Ministerial Response - Family Friendly Employment Rights

Findings

Comments

1

The Social Security Minister instructed the Employment Forum to undertake a consultation in respect of extending family friendly employment rights but did not provide the Forum with clear policy aims

The policy aims underpinning the phased introduction of employment and discrimination law were set out in P.99/2000, including the provision of family friendly employment measures.

The former Social Security  Minister, Deputy Pinel, sent  a  detailed  letter  to  the Employment  Forum  in August 2016. The letter explained that when the first stage of the legislation was presented to the States in 2014 (which provided up to 18 weeks of maternity leave), there were calls from the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel for a more generous period of maternity leave. The former Minister was concerned that additional public consultation would be required if  the  rights  were  to  be  extended  beyond  the recommendations of the Forum, accepted some years

Findings

Comments

earlier, which would further delay the introduction of family friendly rights. The former Minister decided that it was vital to introduce that first stage of new rights as soon as possible including, most importantly, the right for a woman to return to the same job after having a baby and protection against detriment and dismissal. The former Minister committed to review the family friendly rights one year after they came into force with a view to extending the rights. That commitment  is  recorded  by  the  Health  and  Social Security Scrutiny Panel in the outcomes of its review of the Minister's proposition.

The Minister's 2016 letter directed the Forum to make a recommendation on a wide range of topics relating to family friendly legislation by the end of December 2017, including the following:

1. The impact of the 2015 legislation on employers and parents.

2. Extension  of  statutory  leave  to  provide  longer periods of paid and unpaid leave for all types of parents

3. Removal of the length of service requirement.

4. Time off to attend antenatal care appointments for the father/partner

5. Extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees and removal of the qualifying period.

6. Shared leave (parents and grandparents)

7. Paid time off work for health and safety reasons relating to pregnancy/maternity.

8. Breastfeeding  rights  and/or  facilities  in  the workplace.

2

The  Employment  Forum  recommended that  extensions  to  family  friendly  rights should be undertaken in two phases. Phase one extended maternity leave from 18 to 26  weeks  in  September  2018  and  phase two, under the current proposals, seeks to extend the leave period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks.

The Forum's recommendation[1] explains the reasons for the two–phased approach, as follows;

"The Forum's recommendations in this report are, in some  cases,  presented  in  a  phased  approach  with recommendations  for  changes  to  the  Law  in September 2018 and in September 2019. The Forum has  selected  these  dates  based  on  advice  from  the Social  Security  Department  as  to  the  earliest  that changes are likely be made to the Employment Law if its  recommendations  are  accepted.  The  Forum understands  that  law  changes  would  have  to  be adopted by the States in March 2018 in order to come into force in September 2018. The Forum is conscious that this gives only 5 months' notice for employers of the  confirmed  legislation  and  the  recommendations for the first phase reflect that short notice period. A more  significant  step  forward  is  therefore recommended for implementation in September 2019.

Findings

Comments

The Forum recommends that if, for any reason, it is not possible to introduce the first phase of changes in September 2018, then it would be appropriate to skip the first phase of changes for maternity and parental leave  and  move  directly  to  the  second  phase  in September 2019 rather than maintaining a two phased approach."

The  recommendations  for  2019  were  the  ultimate target. The recommendation for 2018 was intended to provide an interim, relatively straightforward, step so that  parents  did  not  have  to  wait  too  long  for improved  rights  (2  years  after  the  Forum's recommendation)  and  to  allow  employers  time  to adjust more gradually.

3

During a 2015 scrutiny review of the first phase of family friendly legislation (18 weeks maternity leave), the previous Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel was assured that a review of the legislation to assess the overall impact of the changes would be undertaken one year following their introduction. No review was carried out to investigate the overall impact of the changes

That review was undertaken by the Forum in 2017. The former Minister wrote to the Forum on 26 August 2016, one year after the first family friendly rights came into force (1 September 2015). In directing the Forum in 2016, the Minister re-iterated the assurance given  to  Scrutiny  when  the  draft  legislation  was presented to the States in 2014 that the Law would be reviewed with a view to extending the rights after one year.

In  the  Forum's  recommendation  published  in December 2017, the section Impact of legislation on employers  and  working  parents',  the  Forum summarised the responses from both employers and employees  about  the  impact  of  the  family  friendly employment  rights  since  the  2015  law  came  into force.

4

The main features of the 2019 proposals contained in P.17/2019 are: promoting equality and gender balance in childcare roles; putting the child first and encouraging and supporting the breastfeeding of babies.

Agreed.

A key finding of the recent report from Scrutiny's Gender Pay Gap Review Panel (17 July 2019) is that "The importance of flexibility in the workplace for parents was a common theme throughout the review. Flexibility for both parents is particularly important to women  as  it  enables  them  to  not  have  to  make  a choice between a career and starting a family."2

5

The Panel is supportive of the underlying principles of the legislation specifically the new rights for surrogate and adoptive parents, and the rights on breastfeeding.

The Minister accepts this as the view of the members of the Panel.

6

Most  stakeholders  are  supportive  of  the principles behind the proposals and what they  are  trying  to  achieve.  However, alongside  this  support,  a  number  of concerns  have  been  raised  about  the practicalities  of  the  proposals  and  the financial and administrative burdens they place on employers.

The Minister has already committed to a number of changes  to  the  way  in  which  employees  can  take parental leave that would address the key concerns, as expressed  by  businesses  and  their  representatives, during this scrutiny review.

On 14 April 2019, the Minister lodged an amendment to P.17/2019 to improve the position for businesses without  detracting  significantly  from  the  original policy  intent  and  she  intends  to  consolidate  those

Findings

Comments

amendments into the draft Law before re-lodging.

Administrative burden  – Parents are already taking time off work or changing their job or hours following childbirth. Even without specific employment rights, pregnancy  and  childbirth  bring  administrative implications and costs for employers, both in terms of replacing staff (whether temporarily or permanently) and the potential loss of key skills. In a business that requires specialist skills and training, with concerns about  finding  qualified  replacements,  there  are benefits to enabling staff to take a period of parental leave and return to the workplace in order to retain staff with appropriate skills.

Financial  burden  –  The  Employment  Law  already provides that both parents are entitled to 26 weeks of leave, including 6 weeks of paid maternity leave for the mother and 2 weeks of paid parental leave for the other parent (e.g. father of the child, husband/partner of  the  mother).  The  draft  Law  would  extend  the period of paid leave from 2 weeks to 6 weeks for the other parent, i.e. 4 extra weeks of paid parental leave for the father or partner.

