States Meeting Transcript - 10th March 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 10th MARCH 2015

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................7

1. The Bailiff :..............................................................................7

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................7

2. Appointment of Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee...................7

2.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..................................................7

QUESTIONS......................................................................................7

3. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. THE DEPUTY OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING HARASSMENT:........................................................7
2. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING E-GOVERNMENT:......................................8
3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING TAX EVASION:.........................................................9
4. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FUNDING OF THE JERSEY CARE INQUIRY:........................................9
5. DEPUTY L.M.C. DOUBLET OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF TEACHERS:........................................................10
6. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT'S SUSPENSION POLICY:...............................................................................11
7. DEPTY J.M. MAON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ON LONGUEVILLE ROAD:..............................................................11
8. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME SUPPORT:............12
9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LOCATE JERSEY:.................................13
10. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE JERSEY CARE INQUIRY:................13
11. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING PARKING FINES ON PRIVATE LAND:.................................................................................16

12. DEPUTY J.M. MACON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE ELECTION PROCESS:.............................................................................17
13. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION:...............................................18
14. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A GRANT TO THE JERSEY MARITIME TRUST: .........................................................................................19
15. DEPUTY J.M. MAON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FUNDING TO JERSEY FINANCE:...................................................20
16. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING ENERGY EFFICIENT SAVINGS:..................21
17. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY ILL RESIDENTS TO THEIR JURISDICTIONS OF BIRTH:.................................................23
18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING LONG TERM INCAPACITY ALLOWANCE:............24
19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ECONOMIC GROWTH:...............................................................28
20. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE DISCRIMINATION LAW: ..........................30

21. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS:..........................................32
22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DELIVERY OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE:....................33
23. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING UNAUHORISED ABSENCES FROM SCHOOL: ..............................................................................34

4. Oral Questions...........................................................................35

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding energy efficiency rating systems:............................................35

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for Planning and Environment): ..............35

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................36
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding student loans: ................................................................36

Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..........36

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................37
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................37
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................38
6. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:.................................................38
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
8. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................38

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding cases investigated by the Metropolitan Police:.....................................................................39

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................39

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40

4. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding drug prescriptions:............................................................................40

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................41

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................41
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................41
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................42
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................43
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................43

5. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Social Security regarding Income Support renatal reductions:......................................................................43

Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):.........................................43

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................44
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding training for Back to Work officers: ........................................................................45

Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):.........................................45

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................47
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47

7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding the implementation of e- Government: ............................................................................47

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................47

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................48
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................48
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................48
4. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :...............................................48
5. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................48
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49

8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................49
10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................50
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................50
12. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................51

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services:..................................................................................51

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):......51

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52

2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................52
3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................52

5.3.1 The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................53

4. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................53
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................53
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................54

5.6.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................54

7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................54
8. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................55
9. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................55

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs:..............56

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................56 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs):............................56

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................56
   2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................56
   3. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:........................................................56
   4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................57

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY .....................57

7. The Chief Minister made a statement regarding P.90/2013 Sunstone Holdings Limited and De Lec Limited – ex gratia payments to investors .................................57

7.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................57

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................58

8. Draft Loi (1914) sur la Voirie (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.4/2015)....58

8.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):..................58

9. Public Holidays Designation: Friday, 8th May 2015 (P.11/2015)......................59

9.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................59

1. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................61
2. Deputy P.D. McLinton: ................................................................61
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................62
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................63
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64
6. Deputy S.M. Bree of St. Clement:......................................................65
7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................65

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66
9. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................67
10. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................67
11. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:......................................................67
12. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................68

10. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: re-appointment of Commissioner (P.12/2015)....71

10.1 The Deputy of Grouville (Chairman, Jersey Overseas Aid Commission): ..............71

11. Draft Act annulling the Road Traffic (Public Parking Places - Charges) (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Order 2015 (P.14/2015) .................................................72

11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72

1. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................73
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................74
3. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................74
4. Deputy S.M. Bree: ..................................................................75
5. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................75
6. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier:....................................................75
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................76
8. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................76
9. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................76
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ............................................................76

12. Jersey Police Complaints Authority: appointment of new members (P.15/2015)......78

12.1 The Deputy of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs): ..............................78

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER .....................................79

13. Appointment of Advocate Mark Temple as H.M. Attorney General..................79 The Bailiff :...................................................................................79

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................79

14. Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Jersey) Law 2014 (Appointed Day) (No. 2) Act 201- (P.17/2015)..........................................................................79

14.1 Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................79

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................80 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................80

15. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Financial Intelligence) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.6/2015) ...........................................................................................80

15.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................80

16. Draft Foundations (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.21/2015)......81

16.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................82

17. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.22/2015) ...........................................................................................82

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................83

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................83

18. Draft Terrorism (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.23/2015) ..................83

18.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................84

19. Draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.16/2015)...............................................................................84

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................84
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................85

20. External Relations: Report for the period September 2013 to January 2015 - in committee debate (R.15/2015)...........................................................86

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................86

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................89
2. Deputy S.M. Bree: ..................................................................89
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................90
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................93
5. Deputy M. Tadier ....................................................................94
6. The Connétable of St. John: .........................................................96
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................97
8. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................97
9. Deputy M.J. Norton: ................................................................99
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis :.............................................................100
11. Deputy S.M. Bree: ..............................................................100

2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ..............................................................101

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................103

21. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...103

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................103

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. The Bailiff :

First of all under A, I would like to welcome all Members on behalf of his Excellency the Lieutenant Governor. [Approbation]

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

2. Appointment of Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee The Bailiff :

Under F, listed as the Appointment of Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee and I invite nominations.

2.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement : Could I propose the Constable of St. Mary ? The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded]  Any other nominations? Then I declare the Connétable of St. Mary elected as Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee. [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

3. Written Questions

1. THE DEPUTY OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING HARASSMENT:

Question

What legislation, if any, is being developed by Home Affairs to make it a criminal offence with a prison sentence to abuse and harass people on the internet, and how are the police working to target perpetrators?

Answer

The Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 provides for the offence of harassment or abuse, if a person (the offender) can be shown to have pursued a course of conduct against the said victim. This applies to conduct both off and on-line.

In 2014, the States of Jersey Police managed 21 official complaints of such on-line (internet based) harassment. These complaints resulted in 4 offenders being taken to court and a variety of other resolutions for the remainder, for example, words of advice, harassment notice served (no further action), 1 restraining order and 3 others withdrawing their original reports.

The harassment legislation, however, cannot be applied to conduct that occurs on only one occasion and therefore has no application to one-off communications sent over the internet.

Article 51 of the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002 concerns the use of a public communications system to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.

When this particular legislation was written, social media did not exist and current deliberations suggest that such existing legislation is not suited for this new' on-line environment.

In consequence and in accordance with developments in other jurisdictions, the Economic Development Department are in the process of seeking to amend the Electronic Communications (Jersey) Law 2000 in order to bring the Island's capability in this regard up to date. It is intended that this piece of legislation should be amended to enable the relevant authorities to have the ability, in certain cases, to prosecute people for sending grossly offensive, threatening, false or malicious electronic communications, including by social media. It is anticipated that this would cover such things as cyber bullying and revenge porn and a law drafting request will be submitted after consultation via Green Paper with stakeholders.

In the meantime, however, the States of Jersey Police will continue to respond to all reports of cyber abuse and harassment whether these are received as a result of a direct complaint or indeed through our intelligence structures and will support victims and do everything they can, within the Law, to bring offenders to justice.

On a broader note, Home Affairs is committed to working on a strategy to prevent and combat violence against women and girls, as set out in the new Strategic Plan. This would include both physical and emotional abuse.

2. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OFST.HELIEROF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING E-GOVERNMENT:

Question

Could the Minister provide a breakdown of costs incurred by States departments pursuing the now halted e-Government project?

Answer

The eGovernment project has not been halted. One element, the procurement of a lead partner, has been paused while the approach to implementation is refocussed. The vast majority of work to date, notably the design of eGovernment solutions and the component parts required to offer more services online to customers, remains valid.

Since inception in 2013 eGovernment programme spend is £1.47m against a budget of £1.82m to the end of December 2014. All expenditure has been made by the Chief Minister's Department. Significant cost components include:

• £579,000 (vs £595,000 budget) on redesigning gov.je
• £328,000 (vs £328,000 budget) on consultancy fees to establish the core design and business case for eGovernment
• £219,000 (vs £358,000 budget) on the implementation phase, the majority of which is the cost of the eGovernment team.

In addition to the above a Customer Mapping project was carried out in 2012 at a cost of £338,000.

eGovernment remains integral to public sector reform and has the full support of the Chief Minister, who sponsors the programme.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING TAX EVASION:

Question

Notwithstanding the responses to questions 8640 to 8642, has the Chief Minister sought advice from the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC) on whether the schemes, recently revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), devised and aggressively marketed by HSBC Switzerland, whereby wealthy individuals were encouraged to transfer their funds from a savings account to a corporate account (with no genuine trading activity) thus evading the European Union Savings Tax Directive (EUSD), would constitute serious tax evasion?

Has the Chief Minister obtained assurance from the JFSC that such a scheme has not been operated in Jersey by HSBC, its subsidiaries or by other banks or financial institutions either now or in the past, and if not, why not?

Can the Chief Minister also inform members what provisions or regulations are in place to prevent such practice in Jersey, and what evidence does the JFSC have on which to base its assurances?

Answer

The JFSC has been consulted on the matter raised by the Deputy . Tax evasion has been a predicate offence under AML legislation since 1999 . Any known deliberate action to evade taxation such as that described in the question therefore should have given rise to a suspicious activity report to the Joint Financial Crimes Unit. This is in contrast to the position that prevailed in many other countries including Switzerland who did not have similar legislation in place, as the international Financial Action Task Force did not include tax evasion as a predicate offence until it revised its recommendations in 2012. Because of the position taken by the Island authorities in protecting Jersey's reputation, and the action taken by the JFSC to ensure compliance with AML legislation, it is to be expected that schemes such as those said to have been devised and aggressively marketed by HSBC Switzerland, and which are considered to constitute serious tax evasion, would not have been undertaken here.

The JFSC has informed me that through its ongoing supervision it has no knowledge or evidence that such tax evasion has occurred in the past. However for the JFSC to say that such activity has never happened could only be possible if they had carried out an entire audit of every EU Savings Tax transaction and the JFSC is not and cannot be expected to be resourced to do this. What is known is that HSBC International in Jersey currently is not prepared to offer corporate accounts to their wealthy customers

The commitment of government, the regulator and the industry to good practice and the protection of the Island's reputation, the legislation that is in force and the policies and supervisory practices of the JFSC will continue to limit Jersey's exposure to tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Through its active monitoring on a risk basis of the general conduct of business the JFSC considers it is as well placed as any supervisory authority to identify and respond to such poor business practice and in this I have every confidence in the JFSC.

4. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FUNDING OF THE JERSEY CARE INQUIRY:

Question

Will the Chief Minister set out for members details of all discussions that have taken place with the Jersey Care Inquiry Team from the time it was appointed regarding funding of the Inquiry, stating when these discussions took place, the individuals involved and the nature of what was discussed?

Will he further state why he chose the Minister for External Relations or a member of the External Relations Department to take part in these discussions when the Minister for External Relations may well be asked to give evidence before the Inquiry in his capacity as a Crown Officer and Bailiff during the period under investigation and his role in the Jervis-Dykes and Roger Holland affairs in particular?

Answer

The Inquiry Panel maintains an ongoing dialogue with the States Greffe regarding funding, either with the Greffier of the States, as the Accounting Officer for the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry funding, or through the States Liaison Officer to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, who administers the funding.

In addition, officers from the Treasury & Resources Department and the Chief Minister's Department have met the Panel from time to time to discuss funding, at the request of the Council of Ministers.

These discussions have related only to funding. Since January 2015, discussions between officers and the Inquiry Panel have included the Chief Officer for External Relations and Constitutional Affairs from the Chief Minister's Department, who has worked alongside the Treasurer of the States to ensure that the Council of Ministers has been properly informed regarding funding and the constitutional arrangements for committees of inquiry.

Ministers have not held discussions with the Inquiry Panel. Ministers have considered Inquiry funding at Council of Ministers meetings held on 30th July 2014, 28th January 2015 and 11th

February 2015, leading to the lodging of the proposition: Committee of Inquiry: Historical Child Abuse – Additional Funding (P.20/2015) in order that the States Assembly can decide upon this matter.

5. DEPUTY L.M.C. DOUBLET OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF TEACHERS:

Question

Is the Minister aware of research around teacher recruitment and retention that has found over 90% of teachers have considered leaving the profession within the last 2 years, and around half of new teachers leave the profession in the first 5 years of their career? What are the equivalent figures in Jersey? If there are none available will the Minister commit to investigating this issue?

Answer

Although a number of teacher surveys have been publicised in the national media, it is not clear from the question which one the Deputy is referring to. The Department is not aware of any research of this kind being carried out in Jersey so equivalent figures do not exist. While the department keeps records of staff turnover, it is not possible to know whether teachers who leave States schools have moved to a different profession or to schools in the private sector or in another jurisdiction.

The Minister is already exploring issues of teacher recruitment and retention as part of ongoing discussions with the Education Partnership (which involves the NASUWT) and the Education Forum (with the other teaching unions). The intention is that this will include seeking teachers' views about their profession.

6. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT'S SUSPENSION POLICY:

Question

Does the Department have a policy in relation to suspending current staff members against whom allegations of serious criminal activity have been made, including, but not limited to, child abuse?

Answer

All ESC staff are covered by the current States of Jersey disciplinary policy which allows for suspensions under certain circumstances. The policy states that suspension is a neutral act, does not constitute or imply guilt on the part of the employee and will be kept to a minimum'.

It adds that suspension may be appropriate:

• where the employee is accused of gross misconduct
• when it is necessary to allow a thorough investigation to be carried out
• where there are potential risks to the employee, other employees, service users or the public.

The categories of gross misconduct are set out in a separate document, Disciplinary Rules, which also applies to all employees

7. DEPTY J.M. MAON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ON LONGUEVILLE ROAD:

Question

Further to the previous Minister's response to question 8424 on 14th July 2014, can the Minister explain when the work for traffic and crossing improvements at the Longueville Road / Rue des Pres junction will commence, as it would appear that the promised consultation that was due to take place in the last quarter of 2014 has not occurred, and if not, why not?

Answer

As explained in the previous Minister's response of 14 July 2014, the original assessment related to calls for a pedestrian crossing in Longueville Road by Miladi Farm (copy of answer to 8424 attached).

We are sure you will appreciate there is a large call on my small team of Traffic Engineers' time. They are progressing a number of priority schemes in St Saviours and other parishes.

Unfortunately limited resources have meant that the Department has been unable to take the scheme beyond concept design. This now needs to be discussed and agreed with the Connétable and the District Deputies to ensure Parish support.

Once a preferred solution has been agreed with the Connétable and Deputies, we will then instruct the Officers to prepare the detailed materials required for a public consultation. We anticipate a consultation being carried out later in 2015, with capital funding provisionally allocated in 2016, subject to a successful consultation and continued funding.

8. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

Further to the Minister's answer to written question 8651 on loan repayments for rental deposits and medical costs, can the Minister confirm what constitutes the "small amounts" she refers to as being deducted from Income Support payments to recover the money loaned for expensive dental treatment? How much is the maximum that the department will deduct from someone's Income Support per week? How much flexibility is there on these repayments, and what measures are in place to ensure that no unnecessary hardship is caused for people with little money who have to undertake essential dental treatment?

Answer

As noted in my previous answer, a Special Payment grant for urgent and essential dental treatment can be given up to a maximum of £500 per person in any two-year period. Support for any additional costs above £500 is available in the form of a loan to be repaid from ongoing benefit. People over the age of 65, people living in residential care and people in receipt of personal care levels 2 and 3 are exempt from this limit, although they must still demonstrate that they cannot meet the cost themselves. The limit may also be waived in cases where somebody has serious dental problems due to ill health. The 65+ Health Scheme also provides grants to older people in respect of dental costs.

If a working age person requests support with dental treatment in excess of £500, the excess cost will be provided as a loan, and recovered from ongoing benefit payments. Determining Officers in Income Support are provided with general guidance that helps set the level of weekly repayments from benefit entitlement. The determining officer applies the general guidance to the individual case, taking into account the specific circumstances of the claimant.

The level of any loan repayment is set with the customer before the initial payment is approved. The standard rule of thumb' is for repayment to be set between £14 and £28 weekly. The precise amount will depend on a number of factors, including the total weekly entitlement, other household income and whether or not there are any employed persons included in the household. In cases where a household demonstrates that it is unable to afford the lower level of weekly repayment, it can be reduced to a smaller amount, on either a short or long term basis. In other cases, a higher repayment rate will be agreed.

As stated in my answer to question 8651, the limit on the value of a special payment grant for dental costs ensures that the tax funded budget is targeted to essential costs. The availability of additional support through loans provides a flexible system that acknowledges the high costs of some dental treatment, but also means that claimants who request more than a certain amount over a set period will only be offered support for any additional costs in the form of a loan recovered in small amounts from their weekly benefit.

9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LOCATE JERSEY:

Question

Can the Minister assure members that the mechanisms employed by "Locate Jersey" to encourage high net worth individuals to register and invest in business in Jersey are in no way similar to those used by HSBC Switzerland, whereby wealthy individuals were encouraged to transfer their funds from a savings account to a corporate account (with no genuine trading activity) to evade the European Union Savings Tax Directive (EUSD)?

Answer

I am unable to comment on the procedures employed by specific banks but I can assure members that every effort is made to protect the reputation of Jersey when reviewing applications for residency from High Net Worth clients.

Those applying for residency in Jersey go through a robust application process. Locate Jersey officers consult with officers at the States of Jersey Financial Crimes Unit and the Jersey Financial Services Commission and carry out a background search in World Check. Applicants provide detailed information on their income and wealth and are met by officers before the application dossier is submitted to the Comptroller of Taxes and to the Population Office for approval.

There is no room for complacency and we are constantly reviewing the procedures to ensure that the reputation of the Island is protected. Jersey has a very strong reputation for high levels of appropriate regulation and intermediaries and banks are required to carry out appropriate KYC to meet these requirements.

Those qualifying for residency under the 2(1)(e) policy are taxed on their worldwide income and are not required to transfer funds to Jersey. These clients are increasingly establishing business on the Island and employing staff in addition to using local service providers.

10. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE JERSEY CARE INQUIRY: Question

Will the Chief Minister set out for Members full details of all costs and expenditure in relation to the Jersey Care Inquiry incurred by any of the following that are factored into the overall care inquiry costs:

1. Lawyers engaged by the Care Inquiry to sift, collate and prepare material for use by theCare Inquiry;
2. Lawyers representing States of Jersey departments and individuals breaking down the costs involved for each department and individuals (who may be identified as A, B and C etc.) and activity;
3. Lawyers representing the Care Leavers;
4. Lawyers representing the States of Jersey with regard to the Compensation Scheme;
5. The Law Officers' Department;
6. Other costs not included above.

Answer

1. The overall costs of the Inquiry to the end of December 2014 are as follows – Independent Jersey Care Inquiry £5.2 million States Departments  £1.8 million

Total  £7 million

2. Further details of Independent Jersey Care Inquiry costs

£

(a) Lawyers engaged by the Care Inquiry 2,738,803

(c) Lawyers representing the Care Leavers (Inquiry) 2,790

(f) Other costs not included above:

Qtly rental & service charges  155,821 Running costs 44,561 IT & website support 7,761 Panel members 565,641 Media strategy & support 92,448 Hotel/travel/subsistence 550,379 Witness and Hearing costs 303,562 Expert witnesses: fees 15,870 States Greffe staff costs 59,194 Set up costs:

Premises alterations 530,406 IT & website 81,314 Rental & service charges 62,859 Utilities and telephone 12,111 Administration & office costs 1,358 Total costs for Inquiry 5,224,877

3. Further detail of States Departments' costs

£

(b) Lawyers representing States of Jersey departments and individuals:

States of Jersey Police 471,298 Health and Social Services 706,553 Education, Sport and Culture 20,008 Chief Minister's Department 21,327 (e) Costs of the Law Officers' Department 347,334 Home Affairs departmental costs (Holmes team) 113,629 Chief Minister's Department costs 129,750

Total States Department costs 1,809,899

4. Further details of Redress Scheme costs

£

100. Lawyers representing the Care Leavers (Compensation Scheme) 408,582
101. Lawyers representing the States of Jersey with regard to the Compensation Scheme 2,193,653 Ex-gratia payments to claimants 1,899,690 Professional services 60,404 Hired and sundry services 40,279

Total costs of Historic Abuse Redress Scheme 4,602,608

11. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING PARKING FINES ON PRIVATE LAND:

Question

Is the Minister aware of a company calling itself CPARK' Car Parking and More', which issues parking fines on private land and states that if fines are not paid, it will contact Driver and Vehicle Standards for the driver's details before pursuing them for payment? Can the Department advise whether they have had any requests for such information from this or any other similar company; and whether it has handed over such details?

Answer

The parking of vehicles on private land is a significant issue, which should be taken seriously. Whether wilful or by negligence, such behaviour can cause serious inconvenience and incur significant cost for land owners.

The whole issue of parking on private land is a subject being looked at by the Minister of Home Affairs. The Home Affairs Department has developed law drafting instructions upon which they have sought advice from the Law Officers Department.

The company concerned has been known to the Department under its registered name Property Management Services Ltd, trading as PMS-Parking Management Services, since 2010.

Driver & Vehicle Standards (DVS) is obliged by legislation to supply details of registered owners to persons who have reasonable cause', this is set out in Article 19(2) of the Motor Vehicle Registration (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 1993:

"19 Supply of registration particulars

(2) Upon request made by a person who satisfies the Inspector that the person has reasonable cause for the request and upon payment of £8.20, the Inspector shall supply – [Emphasis added]

1. the name and address of the person recorded in the register as the owner of a registered motor vehicle; and
2. such other particulars recorded in the register as are, in the opinion of the Inspector, relevant to the circumstances constituting the reasonable cause for the request."

DVS is required under the Article to provide certain information to parking enforcement agencies, including this one, who are acting as agents on the behalf of landowners where there is reasonable cause'. Parking unlawfully without permission or in breech of contract private land is considered reasonable cause'. This allows among other things, the injured party to purse a legitimate claim through the Petty Debts Court.

Any parking enforcement agency wishing to make regular applications under the Article must make a written application to DVS detailing their business, who they are and the areas where they will be enforcing and details of their Data Protection Registration.

