Hansard Official Report

[9:30] The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER Tribute to Former Deputy Robin Rumboll Members may have seen in last week’s news, that former Deputy Robin Rumboll has passed away.

Mr. Rumboll joined the States in December of 1981 when he was elected as Deputy of St. Helier No.

Question Further to the responses provided to both Written Questions 23/2023 and 63/2023, will the Chair provide detail on any guidelines and training materials for public employees regarding interpretation of the Codes of Practice, including the definition of bullying, harassment, conflict of interest and public interest, negligence, breach of confidentiality, engaging in political activities and what constitutes gross misconduct, and advise – (a) how many employees across the public sector (both as a percentage and in real terms) have received any training in the interpretation of the Codes of Practice; (b) what work is being undertaken to better align the Codes of Practice with best ethical standards and practice in professional organisations outside the States and Government of Jersey, and if none, why not; (c) what consideration, if any, is being given to the establishment of a support framework for public employees to provide recourse to an independent third party to offer informal rulings and advice on conduct issues including the definitions on the previous areas; and (d) what consideration, if any, is being given to making training in ethical conduct compulsory and training repeated during an employee's service within the government organisation?

Answer (a) We do not currently have a full record as there are not specific courses. We regularly communicate and include Codes within management development and induction.

(b) As part of developing our career structures, we will be working with heads of professions to map within Connect People professional standards, training requirements and CPD (continuous professional development) activities. These will be incorporated into the performance management for each professional group. This will include any professional standards and training related to ethical practice for individual professions.

(c) There is no consideration for this work. Employees are encouraged to join a trade union. The employment relationship is a private one and it is not appropriate to outsource our obligations under the laws to ensure employees and investigations are undertaken in line with Codes of Practice issued by JACS and our own policies.

(d) The requirements will differ between professions and professional standards. A blanket approach is not being considered.

Question With reference to Page 88 of the Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027, will the Minister provide further detail on the changes that will be needed to pay for health costs in a sustainable way; and will she advise what options for funding, if any, will be considered in 2024 to reform Health Care services for the Island?

Answer The work to prepare options for the future funding of health and care services is continuing. Ministers have not considered any options at this stage as it has been essential to build the evidence base in the first instance, including whole system health accounts and expenditure forecasts. As the Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 sets out, Ministers intend to bring options for reform to the Assembly in 2024. These options will be shared with Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel in the first instance.

Question Will the Minister provide details of all grants and subsidies offered by the Government, either directly or through any Arm’s Length Organisations, charities, or related organisations, to any sporting club, individual, event or activity in the last 15 years, including – (a) the beneficiary of the funding; (b) the sport they represented; (c) what the financial support was intended to fund; (d) the amount received by each beneficiary and whether it was a grant or subsidy; (e) the grant or subsidy application and selection process; (f) where applicable, a list of unsuccessful applications, the reason for rejection and the sport they represented; and Will he further provide a list of the total number of sporting clubs, both professional and amateur, that currently make use of States of Jersey owned venues, including the sport they represent, and how much rent each pay per month to the States?

Answer It has not been possible to collate expenditure across all Government departments for the years requested due to the limited time available and changes in Departmental and ALO structures over the last 15 years. The table in Appendix 1 therefore identifies expenditure provided by the Department for the Economy, the former Government Sport Development Department where available and relevant ALOs since 2012. Funding is granted in line with Government priorities.

Jersey Sport was established in 2017 as an Arms Length Organisation to support the delivery of Government’s priorities for sport and physical activity. As part of this work, Jersey Sport provides grants and subsidies for sport including grants for schools, travel and volunteer workforce development (Grants • Jersey Sport) Government funding to Jersey Sport is detailed on the table in Appendix 1. Government does not hold information on the individual grants and subsidies provided by Jersey Sport.

Lottery proceeds for sport are distributed by the Jersey Community Foundation with the amount available dependant on ticket sales. The sums available for sport are below and details of grants made are available at Grant Funding Awards | Jersey Community Foundation: 2021 - £247,661 2022 – £274,987 2023 - £175,987 The Government’s “Connect Me: Connecting our Communities” scheme, managed through the Customer and Local Services Department, has provided support to many sports including football, basketball, freshwater angling, touch rugby, padel and skateboarding.

There are circa 260+ sporting clubs and associations who use Government of Jersey run facilities.

Some are in residence and have a lease/license and some hire the facilities on an hourly basis. The rents of those that are in situ is deemed commercially sensitive and this information sits with Jersey Property Holdings. There are 70 wide ranging sports that are undertaken within these facilities which covers the vast majority of what is played and required on the island.

Its noteworthy that within the CYPES Estate, many of the Island’s schools hire out their sports facilities as well outside of curriculum time to sports clubs and associations.

If the Deputy would like a briefing on how the GoJ Sporting facilities are used then the Head of Operations for Infrastructure & Environment would be more than happy to arrange this. The Department for the Economy’s Sport Sector Officer is also available to meet the Deputy and explain funding for sport in more detail.

Further information regarding the purpose and size of Government grants can be found within the published Annual Report and Accounts Further information on the support to sport prior to the establishment of Jersey Sport can be found in the following reports: Fit for the Future Sport Strategy Progress Report January 2015 Fit for the Future Sport Strategy Progress Report January 2016 Fit For The Future Sport Strategy Progress Report February 2017 To view the accompanying table please click here for the pdf.

*In addition to the above sports, funding for sport-specific development officers was provided for table tennis and squash, but it has not been possible to source further information in the time available. In addition, payments made by Government to the 2015 Jersey Island Games Organising Committee was approximately £1.2 million. There may be additional sports that have received grants or subsidies from GOJ that we have not been able to identify. Best efforts have been undertaken to identify as many grants/subsidies as possible but no centralised account of such payments to sports exists. Payments to individuals cannot be included.

Affairs regarding the process within the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service when a work permit holder’s date of departure from the Island is either changed or overturned. (WQ.370/2023) Question Will the Minister explain the process within the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service when a work permit holder’s date of departure from the Island is either changed or overturned, particularly in terms of altering or removing the physical evidence of the original date from the individual’s passport?

Answer When a person’s immigration permission is cancelled, extended or varied, an endorsement to reflect the changed immigration permission and date stamp are placed in their passport. Previous endorsements are not altered or removed from a passport – this aligns with recognised immigration practices across the Common Travel Area (CTA).

An endorsement will only be amended where the issuing of the endorsement has been done in error - there is a prescribed way of doing this to signal to CTA jurisdictions that the error should not prejudice the holder.

Question Will the Minister, in respect of the Heads of Expenditure items in the proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 – (a) outline the process followed by departments to determine which revenue expenditure growth bids to submit to the Council of Ministers for consideration, including decision points involving accountable officers and budget holders; (b) detail the process followed by the Council of Ministers to determine which revenue expenditure growth bids would be included within the proposed Government Plan, including any decision points involving Ministers; (c) list all growth bids, budget increases and budget reductions considered by accountable officers and state the outcome of their considerations; (d) list all growth bids, budget increases and budget reductions considered by Ministers and state the outcome of their considerations; and (e) list all growth bids, budget increases and budget reductions considered by the Council of Ministers and state the outcome of its considerations?

Answer The Council of Ministers agreed the high-level Government Plan process for revenue expenditure growth bids, with three different stages to the process outlined below; 1. Business case commissioning 2. Business case developed 3. Business case approval The process was designed to produce a deliverable, affordable plan via an iterative process, with items changing, falling away, or being added at various stages as the plan evolved.

Business case commissioning Initially, departments were asked to complete a business case commissioning form. Accountable Officers, working with their budget holders and departments were asked to identify investment requests, with consideration to addressing key risks or other essential priorities, and ensuring alignment to the direction of Ministers’ plans.

Accountable Officers were responsible for compiling investment requests for their respective departments and submitting the completed commissioning form which included details of the following.

• a summary of the investment request • statement of the case for change, • estimated costs • number of people/FTE to recruit • risks to delivery • assessment of the investment complexity and deliverability Throughout the process, the Council of Ministers and Accountable Officers received an update on the forecast financial envelope, with the initial set of economic assumptions published by the Fiscal thPolicy Panel on the 20 March. The spring economic assumptions were used to by the Income Forecasting Group to produce their spring forecast report, which in turn informed the early decision- making process for the Government Plan.

In light of the initial forecast financial envelope developed at the end of April, Minsters and Accountable Officers were asked to review their funding priorities to put forward requests that; • meet critical risks that cannot be addressed through reprioritisation within existing expenditure limits.

• address unavoidable needs that will have a high impact on Islanders • support existing commitments • ensure the timeframes proposed for investment requests were realistic and deliverable • ensure growth in headcount/FTE was justified.

Accountable Officers submitted their initial business case commissioning forms by the 3rd May, with individual departments responsible for running their own processes.

Business case developed Following the initial business case commissioning process, the Council of Ministers reviewed the total of growth bids received during a Government Plan workshop considering the overall scale of investment and impact on the financial envelope, as well as public sector headcount. The scale of growth bids submitted through the initial commissioning process, was determined to be both unaffordable and undeliverable with available resources. The Council of Ministers therefore agreed to hold Ministerial working groups to review the growth bids initially requested, with each session seeking to prioritise investment requests considering; • impact that could be achieved for Islanders • need for additional funding • deliverability • willingness to raise taxes/charges to fund the initiative The Ministerial working group workshops were focussed on reducing the number of business cases being commissioned. Each Ministerial working group reported back at a further Council of Ministers’ Government Plan workshop, where the overall list of revenue expenditure growth bids was reviewed. The Council of Ministers considered the investment requests and agreed which bids progressed through to business case development for further consideration and review. The Council of Ministers agreed that the business cases should provide alternative and lower-cost delivery options with business cases due to be completed by 23 June.

Accountable officers, working with their departments and Ministers were then responsible for the drafting of business cases commissioned.

Business case approval Following the submission of business cases commissioned, further Government Plan workshops were held with the Council of Ministers in July. Ministers then prioritised the business cases submitted considering all of the points mentioned above, including consideration of decisions required to fund revenue expenditure growth requests (affordability) and competing pressures with the cost of living, recruitment and retention and housing. Ministers and Accountable Officers, were required to justify their revenue expenditure growth requests to the Council of Ministers, to ensure due process and challenge.

The Council of Ministers agreed the funding for some revenue growth requests based on the lowest cost option, or at a reduced level of funding than requested, based on considerations around affordability and deliverability. Accountable officers working with their departments were then responsible for finalising business cases where a lower cost option had been agreed.

Non-Ministerial States bodies Under Article 10 of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019, the government plan must set out proposed appropriations in relation to non-Ministerial States bodies. These appropriations were submitted through a separate process to the above and included within the government plan.

Other increase and decreases to budgets Separate processes ran alongside the revenue expenditure growth process, including budgets increases and decreases for service transfers, pay awards, inflation, formula driven growth, and value for money. Value for money allocations, were considered by Council of Ministers through Government Plan workshops, the final allocation of value for money savings was based on a pro-rata allocation of controllable net revenue expenditure by department.

Lists of revenue expenditure growth bids considered The full list of approved revenue expenditure growth bids is included within appendix 3 to the Government Plan. The list of growth bids submitted by Accountable Officers and reviewed at Ministerial working groups is provided below – indicating whether Business Cases were commissioned or not. The Council of Ministers considered the Business Cases in making their final decisions for the Government.

The central exercise to consolidated revenue expenditure growth requests, includes only those bids initially put forward by Accountable Officers. Each department, accountable officer, will have their own process for prioritising growth requests and not all of these will have been submitted to the business case commissioning stage.

Revenue Growth BC Included GP24 Minister Request Commissioned in GP24 Reference Minister for International Island Identity Programme Y N Development Minister for Children Education Reform Y N and Education Inclusion phase 2 Social Care Reform Programme Phase 2 - Minister for Children I-CYPES- Additional homes for Y Y and Education GP24-1 children in the care of the Minister Minister for Children I-CYPES- Demographics Y N 1and Education GP24-2 Minister for Children Social Worker N N and Education Recruitment and Retention Minister for Children Early Years (nursery, I-CYPES- Y N and Education literacy, and therapies) GP24-2 Minister for Children I-CYPES- Project CLARE Y N and Education GP24-2 1 Growth requests related to I-CYPES-GP24-2 investment across CYPES frontline services, received a consolidated amount to include parts of various requests.

Developing Contextual Safeguarding hub by Minister for Children I-CYPES- effectively responding to Y N and Education GP24-2 criminal and sexual exploitation of children Minister for Children I-CYPES- Apprenticeships Y N and Education GP24-2 Minister for Children Arts Education, Music and Y N and Education Personal Development Minister for Children Community Schools - N N and Education Scoping and pilot Jersey Youth Service - Minister for Children Workforce sufficiency / Y N and Education sustainability / professional training Minister for Children Jersey Children's Day N N and Education Inclusion – fee paying Minister for Children Government provided N N and Education schools Minister for Children Digital Education N N and Education Requirement Minister for Children Children's Rights and N N and Education Engagement Officers Combined provision for Minister for Children young people not in I-CYPES- Y Y and Education employment education or GP24-3 training Minister for Children Extraordinary Inflation N N and Education Minister for Economic Performance Sport and Development, I-DFE- strategic investment in Y Y Tourism, Sport and GP24-1 Sport Culture Minister for Economic Development, Jersey Heritage Trust Pre- N N Tourism, Sport and 87 Pension Deficit Culture Financial Intelligence Unit I-DFE- Chief Minister Y Y (FIU) GP24-5 Minister for Economic Development, Future Economy Y N Tourism, Sport and Programme - Staff Costs Culture Minister for Economic Development, Events Development N N Tourism, Sport and Action Plan Culture Minister for External Intellectual Property I-DFE- Y Y Relations Framework GP24-4 Securing prosperity of I-DFE- Chief Minister financial and professional Y Y GP24-6 services (JFL) Minister for Economic Development, Visitor Economy N N Tourism, Sport and Infrastructure Fund Culture Minister for Economic Development, Digital Economy Strategy I-DFE- Y Y Tourism, Sport and Implementation GP24-1 Culture Minister for Economic Development, I-DFE- Tourism Marketing Y Y Tourism, Sport and GP24-1 Culture Minister for Economic Development, Rural and Marine I-DFE- Y Y Tourism, Sport and Economy GP24-2 Culture Minister for Economic Development, Jersey Competition and N N Tourism, Sport and Regulatory Authority Culture Minister for Economic Development, Jersey Business – Core I-DFE- Y Y Tourism, Sport and Grant Growth funding bid GP24-3 Culture Minister for Economic Development, Development of Jersey as N N Tourism, Sport and a Regional Economic Hub Culture Continuation of the Minister for Home VAWG taskforce – Y N Affairs implementation phase Minister for External I-ER- Overseas Offices Y Y Relations GP24-1 Minister for Home Outcome of Demand and I-JHA- Y Y Affairs Capacity Review GP24-2 Minister for Home I-JHA- SJFRS OpEx pressures Y Y Affairs GP24-4 Minister for Home Operating budget N N Affairs Minister for Home Building Safety N N Affairs framework review Minister for Home JHA Data Manager and I-JHA- Y Y Affairs Analyst GP24-3 Minister for Home I-JHA- Defence funding shortfall Y Y Affairs GP24-5 Transportation of deceased Minister for Home persons on behalf of the N N Affairs coroner Fire and Rescue Service Minister for Home I-JHA- Pay, Terms and Y Y Affairs GP24-001 Conditions Review Minister for Ambulance Station HQ I-I&E- Y Y Infrastructure Maintenance GP24-001 Minister for Home I-POL- Digital Forensics Y Y Affairs GP24-1 Minister for Home Non-staff Cost Budget N N Affairs Pressures Minister for Home Staff funding cost pressure N N Affairs Learning & Development Minister for Home (Police Training incl N N Affairs Officer Safety Training) Minister for Home Police Constable Training N N Affairs Minister for Home Financial Intelligence Unit I-DFE- Y Y Affairs (FIU) GP24-5 Minister for Health COVID-19 Vaccine I-SPPP- Y Y and Social Services Assistance Scheme GP24-7 Continuation of Strategic Minister for Health I-SPPP- Health Policy and Y Y and Social Services GP24-3 Governance Minister for Health Maintaining current Y N and Social Services vaccination services Minister for Health Maintaining the current I-SPPP- Y Y and Social Services health protection function GP24-4 Minister for Health Maintaining current public I-SPPP- Y Y and Social Services health function GP24-4 Major Incident Health and Minister for Health I-SPPP- Wellbeing Recovery Y Y and Social Services GP24-5 Programme Minister for Housing Vacant Homes – N N and Communities reprofiled investment Minister for Housing Housing data N N and Communities Minister for Housing Strategic Housing and I-SPPP- Y Y and Communities Regeneration Team GP24-6 Minister for Housing Chief Ministers relentless I-CLS- Y Y and Communities focus - Housing GP24-2 Minister for Social I-CLS- Community Compass Y Y Security GP24-1 Jersey Pension Saver Minister for Social I-CLS- (Financial Wellbeing in Y Y Security GP24-3 Old Age) HCS Pathology staffing to Minister for Health funding maintain accreditation & Y and Social Services based on COVID19 PCR Testing FRP Technician 8 Job Minister for Health Evaluation outcome N N and Social Services funding HCS Minister for Health Patient Level Information funding Y and Social Services and Costing System based on FRP Minister for Health Hugo Mascie-Taylor N N and Social Services Response (Be Our Best) HCS Minister for Health funding Community Framework Y and Social Services based on FRP HCS Minister for Health funding Quality and Safety Team Y and Social Services based on FRP Implementation of HCS Ministerial Priority Minister for Health funding Strategies - Mental Health, Y and Social Services based on Dementia, Autism and FRP Neurodiversity Minister for Health Intelligent Client - Digital N N and Social Services Strategy HCS Minister for Health funding Patient Travel Policy Y and Social Services based on FRP HCS Minister for Health Samares Ward - funding Y and Social Services Rehabilitation Services based on FRP Minister for Health Non-Resident Charging N N and Social Services Policy HCS Minister for Health Oxygen and Respiratory funding Y and Social Services Service based on FRP HCS Minister for Health funding ED Overnight Y and Social Services based on FRP HCS Minister for Health funding Stroke Service Y and Social Services based on FRP HCS Minister for Health Patient Experience funding Y and Social Services (PALS) based on FRP Minister for Health Pharmacy Vaccine N N and Social Services Administrator Minister for Health Endoscopy Staffing N N and Social Services HCS Minister for Health Cancer care: Multi- funding Y and Social Services Disciplinary Team based on FRP Minister for Health 23 Hour Stay N N and Social Services HCS Minister for Health funding Cross-Sectional Imaging Y and Social Services based on FRP HCS Minister for Health Second Emergency funding Y and Social Services Surgeon based on FRP Minister for Health Pre-Assessment Service N N and Social Services Minister for Health Therapies Admin Support N N and Social Services HCS Minister for Health Speech and Language funding Y and Social Services Therapy based on FRP Consultant General HCS Minister for Health Physician for Trauma & funding Y and Social Services Orthopaedics and Surgical based on Liaison FRP Minister for Health Jersey Heart Services N and Social Services HCS Mental Health & Adult Minister for Health funding Social Care: Access to Y and Social Services based on Professional Qualification FRP HCS Minister for Health Increasing Safeguarding funding Y and Social Services Capacity based on FRP Sandybrook Staffing Minister for Health (Jersey Care Commission N N and Social Services Advice) Minister for Health Resuscitation Service N N and Social Services Minister for Health Acute Assessment Unit N N and Social Services (AAU) Minister for Health Hosiery and Dressings N N and Social Services Minister for Health Breast Cancer Screening N N and Social Services HCS Minister for Health Vulnerable Complex funding Y and Social Services Needs Service based on FRP Minister for Health Overnight Community N N and Social Services Care (GP Out of Hours) Application Maintenance Chief Minister Y N and Support Internal Professional Chief Minister N N Services Capability GoJ Change Portfolio Chief Minister N N Reporting Tool Chief Minister New Recruitment Model Y N Minister for Housing Teachers Pension Scheme N N and Communities Redress Scheme for Chief Minister Y N Failure to Remove Statistics Jersey – I-SPPP- Chief Minister Administrative data Y Y GP24-1 linkage team Statistics Jersey – Living Chief Minister Cost and Household Y N Income Survey Statistics Jersey - Statistics Chief Minister Y N and Census Law Update Minister for Development levies Y N Environment Minister for Securing the benefits of N N Environment offshore wind for islanders Minister for Process Chemicals N N Infrastructure Minister for Active Membership N N Infrastructure Income Minister for I-I&E- Fort Regent Y Y Infrastructure GP24-2 Renewable Diesel Funding Minister for Uplift – Decarbonising N N Infrastructure Government Minister for Tree Surveys N N Infrastructure Minister for Technology Roadmap for N N Infrastructure Connect Assets Minister for Funding for countryside, N N Environment water and air quality Develop one or more Minister for strategies for the N N Environment conservation of biodiversity Minister for Water Strategy N N Environment Jersey Met - Weather Minister for monitoring, warnings and N N Environment active travel forecast Biosecurity Team - Minister for Operational delivery of Y N Environment biosecurity. Invasive and regulated organisms Environmental Minister for Performance Certificates N N Infrastructure (estates) Minister for JPH Revenue N N Infrastructure Growth in demand for Minister for I-I&E- functions - Natural Y Y Environment GP24-3 Environment Minister for Treasury I-T&E- Insurance Premiums Y Y and Resources GP24-1 Minister for Treasury Additional Bank Charges N N and Resources and Card Fees Consolidation and further Minister for Treasury I-T&E- development of Revenue Y Y and Resources GP24-2 Jersey Revenue & Exchange Minister for Treasury Systems Update, N N and Resources Development & Maintenance