7

The Employment Forum consulted between January and March 2017. The consultation was circulated to those on the Forum's database (around 300 in total) and a survey was also available on online platforms. A number of meetings also occurred during the consultation period.

There was considerable publicity about the Forum's review, giving every opportunity for employers and employees  alike  to  engage.  As  well  as  being circulated  to  those  on  the  Forum's  consultation database, this public consultation was distributed by multiple means and was open to anyone who wished to respond. The consultation was circulated to States Members  and  promoted  via  the  States  of  Jersey website,  social  media,  the  Jersey  Advisory  and Conciliation  Service  (JACS)  and  Citizen's  Advice Jersey, amongst others. The Forum Chair advised the Panel that she considers this to have been the most heavily  publicised  consultation  that  the  Forum  has undertaken during her tenure as Chair. The Forum's consultation  method  is  outlined  in  their recommendation[2].

8

The  consultation  gathered  27  written responses from individual employers and 191 written responses from employees. It appears  that  the  consultation  did  not accumulate  a  representative  spread  of responses  from  both  employers  and employees.

The Forum's consultations are not designed to provide representative samples of employers and employees from which statistics can be drawn. The Forum does not  simply  count  the  number  of  yes'  and  no' answers given in response to surveys, but is guided by the reasons that people give for their responses, the qualitative data, and the full range of evidence.

In  addition  to  the  written  responses  from  27 individuals who recorded their respondent category as employer', the Forum also received responses from 78  respondents  who  did  not  specify  a  respondent category,  30  other'  respondents  (which  included those  who  identified  as  both  an  employer  and  an

Findings

Comments

employee),  as  well  as  responses  in  person  and  in writing  from  a  number  of  employer  representative groups, including the Jersey Hospitality Association, the Jersey Farmers' Union, the local branch of the Institute  of  Directors  and  the  Jersey  Chamber  of Commerce.

This  consultation  attracted  more  individual  survey responses from employees than from employers. This is unusual for an Employment Forum consultation and demonstrates the strength of feeling amongst parents, many  of  whom  wanted  to  highlight  the  lack  of flexibility  in  the  system  at  that  time.  It  is  to  be expected that a consultation on a topic such as this would attract responses from parents, employees and individuals.  This  does  not  mean  that  employees' views  were  given  greater  weight  in  the  decision- making.

The  Forum's  2013  recommendation  on  the  unfair dismissal  qualifying  period  provides  a  useful explanation  of  the  Forum's  standard  process  in relation to the evidence, as follows; "Few responses were  received  from  employees  and  their representatives.  However,  this  has  not  created  an imbalance in the Forum's consideration of the matter. The Forum reaches its recommendations not by being persuaded by the most forcefully expressed, insistent or  recurring  responses,  but  by  taking  a  balanced approach  to  the  evidence  and  information  that  is available from many sources."4

9

The Panel has found that there is no way of knowing whether a sufficient range of employers were consulted because the Employment Forum's database does not constitute a list of those who took part.

It is clear from the detailed comments that have been quoted in the Forum's recommendation that a wide range  of  views  are  represented  in  the  consultation from  employers  of  different  sizes  and  in  different sectors. As always, the Forum presented a selection of the comments received to demonstrate the range of views  and  different  perspectives  that  have  been expressed, rather than choosing comments to support its  own  recommendations.  Section  3  of  the Recommendation  provides  a  wide  range  of  quotes from different respondent types, in accordance with the permissions given.

Many  of  the  responses  to  this  consultation  were particularly detailed, giving reasons for responses and reflecting on experiences, rather than just ticking yes' and  no'  boxes.  The  Forum  accepts  anonymous responses to encourage those who may be affected to give  their  views  freely.  Even  where  employer respondents have submitted an anonymous response, their  comments  often  describe  the  impact  on  their particular business.

The Forum's database does not constitute a list of who was consulted because –

Findings

Comments

• it is a list of those who have requested to receive consultations  and  recommendations  from  the Forum

• there  is  no  obligation  to  respond  and  some  of those on the database would have chosen not to respond to this consultation.

• The  Forum's  consultation  extends  beyond  the database (see response to key finding 7).

The  details  of  the  Forum's  database  constitute personal  data  and  so  are  subject  to  specific  legal duties under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018. Individuals  have  agreed  to  be  included  on  the database  specifically  for  the  purpose  of  receiving consultations  and  recommendations  direct  from  the Forum, and disclosing their details to the Panel would amount  to  an  alternative,  collateral  use  of  their personal data.

10

The  Employment  Forum's recommendation explains that some of the written  responses  count  as  a  single response but represent the views of a group or  organisation  rather  than  an  individual respondent.  However,  this  does  not necessarily  mean  that  a  majority  of members  of  these  organisations  were represented in the consultation responses.

It  cannot  be  assumed  that  a  representative  body  is representing  the  specific  views  of  every  one  of  its individual  members.  However,  employers  pay  their membership fee and trust organisations such as the Jersey Chamber of Commerce to represent their views collectively. For example, according to its website[3], the stated purpose of the Chamber of Commerce as "the  largest  independent  business  membership organisation in Jersey, representing businesses of all sizes and sectors" is to "ensure Members' views are heard  in  Government  through  our  Committees  and lobbying work". As part of its own review, the Panel has  accepted  a  submission  from  Chamber  as representing the views of its membership.

The Forum did not claim that the response it received from Chamber represented the majority of Chamber members. In fact, the Forum's recommendation (page

8)  quotes  the  same  excerpt  from  the  Chamber  of Commerce submission that the Scrutiny report refers to.  That  excerpt  explains  that  Chamber  received responses  to  its  own  survey  from  14%  of  its  540 member  organisations.  This  represents  survey responses from 76 businesses. Chamber reported that those  employers  had  experienced  few  issues;  93 percent of those taking part in the survey – which is 71 employers – "said they did not find any difficulty in applying the current statutory maternity rights". If those employment rights (introduced in 2015) were causing difficulties for employers, it is likely that this would  have  become  evident  from  the  responses  to Chamber's survey.

11

Although Jersey Business was established in 2012 and has direct contact with all types of businesses, it was not involved in the Employment Forum's consultation

The Forum encourages and facilitates responses, but it cannot  force  stakeholders  to  engage  with  the consultation process.

