are likely to be aware, there has been competitive interest in providing future sea connectivity under a combined contractual arrangement with the Governments of Jersey and Guernsey. While securing the right outcome carries a very high political priority, the work is led and undertaken by officials, who will make an objective, evidence-based recommendation to me and my counterpart in Guernsey for final political approval in October. I currently expect to be in a position to inform Members and the public of the successful bidder during October.

Does this October date follow the original timeline provided when the procurement process started?

If not, can the Minister confirm why any delays?

There have been no delays during the tender process that I am aware of. It has always been the domain of the tenderer to be able to change the order or the sequence of the process as they wish, and so any media reports suggesting there were delays, I would say, were not entirely accurate. The end of September, October has always been the envisaged time for making announcements, to the best of my knowledge.

[10:30]

Could the Minister clarify who his counterpart in Guernsey is, whether he has met with that person, and whether they have discussed their preference for the successor or the continuation of the ferry operator, and whether they are in agreement? Sorry for all of those questions.

I thank the Deputy. I am in regular contact with my counterpart in Guernsey; it is Deputy Neil Inder, who is the President of the Economic Development Committee in Guernsey. Indeed, I was on the phone to him yesterday evening. But we do not discuss preferences because we do not have preferences. We are awaiting the report from the officials that will provide an objective recommendation. It is not for Deputy Inder or myself to pre-empt that recommendation and so, no, discussion of preferences is not a discussion we have had.

Once a decision has been made, does the Minister envisage that any transitional arrangements will need to be put in place, including any interventions by Government? What might those transitional arrangements look like?

It is quite possible that transitional arrangements may be necessary, particularly if the incumbent operator is not successful in this bid, and so there is the possibility that transitional arrangements may be necessary. The exact look of those transitional arrangements, I could not describe at the moment.

I wonder if the Minister could talk a little bit about the process that will be gone through. There are obviously 2 potential areas of disagreement between Jersey and Guernsey. Officers could disagree in their recommendation and, even if there is a joint recommendation, Ministers could disagree on how to approach that. I wonder if you could say a little bit about what the process is that has been put in place to deal with those potential eventualities?

The process, precisely for the reasons that the Deputy has just outlined, these matters we attempted to deal with in advance of embarking upon the process, so there is essentially an agreement in the form of a memorandum of understanding between myself and Deputy Inder as to how we will work in the event of disagreement. Part of that agreement is obviously for both parties, both Islands, to work together in very good faith to try to ensure that we do come to an agreement at the end of it.

Officers have similarly worked together and the tender documents, as I understand, have been shared between officers in both Islands, and officers in both Islands have been talking to each other and engaging with each other throughout that process, again, with the aim of avoiding any disagreements at the end of it.

I take it that the Minister is being a little coy about the details of that memorandum of understanding because it is a confidential document. Could he say, though, whether the weighting attached to the discussions, if you like, is equal? In other words, Guernsey and Jersey will have an equal say, the officers will have an equal say, and so on, in that?

Yes, this is an entirely 50/50 experience, so to speak. Jersey and Guernsey’s say are entirely equal in this. The Deputy is correct to say that it is a confidential memorandum of understanding; this is because it is between Jersey and another jurisdiction. When it comes to correspondence between different jurisdictions, that does tend to remain confidential. But it is also very simple and, in essence, could be summed up as working in very good faith with each other.

During the procurement process, did the Minister outline any must-have non-negotiables to exist within the contract, and if so, what were his priorities?

Our priorities were around reliability, frequency, future fleet investment, strengthening the southern supply route, and the frequency and reliability, and also operating times that work for Islanders, so it is a much more customer-centric perspective. That has all been there as the framework that we wanted tenderers to respond to. How different organisations respond to each criteria is entirely up to them. I found it interesting, there is a balance to be struck between being prescriptive in terms of saying what we would like to see for the Islands, but at the same time not wanting to stifle any innovation or any interesting ideas, which we could not have come up with ourselves because we are not in the business. The tender is also designed to encourage those respondents to it to provide their own new and innovative ideas, particularly around fleet investment and particularly around sustainable transport going into the future.

regarding introducing Portuguese as alanguage option during the regular school day in Jersey's state schools (OQ 162/2024) Given the sizeable population of Portuguese speakers in Jersey, are there any plans to introduce Portuguese as a language option during the regular school day in Jersey state schools, and if not, why not?

All G.C.S.E. (General Certificate of Secondary Education) options differ year-on-year, depending on the pupil cohort, the staff that are available to teach them, and the decisions on G.C.S.E. options sit with individual schools as exam centres because they know the best options for their schools. This is a flexible approach; it gives pupils and schools the opportunity to match the curriculum offer to what is appropriate to their schools. There are no plans to centralise decision-making with regard to G.C.S.E. Portuguese.

I am not asking for centralisation of decision-making, What I am asking for is, given the fact that surely there must be both a high actual demand and also a high latent demand for Portuguese as a G.C.S.E., not by just those who already speak some Portuguese but those who do not, would it not be preferable that such an important language for Jersey - and I hope the Minister recognises the importance of Portuguese - should be available as an option during the school day, rather than perpetuating what some would call a system of apartheid, where Portuguese speakers are forced to learn their own language after school, rather than it being an option alongside common languages like French and Spanish, that are offered routinely in the school day as an option.

I would say to the Deputy, actually one school - Haute Vallée - does offer G.C.S.E. Portuguese during the school day. There are 2 others who offer G.C.S.E. Portuguese. I understand about running the G.C.S.E. after school; it is an option that is given. There is no standard language that is offered in any school; it often is matched to what is available to teach that language at G.C.S.E. level. I would support the teaching of G.C.S.E. Portuguese as an option. Anything beyond that, then we have to think about what other options are lost. That is what I would answer the Deputy on that one.

The Minister has referred to one of the factors being pupil demand. I know that my son, who is at a state school, had wanted to study German and was told that it did not matter how many people in the school wanted to study German, that option was not going to be available. I think that the system as it currently sits does not seem to have an overarching vision for the role of languages in the Island, and also the response to Deputy Bailhache’s proposition suggests the same. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps expand on his thoughts and give us a vision for the role that he sees foreign languages playing in the Jersey education system, and then we can perhaps put his attitude to Portuguese into that framework.

It is quite a wide-ranging question. I think it is wrong to say there is no vision for languages; I think it is just fundamentally wrong. Languages are delivered across schools. Many languages are delivered across many schools. I cannot comment on what the Deputy’s son was told at school. It may well simply be a practical matter and practical matters in schools matter, because you have to deliver. If there is nobody to teach German to G.C.S.E., then it will be difficult for a school to deliver that. You can add that to physics teachers, you could add that to other teachers in the school. It is unfortunate, but it is a reality of modern schooling. In terms of a vision of languages, of course they are important, but so is the wider curriculum. We are trying to offer a tailored curriculum to every child, particularly in state schools, so they can achieve what they want to achieve. Anything that is made compulsory in school will remove something else, and that is the debate that perhaps we need to have. But that is where I stand.

I do not think compulsory has been mentioned at all. But I think the point I am trying to get at is that we are a connected Island, we are a multinational Island, we are trying to make our way in the world, and a vision for how languages would fit into that might be something that would encourage provision, encourage teachers to come forward who might want to learn and add to the capacities within schools and so on. At the moment it just feels very much like we are stuck with what we have got and there does not seem to be this really strong, passionate desire to increase that language.

I will ask the question. Could the Minister consider at least the expansion of the provision of Portuguese, given the number of native speakers in the Island who speak Portuguese, and see it in that wider context?

First of all, I absolutely reject the narrative that has been created that language teachers in our schools are not committed and have a vision to language teaching, because they certainly do. They work hard to deliver that every single day, every single week and every single month. They actually deliver it. Yes, absolutely expand Portuguese provision. It happens with the Camões Agreement between Portugal and Jersey, which we are about to renew and in negotiations around that, and the way that will be delivered will be happening. But like it or not, there is a practicality in delivery. You have to have someone to deliver it. You have to have children who are interested in doing it and you have to have the time and space within a school curriculum to do it. If we can magic up time, that would be great. But that does not mean there is not a vision and support for languages in schools.

I feel like we are speaking at cross purposes because this is not about magicking up new time. This is about allocation of choice to our students in Jersey. Given the fact that Portuguese is a language which you can commonly speak and practise in Jersey, and given the fact that perhaps 10 per cent of our population are Portuguese and maybe, I do not know, 15 or so per cent of the school population already speak Portuguese. The simple question is: why is the example of Haute Vallée, which has Portuguese in the curriculum, not being extended? Or possibly, why would not it be extended to the other 3 or 4 state schools that we have in Jersey?

It would be extended if it was possible to deliver it within the curriculum time, but if we add something to the curriculum as an option, something else needs to be removed. Young people will be asked: “Do you want to learn Portuguese G.C.S.E. in school time, or do you want to learn one of the other subjects and cover them?” When Haute Vallée have been offering it in year 9, it offers a G.C.S.E., and then those young people can go and do an additional G.C.S.E. later on, which is beneficial to them. Other schools are offering G.C.S.E. Portuguese. I agree in terms of the time in which it is offered, but then other schools are offering other options outside the school timetable or other languages in order to extend the provision. I am quite happy to look at the provision of languages, but it needs to be practical and real for schools. We cannot just magic up staff. We are looking at time, because if you put that into the standard timetable, you have to remove something else as an option for those children. That is the reality of the way schools work. I am quite happy to take the Deputy around some of our 11 to 16 schools to talk to headteachers and discuss that. That might be a way forward.

regarding the implementation of the Assembly’s adoption of ‘Putting Jersey businesses first’ P.56/2020, as amended (OQ 161/2024) Will the Minister advise what specific steps have been taken, and processes put in place, to implement the Assembly’s adoption of Putting Jersey Businesses First, P.56/2020, as amended?

