States Meeting Transcript - 29th November 2016

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 29th NOVEMBER 2016

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................6

1. The Bailiff :................................................................................6

QUESTIONS......................................................................................6

2. Written Questions........................................................................6

1. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE TAKING OF BREATH SAMPLES FROM PEOPLE AGED UNDER 18: [9721]......................................................................6
2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE FUNDING OF FAMILY NURSING AND HOME CARE: [9722]...................................................................7
3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING A GRANT FROM THE JERSEY INNOVATION FUND IN THE CASE OF THE LOGFILLER PROPOSAL: [9723]......................................................7
4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING DISABILITY CLAIMS UNDER THE INCOME SUPPORT SYSTEM: [9724]....................................................................................8
5. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE JERSEY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY IN OVERSEEING POLICE INVESTIGATIONS: [9725]...............................9
6. DEPUTY M. R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF ITS OFFICERS: [9726]....................................................................................9
7. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF DÉGRÈVEMENT PROVISIONS: [9727]..................................................................10
8. DEPUTY M. R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF REMISE DES BIENS PROVISIONS: [9728]..................................................................10
9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE DETENTION OF DOGS BY CUSTOMS OFFICERS: [9729]....11
10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COMPANIES HELD WITHIN THE PORTFOLIO OF JERSEY TELECOM: [9730]...........................................................11

11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE IMPACT OF CONTROL OF HOUSING AND WORK LEGISLATION: [9731]......13
12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF BENEFIT CHANGES ON LOW INCOME FAMILIES: [9732]..........................................................17
13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING MINISTERIAL CONTROL OVER THE OPERATIONAL DECISIONS OF ANDIUM HOMES: [9733].........................................................18

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................19

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding consideration of a policy to ban letting agent fees for tenants: [9739] ................................19

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Housing):....................................19

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................20
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................20
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................20
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................20
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................21

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the outcomes of the Access to Justice Review: [9742]........................................................21

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):.................................21

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................21
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................22
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................22
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................22

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding the contract with condor Ferries: [9734] ....23

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

.........................................................................................23 3.3.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................23

3.4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of Minister for Education regarding student loans, student grants and other assistance for people in higher education: [9741]...........23

Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier (The Minister for Education):..............................23

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................24
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................24
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................24
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................24

5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John of the Minister for Education regarding nursery education funding: [9738]...............................................................25

Deputy R.G. Bryans (The Minister for Education):...........................................25

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................25
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................25
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................26

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................26
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................26

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding consideration of measures to assist Jersey's Just about managing' working households: [9736]......27

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................27

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................27
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................28
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Chief Minister regarding complaints from the public considered by the States Employment Board: [9743]..................................28

Senator A.K.F. Green (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):................................28

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................28
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................29

8. Deputy J.M. Maçon of the Minister for Environment regarding the masterplan for five Oaks: [9737] ........................................................................29

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for Environment): ............................29

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................29
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................30
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................30
4. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................30
5. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................31

6. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................31

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Home Affairs ..............31

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................31 Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs):............................31

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................32
   2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................32

4.2.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................32

3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................32

4.3.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................32

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................33

4.5.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................33

6. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................33

4.6.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................33

7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................34

4.7.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................34

8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34

4.8.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34

9. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................35
10. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................35

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources...35

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................35 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................36

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................36
   2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................36

5.2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................36

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................36
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37

5.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37

5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37

5.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38

6. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................38

5.6.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................38

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39

5.7.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................39
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................40

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................41 Senator P.M. Bailhache : ......................................................................41 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.............................................................41

6. Draft United Nations Financial Sanctions (Jersey) Law 201- (P.108/2016)............41

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................41
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................42
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................42
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................43
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................43

7. Ministerial Government: referendum (P.74/2016) - as amended......................44

7.1 Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................44

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................47
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................48
3. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................51
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................52
5. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................53
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................54
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................58
8. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................59
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................59
10. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................61

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................62 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................62

11. Senator A.K.F. Green:...............................................................62
12. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................64
13. Deputy S.M. Brée: ..................................................................67
14. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen : ....................................................68
15. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:...............................................70
16. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................70
17. The Deputy of St. Peter:.............................................................72
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................73
19. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................78
20. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................79

8. Greville Bathe Fund: appointment of Jurat (P.112/2016) ..............................83

8.1. The Connétable of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................83

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................84
2. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................84

9. Draft Road Works and Events (Jersey) Law 2016 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.114/2016)..............................................................................85

9.1 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Infrastructure):....................85

QUESTIONS.....................................................................................86

10. Oral Questions - resumption............................................................86

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the grant from the Jersey Innovation Fund to the Logfiller proposal: [9735] .....................................86

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):................................86

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................86
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................86
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................87
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................87
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................87
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................88
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................88
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................89
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................89

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding the Jersey Innovation Fund: [9740]....................................................................................89

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):................................89

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................90
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................90
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................91
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................91
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................92
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................92
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................93

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................94

11. Minimum Wage: revised hourly rate from 1st April 2017 (P.115/2016)...............94 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:...........................................................94

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................95

[9:31]

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

1. The Bailiff :

Under A perhaps I can just remind Members that tomorrow at 9.30 we have a special sitting of the Assembly to bid His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor farewell. After that sitting the States will adjourn briefly. The reason for making the announcement now is just really to tell the public. Any Members who want to come to the Royal Square to wave His Excellency goodbye would be very welcome to do so.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE TAKING OF BREATH SAMPLES FROM PEOPLE AGED UNDER 18: [9721]

Question

What procedures are followed by the States of Jersey Police in taking a breath sample from people aged under 18?

Answer

There are no specific procedures regarding the taking of breath samples from people aged under 18 years. Procedures regarding persons below the age of 18 fall under the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 (PPACE) under CODE C concerning the arrest, detention and questioning of suspects.

Under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 there are two articles covering the power to require breath specimens. The first is the taking of a screening specimen often referred to as a roadside test. This test can only be administered if the legal criteria are met. The purpose of the test is to establish if there is sufficient evidence to make an arrest on suspicion of being over the prescribed limit. It is not possible to ascertain this by observation alone and it is a simple yes/no test to establish if an offence is likely to have been committed and establish a power of arrest. It often leads to suspicion being removed and there being no need to make an arrest.

There are no legal criteria regarding the age of the suspect. The requirement for the screening test can be made of any person who falls under the legislation.

The second criterion to obtain a breath specimen is in order to obtain a specimen for analysis. This will generally be following an arrest. Once a person has been arrested all the safeguards under PPACE are applicable. The usual rights for a detained person will be given and in the case of a person under the age of 18 years an appropriate adult will be informed of their arrest and detention. An appropriate adult will be required to attend the police station in order for the formal rights to be given and signed for. An appropriate adult will also be required to be present for any interview.