Findings

Comments

process.

12

Given that the Customer and Local Services Department holds details of every employer (and employee) in the Island, the Department could have played a role in ensuring the consultation reached a sufficiently broad range of stakeholders.

To  ensure  that  Social  Security  data  is  used appropriately (i.e. is not used for a purpose that it was not  collected  for),  internal  advice  indicates  that employers can be notified via their business address that  a  Forum  consultation  is  underway,  as  long  as specific employers (or groups of employers) are not targeted  and  any  communication  is  clear  that  the consultation is being undertaken at the direction of the Social Security Minister.

13

Significant  legislative  change  requires proportionate and meaningful consultation. The Panel found that in this case the level of  consultation  was  not  proportionate  to the impact of the changes.

The Minister does not agree  with the Panel and is satisfied  that  the  Forum's  consultation  and recommendation  are  robust.  The  Forum  is  an established statutory body with a balance within its own membership including employers, employees and independent members. This was a significant piece of work for the Forum, which was undertaken over a one-year period.

Stakeholders  are  not  always  satisfied  with  the outcomes following public consultation, particularly in relation to an issue such as employment legislation where views are often polarised. That is not the same as inadequate consultation.

14

One of the key aims of the proposals is to give parents flexibility around when they can take their parental leave, but the legislation does not explicitly say whether blocks of leave are transferable between employers. There are differences in opinion between stakeholders, which has meant that this part of the legislation is ambiguous in that it does not specify whether leave is transferable.

An employee intending to take leave must notify their employer of their intended period(s) of leave at the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth, or 7 days after being notified of a match in the case of an adoption.  When  a  parent  starts  working  for  a  new employer,  that  new  employer  will  not  have  been informed of the birth or adoption at the appropriate time. It is acknowledged that this aspect of the current law could be clearer, and this point will be addressed in the revised draft Law to be put forward later this year.

15

There have been a number of concerns that the proposals to allow up to 4 blocks of leave within a 3 year period could impact on other employees within an organisation and are unfair to either those who choose not  to  have  children,  those  who  already have children or those who cannot afford to take unpaid time off work.

The clear intention of these proposals is to provide rights  to  parents.  As  such,  it  is  inevitable  that employees  who  are  not  parents  will  not  have equivalent rights. This government is committed to enabling all children in Jersey to have the best start in life. There is strong evidence that time with parents in the early years is vital. While the intention is not to disadvantage  employees  without  children,  the Minister believes that supporting parental leave is the right thing to do for children, for parents, and for our community.

16

The proposals to allow up to 4 blocks of leave within a 3 year period impact more directly on smaller businesses where each individual  makes  up  a  significant proportion  of  the  entire  workforce  and

The Employment Law already provides 26 weeks of parental leave that can be taken in 3 blocks over a one-year period for the father/partner.

Existing  legislation  supports  employers  in  finding

Findings

Comments

therefore planned (and unplanned) absence management is key.

replacement staff to cover a period of parental leave.

• The Control of Housing and Work (CHW) Law[4] allows  employers  to  recruit  anyone  to  fill  the vacancy in this situation, regardless of their CHW status.

• The  Employment  Law  allows  employers  to terminate a contract without the risk of an unfair dismissal  claim  where  replacement  staff  have covered  absence  due  to  pregnancy,  childbirth, maternity leave, adoption leave, or parental leave.

During  the  course  of  the  Scrutiny  Review,  the Minister acknowledged the concerns in respect of this aspect of the proposals and lodged an amendment to provide  for  three  blocks  of  leave  over  a  two-year entitlement  period.  The  Minister  intends  to consolidate  those  amendments  into  the  draft  Law before re-lodging.

17

A number of concerns have been raised from businesses in relation to the 6 weeks paid leave (funded by the employer). Some businesses have responded that 6 weeks full pay is economically unviable and 46 weeks unpaid leave which can be taken in 4 blocks over 3 years will create extra costs, disruption and staffing issues.

The Employment Law already requires 6 weeks of paid maternity leave for the mother and 2 weeks of paid parental leave for the father/partner. The draft Law  would  provide  an  additional  4  weeks  of  paid parental leave for the father/partner.

Parents are already taking time off  work following childbirth. Even without specific employment rights, pregnancy  and  childbirth  bring  administrative implications and costs for employers, both in terms of replacing staff and the potential loss of key skills.

The Director of JACS commented as follows during her hearing with the Panel:[5]

"I think that the cost of recruiting a replacement for somebody  is  always  going  to  be  same  cost,  so  if somebody is not entitled to any maternity leave, if we left it just as it is at the moment and somebody left their  business,  resigned  because  they  needed  more time, the recruitment costs are exactly the same as those you have just describedEmployers are saying that they believe – the ones that we have spoken to – it will reduce absenteeism and it will encourage women and parents generally to remain in the workplace. If you have invested in somebody and trained them in their job for a long period of time, there is often a long-term investment, what you do not want is to lose them  because you  are  not  able  to give  them  some flexibility."

During  the  course  of  the  Scrutiny  Review,  the Minister acknowledged the concerns in respect of the provision of 4 blocks of leave over 3 years and lodged an amendment to provide for three blocks of leave

Findings

Comments

over  a  two-year  entitlement  period.  The  Minister intends to consolidate those amendments into the draft Law before re-lodging.

18

In  relation  to  the  6  weeks  paid  leave (funded by the employer), the Employment Forum  acknowledges  the  impact  on businesses,  particularly  on  the  large proportion  of  small  businesses  in  Jersey but makes no attempt to quantify it.

To clarify, the draft Law would provide an additional 4 weeks of paid parental leave for the father/partner. The Employment Law already requires 6 weeks of paid maternity leave for the mother and 2 weeks of paid parental leave for the father/partner.

The  additional  cost  of  statutory  parental  leave  to employers will depend on how much employees are paid each week, their existing contractual rights, and how many weeks they take off work.

It  is  not  clear  how  many  fathers  and  partners  will choose to take the full period of paid leave, much of which will depend on culture change for fathers in Jersey. According to the 2016 Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle  Survey,  around  two-thirds  of  recent  male parents  said  that  they  had  not  taken  any  parental leave. For those that did, a total of 2 weeks' parental leave was taken on average. 92% of male parents would have liked to have taken more leave.