[10:45] Resources) I thank the Deputy for her question. P.56/2020 was in 5 parts. Taking these in turn, parts (a) and (b) relate to giving weighting and procurement exercises in the context of recovery from COVID to the economic, social and environmental benefits to Jersey. For this aspect, social value has become more integrated into our procurement service and processes, and 10 per cent of the overall weighting within each set of tender evaluation criteria is now included as standard. There is also a dedicated resource to monitor, measure and develop best practice, engage with on-Island suppliers and build a knowledge base and a commitments register, which suppliers provide during competitive market activity. Part (c) relates to the publication of procurement policies and evaluation criteria. While a specific report was not presented, the expenditure and procurement section of the Public Finances Manual, as well as more detailed procurement procedures, have been updated on a number of occasions. For example, a recent change formalised new procedures for engaging consultants and the Public Finances Manual can be found on gov.je. Part (d) of the proposition relates to the publication of expenditure by the States’ top 100 suppliers. Three reports have been published, covering 2020, 2021 and 2022. Data for 2023 is currently being finalised and is expected to be published by the end of September. Finally, part (e) is a matter for the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development.

Thank you for the very detailed answer given by the Minister. I would bring the attention in my supplementary around part (a) and part (b). Would the Minister advise how she is reassured that the social value is working well for local - especially small businesses - and if the Minister has any figures or evidence to indicate that it did have a positive impact for the local businesses?

As I say, the social value element is now weighted at 10 per cent in our tender processes. The only example I can give you, in terms of how the social evaluation criteria works within a tender over £100,000, is in our new office building. In that case, the social value element has meant over £60,000 has been donated to local charities, 181 non-charitable hours have been donated to community and charitable projects, 3 people have been employed through the back-to-work scheme, 7 prison leavers have been employed, 6 apprenticeships have been offered, 25 work placements given to local students. Then, at the environmental level, it also involves a donation of £10,000 a year for 20 years to Highlands to ensure the continuing viability of construction courses, and 500 trees planted on Dandara development schemes, alongside a donation to Trees for Life and staff volunteering time.

I thank the Minister for her answers. Also focusing on parts (a) and (b), the Minister explained a little about the resources that should be available to help local businesses in applying to any tendering process. Could the Minister expand on what initiatives are in place to support especially small Jersey businesses in meeting these qualification standards for being in a competitive nature in procurement processes?

I thank the Deputy. Various work is happening, and it is very much an ongoing process. In the area of digital economy, work is continuing with S.P.P.P. (Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance) to promote Jersey businesses. That includes sharing early market pipelines with Jersey businesses to identify future areas of investment. Another example, we have worked with Family Nursing and Home Care to ensure that high-quality care is provided on-Island where appropriate. Digital Jersey is in the process of developing a database to compile a record of on-Island providers’ capabilities to help match those with government opportunities.

Could the Minister advise if Jersey Business offers such technical support to help especially small businesses to take part in tender bids, and if not, why not?

Jersey Business does not sit within my remit; I think that is a question for the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development. I do not know the answer to that.

Has the Minister given any consideration to giving an extra weighting or extra points to local businesses during the procurement process, given they would be paying more taxes?

I am not sure it is necessarily true that they will be paying more taxes. Our procurement policies and processes demonstrate positive steps taken to improve Government’s ability to put Jersey businesses first. We have to strike a careful balance between wishing to appoint Jersey suppliers while remaining compliant with obligations internationally and to maintain a reputation as an open and liberal trading nation. Commercial Services, however, continues to improve and enhance data-led decision making and understanding of on-Island capabilities and opportunities to engage with local suppliers.

Is there anything built into the procurement system to enable some reflection on the impact for the providers who were chosen and, indeed, the impact on providers who are not chosen?

I do not know the answer to that question; I do not quite understand the question. If you are suggesting that we have to consider the impact on somebody who is successful and the impact on someone who is not successful, I am not quite sure that is Government’s role. What I can tell you is that the reporting from, I think, the top 100 suppliers shows us that over 57 per cent of our spend is within Jersey suppliers; some 42 per cent is with U.K. suppliers; and the very small balance remaining is with other jurisdictions, including Guernsey.

I had intended to ask the Minister about the adherence to modern slavery provisions within these, but as the Minister went on to explain to the Assembly in some detail the benefits of the States building, having set out such a fulsome list of advantages to the community, including charitable donations being baked in over a number of years, et cetera, would she agree to publish the value to the contract of those matters? Because they have not come at zero cost. Would she confirm or otherwise whether or not those costs are now capitalised in the asset price, which this Assembly will be considering when the Minister for Social Security has to ask the Assembly for the purchase of that building, with those capitalised costs built in? It is quite an important principle. The Minister was advancing something which I think is actually at taxpayers’ cost.

Firstly, just to cover ... Deputy Ozouf mentioned modern slavery; I do not believe we have legislation on modern slavery in Jersey, as yet, that we have to consider. I believe that the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs is considering that. I cannot answer that question. Do we want to engage local suppliers or not? There will be a price to engaging local suppliers, and I cannot answer that question.

I do not know if it comes at a cost, but it is part of the weighting that we apply in selecting a contract provider; the social value element. I imagine there will be a cost to it. We either take a local supplier with their social value, or we take a foreign supplier with their local value. I do not know if that question can be answered, and I do not know if that information can be provided, but I will consult with the team, because I simply do not know. I do not know if it is feasible to deliver it, and I do not know if it is commercially viable to deliver it. I do not know.

I may seek a meeting with the Minister because she mentioned that there was a payment of, I think it was £10,000 a year baked into future rental provisions. There is an annual cost that is baked into the rent that therefore will form part of the consideration for the purchase of it, and that is a pretty easy mathematical question to make. It is important that we are clear that benefits are not being paid for by the developer, they are actually being passed to taxpayers because we are having to buy it.

My question on that specific issue is: does she appreciate that?

I do not believe I did say that there was a sum allocated towards rent. I said that the developer would be making a donation of £10,000 a year to Highlands to ensure viability of construction courses. That is important. As he will know from the Budget, we are hoping to buy the property, so rent will not be an issue in future.

There are several things mentioned, but P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) are conducting a procurement review. They recently published submissions from the Institute of Directors, Construction Council and Chamber of Commerce have a similar theme. The direct quote: “The general consensus is the Government of Jersey procurement is broken, serving to act as a barrier to business being done, rather than something that enables local businesses to provide valuable goods and services to our Government and ultimately the local taxpayer.” Was the Minister aware of the sentiment within the local Jersey businesses, and if the current procurement policy was a paper exercise to satisfy the Assembly P.56/2020, and would she be thinking to review the policy or to engage with local businesses?

No, I was not aware of that feedback. We have done considerable work, which is outside the scope of this question, to continue to improve our procurement processes. P.56 was about trying to ensure that Jersey businesses were able to tender. All Jersey businesses can tender. Any opportunity over £100,000 must be advertised on the Government’s tender portal. Any Jersey business can tender for that. We have open processes. I am slightly confused as to ... do we want to support Jersey businesses or do we not? We are trying to do that, but equally we were asked by P.56 to ensure social value, and we are trying to ensure social value as well as trying to facilitate tendering by Jersey businesses.

P.20 was also done, as I said, in the context of COVID. There is considerable work going on to ensure our procurement processes, but I do feel that that is outside the scope of this question, which was specifically about P.56.

2.10 Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding developing astatutory spiking offence (OQ 152/2024) Will the Minister advise whether the Government has capacity to develop a statutory spiking offence within its ongoing work, responding to the recommendations of the Taskforce on Violence Against Women and Girls’ report?

I thank the Connétable for the question. Spiking is a serious and concerning phenomenon which will not be tolerated. I am reassured that existing legislation designed to address spiking is fit for purpose and, as such, there is no need to develop a new offence to address this behaviour. Spiking for the purpose of carrying out some kind of sexual assault is under the Sexual Offences Law with a 10-year penalty. Spiking for any reason is a form of assault and where it is done to facilitate another offence such as theft, I understand it would be a serious aggravating factor. Where spiking is done with an illegal drug, possession of that drug in itself would be an offence. There is currently no capacity to develop additional legislation to address spiking within the ongoing work to implement the recommendations of the Violence Against Women and Girls Taskforce. The Government’s legislative programme in this area of violence against women and girls has been defined by the recommendations of the taskforce, which made recommendations to strengthen legislation around domestic violence, online abuse, stalking and sexual harassment. The taskforce did not make any recommendations for additional legislation to address spiking. The taskforce recommendations in relation to legislative development were informed by a legislative mapping exercise undertaken by the Law Officers’ Department. This exercise considered a number of behaviours that relate to violence against women and girls, including drink spiking. This mapping exercise identified a number of gaps in legislation. However, the need to develop additional legislation to address spiking was not identified.

[11:00]

The U.K. Government confirmed its plans within the King’s Speech to introduce a new law to make spiking a specific criminal offence in the U.K.. I believe that Jersey should be proactive in this rather than reactive. Would the Minister be able to confirm what sort of resources would be needed for such an offence to be developed, and could she see that such an offence, if it is not being developed now, can she see that in the next few years there would be resources made available for a specific law and follow with the U.K.’s lead?

The Connétable is correct in that the new Labour Government in the U.K. has put this on their political agenda to look at in relation to a specific offence. The previous Government had also got it on their agenda, but it was removed by a member of the previous Government as they did not necessarily think it was necessary. However, also the U.K. Government is looking at that piece of legislation as a specific legislation, but they are also looking at what other things may or may not need to be done. In relation to what the Connétable asks, my delivery plan is up to and including, obviously, the middle of 2026, and there is a strict, very tight plan. At this time, as I said, it would be detrimental to be considering doing this as a separate offence, from the point of view I am concerned of what other things may have to be dropped, but it is not off the agenda if things move forward.

