States Meeting Transcript - 16th November 2016

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 16th NOVEMBER 2016

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................5

1. The Bailiff :..............................................................................5

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.........................5

2. The Assistant Chief Minister - statement regarding television licences for people aged over 75 ....................................................................................5

2.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister):........................................5

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................6
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................7
3. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................7

4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:.......................................................8
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:.........................................................8
6. The Deputy of St. John:..................................................................9
7. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:...........................................................9
8. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................9
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................10

3. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - statement regarding the Committee's review of travel and accommodation expenses...........................10

3.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):............10

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................12
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................12
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................12
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................13
5. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen:........................................................13
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................14

7. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................14
8. Deputy G.J. Truscott:...................................................................15

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................16

4. Zero-hours Contracts (P.92/2016) ......................................................16

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................16

2. Zero-hours contracts (P.92/2016): amendment (P.92/2016 Amd.).....................17

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):....................18

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................19
3. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................20
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................21
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................24
6. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................24
7. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:......................................................25 The Solicitor General:........................................................................25
8. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................26
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................27
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................29
11. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .....................................................30
12. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................30
13. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................30
14. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................31
15. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................33 The Solicitor General:........................................................................33

3. Zero-hours contracts (P.92/2016) as amended..........................................35

1. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................35
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................35
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................37

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................37
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................38
7. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................38
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................38
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................39
10. Deputy M.J. Norton: ................................................................40
11. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................40
12. Deputy G.J. Truscott:................................................................42
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................42
14. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John:.................................................44
15. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................45 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................45

5. Draft Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.98/2016)..........................................................................45

5.1 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs):......................46

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................47
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................47
3. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................47

6. Draft Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Consequential Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.99/2016)............................................................48

6.1 The Deputy of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs): ..............................48

7. Draft Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Placement Panel) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.100/2016)........................................................................49

7.1 The Deputy of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs): ..............................49

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................51

8. The Connétable of St. John - statement regarding the Hospital Relocation Sub-Panel ...........................................................................................51

8.1 The Connétable of St. John:............................................................51

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................52

9. The Assistant Chief Minister - statement regarding the Jersey Innovation Fund.....52

9.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister):.......................................52

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................53
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................53
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................54
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................55
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................56
8. Deputy R.J. Rondel of St. Helier:.......................................................56
9. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................56
10. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................57
11. Deputy S.M. Brée: ..................................................................57
12. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................57
13. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................57

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................58

10. Draft Financial Services Ombudsman (Case-fee and Levy) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.101/2016)...........................................................58

10.1 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture):................................................................................58

11. Draft Sea Fisheries (Inshore Waters) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.102/2016)..............................................................................59

11.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for Environment): ......................60

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................61
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................61
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................61
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................61
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................62
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................62
7. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................63
8. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................63

12. Draft Sea Fisheries (Inshore Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.103/2016)..................................................66

12.1 The Deputy of St. Martin (The Minister for Environment):.............................66

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................67
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................67
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................68
4. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................68
5. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................68

13. Jersey Appointments Commission: reappointment of Commissioner (P.106/2016)...70

13.1 Senator A.K.F. Green (States Employment Board - rapporteur):........................71

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................71

14. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee).....71

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................73

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. The Bailiff :

Good morning to all. I hope I will be forgiven for saying just a few things about yesterday's debate and vote. I could not say them earlier because I did not want to be seen as trying to influence the outcome in any way at all, but it seems odd to come back in today as though nothing occurred yesterday at all. The first thing I wanted to say is that it is a pleasure and a privilege to be here, sitting in this really quite uncomfortable chair. It is a privilege, because the Bailiff 's job in this Chamber is to serve the Assembly, not any one of you personally, but all of you collectively as the representative democratically elected voice of our Island. Neither I nor the Deputy Bailiff , nor my immediate predecessors, have ever had any doubt about that. The second thing follows on from the first. The debate about the role of the Bailiff has gone on now for some 5 or 6 years. Of course the issue has arisen previously from time to time, but the debate has recently been more intense. It is your right to have it that way. I want to be absolutely clear about that and I make absolutely no criticism at all for it. Indeed, I thank you for your restrained speeches yesterday, in the sense that they were largely about principle and practice and not about personalities. But I can also tell you from here that the impending debate has to some extent inhibited me from doing the whole job of Bailiff . Because the Bailiff serves the Assembly as its President, his or her ability to be useful to it depends to some extent on what Members will allow him to do or want him to do. Some Members spoke yesterday about how in other jurisdictions the Speaker is more proactive in promoting the Parliament. I want to say publicly and to you all that I am completely comfortable about doing that, not promoting policies or individual politicians, but promoting democracy. It is not in any way incompatible, in my view, with being the Island's Chief Justice, because the Royal Court, with this Assembly, is the guardian of the rule of law, of which one strand is the supremacy of the legislature. I hope Members will be ready to accept that offer, because in me and in the Deputy Bailiff you have willing servants, if you want them. Finally, perhaps I can add this: many jurisdictions have different constitutional structures. They are the product of history; not tradition, but history. When we talk about ours, whether it is in the Island or abroad, we - and when I say "we" I mean States Members, I mean the media and I mean Islanders generally - can either talk it

up or we can talk it down. We can be proud that our history takes us to where we are or we can be apologists for it. To my mind, it is not a question of being out of step with other countries, but rather, as a small jurisdiction with limited financial and human resources, achieving the same objectives, including having a completely independent Speaker in this  Assembly in a slightly different manner. I am immensely proud of this Island of ours and it is an unbelievable honour to be her Bailiff and to preside in this Assembly. [Approbation]

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2. The Assistant Chief Minister - statement regarding television licences for people aged over 75

The Bailiff :

Senator Ozouf , I understand you have a statement to make about television licences.

2.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister):

I apologise that due to illness in the London Office, the statement was not available to the Greffe for delivery yesterday morning, so I thank you for the opportunity of making it now. I am making this statement in response to Deputy Tadier 's proposition of P.117/2016 regarding age-related concessions to television licence fees for Jersey residents. I am making this statement in order for Members to question what is a matter of public importance, and it follows Deputy Mézec 's original written question of October 2015. I wanted to provide Members with the update on what the Government has been doing in this area, and in particular the linked issue of the issue of the BBC Charter renewal more generally. As Members will know, the Charter forms the constitutional basis for the BBC, sitting alongside the framework agreement that adds the level of policy detail. Collectively these 2 documents set out the public purposes for the BBC. They guarantee its independence and they cover its various duties and funding. Both apply to Jersey and both expire at the end of the year. To ensure that Jersey's relationship with the BBC remains clearly defined from January, therefore the States of Jersey officials have, since 2015, been in regular dialogue and discussion with the BBC and its interlocutor department, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, known as D.C.M.S. These discussions have covered various subjects within the broader context of the Charter renewal. However, I can confirm that officials were tasked with ensuring that the BBC continues to treat the Island fairly with regard to funding for T.V. (television) licence concessions and that also Jersey receives a high level of service provision from the BBC in future in terms of radio, television and other services, indeed such as live coverage, albeit on radio, of this Assembly's deliberations. In early discussions, it was established that the agreement between the U.K. (United Kingdom) and the BBC regarding age-related concessions to the T.V. licence only applied to people over the age of 75 in the U.K. and not the Crown Dependencies. As Members will understand, this is partly due to the fact that the Social Security systems of the jurisdictions are separate and distinct. Until a format agreement has been finalised with the BBC, I cannot confirm the full outcome of these discussions. However, it is worth noting that officers from the small digital policy team and the London office have developed a very strong working relationship with their counterparts at both the BBC and D.C.M.S. over the course of the past year. I can say that both parties have been receptive to our requests. I am also happy to advise that, where appropriate, these discussions have been conducted on a pan-island basis with representatives of Guernsey and

the Isle of Man to ensure an equitable approach across the Crown Dependencies. [9:45]