19

The  Customer  and  Local  Services Department  did  not  undertake  any calculations  or  analysis  regarding  the  6 weeks paid leave and its cost to business. The  Panel's  high-level  calculation estimates  the  total  cost  of  paid  parental leave to be approximately £6.4 million but further analysis should be undertaken.

The Panel's approximate figure is based on the gross cost of 12 weeks' paid parental leave, i.e. 6 weeks of leave  each  for  two  parents.  It  does  not  take  the following points into account:

• The Employment Law already requires 6 weeks of  paid  maternity  leave  and  2  weeks  of  paid parental  leave.  The  Minister's  current  proposal (the  subject  of  this  scrutiny  review)  would provide an additional 4 weeks of paid leave

• Employers can already deduct from the weekly wage bill the value of the maternity allowance provided to the mother (£216.86 per week)Many employers provide contractual payments that are equivalent  to  or  exceed  the  proposed  statutory paid leave requirements and are already meeting this costNot every baby born in Jersey has two parents in employment

The  Panel's  review  page  on  the  scrutiny  website includes  the  Minister's  letter  to  a  small  business owner8 which includes some examples of the cost of an additional 4 weeks of parental leave for fathers and partners, as follows;

£1,261 – Minimum wage (£7.88 from 1 April 2019 based on a 40-hour week)

£2,000  –  Mean  weekly  earnings  in  wholesale  and retail (£500, AEI June 2018)

£2,960 – Mean weekly earnings (£740 for all sectors, AEI June 2018)

Findings

Comments

£3,120 – Mean weekly earnings in construction (£780, AEI June 2018)

The  cost  of  parental  leave  to  employers  clearly depends on how much employees are paid each week, how many weeks they take off work and any existing contractual entitlements.

20

Some businesses in Jersey offer enhanced periods of paid maternity leave for their employees. A number of concerns have been raised that replacing maternity leave with parental leave could result in employers lowering their enhanced paid leave employment packages. Businesses may be less likely to offer enhanced periods of paid leave to both male and female employees which could result in them only offering the statutory minimum.

See the Minister's response to key finding 21. There is no incentive for employers to downgrade their existing enhanced maternity leave entitlements to the statutory minimum in order to avoid the cost of enhanced leave entitlements for both parents.

While employers may choose not to enhance paid leave for parents who are not birth mothers, employers that voluntarily offer enhanced packages to employees who give birth are unlikely to remove those entitlements if there is no risk in offering birth mothers an enhanced employment package.

21

There is a risk that those employers only offering  enhanced  periods  of  leave  to female colleagues would be discriminating against  male  employees,  should  the proposals be implemented.

This issue has been the subject of debate in the UK since the introduction of Shared Parental Leave. Subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court, the situation has now been resolved quite firmly by the Court of Appeal. On 24 May 2019 the Court gave its decision in the case of Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd[6]. The Court ruled that the case of a father taking Shared Parental Leave was not comparable with the case of a woman taking Maternity Leave and that it was not direct discrimination to pay an enhanced rate for one but not the other.

Importantly, this ruling did not depend on the fact that Maternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave are in themselves distinct statutory entitlements (which they are in the UK, but will not be under the proposed Parental Leave provisions in Jersey). Direct discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably because of the protected characteristic. If an employer chooses to pay more than the statutory minimum for a parent who has actually given birth, then that does not lead to less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex. Childbirth and sex are not the same thing. The two employees are not comparable. In Jersey, the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal would focus on the reason why' the difference in treatment has occurred and conclude that it is childbirth rather than sex that is the reason for the difference in pay. The key point is that both men and women who have not given birth will be treated in the same way. A woman who is the partner of the birth mother will qualify for parental leave on exactly the same basis as a man who is the partner of the birth mother.

Nor can the difference in pay amount to

Findings

Comments

discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity. Under Article 6(8) of the Jersey Discrimination Law there is an exception providing that:

 in relation to the protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity, for the purposes of Parts 3, 4 and 5 and where the subject is not a woman, no account is to be taken of special treatment afforded to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.'

It is clear that when it comes to direct discrimination, there is no difficulty in an employer paying an enhanced rate for maternity leave and therefore no disincentive for doing so.

On the question as to whether the difference could amount to indirect sex discrimination10, this was considered by the Court of Appeal at the same time as the Ali case in Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police. The Court said that it was not clear that the employer's policy put men at a particular disadvantage when compared to women and that the employer's policy in that case was in any event justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

Any challenge to an employer's policy of paying an enhanced  rate  for  maternity  leave  would  therefore face  considerable  obstacles.  It  might  be  possible where  the  difference  was  disproportionate  –  for example, a  year's leave on  full pay for employees who have given birth and only the legal minimum for their partners – for that to be challenged as indirect discrimination and the Tribunal would then have to decide  whether  men  were  being  unjustifiably disadvantaged. But this is a highly speculative case and it is not possible to legislate specifically for every possible scenario without making legislation unduly cumbersome. This is the sort of issue that it is right for the Tribunal to decide should the situation arise.

22

Under  Jersey  legislation,  recruitment agencies  are  identified  as  the  legal employer  of  temporary  employees.  The proposed  extensions  to  family  friendly employment rights will create difficulties for  recruitment  agencies  as  they  will  be liable  for  the  costs  of  paid  and  unpaid parental leave.

The Employment Law provides that where staff are supplied by an agency to work for another business, the  employer  is  deemed  to  be  whichever  party  is directly  responsible  for  paying  the  employee.  The current legal position means that, unlike in the UK, there is a clear way to determine who is the employer of an employee in a tripartite relationship involving an agency.

In  most  cases  in  Jersey,  the  agency  pays  the employee's wages. Recruitment agencies in Jersey are already  responsible  for  paying  6  weeks  of  paid maternity leave and 2 weeks of paid parental leave.

23

An Early Years Policy Development Board

Agreed.

Findings

Comments

has been established to develop: a shared strategic policy across early years; a regulatory framework for child care provision; funding options for child care and an early years learning framework.

24

It is unclear what evidence has been used to  support  the  Employment  Forum's recommendation to allow up to 4 blocks of leave  over  a  3  year  period  other  than enhancing flexibility for taking leave for families. The 1001 Critical Days agenda was endorsed by Jersey in 2015 but has not been  mentioned  in  the  Employment Forum's  Recommendation  nor  in  the Minister's report to the proposals.