Data is not released lightly and the applicant must show "reasonable cause" for a release. Each application must be in writing, detailing the registration number, vehicle make and model, date of incident, location, reason for the request and in most cases photographic evidence is requested, accompanied with the stipulated payment fee for each request.

DVS is required to and legitimately provides information to parking organisations where there is reasonable cause', including States Departments, Ports of Jersey, Andium, States of Jersey Development Company and a small number private parking providers.

DVS provides a similar service to vehicle manufacturers when there is a safety recall for a particular model.

12. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE ELECTION PROCESS:

Question

Can the Chairman advise members what debrief and feedback the Committee has received following the 2014 election process and state what, if anything, the Committee is looking to change to improve the election process for candidates and the public?

Answer

The Committee is leading a wide-ranging, ongoing discussion on matters arising from the 2014 election process. A number of potential refinements to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 have already been identified, due in no small part to feedback received from the various individuals and bodies involved in the electoral process. At its meeting on 16th December 2014 the Committee welcomed the Deputy Judicial Greffier, Jurats J.M. Clapham, G.W. Fisher and A.J. Olsen, Mrs. S. De Gruchy, Secretary to the Comité des Connétable s, and Mr. B. Buesnel, St. Saviour Parish Secretary, in connexion with a review of election procedures.

For electors, steps are being taken to improve the accessibility, ease and privacy of voting. The Committee has extended its support to the Chief Minister in his intention to lodge Regulations permitting a trial comparison of data between the Names and Addresses Register and the manually updated electoral register. The trial would establish whether the Names and Addresses Register could be used to generate the electoral register automatically without the need for the current annual registration process. Similarly, a recently enacted amendment to Article 7(A) of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 charges the parishes with issuing a notice to every unit of accommodation within their boundaries stating the names of the persons (if any) registered to vote. This notice is to be dispatched in the run-up to an election. It is hoped that these measures will enhance the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. In addition, the Committee has directed the States Greffe to prepare drafting instructions to insert a sensible cut-off' time for sick votes and to clarify the circumstances in which a known name' can be used on the ballot, so that ballot papers can be presented more simply. As for voters' independence, the Judicial Greffe and the Jurats are reviewing the pre-poll process to ensure that candidates cannot knowingly or unknowingly pressurise voters, for example by accompanying them into the pre-poll room. The Committee has also supported the principle of amending the Law to enable electoral observers to be present for future elections.

For candidates, consideration has been given to the instances where one might demand a recount or a re-election. The Committee is of the view that Article 52(6) of the Law should be tightened to ensure that a recount can only be requested when there is reasonable and realistic doubt over the veracity of a result. The Committee further agreed to invite H.M. Attorney General to prepare drafting instructions to amend Article 61 of the Law, which deals with challenges to the legality of an election. It was considered that the Royal Court should have the power to declare a by-election in respect of one seat only in a multi-seat constituency in instances where an elected candidate had been declared ineligible. Article 61(3) currently makes no such provisions, requiring that an entirely fresh election' must take place in such cases.

Work is also progressing to ensure that the announcement of election results in made in a consistent manner, that accurate and complete results are published on Vote.je in a timely fashion, and that counters perform a practical level of vote reconciliation.

The Committee is currently awaiting correspondence from the Deputy Judicial Greffier which will set out other potential enhancements to the Law. Plans for refinements to the election process are expected to advance upon receipt of this correspondence.

13. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION:

Question

Can the Chief Minister inform members whether he intends to review the provisions of the current law in Jersey governing libellous statements or breaches of data protection made on social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, and if not, why not?

Does the Chief Minister intend to introduce provision under data protection legislation to hold an individual responsible for a breach which occurs on a Facebook "group page" which they administer and, if not, why not?

Does the Chief Minister also intend to introduce provision to enable Jersey authorities to obtain the actual identity of persons using a pseudonym or false name for their social media account so that action can be pursued when libellous statements and made or breaches of data protection are committed, and if not, why not?

Answer

The areas of law highlighted in the question (and similar) are currently under review, and a Green Paper is being drafted to consult the public on potential changes to the law.

Should such a review and consultation conclude that legislative measures are necessary, I intend that draft legislation be brought before the States Assembly for debate.

14. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A GRANT TO THE JERSEY MARITIME TRUST: Question

Will the Minister give members a detailed breakdown of what the £41,200 paid to the Jersey Maritime Trust by Property Holdings on the aborted Port Galots development was spent on? Will he further explain the rationale behind the payment and whether he now believes it was money well spent?

Answer

The Jersey Maritime Trust (JMT) was established in January 2014 in conjunction with plans to develop a new harbourside facility known as Port Galots and to act as custodian of the Port Galots development and landlord to all commercial tenants.

The creation of a not for profit body, independent from the developer and the Ports of Jersey, to manage the facility post completion was agreed by the stakeholder groups and the Ports at the early meetings arranged by the Ports.

In addition to this specific role, the JMT has a wider responsibility for developing and implementing objectives to promote Jersey's maritime industry, including:

• Assisting maritime related businesses and community organisations in developing their strategies and objectives through the provision of business advice, resource and a first class facility within in which to flourish;

• Identifying and creating opportunities to increase event-led tourism;

• Providing and managing a unique facility in which to inspire and educate any member of the community irrespective of their age, gender, ability or disability;

• Developing relationships with international organisations to increase the opportunities available to the professional maritime industry and community in general; and

• Developing a comprehensive outdoor activity programme for disabled and socially disadvantaged islanders and visitors through the provision of a centralised disability-friendly facility.

The objects of the JMT are set out in its constitution as:

1. To provide an internationally renowned maritime centre of excellence (the "Jersey Maritime Centre"), which includes facilities for the Sea Cadets and other maritime organisations;
2. To promote the regeneration and sustainability of the local maritime environment and countryside;
3. To promote and enable equal opportunities for life fulfilment and employment through education, instruction and learning experiences for leisure and professional mariners alike and the wider island community;
4. To promote the Jersey maritime industry internationally, and to promote the growth of its economic contribution in the island particularly through maritime related event led tourism, employment, trade and industry and financial services;
5. To promote relationships with the Armed Forces, and especially the Royal Navy, in their role as protector of our national resilience, trade and industry and career opportunities; champion the Armed Forces Community Covenant in the Island and to sign a Corporate Covenant; and

6. To optimise the long term financial and social value of the asset in thecare of the Trust, for the community and for the States of Jersey, raising commercial and other grant-funding as needed to give long term sustainability to the Trust and its activities.

Ministerial Decision MD-PH-2014-0092 dated 4th June 2014 made provision for the release of funds to support the setting up and operation of the JMT until such time as the facilities are developed.

Following approval of the above Ministerial Decision the following payments have been made in respect of the JMT:

Reimbursement for JMT set up costs £16,450 Supported by invoices and timesheets

Payment for Executive Support to JMT £24,750

£41,200 A grant payment to progress the JMT objectives £14,550* Total Payments by the Public to JMT  £55,750 * met from JPH base revenue budget

The funds allocated to JMT have been used to provide:

• Executive Support from October 2013

• Design and Publicity costs in respect of JMT promotional material

• Travel Costs

• Accounting and Legal Fees

• Insurance costs

• Postal costs

• Room hire

• Bank charges and other miscellaneous administrative costs.

The payment was necessary to enable the JMT to become established and to deliver against its objectives. The continued delivery of those objectives remains a key requirement to the successful development of Maritime community groups and the wider maritime industry moving forwards.

15. DEPUTY  J.M. MAON  OF  ST.  SAVIOUR  OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING FUNDING TO JERSEY FINANCE:

Question

Would the Chief Minister confirm or otherwise that, in reducing States expenditure, the funding to Jersey Finance will be reduced back to pound for pound match funding?

