States Meeting Transcript - 14th February 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 14th FEBRUARY 2017

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

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

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

2. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PORTFOLIO OF ASSISTANT CHIEF MINISTER SENATOR P.F. ROUTIER M.B.E: [1(99)]...........................................................................7
2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING REVIEWS UNDERTAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE JERSEY INNOVATION FUND: [1(104)]........................................................8
3. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGY FOR JERSEY: [1(105)] .......................................10
4. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DECISION OF JT TO INVEST IN THE ENERGOUS CORPORATION: [1(106)]..............................................11
5. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CONCERNS RAISED, OR COMPLAINTS MADE, ABOUT THE NEGATIVE SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF HIGH VALUE RESIDENTS: [1(107)]...............11
6. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING BLOOD DONATION BY GAY MEN: [1(108)].12
7. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING STATES MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANIES: [1(109)] ....................................................14
8. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE EXEMPTION OF HOME-CARE AGENCIES FROM THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX: [1(110)]................................15
9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DECISION OF JT TO INTRODUCE A SURCHARGE ON POSTAL BILLING AND PAYMENT BY CHEQUE: [1(111)]....16
10. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING AIR QUALITY IN THE TUNNEL: [1(112)]........16
11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF POLICY CHANGES WITHIN INCOME SUPPORT: [1(113)]................................................................................18

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF REDUCED PAYMENTS OF INCOME SUPPORT: [1(114)]....................................................................20
13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING NEWLY QUALITIED TEACHERS' SALARIES: [1(115)] ............22
14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF DECISIONS BY THE HOUSING AND WORK ADVISORY GROUP: [1(116)]................................................23
15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING HIS ROLE AND THAT OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES AT A MEETING AT WHICH IT WAS DECIDED TO BREAK THE CONTRACT WITH MR ALWITRY: [1(117)].........................................23
16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ZERO-TEN TAX POLICY FOLLOWING BREXIT: [1(118)]......................................................................24
17. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE ZERO-TEN TAX POLICY AND MEASURES TO ENSURE JERSEY'S TAX NEUTRALITY: [1(119)]..................................25
18. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF STATISTICS IN RESPECT OF VISITOR NUMBERS TO JERSEY: [1(120)] ......................................................................26

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................27

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the impact of the freeze on Income Support basic component levels since 2009 on living standards and disposable incomes: [1(126)]............................................27 Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................27

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................27
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................28
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................28
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................28
6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................29

7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................29
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................29

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for External Relations regarding the recruitment of a Brexit public relations officer': [1(129)] ..............................30 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):...............................30

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................30
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................31

5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................31

3.3. Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding whether he would ask Ministers responsible for signing off loans from the Jersey Innovation fund to step down': [1(128)]................................................................................31 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................31

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................32

3. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................32
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................32
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................33

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the appropriateness of J.T.'s decision to introduce charges for receiving a paper bill and non- direct debit payment services: [1(101)].................................................34 Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................34

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................34
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35

3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................36
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................36
6. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................37

5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John of the Minister for Education regarding the use of carry forwards to cover the funding shortfall created by not achieving M.T.F.P. saving for the Nursery Education Fund: [1(121)]......................................................37 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier (The Minister for Education):..............................37

3.5.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................37

6. Deputy A.D. Lewis of the Minister for Education regarding the prospect of ensuring that private and public nursery education providers operate on identical supervision ratios: [1(130)]................................................................................38 Deputy R.G. Bryans (The Minister for Education):...........................................38

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................38
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................38
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................39
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................39

7. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Chief Minister regarding the availability of the Gazette for people with no access to a computer or the internet: [1(122)]...........................39 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur): ...............40

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................40
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................40
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................40
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................41

5. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................41
6. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................41
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................41
   8. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the replacement of the Interim Population Policy with a permanent population policy: [1(100)]........................42 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):.................................42

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................42
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................43
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................43
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................43
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................43
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................44
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................44
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................44
   9. The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding charges levied by J.T. for customers to receive a paper bill or to pay by cheque: [1(102)].......45

The Connétable of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):...45

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................46
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................46
3. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................46
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................47
6. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................47
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................47
8. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................47

9. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................48
   10. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Social Security regarding the financial support available to 18 to 25 year olds who live with their parents and who have a diagnosed mental illness: [1(133)].................................................................48 Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Social Security):.........................................48

3.10.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................48

11. Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Chief Minister regarding the level of assistance provided to community banks: [1(135)].............................................................49 Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):.................................49

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................49
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................49
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................50
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................51

12. The Connétable of St. John of the Minister for Environment regarding the legal authority for demanding a development levy': [1(103]..........................................51 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for Environment): ............................51