The  Forum's  recommendation  includes  three references to the 1,001 Critical Days agenda (pages 8, 10 and 52).

The Forum's recommendation states the following in relation to the taking of blocks of leave over a period of time (p.33).

"If parental leave was only available to take in one block, take-up might be low. Unlike maternity leave, fathers and partners are likely to want to take a short period, such as 2 to 4 weeks shortly after the birth  (a  typical  paternity  leave'  period)  and another period later, either at the same time as the mother,  or  after  maternity  leave  has  ended.  The Forum  considers  that,  in  order  to  make  an improvement for families, parental leave must be available  to  take  in  shorter  blocks  of  time.  The Forum considers that 3 blocks of time are sufficient for a 26 week leave period but that the number of blocks should be increased to 4 when 52 weeks of 2019  parental  leave'  are  available  in  order  to ensure that parents can use the full period of leave appropriately to suit the needs of the family."

In addition, the Chair of the Forum referred to the reason for the blocks of leave in the Forum's hearing with panel.[7]

"Firstly,  remember  obviously  that  the  blocks  of leave are already in the law. It is already in force now.  The  only  change  from  September  will  be adding one more block of leave. So this is already in force so what is proposed from September this year is not going to be a big change on where we are now. But I think the thing about the blocks was in order to make it meaningful you have got to balance that. If you say to a partner or a father of a child or the partner of the birth mother: "You have to take your 52 weeks immediately" is it really meaningful? That was one of the debates that we hadCertainly when we originally talked about it a lot of it was around flexibility for both parties, to try and give the employer some ability as well to manage it over a  longer  period  of  time.  The  discussions  were around  flexibility  for  everybody  to  try  not  to  be burdensome."

During the course of the Panel's review, the Minister acknowledged the concerns in respect of the provision of four blocks of leave over three years and lodged an

Findings

Comments

amendment to provide for three blocks of leave over a two-year  entitlement  period.  This  ensures  that  the period from birth up to the child's second birthday which forms part of the 1,001 Critical Days period is included within the amended proposals. The Minister intends to consolidate these amendments into the draft Law before re-lodging.

25

The proposals allow for up to 52 weeks leave, 6 weeks of which are to be paid by the employer. It is highly unlikely, however, that every parent will be able to afford to take unpaid leave and therefore there will be some children who will benefit from the time with their parents and there will be some children who will not. This risks deepening inequality in society.

The  Forum's  recommendation  noted  that  not  all parents will be able to take advantage of the full 52 weeks of leave.

"The Forum noted that, even if a 52 week period of statutory  maternity  leave  is  available,  many employees  will  not  take  the  full  52  weeks, particularly if part of it is unpaid. However, it is considered important to give working families the choice of taking longer periods of leave with the financial security of returning to work afterwards, even  if  some  cannot  afford  to  take  a  period  of unpaid leave. This view came across strongly from parents who attended the Forum's first stakeholder meeting, including the view that this should be a statutory right, rather than a matter for negotiation with the employer, with some employers being more likely to grant it than others."

Starting a family is a major decision and parents will plan carefully around the costs of bringing up a child, finding the right childcare provision and the impact on their employment. According to the Jersey Births and Breastfeeding Profile 201812, the proportion of older mothers in Jersey has increased over the last 15 years, with a third of mothers aged 35 or over at the time of birth in 2017. A new baby brings extra costs to all households.  When  parents  choose  to  take  unpaid leave, they see a reduction in wages. When they return to work, they face the additional cost of childcare. Each family will make its own choices and not all options will be available to all parents.

The  previous  Minister  had  already  made  a commitment  (R.25/2018)  to  introduce  equal contributory parental benefits as part of the ongoing review of the Social Security Scheme. Other parts of the benefit system already provide equal support to both parents. Any parent receiving income support is fully  supported  during  a  period  of  unpaid  parental leave and any parent can receive Home Responsibility Credits which maintains their pension record whilst at home with a small child. As part of the proposals put forward  in  the  Government  Plan,  the  existing contributory  maternity  allowance,  paid  from  the Social Security Fund, will be replaced by a parental allowance,  with  both  parents  able  to  claim  a

Findings

Comments

contributory benefit (see finding 31).

26

Concerns have been raised about the continuity of care for children who attend nursery if their parents are taking 4 blocks of leave over a three year period. Most nurseries would be unable to keep places open for parents so that leave can be taken in blocks which would result in children being unable to access childcare in the same environment between their blocks of care.

The  Employment  Law  proposals  do  not  place  any obligation on childcare providers and providers will continue to make their own business decisions as to the conditions under which children are accepted and any notice periods required.

In a hearing with the Panel as part of this review, the Head  of  Early  Years,  Childcare  and  Early  Years Service[8] said that few parents choose to place young babies in childcare; only 8 babies under 6 months old were  in  registered  day  nurseries  at  that  time.  It  is anticipated that parents are likely to use their separate leave  entitlements  so  that  the  baby  is  cared  for  at home from birth continuously until the age at which the parents decide to make the move to nursery or other childcare provision.

Childcare  providers  are  already  flexible  in  their approach,  communicating  with  parents  about  times when  childcare  may  not  be  required,  such  as  days when  members  of  the  family  provide  childcare, periods  of  annual  leave  and  for  parents  who  work term-time only. During the hearing with the Panel, the Head  of  Early  Years,  Childcare  and  Early  Years Service said:

"I think they have that good dialogue with parents now. I would like to think that that existed. It could be  something  that  we  would  have  to  explore  in terms  of  parental  agreements  that  they  have,  in terms of allowing that flexibility and working more closely with the parents to allow that to happen."

27

Although the proposals could benefit the economy  in  terms  of  productivity, reputation  and  maximising  Jersey's workforce, it is important to consider that the proposals will also increase the cost of employment in Jersey.

It is accepted that an additional 4 weeks of paid leave for  the  father/partner  would  bring  a  cost  to  the employer. However, there are benefits to business in enabling staff to take a period of parental leave and return to the same job, retaining staff with appropriate skills who feel valued. Under the current law some parents  need  to  move  out  of  paid  employment completely  to  allow  them  to  spend  more  than  six months with a new baby, with their skills, training and experience lost to the employer.

Existing  legislation  supports  employers  in  finding replacement staff to cover a period of parental leave.

• The Control of Housing and Work (CHW) Law allows  employers  to  recruit  anyone  to  fill  the vacancy in this situation, regardless of their CHW status.