Question Will the Minister provide information on the processes and decision-making of the Planning and Building Compliance team in relation to two situations in St Lawrence, and explain – (a) following the refusal of a retrospective application, after a developer had failed to follow approved buildings plans for 17 dwellings, whether there is any way to appeal the Planning and Building Compliance team’s decision to take no enforcement action nor to require a new retrospective planning application, and if no such appeal is possible, why; and (b) despite complaints being made two months ago about a developer proceeding with building houses using plans without details of site levels or means of surface water drainage, which has led to flooding on neighbouring properties, and seemingly contravening the requirements of the building permit in terms of using spoil to raise the land around completed floor slabs, why no action has yet been taken by the Planning and Building Compliance team?

Answer Without knowing the exact situations in St Lawrence to which the Connétable refers, I am unable to provide a detailed response. However, in more general terms: (a) Unlike the right of appeal afforded against decisions relating to applications for planning permissions pursuant to Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, there is no right of appeal against a decision not to take enforcement action. There is no mechanism in law that may be used to force a developer to submit a planning application if they choose not to. In the absence of a planning application, the Regulation Directorate will assess each breach on merit, taking into consideration any relevant policies in the Bridging Island Plan, material planning considerations and harm caused by unauthorised development. Whether development has already taken place is not usually a material planning consideration. The use of enforcement powers is discretionary, and in instances of continued non-compliance the team will consider further action in a fair and proportionate manner.

(b) Where breaches of planning or building control are identified, the Regulation Directorate will in most instances seek to secure voluntary compliance before considering formal enforcement action.

In instances where required details have not been submitted (as may be required by a planning condition), the officers will inspect works being carried out in order to identify any problems and suggest ways to remedy the breach. Neighbours and affected parties may report any specific instances of flooding so this may be witnessed and taken into consideration as part of the investigation and decision-making process regarding possible formal action.

Question With reference to the ‘Further Listed Infrastructure Projects’ identified in the draft Government Plan 2024-2027, will the Minister outline the projected spend on the following projects – (a) Road Safety; (b) Countryside Access and Signage; (c) Planning Obligation Agreements; and will the Minister also provide a breakdown of the projected under-spend, if any, on countryside projects, the income from car park trading urns, and the income from third-party planning applications for developments, and identify how these areas of funding will be used to fund the projects in (a), (b) and (c) above?

Answer a) The projected capital spend on Road Safety and Active Travel infrastructure projects (such as safer routes to school) is approximately £460,000 for 2023. This includes funding from associated Planning Obligation Agreements. In addition, funding of £375,000 per annum is being made available from the Car Park Trading Fund (as a result of the parking charges increase in 2023) to fund the development of a new Strategic Road Safety Unit which will be operational from January 2024.

b) Countryside access and signage is a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

c) Planning Obligation Agreements are between a developer and the Minister for the Environment.

A figure for underspends in respect of item (a) is not available. Funding is only drawn down from the Car Park Trading Fund as required and the balance is carried over. For items (b) and (c) please refer to the Minister for the Environment.

Question Will the Minister advise Jersey Development Company's current debt liability, if any?

Answer The States of Jersey Development Company (“SoJDC”) publishes its Annual Report and Accounts on its website. The 2022 Annual Report and Accounts can be found following this link jerseydevelopment.je/media/udnlyq3t/jdc-annual-report-and-consolidated-financial-statements- 2022.pdf.

Note 13 within the Annual Report sets out SoJDC’s debt profile as at 31 December 2022.

SoJDC’s current debt liability totals £41.35 million and is and will be fully serviced from current and future rental income.

Question Will the Minister advise the budget allocated to maintain the Government of Jersey's estate for the last five years, per annum?

Answer Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative 12 12 12 12 12 Total Total Total Total Total Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 JERSEY PROPERTY HOLDINGS ANNUAL 8,340 8,694 8,707 7,863 8,017 MAINTENANCE BUDGET The above table shows the five-year allocated budget for maintaining the Property Portfolio which is allocated to Jersey Property Holdings.

This includes planned preventative maintenance, reactive maintenance, cyclical maintenance and revenue projects for building enhancements and ensuring compliance through statutory requirements.

Question Will the Minister provide information on the number of – (a) officers employed in the Back to Work team; and (b) individuals registered as unemployed who are seeking work?

Answer (a) There are 24 officers employed in the Back to Work team plus a further 4 working on the Foundations Programme. The Foundations Programme officers supervise a cohort of jobseekers whilst developing their skills through working on environmental, decorating and scanning projects.

(b) 700 as at 30/9/2023 see Actively Seeking Work statistics 3rd quarter 2023. Whilst this is the current level of those ASW, over the last 12 months there have been approximately 1800 unique individual job seekers registered at as actively seeking work.

Question Will the Chief Minister provide a breakdown of the full costs of attendance at the ‘Women Deliver’ conference in Rwanda this year, for herself and the Government of Jersey’s delegation, including the costs of – (a) flights; (b) accommodation; and (c) travel in Rwanda?

Answer The total cost of flights for the Chief Minister and two officials was £11,679.58.

The total cost of accommodation for the Chief Minister and two officials was £2,097.46.

Much of the travel in Rwanda was pre-arranged for delegates as part of their attendance at the conference. Accordingly, the costs for travel in Rwanda came to £37.86

Question Will the Chief Minister confirm – (a) whether or not she maintains a register of all units of dwelling accommodation, in accordance with article 16(1) of the Control of Housing and Work Law; (b) how a member of the public may inspect this register, in accordance with article 16(2) of that Law; and (c) if she is not complying with this Law, why not, and when she will be addressing this?

Answer (a) As part of administering the Control of Housing and Work Law, systems are maintained which register the categories of properties as Qualified or Registered, and any conditions or concessions, to satisfy the requirements of Article 16(1).

(b) The Customer and Local Services Department respond to any request seeking clarification on the categorisation of any residential unit, and whether there are any conditions or concessions to which that categorisation is subject, on request.

(c) Article 16(2) provides that any person may inspect the register during normal business hours.

Currently, it is not possible for a person to inspect the full register, and I have asked that future technology development include access in this way, and for any data quality issues to be resolved as part of this. In the meantime, the process as outlined in part (b) applies whereby members of the public may ask for details on any specific property.

Question Will the Minister provide the date and details of every cost benefit analysis and economic impact assessment commissioned or conducted over the last ten years, including a copy of each report or assessment, in respect of the following organisations funded by the Department for the Economy – (a) Jersey Business; (b) Visit Jersey; (c) Digital Jersey; (d) Jersey National Park; (e) Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority; (f) CERT.je; (g) Jersey Sport; (h) Jersey Reds; and in the case of Visit Jersey, provide a table illustrating how the funding of Visit Jersey has increased or decreased over the years since its establishment in comparison to the number of hotel beds in the Island over the same time period?

Answer In all instances, payments made by Government will have been accompanied by either a business case (for growth revenue expenditure) or a grant agreement with associated appraisal (in the case of grants made under existing partnership agreements).

Amongst the requirements for a business case or grant agreement are an appraisal of the costs and benefits of the available options and their and anticipated impact along with a review of delivery against stated priorities.

Further grant appraisals are undertaken as a matter of course for ALOs twice per year to evaluate the performance of each ALO against their business plan and KPIs.

A breakdown of payments to the Arm’s Length organisations requested is below, as noted above, each of these payments would have been accompanied by either a business case or grant agreement: Jersey Visit Jersey Digital Jersey Jersey Jersey Business Jersey National Competition Sport Park Regulatory Authority £ 000’s £ 000’s £ 000’s £ 000’s £ 000’s £ 000’s 2013 615 - 635 - 335 - 2014 625 - 1,329 - 399 - 2015 715 2,585 838 - 354 - 2016 821 5,100 727 - 300 - 2017 739 5,100 1,030 - 809 684 2018 734 5,000 1,327 - 209 1,310 2019 738 4,900 1,250 61 503 1,333 2020 860 4,628 1,725 100 340 1,444 2021 860 5,650 2,025 150 691 1,956 2022 860 5,750 2,225 200 897 1,962 2023 1,560 5,682 2,325 250 747 2,143 *additional funding has been provided via Economic Recovery Fund and not included in departmental spend.

All Information provided has been collated by totalling all Grant payments made to the specific supplier's name i.e.. Digital Jersey Ltd.

Similarly, grants made to the Jersey Reds would have in each instance required a business case and a breakdown of these payments can be found here: It should be noted that, pre-2016 Reds (professional rugby) and JRFC (amateur rugby) were one and the same legal entity and it is difficult to separate payments or differentiate as to whether payments were made to support amateur / community participation or the business of professional rugby.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 - - - - - 75,000 125,000 250,000 150,000 50,000 370,000 As the Deputy will be aware, CERT.je is not currently an Arm’s Length Organisation but functions as part of the Government of Jersey. Its budget is therefore within the Department for the Economy.

As set out in my letters to the EIA Panel of 17th March and 6th April 2023 it would not be appropriate to publish Business Cases or grant agreements in a public setting. These internal documents are prepared to inform the decision-making process and therefore necessarily contain commercially sensitive information such as staff salaries and commercial agreements.

The total number of hotel beds for each of the last ten years is as follows, also provided are the total numbers of visitors: 3Year Visit Jersey Hotel beds Overnight holiday visits 2core grant 2012 8881 333,000 2013 - 8893 326,000 2014 - 8576 338,000 2015 2,585 8390 347,000 2016 5,100 7685 363,000 2017 5,100 7589 418,000 2018 5,000 7822 415,000 2019 4,900 7705 439,000 2020 4,628 7626 Data collection disrupted due to COVID 2021 4,900 7398 Data collection disrupted due to COVID 2022 4,900 6711 Data collection disrupted due to COVID

Question Will the Minister provide the date and details of every cost benefit analysis commissioned or conducted over the last ten years, including a copy of each report or assessment, in respect of each of the following organisations – (a) States of Jersey Development Company; (b) Jersey Finance; (c) Jersey Business; (d) Visit Jersey; (e) Digital Jersey; (f) Jersey National Park; (g) Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority; (h) CERT.je; (i) Jersey Sport; and (j) Jersey Reds?

Answer I have nothing further to add to the answer to identical written question 379/2023, provided by the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture which I believe provides the information the Deputy is seeking.

2 Excludes route marketing funding provided from 2021 onwards.

3 These figures include hotel beds only and exclude camping, guest houses, holiday camps, youth hostels and self - catering accommodation

Question Will the Minister advise whether he, or his department, are aware of any solution, including biological solutions such as genetic engineering, that has been effective or could be considered as feasible in effectiveness, to counter the spread of Asian hornet populations; and will he further advise what research has been undertaken in this area?

Answer The Natural Environment directorate at I&E has cultivated significant links to personnel involved in Asian hornet control across Europe and is secretariat and chair of a European Asian Hornet Discussion Group focussing on any and all possible angles and elements of practical control of this highly successful invasive species. The group includes researchers, beekeepers, entomologists, pest controllers and government officers. Through this group, additional research and other contacts, we are not aware of any “silver bullet” solutions, including biological solutions such as genetic engineering, that have been effective or could be considered as feasible in effectiveness, to counter the spread of Asian hornet populations.

However, across Europe there are a number of initiatives underway that may, in time, offer some hope. These include work on a fungal control, pheromones, poisoned baits and trojan-horse poisons.

We also hear of some genetic engineering work in New Zealand to control Vespula species. Some of these proposals have huge political and regulatory hurdles to cross, aside from the scientific ones.

Since the introduction of Asian hornets into Europe in 2004 their spread has been relentless, with countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, Hungary and the mainland UK now experiencing significant rises in nest numbers in 2023. Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey have experienced the same upward trend. In many countries there is no formal, coordinated management policy beyond perhaps the subsidised destruction of nests that are reported, which is largely ineffective. Jersey has led the way in developing methods of tracking Asian hornet nests and shared this information with other jurisdictions.

Those jurisdictions that intensely and actively manage their Asian hornet populations, including Jersey, rely upon receiving public reports, and tracking Asian hornets back to their nests, followed by their destruction. This method both removes Asian hornets from our environment, limiting their impacts and if achieved early enough in the season prevents the nests from reproducing.

Question Will the Minister provide an outline of the rehabilitation programs and wellbeing support that is currently available for inmates of H.M. Prison La Moye; and will she provide details on how the success of these programs and support is measured?

Answer The prison is currently following the existing model of sentence planning at the beginning of sentence with a civilian member of staff coordinating this with prisoners and probation, and a unformed member of staff.

However, there are plans in place for the reallocation of a full time Senior Officer resource to coordinate resettlement work through prison officers in the ‘personal officer scheme’ starting in December.

As part of this, we have reallocated existing resource to provide two full time prison officers to lead on this and recruited two trainee intervention facilitators- all of whom are booked to undertake accredited intervention training programs in the United Kingdom and will be in a position to deliver group work interventions in conjunction with the Probation Service. All accredited programs have a robust assurance framework which the Forensic Psychologist is responsible for as program lead.

In the meantime, we have a Chartered Forensic Psychologist doing 1-2-1 interventions to address forensic risk, and this is coordinated with probation managers. There are two probation officers based in the prison for part of the week providing risk-based work and interventions.

The prison follows the 7 pathways model (Drugs and Alcohol, Attitudes thinking and behaviour, Finance benefit and Debt, Accommodation, Employment training and education, Children and Family, Mental and Physical health) and has been working very closely with probation services and other Government departments to align interventions in this model, each pathway has prisoners employed in developing and continuously improving practice and outcomes in this area.

The prison has been working to explore an ‘outcomes based accountability’ approach, to ensure the measures are effective in driving continuous improvement. The prison is anticipating a full external inspection in Autum 2024 to check against the HMIP framework of 100 expectations of outcomes for prisoners, and will be conducting a full self-audit later this month, in preparation for this.

Question Will the Minister provide annual statistics on the turnaround times over the last 3 years for homes provided by Andium and other housing trusts to become available on the Housing Gateway when they are vacated by tenants and not in need of complete refurbishment, broken down by mean, mode, and median average, and the maximum and minimum times?