Does the Minister agree that while legislation is there to punish offences made, it is also there to shape behaviour, and that having a specific offence in this area would send a strong message to any potential perpetrators that this behaviour will not be condoned?

I fully see what the Deputy is saying and I would not disagree, but obviously as a Government we have to look at what we are trying to achieve, and we are trying to put in place all of the other offences which were identified in the taskforce. This is not only about legislation, but it is about education as well and as I think it is necessary ... as I said, the taskforce, in all of their work, did not find this one of their largest concerns. However, what it does say was that there was an indicator from those who provided information that there was a thought that they could potentially be spiked. What I would like to see is more work done in relation to education and looking at how we can develop this forward.

Because it is not only about violence against women and girls in relation to spiking, it is about all our population. I would like to make one point here; we are 49 States Members who all attend our Parish Assemblies. Within that Parish Assembly there will be licensing requests; as States Members, we can ask questions. We can ask questions of those people who have licensed premises, and we can ask them if they are educating their staff in relation to the matters of spiking. I will leave them with that thought.

The Minister mentioned education; what conversations or work is she doing with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to increase education available in schools and, indeed, lifelong learning for our population in this area?

I thank the Deputy for that question. The new school programme started following the reintroduction of Building a Safer Community. I think within those programmes that they will be doing, there are inputs from police, fire, ambulance, et cetera, and the schools. That will be something, I am sure, that the co-ordinator of that programme will ensure is within that, because I am fully aware, certainly from the ambulance services, that they provide information for young people about how they deal with a friend who may be in difficulties. This is primarily what we need to look at; the fact that if somebody has been spiked, we need to take action and we need to take it quickly. We need to report it to the police and all the necessary evidence gathered, in order that we can successfully do something about it. As I said, because that is one of the biggest things that needs to happen. Because it is very difficult to be able to identify an offender in relation to this type of offence, so I think the quicker that we can do that and the matters are reported, the better.

I thank the Minister for her answers, and I do not have any further questions.

Will the Minister advise how many dogs have been destroyed by Order of the Court since 2018 as a result of attacks by them on other animals and members of the public?

I thank the Deputy for the question. Obviously, I am answering this question although I do not actually have responsibility for the management of the courts. The Magistrate is able to make a destruction order under Article 11B of the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961. There is a right of appeal against such an order to the Royal Court. There are no records of any destruction orders having been made since 2023. Prior data to 2023 was not available in the timeframe for answering of this question.

The judgment in any appeal that is heard in the Royal Court against the decision of the Magistrate to order the destruction of a dog would be published on the Jersey Legal Information Board website. A perusal of that website shows that, in 2021, a destruction order against a dog in 2020 was successfully appealed. No other appeals against destruction orders between 2018 and the present day were identified.

Further to his letter dated 29th August 2024 to the chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel, advising that work on the North of St. Helier Primary School has been delayed to 2027, will the Minister advise whether there is any intention to use the former Jersey Gas site for community activities prior to the works on the new school commencing, and if not, why not?

I thank the Deputy for his question. I expect the Deputy is aware the site is not currently in Government ownership and therefore any use, community or otherwise, would need to be negotiated with the site owner. The Government’s interest is in acquiring the site for a new primary school and any use of the site prior to that point is currently not a matter within our control. Our focus is on properties that we currently own and I am working with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to get better utilisation of school estate out of hours and I am pleased to report that we are making progress in that area.

To continue on that theme, given the proposed £2.1 million budget cut in his department’s rolling vote, and in the spirit of trying to find further savings, has the Minister considered the repurposing of the existing Gas Place showroom into a youth facility upon vacation by Rock(?)? Would he be willing to support such a use, something his Assistant Minister, the Constable of St. Helier, has been championing?

The priority for this Government is to find a permanent home for a St. Helier youth centre in the north of Town. I think that, with the amount of development in that area, the Council of Ministers as a whole have come to that conclusion and we are refocusing our efforts to deliver that. We have identified a site and we hope to progress as soon as we possibly can.

I put my light on, Sir, to admit to an inadvertent ping, sorry. But also I was going to ask the Minister for supplementary, but you did not get to me, so that is fine.

Minister for the Environment. Oh, is it ...

Will the Minister explain what work, if any, is being undertaken to ensure the toilets that are part of the former Nude Food development at La Pulente are kept open to the public?

I thank the Deputy for his question. I am told that the toilets at the former Nude Food site have been opened sporadically over the course of this summer. I understand the company, which owns the former Nude Dunes restaurant at La Pulente, has gone into liquidation and that the handling of claims against the company is with a liquidator. Under instruction from Jersey Property Holdings, litigation has commenced against the company for failure to operate the toilets for regular use by the general public. The liquidator has informed Property Holdings that the company has no funds with which to open and operate the toilets, and officers are meeting on 19th September to discuss the matter.

If I hear correctly, the Minister said that the owner had said there was no funds to open the toilets.

My understanding is that during the recent filming of ‘Bergerac’, the toilets were opened for the purposes of the use of extras and so on, so clearly it is possible to open them. The planning condition stated that they should be open to all members of the public between the hours of 0900 and 2100 during B.S.T. (British Summer Time) and 0900 and 1700 during G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time) in a manner fit for purpose and maintained in perpetuity. Can he confirm therefore that that planning obligation, which normally falls on the Minister for the Environment, has been taken over and is being enforced by Jersey Property Holdings?

As I mentioned earlier, I understood that the toilets had been open sporadically. I could not confirm if they were, or they were not, open for ‘Bergerac’. I understand that question was asked on social media last night and got mixed responses. The Property Holdings Department are working on this.

As the Deputy rightfully says, the terms of the use of that site includes in perpetuity toilets to be open to the public during the hours that the Deputy mentions. It is a legal obligation and we are pursuing that.

Would the Minister explore the possibility of allowing the previous very popular refreshment kiosk to begin operating again until owners find a new buyer and are ready to trade? Any agreement could include maintaining and monitoring the toilet facilities.

It is not something I have considered, but I am happy to take that away and give that further consideration.

The Minister talked about the owners not having any money to keep the toilets open, but can he clarify how much money it costs to unlock a door?

I dare say that depends on who is unlocking the door. I dare say my rates would be cheaper than yours, Sir. Opening a toilet is not just about unlocking a door. If you open public toilets, you have got to maintain them. You have got to ensure that they are clean. You have got to ensure that they have got appropriate consumables there as well.

Can the Minister give us any indication about what he means when he says litigation has been started against the owners for not keeping the toilets open? When can we expect to see this litigation come to fruition and what form will it take?

I am not aware of the full details. What I am aware of is that there is a meeting scheduled for next week and hopefully I will be able to update Members following that meeting.

Following on from that, is the Minister aware whether or not he is dealing with what is called a planning obligation, which would be a matter that is a legal requirement as part of a planning consent which the questioner asked and, if so, if it is a planning obligation, it is enforceable against that entity and it is the planning authority that would enforce it? So perhaps it is his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, that may well be able to assist in getting these toilets open and the enforcement made.

I have not seen the contract, but I understand it was part of the contract of sale, which required the same requirements as the planning obligation.

Just to confirm then, it was contemporaneous. It was the planning obligation that came first, but it is a planning obligation so it is enforceable. But he will advise.

I would need to go away and come back and advise the Deputy.

reprofiling of the development of the Le Squez youth centre in the Proposed Budget

Will the Minister explain what impact, if any, the reprofiling of the development of the Le Squez Youth Centre in the Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028, to allow a new youth facility in St. Helier will have on the new youth centre planned for in St. Clement?

[11:15]

I thank the Deputy for her question. There is a need to reprofile the capital programme to ensure that it is both realistic and deliverable. As part of this work, improvements to the Le Squez Youth Centre have been scheduled for 2028. It is important to highlight that the current services delivered from the centre will continue and there will be no change in the youth work delivery. As I mentioned in a previous answer, a new Town youth centre is required in the first instance to ensure that children and young people in the Town area can benefit from the same level of provision to that which is available to young people in other parts of the Island, including at Le Squez. The decision was taken with the full support of the Youth Service and C.Y.P.E.S. (the Children, Young People, Education and Skills Department).

The consultation with the Youth Service is fine, but what consultation took place with the young people in the area and what was the feedback regarding their decision? Can the Minister explain to us why we have now got one Parish pitched against the other in terms of its development around youth services?

I am not aware of the consultation that took place, whether the Youth Service consulted with their members or with the wider community. All our services and facilities are important for young Islanders. We have areas where there are facilities and there are areas where there are none. Many of us here will be able to remember and name many youth clubs that used to be in the St. Helier area, such as Aquila, Seaton, so on and so forth, which are no longer there. We need to provide services in St. Helier and the decision has been made to make that a priority.

I wonder whether or not the Minister would advise whether or not he consulted his fellow Connétables on the allocation and the importance of St. Helier. He is both a Minister and a member of the Comité des Connétables and, as the questioner rightly says, there is an understanding of the importance of St. Helier. Of course, there are voices for all Parishes, of which St. Saviour and St.

Clement are, of course, voices on the Comité des Connétables. Did they have a chance to have their say?

The discussion around the priorities of the Government Plan was made by the Government and the Council of Ministers took long and hard discussions and debates about this. We have heard from a previous question about the need for facilities in St. Helier where there are no facilities. We have facilities in St. Clement and in St. Saviour and we are looking to further increase the provision of those facilities utilising the school estate which is available to us.

Sorry, it was quite a simple question: did he discuss it with the Comité des Connétables? I know it is Government, but he is a Minister in a Government, and is a member of the Comité des Connétables, on the Council of Ministers; was it discussed by the Comité?