• The  Employment  Law  allows  employers  to terminate a contract without the risk of an unfair dismissal  claim  where  replacement  staff  have covered  absence  due  to  pregnancy,  childbirth,

Findings

Comments

maternity leave, adoption leave, or parental leave.

Family friendly rights can bring genuine benefits for employers in terms of productivity, retaining skills in the workplace and reducing administration costs by enabling increased participation rates.

According to the Channel Islands Women in Work Index  2019  produced  by  PwC14,  if  Jersey  could increase its female employment rate by 8% then GDP could be increased by 6% – the equivalent of £239 million. The report recommends that the States could help to achieve this by promoting examples of family- friendly working and improving family support, such as through proposals for improved parental leave. It also  recommends  that  businesses  should  work  to destigmatise flexible working for men and women.

28

Local  businesses  create  a  sustainable economy  but  continuous  additional employment  legislation  can  create disincentives  for  businesses  to  employ people.  During  the  period  from  2001  to 2018,  the  number  of  single  person undertakings has risen substantially from 1,300 to 4,300.

The period 2001 to 2018 covers significant changes in many areas of the economy including the impact of, and recovery from, a global recession. It is not clear if there is any relationship between the statistics quoted and the development of employment legislation.

29

Concerns  have  been  raised  about  the cumulative  effect  of  regulation  on businesses in Jersey starting with the first phase  of  extensions  to  family  friendly rights  and  the  introduction  of discrimination legislation in 2015 followed by data protection changes. The effects on businesses  include  financial, administrative and resource implications.

Following consultation in 1998, the States Assembly committed  in  2000  (P.99/2000)  to  introduce employment rights over a period of time. This has happened  very  gradually  (perhaps  more  gradually than had been anticipated). The future provision of family  friendly  rights  was  included  in  the  original States commitment.

The States Assembly committed in 2011 (P.118/2011) to introduce a discrimination law with a number of protected characteristics. The first phase provided for protection against race discrimination in 2014. It was essential to introduce sex discrimination legislation at the  same  time  as  the  first  stage  of  family  friendly employment  rights  in  2015.  Without  sex discrimination  legislation,  the  proposed  family friendly  legislation  would  protect  parents  who  are already working, but there would be a risk that parents (women of child bearing age in particular) may suffer in recruitment.

The development of these rights form an important element  of  a  modern,  high  quality  business environment,  attractive  to  local  and  international investors and reputable organisations.

JACS  provides  a  free  service  to  help  employers prepare for changes to both the employment law and the discrimination law, including guidance, advice on changing  policies  and  procedures,  template  forms, training sessions. The JACS outreach service provides tailored support for small businesses.

Findings

Comments

30

Recent changes to employment legislation have affected the economy in terms of new businesses in Jersey. Given the increasing responsibility placed on businesses, some newer businesses have decided not to proceed with their ventures or these burdens have discouraged smaller businesses from growing into larger businesses.

The Panel has not presented any statistical evidence to support this finding. The most recent statistics show that the number of employees in the private sector in December 2018 was the highest ever, at 53,120.[9]

31

The  proposals,  including  the  paid  leave element, the blocks of leave and providing breastfeeding facilities (where reasonable), place  much  of  the  responsibility  on  the employer. Some stakeholders believe that it  is  the  government's  responsibility  to share some of this burden.

The essential purpose of the Employment Law is to place duties and responsibilities on the employer as a minimum standard in the employment relationship.

The  Minister  has  already  put  forward  proposals  to provide for a maximum of 3 blocks of leave over two years,  compared  to  the  original  proposal  for  a maximum  of  4  blocks  of  leave  over  3  years.  This proposal will be carried forward into the revised draft Law to be lodged later in 2019.

The  Minister  is  committed  to  working  with government  departments,  parishes,  businesses  and other organisations to improve access to breastfeeding facilities, in the town centre as well as in the parishes, to support the 1,001 Critical Days manifesto. This will assist, for example, where an employer is not able to provide  facilities  in  the  workplace,  so  that  a breastfeeding mother can take a break from work and use nearby facilities outside of the workplace.

The  previous  Minister  had  already  made  a commitment  (R.25/2018)  to  introduce  equal contributory parental benefits as part of the ongoing review of the Social Security Scheme. Other parts of the benefit system already provide equal support to both parents. Any parent receiving income support is fully  supported  during  a  period  of  unpaid  parental leave and any parent can receive Home Responsibility Credits which maintains their pension record whilst at home with a small child.

As  part  of  the  proposals  put  forward  in  the Government Plan, the existing contributory maternity allowance, paid from the Social Security Fund, will be replaced by a parental allowance, with both parents able to claim a contributory benefit. To support this additional cost, the liability of employers and class two  contributors,  paying  contributions  above  the Standard Earnings Limit of £53,304 will be increased.

• the Upper Earnings Limit is the maximum level of  earnings  that  is  taken  into  account  for contribution  purposes.  This  will  increase  from £176,232 to £250,000

• the percentage rate levied on earnings above the

Findings

Comments

Standard Earnings Limit (£53,000-£250,000) will increase by 0.5% from 2% to 2.5%.

The overall impact of these two changes is additional contributions into the Social Security Fund of £3.35 million a year.

The legislation required to make the legal changes to the Social Security contribution rate and earnings cap will  be  debated  after  the  main  debate  on  the Government Plan itself. The legislation to provide for parental benefits will be lodged separately.

32

The Employment Forum recommended that 12 weeks of paid leave in total should be available, with 6 weeks funded by the employer and 6 weeks funded by the States of Jersey at 100% of pay. This recommendation was only partially accepted by the Minister who cited the government's inability to pay a further 6 weeks. It is unclear whether any research was undertaken by the Department to determine whether small businesses could afford to provide 6 weeks of paid leave.

Adjusting  social  security  benefits  under  the  Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974 is outside of the Forum's remit.  The  Forum's  remit  relates  only  to  the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.

However, the previous Minister made a commitment (R.25/2018)  to  introduce  equality  in  contributory parental benefits as part of the ongoing review of the Social Security Scheme.

Under the Employment Law, employers can already discount  the  value  of  any  maternity  allowance received against their legal requirement to provide 6 weeks  of  paid  leave.  When  maternity  allowance  is replaced  by  a  parental  allowance  (see  finding  31), employers will be able to discount the value of the benefit against 6 weeks of paid leave for both parents.