Answer The Minister for Housing and Communities does not directly hold this information, but has received the following from two social housing providers – Andium Homes and Jersey Homes Trust.

Andium Homes Andium Homes has a Key Performance Indicator for all standard relets, to include refurbishment works and statutory inspections and the time taken to allocate. These are published in their annual reports.

Andium Homes operate a ‘choice based’ lettings system, so advertise vacant homes prior to the refurbishment works being completed, in order to expedite the allocation.

Statistics for 2020 do not reflect a ‘business as usual’ performance, given the ‘Stay at Home’ Covid- 19 restrictions. The data below, therefore, reflects years 2021 and 2022.

The following represents turnaround times to relet vacant properties during those periods. This does not include properties requiring major repairs, or the allocation of new supply as defined by UK benchmarking housing standards Housemark. The data does not, therefore, include 220 new/refurbished homes in 2021 and 305 new/refurbished homes in 2022.

Year Total No Mean Mode Median Max* Min* Voids Days Days Days Days Days 2021 212 25 20 23 71 1 2022 201 28 21 25 74 7 * The maximum and minimum times relates to a small number of relets, so does not reflect the situation accurately. Homes become vacant for a whole host of reasons, with some offering swifter opportunities to relet, and others providing additional challenges.

THE JERSEY HOMES TRUST Annual Benchmarking of Performance Indicators (2019 –2021) against Performance Indicators of UK Housing Associations (2020 -2021) UK Associations Jersey Homes Trust 2020 2021 2021 2020 2019 Average stock per provider 12,367 12,845 842 842 842 Rent loss from void properties 1.50% 1.90% 0.07% 0.20% 0.00% Average re-let time (days)* not reported not reported 4.47 17.68 0.32 Rent arrears at year end 4.90% 4.90%% 0.37% 0.69% 0.14% Unrecoverable Debts 1.00% 0.70%% 0.05% 0.32% 0.16% Maintenance & Repairs per unit: Weekly £39.78 £40.12 £46.17 £34.63 £42.40 Annual £2,068 £2,086 £2,401 £1,801 £2,205 As percentage of Turnover 37.41% 36.84% 18.55% 14.32% 17.84% Management cost per unit; Weekly £23.14 £23.63 £22.96 £21.78 £21.44 Annual £1,203 £1,229 £1,194 £1,132 £1,115 As percentage of Turnover 21.77% 21.71% 9.22% 9.01% 9.02% Overall costs per unit: Weekly £64.37 £64.46 £69.25 £57.21 £64.25 Annual £3,347 £3,352 £3.601 £2,975 £3,341 As percentage of Turnover 60.54% 59.21% 27.82% 23.66% 27.03% NOTES “Management Cost” includes all administration costs, management fees, accountancy and audit fees, property insurances, P.I. Insurance and legal and professional fees.

To achieve like-for-like and meaningful comparisons All costs are nett of depreciation and impairment costs.

JHT costs are nett of Foncier Rates (for which there is no UK equivalent).

*Re-let time Average re-let time calculated by number of void days divided by number of re-lets in year.

Sources The “2021 Global Accounts of private registered providers” published by the Regulator of Social Housing The independently audited Financial Statements of The Jersey Homes Trust and reports to Trustees by Managing Agents.

Unreported data in the UK statistics Re-let times: last reported in 2010 as 33.2 days.

Question Will the Minister provide the number of personnel employed Pre-COVID and currently under the Medical Officer of Health and/or Director of Public Health, together with a breakdown of staffing costs, all other costs, and organisational charts for each period?

Answer The question has been understood as relating to the vaccination service and that the periods referred to are pre and post the COVID-19 pandemic. The question can be readdressed if these assumptions are not correct. The question has been answered as fully as possible within the timescales allowed and further work can be undertaken if required.

In January 2023, immunisation services moved from Health and Community Services to Public Health as specified in Government Plan 2023 decided by the States Assembly in December 2022.

To support this vaccination programme, there are currently 1.5 full time equivalent clinical staff and 2.4 full time equivalent non-clinical staff in post. Staff complement has not changed since the transfer from HCS. This service supports scheduling of baby and pre-school immunisations, co-ordinates and administers the neonatal Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination offered to babies and children under 5 years of age who are deemed most at risk of exposure to tuberculosis (TB). Additionally, the service co-ordinate and deliver school aged routine immunisations, including the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine (HPV) to approximately 1,000 children in school year 8 to prevent cervical and penile cancer and the teenage booster and Meningitis ACWY vaccine to approximately 1,000 children in school year 9. Nasal flu vaccines are offered to all school aged children. Pre-school flu is administered via General Practice (GPs) who visit nurseries. Furthermore, the service conducts annual cold chain audits of GP accommodation and leads an annual stock check paper of vaccines in Primary Care which is required by the Treasury.

The service also works with Customer Local Services (CLS) to identify those Islanders who turn 70 years old each year (approximately 1,000 Islanders per year) and therefore become eligible for a shingles vaccine. The team sends a letter to inform the eligible Islanders, advising them to contact their GP for an appointment. Adult vaccines (shingles, pneumococcal) are administered by GPs.

As COVID-19 becomes endemic, vaccination remains the primary way of preventing severe illness (and hospitalisations) arising from COVID-19. The virus continues to circulate in our community and so there is an ongoing need to provide vaccination for those at greatest risk of serious disease.

The COVID-19 vaccination workforce has, however, reduced as advice from the national Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has changed over time, from mass vaccination of the whole population in 2021, to a more targeted approach focussing on the groups at most risk, such as those aged 65+.

There are currently 11.2 full time equivalent clinical staff who administer COVID-19 vaccines and provide a home visit service to residential care homes and Islanders who are housebound. There are 16.4 full time equivalent non-clinical staff who support the running of the operational service, plan for future campaigns, collate and analyse operational data, and prepare the home visit service.

Additionally, one zero hours GP is available for clinical advice and guidance as required.

Comparative vaccination service running costs pre and post COVID-19 pandemic are provided in the table below.

Health and Community Services – responsible for the immunisation services budget until 31December 2022 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pay (£) 185,120 174,845 125,841 226,490 Non-pay (£) 759,502 705,888 656,001 833,380 Total (£) 944,621 880,733 781,843 1,059,870 Public Health – responsible for the immunisation services budget from 01 January 2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD Sept 2023 Pay (£) 150,945 Non-pay (£) 626,688 Total (£) 777,633 COVID - The first COVID vaccine was administered on 13 December 2020 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Forecast Pay (£) 103,903 3,814,420 2,281,625 645,456 Non-pay (£) 88,401 1,188,690 689,743 1,443,027 Total (£) 192,304 5,003,110 2,971,368 2,088,483

Question Will the Minister explain how the Island’s vaccination programme was funded prior to the Covid-19 epidemic, including which budget funds were allocated from and a breakdown of the costs of the programme in 2019; and will the Minister further advise out of which budget(s) the vaccination programme was delivered during Covid 19, and provide a breakdown of the costs involved for each of 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023?

Answer There are a wide number of different vaccination programmes including shingles, HPV, flu, Covid- 19, pneumococcal and childhood immunisation. The funding mechanisms for these vaccination programmes is spread across departments and has varied overtime. Against this backdrop the question has been answered as fully as possible within the timescales allowed and further work can be undertaken if required.

Operational and ministerial responsibility differ depending on which vaccine programme is being considered. For example, vaccination for flu has been funded by the • Health Insurance Fund (HIF) under the responsibility of CLS and the Minister for Social Security, • HCS, who offered vaccinations to school children and HCS staff, • JHA who arranged for flu vaccinations in the prison and • COO who has commissioned a vaccination service for Government employees.

Prior to 2017, the HIF has supported the Flu vaccination programme in respect of priority groups (older people, those with clinical risk factors) through via pharmaceutical benefit and medical benefit until a contract with General Practice and Pharmacy was introduced. (HCS, JHA and COO maintain responsibilities for some cohorts).

Pharmaceutical benefit and medical benefit are still used to subsidies the cost of other vaccinations including shingles and pneumococcal if the vaccination is delivered in General Practice. Investment by HIF in these programmes is not recorded as the Government do not collect information from GP practices regarding the nature of the consultations they undertake when claiming medical benefit.

Since 2020 operational responsibility for the COVID-19 vaccination programme is managed through Public Health under the responsibilities of the Minister for Health and Social Services.

There is an immunisation services budget for childhood and adult routine immunisations, which was managed by Health and Community Services until 31 December 2022. From 01 January 2023, the service and budget transferred to Public Health as specified in Government Plan 2023 and decided by the States Assembly in December 2022. Under this programme: Baby and Pre-school immunisations are administered within General Practice.• School aged immunisations are administered by Public Health Nurses• Adult immunisations are administered within General Practice.• Since 2020, the COVID-19 vaccination service has been funded from COVID reserves.

The table below provides financial information from 2019 to 2023 for these two vaccine programmes.

Health and Community Services – responsible for the immunisation services budget until 31December 2022 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pay (£) 185,120 174,845 125,841 226,490 Non-pay (£) 759,502 705,888 656,001 833,380 Total (£) 944,621 880,733 781,843 1,059,870 Public Health – responsible for the immunisation services budget from 01 January 2023 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD Sept 2023 Pay (£) 150,945 Non-pay (£) 626,688 Total (£) 777,633 COVID - The first COVID vaccine was administered on 13 December 2020 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Forecast Pay (£) 103,903 3,814,420 2,281,625 645,456 Non-pay (£) 88,401 1,188,690 689,743 1,443,027 Total (£) 192,304 5,003,110 2,971,368 2,088,483

Question Will the Minister provide information on the proposed completion date for awarding the contract to run Jersey's public bus service?

Answer It is anticipated that the bus operator contract will be awarded towards the end of Q3 2024. The exact timing will be dependent upon the complexity of commercial negotiation. Following from this there will be a mobilisation period prior to the commencement of operations under the new contract.

Question Will the Minister advise the amount of underspend from the Social Security Department that has been returned to Central Government funds since 2020, if any, broken down by year; and will she advise what the estimated underspend is expected to be this year?

Answer Departmental underspends are reported in the annual Report and Accounts published each year.

These reports show: 2020 £1,648,000 2021 £1,851,000 2022 £2,889,000 The latest forecast (as at the end of September) for the year end 2023 is an estimated overspend of £1,520,000. The department is working with Treasury to resolve the position prior to year end.

Question Will the Minister advise – (a) the process for employing staff for roles based in the Government Broad Street office; and (b) whether all roles have been advertised and due consideration given to all candidates, and if not, why not?

Answer The government’s recruitment and selection policy provides details of the principles and processes involved for recruiting staff for all roles, not just those based in the Broad Street office. There is associated guidance on the process stages that include: Step 1: Adverts Step 2: Shortlisting Step 3: Interview Step 4: Offer Step 5: Clearance Step 6: Confirmation of employment All roles are advertised as standard procedure, this includes roles based in Broad Street. These roles may be advertised internally or externally dependent on the skills and experience required; and to ensure that the best quality appointments are made.

In certain circumstances exceptions to open recruitment are permitted, in order to provide flexibility where it is genuinely needed. These may be: • Posts subject to succession planning and talent development • Restructuring and redeployment • Short term appointments (up to a maximum of 6 months) • Extensions to short term appointments (up to a maximum of 6 months) • Posts requiring specialists skills • Secondments • Social obligations (people on work schemes or with a barrier to employment) • Acting up

Question Will the Chief Minister state when she anticipates that the inquiries into the explosion at Haut du Mont and the Collision of L'Ecume II will be concluded; and will she advise whether the full reports and findings will be published, and if so, when?

Answer The joint States of Jersey Police and Health & Safety Inspectorate inquiry into the explosion at Haut du Mont, named Operation Spire, is one of the largest and most complex criminal investigations in the Island’s history. The investigation relies on specialist technical and scientific off-island examinations and reporting by experts. These examinations and reports will provide the investigation team with the necessary evidence to progress the investigations to a conclusion.

The States of Jersey Police have also been simultaneously investigating the tragic incident off the coast of St Ouen – Operation Nectar. This is a similarly large and complex investigation.

It is important that both investigations are thorough and rigorous in order to reassure the bereaved families and indeed all islanders that every effort has been made to establish the facts.

A file of evidence has been submitted to the Law Officers’ Department (“LOD”) relating to Operation Nectar. Given the size and complexity of the file it will take some time to consider the evidence submitted by the States of Jersey Police.

It is anticipated that a similar file of evidence will be submitted to the LOD with regard to Operation Spire when the experts’ reports have been received, fully considered and the investigation concluded.

Question Will the Minister advise – (a) what assessment has been, or will be, conducted to measure the impact of the closure of the ‘in person’ Visitor Information Centre at Liberation Station; (b) what feedback, if any, has he received on the closure of this facility and to what extent such feedback is supportive or critical of the closure; and (c) whether he is aware of any other tourist destinations that have closed their own tourist office to follow Jersey's lead, and if so, which ones?

Answer a) Since the start of peak season, Visit Jersey has been conducting ongoing independent research with visitors whilst they are on-island to gather feedback regarding their preferred methods of accessing information. The interviews are conducted in-person by an independent third party at popular visitor locations and include the option to express a preference for printed materials, digital resources, and physical in-person contact.

b) The research being conducted will inform Visit Jersey’s strategy and approach to Visitor Information Services in 2024. The strategy will incorporate feedback from stakeholders and the visitor survey, but must ultimately be evidence-based and demonstrate a cost-effective use of funding. Visit Jersey will be factoring in the preferences of all visitor demographics, aiming to deliver services that will satisfy visitor needs both in the near- and long-term.

c) Globally there has been a shift away from physical tourist information centres over the past 10-15 years. In 2011 The Guardian reported that tourism information centres around Britain were ‘facing extinction’ due to significant declines in footfall. Since 2018, Visit Scotland has reduced the number of visitor information centres they operated from 126 to 24. Visit Jersey appreciates that visitor centres remain popular in France and therefore a hybrid solution may be required to suit the varied needs of the island’s primary source markets.

Question Will the Minister provide a list of all current tax allowances and reliefs available to individuals and businesses, including the following details – (a) a description of each allowance/relief; (b) the purpose of the allowance/relief; (c) the number of individuals/ businesses claiming the allowance/relief; (d) the total cost of each allowance/ relief per year over the past ten years; (e) how the outcomes related to the allowance/relief are measured; (f) whether the allowance/ relief has been assessed as meeting its intended purpose, if so, when, how, and by whom; and will he further confirm if the Treasury Department or any other Department maintain any records or data to measure the benefits of the allowance/ relief against its purpose?

Answer Data relating to some of the main personal tax allowances and reliefs is available in the Tax statistical digests, which are published and available on the Government website.

The Government does not routinely undertake policy evaluations of long-standing tax allowances and reliefs. Such policy evaluation would only be undertaken at the time of any fundamental review of any area of tax policy.

The range of allowances and reliefs across Jersey’s tax statutes is wide and information will not necessarily be available about all of them because of the different ways in which they might operate.

We will continue to undertake appropriate levels of policy evaluation of the effectiveness of allowances and reliefs when they are subjected to fundamental review.

I am not minded to embark on an extensive and inevitably labour-intensive exercise to catalogue and evaluate all of the existing (personal and business) allowances and reliefs which would inevitably divert resources from delivering existing key tax policy projects.

Question Further to the situation this weekend where homes and businesses across the Island were left without gas, will the Minister advise – (a) how many homes were estimated to have been affected; (b) how many businesses were estimated to have been impacted; (c) what was the estimated economic impact on businesses; (d) whether any compensation be available to residents; (e) whether businesses be compensated by Jersey Gas or her department for loss of earnings, including any perishable food that had to be disposed of due to the closure of some businesses, and if not, what recourse to compensation would the Minister suggest; (f) whether she has discussed the situation with other Ministerial colleagues, and if so, when and what was the outcome of such discussions; and (g) whether Government have a mechanism to impose fines on Jersey Gas, or otherwise hold them to account where necessary, when such a high-level disruption to supply occurs, and if not, why not?

Answer a) It is understood from Island Energy (IEG) that around 4300 households were affected b) It is understood from IEG that around 300 commercial customers have been affected c) The advice from the Economy Department is that it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to calculate an accurate estimate within the time available. In order to produce an accurate estimate it would be necessary to understand, in quite significant detail, the loss that all businesses faced as well as how much of that loss is or is not recoverable in the coming week.

d) This would not be a matter for government, but for IEG. However, we are aware that IEG are considering arrangements to provide compensation, and we would expect them to do further consideration once the immediate event is resolved.

e) Likewise, this is a matter for IEG to consider. Equally, some businesses may be able to seek compensation for any losses by way of their insurance.

f) The Council of Ministers met on Sunday 8 October to discuss this situation, it has since been discussed at a scheduled meeting of the Council of Ministers on Tuesday 10 October and a meeting of the Emergencies Council was convened on Thursday 12 October to discuss this.

Additionally, the Council of Ministers have received daily briefings throughout the incident.

g) Consideration is ongoing as to how this incident has occurred, and whether any provisions of the 1989 Gas Law apply.

Question Further to his response to Written Question 154/2022, wherein he states that he will review the issues around the taxability of old-age-pension income, will the Minister advise whether any work has been undertaken to investigate these issues, and if it has, what are the outcomes, and if not, when he intends to instigate a review into this matter?

Answer As stated in my response to Deputy B. Ward’s Written Question 154/2022, I intend to review the issues around the taxability of the old age pension during my term of office. Although no work has been undertaken to-date, I will soon be finalising the tax policy priorities for 2024 and I can confirm that the issue raised by the Deputy will be taken into consideration.

You are correct that it is a number of them. I would like to ask to invoke Standing Order, 12(4) to ask that Written Question 378 be considered by yourself for failing to directly address the question.

In this question, I ask in part (a) of it whether a register of all units of dwelling accommodation is provided for, in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Control of Housing and Work Law. The answer to part (a) of that question does not appear to address that and merely refers to: “Systems are maintained which register the categories of properties.” It strikes me that the law refers to a register as a tangible thing, and the answer refers to something significantly less tangible than that when a simple yes or no would have done to that question, and it is unclear. If you would not mind, I would be grateful if you could consider that, Sir.