I meant consultation.

Infrastructure provides the services. I did not discuss it with my fellow Connétables at the Comité des Connétables. If my fellow Connétables would like to put it on the agenda, I am more than happy to discuss it with them at that arena.

Will the Minister provide an update on his work progressing the improvement of women’s health services, including termination of pregnancy?

I wonder if the Deputy would be minded to allow me to pass that over to my Assistant Minister, Deputy Howell, who is responsible.

Yes. We have other things that we are doing to improve women’s health, especially we are going to try to get the gynaecological ward up and running again. Thank you. But I will carry on and let everybody know.

I apologise, Sir.

I thank the Assistant Minister for her answer. In a letter to my Scrutiny Panel in July, the Minister stated that he was unable to commit to deliver wholesale legislation change in the area of termination of pregnancy due to limited resources. Could the Assistant Minister explain where the resources that were previously allocated to this work have been reallocated to?

I thank the Deputy for her question. I am very sorry, I cannot say exactly where the resources have gone, but we are continuing to make improvements to women’s health.

On 21st June, the Minister for Health and Social Services was quoted in the media as saying he was trying to get resources to get the full review and update on the Termination of Pregnancy Law back on track, yet recent communications with Scrutiny show that this has not been achieved. Can the Assistant Minister detail what steps were taken to try to secure resources and why it has not been possible?

We are trying to do our best with the resources we have and we just have to prioritise what we can.

I am not sure that answered the question. What steps were taken to try to secure resources?

Discussions are ongoing.

Can I have a supplementary?

What resources would be needed to get the work back on track, please?

I think we would need a greater amount of money in the Budget.

What risks were identified by not bringing forward the new law as previously planned and what mitigation, if any, has been made to deal with those risks?

We were not able to do that and we are prioritising what we can with the funds and resources available.

Does the Assistant Minister mean they were not able to identify the risks of not bringing forward this legislation?

We prioritised, Deputy Tadier, what ...

Sorry. Thank you, Sir. We prioritised what we absolutely needed to do, which included the fact that ... I will read it to you. We are drafting instructions to allow all women in Jersey to have access to termination in Jersey as opposed to just those who are ordinarily resident for 90 days, and that will be issued imminently.

Could the Assistant Minister commit to ensuring that information relating to this area will be prepared in advance of our next Scrutiny hearing so that the questions can be answered fully, including how much money and resources would be required to fulfil the requirements of this policy area?

Yes. Thank you.

Will the Chair advise how many positions across the public sector have been subject to redundancy since the current Council of Ministers took office this year?

The Vice-Chair of the States Employment Board will take the question if that is acceptable.

I thank the Deputy for the question. As of 31st August 2024, 8 positions have been made redundant across the public sector with a saving of £552,000 per annum.

Can the Vice-Chair confirm whether more redundancies will happen before the end of this year?

Yes. This is an ongoing process and part of the savings in payroll is to seek out further redundancies within the public sector of grade 11 and above.

During that time period, how many redundancies have been made in the Communications Department and how many members of staff from that department are being redeployed to other areas?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The savings in payroll are coming from across departments, but so far the ones that have been identified are through the Office of the Chief Executive and through the Chief Operating Office. So the savings in payroll from the Communications Department, first of all we are seeking redeployment and then further to that we will be looking at redundancies on a voluntary basis, and that is the first plan of attack.

Just to confirm, there have so far been no redundancies from the Communications Department?

That is correct.

Could the Chair or the Vice-Chair tell us whether there is a target for the number of people who will be let go and, if so, whether the target, if there is a target, is being met by asking people to go or targeting particular roles which it is desired to close?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The target is not on specific numbers of individuals. The target is on savings. So the £15 million savings as identified in the Common Strategic Policy is what we are aiming for, and the number of individuals that fit within those £15 million payroll savings is where we will end up. Can the Deputy just remind me of the second part of his question?

Whether there are specific roles being targeted for closures or whether they are simply a general invitation for people to apply to redundancy.

Thank you. No, not specific roles, but the savings are targeted at grade 11 and above. So it will be the upper tiers of management so that we will end up with a flatter management structure throughout the organisation.

Does the Vice-Chair not agree that there is a risk that simply relying on volunteers means that key skills and key experiences and capacity will be lost? For example, somebody may volunteer for redundancy in an area where that job is very much required but it is possible to let them go because that meets the target. What is he doing to ensure that vital capacity is not lost and that the decisions over people who leave are aligned with the priorities of the Government?

[11:30]

Obviously, a lot of work is going on in that area. So where someone does decide to leave we will seek to redeploy from within existing resources to fill those positions. We also, of course, have a recruitment freeze for a period of 9 months to ensure that we do not take on any more staff while we are trying to rearrange the current staff that we have. So I do not believe that that is a risk, but the mitigations that we have in place should make sure that that is not really a risk.

The Assistant Minister talked about the savings that are being made, but what have the costs of the redundancies to date been; for example, what in terms of payoffs that might need to have been made to staff in order to get them to leave this year?

I thank the Deputy for the question. So, yes, obviously we have contractual obligations when staff leave their posts and it is down to their grade and perhaps their length of service. So the payments, of course, there is a cost when staff are let go, whether that is compulsory or voluntary, and the payments that have been made thus far range from £9,000 to £115,000.

It would be good to know what the total savings are. That does not really give us ... he has given us the savings that have been made but not the costs, so what is the sum of those costs?

Yes, the total costs, obviously without ... one of the risks here is I do not want to comment on individual employees so it would be best ...

Good, I do not want to hear about that either.

Sorry, I missed ...

So all I have at the moment is the range from and to on those redundancy payments.

Can I ask for clarification? I asked a straightforward question. Does the Minister not have that information of the total?

Sorry, just to clarify, the total of all the redundancy payments thus far on those posts is £330,000.

Thank you.

We are here at the Assembly again and again; there is no capacity within the system to develop policy, especially within the policy teams. Can the Vice-Chair of S.E.B. (States Employment Board) reassure that redundancies will not affect the ability of the Government to develop policies and not affect policy development?

Obviously, part of the exemptions from these savings are essential and front line services so policy would be regarded ... certain parts of policy would be regarded as essential service for delivering the Government’s priorities.

Thank you for the answer. Certain I am not sure. Would also the Vice-Chair reassure that employees who took a redundancy will not come back as standalone consultants, as we had previously cases, because we would not have capacity and knowledge within the system and we require consultancy services?

I thank the Deputy for that additional question. Obviously, part of this plan, as I mentioned earlier, is the freeze on recruitment, so anyone who is let go for whatever reason would not then be subsequently re-employed because there is currently a recruitment freeze.

I did not ask about re-employment, engaged as an external consultant.

That certainly would not be the objective or the plan when someone is let go on that basis.

the planned restructure of the Health and Community Services Department (OQ 159/2024) Further to his recent speech at the ‘Our Health in Our Hands’ conference, will the Minister update the Assembly on his planned restructure of the Health and Community Services Department?

Earlier in the summer I was invited to share my initial thoughts on the health service and articulate any views I had on how matters might be improved. I expressed my views accordingly and took the opportunity to share the transcript of what I said by email to all States Members. Since then, in conjunction with my Assistant Ministers and the lead policy officer, we have been in the process of refining our ideas, and recently we started to consult with more senior leaders in H.C.S. (Health and Community Services), and going forward we will be consulting with the wider health service. Once we are sure the ideas are workable and likely to deliver a more coherent service, we will look to present them to the Council of Ministers, Scrutiny and the wider Assembly before making them public. Just to put everyone’s minds at rest, especially the large number of people working within H.C.S., the essential principles of the work do not vary much from what was said at the earlier conference and the incentives are mainly on creating a more inclusive and autonomous service, improving interaction with primary care, the charitable sector and public health, but the overall goal being to create a more seamless, efficient, interconnected and, perhaps quite importantly, a more contented service. I hope that helps to answer the Deputy’s question.

Could the Minister offer reassurance that he will undertake full consultation on these proposals at the appropriate time? Could he also give a commitment that they will be the subject of a vote in the Assembly also at the appropriate time?

On the first part of that question, I thought I had alluded to the fact that we have already started a consultation process. Secondly, whether it requires to come to the Assembly is yet to be defined. So it will depend entirely on the extent of any changes that are proposed. Fairly obviously, if those proposals require coming to the Assembly, then of course they will.

Would the Minister advise what the timescale is for the proposed restructure?

I do not have a proposed timescale because this is work that is ongoing with other work, but we are proceeding as quickly as we can because we would like to get everything, if we can, organised, done and possibly in place within this Parliament. So we are just moving as quickly as we can.

We know that the turnaround team contracts will expire by the end of this year and we know that the contract for the current H.C.S. chief officer will expire shortly as well, within I think 6 months.

Would the consultation be done, be ready before, and if recruitment process will take place?

A little bit of a difficult one. All of those posts are currently under discussion and I think we are quite close to resolving them, but we need to be absolutely certain before we make any announcements. But they are being considered and dealt with at the moment.

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that he takes people - and that is staff, the public and this Assembly - with him on this journey so that all the hard work is not wasted come the next election?

I do not think I can say anything more other than the fact that we have started a consultation process.

We are going to be as thorough as we can and it is pointless trying to impose things on people that are not going to work or that are not going to be acceptable, so we will just work as hard as we can to make sure we do the job as well as we can.

What does the Minister believe is a realistic aim for him to have achieved on this matter by the end of this political term?

I think I will refer to the comments I made earlier. We are looking ... the overall goal, as I said, is to create a more seamless, efficient, interconnected and more contented service, so those are our goals.