If the person under 18 years has been arrested for a suspected drinking and driving offence the requirement to provide evidential breath specimens will not be delayed in order for an appropriate adult to attend or for rights to be formally signed for. It has been established that the drinking and driving procedure is not an interview and is not therefore subject to the requirements under PPACE for the interviewing of suspects. The procedure does not need to be delayed to facilitate legal advice.

The obtaining of a breath specimen for analysis should not be delayed as any delay tends to move the analysis result away from what the alcohol level would have been at the time of any alleged offence. It is important in the interests of justice that the test is carried out as soon as possible after the alleged driving incident.

If an appropriate adult was readily available it would be good practice to involve that person in the procedure. However there is no legal requirement to arrange such representation and there must be no delay to the procedure.

2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE FUNDING OF FAMILY NURSING AND HOME CARE: [9722]

Question

Will the Minister inform Members whether funding has been agreed between Family Nursing and Home Care and his Department for the delivery of services in 2017, and if so, will he state how that funding has been distributed between the following services:

1. District nursing
2. Sustained home visiting
3. Rapid response and reablement

5. Children's services (including palliative care)
6. School nurses
7. Health visiting
8. Community paediatrics
9. Home care provision

And if not, what issues remain to be resolved if he is to meet his target of achieving agreement by 30th November 2016?

What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of greater private sector involvement in the market for social care on terms and conditions for staff of Family Nursing and Home Care following their new funding settlement?

Answer

Further to the answers given to the Deputy 's previous questions 9712 and 9681, my Department is continuing to work closely with Family Nursing & Home Care (FNHC) to finalise the funding for the delivery of services in 2017. Until agreement has been reached, I am unable to go into detail about the funding arrangements.

This is a complex issue and therefore discussions may extend beyond the 30th November target date. I would reiterate that FNHC continues to be a highly valued partner, particularly in the delivery of key out of hospital services.

As I have said previously, the arrangements FNHC puts in place regarding the terms and conditions of its staff following the new funding settlement are a matter for FNHC.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING A GRANT FROM THE JERSEY INNOVATION FUNDINTHECASE OF THE LOGFILLER PROPOSAL: [9723]

Question

Will the Chief Minister release to Members the results of the analysis and information outlined in sections 11.2 and 11.3 of the report accompanying Jersey Innovation Fund, Establishment, Funding and Operation' (P.124/2012) relating to the decision to offer funding from the Jersey Innovation Fund in the case of the Logfiller proposal? And if not why not?

Answer

Members will be aware that Grant Thornton was engaged, initially by the Department for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture but on the instructions of the Assistant Chief Minister, to take action to protect the States' interests in respect of Logfiller.

Following a forensic review of the loan, Grant Thornton was appointed to liquidate Logfiller. This process is ongoing, and as such it is not possible to release the requested information as it could prejudice the commercial interests of the States and other involved parties.

Once the liquidation process has been completed, consideration will be given to what information can be shared with Members. Members will note that the Jersey Innovation Fund is being reviewed externally by the Comptroller and Auditor General and internally by the Chief Minister's Department. Members will receive a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report directly, and the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel will be briefed on the findings from the internal review.

4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING DISABILITY CLAIMS UNDER THE INCOME SUPPORT SYSTEM: [9724]

Question

Could the Minister provide, in detail, the procedures and processes required to be followed for a successful disability claim under the Income Support system and explain what consideration is given in that context to the assessment made by an individual's own G.P. or Consultant?

Answer

The Income Support scheme contains distinct impairment, or medical, components that can be paid in respect of illnesses or disabilities that have lasted, or are expected to last, longer than six months. The components can also be paid to people who are terminally ill. The medical components are designed to help people with illnesses and disabilities meet their additional costs. There are three kinds of medical component - personal care, mobility and clinical cost. An individual can qualify for one or more of these components depending on their needs.

When a household applies for Income Support, there is a section of the Income Support application form that deals with long-term illnesses and disabilities. If this section of the form is completed in respect of any member(s) of the household, the household will be sent a separate self-reporting form (or forms). These forms can also be supplied at any time to members of an existing Income Support household.

The form is primarily designed for the applicant, or family member applying on their behalf, to describe the ways in which their illness or disability affects their everyday life. They do this by selecting from a list of statements that are drawn from a detailed area of the Income Support legislation. The statements are written in plain English and cover the functional impairments caused by physical, sensory and mental illnesses and disabilities. The form also has space for the person completing it to supply contact details for the medical professional (or professionals) who can provide an assessment of the person's diagnosis and current treatment or care plan. This will often be the person's General Practitioner (GP) in the first instance, but it could be a hospital consultant or other specialist. More than one professional can be included. This allows Income Support determining officers to contact named medical professionals to request information that would support the person's application for the medical components. In many cases, customers will supply this information themselves as part of their application.

Under the Income Support legislation, assessment for the award of the medical component must be completed by a determining officer of the Social Security Department, by considering all of the evidence available to them about the person's illness or disability. In considering this evidence the officer must decide the extent to which the applicant meets any of the specific descriptors contained in the Income Support Regulations. Evidence received from the person's GP or hospital consultant is matched against the statements that the person has chosen to describe the effects of their illness or disability.

In some situations there isn't sufficient evidence available from this process for the determining officer to make a decision. If that is the case the Income Support legislation also gives officers the power to request that the person applying for the medical component attend a medical assessment with a healthcare professional arranged by the Department – this is normally a doctor, a nurse or an occupational therapist.

5. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE JERSEY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY IN OVERSEEING POLICE INVESTIGATIONS: [9725]

Question

Will the Minister fully explain the role of members of the Police Complaints Authority in overseeing police investigations and explain the nature and extent of that oversight?

Answer

The role of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority in supervising investigations into complaints regarding the conduct of police officers is as set out in the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999, in particular Articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 (States of Jersey Police Force), and 23, 24, 25 and 26 (Honorary Police).

6. DEPUTY M. R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF ITS OFFICERS: [9726]

Question

Will the Minister explain why investigation reports produced by the States of Jersey Police into complaints made against one or more of its officers are not published to the complainant even in a redacted form?

Will she further state what rights complainants have when they consider such reports to be factually wrong or to contain unfair criticisms of them?

Answer

The Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 does not include a provision which would entitle a complainant to receive a copy of the investigating officer's report.