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................52
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................52
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................52
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................52
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................53
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................53
7. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen : ....................................................53
8. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................53

13. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Housing regarding measures to prevent letting agents from charging extortionate fees to tenants: [1(134)].............................54 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Housing):....................................54

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................54
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................54
3. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................54
4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................54

14. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding measures to meet the targets of delivering £70 million in people savings' and of re-establishing a partnership with public sector representatives: [1(127)] ..................................................55 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................55

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................55
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................56
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................56
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................57
6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................57

7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................57

15. Deputy T.A. Vallois of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding increases in input costs for businesses across all sectors: [1(125)]....58 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture): .........................................................................................58

3.15.1 The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................58

16. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the financial justification of J.T. for charging for paper bills and for bills paid by cheque or cash: [1(123)]................................................................................59 The Connétable of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):...59

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................59
2. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................60

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Infrastructure ............61

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................61 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Infrastructure):..........................61

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................62
   2. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :...............................................62

4.2.1 The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................62

3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................62
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................63
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................63
6. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................63
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................64

4.7.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................64

8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64

4.8.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................65
10. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:........................................................65

5. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Environment..............65

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................65 The Deputy of St. Martin (The Minister for Environment):...................................66

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................66
   2. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................66

5.2.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................66

3. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................66

5.3.1 Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................67

4. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................67

5.4.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................67

5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

5.5.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................68
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................68
8. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................69

5.8.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................69

9. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................69

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................70

6. Minister for Education: vote of censure (P.6/2017) ....................................70

6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................74 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................74

1. Deputy R.G. Bryans: ...................................................................74
2. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................76
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................77

4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................78
5. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................78
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................78

7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................79
8. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................80
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................80
10. Deputy R.G.Bryans:................................................................82
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................82

7. Draft Bank (Recovery and Resolution) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.134/2016)...............84

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

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................86
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................86

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................88
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................89
4. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................89

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................90
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................91
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................91

5. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................92

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................93
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................93

6. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................95
7. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................95
8. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................95
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................96

1. The Dean of Jersey:...................................................................103
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................96

8. Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment No. 4) Law 201- (P.136/2016).........97

8.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................97

1. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................98
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................98 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Chaiman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel): ...98

9. Draft States of Jersey Police Force (Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.139/2016)...........................................................99

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):.............................................................................99
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:......................................................101

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:.................................................................102
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:......................................................102
   3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:......................................................102

1. The Deputy of St. John:...............................................................103
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:......................................................103

10. Draft States of Jersey Police Force (Police Negotiating Board) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.140/2016).......................................................................104

10.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur): .104

11. Senators and Deputies: candidates' qualifications (P.1/2017)........................106

11.1 Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................106

1. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................111
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache :............................................................112
3. The Connétable of St. Martin : ......................................................112
4. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade : ................................................114 Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General:..................................................115 Deputy M.J. Norton:........................................................................116
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: ................................................................116 The Attorney General:......................................................................117 Deputy M. Tadier : ..........................................................................117 Senator I.J. Gorst :...........................................................................118

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................118 [9:30]

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

1. The Deputy Bailiff :

There is nothing to be said at the moment under A.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PORTFOLIO OF ASSISTANT CHIEF MINISTER SENATOR P.F. ROUTIER M.B.E: [1(99)]

Question

Will  the  Chief  Minister  list,  for  each  area  of  responsibility  currently  delegated  to Senator P.F. Routier M.B.E.,  the  policies  in  each  area  being  developed  for  approval  by  the Assembly and provide the development timetable for each such policy; and if he is unable to do so, will he explain why that is the case?

Answer

The following schedule outlines the key deliverables for consideration by the States Assembly in 2017  in  respect  of  the  delegated  responsibilities  held  by  Assistant  Chief  Minister, Senator P.F. Routier M.B.E.

In addition, policy work will continue to advance in 2017 in a number of areas for which the Assistant Chief Minister has responsibilities, including the following:

• Disability Strategy - completed strategy to be laid before the States Assembly, May 2017
• Access to Justice - The Third Interim Report was presented to the States Assembly on 1st August 2016. The Review is now focusing on legal aid, affordability, and the working of the legal profession. A final report on this topic will be presented to the States Assembly, August 2017
• Legislative amendments to the competition and regulatory framework - in the early stages of development and discussion with the JCRA, with an outline plan to be developed in Quarter 2 2017, and progress on extension of relevant intellectual property conventions (update Quarter 3).
• Liquor Licensing Law (Senator Routier is Chair of Shadow Licensing Policy Group) – Draft law to be approved by Shadow Alcohol Licensing Policy Group, and ready for lodging by the Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, February 2017.
• Consultation on Telecoms Strategy, which may result in legislative amendments, and work in relation  to  broadcasting,  including  extension  of  UK  Digital  Economy  Bill  relating  to  TV Licences and provisions to allow Ofcom to perform their new regulatory role to the BBC.

2. DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING  REVIEWS  UNDERTAKEN  IN  RESPECT  OF  THE  JERSEY INNOVATION FUND: [1(104)]

Question

Following  the  presentation  of  Jersey  Innovation  Fund'  (R.3/2017)  and  in  light  of  the  Chief Minister's statement to the Assembly on 17th January 2017, will the Chief Minister –

1. release the results of the review undertaken by accountants between 22nd February and 15th March 2016 of the existing loans fromtheFund, along with those of the subsequent reviews of loans C, B and E, as mentioned on page 33 of R.3/2017;
2. inform members of the terms of reference given to the independent U.K. former employment lawyer engaged to investigate the actions of civil servants involved in the Fund, along withthe timescale and fees involved, and agree to release this report, when completed;
3. agree to release the report ofthe external accountant employed to review all the financial arrangements States departments have with external bodies; and
4. release the name of the person identified to review whetherany political involvement contributed to failings identified in respect ofthe Fund, along withthe terms of reference and timescale involved, and agree to publish any findings?

Answer

As much information as possible will be released into the public domain in relation to the reviews being undertaken, in particular, the report in relation to political responsibility will be published in full.

However, there are natural and appropriate limitations on the ability to publish in full matters concerning individual loans, individual officer conduct, and detailed matters concerning financial arrangements with external bodies.

In making decisions on publication, the rules for the publication of information, as clearly outlined in the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, will be followed, inclusive of the requirement to publish information in the public interest, subject to exemptions, and processes around review and appeal.

Having noted this and in advance of receipt of these reports and any final decisions, the answers to parts (a) – (d) are as follows:

1. It is not expected that it will be possible to release the requested information as this could prejudice the commercial interests of the companies concerned.
2. The review is expected to be completed within six to eight weeks of commencement.

It is expected to cost between £20,000 and £25,000 depending on the scope of work as interviews progress.

The review will consider the extent to which officer involvement contributed to the deficiencies identified in R.3/2017, inclusive of:

• Clarifying and establishing all officer roles.
• Identify whether they discharged their duties in accordance with their defined roles and professional responsibilities.
• Identify any breaches that may have occurred.
• Identify individuals who have failed to follow the set policies, procedures and guidelines including the Code of Conduct for States of Jersey Employees, Financial Directions and

the Public Finances Law.

It is not expected that the full report will be released.

3. It is not expected that it will be possible to release the requested information as this could prejudice the commercial interests of the external bodies concerned.
4. Thereviewof political involvement is expectedtobe completed within sixto eight weeksof commencement.

Jessica Simor QC has been instructed to undertake a review of political involvement.

The review will:

• Consider the extent to which Ministerial involvement in matters referred to in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, in particular matters identified at 15.2 & 15.3 of the conclusions and the conclusions generally contributed to the deficiencies and failings identified in the report.
• Consider any other matters that the reviewer considers appropriate that arise during the course of the review
• Identify and consider matters relevant to the timeframes in which political decisions were made and which Ministers had responsibility for the Jersey Innovation Fund.

3. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGY FOR JERSEY: [1(105)]

Question

What progress, if any, has been made in terms of developing a renewable energy strategy in Jersey? Have any targets been set in respect of renewable energy; if not, why not; and, if so, how likely is it that such targets will be met?

Answer

Pathway 2015: An Energy Plan for Jersey, agreed by the States Assembly in May 2014, outlines a goal of sustainable, affordable and secure energy for the Island. Chapter 4 outlines our actions around renewable energy both at the Micro (or domestic/household level) or the utility scale which includes commercial/community scale or utility scale generation (e.g. marine energy such as wind or tidal power or onshore power from our Energy from Waste plant).

My Department continues to develop policies in accordance with the workstreams set out in the Energy Plan to encourage the uptake of renewable energy. Recent examples include the new building bye-laws which help to drive renewable energy solutions in new domestic builds or those undergoing significant refurbishment. The General Development Order now exempts from permission even larger areas of roof coverage by photovoltaic (PV) panels. I am heartened to see the prices dropping for renewable energy solutions such as air source heat pumps or PV or solar thermal panels. As the costs of renewables come even closer to that from conventional power sources such as oil and gas heating, people will continue to make renewable choices for their homes and businesses for both sustainability and economic reasons.