Answer

There is no plan to reduce the funding of Jersey Finance to a matched pound for pound basis.

Given the significant impact of the international financial crisis and the changing external environment I believe our investment in Jersey Finance has been fully justified. This industry remains the mainstay of the economy providing significant jobs and tax and supporting many other industry sectors.

Jersey Finance Limited has played a key role in maintaining and growing the finance sector, which has seen an overall increase in employment of almost 500 since the jurisdictional review they commissioned in 2013.

16. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING ENERGY EFFICIENT SAVINGS:

Question

Would the Minister be supportive of introducing an energy efficiency rating system for Jersey residential properties; how might this be done; what would the likely costs be and how quickly could this be introduced?

Answer

I am extremely supportive of the underlying principle of the question which I understand to be a drive to improve the energy efficiency of residential properties in Jersey for the benefit of both the occupant in terms of improved comfort and reduced bills as well as reduced energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions.

With this objective in mind there are already a number of policy and legislative levers that aim to achieve improved energy efficiency in homes which can be summarised as follows:

1. The application of the Building Bye Laws.

Energy performance targets currently exist for new-build residential properties and it is a requirement of the Building Bye-laws (BBLs) that energy performance certificates are produced to show those targets have been met. In addition, the BBLs require improvements to existing dwellings when roof coverings and windows are replaced, when walls are re- plastered or re-rendered and when heating boilers are renewed. The purpose is to ensure that when repairs are undertaken to a dwelling the opportunity is used to improve the energy performance at the same time. Action Statement 3 in Pathway 2050: An Energy Plan for Jersey (P.38/2014) outlines how I intend to use the BBLs to make improvements to the building stock over time. I plan to publish revisions to the energy performance requirements contained in the BBLs later this year. These will include energy targets for new dwellings of up to 50% higher than current standards, new fabric efficiency standards to reduce the need for space heating, requirements to make improvements to the energy performance of existing dwellings when extension works are proposed, higher standards for replacement windows and doors and improved insulation when renovating the external fabric.

2. 100% grants to improve theenergyperformanceof badly performing properties occupied by eligible low-income tenants or owner-occupiers.

Since 2009 nearly 2,000 properties have been fitted with a number of energy efficiency interventions such as loft and cavity wall insulation, draught proofing, energy system upgrades and pipe lagging. These interventions have been provided through a turnkey and 100% grant funded programme administered by the Department of the Environment.

3. Private rental properties - the draft Health and Dwellings Law

Legislation under development in the Department of Health intends to ensure that all rental properties reach a minimum standard in a number of areas such as contract management, health and safety and also energy performance. I very much support the objective of this legislation since improving the standard of rental properties is often very difficult because of the so called split-incentive'. This is where the landlord has no incentive to improve the energy performance of a property since they do not live in it and will personally feel no benefits from any upgrade. Equally, the tenant is likely to have little capital and also has no incentive to improve a property since they do not own it.

Thus to summarise there is likely to be an improvement in several sectors over time as follows:

• Dwellings covered by the increasingly stringent BBLs i.e. new builds and those undergoing alterations or a change of use. It is worth noting that a significant number of building applications to make improvements to existing dwellings are received each year so the impact on the existing stock will become greater each year;
• The homes of low-income eligible owner-occupiers or tenants who benefit from the 100% grant scheme run by the Department of the Environment;
• The private rental sector assuming draft legislation is agreed and adequately covers energy performance.

A notable sector not covered by these interventions is that of the able-to-pay' owner-occupier who chooses not to make any building improvements. It is a well-understood market failure that even those who can afford to, do not act logically and fail to improve the energy efficiency performance of their properties. This is despite the fact that up-front investments can be relatively low and the pay back, from savings in energy bills, can be as low as 3 to 5 years.

Different jurisdictions tackle improvements in energy efficiency using both incentives and punitive measures. Many countries offer incentives such as low cost loans or grants for energy efficiency measures. Action Statement 3 in Pathway 2050 outlines proposals to incentivise the able-to-pay sector's worst performing residential stock (built pre-1997) to make self-funded energy efficiency improvements to their homes. The premise is that subsidised energy audits (from trained energy assessors) alongside an advice toolkit (to help people procure high quality good value energy efficiency services) will drive behaviour change. A pilot scheme is currently under development in my Department and will build in pilot work studies carried out in 2013 and 2014.

EU directives require Energy Performance Certificates to be provided for dwellings at the point of sale in the EU. A trained assessor makes a number of assumptions about a property in order to calculate the likely energy performance of that property to inform the purchaser how much the property is likely to cost to run and also to highlight the energy efficiency improvements that could be made. The accuracy of these certificates depends very much on the assumptions made about the property construction and they simply give an estimated energy performance rather than act as a rating system. Nevertheless, these certificates do act to raise awareness of the energy performance of the property but the evidence is less clear on whether they influence actual improvements in energy efficiency either by the vendor or purchaser.

Therefore in considering and supporting such a scheme for Jersey I would need to satisfy several queries:

• Would an energy rating system be the most effective policy intervention to address the energy efficiency market failure in the residential sector? Is such a system effective elsewhere and would it be scale-able and transferrable to Jersey?
• What would be the costs of introducing and administering such a system if it were deemed appropriate to Jersey? Do these provide best value compared to other potential policy interventions?
• What support or facilitation would the industry need to service such a scheme e.g. assessor training / upskilling?
• What new resources / legislation / other policy instruments would be required to underpin any such scheme?

I conclude that there are a number of serious considerations that must be investigated prior to making a decision on whether an energy efficiency rating system would be effective in improving the energy performance of residential properties in Jersey. Furthermore, the additional benefits of such a scheme would need to be considered in the context of the existing policy interventions in place, and under development already to address this issue. With these uncertainties I cannot give any definitive view or timescale regarding the implementation of such a scheme.

Nevertheless, I remain open to any discussions with the Deputy on improving the energy performance of the residential sector and I invite him to meet with me and my officers.

17. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY ILL RESIDENTS TO THEIR JURISDICTIONS OF BIRTH:

Question

Could the Minister inform members what provisions are available for seriously ill Island residents who wish to be transferred to be cared for in their jurisdiction of birth and whether the Department will meet the costs of people wanting to do this when the costs of care in their jurisdiction of birth is lower than it is in Jersey?

Answer

The Social Security Department provides a variety of benefits to support people with long-term illnesses. Working age individuals who have worked in Jersey and have a contribution record may be entitled to claim long-term incapacity allowance. This benefit can be paid anywhere in the world. An older person who is already claiming a pension can also receive their pension payments throughout the world.

The long-term-care benefit has recently been introduced to support the cost of long-term care needs. The income support system also provides components to people who have ongoing medical or care needs. Both these benefits are available to people living and being cared for in Jersey. The long-term care legislation and the income support legislation include residency requirements and both laws have been designed to support local residents. Neither benefit can be paid off island. However, the income support law does provide for one off special payments to be made to assist with the costs of repatriation, and this could include helping a seriously ill individual move back to their home country.

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING LONG TERM INCAPACITY ALLOWANCE:

Question

1. Why did the Minister announce the policy to apply sanctions to those on 35% Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) through a media release 2 hours after a scheduled quarterly meeting with the HSS scrutiny panel?
2. Those on less than 30% LTIA are already expected to work. How many recipients is this? What percentage do so? In what job sectors have placements been? How many are zero hours?
3. How many have multiple and variable symptoms; how many have mental/psychological incapacity, and what training is in place for support workers for these recipients? What role does JET play in the assessment process?
4. Can the appeal process give timely consideration for a sanction which may only last 2 weeks? What is the current average period for second determinations? How long does a full appeal to tribunal take?
5. What targets does the Minister have for the successful implementation of this new policy and how much taxpayer funding would this save?
6. The current guidelines  for Income Support state that those with a medical impairment component score of 24 points will be exempt from seeking work. How does this compare with the new limit of an LTIA score of 35%?