Given the third party personal data and / or sensitive personal data potentially contained within an investigating officer's report, the information contained would not generally be disclosable in response to a subject access request made by the complainant under Article 7 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, particularly if this was likely to prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a crime.

The Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 is currently under review and consideration will be given as to whether this aspect of the Law is in accordance with legislative frameworks elsewhere in the British Isles.

7. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF DÉGRÈVEMENT PROVISIONS: [9727]

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General explain whether dégrèvement is compliant with Jersey's Human Rights obligations and, if so, how?

Answer

Dégrèvement is a procedure that concerns the realisation of security over immovable property. The dégrèvement procedure is provided for in the Loi (1880) sur la propriété foncière. Pursuant to this procedure, on the application of a secured creditor, the Royal Court may appoint two advocates for the purpose of conducting a dégrèvement. The procedure will usually result in the disposal of the debtor's immoveable property by the creditor being confirmed as the tenant' of that property. Any surplus remaining after the disposal of the immoveable property and satisfaction of the debts owed to the tenant and to any prior secured creditors will be retained by the tenant.

It is important to recognise that dégrèvement is one of a number of remedies that the Royal Court can grant, including remise de biens and desastre, having regard to the particular circumstances of the debtor and the hardship that might be caused to the debtor or the creditors in any particular case. Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") (as incorporated into Jersey Law by the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000) provides a right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, this is a qualified right that may be interfered with to the extent that such interference is lawful and proportionate to a legitimate aim. As the rules applicable to the realisation of security and bankruptcy, including  dégrèvement, are clear and provide adequate protection for debtors and creditors from unjustified interference with their rights, I am satisfied that they are compatible with Jersey's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Further, if a question arises in any case as to whether dégrèvement is human rights compliant, then Article 4 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 would require the court to interpret the law in a convention compliant way to the extent that is possible.

8. DEPUTY M. R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF REMISE DES BIENS PROVISIONS: [9728]

Question

Further to the answer given to my supplementary question following question 9489 on Remise des Biens on 14th June 2016, will H.M. Attorney General advise Members on the compatibility of Remise des Biens with Jersey's Human Rights obligations?

Answer

My answer to question 9489 on remise des biens explained that this is a form of insolvency remedy available to a person who is in debt and owns land in Jersey. As my answer explained, a remise is a discretionary remedy and is only ever granted on the application of a debtor. A remise can be a beneficial procedure for a debtor, because at the end of the process, if the remise is successful, then a debtor will be discharged from all his debts, including those of unsecured creditors who may of course not have been paid in full.

There is no reason of principle why the grant of a remise should not be compliant with the rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights (the "ECHR"). Further, as the Royal Court has made clear in its decision in Re Mickhael [2010] JRC166A (see para 13(iv)), if a question arises in any case as to whether the customary and statutory law of remise is human rights compliant, then Article 4 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 would require the court to interpret the law in a convention compliant way to the extent that is possible.

In view of this I am satisfied that the law with regard to remise des biens is compatible with the ECHR.

9. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE DETENTION OF DOGS BY CUSTOMS OFFICERS: [9729]

Question

Could the Minister advise how many incidences have occurred over the last 5 years concerning detention of certain breeds of dogs by customs officers?

What assessment has she made of whether customs officers are sufficiently resourced to deal with the specifics of such cases and the requirement to obtain an independent assessment to determine a dog's breed?

Answer

There has been one instance of a breed of dog listed in Schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise (Import and Export Control) (Jersey) Order 2006 being detained by officers from the Customs and Immigration Service in the last 5 years.

I am satisfied that the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service is sufficiently resourced to deal with such cases. I would point out, however, that officers in the Service are not trained or qualified to determine a dog's breed and as such have to rely on the advice of an independent person who is recognised as having the appropriate qualification. There are currently no appropriately qualified persons based in Jersey.

10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING COMPANIES HELD WITHIN THE PORTFOLIO OF JERSEY TELECOM: [9730]

Question

Could the Minister, as the shareholder representative, advise how many companies are held within the portfolio of Jersey Telecom, what liability to the shareholder arises from those companies and whether it is accepted practice for Jersey Telecom to operate such a portfolio under the Memorandum of Understanding between it and the Treasury and Resources Department?

Answer

All of the companies in the JT Group Limited portfolio (including details of their trading activities) are set out in Note 23 of the JT Group Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31st December 2015, which was circulated to all States' Members via email in advance of a presentation from JT Group Limited executives given to States' Members on 13th June 2016. A copy of that note is set out in Appendix 1.

The JT Group Annual Report and Financial Statements are published online and can be accessed here:

https://www.jtglobal.com/Global/Website%20Assets/AnnualReview/Financial_Statement_2015_M R.pdf

The portfolio is entirely in line with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Treasury & Resources Department and JT Group, as well as the basis on which the activities of what was the States of Jersey Telecommunications Board were incorporated into JT Group Limited on 1st January 2003.

For information, the structure broadly arises from three distinct decisions:

1. JT Group's expansion into Guernsey;
2. JT Group's purchase of the eKit business; and
3. JT's purchase of the Worldstone / Corporate Communications business.

There are two additional Jersey incorporated subsidiaries not listed in the attached note, both of which are dormant and do not trade.

Appendix 1

JT Group Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2015 – Note 23

11. THE  DEPUTY  OF ST.  JOHN OF  THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING  THE IMPACT OF CONTROL OF HOUSING AND WORK LEGISLATION: [9731]

Question

What effect have (a) the reduction in housing qualifications from 20 to 10 years and (b) the introduction of the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 had on (i) demand for housing, (ii) the Island's demographic profile and (iii) economic growth?

Answer

The March 2011 census, which was undertaken following the reduction in the qualification period to 10 years,[1] showed a change in the decisions taken by people moving to Jersey, with more people who moved to the Island choosing to stay in the Island. This can be shown by comparing for the 2001 and 2011 censuses with reference to the number of people who arrived during the 10 years preceding the census and who remained resident at the time of the census. The censuses are published online at

https://www.gov.je/Government/Census/Pages/Census.aspx

and the Statistics Unit have underlying data tables which supports this.

It is not possible to say whether this change in behaviour between 1992 – 2001 and 2002 – 2011 was due to a reduction in housing qualifications; or a change in the profile of migration over the period, with more people coming from Eastern Europe; or changes in the external economic environment whereby more people remained in Jersey rather than moved away after the economic crisis of 2007 – 2008.