The States of Jersey have incorporated renewable solutions into its own portfolio of buildings. For example St Martin's primary school incorporates heat pumps and PV panels alongside many other sustainable building solutions like rainwater catchment. The energy performance of the School is being constantly monitored and its operating parameters continue to be improved.

The States of Jersey continues to work on putting in place the legislative and spatial planning framework to enable utility scale marine renewable energy. Whilst any project would be considered on its own particular merit after extensive review and scrutiny, Jersey's waters hold potential for offshore wind projects as well as ultimately tidal stream technology as this reaches the commercial stage. The gift of the seabed from the Queen into the Island's ownership has been helpful in forwarding progress in this area.

Although I have described many areas of progress, currently the Energy Plan does not set renewable energy targets for the first period of the plan to 2020. Instead it concentrates in its' first 5 years on decreasing all forms of energy use to reduce emissions and improve overall energy security and affordability. However, the progress of the Plan is monitored by the Energy Partnership and the first full review of the Energy Plan is due in 2020. If it is thought appropriate and helpful there is the potential to propose renewable energy targets at this point alongside our ongoing work.

4. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DECISION OF JT TO INVEST IN THE ENERGOUS CORPORATION: [1(106)]

Question

As shareholder representative for JT, what involvement, if any, did the Minister have with the decision of JT to invest in the Energous Corporation?

Answer

In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding the possibility of business acquisitions or investments of this nature are identified in 2016 Operating Plan. The Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources received a verbal briefing from the CEO of JT Global further to the Board's approval and in advance of the transaction. This was subsequently supplemented by the provision of internal JT documents and accompanying paperwork.

5. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING CONCERNS RAISED, OR COMPLAINTS MADE, ABOUT THE NEGATIVE SOCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF HIGH VALUE RESIDENTS: [1(107)]

Question

How many times, if ever, have concerns been raised, or complaints made, about any negative social contribution made by individual High Value Residents allowed to live in Jersey; and how were any such complaints dealt with?

Answer

While observations and comments are made from time to time in relation to the high net worth initiative and residents - the overwhelming number of which are positive, recognising the considerable social, economic and fiscal value they deliver - no formal complaints have been made to and investigated by the Chief Minister's Office.

6. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING BLOOD DONATION BY GAY MEN: [1(108)]

Question

What are the current rules relating to the donation of blood by gay men and what restrictions, if any, are in place? If there are different rules in this area for gay men and heterosexual men, what is the reason for there being different rules; and has the Minister given any consideration to reviewing the rules?

Answer

I can confirm that the Jersey Blood Donor service follows the UK guidance relating to blood donation. This guidance in full can be found using this link:

http://www.transfusionguidelines.org.uk/dsg/wb

This guidance covers many aspects of blood donation and seeks to minimise risks to both the donor and the recipient of collecting and processing blood components to ensure that only the highest quality blood components are produced. Of necessity this is selective and the principles of public safety are paramount. There are frequent updates relating to this guidance with 18 being issued in 2016 covering a wide spectrum of issues. The last relevant update relating to homosexual and bisexual individuals was in 2011 and the text is attached at Appendix 1.

All  donors,  irrespective  of  age,  gender,  race  or  sexual  orientation  are  asked  to  complete  a questionnaire on each occasion before donating. This gives the health professionals prompts to question any aspects that may lead to a risk that would necessitate not taking the donation on that visit – for example, if the donor had visited a country with a known malarial or a viral risk, such as Zika  Virus.  This  includes  mandatory  deferral  of  male  and  female  heterosexual  partners of individuals with a current Zika Virus incubation risk.

If a male donor answers the questionnaire stating that they have had oral or anal sexual contact with or without protection with another man in the last 12 months, the donation will be declined. This is different for female bisexual or homosexual donors. The reason for this can be found within the guidance and the change notification No 17-2011 states:

"Men who have sex with other men have a higher chance of having an undiagnosed infection which could be passed to anyone receiving their blood. During 2010 and 2011, SaBTO (Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs) commissioned a subgroup to review the donor selection criteria and risks associated with blood donation by men who have had sex with men.

This review considered advances in the sensitivity of testing procedures currently in use in the UK, the prevalence of transfusion transmissible infections in men who are having sex with men, and the current level of compliance with the previous permanent exclusion. This review recommended that the deferral period for men who have had sex with men should be reduced to 12 months after last sexual contact. The recommendations were approved by SaBTO and by the English Department of Health and the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales."

Jersey adopted these changes when they were released.

In terms of bisexual and homosexual women the guidance states:

"There  is  no  evidence  that  there  is  an  increased  risk  of  sexually  transmitted  infections  in homosexual or bisexual females compared to heterosexual females."