In recent months, meetings between States of Jersey officials and the D.C.M.S. and the BBC took place on 16th December 2015 and 17th December 2015 with D.C.M.S., 27th April 2016 with D.C.M.S., 19th May 2016 with the BBC, 16th August 2016 with the BBC and D.C.M.S. and on 4th November 2016 with D.C.M.S. I hope that this goes to some extent to answer the question by Deputy Tadier . Perhaps it was disappointing that the Deputy did not seek to even ask or email me directly about the progress that was being made and instead simply lodged a proposition, which is of course his right. I look forward to providing further information once an agreement between the States of Jersey and the BBC has been finalised. This will be, I hope, before the end of the year. In the meantime, and subject to the caveat that I have already mentioned, I thought that this statement was required, because I could then answer questions that Members may have on this important issue of public policy.

The Bailiff :

Are there any questions for the Assistant Chief Minister? Senator Ferguson.

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Given that members of the population in Jersey have to pay the full £145 annual fee for having a television set rather than subscribing to the BBC, why do the BBC not consider that it would be fair

to provide the free licences for the over-75s? We are paying the full whack. Why should we not get the benefits as well as the payment?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Senator is right, in the sense the background to this is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the U.K. - of which I offer no criticism or approbation or whatever - basically put to the United Kingdom, for better or worse, and had free T.V. licences universally applied for over-75s and that was paid for out of taxpayers' money. Some people described it as a sleight of hand to move that cost. It is not a casual cost; it represents approximately 20 per cent of the budget of the BBC. To put that 20 per cent cost on the BBC without any other change to the way the BBC raises its income would cause massive issues to the BBC. I think Members will understand that the BBC has a commitment to Jersey with its own radio broadcast. Maybe Members do not like what it says sometimes, but we have an open and free and fair democracy and there is effectively a dedication to the British Broadcasting Corporation in Jersey, of which we are fortunate. We did not want the unintended effect of saying: "Pay for over-75 licences" and then effectively lose the benefit that we have from the BBC. That is the reason.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I make no apology for bringing a proposition, because after my 8 or so years in the States I know that that is what you need to do sometimes to get results. I do not think we would be in a position to have this statement today were it not for that. I look forward to the fuller statement being brought at the end of the year. My question is: I note from the text that it is couched in very cautious language. There is talk about getting a fair deal for the Island and an equitable approach across the Crown Dependencies, but of course "fair" is subjective. Can the Assistant Minister give us an assurance that when talks are happening there is somebody there saying: "We expect and want the BBC to give free T.V. licences to over-75s in Jersey to ensure a level playing field and we will accept nothing less than that"? Has that position been put forward to the D.C.M.S. and to the BBC on behalf of Islanders?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

You spoke well, Sir, if I may say, with your remarks to the Assembly about how matters evolve. We have evolved into a system of ministerial government in this Assembly. I am sorry, but I have to say to Deputy Tadier his proposition is, frankly, unnecessary and unhelpful, in my view, because does he not understand that this is a delicate negotiation and you cannot just go in with hobnail boots and say to the BBC: "Pay over-75 licences"? Many people would question as to whether or not it is sustainable in the longer term for age-related benefits, universal benefit licences, to be affordable. This has been a taxpayer-funded benefit in the U.K. The problem has been shifted to the BBC and that is now having to be dealt with by the BBC. Of course we are going to want to have equality for Islanders and people who pay the £146, but we have to be realistic. We are living in a world where there is an increasing problem - or advantage, a fantastic thing - about people living longer. Is it possible in 10, 20, 30 years' time to see that there will be free T.V. licences if the licence fee continues as it is for everybody? Do you want to pay millionaires to have a licence fee together with people on low incomes? Are there people on other low incomes that would benefit? I think the Social Security and income support system should be paying for these, but that is what you do. Is it sustainable? His proposition, if he would just come and ask, he would get the answer, but he does not. He wants to put a proposition in to say: "Look at me, am I not great? I am solving the problem." It is not fair.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

If the proposition is necessary, then it is on the table. If it is no longer necessary, it can be withdrawn. The Minister is conflating 2 issues. When he talks about the long-term sustainability of the T.V. licence, giving free T.V. licences non-means tested, that is the BBC's choice, that is the U.K. Government's choice. It has nothing to do with the Minister for Social Security over here. All we are saying is that if the BBC are to introduce free T.V. licences for all over-75s in the U.K., then should that not apply to British citizens and licence-fee payers across the British Isles, who need to pay for a licence to watch television otherwise? There must be a level playing field. Would the Minister seek not to conflate the issues and to be very clear in making that representation to the relevant bodies in the U.K.?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Let me correct the Deputy . He did not need this proposition to get the Government of Jersey and the London office to work. We have been working, as this answer is clear, right from the start to preserve the rights of the output of the BBC, the valued output. We want a plural media. We do not only want the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post), we do not only want the BBC, we want ITV and we want basically good quality, high-quality broadcasts for our own Island democracy, which covers the deliberations and the discussions here. Basically ..

The Bailiff :

Minister, you are being asked whether you would accept the comments which the Deputy has just made.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

No, I do not accept them. I think they are jolly unhelpful and if he would just ask rather than put forward propositions. The problem with the Deputy 's policies are, they run out of other people's money.

The Bailiff :

That is not in order. Deputy Lewis .

4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

Would the Assistant Minister inform the Assembly what the situation is in the Isle of Man and indeed the other Crown Dependencies?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is a very good question. The situation with the Isle of Man is somewhat different. My understanding is that their Government, immediately after their election, has made a decision to fund licence fees from general revenues. I would draw the attention of the Deputy to the different arrangement that the BBC has. There is no BBC station. When the BBC local radio was set up, as I think Deputy Lewis will know, we have the BBC here, whereas the Isle of Man set up Manx Broadcasting Corporation, which again I make no observation, but I note that there is a significant cost to the taxpayers of the Isle of Man of that. I do not quite understand exactly what the recent decision with the Isle of Man is, but certainly we are working hand in glove with Guernsey and of course we always take a Crown Dependency approach.