However, the strongest determinant was likely economic conditions, as net migration has traditionally followed economic performance, as illustrated by the below graphs of employment growth and net migration:

Within this, it is reasonable to believe that the reduction in the housing qualification period did mean that some people stayed when they otherwise would have left, and that this has had some impact. In particular, each time a reduction was proposed by the Housing Committee or Housing Minister of the time, an outline of the number of people who may qualify was provided, with the final reduction to 10 years indicating that 300 - 500 people would likely qualify early as a result of the reduction to 10 years. Equally, it is important to be clear that the effect of housing qualifications in isolation was most likely about people staying longer, not on the total level of population in Jersey; and if they had left, to a substantial degree, they would have likely have been replaced by newcomers as businesses sought replacement staff. Assuming this is the case, this would have the following implications:

1. Demand for housing – people staying longer and obtaining their entitled status will place additional demandonthequalified housingmarketasthey obtain accessto this market; but it does not mean more people are in Jersey or that the overall demand on the housing market is greater (as people who leave are replaced by newcomers as businesses replace staff).
2. The island's demographic profile - people staying longer will have an impact on our demographic profile as these people staying will be ageing. The impact of this on our demographic profile will not become evident for some time - with 64% of arrivals in the census period 2002 – 2011 being 35 or under.

As these people do age, however, it will add to our ageing demographic, most notably having an impact on the number of people in the age 65 – 69 age cohort by 2065 (see Jersey population projections, 2016 release:

https://www.gov.je/Government/JerseyInFigures/Population/Pages/PopulationProjections.as px)

However, our established population is also ageing, and to place some context around this:

• At net nil migration, the over 65 population will increase from 16,700 in 2015 to 29,800 by 2065 (and at +325 migration to 32,600, and at +1,000 migration to 38,500).
• Indeed, any migration scenario of less than +325 will see the workforce size also reducing over this period.

3. Economic growth - businesses being abletoretainstaff with more knowledgeand expertise of working in Jersey is likely to benefit economic growth, especially in relation to higher skilled staff staying longer.

It is also likely to reduce transactional costs on business, as the longer they retain staff, the less recruitment they have to process, and the less they have to invest in training new staff. Indeed, one of the reasons Jersey has been able to attract talent and business has been the relatively positive business environment.

As to the Control of Housing and Work Law, it is used in line with the current strategic plan objective to "secure migration which is targeted and delivers the greatest social and economic gain".

In 2015, Jersey experienced record private sector employment of +1,900 workers, but we also experienced high levels of net migration of +1,200 workers as a result due to businesses being unable to source all their labour needs locally.

Within this, half of all new permanent registered permissions requested under the Control of Housing and Work Law were refused (460); and of those approved (458); most were in construction (153); financial services (94); and private health and education businesses (45). These were also the sectors where employment growth was strongest. As such, decisions taken under the Law are clearly correlated to employment growth, and as such, the nature and level of economic growth.

This strong economic growth and consequent net inward migration does impact on our housing position. The latest housing needs survey reported a shortfall of 1,600 homes over the next 3 years, assuming nothing gets built over that period and applying a net migration assumption of +1,000 over the next 3 years.

However, work is underway to further target and focus the Control of Housing and Work Law, and a large number of homes are under construction, or planned, including 1,000 from Andium Homes supported by public investment.

In addition, other government strategies are aimed at working toward a growth in housing supply in the context of a better town while preserving our countryside, including the growth of other social housing providers, the use of public lands to deliver homes, and the development of the Jersey International Finance Centre to provide better office space which creates opportunities for the conversion of commercial units elsewhere. This is all consistent with the overall housing strategy – more and better homes in better neighbourhoods.

As can be seen, these are complex and inter-related issues; ageing, our environment, our economy, housing, and net migration. This is why the Council of Ministers have supported the development of a long-term plan for Jersey, enabling a direction to be set which achieves the best overall outcomes for the Island, including measures to reduce future demand for new migration, for example, higher skills and educational performance, healthy life expectancy, and a more productive economy. This is about securing a good quality of life for Islanders into the future. The "MyJersey" Survey has been completed as part of this work, which will culminate in a new long-term plan in the summer of 2017, supported by a broad evidence base.

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF BENEFIT CHANGES ON LOW INCOME FAMILIES: [9732]

Question

Does the Minister have a figure for the impact of the Income Support freeze of personal components along with the reduction of £10m from Income Support disregards and direct benefits equivalent to the figure recently reported in the U.K. by the Policy in Practice consultancy group which states that "just about managing" households would be £2,500 a year worse off by the end of the decade as a result of benefit cuts and rising rents and inflation, and if not will she state why?

Will she commit her Department to undertake research into the impact of benefit cuts on low- income families?

Answer

The analysis undertaken by Policy in Practice seeks to forecast the likely impact on existing benefit claimants of a number of decisions taken by the U.K. government in respect of their benefit systems over the next four years. Any forecast over a four-year period will also need to make assumptions as to future levels of inflation, rents, wages etc.

As such, there is no direct comparison between Jersey and the analysis carried out by the U.K. Policy in Practice consultancy group, as the Jersey benefit system is completely separate and the two jurisdictions are subject to very different political pressures. For example, the U.K. analysis considers the impact of rising private sector rents, and includes the impact of a large number of families in temporary accommodation paid for by their local housing authority. In the U.K. Job Seekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance work related activity group and Income support rates, child benefit rates and housing benefit rates have all been frozen for the next four years. Other areas of the U.K. benefit system are subject to future reductions in eligibility or the value of allowances over the same period. All of these factors are included in the U.K. analysis.

Last year the States Assembly agreed to hold the benefit budget of the Social Security Department at its 2015 level throughout the Medium Term Financial Plan. My Department contributed to the MTFP by identifying measures over this period which result in a reduction of the 2019 benefit budget by £10 million, allowing the Council of Ministers to invest in the priority areas of health and education. Although investments in these areas benefit everybody living in Jersey the impact of investments in health and education areas will always provide the most significant benefit to low- income households.

The great majority of the benefit changes need to realise the total of total of £10 million have already been implemented. The agreed cash limits for 2017, 2018 and 2019 include an allocation of additional funding to increase overall tax funded benefit levels. The Department is already committed to annual increases in social rental components. In addition, an element of this funding is available to be applied to increasing other component levels or incentives or a combination of measures. Detailed options will be considered during 2017, taking account of the level of benefit claims and external factors at that time. For example, Brexit continues to create significant uncertainty in economic and labour markets and flexibility will need to be available to support any local downturn.

We remain committed to helping individual households towards financial independence by helping people into employment. Jersey has also continued to invest in social housing, improving both the quality and availability of homes for low-income families. It is in the interests of all households in Jersey, not just those on low incomes, for government finances to be sustainable. If benefit expenditure increases faster than our income from taxation, we will not be able to deliver a benefit system in its current form.