33

Evidence suggests that the public believes that the government should share some of the burden for funding a proportion of paid leave.  Research  undertaken  by  Statistics Jersey shows that more parents would take parental leave if it was paid but they are currently  prevented  from  doing  so  for financial reasons. If parents cannot afford to take unpaid leave, it is doubtful whether the aim of the proposals to give parents greater choice, will be achieved.

The Panel has not provided the evidence on which it bases this statement of public opinion. The Panel's own review did not consult the public generally, but focused  on  the  views  of  businesses  and  their representatives.

The Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle Survey report for 201616 included a number of questions requested by the Social Security Department to feed into the work on family friendly employment legislation.

As the Panel's report notes, the research showed that financial  reasons  were  not  the  only  factor  in  the amount of leave that parents take. The reasons for not taking  more  leave  were  split  between  financial reasons (52%) and the length of leave being limited by  their  employer  (48%).  The  majority  of  male parents (69%) said they were prevented from taking more leave due to the length of leave being limited by their  employer.  This  demonstrates  that  for  some parents, having the right to take a period of leave is more significant than financial reasons. This indicates that requiring employers to permit periods of unpaid leave will meet the aim of the proposals – to give parents greater choice – particularly fathers.

The data also showed the following –

Findings

Comments

• Female parents were already taking more leave than the statutory minimum – the average was 29 weeks of leave, including 14 weeks' paid and 15 weeks'  unpaid  compared  to  a  statutory entitlement at that time of up to 18 weeks' leave including 2 weeks' paid. This indicates that many women  already  had  greater  contractual entitlements.

• Male  parents  were  taking  2  weeks'  leave  on average,  including  2  weeks  paid  and  1  week unpaid. The statutory minimum at that time was 2 weeks' unpaid leave.
• Around  8  out  of  10  parents  who  had  taken parental leave in the previous 5 years said that they would have liked to have taken more leave

A  greater  proportion  of  male  parents  (92%)  than female parents (69%) felt they would have liked to have taken more leave

34

A report by the Organisation of Economic

The OECD report states that most countries provide paid leave through social security schemes that rely on  a  mix  of  contributions  from  employers  and employees,  sometimes  with  additional  central  tax revenues. Employers are likely to bear at least part of the cost of government funded' paid leave.

The OECD report also supports the taking of leave flexibly/in  blocks  –  "taking  leave  part-time  or intermittently may support earlier return to work for parents and a better work-life balance. A majority of OECD countries offer flexibility in leave 20 of 27 OECD countries with paid parental leave that can be taken by either parent explicitly permit this leave to be taken part-time17 of 27 OECD countries with paid parental  leave  that  can  be  taken  by  either  parent explicitly  permit  this  leave  to  be  taken  in  discrete blocks of time or intermittently instead of requiring that all parental leave be used at the same time." In only  4  of  those  countries,  employer  consent  is required for workers to use this flexibility in the leave.

Co-operation  and  Development says  that

there is evidence which strongly supports making 6 months paid leave available to parents, with 3 months as a minimum bar for  supporting  health  and  women's economic opportunities.

35

The  Employment  Forum  recommended that  employers  should  take  reasonable steps to provide facilities in the workplace for breastfeeding mothers to express and store milk where an employee requests it. Although the breastfeeding elements of the proposals  have  been  welcomed  by stakeholders,  the  question  of  whether facilities  should  also  be  available  within public  buildings  in  the  community  was raised.

The  Minister  would  support  the  provision  of  more breastfeeding facilities in public buildings and intends to work with the parishes, businesses and community organisations to try to assist in this. The Minister is also working with representatives of the Breastfeeding Working  Group  with  a  view  to  encouraging  those with breastfeeding facilities on their premises to make these available more widely (as the Town Hall already does)  and  to  provide  mothers  with  a  map  of breastfeeding facilities in town, taking a more pro- active  approach  to  finding  out  about  locations  and improving awareness (e.g. through social media).

The  Minister  is  very  supportive  of  promoting  best practice ahead of the introduction of the law. JACS provides a best practice guide to providing facilities in the workplace and flexible working to accommodate

Findings

Comments

breastfeeding.

36

Two contributory benefits are paid to new mothers: a one-off maternity grant (£650.58) and a maternity allowance (£216.86 per week). The maternity allowance is only available up to 18 weeks which corresponds with the first set of family friendly proposals implemented in 2015. No changes have been made to extend the allowance to correspond with the subsequent extensions to leave periods (currently 26 weeks).

There  is  no  requirement  for  the  periods  of  benefit entitlement and statutory time off work to match. In the UK, for example, maternity benefit is available for 39 weeks and statutory maternity leave is 52 weeks.

As  part  of  the  proposals  put  forward  in  the Government Plan, the existing contributory maternity allowance, paid from the Social Security Fund, will be replaced by a parental allowance, with parents able to claim a contributory benefit for a total of more than 18 weeks (see finding 31). The legislation to provide for parental benefits and the collection of additional contributions will be lodged separately.

37

If a female employee is in receipt of the maternity allowance (£216.86 per week for up to 18 weeks), employers are able to offset the balance for the 6 week paid period of leave. Under the current proposals for parental leave, employers are unable to claim back the allowance for anyone other than the mother giving birth.

To clarify, employers are able to offset the value of the benefit (£216.86 per week) against the employee's weekly pay during the 6-week statutory paid leave period. The Panel states that employers are unable to claim back the allowance for anyone other than the birth mother. However, the allowance is only payable to the birth mother. There is no equivalent allowance for other parents.

The  previous  Minister  made  a  commitment (R.25/2018)  to  introduce  equality  in  contributory parental benefits as part of the ongoing review of the Social Security Scheme. When maternity allowance is replaced  by  a  parental  allowance  as  part  of  the proposals put forward in the Government Plan (see finding 31), employers will be able to discount the value of the benefit against 6 weeks of paid leave for both parents.

38

The  only  research  undertaken  in  the development  of  the  proposals  was  the consultation  by  the  Employment  Forum. The  Employment  Forum's recommendation  has  been  based  on  the consultation  responses  and,  other  than providing  an  overview  of  parental  leave rights  in  other  jurisdictions,  no  other evidence or research has been gathered to support the policy aims and the suggested benefits contained in the proposals.  