5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John :

Could the Assistant Minister advise why it has taken a proposition to be lodged for him to make a statement to the Assembly informing us of what was going on?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

If Ministers were to be making statements on everything that they are doing, then this Assembly would be sitting every day. There was a comment - I think made by the U.K. Prime Minister and others - about Brexit, that you do not want to give a running commentary. Effectively, when you are in delicate, difficult, challenging negotiations, which means that there is a real problem to be solved, then sometimes you do not want to say that you are engaged in those discussions, policy under development. That is the reason why. The proposition, I would have told, off the record, to Members of this Assembly who I trust - everybody in this Assembly I trust - and I would have said what the situation was, but it is not something that I can announce because it has not been finally agreed. However, I am giving the strongest message that I can that proactive work, positive work, respectful work has been done and I hope to get a good solution for our Island community.

6. The Deputy of St. John :

A supplementary, sorry. If that is the case then, Assistant Minister, with regards to what you have just stated, why could the Assistant Minister not wait for the actual debate on the proposition rather than making the statement?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Because it has been put into the public domain, because there have been comments made in the media. The media, of course they will run stories about the fact that we are not doing something. Deputy Tadier puts a proposition in and it gets a response, as it must - and it is his right and he can do what he likes, I do not say that - but I just say that effectively I hope I am giving the very clear important information to Members, this has been a delicate and sensitive negotiation. If one would have opposed the cost of licence fees without a discussion about the Charter, there could have been an unintended consequence of, for example, the BBC considering its investment in Jersey and its radio output and the perhaps almost disproportionate benefit that we get from the BBC output in Jersey, with their commitment with the radio station and now C.I. (Channel Islands) broadcasting and their nightly news. One would not want to have had an unintended effect. One needs to work with people. I know that is very much in the Deputy 's style: work with people, not against them.

7. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I do not believe that the Channel Islands get the full range of BBC services, despite locals paying the full licence fee. Is that the Assistant Minister's understanding also?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think the Deputy is speaking there .. certainly the full range of services is accessed on the new digital output. That, I am afraid, is an issue of our proximity to France, whereby everywhere else in the United Kingdom had a switchover, where you could have analogue and digital and we had to do it overnight because we have one of these issues. We are near France and they have frequency services. We have to have our own bandwidth, which means that we do not get those services, but those services are available online. Because we have now a fibred community, we can get those services delivered faster and better than anywhere in the U.K. when everybody gets fibre, so we can deliver that signal in a different way in future. So they get them, just not through the aerial.

8. Deputy M. Tadier :

The Assistant Minister makes great play of the fact that we have a radio service in Jersey which he thinks is quality; we will not go too much into that. But is it not the case that the licence fee is not paid for the benefit of listening to radio, it is for the T.V. production? Of course I appreciate that money gets spread around, but you do not have to pay a T.V. licence to listen to the radio in Jersey; you do have to pay a T.V. licence to watch television, whether that is live or streaming. Is that not the case?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Does Deputy Tadier not understand that effectively the licence fee is the funding that the BBC gets to run its broadcasts, TV, online, radio? We in Jersey have our own BBC and I am delighted - as I have spoken to Senator Bailhache , the Minister for External Relations - you can now look in the i- thingy and you can press the button, where we do not look like a regional radio station, we look like a proper bit of the United Kingdom, like Scotland or elsewhere. We are privileged, I think, to have the BBC. I think there is a clue in the title, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and we are British Jersey, and of course they provide a whole range of services. The licence fee will evolve. I do not think the licence fee will be the licence fee in future. It will have to change. A universal single payment for T.V. and everything else, together with all the other challenges with competitive media, is not something .. and will the BBC in the longer term be able to afford over-75 free T.V. licences? Politicians love to promise things, but you run out of other people's money.

9. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Assistant Minister agree with a constituent who has emailed me, who says that if the States, our States, decide the BBC has to fund the service and change the law accordingly, as in the U.K., the BBC have the following options: first, to withdraw completely from the Channel Islands, which means that everybody would receive the service on satellite free? They might try and restrict satellite bands to exclude the Channel Islands, but if Guernsey still get it, that would be impossible. Second, to go along with it, so the U.K. would basically extend the free T.V. licences to Jersey, or thirdly, they would have to introduce some kind of encrypted free set service?

[10:00]

Does he agree with my constituent that 2 is the most likely scenario, that they would simply .. because it is the BBC and not UKC', that if we are British citizens paying the licence fee, it should be extended to Jersey? Are those the 3 options that the Assistant Minister thinks are on the table at the moment?

The Bailiff :

You have one minute, Minister. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have no comment to make, apart from the comments I made earlier about the fact that I will be making an announcement in a proper way after discussions with the BBC. That will be defending the interests of Jersey, but also celebrating the output of the BBC. I hope Members have been informed about these issues in a way that perhaps I would have hoped that they would have been in a month's time, after the negotiations have finished.

The Bailiff :

All right, thank you. Can I just ask the Minister for Digital whether "i-thingy" is a technical term? Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do apologise, Sir, you are quite right. iPlayer I think is what it is called. I do apologise, Sir, iPlayer. Obviously you are more technically minded than I am, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Probably not. Very well, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has a statement to make.

3. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - statement regarding the Committee's review of travel and accommodation expenses

3.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee): The Public Accounts Committee has reviewed the use of public money for travel and accommodation expenditure incurred by senior officers of the States of Jersey. The spending of public monies should require the highest levels of probity, hence the need for stringent codes of conduct and financial directions. There was justifiable public concern when it appeared that expenditure for some international trips may not have been procured with due regard for use of public funds. Members will know that the Chief Minister's Department conducted its own review, which concluded that there was no widespread misuse of procedures, but that improvements could be made. The P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) agrees that there has not been widespread misuse. However, it concludes that the Chief Minister's Department investigation did not go far enough to identify or highlight the instances of seemingly blatant disregard for the spirit of the code of conduct by certain officers. My committee believes that the culture of some departments pushes the boundaries of what the public would consider acceptable conduct. The P.A.C. explored the chief officers' attitudes to the guiding principles of the code of conduct. I will just state it to you: "Does the action feel right? Could it be justified to those outside the States? Could I be compromised in my dealings with others as a result of my intended action? Could such a purchase be considered extravagant or wasteful of public resource?" There is a belief in some departments that they do not need to strictly adhere to the guiding principles of the code of conduct, simply because the Island receives a good return on investment after officers have attended global networking events. However, the P.A.C. believes that there should be no exception to striving for best value for the public purse. The P.A.C. concludes that expensive business class or fully flexible tickets are rarely justified. It found that a minority of officers made little or no attempt to seek more cost-effective options. It is difficult, if not impossible, to justify the expenditure of certain trips, which unfortunately undermines the very hard work done by other departments to always act in the best interests of the public. The P.A.C. was particularly concerned that in one department, a