Answer

Together with my colleagues in the Council of Ministers I remain fully committed to the strategic priority of removing any barriers to employment for certain key groups, which includes people with long-term illnesses. Long-term absence from the workforce represents a significant cost to Jersey's economy, not to mention a personal and social cost to the unemployed person, and so we have made significant investments in ensuring that anybody who can work is given our support to find a suitable job. For people claiming Income Support, taking up this offer of help is in many cases a condition of receiving the benefit.

It is important to make it clear that people who claim Income Support as well as receiving Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) have never been exempted under the Income Support legislation from looking for work, regardless of the percentage of their LTIA award. Many of them will be exempted from looking for work for other reasons, including the relevant level of an Income Support personal care component, but equally there will be people even with very high percentage of LTIA award who are fully capable of working in suitable employment .

The LTIA benefit does not assess fitness to work. It is a test of loss of faculty'. This may or may not affect the ability of the individual to carry on their usual employment, or take up employment in another area. Therefore, there are no provisions under Income Support legislation for a blanket exemption from jobseeking to be applied to all people receiving the LTIA benefit.

During the introduction of Income Support an operational decision was taken to concentrate our work support resources on those people with the lowest percentage awards of LTIA, and this led to people with an award at 35% or higher being informed that they were not yet expected to be actively seeking work. Nonetheless, it was always the intention that those with higher percentages of LTIA would receive appropriate assistance as soon as there were sufficient resources to help them. The heightened levels of unemployment caused by the economic downturn meant that our efforts have until now been concentrated on other groups of unemployed people, but continued progress in this area has meant that we now have the resources available to help people with LTIA awards of 35%.

People who are completely incapable of work due to illness or disability will be exempted from job seeking, whereas those who require special assistance as part of a longer journey towards paid employment will be offered appropriate training and guidance from our specialist Work Right team.

I will address the Deputy 's specific points in order.

1. Why did the Minister announce the policy to apply sanctions to those on 35% Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) through a media release 2 hours after a scheduled quarterly meeting with the HSS scrutiny panel?

The change in our internal guidelines is not one that arbitrarily applies sanctions, but only serves to broaden jobseeking requirements to include people with an award of 35% LTIA. The same rules which have always been applied to people in receipt of LTIA at 30% or lower were simply extended to the group immediately above them. This was an operational decision extending the range of Back to Work support, and as such did not require a change to legislation or a Ministerial Decision, although I was of course aware and supportive of the principle. In order to properly manage their caseload operational staff had made the decision to write to this group of claimants and letters were sent on Wednesday 18th February, which happened to be the day before the

Scrutiny hearing. On my return from the Scrutiny hearing I was asked to approve a press release; this was created because staff wanted to ensure that clear information was provided to the public that would contextualise the rise in the Actively Seeking Work figures that would result from this operational decision. There was at no point a plan to obscure these changes from the Scrutiny panel, although I do apologise to the Panel for any confusion that was created by the timing of this sequence of events.

2. Those on less than 30% LTIA are already expected to work. How many recipients isthis? What percentage do so? In what job sectors have placements been? How many are zero hours?

There are 339 people included on an Income Support claim who receive LTIA awards from 5% to 30%, and who are expected to either be in full-time work or to be looking for work. This excludes people who are exempt from jobseeking for other reasons, such as being over the age of 65 or being responsible for the care of a young child. Of these 339 people, 39% are in some form of paid employment. In 2014, there were 91 new job starts for this group, distributed across the full range of sectors of Jersey's economy. The top 3 industries were construction, retail and hospitality, however it is not possible to provide precise numbers broken down by sector as some numbers are small enough that there is the risk of individuals being identified. Our data shows that 12 of these jobs commenced as zero hours contracts, which is by no means unusual for new job starts in any sector of the economy at present.

3. How many have multiple and variable symptoms; how many have mental/psychological incapacity, and what training is in place for support workers for these recipients? What role does JET play in the assessment process?

It is not possible to describe how many people exhibit multiple or variable symptoms without examining each individual claim. Many long-term illnesses will exhibit multiple or variable symptoms and the assessment process will take this into account. Of the existing 339 people between 5% and 30%, 159 have a primary ailment that could be loosely categorised as mental and/or psychological. This is not an exact categorisation, as it is dependent on the initial recording of the primary ailment.

Employment Advisors undertake a comprehensive package of training during their induction, and continue to receive training as part of the ongoing development of their role. A substantial component of this involves work in understanding and responding to the individual client's barriers to employment, including long-term illness. One of the key strengths of the specialist service we provide is that staff work with clients on an individual basis, offering tailored support, motivation, understanding and where appropriate referral to a partner agency who might offer more intensive support. This can include Jersey Talking Therapies, Adult Mental Health, JET and other specialist agencies best positioned to help people with long-term mental and psychological illness.

No outside agency plays a role in the Department's assessment processes, but as part of the Income Support impairment assessment process many do take up the opportunity to submit evidence on a client's behalf. This evidence is always considered as part of the assessment of award.

4. Can the appeal process give timely consideration for a sanction which may only last 2 weeks? What is the current average period for second determinations? How long does a full appeal to tribunal take?

The Department currently processes 61% of requests for reconsideration (second determination) of sanction decisions within 5 days or less. Best practice suggests that they should be processed within 14 days and 94% of requests are completed within this period. There will however always be cases where the process is delayed to give the client the opportunity to provide supporting evidence for their case, and it is likely that this accounts for the majority of cases that take longer than 5 days to process. The very small percentage of claims that proceed to the independent tribunal take longer to arrange, as the process is more involved and depends on the time taken to produce case papers, and for the Registrar to liaise with the appellant and the independent tribunal members to arrange a sitting.

From the point at which a decision is issued to the customer, and including the Departments' internal reconsideration process, it typically takes 8 to 10 weeks for the conclusion of an independent tribunal.

As reported to the States in February in response to an oral question, recent statistics show that there have been 7 appeals to the tribunal in respect of sanctions and all of these appeals have been from only 2 people.

5. What targets does the Minister have for the successful implementationof this new policy andhow much taxpayer funding would this save?

This change in our operating procedures was not designed to save money, although every individual who moves out of Income Support and into work represents a move towards personal financial independence and a saving to the taxpayer. I will consider this change successful if it helps people on LTIA into paid employment, but recognise that this is not going to be a process that happens overnight. The alternative is to do nothing, which has the guaranteed outcome of continued joblessness.

For example, at present roughly one in three people who are not on Income Support but who have an LTIA award at 35% are in paid employment. For people on Income Support with the same level of award, this proportion drops to around one in ten people. Taking this into account, our goal is to provide support to all those who have the capability to work; therefore the ultimate success for this programme would be to help IS claimants into suitable, sustainable work at a comparable level to non-IS claimants.

For each client who moves into paid work there will obviously be a saving to Income Support, as well as potential contributions and Income Tax revenue, although the amount would depend on the level of earnings. It is however recognised that a number of these clients have not worked for some time, and so investment of advisor support and training will be required to help them on their progress towards paid employment.

6. The current guidelines for Income Support state that those with a medical impairment component score of 24 points will be exempt from seeking work. How does this compare with the new limit of an LTIA score of 35%?

The two scores cannot be compared as they are the result of completely different tests, designed for separate benefits and producing outcomes that are not equivalent to one another.