Within this restructuring, alongside that I believe the Minister in the past has promised a new strategy for health in the Island. Where is it and who is involved in the design and how does that interrelate with the restructuring and your vision that you have just outlined for what you would like to see in health?

The development of a strategy is very much in its early stages. Unless you get the structure of something right, it would be a little bit like arranging the deckchairs on the deck when you have not fixed the hole at the bottom of the boat. So a strategy will emerge, but part of that strategy is designing a more inclusive and more cohesive service in the first instance.

I am not sure if I would see this the same way. A strategy would be about what you would like the health service to deliver and then you would restructure according to what you would like to deliver, which would be outlined in a strategy. So I would like just to confirm with the Minister if there at least are some clear points that would come out before the restructuring so Islanders and the Assembly would know what kind of key areas for healthcare the Minister for Health and Social Services would like to focus on in his restructuring.

I think this one is quite simple. We have obviously a different way of working. That would not be my approach. I have stated what my approach is. It is basically to restructure in the first instance and the strategy will evolve from there.

Just perhaps a couple of clarifications. The last major reorganisation of the ... restructuring, rather, of the health service was P.19/2023, which was subject to a vote. The Minister availed himself of the opportunity to vote against it. So would he commit to a vote on the subsequent restructuring which seems to be implied by this? Could he clarify what will happen to the chief officer role, to the recruitment of the new chief officer if they are being recruited into a role that will fundamentally change should the restructuring go ahead?

Sorry, could I just ask the Deputy to repeat the first part of that question to make sure I have it clear?

Sorry to ask.

The previous restructuring was P.19/2023, which was brought to the Assembly, so would he commit to bring a similar restructuring to the Assembly?

I will repeat what I said earlier. If the proposed restructuring is substantive and requires to come back to the Assembly, then of course it will. If there are only minor changes that do not require to come back, then they will not.

The second part of the question was the role of the chief officer, which might be changed quite dramatically after they are reappointed in the new year. So what contingencies or what does he have to comment about that potential situation?

We are not quite at the point where we know whether that restructuring will involve one or 2 roles and I do not want to go into anything further than that at this stage. But as I said in answer to Deputy Gardiner’s question, those things are currently under review. Decisions are imminent but not yet made.

Will the Minister provide an update on the bus operator’s contract and advise when both the retender process is likely to be complete and confirmation of a successful operator will be given to the Assembly?

It seems like tenders are like buses this morning. The position remains that the bus operator contract is being tendered in accordance with the Public Finances Manual. The tender process is running to schedule and there has been a good level of interest shown. The appointment of an operator is expected to take place later this autumn, at which point an announcement will be made.

The term ‘later this autumn’, can the Minister be a little bit more specific?

I have not been involved in the process, quite rightly so - it has been officers that have been doing the work - so I would expect to be briefed towards the end of this month or early next month. I would not expect a decision to be made after October. I would like to think it will be sooner rather than later.

Will the Chief Minister detail the progress, if any, which has been made in 2024 to develop an internal Government digital strategy?

Following a number of operational I.T. (information technology) incidents in January and February, the Chief Information Officer led a review of the underlying infrastructure supporting the Government’s digital services, which has been used to create a plan to support further investment in the digital infrastructure to support digital systems. A strategy was commenced under Deputy Curtis and the previous Government and planned revisions to the draft digital strategy will lay out how a major focus of the digital services function will be on remediating and upgrading the I.T.

infrastructure to provide a solid foundation upon which further digitisation can occur.

[11:45] Three immediate actions are improving the reliability of front line digital services, prioritising projects and programmes for delivery as soon as possible, and simplifying digital systems. That is aimed at reducing risk to the provision of digital services by upgrading and enhancing the highest risk applications.

Thank you to the Chief Minister for assuring that the work is continuing. Will the Chief Minister advise if the digital I.D. (identification) to digitalise Jersey has been considered and if it is anywhere in the plans to introduce one digital I.D. that we did have to integrate our governance system?

I would have to double check and I will do that and come back to the Deputy, if I may.

I do believe a large proportion of my question has already been answered by the previous question on this issue, but I did have a supplementary if you would allow me to ask that supplementary in relation to this question.

All right. Well, I will agree to withdraw it and I will speak to the Chief Minister separately.

I was hoping the Deputy would ask it because we could clarify any points that might be lying over from the previous questions.

regarding astudent's ability to access provision of learning in their home language whilst at school in Jersey (OQ 163/2024) Will the Minister advise what importance, if any, is placed on a student’s ability to access provision of learning in their home language while at school in Jersey and what plans, if any, exist to improve this access?

I thank the Deputy for the question. A high importance is placed on access to home languages learning for pupils in Jersey schools. The Language Policy for Education 2022, which is under a scheduled review after its first 2 years, will continue to reflect the high priority and importance that is placed on learners’ access to provision in their home language while at school in Jersey.

It is news to me that the current language policy is under review. Could the Minister give some more information about why it is being reviewed, what is being reviewed and who is leading on that review? Is it somebody who is already in-house or is somebody being brought in to do that review?

They are scheduled to review every 2 years and we would want to look at the multi-language learner policy, of course, because there is a context to how we deal with this depending on the demands made elsewhere with regards languages. As we are currently in a context of a lot of demands being made on languages in schools with different propositions and different things coming forward, we have to look at the way in which we can also allow multi-language learners to access. Currently, there are 84 countries of birth listed in 2021 in our schools. At one of our primary schools there are 38 first languages other than English, and they are demands being made on our schools that are being dealt with as best they possibly can. So now is a really good time to lead that review and it will be led by the person who leads language learning. I believe the person who was doing it has been seconded to something else but it may be time to return to that focus in modern languages.

Sorry, Sir, can I test that? I am obviously not in the Assembly but were there other people who wanted to ask supplementaries on that? I think we still have time.

Thank you, Sir.

Further to a question this morning by Deputy Miles regarding banking, is the Minister aware that St. Saviour has just lost its final bank? In recent times, we have lost Miladi Farm, Lloyds Bank, Five Oaks, and now HSBC Five Oaks has closed, leaving St. Saviour without a bank. As the Island seems to be moving towards a cashless society and many shops in town, including coffee bars, are card only, this will put people without a bank account at a severe disadvantage. Does the Minister not agree?

Economic Development) There is so much in that question, if I was to say I agree or disagree I would be agreeing or disagreeing to an enormous amount. So, rather than saying whether I agree or disagree to various things, I absolutely recognise the Connétable’s concern and also agree with that concern, although I also accept that this question may be better put to the Minister for Financial Services than myself because I do not have responsibility for banking. But I have raised with him on several occasions my concern that the consumer-facing banks in Jersey are perhaps not always providing the services that Islanders need and that I often see that from the small business perspective. Even in areas like hotels I have heard about the difficulties of gaining finance and things like this. So what I do agree with is that the closure of a branch in Les Quennevais is a closure of a branch which will have been used by many people in that area, it will have been very useful, and particularly as you move further into an Island with a population that is older, then it seems to me that there is likely to be perhaps a greater call for rural branches. So, it is a concern of mine and I do wonder if perhaps we could even think as an Island of rather than one branch perhaps there can be one location but with 3 or 4 banks operating out of that location. That is purely an idea, but yes, I absolutely recognise the concern. I do share that concern, and I am happy to speak to the Minister for Financial Services on that matter as well.

Just very briefly, it was not just St. Saviour but obviously our friends in Grouville and St. Martin used to use that facility there. Lots of small businesses who do have cheques and payments to pay in, now have to go into town, exacerbating the parking situation, if you can find a space. It is from that angle that I fired this question off to the Minister. We really need to get a grip on this and maybe ...

I am coming to it, yes, Sir.

Yes, Sir. If we could come together and make some facilities for a local bank, does the Minister not agree?

The Minister does agree, and I think that was the thrust of my previous answer. I do think this is an issue we should come together on. I think there are a number of areas or a number of aspects upon which the lack of bank branches touches. Exactly as the Constable said about the traffic impact is a really good example of how banking is ... we think of it as just purely finance, but in this case, it also potentially has an impact on traffic in town and things like this. What I would also add is when people say to me there is never anywhere to park in town, I will always retort there is always a space in Pier Road.

May I suggest it seldom receives a short response from the Minister either.

Air display funding has been cut by approximately ... from £100,000 to £40,000 over recent years.

Is it the Minister’s intention to reduce that down to zero and how much has been given in total to allow the event to go ahead this year?

I thank the Deputy for his question, and I can state it is not the Minister’s intention to cut the air display funding to zero and never has been the Minister’s intention to do that. What the Minister would like to see is a very-to-date, innovative, professionally organised air display which is inclusive of all Islanders. In that respect, one thing I would like to see is perhaps a more commercial angle from the air display so that it can raise its own funding. I must say that I was absolutely delighted with both the crowd-funding initiative and the response to the crowd-funding initiative because that is exactly the sort of thing I believe the air display organisers needed to do rather than just purely turning to Government for further grants. By trying to limit the grant to £40,000 when more was needed, rather than just coming solely to Government and then saying: “Oh, the air display cannot go ahead because the Government will not give us any more”, by turning to crowd funding, the air display organisers have shown that Islanders are really willing to help out. Those Islanders who are helping out through that area are obviously those Islanders who value the air display more than the Islanders who did not. So, I am really delighted with that initiative, and I do hope that the air display continues to seek other outlets for funding rather than just government funding.

If he could just confirm that the amount was £40,000, that would be useful. By his response, is he intending somehow to remove the current organisers? Does he intend to put it out to tender?

Yes, I confirm the amount to date is £40,000. We did hold an expressions of interest either last year or the year before and we did receive some responses, but it was the case that they were not ready to take over the air display ... or it is not even take over the air display, anyone can hold an air display, it is an entirely private event. But there was no response which seemed, from our perspective, to be worthy of shifting the funding to another organisation, which is why we have stayed with the Jersey International Air Display. There are no current plans to hold another tender process.