high-cost itinerary was undertaken over 3 consecutive years, with little or no exploration of real savings. The P.A.C. also discovered that there were 1.5 million loyalty points centrally accrued on States business which officers had little or no knowledge of how to redeem for the benefit of the public. Furthermore, the P.A.C. was shocked to discover that there was no robust procedure in place to redeem personal airline loyalty points accumulated by individual officers. The most worrying consequence of this is that it leaves officers vulnerable to accusations of impropriety. The P.A.C. also noted evidence concerning the use of the centralised booking system. The core reasons for having a central booking system is to reduce officer time and resources, provide value for money and a clear audit trail. When asked if the system provided these benefits, the majority of officers said it did not and expressed a low opinion and lack of trust in the system. In fact, one officer went further and blamed the high cost of trips on the system providing limited options. When challenged, he advised that he had sought cost differentials between flight options between fully flexible flights and business class tickets. The P.A.C. considers that comparing fully flexible flights to business class flights is like deciding whether to purchase a Rolls-Royce or a Bentley, whereas most chief officers would explore the price differentials of reasonably-priced cars. The P.A.C. concluded that although the booking system may have faults, it cannot and should not be blamed for an officer's overriding duty to secure value for money. It is not the P.A.C.'s function or intention to name and shame departments. In fact, it wishes to commend the Chief Minister's Department for already taking action to address some of the weaknesses identified. It considers that this represents behaviour that a learning organisation should adopt. However, it does not want the Chief Minister's Department to write a whole new set of financial directions or a raft of prescriptive directives which could then be interpreted in different ways by different departments. Rather, the P.A.C. urges the Chief Minister's Department to adopt a common sense principle-based culture, embodying the best practices of the majority of chief officers. We hope that the report and the recommendations contained within it will reassure the public that taxpayers' funds which are spent on trips are undertaken with full and careful consideration of best value for money. I would

like to thank my Committee, particularly the lay members that give us their time so willingly, and the officer that helped create the report and the hard work they did and commend all the departments that co-operated with our review.

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Early on in the statement made by the Chairman, he referred to the culture of some departments, which the Committee believes is what contributed to some people acting not within the spirit of the code of conduct on this issue. Would the Chairman agree that one of the things that reinforces that culture within these departments is the fact that publicly, the Council of Ministers has not gone far enough to criticise them for acting in the way they have done and led them to believe that they can continue to do this, simply because they will always get away with it under this Council of Ministers?

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

I am reassured by the Chief Minister that behind the scenes some difficult conversations have been had and that cultural change is well on the way. We have written a number of other reports that identify cultural issues within the States of Jersey that cover a number of matters. I am encouraged that that is changing, but it does not change overnight. I hope that reports like this, statements like this, and media attention which has also been generated by this helps change that culture over time.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

The Chairman of the P.A.C. says that his panel does not want to name and shame. The truth of the matter is the public have no confidence in the Government to bring in change on this type of thing. I think the public have a right to know which departments have been abusing the system. It would have been a far more effective report had they named which departments had been abusing the process and then the public could see, as time goes forward - as the States could - whether steps have been taken to curtail that type of abuse.

The Bailiff :

Was there a question there? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Does the Chairman not agree, Sir? Deputy A.D. Lewis :

No, that is a matter for the States Employment Board. The purpose of our report is simply to highlight procedural inefficiencies or deficiencies and make recommendations and suggestions how that can be avoided in the future. I hope that the Members feel that in the report we go far enough to explain what those procedures and systems could look like. I am assured by the Chief Minister's Department that many of those recommendations are being taken on board. It is not the place for the P.A.C. to start acting like the States Employment Board and criticising individual officers, many of whom work extremely hard for the States of Jersey, but just a few have unfortunately not followed the full code of conduct in its entirety and some financial directions.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I note the comment that the departments have made no efforts to deal with the air miles. Has it not occurred to the States Employment Board or the Chief Executive that such behaviour, collecting air miles, does cause a dysfunctional reaction with the staff, because they will always go with a particular airline if that is giving them air miles, which presumably some of the staff are using? If they are using air miles that they have gained through work for private purposes, is there no system of paying the States for the use of those air miles? Have you found any evidence of ..

Through the Chair, Senator. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Sorry, Sir. Yes, I should know. Has the P.A.C. not found any evidence of this? Has it asked about it?

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

Yes, very much so. It is in the report. If you read the section on the accumulation of loyalty points, we have discussed it in some depth and made some recommendations. At the moment there is no simple, easy way of redeeming the points for the benefit of the public purse and separating personally collected points from points collected through business travel. That is a deficiency in the current system. Also, we recommended that there should be a contractual obligation to disclose the points you obtain and the very fact that you have a loyalty card. At the moment, we were told that data protection prevented the staff from being asked for that information, but if it becomes a contractual obligation, which we are recommending, then they will have to disclose that they have a loyalty card and they will have to disclose how many points they have accrued. They can then be separated from their personal gain points and their business points are then used for the benefit of the public purse. I can cite an incidence recently whereby Education have used points to drastically reduce the cost of their trip to China for educational purposes by using the points, but the system was not in place for them to do that but a few months ago.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I find that strange, because I do understand that a particular Member of this Assembly collected a considerable number of points during  his working career and in fact he donated them to the Overseas Aid Commission so that they could use them to go on their trips. Why is this not being considered?

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

The system allows that to happen right now. The points can be transferred to somebody else's account; any of us can do that with any points now. The problem we have is that if you want to make bookings through the current system using loyalty points for business purposes, that is much more difficult, but donating them to a third party is easier. That is a deficiency in the current system which the Chief Minister's Department say they are going to find a system to adjust that so that we can use accumulated loyalty points to reduce the cost of travel, because they are worth a lot of money. That 1.5 million points is worth about £200,000, so that should be contributed to the cost of business travel. Currently the system does not permit you to do that, but you can donate points to whoever you wish.

5. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

The Chairman has spoken about receiving assurances, and in his report he commends the Chief Minister's Department for already taking action to address some of the weaknesses identified, but I would like to ask the Chairman whether he can say that the P.A.C. have seen a programme that is robust and workable and enforceable and which addresses all of the weaknesses identified.

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

No, currently we have not. That is the purpose of the report. There are a number of recommendations in there, and the normal course of events the department who are most responsible here, which is the Chief Minister's Department, will respond to that report and the recommendations contained in it. We would like to see - and we normally do - from all

departments a programme of implementation of the recommendations or a very good reason as to why they are not going to implement those recommendations. I await with great interest the Chief Minister's Department's full response to that report and I hope that Members will then be even further assured that the Chief Minister's Department has considered them and has decided, I hope, to adopt all, if not most of the recommendations.

6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I welcome the statement by the Chairman and the committee's conclusions and the work on it, and also the comments about the principles-based approach. I have lived with this issue right from the start, because I was on that Cape Town trip, and suggestions have been made about my own comments about that. Will the Chairman say that he will, at some point in his term of office, look again at the cost of travel and look at the value for money? He understands, not a result of his work, but as a result of the things that were done and the expenses and all the rest of it, that the unintended consequence is that good people doing hard work for the States are now frightened of getting their names on the front page of the J.E.P. because they are, effectively, travelling, just the fact that they do travel.

[10:15]

It will send a very clear and unequivocal message out that, as we are now building our trade and international relations around the world, they are going to be needing to, and we want our officials, and others, to travel, but obviously prudently. That is important to economic growth. Will he give that assurance that there should be no worry for people doing their job properly? Just for the avoidance of doubt.