The Social Security Department provides detailed information on Income Support claimants through the Annual Report and will continue to monitor the levels of assistance it provides to tax funded benefit claimants, particularly when considering the value of potential increases to the components and incentives included within Income Support.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING MINISTERIAL CONTROL OVER THE OPERATIONAL DECISIONS OF ANDIUM HOMES: [9733]

Question

Will the Minister inform Members what control she has, if any, over the operational decisions made by Andium Homes in terms of fixing targets for the provision of refurbished properties and new build affordable homes for rent or assisted purchase?

Answer

The Minister for Housing has responsibility for the policy framework within which Andium Homes and the housing trusts carry out their business activities. The Minister is not responsible for operational matters relating to Andium Homes – these are matters for the Andium Homes board which is accountable to the Minister for Treasury and Resources for the decisions it makes.

This is in accordance with the principles adopted by the States Assembly in P.33/2013 The Reform of Social Housing,' which stipulated that housing policy-setting, operational and regulatory functions should be separate from each other.

As such, the Andium Homes governing documents state that one of the company's objectives is to:-

"Provide affordable housing, together with any associated facilities, amenities or services, which meet the policy objectives of the Minister for Housing and the Strategic Housing Unit."

The Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") between the Minister for Treasury and Resources and Andium Homes provides assurance that the organisation is accountable for the delivery of this particular objective. For example, in approving the Andium Homes Strategic Business Plan, the MoU outlines that it is the responsibility of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, as guarantor, to ensure that the Andium Homes strategy reflects the Minister for Housing's policy objectives and priorities, with this delivered in practice through engagement with the Minister for Housing.

This means that the Andium Homes Strategic Business Plan is closely aligned with the Housing Strategy and related strategic documents such as the Island Plan, which have guided the numbers, types and standard of housing and housing services that Andium Homes aim to deliver over the next five years – including more than 1,000 affordable homes; 300 homes for purchase; and delivery of the Decent Homes Standard on all its housing stock four years earlier than originally planned.

Work continues with the housing trusts to ensure that the objectives of the Housing Strategy are similarly reflected in their strategies and business plans.

The third principle approved by the Assembly in P.33/2013 was the introduction of a regulator to oversee the activities of Andium Homes and the housing trusts.  The Minister for Housing is currently undertaking a consultation on the introduction of a regulatory framework and draft proposals will be brought forward in the first quarter of 2017, which may include revised contractual agreements with Andium Homes (such as the MoU) and the trusts to ensure that the Minister's policy objectives are delivered.

A regulatory framework will provide a clear statement of the housing policies that Andium Homes and the housing trusts need to meet – such as the standard of housing and housing services provided to tenants and use of the Housing Gateway – in addition to a performance monitoring and reporting system in order to ensure that these policies are delivered effectively. The regulatory framework will also cover financial management and governance arrangements to provide comfort that Andium Homes and the housing trusts remain financially robust and properly placed to continue with their plans for growth.

3. Oral Questions

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding consideration of a policy to ban letting agent fees for tenants: [9739]

Following the announcement of the U.K. (United Kingdom) Government in the Autumn Budget that it intends to ban letting agent fees for tenants, will the Minister consider implementing such a policy in Jersey?

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Housing):

I can be very brief: the answer is yes, we will be planning to review letting agency fees for tenants during 2017.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

That completely does away with my supplementary. I am grateful for that answer. The Bailiff :

We come to the next question ..

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Sir, there are some supplementaries.

The Bailiff :

All right. I did not think that any clarification was needed, but please do.

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

The first piece of clarification that is needed is: can the Minister give some information about what the review will entail? Will there be any consultancy or is it a policy that this Minister and the Government is actively seeking to pursue and introduce during this term of office?

The Deputy of Trinity :

Yes, as I said, it is something that we will review because we need a bit of clarity and also working with the Consumer Council who brought out a review on this back earlier in the year, I think. They raised 6 points that needed clarification. So nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

Would the Minister be able to give some clarification on what those other 6 points include and state whether it also includes charges that are levied by agents or landlords for renewals of contracts, which the Residential Tenancy Law interestingly says: "A tenant has the right to request a lease contract but the landlord has a right to charge for giving that contract."

The Deputy of Trinity :

I would like to make clear that the majority of letting agents and landlords operate in a professional manner and they do play an important role. The Consumer Council did highlight 6 areas and I have them there: lease drafting and renewal, agency introduction fee, credit check, agency holding fees, card charge and hearing fees. We will be working with that but, as I said, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.

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

I just seek clarification over the word "review". It is quite a wide term. It might mean many things. Is this a review with a view to action as necessary or is it a review so that we can park it in a report and put it on somebody's top shelf?

The Deputy of Trinity :

Top shelf. This is a review, as I said, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. But also if we have to make some changes I hope we can use the Residency Tenancy Law, which was used a little while ago to outlaw recharging of utilities.

[9:45]

Hopefully, if it does need change, and I am not saying it does or it does not, I think probably it does but I am not committing myself to anything, hopefully we can use this bit of law.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister aware of one particular agent who charges £200 for pressing a button on the computer to get a new version of the licence with the dates changed?

The Deputy of Trinity :

No, I am not. As I said, the majority of letting agents and landlords do operate in a professional manner.

5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Just to confirm, I know the example Deputy Southern is talking about and it does happen in the Island. Included in this review that she has spoken of: will there be any consideration of a code of conduct, voluntary or otherwise, for letting agents and estate agents?

The Deputy of Trinity :

That is one possible outcome or, if necessary, hopefully we can use the Residential Tenancy Law.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the outcomes of the Access to Justice Review: [9742]

Will the Chief Minister advise Members what tangible outcomes have come from the Access to Justice Review and, in particular, what assistance is being given to litigants in person as a result of the review?

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):

The third interim report of the Access to Justice Review was presented to Members on 1st August this year. So far the review has covered a broad range of topics all of which are relevant to improving access to justice and has served as an important examination of these areas. The review has identified positive examples of work already being undertaken to improve access to justice, for example, by the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Jersey Legal Information Board. A simultaneous piece of work to review the rules of the Royal Court has also been undertaken and a review of administrative justice has produced a consultation paper with a final report due soon. The review has highlighted the benefits of mediation as an alternative means of resolving disputes and encourage those bodies who offer mediation to further promote their services to Islanders. The initial trend is encouraging with an increase in the take up of mediation services, particularly community mediation, which is offered by the Jersey Citizens Advice. The review's advisory panel has been made aware of some challenges that face litigants in person, for example, in obtaining court transcripts and has also sought reassurance as to how a litigant in person is supported when appearing in court. The review is ongoing and now has a focus on legal aid, affordability and the legal profession.