LTIA is based on a loss of faculty; this is not related to an individual's functional ability to work but to the long-term loss of faculty to a specific area of the mind or body. An example would be the amputation of a leg, where the faculty is lost but modern medicine and appropriate aids can often allow for the function to be replaced, and for suitable work to be taken up. There is no direct correlation with the ability to work. Only by engaging with the individuals directly can the department understand where LTIA recipients have barriers to employment, and provide appropriate support to help them achieve the benefits that work can bring.

In contrast, the Income Support impairment test is concerned with the functional ability a person needs to care for themselves, and produces an outcome which is a much better indicator of whether or not the degree of impairment would limit a person's ability to work. People who reach the 24 point threshold of the personal care assessment are likely to be impaired in multiple areas and will require a consistent degree of assistance in caring for themselves, regardless of any aids or adaptations available to them. It is for this reason that the Minister used 24 points as an indication that these individuals would not be required to undertake work, and included this threshold in the Income Support legislation. The majority of people who reach this threshold will experience higher barriers to rewarding employment, although the Department and other agencies will continue to provide support, if requested.

19. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING ECONOMIC GROWTH:

Question

To give clarity will the Chief Minister give a definitive answer to the following questions and illustrate his answer with appropriate diagrams:

1. the average level of economic growth in the Island between 1998 and 2013;
2. the average level of economic growth in the Island between 1998 and 2013 contributed by each sector of the economy e.g. Finance industry, agriculture etc.;
3. the average level of economic growth in the Island between 1998 and 2013 contributed by each sector of the finance industry;
4. the impact of the recession on Gross Value Added (GVA) together with the Treasury Department's/Economic Adviser's estimates of when (in years) the level of GVA will return to 2008 levels.

Answer

1. Gross value added (GVA) fell by an average of approximately 0.5% per year over the period 1998 to 2013, after excluding inflation.

However, this compares two  different points of the  economic cycle and  includes a significant structural impact from the global financial crisis. Sections 2.2-2.3 of the Fiscal Policy Panel (FPP) January 2015 pre-MTFP report provides a comprehensive analysis of recent trends in GVA and assesses the permanent (structural) and temporary (cyclical) changes in the different components of economic growth.

2. The % change in GVA of each sector over the 1998-2013 period is set out below:

Again, caution must be used in drawing any conclusions from rates of change between two different points in the economic cycle, and over a period which includes the impact of the global financial crisis.

3. The % change in each sub-sector of the financial services industry over the 1998-2013 period is set out below:

As above, this period covers two different points in the economic cycle and includes the impact of the global financial crisis. But further, financial services profits can be volatile from year to year so particular caution is required in interpreting changes between any two specific years for the financial services sector.

4. Section 2 of the FPP's January 2015 report also discusses the impact of the global financial crisis and global "great recession" on Jersey's GVA.

The FPP has agreed to endorse the assumptions that underpin the next set of States income forecasts. Figure 2.16 of the Fiscal Policy Panel's January 2015 report illustrates the best estimates at the time of their report. The report stated that, given the uncertainty about local and global economic trends, it would be advisable for the Panel to confirm these assumptions again before the next forecasts are finalised.

Fiscal Policy Panel GVA forecast

5,000

Forecast 4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

GVA – actual and forecast, £m constant 2013 prices Source: adapted from FPP January 2015 pre-MTFP report

20. DEPUTY  M. TADIER  OF  ST. BRELADE  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE DISCRIMINATION LAW:

Question

Given the Department's commitment to get more disabled people back into the workplace, will the Minister explain the viability, or otherwise, of bringing the introduction of the disability component of the Discrimination Law forward by one year, so as to ensure that disabled people are not put at a competitive disadvantage when applying for or maintaining jobs?

Answer

The draft Strategic Plan 2015 – 2018 (P.27/2015) published by the Council of Ministers last week included the following action as part of the maximising economic growth priority:

3.5: Desired Outcome: All working age people fulfil their potential in rewarding employment

Key areas of Focus 2015 -2018: Identify and address barriers to work for key groups, including those wanting to work beyond retirement, looking after home and long-term sick

The commitment of the Department is to support this strategic aim - to support individuals with long-term health conditions to overcome barriers to take up and remain in rewarding employment. This reinforces and builds on existing services and support provided by the Department. For example, the Department provides annual funding (£1.7 million in 2013) to the Jersey Employment Trust and other organisations providing vocational and employment support in this area . Other support is provided directly through Back to Work, specifically the Work Right team who work with jobseekers with more serious or complex barriers to employment.

The Department has successfully introduced overarching discrimination legislation, with race discrimination being the first area to be brought into force. The decision to phase in the different areas of the discrimination law allows local employers and service providers to build up experience and confidence in this area, without imposing an undue burden on small companies.

Regulations to deal with sex-related areas are currently being drafted and these are due to be debated by the States later this year, aiming for an implementation date of September 2015. The next area to be developed will be age discrimination. Encouraging people to remain economically active for longer and providing the environment in which employers can make the best use of experienced local residents will be a key factor in ensuring the ongoing economic success of the island. Appropriate age discrimination regulations will be one of several areas where government can support workers and local companies to achieve this aim.

In parallel, the Chief Minister's Department is already working on a disability strategy for Jersey, which will gather information on the experience of local people living with a disability. From this knowledge, a disability strategy will be developed during 2015/2016.

Once a strategy has been agreed, work can begin on the development of disability regulations, for introduction in 2017/2018. Disability discrimination is the most complex of the areas (characteristics) to be covered and care will need to be taken to find the appropriate balance of regulations to protect individuals without imposing an undue burden on employers and service providers. The characteristic of disability is expected to require the most preparation and the most adjustment across wider society, not just for employers, and so we expect the preparations to take longer than for the other characteristics.

For example, compared to the other characteristics, a different approach will be required because behaviour is less likely to be a result of people's prejudices about, or hostility towards, disabled people, but is more as a result of workplaces and premises being designed in such a way as to exclude or limit access to some disabled people. Full consultation will be required as to the scope and the extent to which reasonable adjustments should have to be made to accommodate the needs of disabled people.

A careful approach will also be needed in the legal definition of disability to provide the appropriate separation from sickness or illness, but still include an appropriate range of conditions.

Given the amount of preparatory work necessary, it would be difficult, and perhaps counter- productive, to seek to bring forward the current timetable in respect of disability discrimination regulations.

The Department, JET and other organisations working in this area have very good relationships with many local employers who provide both work placements and permanent jobs to individuals with a wide range of disabilities.

21. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS:

Question

Further to written question 8634 of 24th February 2015, will the Attorney General advise:

1. whether it is a legal requirement for all enforcement actions to be referred tothe Law Officers' Department to determine whether to bring a prosecution in the Magistrate's or Royal Court, and, if not, in what circumstances actions would not be expected be referred;
2. whether this has changed during the last 10 years and why;
3. whether he is satisfied that Centeniers have the relevant expertise to assess the evidential and public interest tests in Planning and Environment enforcement cases without reference to the Department;
4. how many times over the last five years:

1. Centeniers have, and have not, referred cases to the Department for advice before prosecuting, filing charges or actioning charges lodged by Planning and Environment enforcement officers in the Magistrate's Court;
2. Centeniers have prosecuted cases based solely on reports submitted by enforcement officers, or accepted charges lodged in the Magistrate's Court by enforcement officers;
3. Planning and Environment enforcement prosecutions have been brought in the Magistrate's Court and the number of times the charges in these cases were amended before being determined and the reasons for these changes.

Answer

1. There is no legal requirement for all enforcement actions to be referred to the Law Officers' Department. However, guidance has been issued that it is best practice for officers in regulatory departments to refer potential prosecutions to a Legal Adviser in the Law Officers' Department to decide whether a prosecution should be brought.