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

The P.A.C. and Members here have absolutely no problem with the Minister and other officers travelling the world spreading the great story about Jersey; absolutely no problem with that at all. That does not, however, mean that they cannot follow the rules absolutely to the letter, and that has not happened in recent times. When the public then criticise them for it, they consequently lose sight of the benefits that are accrued from making these trips. That is the concern. The Assistant Minister himself was criticised in the media this week about his own travel. I would like to see the Assistant Minister publish a report on his travel as to what he has achieved during that period. If he has a report, please, publish it, because then the members of the public, and this Assembly will fully understand his work and what he achieves from spending that money. Reporting back on these matters is important, and following the rules is important. Do both those things and there is no reason why we should not continue the great work that he, and other Members of the States do while travelling overseas. That should and must continue, but that does not mean he should not follow the rules.

7. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I would like to thank the Chairman for his report; I think it is fair and balanced: it praises where praise is due and criticises and challenges where it is due. One of their particular recommendations which I find interesting is moving to a principles-based approach. I wonder if the Chairman could say a little bit more about that, because I think the result of such a recommendation is that you have a centralised system, like we currently do, but you almost need to have a tier-2 approach system, where you can be more flexible, because there are benefits from people's personal cards that can be delivered to the value of several thousand pounds. Also sometimes an individual P.A. (personal assistant) or secretary can book something far cheaper and quicker, and change it, providing they are working within the principles. But, for the majority of travel, you still need the centralised system. I wonder if the Chairman could say a little bit more about how he sees that working in future.

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

Yes. We have been slightly critical of the centralised booking system, but it was not fully within our remit. The reason why we have mentioned it is because officers mention it to us in public hearings, being very critical of themselves. I have met with the Chief Minister and his officers since, and there is talk about a 2-tier system. We should not be slowing officers down from making arrangements simply because the system is difficult at times to use. We must be presenting best value. We saw little evidence that the current system provides better value for money, a quicker, more efficient service, or a good audit trail. There is no issue with people making direct bookings with suppliers, providing the accounting system allows you to do it, in other words, there must be a code for every booking that the JD Edwards system we currently use in the Treasury can recognise. When we asked for information about the booking system and transactions that have been made, we had a real problem trying to get information from the Treasury, because it was not even coded currently significantly enough. So if you go away from a centralised system without a good I.T. (information technology) system for the management of the funds, then you have got a real problem. So we need to fix the Treasury system first and then it will enable Members and officers to make individual bookings and attain better value and still account for the funds. What we cannot have is one almighty mess of transactions done on credit cards and charge cards, and the like, without a good Treasury accounting system to manage the funds. That is when it goes horribly wrong. I do not think centralised booking systems necessarily work as well as some would say. There are some advantages, but there should be a good audit trail, value for money and saving money. At the moment, we saw little evidence it was doing any of those things, so a lot of work needs to be done to ensure that is the case moving forward.

8. Deputy G.J. Truscott:

Does the Chairman think the Government reacted quick enough? We have financial challenges: we have frozen benefits, we have introduced voluntary redundancies, we have got all these things, and yet did they send the message, or do you feel they were slow in sending the message, to the workforce to say: "Well, everyone should be travelling economy class rather than business class", and that there really should have been a tightening right at the beginning, effectively, that austerity was taking place?

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

I must commend most officers for taking exactly that line already, the majority do. There was a small instance of a number of departments that do travel significantly that were not abiding by the guiding principles of attaining best value for the public purse and putting the public first. They were living in a little bubble that was not necessarily the same bubble that everybody else was in. That has been highlighted, rightly so, and that has now changed. I think the Chief Minister did react quite quickly; the Chief Executive, for example, immediately said that any travel over a certain value had to be signed off by him, not by the accounting officer, who was taking out the expense, which was wrong. They had subordinates signing off their travel expenses. That has changed. I do not think that model is sustainable, but it changed straightaway. So they did react, and I think officers were concerned about public perception, more so than ever before. The culture of understanding the impact of freedom of information applications had not quite got through to some officers. They are living in a goldfish bowl, more so than ever before, therefore they must be aware of the implications of freedom of information applications. That does drive cultural change. There are some unintended consequences from that, which is what the Assistant Minister mentioned, but in the U.K. they have been living with this for a long time; it is new to Jersey and we need to adjust our culture so that we do react quickly to those types of attentions and hopefully minimise them in the future.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

4. Zero-hours Contracts (P.92/2016) The Bailiff :

Connétable , I am afraid we are left with 4 seconds, so you are too late. That brings question time to an end on those 2 statements. We now come to P.92, Zero-hours contracts, the proposition of Deputy Mézec , and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - (a) that "exclusivity clauses" in zero- hours contracts should be prohibited; and (b) to request the Minister for Social Security, in consultation with the Employment Forum, to bring forward within 6 months for approval by the States the necessary draft legislation to give effect to the proposals.

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

The issue of zero-hours contracts and the role that they do play, or that they should play in our economy, is one which has been a hot topic for several years now and, as time has gone by, we have learnt more about their prevalence in our society, we have learnt more about the struggles that many people with these contracts face, and we have seen countless examples of where they are clearly being used inappropriately. We know that many of these people struggle to make ends meet, they find it impossible to plan ahead when their income varies so much from week to week, and we have heard stories of people who are already on the bus down to work when they get that text message from the boss telling them that there is no work for them that day. I myself have met people who worked in finance firms doing an ordinary working week, 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., 5 days a week, but are on a zero-hours contract; get out of having to fulfil the statutory requirements that come with having a full-time contract. I have met people who work 12-hour days in the care industry but only get paid for a fraction of that time because the employer claims that travel time does not count as working, so they will not pay them for it, which, at the end, means that they are technically being paid less than the minimum wage. I have also met people who have taken on zero-hours contracts on the promise that they will get more hours when they take that job up, only to then be sanctioned by income support for taking on work which is considered more volatile. But I also have to say that I have met people on zero-hours contracts who are perfectly happy with them, who felt that they suited their particular employment needs and was mutually beneficial with their employer too. Many of us in this Assembly have expressed views at election time about this issue and many of us have said that we were concerned about the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts, which we wish to see something done about. So far in this electoral term, the current Government has done nothing whatsoever to address this issue; in fact, under this Government, the proportion of workers on zero-hours contracts has gone up. Half of the new jobs created in the past 6 months have been zero-hours contracts. While in the U.K. only 2 per cent of jobs are zero-hours, in Jersey it is 12 per cent, and rising. The Government boasts that Jersey has record levels of employment, yet it whitewashes the fact that we also have a record population because of their complete failure to enforce any controls at all, and that the jobs being created are not of a quality that any of us should be prepared to settle for as acceptable. Now, I said to my electorate that I supported a crackdown on the abuse of use of zero-hours contracts, including specifically the abolition of exclusivity clauses. So, when the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel announced that it was going to do a review on this subject, I thought that would be a helpful and positive step towards encouraging the Government to take the necessary action it needs to protect workers who are currently not getting a fair deal. I thought that would be the most effective vehicle for achieving change. Their report makes for interesting reading, and it makes many positive suggestions about what can be done to improve the situation for these workers. But what we have heard from the Minister in response to these recommendations was a statement, which I believe could be summed up in 3 words: "Cannot be bothered." They are focusing on other work: "It is not a priority, it is a bit complex and, well, we are just not that fussed." I do not think that is good enough, and so I have lodged this proposition on what should be the easiest aspect of this issue in the hope that the Assembly can give directions to the Minister that it is a subject which we believe should be higher up on their list of priorities, and it is something that we want to see action on. I have picked this single recommendation from the Scrutiny Report about abolishing exclusivity clauses, because it should be non-controversial. I hope that, by targeting the low-hanging fruit, we can start making progress and eventually then move on to the more complex areas and, step-by-step start making a difference. There is virtually unanimity across the board that these clauses are wrong and unjustifiable. We have the local branch secretary of Unite the Union and the President of the Chamber of Commerce singing from the same hymn sheet on this subject. In fact, the comments which have been made by the Minister for Social Security herself in the Scrutiny hearing on this subject are the same as my own personal views, yet the Minister has chosen not to proceed with acting on what the Scrutiny Panel has recommended and, instead, wants to kick it into the long grass. She said that there is no evidence that these clauses exist in Jersey and are being used, and she has lodged an amendment to this proposition which makes the case for that. The problem is, it is just not true. Her amendment references the comments of the Scrutiny Panel's report, which, admittedly, does not provide a direct quote of concrete evidence about the use of exclusivity clauses here. But what there has been no reference to were the results of the 2014 Annual Social Survey, which included questions on zero-hours contracts, at the behest of the Government, which reported that a fifth of the people on these contracts claimed that exclusivity was a problem. If that is statistically accurate, that is as many as 800 workers who are affected. I call that a problem, and that problem is exacerbated by the fact that these people are going to be, of all workers, the most unlikely to kick up a fuss about it, because they will be worried about being punished by their employers for complaining about their terms and conditions, not get the hours, not be able to pay the bills and potentially even ending up getting sanctioned from income support for the way they