Yes, I would also like to invoke Standing Order 12(4) in relation to Written Question 392. I emailed you yesterday evening with the reasoning for that, but I do not believe that the Minister has answered the question or made any attempt to do so.

Yes, I did circulate the notice that it is for Written Question 390. It is the same Standing Order. The answer was tabled by the Chief Minister, and I do not think it has addressed in any meaningful way the fundamentals of my question; 2 of which were to do with the 2 inquiries into the recent tragedies that are being reviewed at the moment.

Yes. With regard 390, I do think that - and I am sure you will consider this - whether it would be appropriate for any political member to be directing an investigation that is being conducted by the police. I think the answer has been given in the best and most appropriate way possible for an elected person but that, of course, will be a matter for you to consider, Sir.

I would like to nominate Deputy Raluca Kovacs as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.

I thank the Assistant Minister for stepping in. Will the Minister advise whether any invitation has been received and accepted to participate in discussions regarding an increase in the rate of corporate income tax in the Crown Dependencies; if so, has he - or in this case she - participated and what themes were discussed; and if not, has the invitation been accepted and why not?

I thank the Deputy for his question. We regularly meet with Ministers from the Crown Dependencies to discuss tax policy. This is a standard part of our longstanding policy of co-operation and dialogue.

The effectiveness of this dialogue depends upon it remaining confidential, and so the Deputy will understand why I will not comment on the content of any intergovernmental discussions. However, the Ministers of the 3 Crown Dependences released a joint statement on our position on Pillar Two, which is about minimum effective rates of corporate taxation earlier this year. That is the latest information that I can share at this stage. Any further updates we will certainly inform States Members in the usual fashion. Sorry, I will just say that the announcement in the joint statement, we declared an intention among the Crowd Dependencies to reach a co-ordinated approach to Pillar Two implementation.

I thank the Assistant Minister for the answer. This question really arises from the recent trip that some Members went on, to work and talk with matters in the Isle of Man and with Guernsey. It has become apparent that I think all islands are aware that tax needs to be raised and that Members in other Parliaments, certainly, and other Assemblies are aware that tax needs to be raised in a progressive and acceptable way to their populations. Does the Minister accept that when it comes to progressive taxation, there is a piece of work that can be done here around increasing the headline rate of corporation tax from 10 per cent towards that 15 per cent, given the fact that Pillar Two is coming in at some point anyway, and it could be an opportune moment for all islands to look to redress that tax rate and also increase their tax base?

It would be a first time, but I accept the ruling. [Laughter]

I will endeavour to be succinct in my response. The Pillar Two rules will affect businesses who have annual revenues ... sorry, Pillar Two will accept businesses with annual revenues of more than 758 million euros. The vast majority of Jersey businesses will not be affected by Pillar Two, and they will remain in the current Zero/Ten framework, and there is no expected impact on them as a result of Pillar Two. Pillar Two will increase the tax rate charged on only the largest groups doing business in our Island, which may include retailers and businesses in the hospitality sector, as well as parts of the finance industry. However, I believe that there is no intention at present to make changes to our current income tax system for businesses which will not be in scope of the Pillar Two framework. I am afraid I cannot comment on whether the Minister has had discussions on tax arrangements more widely with the Crown Dependencies. I am sure he has, but I only have a briefing on Pillar Two, I am afraid.

In her answer to the original question, the Deputy had said that the Crown Dependencies had agreed a co-ordinated approach. Can I ask if the Crown Dependencies are now agreed in what that co- ordinated approach should be and are all supportive of the same direction of travel?

Revenue Jersey policy officers continue to engage with all stakeholders regarding the potential policy design elements of options regarding Pillar Two, and are keeping the Minister advised of progress in developing regulations. Although the Crown Dependencies had agreed we would adopt a co- ordinated approach, and I think that is entirely sensible, there may be some variations in details, as you might expect, where there are 3 different jurisdictions. But we are all working towards similar outcomes. I think the position is still somewhat fluid, as there are still technical discussions on the implementation of Pillar Two and, indeed, Pillar One, and the way in which Pillar Two will be implemented ongoing at the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and that may impact the choices that Jersey and the other Crown Dependences ultimately make. We are also closely monitoring implementation decisions taken by other jurisdictions globally. Of course, we will advise States Members, in the usual way, as soon as we are in a position to do that.

But, yes, I think all Crown Dependencies are agreed that we should try to adopt a common approach.

I am aware of a resolution that was passed by our friends in the States of Guernsey asking that consideration be given to engaging with the other Crown Dependencies about the general corporation tax rate. So that is not exclusively Pillar Two but, more generally, can the Assistant Minister confirm whether or not an approach has been received from our colleagues in our sister Island on this?

I cannot answer that question because I just do not know. An approach may have been made, but it may be made to the Minister and I am not aware of it. I cannot say yes or no either way, I am sorry.

Deputy Tadier’s question asked about an increase in the rate of corporate income tax. I just wondered whether the Assistant Minister knows what percentage of businesses in the Island do pay corporate tax.

I am sorry, I do not have that information available.

It is just to ask, without revealing any confidences, I think it is obvious to say that in both of the other Crown Dependencies there are Assembly Members who are very much open to progressive taxation measures and not beholden to any kind of figures that are currently in place. Can I ask whether the Treasury Department is also open minded when it comes to increasing, if necessary, the 10 per cent rate of Zero/Ten but also the headline of 20 per cent tax for income, which we know, of course, is not 20 per cent anymore? But in principle, is the department open to that?

As I previously mentioned, I believe there is no intention at present to make changes to our current income tax system for businesses. The Zero/Ten will continue, but I am afraid I cannot just ... I am not aware whether the Minister has had discussions with Revenue Jersey about changes beyond that, either to corporate or income tax.

Will the Minister state the number of management positions in the General Hospital in 2016 and the associated costs of this management team?

I thank the Deputy for her question. Using the same methodology that the chief officer for Health and Community Services used in their recent report on leadership and management capacity in H.C.S.

(Health and Community Services), this is now available on the Assembly website under R.148/2023.

I can confirm that in 2016, there were 49 management roles at an approximate cost of £4.5 million.

I would note that obviously since 2016 there have been various changes in the structure of departments, for example, following the target operating models. So this may not be a like-for-like comparison.

I was just wondering how the Minister could justify the expansion of management from the lean efficient structure in 2016 to the present day, now with an annual bill for management in Health of over £10 million, especially when we are short of front line staff, and we are not the N.H.S. (National Health Service).

Obviously, wages increase and we have had an increasing amount of expenditure on locums, as the Deputy will know, to cover some of those vacancies that are hard to recruit. This will include some clinical managerial roles as well. But, at the moment, we have 45 management staff, which takes up 1.7 per cent of the total substantive staff working in the department. I am not here to make any judgments at this moment in time on whether or not that is justified, in terms of the amount of managers we have. We may have not enough managers, which I have mentioned before, but the current position is that there has been, in terms of headcount, only a slight increase in the number of managers that we have in the service.

Will the Assistant Minister - on this occasion, I believe - provide a breakdown of the £52 million funding requested for the new healthcare facilities, as detailed in the proposed Government Plan 2024 - 2027?

rapporteur) First, I would like to apologise to the Deputy for the absence of the Minister, and thank him for the opportunity to respond to his question. The £52 million set out in the proposed Government Plan 2024 is to carry out further work ahead of a separate report and proposition, which is to be brought to the Assembly in the summer of 2024. It will enable the programme team to carry out further work, including the design and plans of the acute hospital at Overdale to get to R.I.B.A. (Royal Institute of British Architects) Stage 4, including a planning application; work at Kensington Place, which will include some temporary use ahead of a permanent facility on the site; demolition and works to prepare for development of Overdale; costs of the central government project team; and a contingency to risk-proof the programme. The new healthcare facility programme team continues to follow strict governances, processes and monitor expenditure very carefully to minimise costs while delivering the necessary work to provide a robust proposition for debate by the States Assembly. The work carried out as part of the £52 million will follow Government of Jersey procurement processes.

At this stage it is important that the breakdown of the £52 million remains confidential to ensure commercial sensitivity, value for money and quality outcomes.

I am not sure I accept the argument on confidentiality in a project that expends this amount of public money at such a high level, but I wanted to ask the Assistant Minister if he thought it was appropriate for the Treasury to be supporting an additional £52 million without knowing the total cost or the final cost of the whole project.

Yes, I think it is very appropriate at this juncture. This is money that has obviously been incorporated within the Government Plan for the period of the first 6 months of next year. When the project is finally developed and brought to the States in a proposition, the full amount for the project should be determined and the Deputy will be able to review it at his leisure at that time.

In his answer the Minister referred to quality outcomes, so while he might not be able to provide a breakdown of what the £52 million is going to be spent on and how, could he provide a breakdown of the quality outcomes that will be delivered as a result of the £52 million expenditure?

Unfortunately, as the Deputy presumes, I do not have that information on hand at present but I will certainly try to find it out and forward it to her.

As the Assistant Minister does not have the information to hand, and does not appear to be aware of that particular information, how can he assure the Assembly that what is going to be delivered under the £52 million expenditure will indeed be value for money?

[10:00]

Thank you for the question. That is because I have total confidence in the team. We have all been working very closely, and I believe that they are progressing the plan very diligently and I have great confidence in what they are doing.

The Assistant Minister mentioned production of a robust proposition. Can I ask the Assistant Minister to confirm whether that will produce a proposition that gives a clear picture of the complete project of all parts of the future hospital or will that just be sections of the project with some parts of it still in development?

Yes, I believe that the project will cover the whole of the Overdale project and other projects moving forward, although the total cost of the Kensington Place facility and the Health Village at St. Saviour will obviously be in the preliminary stages at that time, so the full funding aspect for those projects may not be available in that proposition.

Can I just confirm then that the robust proposition that will be brought will not include full funding for all of the hospital project?

I cannot say for certain that the whole project will be costed within that proposition at this current time.

The Assistant Minister promised to circulate the figures to the Deputy. Could he circulate the figures to the whole of the Assembly, please, so we all know what is going on and not just one Member?

Yes, of course; I thank the Deputy for his question. Yes, the question concerning the quality outcomes, I would be happy to circulate to all Members if I find that information out.

Would the Deputy have not found it better perhaps to address her questions to the Minister for Infrastructure because I do believe the figures are in the Government Plan?

It is whether the question would have been better directed at the ...

Yes.

Yes, I thank the Deputy for her question. Yes, the question was directed to Treasury but then it was redirected to the Minister for Infrastructure, as the Deputy presumes would have been the appropriate place, but then at the request of Deputy Farnham it was redirected back to Treasury.

I felt it was only right that, as Treasury are the custodians of our taxpayers’ money, the question was appropriately directed to that department. I just wanted to ask the Assistant Minister, as the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources as he represents that department, does he believe it is appropriate and quite right for this Assembly to know the full costs of this project? The Government has presented a project of a multisite hospital with 4, possibly 5 sites, and I am alluding to his comments in the previous debate, we did not want to sign anything, sign a blank cheque without knowing the final cost of the outcome. Does he not believe on behalf of Treasury that it is only right for this Assembly, before embarking on spending many more tens of millions of pounds, to as soon as possible know and understand the full cost and timescale of what we are proposing? It is the biggest - possibly the biggest ever - piece of expenditure we will make.

Yes, I understand the concerns of the Deputy concerning the full cost of the project but of course the full cost of the Overdale project has been incorporated within the Government Plan. I understand that the Deputy has obviously been very keen over the years to ensure that the hospital project goes ahead at Overdale. I have as well, of course, and I think we are singing from the same song sheet. I think we both have to accept that this is the project that the Council of Ministers determined, and I am sure that we will get the hospital that we hoped that we would do at Overdale.

Just to clarify, I did ask the Deputy if he agreed with the principle that this Assembly should know the full cost of the project before proceeding any further.

Indeed, I apologise for missing out for the full cost. Yes, well I am sure that the full cost of the Overdale project will be incorporated, as it has been incorporated within the Government Plan. I believe that the full costing for the additional sites, obviously the Health Village at St. Saviour and the Kensington Place site, should be incorporated within the proposition which is brought in the summer of next year. I concur.

I thank the Assistant Minister for his straight answers.

Will the Minister provide a split of the figures detailed in the Health and Community Services Net Revenue Expenditure within the draft Government Plan 2024 - 2027 between hospital services and community services, and will she commit to providing a further breakdown of the information to Members before 31st October, detailing all major medical specialisms?

Thank you to the Deputy for his question. Unfortunately at this moment, I cannot provide nor commit to providing the detailed breakdown for next year’s budget before 31st October. At the moment finance business partners for Health and Community Services are working on the detailed allocations with each service and care group directors as part of the normal yearly budget-setting process. It is expected that the H.C.S. executive team will review the allocations in late November and for them to be finalised and circulated in January 2024. I would note that this will be dependent on what changes, if any, result from the debate on the Government Plan. I can confirm that a Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is included in the annex in the Government Plan.

I am going to be very specific. The Minister says that the figures are in the annex to the budget plan; could she point to the page number on which they are because I cannot find them?

If I could just confirm, the detail that the Deputy is looking for is not in the annex but the overall summary; the net expenditure is there. As I have said, I will provide that detail once H.C.S. have been able to do their budget-setting exercise.

Can I confirm with the Minister that that split in terms of the amount spent on community services and the detail of what those community services are exists and is there to begin with? That is the first part of the question.

In terms of resetting the whole budget exercise, we are going through each service line by line to understand what the expenditure requirement is for each of those service lines. What you will see going forward is greater transparency around where those expenditure lines are targeted, whether they be in primary, secondary or acute care services.

Given that that is in development, at what stage has that been fed into the development of the new hospital or will it be fed into the development of the new hospital, because if we do not know what is going to be in our community, how on earth are we building a hospital that is going to deliver the services that we need?

Well one of the things that will need to be factored into the outline business case that is due to come to the Assembly next year will be the detail of the revenue consequences of the model of care that will be reflected in the new outline business case.

A final supplementary is a bit awkward because I have got lots of supplementaries. My father said to me at one stage, when I wanted to investigate something and have a look and question about something, I should follow the money. If I cannot follow the money, I do not know what sort of package is being sold to me. That is the reality, and what we have got here is exactly that. I am going to be asked, we are all going to be asked, to vote for a Government Plan by the end of the year and then we will see what sort of health services we are going to get out of it because the money will then be exposed in January. Now as far as I am concerned, that is useless to me and to every Member of the States because that means we cannot do anything, we do not know what we are voting for.

Does the Minister not agree that it is rather awkward not to know what you are voting for when you vote for a Government Plan, and will she not agree to bring this breakdown to the States well before 31st October?

I think I have already mentioned that I am not in a position to be able to do that but what I can assure the Assembly about is that there will be real transparency around where we are spending that money in a much more detailed way.

Will the Minister explain why, when Islanders overpay their tax, it is shown as nil on their tax assessment notices instead of the amount that has been overpaid?

I thank the Deputy for her question and apologise once again for the absence of the Minister. The annual notice of assessment specifies the tax due for the relevant year of assessment calculated by reference to the income declared in that year’s tax return. The notice will state nil when there is no payment outstanding. Statements of account are available on request, which would detail any outstanding underpayments or overpayments for specific years. The notice of assessment and statements of account are currently under review to make them easier for customers to understand.

Once an assessment has been finalised, any overpayment is automatically carried forward. I.T.I.S.

(Income Tax Instalment Scheme) taxpayers will receive a new effective rate taking into account the overpayment. In some cases, the new effective rate will be lower.

Does the Assistant Minister in this case think that it is acceptable that this is something that the public have to request to know and the fact that it is automatically carried forward, but members of the public are not necessarily aware of how much is carried forward, and how this affects the percentage?

Does he think that is acceptable?

Yes, how much is carried forward, some of the sums are very small and they are automatically carried forward. The necessity to inform the person that it is of a certain amount is not necessary in most cases. A lot of people overpay their tax deliberately - you may laugh - but some people do because they know they have had a change of circumstances. If they have had a change of circumstances and they know that their tax is going to increase, then they will overpay during one year to ensure that their balance is in order and they do not have a higher rate in the year following that. I am sorry, I have forgotten the first part of the Deputy’s question.

Whether the Assistant Minister thinks it is acceptable that members of the public have to request this information instead of automatically being given it.

I thank her for that clarification. Yes, the automatic request, that is the reason why we will be running the review because some people have said that they do not really want to go through the process of requesting the forms and it can be quite complicated. When the information is presented to them from the statement of accounts, they are quite difficult to understand as well but, yes, I think the Deputy is correct.

I just wanted to ask the Assistant Minister if he knows the turnaround time for requesting one of the statements he mentioned.

For the requesting of the statements of accounts, the actual statements of accounts come as a ...

Yes, sorry, it was badly put. Once requested, how long it takes to get the statement of the accounts.

[10:15]

I believe that the statement of accounts will be sent out within about 2 months.

I am a little bit thrown by 2 months, if I am honest. No, I do not have a supplementary.

We are often being told that Jersey is a centre of digital excellence or at least aspiring to be that.

Does the Minister think that it would be possible at some point for an ordinary member of the public to be able to log in and check their tax account, see what they owe or see what they are owed by the department and, if not, why not?

I agree with the Deputy that that would be wonderful if that was possible, and I am sure it is technically possible at this current time. There are changes being made to the system that is being run currently, but to log in and find exactly how much any particular person owes in tax at any particular time during the year would be incredibly difficult and would be incredibly expensive.

I think we have some of the best I.T. (information technology) experts in the Island working all over; I know some in the public sector who are teachers, I know others who work for banks. Does the Minister think that if this Government spent less money on recruiting Comms for his department to churn out what is bordering on propaganda and employed some of those very skilled I.T. people, that Government could be leading by example when it comes to I.T., not just talking about it?