The Minister is satisfied that the Forum's background research, public consultation and its detailed report on its recommendations provide a comprehensive review of  the  subject.  Considerable  background  work, research  and  preparation  goes  into  the  Forum's recommendations.  In  this  case,  that  process  was undertaken over a year.

As  well  as  setting  out  examples  of  parental  leave rights  in  other  jurisdictions,  a  number  of  reports drawing  international  comparisons  were  taken  into account. A summary of that research was set out in the Forum's consultation paper.

In  addition,  survey  questions  were  included  in  the 2016  Jersey  Annual  Social  Survey  specifically  to provide statistics to inform this piece of work.

39

Since  the  first  tranche  of  extensions  to family  friendly  employment  rights  was implemented  in  September  2018,  no analysis  has  been  undertaken  by  the Customer and Local Services Department to  assess  their  impact  on  employers, employees, parents or the wider economy in Jersey.

No  commitment  was  given  to  undertake  a  review between the two stages of legislation and the Forum did  not  recommend  such  a  review.  As  the  Forum Chair  explained  during  the  hearing  with  the  Panel "The  2019  recommendations  were  always  the Forum's recommended targets and there was no "We think the recommendation is that you review in 2018". That was not the Forum's recommendation. 2018 and

Findings

Comments

2019 were inextricably linked. I think you will see from the recommendation it was only because it was such a short period of time and there happened to be an ability to ... we could have just said: "Let us just go straight to 2019".[10]

JACS  is  funded  by  the  Government  of  Jersey  to provide advice, guidance and training to employers and  employees.  If  issues  were  arising,  this  would become evident from the number of queries to JACS and  complaints  to  the  Employment  and Discrimination Tribunal. There is no evidence that the existing legislation, which came into force in 2015 and was extended in 2018, has caused difficulties for businesses.

40

The  amendment  to  exempt  small businesses  could  have  unintended consequences. If smaller businesses were exempt from providing the same level of employment  rights  as  larger  businesses, they  may  experience  difficulties  in recruitment. Another consequence may be that some businesses would be inclined to keep the number of employees down to a certain level to come within the exemption.

The  Minister  does  not  support  a  small  business exception.  The  amendment,  as  proposed  by  the Connetable  of  St  Mary,  would  revert  employment rights  to  the  position  before  September  2015  for employees  of  small  businesses  in  Jersey.  Those parents would have no right to take parental leave of any  duration  as  the  proposed  amendment  would remove  the  existing  family  friendly  employment rights from all employees who work in a business that employs five staff or less, as well as ensuring that employers  do  not  have  to  comply  with  any  of  the proposed new employment rights.

The  children  of  parents  who  work  for  small businesses do not deserve a lower level of protection than  the  children  of  parents  who  work  for  larger companies.  The  effect  on  employees  who  suffer  a detriment,  dismissal  or  discrimination  is  the  same, whatever the size of the business.

Neither the UK nor Isle of Man has a small business exception. As employment laws have progressed in other  jurisdictions,  small  business  exceptions  have been  removed.  Women  who  work  for  small businesses  are  excluded  from  maternity  protection laws  only  in  3  countries:  the  Republic  of  Korea, Honduras and the USA.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: In considering  the  significance of  the  various  concerns surrounding  the  parental leave  aspects  of  the  draft Law and the difficulties this element  of  the  proposals creates,  the  Minister  should withdraw Article 4 from the legislation.  Following  the withdrawal  of  this  Article, the  Minister  should  then undertake  an  evidenced- based review to include:

• An  examination  of  the best  ways  to  ensure parents  of  all  income brackets  are  able  to afford  to  take  a minimum  of  6  months leave;

• An  examination  of  the level  of  government funding needed for paid leave as there are many parents who will not be able  to  afford  to  take unpaid time off work;  

• A review of the impact of  the  changes  on  the full range of employers in all sectors.

The  outcome  of  a comprehensive review of this nature  will  result  in  clear, evidence-based  policy  aims that will guide the creation of a parental leave system that strikes  the  appropriate balance  of  responsibility between  employers, employees  and  the government in order to truly put children first.

Min. SocSec

Reject

The Minister is confident that the consultation undertaken by the Employment Forum, and its gathering and interpretation of evidence, was of good quality.

The Minister is grateful to the Panel for the constructive highlighting of a potential improvement to the affordability of proposals for business. She acknowledged the concerns earlier this year and lodged an amendment to provide for three blocks of leave over a two-year entitlement period. The Minister now intends to consolidate those amendments into a revised draft Law before re-lodging.

The government's work on family- friendly employment rights in Jersey started 12 years ago in 2007 with the intention of making evidence-based changes gradually at a pace that employers could tolerate.

It is the Minister's judgement that further lengthening this process would not be advantageous to children, parents or business.

NA

1

The  Customer  and  Local Services  Department  should use its own database, where

Min. SocSec

Accept

CLS  internal  advice  indicates  that employers  can  be  notified  via  their business  address  that  an  Employment

At the next appropriate opportunity

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

practical,  to  support  the promotion of consultations.

Forum  consultation  is  underway,  as long  as  specific  employers  are  not targeted  and  any  communication  is clear  that  the  consultation  is  being undertaken at the direction of the Social Security Minister.

2

The  Government  should significantly  improve  its consultation guidelines. This should  include comprehensive  guidance  on how  to  engage  with stakeholders in a meaningful way and also how to identify relevant  stakeholders.  The guidance  should  be  revised and published before the end of 2019.

Chief Minister

Partially accept

The  Chief  Minister  notes  the  Panel's comments  and  is  committed  to encouraging wide engagement in policy development  –  as  the  introduction  of policy  development  boards  (PDBs) indicates.  PDBs  bring  together  a combination  of  Assembly,  Ministers and  lay  members  to  develop  policy options  and  recommendations  to  the Chief  Minister,  as  a  supplement  to public consultation.

The  government  aims  for  continuous improvement, and an internal review of how  we  consult  will  be  undertaken shortly.  Scrutiny  will  be  given  the opportunity to comment on this piece of work before finalisation.

With  regards  to  the  Employment Forum,  it  is  bound  to  follow  the statutory  process  set  out  in  the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. As an independent body, the Government of Jersey guidelines do not formally apply to it. Nonetheless, the Forum follows best  practice  which  corresponds  with the  key  principles  of  the  guidelines, including  an  appropriate  consultation period, objective analysis of results and publishing the outcome.