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I thank the Minister for the answer. With regard to litigants in person, one of the biggest problems that they face is equality of arms. For example, if they are in litigation with a government department the government department is supported by Crown Advocates or the Law Officers and the litigant in person has to rely on their own means. Therefore there is a total imbalance in the scales of justice. What can the Assistant Minister tell us about how they are going to deal with this inequality of arms?

Senator P.F. Routier:

If a litigant in person chooses to represent themselves within the court I am aware that the courts themselves, across all of the courts, do help to do their best to ensure that the litigant in person is able to put their case effectively. I know that the judges do go out of their way to ensure that they do hear the evidence that is required. So I have been reassured by that fact when I have spoken to the judges.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

One of the problems that litigants in person face is not only the fact that they have to stand in the court themselves and argue their case, although sometimes there is an amicus curiae, one of the main problems is the compilation of the evidence and preparing all the papers that need to be put before the court. What assistance is going to be given in that way? For example, is there any way of the court providing some paralegal assistance or the state to do that so that there is this balance between the state and the individual?

Senator P.F. Routier:

One of the things I have been really encouraged by in carrying out this review is the use of mediation, trying to avoid going to court. We have been encouraged that a number of people are following that course right now. With regard to additional support being given to somebody who does use the court process, I believe that is something which we can include within our review as a suggestion, but if the Deputy would like to make a representation to our panel I would be very welcome to hear those views.

3. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I thank the Assistant Minister for his invitation, I will. On this particular issue I feel very strongly about it because there are many people who have been let down by the legal system. I am afraid the legal aid system ..

The Bailiff :

Question.

Deputy M.R. Higgins: Sorry, a question.

The Bailiff :

Not a speech.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am trying to put it in context here. So many people are suffering because the legal aid system is not helping them. Can I ask the Assistant Minister what is being done about the legal aid system itself and giving people proper access to it?

Senator P.F. Routier:

As the Deputy will be aware from the most recent interim report, which was published, the review of legal aid is ongoing. We are having discussions with the Law Society about how they are progressing with their own review and we will be awaiting the outcome of those discussions.

4. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can the Assistant Minister tell us when the Law Society review will be finished because it could take years? People are being failed by the system.

Senator P.F. Routier:

We have had some initial thoughts from the legal profession and we are due to have more meetings with them in the next month or so. It is anticipated that our work will be finished in July of this coming year and within that there will be the proposals on the legal aid.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding the contract with condor Ferries: [9734]

Will the Minister activate the break clause in the contract with Condor Ferries and put the operation of the ferry route out to tender, and, if so, when; and if not, why not?

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and

Culture):

I assume the Deputy is referring to the option contained within clause 6 of the current operating agreement. Clause 6 contains the option to activate a 3-year wind down on the 7th anniversary of the commencement date within which time the States would have to identify a replacement operator. While there have been operational difficulties with car and passenger services following the introduction of Condor Liberation, our lifeline freight services on which we all heavily rely, have continued to operate at almost 100 per cent reliability. It is perhaps worth mentioning to Members Condor's freight operated without a single breach of service during the recent storm, for which credit is due. The recently published comprehensive service review establishes a basis by which additional capital investment by the operator - and I stress "by the operator" - could be made. The Deputy asked me why not, and that is because I am committed and remain committed to working with Condor and our colleagues in Guernsey to secure a long-term sustainable and commercially viable car passenger and freight service to and from the Island.

3.3.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:

We have seen in the headlines that the possible introduction of subsidies on the ferry route might be a way forward in order to secure the sustainability of the ferry. Can the Minister please outline his position on subsidising the ferry route service?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I think that is one of the problems with giving too much attention to headlines. The headlines are not always representative of the actual facts. I have distributed the comprehensive service review, a copy to all Members, and there is a meeting next Tuesday afternoon with the Chief Executive Officer of Condor to answer any questions. There are no plans for subsidies and my position at this moment in time, and is likely to remain during my tenure, is: I would not be supportive in any way shape or form of offering a subsidy to Condor.

3.4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of Minister for Education regarding student loans, student grants and other assistance for people in higher education: [9741]

Will the Minister update the Assembly on what progress, if any, has been made regarding the provision of student loans, student grants or any other form of assistance provided to people in higher education?

Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier (The Minister for Education):

Thank you to the Deputy for allowing me to bring Members up to speed on where we are with this issue. An additional £600,000 will be added to the higher education budget for 2017 to increase the maintenance grant and threshold levels from September next year. That means more students will receive more funding help from the States. Next week our officers and others from Guernsey and the Isle of Man are having a joint meeting at the U.K. Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss higher education issues. A meeting has also been arranged with a representative of the student loan company to discuss possibilities for extending the scheme to Jersey students. We continue to work on the Campus Jersey concept providing more degrees on Island, and we also recently visited Caen University, increasing our links with a view to making it a real, viable alternative to Jersey students, not least because the degree tuition is free. I also welcome a Scrutiny review in this area.

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :

I thank the Minister for his reply. The £600,000 is very good news, indeed. There was a problem a while ago with local families applying for student loans in the U.K., some actually receiving them. Could the Minister inform the Assembly whether these loans are safe or do they have to be repaid immediately?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

In relation to the loans: at the time when this first became an issue we wrote to all parents to say not to accept these loans because we felt they were in breach or could breach the requirements of the Student Loan Company. Some people chose to ignore that situation and took out those loans. At a further juncture the Students Loan Company then realised the mistake that had happened and began to ask for those loans back. We then said to anybody who had been in that situation to come back and discuss with us to see if there was anything we could particularly do for them at that point in time. We only had one family at that point come back to us.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Minister mentioned the possibility of courses at Caen University because they are free. Has he taken into effect a possible Brexit, and what effect that might have on those free courses?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

Yes, we have. Thank you very much for the question. We asked that question of them and they seemed very surprised that we were even concerned about it because they take in a huge intake of international students right across the board. The prospect of Brexit means there are potential changes in opportunities for Jersey. Members may not be aware but the U.K. Student Loan Company have said that from September 2018 students from Europe will no longer be eligible for the loans. So we would be asking whether there is now scope for the Jersey students to join. One suggestion is for the States of Jersey to underwrite loans for our students by paying in the money we spend on higher education annually instead of having a Jersey-based grant system.

3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

The Minister mentioned a series of meetings and of course you will be aware that the Scrutiny Panel is doing a review into higher education as well. Will the Minister give an undertaking to make available to Scrutiny the minutes of those meetings as and when they get them?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

Of course we will.