I am not too sure of the connection between the Communications Department and the I.T. Department but there you go. Yes, obviously we do have a great deal of I.T. expertise but that does not detract from the issue of how much it costs to reprogramme and change the systems. In this instance of finding specific detail on specific days for every individual taxpayer it would be incredibly complex and incredibly expensive.

The Assistant Minister mentioned that he believes it is not necessary in some cases to give these figures. Why does he believe so and does he not consider that people having the option to continue with their figure in the tax or take it upfront need to know that amount and not wait 2 months to know the result?

Thank you for the question. The reason why they do not really need to know the amount because the amounts are mostly very small, is that the amounts change all the time and they also change for the person’s circumstances. So, if they are continually in a flow of changing throughout the year, then it seems pointless that if somebody had the information in January, by March that figure may be completely different.

I am aware that even when the figure is higher that it is still not included, and I do believe it is necessary. Does the Assistant Minister commit to take consideration to speak with the Minister and his department to have that line included on the figure?

When you say the “line included”, that presumably is removing the nil amount and incorporating the actual figure, is that what the Deputy is saying?

Yes.

Thank you, Deputy, for clarification. I personally do not think that it is necessary but I am perfectly willing to ask the Minister and ask the Comptroller if they will reconsider in the review that is coming up to see if it could be included, yes.

Just out of interest, could the Assistant Minister tell us who the source was for his statement that lots of people overpay their tax?

That was my statement, Deputy. There are a number of people who do pay, I say “a number”, some who overpay their tax because they know their circumstances are changing and they do not want to be burdened with a large bill for the year after.

I believe we mix in different circles then.

I am sure we do. [Laughter]

The Assistant Minister said that he felt it was not necessary to include this line; however, his Government stands for openness and transparency, so I would argue that that is not being open and transparent. I would like to ask the Assistant Minister, what does he think constitutes a small amount because he mentioned that small amounts are carried forward. I have seen cases where the total gross, their total annual gross income is £50,000 and they are owed over £2,500. That is 5 per cent of their gross income. So what constitutes a small amount being carried forward?

In my opinion, in the Tax Department any small amount would be under £1,000. So obviously the case that the Deputy is talking about of £2,500, that is exceptional. I am quite surprised that that has happened but obviously if that person requests a statement of accounts, they will receive it and then they can apply to get that funding returned if they wish.

Yes, I believe it is a point of order. I have just been listening obviously to the questions and Standing Order 10(6)(b) clearly says that: “A question shall not seek an expression of opinion.” Just when listening to many of these questions it appears to me that they have been seeking opinions rather than facts.

Can I just ask, and I appreciate the nuanced way in which you are interpreting the Standing Orders, does it also apply that there is a difference between a political opinion and a personal opinion? So if I were to ask the Minister: “What do you think about the façade of this new building that is going up?” that might be different to what the underlying policies are that form political opinions about her own or his own portfolio and that, of course, as long as the question is political in nature, that is what we are trying to establish rather than vexatious.

Will the Minister explain why the word “fair” is omitted in his foreword to the 2022 States of Jersey Annual Report and Accounts, when referring to how the Government must remain consistent with its approach to taxes, when “fair and sustainable” remains a tax policy principle included in the draft Government Plan 2024 - 2027?

Once again, I will apologise to the Deputy for the absence of the Minister. Fair and sustainable remains a tax policy principle included in the draft Government Plan 2024 - 2027 as it has done in previous plans. In the 2022 Annual Report and Accounts foreword, the Minister said that we must remain consistent in supporting low, simple and competitive taxes. This, to my mind, seems fair.

There are many words and sentiments not included in the foreword to that accounting document. The Government stands by its actions, which speak far louder than words. The proposed increase to personal tax allowances will see every individual in Jersey able to earn up to £20,000 without paying a penny in income tax. That to me seems fair.

As the Assistant Minister stated, where we would usually see the word “fair” we are seeing the word “competitive” in that particular paragraph. So could the Assistant Minister explain whether it is the position of the Minister and his team to prioritise competitiveness over fairness and, if so, who are we trying to be competitive with and for?

I am afraid I cannot answer for the Minister in this instance. I do not know what the Minister was thinking, what was in his mind when he wrote the foreword, so I am afraid I am unable to respond to that question.

Does the Assistant Minister believe Jersey’s economic policies proposed within the Government Plan to be fair when a super tax deduction of 150 per cent on investment is being proposed?

Yes, I do believe that the government policy in the Government Plan is fair. I believe it remains low, broad, simple and fair. As for the ... I am sorry, I cannot remember what the other part of the question was.

The question was in relation to the super tax deduction of 150 per cent on investment that financial service companies who pay 10 per cent tax are making when they invest in technology.

Yes, and obviously this is one thing that we must encourage and that is the reason for it. We have to encourage investment and we have to encourage ... that is why we have so many 2(1)(e)s coming to Jersey as well to encourage investment into business and to encourage investment into our finance centre, and that is one way of supporting that industry.

Does the Minister believe creating a tax loophole for financial service companies who are only paying 10 per cent tax already is a very imprudent move?

No, I do not.

The Assistant Minister referred to the low, simple, broad and fair tax policies that have been enshrined for some years now. In his capacity as Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, has he ever taken part in any discussions with the Ministerial team about the obvious contradictory nature of those principles being tied together in that arbitrary way?

No, I have not attended a C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) meeting where that has been brought up and, no, I have not engaged in any conversations around it, no.

Therefore, would he endeavour to raise this issue with his Minister given that it is, in some respects, absurd to say that a tax that is low, broad and simple is always fair when in fact some taxes may inevitably need to deviate from those principles to be fair?

I will be happy to engage with a conversation with my Minister, as I often do, and have that debate with him, yes.

In what I got of an answer to Written Question 392, the Minister for Treasury and Resources appeared to confirm that the impact of tax allowances and reliefs are not assessed. So, given that, how can the Assistant Minister give the Assembly assurances that our tax system remains both fair and, as he wishes it to be, competitive?

Unfortunately, I have not seen Written Question 392, so I cannot directly respond to what was ... if the Deputy would remind me, what was in the response to question ...

Given the Carbon Neutral Roadmap aim to transition customers away from gas, will the Minister state what consideration, if any, the Government is giving to the future provision of gas for homes and businesses by a private company?

In developing and consulting upon the Carbon Neutral Roadmap, suppliers and distributors were invited to outline their plans for net zero, recognising that the energy market will need to move away from the provision of fossil fuels. An example is the current provision by some distributors of second generation renewable diesel as an alternative low carbon product that replaces fossil fuel diesel.

Since the publication of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap, the Assistant Minister for the Environment has established an Energy Suppliers Group. The group has particular focus on policies related to Jersey’s current and future energy supply and includes many private companies that form part of the Island’s energy market.

[10:30] I am informed by the Assistant Minister for the Environment that Island Energy are an active group member. Island Energy have recently published their sustainability strategy which outlines the potential for adding a proportion of renewable gas to their existing L.P.G. (liquid petroleum gas) mix, and that which can be carried by the existing gas network. While this product is not yet available at the same price point as the current fossil fuel product, I understand that Island Energy have been invited to submit more details, including the challenges and opportunities for the adoption of this product locally.

Given that the Government is providing financial support for households to move away from gas heating altogether and move to electric heating, and therefore Island Energy is facing a government policy which seems to want it to lose more and more customers as time goes by, does the Minister have any consideration on the long-term viability of that particular company? I ask that question of course in the context of having seen the great difficulties that it can cause for many people in the Island when things go wrong.

As I said in my previous answer, Island Energy are part of the active group that are looking at the sustainability of the energy supply. Island Energy have not yet submitted further details on their green gas product but the Government remains open-minded, recognising that the carbon neutral transition ideally will see diversity in the market and the best use of existing infrastructure.

Being as we are now 10 days into this gas outage and apparently it has been reported there are still 800 people waiting to be reconnected, does the Minister think this is a satisfactory state of affairs?

The original question was about the future provision of gas for homes and businesses by a private company. I am happy to go into further detail but I wonder if the question is relevant in this particular context.

A supplementary, Sir?

A nice try though.

Given that transition away from gas will probably inevitably include the transition to green hydrogen as a fuel, does the Minister feel that in terms of the long-term safety of supply of energy, maintaining the infrastructure that exists for gas is essential and that the best way to do that is to put that into national ownership?

Detailed questions on the energy market transition and the Carbon Neutral Roadmap should really be addressed to the Minister or the Assistant Minister for the Environment, so I am not going to comment on the question of hydrogen. However, the issue of nationalisation has been raised. Our local energy market is dominated by private companies, most of whom do a very good job of providing energy, security and diversity in what is a small marketplace with logistical challenges.

Nationalising the gas company is a considerable step that would need careful thought and a full understanding of the objectives of doing so. I do not believe we are in a position currently to form an evidence position on nationalising the gas company. The nationalisation of any company requires the full understanding of the pros and cons in the context of the costs of doing so. Council of Ministers would need detailed evidence that addresses whether such action is in the overall best interests and value for the people of the Island and we do not have that yet. We are currently still dealing with the outcomes of the gas outage. The C.E.O. (chief executive officer) is providing me with a full root cause analysis and we will be seeking to review the lessons learned during this incident.

It is interesting that we do not have evidence. The evidence I think that most people can see, and I would ask the Minister about, is that they have had a gas outage for a long time, prices are extraordinarily high, the money that is being spent on the gas is going off-Island to investors elsewhere and the priority is the return for those investors rather than providing a service for our Islanders. Therefore, I would ask the Minister again as the competent authority for the supply of this energy, and that is why I ask this question of this Minister, the most pertinent approach would be to take the infrastructure in particular into national ownership so it is not lost, as we look for a long- term solution and address the Carbon Neutral Roadmap?

I refer to my previous answer, the nationalisation of any company requires a full understanding of the pros and cons in the context of the costs of doing so. At this present time, we do not have that information.

The gas outage I think demonstrated an extreme vulnerability of part of our community and part of our economy. My question is in relation to the provision, the future provision of gas supply to homes and businesses. Is the Minister or the Government going to give serious and urgent consideration to the gas infrastructure insofar as if the gas company had not been able to fix the fault, we would have been left in a real challenging position given the time taken by another energy provider or other energy providers could be months, if not 2 to 3 years, to reconnect all of that supply? Will the Minister state whether they have given that consideration or undertake to put some urgent structures in place to perhaps deal with that situation should it arise?

Once again, I question the validity of this question which was if any consideration of the Government was given to the future provision of gas for homes by a private company.

May I just bring ...

Okay, thank you for that indication. I share the Islanders’ disappointment that they lost gas supply for over a week, in some cases, and I am acutely aware that some customers have still not been reconnected. Yesterday I met with the C.E.O. of Island Energy and asked for an explanation and an update. I wrote to the C.E.O. of Island Energy yesterday to ask for them to share the arrangements that they have in place across the business to assess the risk of an emergency occurring and to prepare and maintain a risk register. I am hopeful that that information will be forthcoming, which will allow the Government to plan for any future outage. Both the Council of Ministers and the Emergencies Council have met to consider this issue and we are taking the issue extremely seriously and waiting for further evidence to establish what we may or may not do in the future.

The Minister referred to the pros and cons on the question of nationalisation and also spoke of not having the evidence on that at this point, and I completely agreed with her on that. Could I therefore ask the Minister then whether or not the Government will be seeking to gather that evidence and examine it to work out what the appropriate answer to this is, given that it is the Government’s position to provide financial incentives for customers of Island Energy to abandon the company, which may raise serious questions in the near future about their financial viability and their ability therefore to provide gas to homes and businesses in the Island, having seen how difficult that can be when it is shut off at short notice?

I think the question is: what are Government doing to gather the information? As I said, I met with the C.E.O. of Island Energy yesterday. I wrote to Island Energy to ask for some very specific information. If that information is not forthcoming, as the competent authority I have the ability to apply an Article 7 order which can compel Island Energy to provide the necessary information to the Government of Jersey. We have also sought some legal advice in what we may do to change the gas law, which is within the remit of the Minister for Infrastructure, but to make an amendment to the gas law in order to compel Island Energy to provide the information that the Government require to provide contingency planning to ensure the safety of the supply of gas in future.

Does that include information on the ownership model because that was where the original question was coming from?

I think the ownership model of the gas company is in the public domain. They are a private company and my focus as competent authority is focusing on the continuation of supply.

I am so sorry, I misunderstood the question. Yes, of course.

Will the Minister advise what consideration, if any, has recently been given to selling properties or land, owned by the States of Jersey?

Quite recently I had an email enquiry from Deputy Andrews about property, so I arranged to meet him and discuss the current situation in some detail; that was about a week-and-a-half ago. I explained that in reality selling public property is relatively rare because the vast majority of it is used to provide public services, and this includes schools and offices and such like. However, we are starting a process at Property Holdings to assess whether certain properties are surplus to requirements and if they are or can be made surplus by way of consolidating services elsewhere in the estate, they can then be sold off. For example, the property Aviemore at St. Martin is due to go on the market very shortly. If the Deputy has any specific properties in mind that are troubling him, I would be more than happy to answer any questions he may have.

Will the Minister advise what assurances, if any, she has received from Island Energy that the recent disruption to the gas supply will not happen again during the winter months?

As I said in previous answers, I met the chief executive officer of Island Energy group yesterday in person to seek assurances from the company. I was assured by her that the company have identified the issue which caused the recent outage and the company have identified specific steps they can take to prevent this incident recurring. They are undertaking a full root cause analysis and will be seeking to review the lessons learned during this incident. The company have committed to providing Government with a formal report further to this being completed.

Will the Minister then outline what support packages she will have in place and prepared should this fault occur again during these colder winter months?

As I have said previously, Island Energy are a private company and it is down to them to provide the necessary support to their customers. In all cases the Government will do what we can to support Islanders but Island Energy is a private company, they are responsible for managing the situation and for communicating with customers and Islanders.

Could I raise the défaut, please, on the Connétable of St. Mary?

Does the Government have a contingency plan in place that it would seek to invoke and apply in the event that a similar outage, as has happened recently, occurs in the winter months where for many, particularly elderly people, in our community waiting over a week for their heating to come back on could have severe detrimental impacts on their health?

Consideration is being given to how the current incident of the gas outage needs to be factored into future strategies. We have a crisis resilience improvement plan and I have also asked that the Jersey Resilience Forum Executive and Delivery Group work together to ensure that our critical national infrastructure partners, including the utility companies, have reviewed their business continuity plans with a particular focus on the safety and the welfare of Islanders.

[10:45]

Can we take it from those answers, therefore, that the Minister has absolute confidence that in an event where a similar outage happened in the colder months that there would be some contingency able to be provided quickly to safeguard those vulnerable in our community so they would not have to suffer from the cold if it were going to take days to put the heating back on?

One of the reasons that I have written formally to Island Energy is to understand the arrangements that they have in place to assess the risk of a further occurrence, to prepare and maintain an emergency plan, and to prepare and maintain communication arrangements to all and inform the public. At this current time, Island Energy assured the Government that they have those measures in place. I will reassess that situation when I receive further information from Island Energy on the questions that we have asked.

Following the recent outage and following the Minister’s conversations with the C.E.O. of Island Energy, can she confirm if she has given any instruction that the corporate risk register should be updated?

I have given no such instruction at this time.

Can then the Minister confirm whether she has had an update or a briefing on the corporate risk register, what risks refer to prospective outages such as this, and what mitigations the Government has in place to allay such risks?

This is a fast-moving incident and I would expect that the corporate risk register would be updated and Ministers would be briefed accordingly. This is an incident that has only happened within the last 10 days and Government have been trying to ensure that Island Energy fulfil their responsibilities.

Given what has been said, is the Minister’s department satisfied with the communication provided by Island Energy to their users?

I think Island Energy themselves will be the first to admit that the communication with Islanders could have been better and I share that view.

Will the Chair advise what additional pay offers, if any, have been considered to end the dispute with Jersey’s teaching staff; and what negotiations, if any, have taken place to discuss either such an additional offer or the lack of one?

Talks started some 12 months ago for the 2023 pay and most recently representatives met with the N.A.S.U.W.T. (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) and N.E.U.

(National Education Union) just under 2 weeks ago. We maintain the line, in line with other public services pay groups, that the offer of a fully consolidated 7.9 per cent is a fair, reasonable and equitable offer.

I can assume that no additional offer has been made since that one was rejected. Is the chair, assistant chair; I am not entirely sure what titles are anymore, I am losing track of them in Government. Is the chair willing to address the issue which has clearly been rejected by all unions, despite what was published last night by Government in order to end this dispute?

Since June we have offered binding arbitrations where both parties would put their cases forward. It is an independent body and we continue to offer that to the unions. We remain confident that the offer that we have made is a fair and reasonable offer. It has been accepted by all of the other pay groups on the Island, including many people who work in the education sector.

The assistant chair referred to binding arbitration as part of this. Can he confirm whether or not a process of binding arbitration would have the ability to overrule the Government setting of the financial envelope from which pay would be offered from, and would they have the ability to force the Government against its wishes to increase that envelope?

My understanding is that binding arbitration will be binding on both parties and therefore if the arbitration identified that the Government had to pay more money, then I believe we would be bound to live by that decision.

That did not refer specifically to the financial envelope, which is something that the Government sets. Binding arbitration could say they should have a 2 million per cent pay increase but obviously that could not happen, there is not enough money on the planet for that, it would be set within an envelope. Do the arbitrators have the ability to say to the Government: “The financial envelope which you have set can be overturned by us and a substantially more generous pay offer be provided”?

My understanding is that binding arbitration listens to both cases, both the employer and the employee, and would make a decision based on that, one of what is reasonable, what is affordable, so it is unlikely that the Deputy’s 2 million per cent increase would take place, but a reasonable increase may be judged by the arbiter to be paid. The binding arbitration is done by an independent third party neither connected to the employer or the employee.