The Department of the Environment is responsible for enforcement actions across a wide range of legislation. This includes matters relating to planning and building, wildlife protection, environmental protection, animal welfare and agriculture. The Attorney General, to the best of his knowledge, understands that the Department follows the guidance referred to above.

There is, however, an exception with respect to charging decisions relating to marine resource matters, which, due to the nature of the legislation, are often referred to the Honorary Police for straightforward cases to be dealt with by the Magistrate's Court or in Parish Hall Enquiries. The Honorary Police deal with these matters both appropriately and proportionately and there is no good reason to change this practice.

2. Guidance for regulatory departments was last updated in 2008 and the procedures that should be followed have not changed since then. On occasion, guidance has been provided to clarify the procedures to be followed, as referenced in the answers to the Deputy 's questions on 3rd June 2014 (Written Question 8320) and 9th December 2014 (Written Question 8561).
3. With respect to regulatory matters administered by the Department of the Environment, the Honorary Police routinely make charging decisions without reference to the Law Officers' Department in relation to the narrow area of legislation referred to above. The Attorney General has full confidence that the Honorary Police make appropriate charging decisions and that, when necessary, they will seek advice from a Legal Adviser in the Law Officers' Department.
4. (i) The records which the Law Officers' Department holds do not necessarily reveal whether a request to provide pre-charge advice has been made by the Department of the Environment or by a Centenier. The Law Officers' Department has no records of the occasions upon which it was not consulted before proceedings were commenced. As the Attorney General indicated in his answer of 9th December 2014, there were two planning cases (one in 2012 and one in 2013) in which charges had been brought without reference tothe Law Officers' Department. In both of those cases, the defendants entered not guilty pleas and, from thereon, the Law Officers' Department dealt with the cases.

2. It is for the Centenier or Legal Adviser to ensure that they have sufficient information and/or evidence to ensure that both the evidential and public interest tests are satisfied. In most cases, it is not possible to identify from our records what paperwork was provided in a particular case at the time a decision was taken.
3. The Minister for Planning and Environment has already committed to provide the Deputy with details of the number of cases his Department has brought in the Magistrate's Court in the last five years without reference tothe Law Officers' Department. There are many reasons why charges may be amended during the life of any case. Prosecutions brought under the legislation administered by the Department of the Environment are no different. Without retrieving the case papers for each of the cases and conducting a full review of the history of each case, it would not be possible to identify in how many of the cases the charges were amended and the reasons for those amendments.

22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DELIVERY OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE:

Question

The Minister for Social Security has stated when discussing the restructuring of the delivery of primary health care that "we are hoping it will be this year". Will the Chief Minister assure members that the Council of Minister will include costed policies for the delivery of all aspects of primary health care in the Medium Term Financial Plan lodged in July for September debate including costs for G.P. and dentistry services?

Answer

Primary health care costs are currently funded by the Health Insurance Fund. Any extra funding required will need to be considered as part of the Medium Term Financial Plan process.

The work to develop a proposed model for future Sustainable Primary Care is progressing, and a White Paper for public consultation is under development.

The work on sustainable funding mechanisms for health and social care is also being progressed by the Treasury & Resources department, working with the Health and Social Services and Social Security Departments.

23. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING UNAUHORISED ABSENCES FROM SCHOOL:

Question

Will the Minister provide the following information relating to unauthorised absences from school for each year during the period between September 2013 and June 2014 in respect of -

1. the number of students in each primary and secondary school who were issued with warning letters;
2. the number of students that each Education Welfare Officer in primary schools and Attendance Officers in the four 11-16 schools were handling;
3. how many students, if any, were referred to the Alternative Curriculum following periods of unauthorised absences; and,
4. how many parents, if any, were prosecuted for failing to ensure that their children attended school?

Answer

1. Unauthorised absence in Jersey is lower than the UK national average. In the 2013-14 academic year there were 12,202 students in compulsory education in Jersey. During that period, 53 letters were sent from primary schools and 15 from secondary schools. However, letters are not always the most appropriate means of communication for every situation or every family. Head teachers use their discretion and often prefer to meet the parents concerned to discuss the issues.

Note: For data protection reasons, and in line with recommended practice, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of figures by school because the numbers are below 10 and it would be possible to identify individuals.

2. During the 2013-14 academic year there were approximately 5,600 pupils in primary schools and the three Education Welfare Officers had 150 open cases over the course that period. These covered issues ranging from punctuality to persistent absence. The Attendance Officers in the 11-16 schools, which had approximately 4,200 pupils, had 192 open cases.

3. The Alternative Curriculum is a provision that caters for 20 pupils from Year 11. Places are allocated according to a clear process and set of criteria. School attendance is one ofthe main criteria.

For the school year 2013-2014 there were 1,063 pupils in Year 11 in Jersey. The Department received 28 recommendations from schools. Of the 20 places offered, only four pupils were prioritised for a place because of their low levels of attendance.

4. In the academic year 2013/2014 no parents were prosecuted for failing to ensure their children attended school.

4. Oral Questions

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding energy efficiency rating systems:

Will the Minister consider the introduction of an energy efficiency rating system for all residential properties and, if so, how does he envisage it would work and what would the timescale be?

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

I have provided an extensive answer to this question in my reply to written question 8687 asked by the Deputy in today's Assembly. But I thank him for his interest on the work that we are already currently undertaking at the department. I reiterate that I remain open to any discussions with the Deputy on improving energy performance and I am happy to take other further questions. But as I stress, I have already given an extensive written answer today on this question.

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Minister envisage a time in the near future - and perhaps he could put a timescale on it - whether one is buying a property a Jersey or renting it in any of the particular rental domains one would be able to see very clearly a rating system, which we perhaps are all familiar with, which goes from red to green in order to assist the purchaser or potential renter to know what the likely bills are going to be for that property?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

There is already a system in place for new builds and extensions which we administer through the bylaws. The Deputy 's question about a new scheme to do with all properties in the very near future I would just say that before I would make any decisions in that direction there are a number of questions I would need to answer. I am aware that in other jurisdictions you can get energy performance certificates but while they might sound wonderful it is sometimes only the question of a phone call and the person at the other end of the line will say: "What age was your property and what sort of windows have you got?" and will issue you a certificate on that basis without visiting or asking questions about cavity wall or loft insulation, so there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. I would add this: I would like to know what system would be most effective for the Island, the cost of introducing it and administering it, what support or facilitation the industry would need to service such a scheme, and what new resources the legislation or other policy changes would be required? At the end of the day without this sort of legislation it is quite straightforward at the moment for potential buyers to inquire of vendors to see the size of energy bills. I think in the immediate short term that is probably still the best way.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Will the Minister commit himself to at least maintaining the level of grants referred to in section 2 of his answer 8687 to improve the energy performance of badly-performing properties and, if possible, look to expand that particular grant system in the new M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) coming out later in this year?

[9:45]

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I thank the Deputy for his question and it does give me the opportunity to highlight that since 2009, as Members will see, nearly 2,000 properties have been fitted and had their energy efficiencies improved. Those properties were owned or rented by people who were not in a position to financially afford to have those improvements made. I can certainly commit that we will, as a department, continue to help those people unable financially to improve their properties with regards insulation. The Deputy will also know that we are potentially on the changeover to looking to help the people who are able to pay, but I will certainly want to look very carefully before this Assembly or the Government commits funds to helping people who are able to pay to improve their properties with grants from Government. But certainly I would say to the Deputy , people who are unable to pay and cannot afford to do this work we would very much look forward to continue working with them and helping them in the future.