4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :

It is extremely sad that I have heard recently in the British Isles at the moment parents are absolutely convinced that their children will not be better off than they are. This is the first time this has happened since the war; that the children will not better off than the parents. They need all the assistance they can get. My final supplementary: in his negotiations will the Minister also be discussing the status of Jersey students regarding local or overseas or national status?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

Our status remains the same except for 3 universities, which is Cambridge and Imperial; I cannot remember the third one now.

[10:00]

We are having discussions with Cambridge in the next month, I believe. Every other university has now accepted the fact that we are a U.K. student, so there are not any problems in those areas.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Southern , as Senator Ozouf is due to arrive back in the Island at 10.30 I propose to take the question, which I think he was going to answer, after questions without notice.

5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John of the Minister for Education regarding nursery education funding: [9738]

Following approval of the amendment to the Medium Term Financial Plan Addition regarding nursery education funding, will the Minister advise what the position with nursery education funding will be from next year and what effect changes introduced under the M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) have had on the early years partnership agreement?

Deputy R.G. Bryans (The Minister for Education):

Members will have seen the news release that we put out just yesterday saying that we are intending to postpone, so just to give some background to that. Since the M.T.F.P. debate, discussions have been taking place in the department and with members of the early years' community including owners of private nurseries. The conclusion has been made that more time is needed before implementing means testing, so it has been delayed until September 2018. This means that the system will remain the same for the next academic year. It was important that we put this out, rather like we did with the original discussions in the nursery education funding because we wanted to make parents fully aware of the situation as early as possible. Registration begins in January, so we decided to put it out just yesterday. Minor amendments have been made to the partnership agreement following suggestions from nursery owners. The changes included removal of out-of-date terminology but overall the agreement remains largely the same. Means testing has no real impact on the content of the contract, which exists to set up the terms under which nurseries receive the money from the Education Department.

1. The Deputy of St. John :

Would the Minister be able to advise then what is happening with regards to the funding within his department if it is staying the same for the next academic year? How he is funding that money if it is no longer being means tested.

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

Sorry, I just missed the last part. The Deputy of St. John :

If means testing is not going ahead for the next academic year, how is the department funding that? Where is that money coming from?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

We have had discussions with the Treasury. Obviously the money will have to come from somewhere else, so we looked across the board. We have discussed it with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and we have discussed it with the Treasurer and indicated to them that we can accommodate it for the moment.

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

The Minister said that this likely will not go ahead until September 2018 when of course there may well be a new Government with different priorities in place at that point, so does he therefore concede that it is possible that this simply may not go ahead at all?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

No, I do not. Not at this point in time. The Assembly did vote on this quite some time ago. The problem we had, and was accepted by the Assembly, was that the funding for the Nursery Education Fund was under threat because there were so many new applicants for this fund; so St. Michael's is an example, and St. George's, in which case it was unsustainable. So the concept of means testing was accepted. Our problem has been that it is extremely complicated so we wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of what we needed to do, hence the reason for postponing it.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

Just to clarify, I thought that this Assembly asked the Minister to go away and introduce means testing in this regard. It was the Minister who brought the overall package to do with nursery funding to the Assembly. Is it not right that the Minister should abide by the Assembly's decision even if he and the department do not necessarily like it?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

I think in the last answer I have just given that is the indication I have just given; is that we will continue down the route of means testing. Our problem is that when the Assembly then said it should be across all schools or state schools that complicated the matter. It is that complication that we have to address.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

Perhaps the Minister can elucidate further because again that was the will of the Assembly. The Assembly said if we are going to means test and do it across all schools, and that is something that surely the Minister should be able to reconcile because that is the will of the Assembly. If it was not possible to means test across all sectors then the Minister should never have let that go to the floor of the Assembly for debate. Is that not the case?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

No, the situation is quite simple. The Assembly decided to means test across all nurseries, whether it be private or state nurseries. What we want to do is make sure that we get it absolutely right before we go out there.

5. The Deputy of St. John :

Can I ask the Minister with regards to the early years partnership agreement is it not the fact that it was agreed at the time when this means testing was happening earlier this year, and that there are issues with regards to whether it is play-based or educational-based nursery provision? That parental choice it should be the matter of fact and that negotiations should continue with regards to revising the partnership agreement?

Deputy R.G. Bryans:

The discussion is still going on in that particular area. I will just indicate that this has not been ratified but indicates another direction of travel and should hopefully answer to some degree what the Deputy is asking. This has been agreed at the moment with all partners but the actual ratification has not happened yet. The Education Department and Nursery Education Fund providers are committed to working together to improve outcomes for children and families. By working in partnership it is the aim of the Nursery Education Fund to enable the department and nurseries to deliver high quality preschool education to prepare children for school.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding consideration of measures to assist Jersey's Just about managing' working households: [9736]

What measures, if any, is the Minister considering to assist Jersey's "Just about managing" working households that would be equivalent to the U.K. Chancellor's decisions to allow those on universal credit to keep an additional 2p in the pound of their earnings and to raise the national living wage to £7.50; and, if none, why is she not considering such measures?

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

As Deputy Chairman of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel, the Deputy will already be aware of my commitment in respect of work incentives within the income support system. For the benefit of other members, I will quote from my recent formal response to the Scrutiny review of living on a low income: "The cash limit available for 2017 for income support does allow for some improvements in component levels and work incentives. Previous Ministers have increased the work incentives from the original 6 per cent to the current level of 23 per cent. This level will be considered again during 2017 and the suggestions provided by the panel will be included in those deliberations. It is too soon to say how the additional budget available in 2017 will be allocated but I can certainly confirm that I will be very keen to improve our incentive levels if at all possible." The second half of the question refers to a national living wage. As Members will be aware, Jersey does not have a national living wage. This is a U.K. concept that applies to workers aged 25 and above. Jersey has one minimum wage that applies to all age groups. We will be debating the value of the minimum wage later in this session.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Minister also consider unfreezing the living components of income support in order that all people in receipt of income support should be able to survive?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

It was agreed in the Medium Term Financial Plan that the income support benefits would be frozen for 3 years up until 2017. As I have said, in my first answer to the Deputy , that the support for income support clients will be reviewed and we will either increase incentives or benefits, and that will happen in 2017.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

The Minister has talked about steps such as increasing the disregard for earned income from 6 to 23 per cent, which is a laudable step to take, but nonetheless it masks the problem of low paid work and simply increases the subsidy to low paid workers and gives no incentive for employers to pay a living wage. Does the Minister accept that a significantly higher minimum wage or something moving towards a living wage is going to get rid of the need for the taxpayer to subsidise low paid work, and that it is better for everybody to make sure that work pays in the long run?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I think I have made it clear in many answers that I have given to the Deputy that the Social Security Department; the height of their principles is to get people back into work, hence the increase in the disregard to encourage people to do that. It means now that they keep 23 per cent, either 23p in every pound that they earn is disregarded. We wish to keep that incentive going to get people back into work, which we know is far better all round, inasmuch it is not just financial. It is from a self- esteem and a social point of view as well.