My question is about the financial envelope which is a specific thing set by Government, and he is avoiding using those words in his answer. I think it could be a yes or no answer to the question I have asked.

The Government would put their case forward as to the affordability of the existing pay offer. It would be for the arbiter to decide.

My understanding is that we would enter into binding arbitration in good faith and therefore if the arbiter gave a higher increase, then we would have to acknowledge that and find a way of funding that.

I think the responder has just answered my question.

Can the chair confirm that no unconsolidated extra offers were made during negotiation?

We have been in negotiation, as I said, for some 12 months and we have not been party to those detailed discussions. We have been very clear with the agenda that we have set and the pay claim has not changed and the offer has not changed in recent months.

Sorry, it is really difficult today to get a straight answer. So has no unconsolidated offer been made in addition to the 7.9 per cent, was my question. Again, it is a simple yes or no.

Given the public criticism of the Government response to the recent gas outage, will the Minister advise what consideration, if any, was given to the Government developing a plan to inform and support affected households and businesses; and if this was not considered, why not?

Government worked alongside Island Energy during the course of the gas outage. There was regular contact between the Strategic Co-ordination Group in government and the chief executive of Island Energy throughout. Government sought to ensure that it was kept informed at all times and that Island Energy was communicating directly with affected households and businesses. Island Energy are the data holders for their customer base and led the reconnection response in accordance with their technical advice and safety procedures. In the circumstances, it would have been inappropriate and unhelpful for government to insert itself over the top of that plan and attempt to contact customers directly, and may have interfered with the response from Island Energy.

The Minister stated in the media recently that she was very concerned about vulnerable parishioners without hot water or cooking facilities, so could she detail what she did to ensure the safety and well- being of vulnerable parishioners during day one of the gas outage, day 2 and any other day?

As I said previously, Island Energy is a private company and they are responsible for their customers; we therefore encourage them to identify and react very quickly to vulnerable customers. At the same time, in the media I asked neighbours and friends to look out for each other in the way that Jersey does best. But we focused our support in 2 ways: we cascaded the information we received from Island Energy via social media, liaising with other services, including Jersey Electricity, who offered assistance to Island Energy and its vulnerable customers. Secondly, in ensuring the welfare provision that the Government itself put in place, as well as all the others of the Parishes, was made widely known, and this included the States of Jersey Police offering to support engineers in their house-to- house visits. The States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service provided safety messages for the public and accompanied Island Energy on visits to key gas supply points around the Island, and we were ready to stand up a government helpline to offer further support for Islanders. We did not do that because it was reported that there was a very low level of calls going into Island Energy, and we also phoned round a number of charities to see whether they needed any support and they said that they did not. We put contingency plans in place to provide additional support for heating and hot water should it have been required, and we also opened up Les Quennevais Sports Centre to the public and non-members who needed access to hot water and showers.

I do not necessarily go along with the premise “it is a private company”; it is part of our essential infrastructure, so, Island Energy, when the first outage happened, there was a lot of confusion. Does the Minister not believe that we should have an emergency number run by the States for any kind of emergency, including gas, so that public can ring and get assurance from a bank of people who will answer the phone?

In times of a major incident we set up a helpline. We had done the same for COVID, and we have done other things for other major incidents. Again, I have some sympathy with the view that although Island Energy is a private company, the States are required to step in and do more, but as I have articulated in the previous questions this morning, it is extremely difficult to do so, given the legal framework that currently exists. Ministers are giving consideration to how utility companies and other critical national infrastructure partners can assure us that they have appropriate communications in place. As I previously mentioned, it is likely that we will be bringing forward legislation to ensure that happens before the introduction of the resilience law, which will not come into place until the middle of next year.

On the Saturday that the incident took place or loss of gas, should I say, that I did ring on behalf of our constituents the gas company, the number that was provided was their standard number and you had to press 1 for this, 2 for accounts, 3 to listen to some dodgy music and nobody answered any of them. I had to ring the emergency, if you smell gas ring this number because none of the other numbers were being answered; I had to ring the actual emergency number before I got somebody.

Does the Minister think that we should assist Jersey Gas in any way we can with an answerphone centre that could take over in such an event?

I completely understand that this is a concern for Islanders and now that the immediate situation has been resolved, we will review the lessons learned. Most certainly one of those lessons is going to be around the way that the gas company have communicated. We did have some discussions about stepping up a helpline, and that was initially at the C.O.M. meeting that we had on the Sunday. One of the issues that it is not for Government to offer safety advice and what we would have been doing is acting as a signpost into Island Energy. Island Energy assured us that they had a phone service that was operating, that they had 14 operators and that what they had was sufficient and that they would not welcome the use of a States helpline in that way.

[11:00]

Given that there already exists a Jersey Resilience Forum, a States of Jersey Emergencies Council, an emergency planning officer, could the Minister explain why the only offer of hot water was in the form of Les Quennevais Sports Centre and no helpline was brought into place in the actual circumstances and what difference the resilience law that she mentions is expected to make in terms of overcoming such difficulties?

I think I have answered some of the Deputy’s questions in previous answers. As the Deputy will know, other private organisations offer the provision of hot water and shower facilities. At the beginning of the incident we certainly were not expecting it to go on for as long as it did because we were receiving assurances from Island Energy that, hopefully, the supply would be up and running and back to consumers by Tuesday; that clearly did not happen. In discussing what is going to be moving forward with the resilience law, as with the resilience law in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, there is provision for the Government to compel public utilities to provide them with information that enables them to plan for incidents such as this. As I said earlier on, we have written to the gas company to ask them voluntarily to share that information.

Could the Minister please advise: what is the difference between the civil contingencies law of which we have heard report and the resilience law that she has mentioned?

It is important that I make the qualification. At the moment we have an Emergency Planning and Procedures Law; we are going to bring forward a law that will provide for resilience around civil contingencies. There is no agreement at this point what the law is going to be called. When I refer to civil contingencies and I refer to resilience, I am referring to one and the same.

Given that we have a well-staffed Communications Unit, why was it that many Islanders only discovered what was going on through social media? Does the Minister not think more should have been done by Government to take control of this in terms of communications?

I reiterate that Island Energy are a private company and the role that we took was to forward their communications and disseminate the communications. At the beginning their initial communications were not good enough, they did improve and were supported by Government. I have no doubt that there are significant lessons to be learned. I think we understood at one point that Island Energy only have 40 per cent of their customers’ email addresses. They only had 20 per cent of their customers’ mobile phones; that is a lesson that they need to be learning. As you know, they engaged the services of Jersey Post to write to each of their customers with specific instructions and offers of support.

Has the Minister discussed the impact of the outage with the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture because clearly there was an enormous impact, not only on householders but also on local hospitality businesses who found themselves unable to cater for their guests and restaurants of course having to turn away hundreds of bookings?

Yes, I have spoken to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and I think if you look at the very helpful written question provided by Deputy Tadier, we are unable to quantify the economic impact to businesses. Island Energy have said that they will be operating a compensation scheme, that they will be doing that commercially on a one-to-one basis, so I am hopeful that businesses will be able to be compensated in at least the majority of their losses.

Given the effect that such an outage of gas supplies or any other power supplies would have on both households and also essential services provided by the Government, what plans were in place within Government prior to this outage happening in order to deal with such an occurrence?

As I have previously mentioned, the powers to Government have been limited. Public utility companies, such as gas in the U.K. (United Kingdom), are regulated by Ofgem. In Jersey that regulation comes through our Health and Safety at Work Law. While we have been doing the work around the crisis civil contingencies law and the resilience law, it has become apparent that we need to take greater steps so that we have greater power, greater control and greater enforcement and that work is ongoing.

I just want really a yes or no answer from the Minister to this. Is the Minister saying that the Government has no plans in place to deal with such an outage of such an essential service for our Island?

The Minister is absolutely not saying that. We do have plans in place, as I articulated earlier today.

I have written to Island Energy to ask them to provide me with information that will permit us to plan for contingency. In the absence of a satisfactory reply, I am able to exercise my Article 7 powers under the Emergency Planning Law. Also, we have sought legal advice and are preparing drafting instructions to make a change to the gas law in order that Government can have a better handle on these situations should they occur in the future.

I thank the Minister for her answers, nevertheless, it seems the public did not consider the communications and support from Government to be adequate. The Minister stated that she has been gathering information from Island Energy about the supply of gas and any risks which should help too in a plan of support and communications in the future. Why were not the risks associated with utility supplies examined previously, for instance, when drafting the Crisis Resilience Improvement Plan?

I just need to make it clear that we have requested that information from Island Energy. We do not currently have that. In response to the Crisis Resilience Improvement Plan, it was published at the end of July and it has an action in there on improving crisis communications and creating and implementing both a crisis strategy and a recovery communication strategy. This work is still underway and it is including the involvement of experts in that field.

Will the Minister bring forward legislation to define homelessness and will this legislation include a requirement for the Government to provide housing to those who meet that definition and, if not, why not?

I thank the Deputy for his question. I do plan to bring forward legislation to define homelessness.

But, as the Deputy is aware, there is already a formal definition that I published last year, just a quick reminder of what that was: “Rooflessness without a shelter of any kind; houselessness with a place to sleep but temporarily in institutions or shelters; living in insecure housing, threatened with exclusion and living in inadequate housing in caravans or illegal campsites, in unfit housing or in extreme overcrowding.” My immediate priorities set out in my Ministerial Plan are strengthening data collection on the scale and nature of homelessness and ensuring that Islanders who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are able to access support through the Housing Advice Service, accommodation providers and other agencies. The Government already provides housing to those who report their needs to the Housing Advice Service but I am aware that there are Islanders who are homeless and have not yet asked for help. This includes Islanders who are sofa-surfing or living in inadequate accommodation. I would like to take this opportunity to ask those people to get in touch with the Housing Advice Service. I believe that focusing on these actions lays the groundwork for legislation and will put in a much stronger position to formalise arrangements for homelessness.

Sir, he did not answer the second part of the question that was provided with notice, which was whether, along with the statutory definition of homelessness, it would have a requirement for Government to provide housing for those who meet that definition.

Sir, we are already doing, as you correctly said there. What I would say is we have published a definition of homelessness. We have established a Housing Advice Service. We are delivering new support in housing and we are expanding Gateway criteria. I am trying to understand what we are not doing or what the Deputy in addition ...

We are going to be publishing the new up-to-date Residential Tenancy Law next year, developing that and within there we will certainly be looking at that particular aspect.

He referred to the Residential Tenancy Law, is that where the statutory definition of homelessness will be found?

It is certainly my intention to be the case.

Will the Minister confirm if the operating agreement with Condor Ferries is still scheduled to expire in 2025 and, if it is, will the Minister update Members on what arrangements are in place to maintain our sea links moving forward?

I thank the Deputy for his question. The current operating agreement with Condor Ferries was established in 2014. The operating agreement has entered its wind-down phase and is due to expire in March 2025. The future of ferry services remains under evaluation and, due to commercial sensitivity, it would be inappropriate to comment further. Jersey depends upon our sea links and we are working towards an outcome which meets Jersey’s expectations under any new arrangement.

I have been reading the very recently published Delivery Framework for Sustainable Economic Development and I note that the Minister under aviation and maritime says: “As an island, sea connectivity is vital, fundamental to our economy and directly supports our businesses across the economy, including transport, logistics, construction, retail and the visitor economy.” Under the heading “Export” he says: “Encouraging and supporting exports are a key pillar towards achieving our economic vision.” But of course we also know that 98 per cent of all our goods come into the Island on boats. Ferry links, to my mind, are not important, they are absolutely vital. My question to this Minister is: can he assure the Assembly that the resilience of ferry links is an absolute top priority for him?

In short, yes, I can assure the Assembly the resilience of our ferry services for all the reasons the Deputy has outlined is a top priority.

Can the Minister confirm if there is an agreement in place with our sister island of Guernsey that both Governments will negotiate with the preferred tenderer and that both Bailiwicks will sign simultaneously for the benefit of both Bailiwicks?

I cannot confirm that. I can confirm that we have been working closely with Guernsey on an operating agreement but the level of commitment and detail that the Connétable has outlined, we have not gone to that level.

Has the Minister looked into whether the passenger ferry service side of the operating agreement might be regarded as a lost leader and any other way of approaching this, rather than requiring it to be taken on by the operator of the overall ferry service?

Could I ask for a clarification of an understanding of that question, as I did not understand the question?

I shall do, thank you. Given that the current operating agreement requires Condor to provide a service for foot passengers and non-car passengers, as well as to some extent freight and is required to provide this service, has the Minister looked into where the actual profit lies and whether there is any merit in approaching these services differently from the current operating agreement?

I do believe I know where the profit lies in the ferry services and I am always open to looking at new ways to deliver all services.

Then does the Minister accept that to some extent the free market is not operating fully in this area, and is that acceptable to the Minister?

I have my concerns about this. Islanders contact me on a regular basis to explain their concerns about the regularity of passenger services. I am always looking at new ways to structure or deliver services in the Island.

Given the major strategic importance of our ferry links, not least the freight for which Members will know is well in excess of 90 per cent of what we consume is imported by ferry, does the Minister remain confident that either a new agreement will be in place with the existing or new operation and that we will not be left vulnerable come the expiry of the current agreement in March 2025?

Yes, I absolutely am working to make sure that we have no disruption in the ferry services, however that takes place.

As the delivery of health services in 2024 will be shaped by the options outlined on page 96 of the draft Government Plan 2024 - 2027, will the Minister assure Members that she will release additional information in time for lodging of amendments to allow for examination of the spending and policies involved in these options and, if not, why not?

There are no options outlined on page 96 of the Government Plan. The section that the Deputy refers to addresses the sustainability of health funding review, which refers to funding, financing and contracting, which are the matters in scope. Options for a reformed system continue to be in development and have yet to be considered by myself or other Ministers, therefore, I am unable to provide the information requested.

The query must be: unable to provide today but will, can, could, may provide in time for the debate on the Government Plan, which is of vital importance to next year and the years afterwards in the short and the long term.

I am working towards a proposition regarding health funding for the Assembly, which will come forward in 2024. I can assure the Deputy that before the lodging of that proposition it would be necessary to engage and to consult with all of those affected and involved, and of course the Assembly will be provided with information in good time to enable a well-informed debate. My task over 2023 has been to conduct the work required, which is continuing to get us to that place. The Health and Social Security Panel has been kept up to date with the work and we are expected to brief them shortly again. I will consider how to share the work and engage on potential options in the early part of next year.

non-emergency visits to the Accident and Emergency department (OQ/203/2023) Will the Minister state the weekly number of non-emergency visits to the Accident and Emergency Department by persons aged under 18 during normal working hours from 1st August to 1st October this year and how these compare to the same time last year?

During August and September 2023 there was a weekly average of 39 patients under the age of 18 attending A. and E. (Accident and Emergency) during normal working hours who were triaged as non-emergency. This compares to an average of 40 across the same period in 2022 for the same cohorts. Data for that has been taken from 2 different systems, so it may be subject to some differences in recording, and the time period requested includes summer holidays and, therefore, may include figures that involve more visitors to the Island.

There was not much difference between those numbers, does the Minister believe that enough has been done to communicate to members of the public that G.P. (general practitioner) visits are currently free of charge for children under 18?

We continue obviously to encourage people to access these services but we will have a look at that again and I will talk with my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, who has obviously been instrumental in making this happen, and we will see what we can do to improve things if it is still a problem.

Would the Minister advise how much is put aside for teacher pay rises within the draft Government Plan 2024 - 2027 and how this relates to the £2.4 million value-for-money savings listed for her department on page 57 of the plan?

I thank the Deputy for his question so I can get clarification. The amount put aside for pay rises is for all pay groups. There is not a specific amount allocated to teachers; it is held centrally. We must also respect that any pay awards are negotiated and a confidential process, so I would not want to produce this negotiation. What is important to emphasise, there is no relation to the £2.4 million value-for-money savings from my department, as I have no intention of seeking or making any savings from the staff salaries.

Given that one union has only taken shorter strike action because they are going to negotiate for the next few years, does the Minister have any concerns that the money may not be available and we may be in the position that we are in now, which is one group accepts, that is all any group is going to get and, consequently, there is no negotiation into the future?

It is really important to emphasise there are 2 parts within the unions’ demands, one is it is a specific number percentage added to the pay and the second one is around the workload of the teachers, the professional development and so on. We do have within our department extra funding for professional development. We have started Masters on Island. We are recruiting more staff, supporting teachers, if it is teaching assistants, if it is management staff and if it is teachers. We do have gross to support and this is why a working group sitting together and working around conditions but the pay percentage is very specific.

What representations did the Minister make when forming the Government Plan to ensure that as much as possible was put aside to enable a reasonable and decent pay offer for teachers so that they could have their concerns alleviated and not feel the need to take the industrial action that they are, which of course has an impact on society?

I thank the Deputy for his question. Again, it is important to emphasise that I have gross within the department budget to work with unions, which I am going to meet, to address their conditions which will address some of the concerns. I will leave negotiation and allocations to the States Employment Board, who must balance competing claims for trade unions during negotiations, and that is the best place to understand the balance needed between awards to different groups. I would like to see that whole workforce within education receive a fair settlement.

Sir, with respect, that was not an answer to my question. I asked what representation she had made in the forming of the Government Plan to ensure as much as possible was put aside for pay offers.

We have a discussion around the Council of Ministers around the pays and it has been very clear that we need to make sure that our workforce are paid fairly. There are several groups and there are 4 unions of the staff within the school, that different unions have a different approach. This is why it is important not just to give one number and everything suits everyone because there are separate negotiations with 4 different unions.

Sir, we are still not any closer, that my question is about her representations, not what the unions are doing; it is about what she was involved in in these discussions. Was she an advocate for providing more funding to enable teachers to get a better pay offer or did she take the same line as the States Employment Board and not advocate for that? It is a very specific question about her actions.