would have behaved. Now, I am sure Members will have their own views on the role that zero- hours contracts should or should not play in our society and our economy, but there has been virtually unanimity across the board that exclusivity clauses are wrong. So I am making the case against specifically those clauses. I know that there is an amendment to come from the Minister for Social Security, which I have comments to make on, but I will wait until we are in that debate before making comments on that amendment. I hope on this issue of principle that the Assembly can reflect what seems to be the view across the board in wider society that these clauses are exploitative and wrong and that they should be banned. I make the proposition.

2. Zero-hours contracts (P.92/2016): amendment (P.92/2016 Amd.) The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] There is an amendment brought by the Minister for Social Security, and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

[10:30]

The Greffier of the States:

(1) Page 2, Paragraph (a) – After the word "prohibited", insert the words ", subject to sufficient evidence that exclusivity clauses are being misused in zero-hour contracts in Jersey". (2) Page 2, Paragraph (b) – For the words ", in consultation with the Employment Forum," substitute the words "to direct the Employment Forum to consult, and the Minister"; delete the words "within 6 months"; and after the word "proposals" insert the words "when the Employment Forum has the capacity, sufficient evidence has been presented, and law drafting time is available".

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

This is a complex issue, and I am disappointed I was not given the opportunity to discuss it with Deputy Mézec before he lodged the proposition. We could have, perhaps, reached a more positive solution. I thought long and hard about how to deal with the proposition and I hope that Deputy Mézec will accept my amendment. As I said to the Deputy yesterday, I agree with the principle of the proposition but, unfortunately, it is not possible for me to accept it as currently worded. That is why I have lodged the amendment, which will allow the Employment Forum to continue to review family-friendly rights as a priority over the next year. This is a longstanding commitment that I have carried forward from the previous Minister for Social Security, and I have always said that the current basic level of family-friendly rights should be extended. Should my amendment be rejected, that important work will be delayed until 2018. The Employment Forum simply does not have the capacity to consult on both issues in 2017 as well as undertaking the minimum wage review. The members of the Forum give a great deal of their own time to perform this important honorary role, and their workload is already at full capacity for 2017. If a problem with exclusivity clauses had been demonstrated, either in Deputy Mézec 's proposition or in the Scrutiny Panel's review, I would have been more happy to consider making this a priority instead. The evidence that I have received from a range of organisations, detailed at the back of our amendment, and industry representatives, shows that local employees will not benefit from a ban on exclusivity clauses. The Jersey Chamber of Commerce does not see exclusivity clauses being used by employers; they already advise their members not to use exclusivity clauses and they consider that legislation is not required. The Jersey Advisory and Conciliatory Services said no issues have arisen with the use of exclusivity zero-hours contracts, and that, to quote: "Legislating against such clauses is unlikely to have any significant impact." J.A.C.S. (Jersey Advisory and Conciliatory Services) provides employers with a template for zero-hours contracts. They have decided to specify in their template that zero-hour employees are permitted to work for other employers. I quote from their document: "This document sets out the terms and conditions that apply when you have accepted work from us, however, nothing in these terms prevents you from accepting work from another employer." This amended template will ensure that there is clarity in the terms of employment, and it is now available on the J.A.C.S. website. I think many people would agree in principle that, if an employer offered no hours of work but stopped a person working elsewhere, that would be unfair. However, agreeing with this sentiment does not mean that we must change the law immediately. My amendment, first of all, ensures that we would follow an appropriate procedure. I would direct the Employment Forum to consult, they would consult the public and then make a recommendation. If they recommend a law change, I would request law drafting and then seek States approval. My amendment also accounts for the potential complexity of the law

drafting. It is not as straightforward as it sounds. First of all, we would need to create the statutory concepts of a zero-hour contract and an exclusivity clause within the law, and then we would need to provide for anti-avoidance and enforcement measurements. It might appear that there is no harm in making this change, even without any evidence. Our law is currently simple and appropriate for Jersey. More red tape brings a cost to employers, particularly small businesses. 80 per cent of our businesses in Jersey are classified as small businesses with 5 employees or under. If employers wish to avoid complexity in the law, some might make other arrangements, such as fake self- employment, with no employment rights at all. The U.K. has recently seen a rise in these types of insecure arrangements, such as gig work; Uber is an example of this. Although this debate is about the narrow issue of exclusivity and it is not about zero-hours contracts generally, I would like to emphasise that, unlike the U.K., our Employment Law already gives zero-hour employees the full range of employment rights. These include holiday pay, redundancy pay, minimum wage, family-

friendly rights, and protection against unfair dismissal. I amended the Employment Law in 2015 to ensure that this was the case. My amendment today would ensure that we do not prioritise new legislation on the off-chance that exclusivity might be a problem in Jersey, and that we enable the promised review of family-friendly rights to continue, as planned, in 2017. During that time, we will actively keep zero-hour contracts under review through the labour market data. The Statistics Unit has agreed to include more information on zero-hours jobs within the manpower report. I have also committed to regularly publish more detailed information on zero-hours contracts obtained by looking at the manpower and contributions data together. If my amendment is adopted, I will look at zero-hours contracts as the next priority, after the family-friendly review is complete. We know that Jersey is behind the rest of the world, other than Guernsey, on maternity rights, and it is my first priority to rectify that. I propose the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment? Deputy Mézec .