With regards to the living wage grant, will the Minister confirm whether businesses created after the announcement of the living wage was made would be able to access this grant scheme?

It is an interesting and it is obviously a very detailed point. I will have to get confirmation on whether there is a limit around that. Off the top of my head, I do not think there is, but I cannot be sure, and I would have to go back and check to make sure I have the correct answer.

Can the Minister explain why the Social Security Fund was chosen as the source of funds for living wage transitional support?

That was a decision around the entire Council of Ministers table. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to put my take on that alone, but I do believe there was an alignment between the living wage and social security in itself, as in by paying a living wage you are helping people who do not rely on social security perhaps in the same way. But I am pleased it was a Council of Ministers decision, not my own Ministerial decision, so I would not like to speak for the entire Council of Ministers.

I am slightly surprised that the Minister does not have more interest in this, given that in the past the Assembly has proved highly resistant to using the Social Security Fund in this way. Therefore, surely does he accept that there is a risk that by choosing this method, he risks potentially losing the funding?

Again, 2 things there. One, I did not choose this method. It was a Council of Ministers decision; it was not my decision. Number 2, I have enormous interest in this area and please do not take a lack of desire to speak on behalf of a group of 11 people as a sign of a lack of interest from my part. I would seriously hope that Assembly Members do not try to remove that funding. I think it is really important.

[12:00] It is really important for us in the way that the Budget is shaped for future years and I think it is really important that we do provide support as we transition to this living wage. Were we not to provide that support, I think we will end up seeing significant pressures which could lead to business failures within the economy.

The 2023 Jersey Business Annual Report and Accounts show that the productivity scheme in that year had 90 enquiries and 4 successful grants totalling £181,500 of grants. Given the Minister is proposing a £7 million productivity support scheme, what changes, if any, is he proposing to the scheme to enable it to be viably used within the planned period?

Jersey Business has already improved on those figures for the subsequent year. If that is the 2023 report, then 2024 is certainly different, I believe. We are already working with Jersey Business to understand how best they will market the scheme precisely because Jersey Business will be the organisation that is likely to deliver this.

Will the Minister confirm that the productivity support scheme has been running in 2024 and, if so, will he endeavour to get updates on the data to States Members in due course?

I believe so. There is now an element of doubt in my mind just from the question itself, but I will go back and I will get an update on the status of the productivity support scheme as is. Because now I think about it, we did pull back because of the earlier lack of interest, so we did want to redesign it to make sure we got more. I am sure we have been sending stuff out, but I will get an updated report.

I was pleased to see the launch of the performance sport programme by Jersey Sport using £120,000 approved by this Assembly in the last Government Plan. However, £150,000 a year had been budgeted under the Minister’s remit for performance sport. Can the Minister explain where the remaining £30,000 has gone, please?

I believe that is likely to be ... given that £30,000 is 20 per cent of the £150,000, that is due to the 20 per cent cuts that were made to the Government Plan from last year.

The Jersey Sport programme is described as a pilot for 2024, which will be considered for delivery in 2025 and beyond. Can the Minister assure the Assembly that if the Jersey Sport programme is not considered to have been a success, the money will continue to be used to support performance sport in Jersey, just in another way?

I thank the Deputy for her question. I do not see why that would not be the case. If the scheme is considered not to be a success, I would then turn to the Assistant Minister with responsibility for sport to understand how he would want to improve the scheme to make it a success or redeploy that money in a way that does back sport, rather than redeploying it somewhere else.

I would like to ask: would the Minister advise if he is aware about sentiments among the small businesses and local businesses that they feel that the Government of Jersey procurement is broken, serving to act as a barrier to business being done than to supporting them to engage with the Government?

It is sad but I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. I have serious concerns about the processes in procurement and how they make it difficult for local businesses to access procurement, the time it then takes for responses to come back. The reason I know this is because I know how long it takes a small business to write a tender for any element of procurement. Then I have heard various examples of never hearing back from the Government, it is taking months and months and months, despite this small business having spent perhaps a week or 2 weeks dropping all other work in order to do the tender process itself. So, it does not surprise me that the Deputy is hearing this sort of concern from the business community, but I find it very sad that it does not surprise me because it is something that I really wish we would enable small businesses to more easily procure from the Government. Indeed, I brought my own proposition in 2019 to that effect, but sadly I have not seen a great deal of change in regard to procurement from small businesses.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response because this is the reality. Would the Minister engage with the Minister for Treasury and Resources, who is responsible for the procurement system, and maybe review the current existing policy which can allow local small business especially to get easier access to the tenders?

I certainly will commit to speaking with the Minister for Treasury and Resources about this. I do find in general one of the ... and this is for all States Members. Government processes in terms of outward-facing processes where the general public in whatever regard interact with Government, they need to be improved in so many areas. From the perspective of how Islanders see Government, if those processes are difficult, then Islanders are guaranteed to come out with a negative impression of Government. So, by purely improving those processes, it could be anything from getting a passport to procuring from Government, it could be anything, if they are smooth and easy and understandable, then Islanders themselves, I am sure, will end up with a better impression of the Government that serves them.

First of all, I will just apologise to the Minister, but this question has only come about because of a proposition that we have had published to us this morning. The proposition is about the Westaway Trust being transferred into another trust fund. How many trust funds is the Minister responsible for?

Resources) I do not know how many. I do not have that number. I think the Treasurer often is involved in making many of those decisions and I think there are other bodies and groups that have been established. I think there are quite a number of funds and there are quite a number of groups and bodies who administer them. I know, for example, that there was a degree of, shall we say, rationalisation a year or 2 ago where management and decision-making around certain funds was moved from the jurats into, I believe, a part of Treasury, but I cannot remember the detail of that.

So, I do not know the exact number, but I can certainly ask that question.

I thank the Minister for her answer. My next question comes about with the review of the administration. You have slightly touched on it, but would you commit to a full review to ensure that the best use of these funds are approached and what funds could be consolidated together to get the better returns?

I think that is a very interesting question. I think that is part of an ongoing process. As I say, there have been general reviews over the years to look at how these funds are managed. They are managed, I think, in a way that is as professional as possible, and I think with the Westaway funds the issue is simply that ... well, there are 2 issues. Firstly, there are very small amounts of funds available. We are only allowed to spend the income rather than the capital. Once those funds are distributed among all the Parishes, it is a very small amount to distribute. Because of the requirements of the use of the funds, it is actually very difficult to spend. The initial objectives are very difficult to effect in the current environment and also it requires headteachers to be involved and headteachers feel that they cannot make certain decisions that the original establishment would do. So, we do keep a very close eye on all of these funds and ensure that they are managed in a common framework as much as possible and very carefully, and that distributions are made appropriately and as carefully as possible.

Following the announcement by Lloyds Bank that it is to close its St. Brelade branch and, as we have heard, the St. Saviour branch, will the Minister state if she has had any communication at all with the leadership of Lloyds to confirm how they will adequately support customers who will be negatively impacted by these changes?

I think that is a question that sits with the Minister for Financial Services rather than the Minister for Treasury and Resources. As Treasury, no, we do not have that direct liaison point with banks. That sits with another Minister.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Perhaps I will put that into a written question for the other Minister. This may go along the same lines, but other companies, as part of their operating licences, have public service obligations. I was just wondering whether the Minister would consider introducing a similar obligation for high street banks, which would protect important public services?

Again, I think that is a question for the Minister for External Relations, but as I am his Assistant Minister I would have to say that I think that would be an incredibly difficult thing to achieve. Banks are businesses and as soon as you start imposing obligations on them to keep branches open, we will all lose free banking. We all expect to go and take money out and it not cost us anything, and we will all start to pay for the provision of banking, as you did in the old days apparently. I would think it is a very difficult thing to achieve.

During the presentation of the Budget proposition, P.51, which will be debated at the end of November, which was the subject of a presentation by the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Chief Minister and other Ministers, I was able to attend that and I asked whether or not the Ministers would be providing a full list of all the reports and other documentation, some of which has been referred to earlier, in advance of the Budget. So, could I restate the question: will the Minister commit to providing a list of all the documents, any further information about the Budget, when it is going to be lodged and what it is about so that Members have full sight of what is coming?

I have to confess I am not quite sure what reports the Deputy would like to see. The Budget is a fairly significant document. There is an annex, which I have just given back to the Chief Minister, which is fairly significant. If the Deputy would like to tell me what reports he wants to see, we can answer the question, but I do not understand what he wants.

Okay, let me be a little clearer. What does the Government plan to publish for Members about the Budget that Members might not be aware about? For them, it is for the Government to explain to Members what reports are going to be produced in advance of the Budget because we do not know what we do not know.

Again, I am at a loss. We have published the Budget, the report on the Budget and the appendix to the Budget. I believe that is what all Governments have published in the past and again I would need greater ... I simply do not understand what the Deputy is asking for. If he could give me a list of what was published last year that has not been published now, I will look into that, but I simply do not understand what he wants.

I really do not want to take up any more time, but there is a list of documents which are going to be provided, such as the health funding, the productivity fund, all others, that we do not know anything about, they are just headline numbers, and we need to know the detail.

In the Income Forecasting Group’s report, R.130/2024, their forecast for personal income tax adjusted down. Has this now materialised and what action has the Minister taken to compensate for this possible shortfall in revenue?

I think, yes, that forecast was taken into account for preparation of the Budget, and it has been accounted for in the way we have compiled the Budget. The Budget has been lodged and you will see our spending proposals which take that into account. I am not sure if it has, I do not have that detail in front of me as to what the current income tax figure is, but we will have taken the forecast into account in establishing the Budget.