Okay, fair, I accept, Sir. I have made representations that the offers for all paid groups within education and Children’s Services should be offered. We did not discuss specifically each group separately but we have discussed that I need to make sure that I have enough funds and I have enough gross within my department to make various arrangements to support teachers, teaching assistants, head teachers, with their terms and conditions.

Can I ask the Minister whether she would accept the concept of gain-share in order to fund a greater pay award and, if so, how would she ensure that that does not affect the level of service provided, given that the department has been asked to make £2.4 million worth of savings at the same time?

I think the gain-share was offered previously and this is something that we would need to discuss.

What I do want to emphasise is that I do not have any savings to any of the front line. I know that the target of £2.4 million is a challenging target but our department has a budget in excess of £200 million; we are talking about 1 per cent. We need to look into our procurement, we need to look into our placement. There is no way, and I would like to commit to the Assembly, that it will be any reduction or from my perspective we will have to see a gross within that front line because this is what we need to do.

Can the Minister advise, in light of the concerning rate of road traffic collisions in the Island, what measures are necessary to reduce these incidents and improve road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users? What specific policies, funding allocations and initiatives that are planned to achieve this aim?

I thank the Deputy for her questions. Speed limits are of course a matter for the Minister for Infrastructure and I am aware that Infrastructure and Environment have recently appointed a road safety co-ordinator, who will continue the work already started around an Island-wide speed limit review. I know the Minister for Infrastructure meets regularly with the chief of police and head of roads policing to discuss matters in relation to roads policing. But from a policing perspective, it is important that any speed limit review is based upon safety and speed data, traffic flow and volume, road type and overall design, pedestrian and bicycle demand and public feedback.

[11:30] We need to be viewing and assessing all of those before any changes are made. In terms of operational policing, the States of Jersey Police, and indeed the Honorary Police, regularly stop vehicles and report them for process offences and when necessary report persons for driving offences when involved with a road traffic collision. All of this work stems from the States of Jersey Police Road Safety Strategy, focusing on the key areas which cause the most harm to all road users. In 2024 we are going to see the implementation of a Stats 19 project across operational policing which will allow officers to collect much more rich data from all accidents. This will allow for 2 key changes to occur. The police will have far greater data to analyse to determine where we should focus our efforts, and this data will also be shared with the Infrastructure and Environment Department and allow them to make infrastructural changes to road networks and layouts to decrease the probability of an accident occurring in the future.

The Minister talked about the investigation in relation to incidents. What steps or strategies are planned to ensure that prosecution rates ensure that those responsible for driving offences are held accountable and are more effective? Are there any changes to existing legislation or new laws that the Minister might believe will be necessary to support these efforts?

The matter of prosecution lies with either the Centeniers or the Law Officers’ Department, so I cannot comment on that. But as I have said, following the Stats 19 process we will have far greater data to analyse where any changes to laws which will promote road safety will be applicable.

Given the very positive consequences for the tourism industry of the Minister’s decision to allow French day-trippers to travel to Jersey on an identity card, is she considering extending that dispensation so that French nationals wanting to spend, say, a week in Jersey can do so?

Thank you for the question. I think all Members will share in my delight at hearing so much of the French language in town this year and with the extension of the carte d’identité project has been very successful. The first priority that we have is obviously to maintain the integrity of the border and maintain the integrity of the Common Travel Area. But it is my stated aim, and I have asked officers to look into, extending that scheme for a period of 72 hours to French nationals only. This is obviously subject to discussion with the U.K. Home Office but given the success of our carte d’identité project pilot, I am optimistic that a way can be found to extend this to our nearest neighbours.

Is the Minister prepared to be a little more ambitious and go to a week?

Officers tell me that I was very over-ambitious when I said, could we please go to 90 days? They have broken me down to 72 hours. I think it is fair to say that we need to look at exactly what is required to be able to control people who come to Jersey for more than 24 hours. In an ideal world would it not be lovely to revert to the pre-Brexit position when people could come to visit Jersey on their carte d’identité for as long as they wanted?

The previous Assembly voted in principle to introduce or to allow for law changes to be made for fixed speed cameras in Jersey. Would the Minister clarify whether that now forms part of her workload, if not, why not and, if so, when can we expect to see the legislation brought back to enable that?

I do not want to slope-shoulder this answer but speed enforcement is in the purview of the Minister for Infrastructure. It is not for the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs to bring legislation to permit speed cameras.

If it is not in her remit, Sir, it is difficult to have a supplementary.

This is a question I have asked previous Ministers for Home Affairs. The Island is small and we have a lot of sea around us and we enjoy a huge number of really good maritime assets when it comes to safety and rescue, and an integral part of that is the inshore rescue craft delivered through the fire and rescue service. Can I just have the Minister’s ongoing commitment to continue this service, please?

Yes, I echo the Deputy’s comments. It is a very important part of our emergency response and I continue to support it.

Could I ask the Minister if there is any provision in the current Government Plan to reduce financial burden of training and the cost of TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) radios for the Parish Honorary Police and, if so, could she direct me to where I will find that?

I thank the Connétable of Trinity for his question and this is something that we have brought up over the last year. There is no provision in this year’s Government Plan for the provision of training on TETRA radios for the Honorary Police. Part of that is being rolled up into the civil contingencies work. About a month ago I met with the Comité des Chefs at the Parish Hall in Trinity and expressed my support for them that Justice and Home Affairs should be doing considerably more to provide them with the necessary training and equipment in order to bolster our emergency response.

I know the matter is not as high up the priority list of the Minister as the road safety matters that Deputy Le Hegarat began this session by asking, but constituents, particularly in St. Helier but also around the Parishes, are constantly complaining of the noise caused by vehicles which have had their exhausts tinkered with, particularly noisy motorbikes. These people are simply unable to have a good night’s sleep. Is this something which the Minister is asking the States of Jersey Police to monitor in order that these vehicles can be put back the way they should be?

That is the first that I have heard that that is a problem and clearly those people and those vehicles are committing construction and use offences. I think it is incumbent on not only the States of Jersey Police but perhaps also the Parish Honorary Police to assist in policing this. It is not something that I have previously raised with the Chief of Police but I am more than happy to do so on behalf of the Connétable.

I gather that the community police provision in the Island is severely stretched at the moment and we are down to, I think, 2 for the whole Island. Would the Minister confirm that funding will continue to be provided to provide a satisfactory community police service to the Parishes?

I thank the Connétable for his question and I share the concern about the provision of community police officers across the Island. What has happened this year, the States of Jersey Police have been under considerable pressure due to the significant operations that have happened over the last 12 months. As a consequence, some of those community officers have been redeployed. I have an undertaking from the chief police officer that as soon as it is possible those community officers will be redeployed. We have seen a tangible benefit for their presence, both in the reduction of antisocial behaviour incidents and in a reduction of youth at a Parish Hall Inquiry and into the court. It is a concern that I share and share frequently with the chief officer of police.

Would the Minister confirm that there is sufficient funding in the future Government Plan to cover this element of policing?

The police are allocated their annual budget and it is down to the chief officer to allocate it accordingly. Had we not have had the major incidents, the community policing units would have continued as normal. I am confident that once those operations work their way through, that normal business should be resumed within existing budgets.

Yes, as a follow on to that, I just wonder if the Minister thinks she has enough in this coming budget for her department.

The Minister will say she will never have enough. Around the Council of Ministers’ table we all have to be very sensible and we have to prioritise the budgets and prioritise the resources. I am confident and content that I have fought as hard as I can to provide the necessary services throughout the emergency services throughout this Government Plan.

I just was concerned because the Cabinet Office seems to have double the amount of Justice and Home Affairs and I just wondered what she felt about that.

I think it is important that we understand what the Cabinet Office comprises. The Cabinet Office is not just a Cabinet Office, it comprises Modernisation and Digital, it comprises human resources functions and many others. It is entirely understandable to me why on paper it would appear that the Cabinet Office is getting greater resources than Justice and Home Affairs.

If nobody will take the opportunity, what I would like to ask is: does the Minister think that there are sufficient trained resources to effectively investigate and bring forward prosecutions in relation to serious road traffic collisions? That is about the investigative process.

The chief police officer has not brought to my attention that there is a lack of investigation expertise there. I am sure if there was he would have brought that to my attention, and it is something that we could address.

This question is with regards to the English exam visa requirements. What facilities are available for individuals who wish to undertake the English language examination required for a skilled work permit?

I thank the Deputy for the question and a really interesting one at that. Unfortunately, in Jersey we do not have the facilities for people to undertake the British Council examinations which qualify them sufficiently to access the skilled visas. We used to have a private company doing that but we no longer do. I raised this with my colleague, the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, last week. It is very important now that we are extending our work permits to 3 years with a view that people can take on skilled visas, that we have some sort of facility for those examinations to take place locally. At the moment, people have to go to the United Kingdom to take them because they are controlled tests in a controlled environment delivered by the British Council.

A very pertinent question, thank you for asking it.

The Minister’s report on empty homes, R.151/2023, indicates on the map on page 7 that Corbière Lighthouse has been designated as an empty property. Would the Minister confirm that it is his intention to include the lighthouse in the part of his department’s property portfolio for someone who does not mind being marooned by the tide and is good on stairs? [Laughter]

I thank the Constable for his question. Can I take that away to my officers and just establish exactly why there is a dot on the Corbière file lighthouse property, and I will refer to you, Sir?

I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment.

I think that given this, on the clear misunderstanding by the Minister of the Rates Law, would the Minister agree that it is difficult to give the report any credibility?

I need to understand from my officers exactly the dot; the dots cover quite a significant area of land.

We are making an assumption that this particular dot applies to Corbière Lighthouse but I would like just to check with my officer and I will endeavour to do so maybe before this session is over and communicate that with him. But in terms of the Rates Law, our issue, as we have researched the vacant properties and reported on them, has been that the Rates Law is very disparate around the Island.

[11:45] It is administered differently by different Parishes and it is also very difficult for us trying to establish the scale of vacant homes in the Island from the information that is currently provided and available to the public. I will be coming back to the Constable and the Connétable of the Comité des Connétables to talk about this further and to see how we can better inform, how we can better surface vacant homes on this Island.

Yes, maybe a more serious one. Staying on the theme of the empty properties, can the Minister explain why he thinks that there is such a discrepancy, first of all, between the number of houses identified in the census, the number of homes that he thinks may be unoccupied and the number that he has identified?

I thank the Deputy for his question. It is a very, very good question. I can only assume that on census day if somebody was not in or it appeared empty, that the home was considered vacant and that was recorded as vacant. That is the whole point of the efforts that my team have made to surface this issue. It has taken a huge amount of research in terms of trying to find out exactly the reasons for homes being empty. As a result of that, we have come down to a number of 900. We have ended up having to use utility company data to establish if homes are still in use. But in terms of the numbers, I agree it is quite staggering that we have gone from 4,000 down to 900 apparently.

I recall that the original proposition that led to this piece of work also looked for mechanisms to be looked at, which also could include taxes or rates being imposed. Does the Minister agree that there are a whole variety of homes that are not just maybe unoccupied but that are maybe under-occupied?

We have seen, for example, Airbnb being cracked down on by his fellow Minister and that where there are homes that are not being properly utilised that there may need to be mechanisms to make sure that where this is a scarcity of homes in the Island, that those that are not being used properly are brought back into residential use.

I thank the Deputy for his question and it is a really good point again. We are talking about this challenge that we face between the moral issue and people’s own private property. There is that tension always between what we would like to do and what people feel we can do or what the laws allow us to do. At this moment in time I believe that we need to improve our Rates Law. I think we also need to improve our Wills and Succession Law. I think we also need to look at how we hold the data for property ownership, who owns what on this Island? There is an awful lot of work still to be done in this field. Did that answer your question? Yes, thank you.

Does the Minister have any concerns about the implementation of the energy performance certificate and, if so, what are those concerns?

I thank the Deputy for his question. I think I am afraid I am going to have to pass that over to the Minister for the Environment to answer because it is not an area of my expertise and I do not believe it falls under my remit.

Again, I am sure this is not high up the Minister’s priority list but ...

I am sorry, Sir.

With the energy performance certificate, this, potentially, could come at a cost to landlords and this could also, potentially, impact the private rental supply. I was wondering whether the Minister for Housing and Communities did have an opinion on this matter.

I thank the Deputy for his question. One can always have opinions, I do not want to step on the toes of the Minister for the Environment. I understand that he has just advised me that these ideas have been delayed for the moment while they can do more research in this area. I am afraid I cannot explicitly answer that particular question.

I was talking to the Minister 10 minutes ago regarding this very subject. My question is: when does the Minister think that intervention should be made regarding empty homes; when the home is empty for 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, a year or possibly longer?

I thank the Constable for his question. Therein lies the conundrum we have is: what is our legal definition for a vacant home? Because sometimes homes are empty because people are working away from the Island and they are coming back. There are an awful lot of different reasons to why homes are vacant and it is this work, this really valuable work, that my team are currently carrying out that I believe will unearth some of these issues and enable us to move forward and use our built environment in a much more effective and efficient way.

Is the Minister aware of criticism of some new housing developments which have relied on artificial grass for their residents? It is probably not the top of his priority list but I have had complaints about the use of artificial grass, the effect on the environment and the fact that for residents of these units, which are often deprived of natural space and play space, putting artificial grass inside them is not a good plan.

Thank you, Constable, for your question. I absolutely agree; if we can keep things natural and environmentally friendly I am all for that. But once again I think I would have to defer to the Minister for the Environment in that particular area. But I do agree with the sentiment.

Would the Minister take this matter up with Andium to see what the extent is of the use of artificial grass, particularly with these big developments coming up in St. Helier where there is a shortage of natural grass?

I certainly will do so.

At the end of the last term, the Minister’s immediate predecessor and his Ministerial colleagues at the time told this Assembly that it was absolutely impossible to squeeze any more affordable homes out of the South Hill development and 15 per cent was the absolute maximum we could afford; no alternative was possible. I read in the paper recently that this Minister says that that amount has now gone up to 25 per cent. How has he done so when his predecessors said it was impossible?

I thank the Deputy for his question. Obviously from a previous States Assembly we have got the 15 per cent as a minimum allocation of affordable housing from institutions like Jersey Development Company. What has happened in this particular instance is that upon revaluation of the land it has become apparent that it is possible to build a greater number of affordable homes. As I say, we start off with a minimum base at 15 per cent, we have now gone up towards 25 per cent. If that can be more it will be, or it will be slightly less, but the most important thing - and I have to applaud Jersey Development Company - is that they have not stopped at the 15 per cent, they have endeavoured to increase that number on their own initiative.

Yes, their own initiative this time but the previous initiative was that it was absolutely impossible.

Could the Minister give greater detail on what he means by the revaluation of that that led to this being able to be applied and can he give us his assurances that that same process will be applied to their other developments?

Thank you, Deputy, for your question. The change in the amount of affordable accommodation that was available on that site was because the land was originally, I understand, valued at around about £13 million or £14 million. It was revalued at around £4 million or £5 million; it is a Jersey Property Holdings site. That is not a final valuation; that will need to be adjusted upon the site being redeveloped but there is a significant correction in the value of the property.

I probably should have asked this question before the one about artificial grass. But does the Minister have any view about the inordinate delay that has been taking place over the determination of the Les Sablons development in Broad Street? This has now been awaited for many, many months. We have a developer willing to create many units of accommodation, as well as other assets for the Island and for the construction industry, which desperately needs the work. Is he doing anything to see if he can speed up this process?

Thank you, Constable, for your question. Like you, I am equally frustrated by the length of time. I am aware that the Minister for the Environment brought forward a report, Mackinnon report, about how we can improve the efficiency of the Planning Department and how we can do things faster.

But I am on the side of Keir Starmer, and I am sure Deputy Mézec will appreciate me quoting Keir Starmer, I am on the side of the builders, not the blockers. I want to see more housing.

Can I ask the Minister who values the land on his behalf? If mysteriously the value of the land at South Hill goes down from £14 million to £4 million, does that coincidentally and helpfully devalue the land at the Kensington Place hospital from, I think, £9 million to £16 million, now going back to approximately £6 million?

I thank the Constable for his question. The answer to your question is I simply do not know. I would have to ask the Minister for Infrastructure and his department as to how that revaluation took place.

But that is the fact and I cannot change the facts.

It seems the Minister can change the facts.

Pressing on with this empty homes report, we are trying to understand the work of the Empty Homes Service, which has made use of the Parish rates list in the library, so identified that the administration

The Chief Minister, together with the Minister for Infrastructure and the Government, have presented a vision for a multisite hospital consisting of Les Quennevais, an acute hospital at Overdale, ambulatory services I believe at Kensington Place, a Health Village at St. Saviour and I believe provision for Samarès Ward at St. Ewolds. Can I ask the Chief Minister, please, how much is that all going to cost and how long will it take to complete?

So I think the Deputy, having listened to the answers to his previous question from the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, will know full well that that price is something that is being worked on and it is something that we are totally committed to delivering. What we said we would do is something that is value for money, affordable and deliverable. Those are our maxims. That is the direction that we have given to our dedicated team who are working on that who are based in the Island and are here to serve the public and, at this point, that is our main thrust. We want to achieve what we have promised to the public, that we will, and those are the best value buildings to deliver what is most important; so those are quality services to Islanders in a critical area.

[12:00]

Of course those are very good and laudable answers but they were not the answer to my question which was: does the Chief Minister know how much all of those wonderful things and much needed things - I do not mean to make light of it - and essential things that we need to hurry up and build, to the nearest £100 million even, are going to cost?

Part of the thrust, as I have just said to the Deputy, is driving down the cost so that we can deliver something that is affordable and meets what is currently a very changing economic situation.

I did not get an answer to my question, Sir.

The Deputy knows that my answer there will be no.

Of late, I and other non-Government States Members have frequently been alerted to what is going on by listening to ITV Channel News and BBC News or reading the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) or the Bailiwick Express. Please, in future, can the Chief Minister undertake to agree to inform all States Members before the release of information to the media? This will mean that we will be able to support our Islanders who have elected us.