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

I thought I should speak early on in this debate, just to lay out my position in relation to it, and suffice to say, I will not be supporting the amendment, and I hope Members reject it. The very simple reason why I do not want Members to accept this amendment is because it essentially in its wording gives a wonderful get-out clause to do nothing. It uses language that talks about: "Sufficient evidence" that exclusivity clauses are being misused. Well, what does that mean? That is entirely subjective. Who it is down to? It is not down to the Assembly, it will be down to a Minister and, if this amended proposition is accepted, it would make it very difficult to then bring a subsequent proposition to this Assembly to instruct her to go ahead and do something when we think that sufficient evidence is there, but on which the Minister disagrees and says: "There is not sufficient evidence." So that, I think, is my primary reason for opposing this amendment: that it does nothing but enshrine the status quo. Right now, the position of the Minister for Social Security is that she can go ahead and do something to crack down on the exploitative use of zero- hours contracts, or she can choose not to. If the amended proposition is passed, that situation remains exactly the same and there is no compulsion on her or her department whatsoever to do anything. I think that it is a much better way forward to stand up and say: "No, we are casting a very clear verdict: we want action to be taken on this specific point and we would like it to be done relatively soon." The Minister has said that there is a priority to deal with all sorts of other things but, of course, the problem is, just because you say something is second on your list, does not mean that when you finish the thing that is first on your list you then move on to the second thing, because times change, new issues come up, things can overtake it. This amended proposition allows us to be in a situation where this could theoretically never be dealt with just because, oh, something else comes along, oh, another thing comes along, and it does not get dealt with. This amended proposition would do nothing but enshrine the status quo, as things are, and I do not believe that we would see any meaningful action early next year to see tangible improvements to the working conditions of these people on zero-hours contracts. It does bug me when we talk about getting this sufficient evidence when we have had the Jersey Annual Social Survey of 2014, which asks questions on zero-hours contracts, because the Council of Ministers ask it to, and it came forward and said that a fifth of the people who responded on zero-hours contracts said exclusivity was a problem for them. I just wonder what more are we going to get, or what is going to be considered sufficient if a fifth of people on these contracts saying it is a problem is not sufficient enough to say it is a problem. The Minister referred to red tape for businesses and, of course, I sympathise with that argument. I want to have an economy which is dynamic, which is efficient, and where opportunities are being created for both businesses and employees so that they can all

get on in life and, if there is anything Government can do appropriately to regulate the economy to help them, or to step back when it is necessary, or to make interacting with the government more slick and efficient to help them, then of course, I support that and I am happy to see red tape cast aside when that red tape is inhibiting businesses' opportunity to grow. But I think the problem here, and the stats that I have seen certainly in relation to how zero-hours contracts are used in the U.K., is that the businesses which exploit them do not tend to be the small and medium enterprises, they tend to be the much bigger businesses where there is not that face-to-face relationship between the boss and the worker. With smaller businesses the relationships often tend to be better because there is a closer working relationship, there are better communication streams for the employee to the employer when they are having a problem for it to be considered. Those smaller businesses often have to offer decent terms and conditions and pay to their employees so that they can get good employees to come to them so that they do not end up just going to the larger corporations, which are able to act in a very different way, and often act in a very uncompetitive way to those small businesses. I do not accept this red tape argument as being one which holds much sway here, because, frankly, it is an argument always to do nothing: "Oh, we cannot possibly regulate exploitation because that will impinge on businesses' ability to grow." Well, no, I do not agree with that. We should have appropriate regulation where necessary to make sure that workers do get a fair deal and to make sure that businesses have the infrastructure in place that they need to succeed and not simply say: "Well, we are never, ever going to look out for working people who have got a rough deal." I think that shows being on the wrong side here. I do not agree with that point. On the basis that this amendment is a green light to do nothing, I hope Members will reject it and, instead, we can have a debate purely on my unamended proposition to decide yes or no. Do we do something about this or do we say we are not prepared to crack down on the more exploitative elements of zero-hours contracts, a topic which many members of the public are seriously concerned about, a topic which is affecting the quality of life of many people in our

community, and I hope we can have that debate as it is. If there is a genuine problem with the 6- month deadline that I have put in that amendment, there is nothing to stop the Minister doing what Ministers frequently do, which is that they do take up a piece of work with a timeframe, and when something happens, something unforeseen crops up and they realise that they are not able to meet that deadline, well, come back to the States and we will talk about it. If there are good reasons for that, we are all very understanding and accommodating people; we will be prepared to listen to that. If the Minister wants to say: "Well, sorry, 6 months is not good enough, 8 months would be better", well, I would be prepared to listen to that, as long as there is a good case for it. I think that is the more sensible way to go about it and I think that is what will end up producing a tangible difference to these people. I hope Members will reject the amendment.

3. Deputy R. Labey :

May I first reassure you that, when I attended the recent C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) conference in Canada earlier this year, I would like to think that I blazed a trail for Jersey and was a very good ambassador, even to the extent that, when we touched on the subject of the mechanism of the Speaker, I kept my personal concerns to myself and to use the modern vernacular, it was my pleasure to big you up'. As far as you personally or your Deputy occupying that chair I want you to know that you have my complete confidence and the privilege is all ours. [Approbation] On to zero hours and my view is that it is simply an unfair opportunity to undermine employee conditions that has no justification. It primarily allows exploitative or lazy employers to get away with abusing their workforce with little evidence to suggest extra jobs are created and if the Minister has evidence to the contrary I would like to hear it. Otherwise it is just another legal loophole to con the workers.

[10:45]

4. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I have to say I believe the Minister's amendment is an unacceptable amendment. It takes what is a straightforward proposition and in part (a) of the amendment it introduces a caveat that the prohibition of exclusivity clauses should be subject to sufficient evidence without saying to us what would be deemed sufficient evidence and who decides the evidence is sufficient. Simply prohibit them, yes, but subject to sufficient evidence. What on earth does that mean? In part (b) of the amendment it seeks to amend the proposition to say that the Minister should bring legislation to the States when sufficient evidence has been presented. I find that so disappointing. It means that the Minister alone wants to decide when sufficient evidence has been presented and if the Minister feels the evidence is insufficient then presumably the matter can never be returned to this House. I regret to say that we on the Scrutiny Panel know where the Minister is coming from here because in response to our Scrutiny Report the Minister did not believe that zero-hours contracts or exclusivity clauses were causing any sort of problem in the Island. The Minister declined to take any action at all over zero-hours contracts or exclusivity clauses save for the amendment of guidance that is available through J.A.C.S. to employers. I am sure all reasonable employers and good employers on this Island observe industry guidance and good industry practice. It is not those employers we are criticising here. It is those unscrupulous employers who would seek to place people on a contract with no guarantee of work and then limit their ability to seek other income. Zero-hours working is a huge issue for this Island and it is this Assembly that needs to weigh up evidence upon it and decide on this question. I submit it is not for the Minister to have the power as sought by this amendment to decide whether or not sufficient evidence is presented to her. As a servant of this Assembly it disappoints me that a Minister should propose an amendment that takes away that ability to decide whether the evidence warrants any legislation and instead wants to be an arbiter of it all. It is my submission that we do have evidence that is sufficient already to bring before us. This Assembly has already discussed contracts that contain an exclusivity clause. Was it not a year ago or more that we were concerned about workers who were being employed to lay fibre optic network in this Island? Those workers were engaged on a prestigious contract that was let by a publicly-owned body, of which we, the States of Jersey, are shareholders. It was a contract to deliver public good to make the Island leaders in our digital future. Those workers digging up the roads, putting those cables in were engaged on zero-hours contracts and moreover there were exclusivity clauses in those contracts. I have one of those contracts here. I will read short extracts: "Please note this is a zero-hours engagement. Work may be offered from time to time depending on the needs of the business but there is no guarantee of work. You are under no obligation to accept the work offered." Then in the depth of the small print: "While working for the company and/or its client you must devote your whole time and attention to the activities within your role profile [or job description in other words] or as otherwise instructed by the company and/or its client unless prevented from so doing by sickness or injury." That is an exclusivity clause, a