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Deputy Southern 's question refers to working households. If you are a household where both people are working you do not need an incentive to go to work because you are already in work. So the question is about what is being done to assist those families, many of whom are struggling and who are not earning enough to make ends meet. So on that basis what consideration is she prepared to give to looking at what the aims of the national living wage are in the U.K., which is to raise what has essentially become their minimum wage to a much higher level so people can get by on it. It is about people in work not those out of work. What are her plans?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I am sure this will be discussed at length in the debate on the minimum wage. The national living wage I must remind the Assembly and public, is only available to those over 25. The minimum wage in Jersey is available to all of those over 16 so it caters for a much larger branch of the population.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Minister consider the introduction of a fresh disregard for earnings for the second worker in the family because at the moment the disregard is eaten up by one person's earnings? If the second person wishes to go to work there is no disregard and therefore very little incentive to work because every penny you earn will get taken away off your income support.

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

The whole review will be put into force by October next year when we have the wherewithal to increase the income support benefits but we do not know yet in which way that will be done. I would hope it would be an increase in the incentive but it is very difficult to say in a year's time what will be the demands on other parts of the income support.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will she give consideration to the second earner? Deputy S.J. Pinel:

We will give consideration across the board.

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Chief Minister regarding complaints from the public considered by the States Employment Board: [9743]

Will the Chief Minister advise Members how many complaints from members of the public, if any, are currently being heard by the States Employment Board and summarise the nature of those complaints?

Senator A.K.F. Green (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):

The States Employment Board is currently dealing with one complaint from a member of the public. It is a matter of potential litigation hence it is not appropriate to make further comment.

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can the Assistant Chief Minister tell the Assembly how many complaints have not formally got on to the agenda but have been delayed? In other words, not formally been recorded by the States Employment Board. I, on behalf of one constituent, have forwarded a complaint and it was delayed. In fact at one point it was suspected that a lawyer may be involved and it was delayed even further. Now that a lawyer is not involved, I have spoken with the chief executive and it has still not been dealt with. Can the Assistant Chief Minister tell us how many people are waiting to get on the complaints list?

Senator A.K.F. Green:

I cannot, but what I can say it is very rare. There is not a "waiting" list as such. What happens is that departments deal with their own complaints. It is only when things go terribly wrong or there is a failure to agree that it might .. if it involves a member of staff might end up with the States Employment Board.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Will the Assistant Chief Minister agree to perhaps creating a complaints register so it is online so the people can see how many complaints are being heard either by the States Employment Board or by any department in which the public have made complaints by?

[10:15]

So we can see how long it takes for the departments to deal with those complaints. Senator A.K.F. Green:

The States Employment Board, as I said, get very few complaints. They are a board that deal with employment matters. Departments do get complaints from time to time and some of them are of an extremely sensitive and personal nature, particularly when you are talking about social services and social security or health, or even education. So it would not be appropriate to start publishing people's details on a register; so the answer is no.

8. Deputy J.M.Maçon of the Minister for Environment regarding the masterplan for five Oaks: [9737]

Will the Minister explain what action,  if any, he or his department have taken regarding the masterplan for Five Oaks that was proposed in the Island Plan 2011?

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

Since the adoption of the Island Plan 2011 neither the former Minister, myself, nor my department have undertaken any action to progress the proposal to develop supplementary planning guidance for Five Oaks. It is unfortunate but the progression of proposals set out in the Island Plan are dependent very much on the availability of resources during the 10-year period of that plan. Since the adoption in 2011 the limited resources of the planning policy team in my department have been prioritised on other work, including the delivery of affordable homes, the regeneration of St. Helier , and the revision and development of other new supplementary planning guidance to support the objectives of the plan.

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

It comes as no great surprise that St. Saviour once again is put as a bottom priority or no priority, as the case may be. Can I ask the Minister: will he be honest with the Assembly then, given the restrictions and just say that within the period of this Island Plan that Five Oaks will not be receiving a masterplan, then at least we know where we stand?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I will always be honest with Members. I can say to the Deputy that resources are also currently involved in the masterplan of St. Helier, the revision of planning guidance for planning obligation agreements on space standards for new homes, parking standards among others. We continue to work on Future St. Helier project and other strategic priorities and we have given a commitment to do some work in St. Brelade's Bay. Planning guidance is usually developed to address specific planning challenges and issues. I am always happy to listen to any Members, especially Deputy Maçon, to get a better understanding of his thoughts about the Five Oaks area. But I would say to him, I drive through the area at least twice every day. I am fully aware of the importance of green open spaces and I would hope he would appreciate my views through my work with the Future St. Helier . I am aware that this proposal came about probably because more open space was wanted to be safeguarded in the Five Oaks area, but I would say to him it is always in my thoughts and I have raised this issue with officers before. I will always safeguard open spaces.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I am surprised that the Minister is confusing supplementary planning guidance with a masterplan. I did not think there was that similarity. However, does the Minister have a list of the masterplans and the local development plans that were in the Island Plan so that he can have a proper schedule of works set up and then we can all find out when our various local development plans or masterplans are going to appear?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I would just repeat to the Senator, as I said just now, planning guidance and work on masterplan, any work in the Planning Policy Department is done as specific challenges arise, and sometimes very specific challenges arise during the course of a plan which have to override others. We will, and I will, prioritise my work as I see fit. Certainly the Senator has raised the issue of St. Brelade, and that has been brought up the agenda and is something we have committed to do during this Island Plan. I fully understand, as the Senator would expect, the difference between supplementary planning guidance and masterplanning, but it is all work that comes out of the Planning Policy Department. In some cases an S.P.G. (supplementary planning guidance) update may be more important than work on a masterplan.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to put resources into the policy and the planning guidance and masterplans and adjust his budget because, as we speak, there are houses all over St. Brelade's Bay being knocked down and reconstituted. Will he consider speeding up the plan of putting in planning guidance and masterplans and so forth?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Certainly I am happy to assure the Senator I will look at how I might reprioritise that work within my department. But I can only say again that as important matters come to light we have to address them. Recently we have been told by one of our inspectors that our parking standards are not good enough and that is quite clear that there is work there that had to be done. That has been raised up the agenda again. Certainly I will look at the priorities.