Will she consider not increasing the income tax threshold in the future to try to bolster annual income tax revenue?

I would think that is quite unlikely. We increase the personal tax loans threshold every year; we are doing so this year. In comparison with other neighbouring jurisdictions, we have a very high personal tax allowance, but I see no reason why we would ... it is not in my plan at the moment to not increase it.

Just to return to the question about Lloyds for a moment, the Minister for Treasury and Resources, she has ultimate responsibility for that area. I wonder, therefore, whether she could not talk a little bit more about her reaction to the closure of bank branches in rural parts of the Island or less urban parts of the Island.

[12:15] In particular, whether she is not prepared to discuss with banks things like the potential sharing of branches, potential use of government buildings for branches, for example, the letting of buildings in Les Quennevais Parade which could be sublet to banks for their operations on a part-time basis and so on. In other words, will she consider looking at those potential other solutions?

I can only say again I am here this morning as the Minister for Treasury and Resources, that is a matter for the Minister for External Relations and Financial Services, and I suggest the Deputy raises his questions with that Minister.

Insofar as it affects the overall revenue that the Minister has to spend, does the Minister have any concerns about the unintended consequences of drives towards productivity by businesses which may entail ultimately a reduction, a significant reduction in staff, especially where A.I. (artificial intelligence) or automation is used, for example in supermarkets, which might result in lower tax revenues to the Treasury, especially if businesses that are more productive are ultimately not paying tax as businesses?

Am I concerned about that immediately? No, I am not. I think we do want our business to be more productive, we want Government to be more productive, but I think we have to remember that we are virtually at full employment. Most businesses say that they are still crying out for staff, so I think even with productivity enhancements it is a very long way to go before we start seeing mass unemployment in the Island. Clearly, if that was a risk then that would be a concern. I think we do want business being more productive and it is not just a case of ... productivity does not necessarily mean a reduction in head count, it means better value added and it means that the employees you have are paid more because they are doing better and more productive and more profitable work. I do not think that there is an immediate cause for concern in terms of enhanced productivity and the use of A.I. in the Island. I think it could only be to our advantage.

Of course, it does not mean a reduction in services or headcount, but it can mean, for example, the closure of certain branches of banks, it can mean that tills with people are taken out of shops and replaced by machines that are automated that do not pay tax. Ultimately there could, and is likely in fact, that there will be a shortfall in tax receipts. Can the Minister reassure the Assembly that she has taken into account the potential downsize of the fact that there is good productivity and there is bad productivity and what that might mean for future tax receipts?

I think this is a subject for the Fiscal Policy Panel. I am sure they will comment on that in due course.

My own observation is that putting in self-service tills does not necessarily seem to be reducing the number of staff and there are just as many staff wandering around helping people with their self- service tills as there were operating the tills in the first place. I am sure the Fiscal Policy Panel will keep that in mind. I agree with them, it is something we have to continue to focus on, but I think if someone instead of operating a till is doing a better high-value job earning more money, then that may be a better thing for the Island in terms of tax receipts.

We have just heard from the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development that 20 per cent cuts have been made to Government Plan growth that had been agreed by this Assembly last year. Can the Minister explain when, why, and how this decision was taken and if cuts were applied across the board or were some areas protected?

As the Deputy will, I am quite sure, understand, those decisions were taken by the Council of Ministers over a series of discussions about the Budget for next year, taking into account the finances for this year and taking into account the other demands that arise as they do mid-year for funding. I think the 20 per cent was split generally across very many growth bids. There were very few ... I do not recollect any particular exemptions apart from possibly in Health and possibly in Education and the maintenance of front line services, but the 20 per cent was divided in a very even way with the agreement of the Council of Ministers.

Were any risks identified in this approach around the deliverability of the priorities that the growth had been intended to fund and, if so, which does the Minister consider to be at the highest risk of being impacted?

Risk assessments would have been conducted or will be conducted by the relevant departments so, yes, that work would be done.

I hope the Chief Minister was listening when the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development said that he was unable to speak for the Council of Ministers on the question of where the money for the Living Wage Financial Support Scheme is coming from. I am hoping that the Chief Minister can therefore answer the question which I asked the Minister which was: can he explain why the Social Security Fund was chosen as the source of funds for living wage transitional support?

The Social Security Fund is supplemented by the taxpayer, and it will still be supplemented. Figures were worked out, and perhaps the Minister for Social Security or the Minister for Treasury and Resources would have figures more readily available, but it was possible to reduce the supplementation to the fund while still providing enough money for the fund to meet its commitments. There was a surplus there so it was decided it would be prudent to utilise that money for the economy to help businesses deal with the living wage because that would not impact negatively upon the fund. Although that would mean the fund would get less money, the fund is still sufficiently supported to meet its objectives and obligations.

It is a very interesting answer because last year the Chief Minister took a very different view. Seven current Ministers voted against the previous Government attempts to borrow or, as it was described by Deputy Bailhache at the time, “plunder” from the Social Security Fund. Just to remind everyone, they were the Constable of St. John, Deputies Feltham, Le Hegarat, Luce, Mézec, Rob Ward and, of course, the Chief Minister himself, all of which voted on a fundamental point of principle against raiding the Social Security Fund in this way. So, what has changed?

I am just trying to remember which way the Deputy himself voted. I think he probably supported it.

What has changed? Well, I suppose I am happy to change my mind when presented with new evidence or information, as I have explained, in this instance. We can still provide sufficient sums for the fund, and that is absolutely key, without compromising the fund. That is at the heart of what has changed, and I think that is what has changed for the Government. We can still provide sufficient funds to ensure it is not compromised in any way while utilising additional money to support businesses with the transition to living wage.

I was asked by a constituent why the Esplanade car park has not been returned to its former use in much the same way as Kensington Place remains unused and Cyril Le Marquand public parking remains empty while a private sector development in the meantime has opened up a Commercial Street development where they are now letting cars park. If the vision for town is to encourage more shoppers, surely the Chief Minister should be chasing down the respective A.L.O.s (arm’s-length organisations) and government departments to use these spaces more effectively. Can he explain to the Assembly why this Government is doing so little to back the retailers and small businesses of St.

Helier?

Well, I happen to agree with the Deputy that parking is important for the rejuvenation of town, for the maintenance of town, for the interests of the residents and the businesses. We do have sufficient car parking available, albeit not all in ideal locations, and so I would like to see some progress there.

I would like to see not only with being more thoughtful with our existing facilities, but also, I would like to see, and will see when we introduce plans to rejuvenate St. Helier, more focus on providin g parking for residents, but especially to support the development of the town economy.

I will get a chance to ask my question now, Chief Minister. Can the Chief Minister explain how his plans are preparing a civil service fit for the future, particularly with regard to modernising and transforming the work of the civil service? Can he just help us understand a little bit more about what this entails?

The aim of this Government is to curb growth. The increase in the 2025 Budget over the 2024 Budget is just over 5 per cent growth. In 2024 over 2023 was over 9 per cent. We started to see budgets beginning to see exponential growth year on year, which was unsustainable. Rather than restructure the public sector, we are reshaping the senior leadership structures because the chief executive officer has identified, Ministers have identified, that we are perhaps overstaffed in certain areas, and we can reprioritise and utilise the resources saved in 2 areas of essential services and those areas supported in the Common Strategic Policy. The chief executive officer is working closely with Ministerial teams and senior officers to oversee this transition and reshaping of the senior management structures.

Could the Chief Minister explain what, therefore, is being done to build future capability, given that there are going to be people moving around, there are going to be people leaving. How are we going to attract future civil servants of the future and how will we replenish the skill base of the service?

I think that is a very good question. It is at the heart of the decision-making on this because we want to make sure that our public sector is more productive, and resources are aimed most at where they are needed. A lot of the savings we are making in the Budget, there is a proposed £50 million of payroll savings, but savings will be targeted to areas of front line services and areas where we need it the most, Health and Education, for example, and that is where we need to focus on recruiting the specialist expert workforce that we need. While having said that, we are reshaping senior management structures, there still will be, I would say, ample resource left in senior management structures to not only continue to do very good work, but also to be able to attract the best people in the future.

Calling to mind the C.M. (Chief Minister) in his previous role, statements regarding the cannabis industry and its sector, and statements that the industry was going to be one that was going to rival the size of the finance industry. As the cannabis industry involves the oversight by the Chief Minister of a number of other Ministerial departments such as Planning, Health, Economic Development and Home Affairs, could he update, or perhaps would he prepare an update for the Assembly, of how the industry is doing, what its challenges are and is it meeting those expectations that were set in this place a number of years ago?

I do not believe I ever said that the cannabis sector could rival the size of the financial services sector, but I did say at the time when I was Minister for the economy, and of course agriculture comes under that, that it could be a significant sector if we allowed it to grow, if you will excuse the phrase. That is a question that needs to be directed at the Minister responsible, which is the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development, but I will discuss that with him and ask if he is prepared, together with other Ministers who may have an involvement, to provide an update.

I think the Assembly needs some update on that, and the Chief Minister is in the position to co- ordinate his Ministers, so I am grateful for the response.

[12:30]

We have heard from the Chief Minister that there will be no departmental business plans for 2025.

Could the Minister advise how the public and the Assembly will know what is being done in 2025 and what tool will there be to let the public and the Assembly know what each department is doing?

I am sorry if I was unclear. We are producing departmental business plans but not Ministerial business plans. We are aiming to combine the 2 and that work is underway.

Could the Minister give a timeline for when these will be available and how will multisectoral issues get captured within these departmental plans if Ministerial plans are not developed?

They are due, I understand, for publication in quarter 4 which we are heading into shortly, if not sooner. I think some are ready now. Could she repeat the second part of the question, please?