refinement .. Senator I.J. Gorst :

Sir, it is a point of clarification and not a point of order so I will ask whether the Deputy is prepared to give way.

The Deputy of St. Ouen : I will give way.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Sorry, I am confusing myself. It is not the Deputy I wished to give way. I wish for the Solicitor General to consider whether the statement the Deputy has just made that the clause he has read out is an exclusivity clause. It is simply a clause that says while working  for the company,  i.e. employed on the job, they must give their full and complete attention to the work, not that they cannot work for somebody else at the same time.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. The Deputy of St. Ouen, please continue. The Solicitor General will no doubt think about that question which is coming his way.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think the following clause in the contract may clarify that issue because the following clause says: "You may undertake other work during the course of the engagement as long as you agree suitable arrangements with your engagement manager in writing in advance. In the event that your other work proves to be detrimental to your work with the company it may be necessary to review matters." So, yes, this is a requirement that while engaged on this contract the employee must devote his full time and attention to the job and if the employee felt he was short of hours and he had not been given enough work by this company, by any company, then if they want to go out and seek other work they have to ask permission. They have to approach in advance and seek an approval from their employer and that can only be agreed in writing in advance. This is a controlling employer seeking to abuse their dominant position. We have that example of what has gone on in the Island in the past because that employer, I understand, is no longer working in the Island. But there are also other pieces of survey evidence, some gathered by the Minister herself and reported in the Jersey Annual Social Survey 2014, which Deputy Mézec has alluded to. Those questions in that survey were asked at the request of the Minister and the question was: "Is being allowed to work for another employer while on a zero-hours contract a problem, not a problem, a slight problem or a significant problem?" It was not a problem for most people because, yes, for a lot of people zero-hours contracts do work well. But 17 per cent said it caused slight problems and 2 per cent said it caused them significant problems. Therefore not being allowed to work for another employer while on a zero-hours contract is affecting 19 per cent or one in 5 of people working on those contracts, one in 5. It is disappointing when the Minister has set out in her amendment her views of other bodies she has not also included those statistics that she had sought and that she holds within her department. It is not mentioned in her amendment. We now know there are over 4,000 people working on zero-hours contracts as their main source of income. I do not include the greater number who may have been using it to supplement their income but for me those 4,000 or more are the main worry. We had a discussion yesterday in Question Time about

the precise figure and I am glad the Minister, as a result perhaps of my questioning, has arranged with the Statistics Unit that we can get more information about those people and the Minister's department itself will, we are told, be providing those figures. But even if we take the figure of 4,000 in June 2014, even though we know it is greater now because the number of zero-hours contracts has gone up and the Statistics Unit calculated 4,700. But if the Minister does not accept 4,700 let us take 4,000, which is the figure given in the annual survey of person's in full-time employment on a zero-hours contract. That is about one in 12, I believe, of the economically active population. That is 1,000 people who have some sort of difficulty with not being able to work for another employer. The question in the J.A.S.S. (Jersey Annual Social Survey) was worded whether you have a significant problem or a slight problem and the Minister may wish to discount those who said it was only a slight problem. But that still leaves 2 per cent who said for them it was significant. 2 per cent of 4,000 is 80. Is the Minister saying we should not legislate for 80 people who feel that not being able to work for another employer is a significant problem for them? Is 80 too small to have regard to? But let us wait a minute. Is it limited to those 80 people? The survey was taken at one point in time in 2014. Eighty said it was causing them a significant problem. Why would they say that? Most likely because at that time they were saying their employer was not giving them enough hours to provide them with an adequate income and was causing them that

problem. But ask the same question 3 months later. The situation may have changed. By that time their employer may have more work and may be giving them more hours so it is no longer causing those 80 perhaps or some of them a significant problem. But there may be other employees by that time who had their number of hours cut down and those employees begin to feel they have a significant problem. At different times different people will find it a significant problem, meaning it will affect quite a large number of people over a period of time. We have a second piece of survey evidence and that is the Scrutiny Panel survey we conducted of employers and employees. The Minister in her report correctly states that none of the employer respondents to our survey reported using exclusivity clauses. That does not surprise me. I would expect that anyone wishing to engage in that sort of survey would not admit to that but also be responsible employers. But the Minister does not refer in her report to the part of the survey the employees filled in and that does throw up some evidence. Again, I do not know why the Minister was selective in referring to only one part of the survey when she had dealt with the evidence from the Scrutiny Panel in her response to our report. It should be remarked that the employees who responded to our survey were not the employees of the employers who responded. Around 150 of employee respondents had zero-hours contracts as their main job and 16 per cent of those reported they were never allowed to work for another employer. Not a huge statistical number but it is still some evidence. We also asked and had information from people who are no longer on a zero-hours contract but had previously worked on a zero-hours contract and about 16 per cent of those said that at that time they were in a contract it was a concern to them that they were never allowed to work for another employer. We have as evidence 2 surveys each producing evidence that employees do feel restricted by not being able to work for others on zero-hours contracts. We have the very fact that zero-hours contracts numbers are wholly out of proportion in Jersey than numbers in the U.K.; 12 per cent of all jobs here as against perhaps 2 to 3 per cent in the U.K. The U.K. felt it necessary to introduce legislation to curtail misuse there and why should we not think there is the potential for misuse occurring in Jersey? I wish it were the case that we could say all employers were paragons of virtue and would never impose exclusivity clauses. The Minister seems to suggest that also just because we do not hear of it but I regret I do not share that optimism because employers here appear to be using zero- hours contracts very indiscriminately. It seems to me for too many it has become an automatic business model. You take on new staff, you put them on zero-hours contracts, the employer has more control, the employees are likely to be more compliant because of their vulnerability, it keeps them is a state of insecurity and rarely addresses the true nature of the work they do, which might be regular hours or it may turn into regular hours. There is a mechanism for addressing and converting the contract into something it should be, which is to provide employees with certainty of employment and income. Do we need more at this stage when we know there is that potential for