I am disappointed to hear that feedback but I am grateful to the Deputy for raising it. Of course, there is a rule whereby all information is shared with States Members ahead of being communicated to the media, and I am not aware of any instances where that rule has not been observed. It is very important and I will ensure that this is recommunicated to the team, but it is certainly my belief and understanding that they always do observe that rule most carefully.

I can provide the Chief Minister with quite a lot of information on this subject and I would be very grateful that it does not happen in the future. Thank you.

I am so sorry, Sir.

Last week, the Chief Minister condemned the attacks by Hamas in Israel in a statement that I know will have resonated with many Islanders but, as this terrible war unfolds, a variety of independent sources in the States appear to be saying that war crimes are being committed on both sides. So, in Israel, Hamas militants have slaughtered civilians who we know have unleashed a barrage of indiscriminate rocket fire and have taken at least 200 people hostage. In Gaza, the Israeli military has levelled entire neighbourhoods and killed thousands of people and ordered a full siege of the territory, including shutting off access to water and power. Will the Chief Minister condemn acts of violence and harm to civilians and the killing of civilians on both sides where they occur?

I think I said also last week that we condemn all terrorist attacks and our thoughts are with the victims and particularly civilians on all sides. It is my understanding that the Minister for International Development is in discussions with the United Nations in order to ensure that we provide support in that region and that it is carefully done so that it favours neither one nor the other side.

Could I push the Minister because when she said she condemns all terrorist attacks, of course I think we all stand by her in that, but of course we know on the Israeli side it is not a terrorist attack. It is the official Israeli military which has responded to those attacks and as one Commissioner General of the United Nations ...

It is difficult not to contextualise it but I will, Sir. Does the Minister agree with that because it is not simply sufficient to condemn terrorist attacks but attack, all potential war crimes, that are being committed against civilians wherever they occur from terrorist groups or from states’ armies?

I think we all watched with some horror and dismay as the situation unfolds elsewhere. Of course, it is not within my role to really provide further comment upon that but we pray for the victims on all sides as I have previously said.

Following on from that line of questioning and following on from the evil atrocities committed against civilians in the south of Israel by Hamas, the political leadership of the Israeli state has launched a response which has been condemned by many international human rights organisations and some in Israel itself for being war crimes, including shutting off water and electricity to hospitals.

Can the Chief Minister therefore give us her assurances that Jersey’s support through the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission for medical aid for Palestinians remains resolute so they can continue providing the lifesaving support for innocent people caught in this crossfire on the front line of that terrible conflict?

We would of course also certainly condemn war crimes but, as I previously said in my earlier answer, the Minister for International Development is engaging with the United Nations in order to ensure that aid that the Island provides is carefully directed so that it supports people on both sides.

My question was specifically about an organisation which we are already supporting called Medical Aid for Palestinians which has been providing absolutely harrowing commentary about what they are finding on the front line of this, and most recently reported that they had encountered 724 children killed in Gaza in recent days. So I am just asking the Chief Minister to confirm that her support for that particular organisation and the work that it is doing is resolute and will continue.

Yes.

One of my questions has already been asked.

I feel a bit put on there. However, could I ask the Chief Minister on a very different tack regards the Public Service Ombudsman, what is the timeline for having that position in place and up and working?

That work is continuing I believe. We said last time that we are aiming to lodge before the Christmas recess and, obviously, there will be some time for Scrutiny, et cetera, and so that will vary upon its passage through this Assembly.

The Chief Minister has rightly expressed sympathy for all those innocent individuals caught up in the appalling violence in the Middle East but would she perhaps consider expressing her solidarity with the Jewish community in Jersey which has been deeply affected by the attacks upon Jewish people because they were Jewish?

We did express our solidarity with our local Jewish community last week after the terror attack upon that community in another place, and of course that remains so. However, as we watch the situation unfold, of course our wider thoughts now remain with all people who are innocent victims of this situation.

It is now 18 months since the Bridging Island Plan debate in this Assembly where the Assembly of the day rezoned a number of housing sites for development. Those sites are not coming forward for development, from what I can see. The Chief Minister’s Minister for Housing and Communities says he is a builder and not a blocker so can I ask the Chief Minister where is the blockage?

I thank the Deputy for the question. This is a matter of some immense frustration to myself, to the Minister for Housing and Communities and I think to the Council of Ministers, because we all know that the issue here is supply. It is well-known that some of those sites are experiencing issues in relation to drains. We are finding ourselves presented with a number of thorny issues that have been for many years set aside and not dealt with, and now we are picking up the situation and trying to find solutions so that we can move forward and deliver the homes that Islanders want and Islanders need. There are delays, it transpires, also with supplementary planning guidance not being as quickly forthcoming as we had anticipated. We urge officers to work as hard as they can to deliver that. I know that they are trying to do so and it continues to be a team effort so that we can see that much needed progress in this important area.

I thank the Chief Minister for her answer. Given the challenges that she has outlined on some of these sites and the fact that the Bridging Island Plan was only a 4-year plan, does she agree with me that it is immensely important that we redebate the Island Plan again in 2026, as we should be doing?

I am pleased to be speaking to the Assembly today as we set out 2 key pieces of work within the Future Economy Programme. The Future Economy Programme is a long-term piece of work which is much bigger than any single strategy, any specific project or any particular Government, so I hope that Members will see today’s announcement as significant steps in a programme that will last for years beyond this Government. Much of the western world faces the long-term challenges that come from changing demographics and the subsequent greater demand that they put on public services.

The Future Economy Programme is Jersey’s way of addressing these challenges. The reality is that our population is ageing. Life expectancy has steadily increased and, by 2040, more Islanders will be enjoying their retirement for longer. This is something to celebrate but it also raises questions about how future Governments will meet the higher costs imposed on public services. We also know that, as our population ages, the percentage of those in work paying taxes and supporting our public services will decrease as a percentage of the total population. Today, we have just over 1.9 working people for every single non-working person. By 2040, that will have fallen to 1.4 working people to every non-working person. Those proportionally fewer workers will be providing the private and public services, including education and healthcare, that everyone in the Island needs and enjoys.

The Future Economy Programme identifies the sustainable economic growth we will need to deliver in order to meet the increased demand.

[12:15] To pay for a larger public services bill, we will need a bigger economy. The good news is that Jersey’s economy is strong. It is one of the world’s strongest. The not so good news is that growing an economy from an already high place is a difficult task. Over the last 20 years, Jersey’s economy has grown by an average of just 0.4 per cent a year. The reason why we struggle to grow is because, even as our population has increased, our productivity has declined and is now 30 per cent lower than it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, over the same period, the European Union has seen an average productivity growth of 2.1 per cent per year. Had Jersey’s productivity grown at this same pace, our economy would now be £200 million larger. We are actively working towards solving this challenge and have been for some time. Building on the work of the Economic Council and its New Perspectives report, my predecessor Deputy Farnham, then Senator Farnham, continued this process with the publication of the Outline Economy Strategy during the last term, and I am pleased to take forward that vision which guides the Future Economy Programme. The vision is that Jersey should become a consistently high-performing environmentally-sustainable and technologically-advanced small island economy by 2040. By doing this work now, we can maximise the options available to future Governments and to future generations and avoid them being left with hard choices in 2040 and beyond. It is also an exciting time to be championing economy growth with fresh opportunities, emerging sectors and whole new industries arising. We have a real opportunity to create new and exciting careers for Islanders. As I have already said, the Future Economy Programme is bigger than any one Government and it will be up to future Ministers to work to realise our full economic potential. They may well do so by seizing opportunities and championing industries which do not yet exist. Members will have seen that yesterday the Chief Minister gave notice of her intention to update my Ministerial title from Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture to Minister for Sustainable Economic Development. The change is symbolic of what the Future Economy Programme is trying to achieve. Future Ministers will need to maintain the focus on securing Economic Development in a sustainable way. That is to say, an economy that is positioned precisely because it grows in step with our Island’s ability to support it, to staff and scale it. The 2 documents we have presented today are just the beginning of this process. The strategy for sustainable economic development sets out the first direction any Government has provided for the Island’s economy in a long time. It also describes how this programme is about more than just economic growth and how we will measure the success of our efforts across 5 key themes to build an economy that is resilient, innovative, skilled, fair and international. This is a long-term strategy. We need businesses, Islanders and this Assembly to work towards delivery of the growth that our Island needs and it will also be up to future Governments to identify their own priorities as new opportunities emerge in the years ahead but I hope that, whatever their priorities, future Governments will use these themes to measure their progress towards the shared vision. That is the first document. To begin delivering the change that is needed, we have today also published the delivery framework. That sets out some of the practical steps that are being taken in the short to medium term over the next few years to deliver economic growth. We have identified 3 key ways that we can begin to deliver the economic change needed. Firstly, through the provision of growth enablers. These are designed to unlock entrepreneurial talent and create the right conditions for businesses to thrive to facilitate further growth. We can do this by improving the physical infrastructure used by businesses such as via securing our energy needs and international connectivity. The Minister for the Environment will be speaking shortly about one of the key aspects of this, the harnessing of the significant potential for wind power in our territorial waters, and we can help by ensuring our regulatory environment is fit for purpose and allows businesses to be sufficiently agile to make the most of a first mover advantage in the merging sectors. Secondly, we want to increase productivity in existing sectors, recognising that any future economic success will be very largely driven by our existing industries. We want to help these sectors thrive. Earlier this year, I commissioned Jersey Business to work with companies and individuals in finding out the hurdles and barriers they currently face. This Barriers to Business report will be published later this year and departments will be working with businesses to ensure that government processes enable rather than frustrate innovation and growth. We will also be bringing forward new strategies for our digital economy and, in 2024, a retail strategy to identify the key opportunities and challenges businesses in these industries face. The third pillar to the delivery framework is our work to support effective public services. This means ensuring Government leads by example spending public money effectively and ensuring Islanders have access to the training and skills they need to succeed. It will involve setting public policy to support a healthy and skilled population enhanced by a sustainable approach to inward migration. This is an ambitious programme and it is one which will need to be taken forward by future Councils of Ministers and future Governments. The documents we publish today are just the beginning and we will continue to evolve and adapt the programme and work with Islanders, businesses and the Assembly to deliver our collective vision. I look forward to Members’ questions.

I am very supportive of the Minister’s ambitions to increase productivity for the reasons that I believe the documents will disclose. One kind of expression that we hear bandied about a lot is the need for diversification. Does the Minister accept that there is a limit to diversification on a small Island in light of economies of scale and will the documents be addressing the way in which resources might be focused more effectively to realise his ambition for optimum economic growth?

I accept that the Island, by virtue of being 9 miles by 5 miles, having a population of 100,000 people and having limited natural resources - but wind has certainly been one of them - has limits. Those limits mean that we can only diversify the economy into certain areas. As I said in the statement, many of those areas we do not know yet, so I do not believe that our economic imagination is limited but certainly our resource base is, and that will always steer us in a certain direction.

The Minister mentioned the Economic Council which identified certain key themes in its report and I believe was suggesting a G.A.A.P.s (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) analysis to go forward with this work but the work of the Economic Council was taken in-house. Could the Minister please explain the reason for this decision and what work will be done in terms of a G.A.A.P. analysis and providing target figures for growth?

The work of the Economic Council was undertaken in 2020, possibly into 2021, and ended up with a report which the Government of the day welcomed, and is certainly one that I welcomed. So when we say this work has been taken in-house, what we have done is use that report to inform the documents that we are presenting here today.

Would the Minister confirm whether he will be able to implement this policy within the existing headcount of his department or will this incur an increase in numbers?

I do not believe that we are increasing headcount for the delivery of this policy. I am just trying to think if there have been any conversations about the need for more people because of this policy. I do not believe so. I believe the Department for the Economy is almost up to full complement and we are, as a department, not seeking any new vacancies particularly at the moment.

Will the growth gurus, as he intimated earlier on, come from within the department or will they be contracted in?

We have a fantastic Department for the Economy and the economy team, which includes the analysis as well as the Future Economy Programme team, is a superb team. At the moment, I understand the work is being done in-house but where it is necessary or preferable to contract people in, we will do that but, again, at this time, I have no particular knowledge that we are seeking to contract anyone in for that piece of work.

I share the Minister’s enthusiasm for new and exciting ideas to develop our economy. I read very quickly both the documents that have been published this morning and I have to say to the Minister, I do not see any direct or very many direct references to either agriculture and fisheries. I hope he will not dismiss them when it comes to becoming sustainable and when it comes to growing further into the future. I refer specifically to the fishing industry where some growth enablers would help us, I am sure, to increase or maybe double the amount of exports we send. We just need facilities to be provided for our fisherman to use and so my question to the Minister is, while he is looking for new and exciting ideas, I hope he is not forgetting the basics of agriculture and fisheries.

Absolutely not. Agriculture and fisheries are very much in these programmes. I contest that they are not mentioned in here because I know they are and we have delivered in the past year the Rural Economy Programme Strategy and the Marine Economy Strategy, both of which set out the future of those industries. I am really pleased that we work closely with both sectors and the leaders of both sectors, and both in the rural economy and the marine economy, we have a regular forum with those industry leaders. We will continue to do that and we will continue to evolve those industries, and that is what I find exciting about this but we will do so in a sustainable manner. I think that is something that everyone from those sectors buys into.

I very much welcome the words in this document about lifelong learning and increased productivity, and one of the things that will be essential there is to keep the talent that we have on the Island. Two of the issues are being able to afford to go back into education and the cost of housing so can I ask the Minister to begin with - and I will follow up with my supplementary - does the Minister see that rent controls may well be an essential part of lowering the cost of housing in order that people can stay on the Island?

I do not know if rent controls are an essential part of that, but I do know that housing and accommodation are an essential part of a thriving future economy, and the key thinking behind the Future Economy Programme is that it is cross-governmental and so housing is a key part of that programme. Delivering that housing, along with careers that might make Islanders see their futures in Jersey, is absolutely vital. That idea that we want young Islanders to see Jersey as a viable future for them, as a viable option for them, underpins this entire piece of work, Sir.

Carrying on from that, lifelong learning requires the ability to access. It may mean older demographics will have to return to education. Being creative in this document, can I ask the Minister whether they would consider the use of a universal basic income, which does enable people to return to education at any point during their life and still have, as it suggests, a basic income that they can sustain.

I do not believe universal basic income has been the subject of discussion with regard to lifelong learning. I do know that Deputy Andrews had this proposition about the Skills Fund, and that Skills Fund is being developed. I continue to push forward my opinion as well, because I completely agree with the Deputy, that we do need a mechanism for funding lifelong learning. I still push forward my opinion that we need individual learning accounts that are tied to every working individual and enable them to choose their courses and their career choices in the future.

Three and a half sides of fairly tight-packed text without a single mention anywhere in there of the unions as representatives of their workers and yet all sorts of changes that the workers are going to be going through without their unions. Is the Minister prepared to talk and co-operate with the unions on the Island in order to achieve a proper economic future?

[12:30]

The document talks about employees and it talks about Islanders. That is absolutely necessary, because they are the lifeblood of our economy and our society. How they choose to then organise themselves is entirely up to them. If they choose to organise themselves into unions then I am always willing to talk to anybody and I would certainly talk to them. Previously, I have myself been a union representative and I would always be happy to talk to unions on matters regarding the economy.

The question that arises, I suppose, is it is all well and good to try and grow the economy, and it is questionable whether we will be able to do that, given the many challenges that we face, which are shared in common, not least, with the Crown Dependencies. Could I ask the Minister: what is the point in growing the economy if the gap between the poorest and the richest remains the same and if we, as a Government, do not have any way to access that growth in the economy in terms of increased revenues that pay for the basics of a modern and growing society?

I believe that these documents do talk about inequality and they mention it directly. Inequality is something that concerns this Government, concerns the last Government and will concern future Governments as well. However, we do need to talk about economic growth, because the alternative to economic growth is, quite simply, poverty. If we do not have economic growth in this Island we will see over the next 20 years a decline in living standards. That is not something, I believe, that any Islander wishes to see. We need economic growth and we will continue to address inequality.

However, I do not believe there is an option with regard to economic growth, because I do believe the alternative is poverty.

There was a famous quote in another Assembly which said zero per cent of zero is zero and zero per cent of a big zero is an even bigger zero. My question is: if we are growing the economy and we see economic growth which is concentrated on an area of the economy which we do not tax, how does Government benefit from that increase in growth? Fundamentally, what can Government do to make sure that if we see ourselves in any kind of economy, whether it is shrinking, stable or growing, that Government has increasing funds to be able to pay for modern services, which seem to be growing in that direction?

I believe it is the case that any Government, any politician always has taxation at the back of their mind. As the economy changes, as society changes and as employees work in different ways, then it may be the case that discussions about taxation are necessary. We know, for instance, we are going to have to - in a slightly different area - but we are going to have to have conversations about how to tax motor vehicles, given that we are planning to phase out petrol and diesel over time. These are going to have to be live discussions, whether it is for this Government or future Governments. If we find that the economy is developing in such a way that revenues are not flowing to Treasury as you would expect with that growth then I do not have a problem, and I am sure future Ministers will not have a problem in discussing the issue of taxation in that way.

On page 6 of the delivery framework under “Outcomes”, it refers to improved living standards and how everyone will enjoy a better standard of living in 2040. On page 5 of the proposed Government Plan under “Economy and skills” it says: “Implementing a new economic strategy which will help ensure Islanders enjoy the same standard of living in 2040 as they do today.” Could the Minister explain which it is?

We would like an economy which improves the standard of living for all Islanders, but the bottom line is we do not want to see living standards decline. The absolute barest minimum is that we maintain standards of living, but the ambition and the absolute intention is to improve standards of living.

Does the Minister accept that the way it is termed in the delivery framework and the Government Plan are inconsistent and would he support bringing in an amendment to the Government Plan to align what it says there with the framework that he has published today?

I would have to speak with the Minister for Treasury and Resources about that, as the Government Plan is primarily his document.