How will multisectoral issues be captured between departments, those bigger strategic priorities?

It is a difficult question to answer without knowing the independent issues because they will be dealt with in different ways. Where there are overlapping areas or juxtapositions, then Ministerial teams and officials will deal with them accordingly. So, without a specific question I cannot answer that, but I will say that Ministers and departments will work in a collaborative way to ensure any multisectoral issues are dealt with appropriately.

Will the Chief Minister set out the aims of the restructuring of the Communications Unit and how success against those aims will be measured?

I cannot provide that off the top of my head, but speaking generally we inherited a Communications Department with some excellent people, but it was simply too large for the organisation. There is no science attached to this other than we want to reduce the size to make sure it is appropriate for what we do and that is exactly what we are doing.

What steps are being taken to ensure that the savings as set out in the Budget, and the savings in headcount that I think are alluded to in there, will be actual savings and not just costs spread elsewhere, either through departments taking on their own staff or outsourcing costs elsewhere? Is it about headcount, is it about cost, is about both, and what steps are being taken to guard against that?

It is about curbing growth, the financial growth in the public sector. To reduce or to stop the chance of new positions being created, the chief executive has applied a recruitment freeze until March of next year; of course, that excludes Health and essential staff. The reprioritisation of spending and the savings we made from curbing the growth in the public sector has either been reprioritised to some essential services or directed towards the Government’s priorities in the Common Strategic Policy which include transition to a living wage, extended nursery and childcare provision, the continuation of the school meal programme, reduction in G.P. (general practitioner) fees, provision of more affordable homes and a reduction in government fees and duties, to keep them as low as possible. That is just some examples of where that money will be redirected.

What consideration, if any, has the Chief Minister given to introducing new ways for his Ministers to engage with the public about their policies and their actions?

I am sorry, could he just repeat ... [Interruption]

We will start again. What consideration, if any, has the Chief Minister given to introducing new ways for his Ministers to interact and engage with the public on their policy and their delivery?

[Interruption]

I will switch the phone off.

Does the Chief Minister require the question again?

Saved by the bell, almost. [Laughter] Well, I believe States Members and Ministers are among the most approachable and available, accessible to the public and continue to do so, as we all do as States Members, on a daily basis. Once we have the Budget completed, have our first year out of the way, we will discuss ways we may consider meeting with members of the public. Of course, I think we have all benefited from the constituency surgeries that we are doing in the districts following the last election. I know Ministers, including myself, always try to play a part in those, so that has gone some way to bridging the gap.

Very quickly, and I hope I do get that 30 seconds for the Minister to reply. One constituent suggested that a useful way for Ministers to interact would be through fielding perhaps, much as Ministers do with Q.W.O.N. (Questions Without Notice) to the States, but a streamed and published to media monthly Q.W.O.N. equivalent to members of the public. Will he give due consideration to Ministers answering questions from the public and will he discuss that with the Council of Ministers, as I believe that would be a very productive way for his Council to engage with the public?

Yes, happy to discuss that in detail with the Council of Ministers. Just using up my 30 seconds’ injury time.

[12:37] LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [14:16] PUBLIC BUSINESS

Yes, absolutely. This amendment to the Statistics and Census (Jersey) Law 2018 is a culmination of nearly 4 years work to bring Jersey’s Statistics Law and our statistical system into line with international best practice standards. The Statistics Legislation Steering Group was set up by the then Chief Minister in February 2021 to address issues with the current law. These included inadequate legal protections for the independence of Statistics Jersey and also a weakness in the key parts of the law governing statistical production and the governance of the statistical system. I was pleased to be invited to chair the group. Other members were former Senator Vallois, the chief statistician, the principal statistician and the chair of the Statistics Users Group. Over a 6-month period we considered a large amount of evidence, learning from international best practice standards and other statistical systems. Between October and December 2021, the group consulted on the policy paper setting out our proposals for amendments to the law. Feedback on the proposals was overwhelmingly supported. I would really like to extend my thanks to the steering group, in particular to the chair of the Statistics Users Group who devoted significant time - the whole group devoted significant time - as well as their knowledge and experience into developing the amendments I am really pleased to bring forward today. These amendments will address the deficiencies in the law that were identified 4 years ago. They strengthen the legal independence of the chief statistician and Statistics Jersey and introduce greater accountability and transparency. They clarified the role and enhanced the functions of the new Statistics Council which replaces the current Statistics Users Group in law. They bring the definition of Jersey’s key statistics, which will be termed ‘tier 1 statistics’, into line with international standards and provide an enhanced process to assess and review those statistics. They also formalise Jersey’s statistical system under the law for the first time and provide the chief statistician with responsibilities to develop the statistical profession. Jersey’s statistics legislation must be robust, effective and conform with international best practice standards because it governs how our key official, or tier 1 statistics, are produced. The importance of those statistics cannot be overstated as the United Nations’ fundamental principles of official statistics asserts: ‘Official statistics provide an indispensable element in the information system of a democratic society serving the Government, the economy and the public with data about the economic, demographic, social and environmental situation.’ We need to trust that tier 1 statistics provide accurate data on Jersey for this Assembly, Ministers, businesses, charities, in fact, all of us must be able to make evidence-based effective decisions on our future, and tier 1 statistics are vital for that to take place. To trust in tier 1 statistics we must have confidence that they have been produced independently of any outside influence and in accordance with high professional standards and ethics. As the United Nations puts it: “To retain trust in official statistics, statistical agencies need to decide according to strictly professional considerations, including scientific principles and professional ethics on the methods and procedures for the collection, processing, storage and presentation of statistical data.” Some further principles that the United Nations cites as being fundamental to ensuring that we can trust in tier 1 statistics are: professional standards and ethics, prevention of the misuse of statistics, accountability and transparency and the effective national co- ordination of statistics production. I have purposely highlighted these principles because it is in these areas that the current Statistics Law has weaknesses. I will, as briefly as I can, highlight these deficiencies and set out how the amendment law will remedy them. With regard to the independence of statistics producers, a number of issues negatively impact the independence of statistics producers under the current law. Under the law, Statistics Jersey has a right to act independently, but they remain States employees and legally part of the Government. This means that, while the chief statistician has a nominal responsibility for commenting on the quality and interpretation of any statistics produced by public authorities, other undertakings and individuals, they can be limited in what they say by their employment status. There is no statutory process for recruiting or dismissing the chief statistician. There is also no responsibility for producers of statistics outside Statistics Jersey, for example, those in central government departments, to act independently when producing those statistics. In the amendment law these deficiencies are remedied: by providing the chief statistician with legal independence from Government as a separate corporation sole; by providing the chief statistician with an unfettered right to comment on any aspect of statistics, including their funding, use, accuracy, reliability, adequacy, erroneous interpretation and misuse; by providing legal protection for the staff of the office of the chief statistician so that their status as States employees will not compromise their ability to produce statistics independently; by providing a transparent process for funding the Office of the Chief Statistician that rests ultimately with the States Assembly; by providing a specific statutory process for appointing and dismissing the chief statistician and providing all producers of tier 1 statistics with the responsibilities to act independently in the development, production, dissemination and communication of statistics. With regard to accountability and transparency, there are significant accountability gaps in the current law. There is, for instance, no requirement on Statistics Jersey nor the Statistics Users Group to produce annual reports, which means there is no published overview of their annual performance and operations.

There are no powers or duties to assess or to review official statistics. There are no requirements to inform the Assembly or the Statistics Users Group upon the appointment or dismissal of a chief statistician. There are limited circumstances in which Statistics Jersey must consult with the Statistics Users Group in the law. These issues have all been addressed in the draft law by: requiring Statistics Jersey and the Statistics Council to produce annual reports, including specific requirements to ensure those reports contain relevant information; also requiring that statistics are assessed for quality and importance before being included in the list of tier 1 statistics; requiring ongoing quality reviews of tier 1 statistics; empowering the Statistics Council to raise public concerns about any statistics produced by public authorities; providing for the first time specific requirements for the chief statistician and the Chief Minister to consult with the Statistics Council. With regard to co-ordination of the statistical system, Jersey already has what is known as a decentralised system; however, there are no mechanisms in the law to improve statistical standards, either formally or informally, across our system. Decentralised statistical systems are the most common form across the world. It means the key statistics are produced and published by many public authorities and not just by the National Statistics Office which in Jersey is Statistics Jersey. While many of our key statistics on, for example, health, education and crime, are produced outside Statistics Jersey, law currently prevents any statistics published by other public authorities from being included in Jersey’s list of official statistics.

There is no requirement for statistics produced outside Statistics Jersey to conform to statistical standards and a code of practice. The chief statistician has no formal leadership role for this statistical profession. Finally, there is no formal way of co-ordinating the producers of statistics across public authorities. This includes lack of organisation and planning requirements in the law. The amendment law will address these deficiencies by enabling any statistics produced by public authorities to be tier 1 statistics, providing they satisfy the statutory test for importance and integrity. It also requires all producers of statistics across public authorities to comply with the code of practice as far as it is practicable to do so, in addition to requiring them to act independently when producing statistics by: providing the chief statistician with professional leadership of statisticians and analysts across public authorities, including responsibility for their career and professional development; defining the Jersey statistical system in law to include all producers of statistics and public authorities and establishing the Statistics Producers Group to enable the chief statistician to co-ordinate the Jersey statistical system. In conclusion, the amendment law is designed to: enhance the professional impedance of statistics producers; to improve the accountability of statistics producers, particularly the chief statistician; to aid transparency, notably in requiring the chief statistician and the Statistics Council to publish annual reports and to enable co-ordination of statistics producers and increase standards across all public service providers of statistics. With the caveat that I suggest we use the term ‘stats’ to refer to the word ‘statistics’ [Laughter] I move the principles of this amendment law.