Therefore I can confirm that there are differing selection criteria for homosexual and bisexual men compared to women, but this is in accordance with UK accepted best practice. I can also confirm that I will not be considering any changes to these criteria for the Jersey Blood Donor service and we will continue to work in line with the UK guidance – making changes only when they make recommendations to do so. This is to ensure that we offer the safest and best quality service to Islanders.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the Islanders who volunteer as blood donors as they provide critical support to our clinical services. My Department has a duty to maintain a public blood supply and in doing so is reasonably expected to select those donors known to present the least potential risk to patients.

Appendix 1

Date of publication: 20 September 2011 Implementation: 7 November 2011 Change Notification UK National Blood Services No. 17 - 2011

Homosexual and Bisexual Individuals

Applies to the Whole Blood and Components Donor Selection Guidelines only.

1. Female

Discretionary Accept.

Additional Information

There is no evidence that there is an increased risk of sexually transmitted infections in homosexual or bisexual females compared to heterosexual females.

2. Male

Obligatory Must not donate if:

Has had oral or anal sex with another man, even if a condom or other protective was used.

Discretionary If 12 months or more from the last oral or anal sexual contact with another man, accept

See if Relevant Blood Safety Entry Additional Information

Men who have sex with other men have a higher chance of having an undiagnosed infection which could be passed to anyone receiving their blood. During 2010 and 2011, SaBTO commissioned a subgroup to review the donor selection criteria and risks associated with blood donation by men who have had sex with men.

This review considered advances in the sensitivity of testing procedures currently in use in the UK, the prevalence of transfusion transmissible infections in men who have had sex with men, and the current level of compliance with the permanent exclusion. This review recommended that the deferral period for men who have had sex with men should be reduced to 12 months after last sexual contact. The recommendations were approved by SaBTO and by the English Department of Health and the devolved authorities in Scotland, and Wales.

3. Female Sexual Partners of Men who have Sex with Men Obligatory Must not donate if:

Male partner has had oral or anal sex with another man, even if a condom or other protective was used.

Discretionary If 12 months or more from the last sexual contact with a man who has ever had sex with another man, accept. There are exceptions so please ask.

See if Relevant Blood Safety Entry Additional Information

Men who have sex with other men have a higher chance of having an undiagnosed infection which could be passed to their female partner.

Waiting twelve months from the last sexual contact helps to ensure that the infections tested for by the Blood Services will be picked up.

There may be exceptions for female partners of men who have had sex with men. They may be allowed to donate on the basis of an individual risk assessment.

Reason for Change The guidance has been changed in line with recommendations from the Department of Health Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO).

7. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING STATES MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANIES: [1(109)]

Question

What consideration, if any, has been given to reviewing the rules regarding States Members' declarations of interest, specifically those provisions which oblige members to declare their ownership of an investment holding company without requiring further elaboration of the investments they actually possess through that company?

Answer

The rules regarding the registration and declaration of interests are set out in Standing Orders 152 to 154 and 106 respectively. Schedule 2 to the Standing Orders specifies which interests must be registered (these being the basis of the declarations made under Standing Order 106). In respect of shareholders, the schedule states:

1. An elected member must register thenameandaddressofany company in which he or she, or his or her spouse or civil partner or cohabitee, or both of them, whether jointly or separately, ownsharesexceeding – (a)1%or more of the issued share capital of the company; or (b) £25,000 in value.
2. When registering the name and address ofthe company, the elected member must also provide a brief description of the business or purpose of the company.
3. Forthe purposes ofthis paragraph, a person owns shares if he orshe owns them in his orherownnameor if the shares are held,onhisorher behalf, or for hisorher benefit, by any other person.

It is the responsibility of all members to register interests accurately and in a timely fashion and to declare those interests where necessary under Standing Order 106. Complaints that interests have not been appropriately registered or declared can be made to PPC. The Committee has not recently dealt with any such complaints. However, in the light of this written question, the Committee has decided that it would be appropriate to review the rules in relation to holding companies and has asked the States Greffe to prepare a paper comparing the rules in Jersey with those in other jurisdictions.

8. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE EXEMPTIONOF HOME-CARE AGENCIES FROM THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX: [1(110)]

Question

What consideration, if any, has been given to exempting home-care agencies not operating under the Nursing and Residential Homes (Jersey) Law 1994 from charging G.S.T.; and will the Minister explain why such agencies are not currently exempted, whereas nursing homes and nursing agencies operating under the Law are exempt?

Answer

It is common practice for consumption taxes to exempt certain goods/services from the scope of the charge where it is considered in the public interest to do so. The supply of medical services is commonly exempted from consumption taxes under this approach (e.g. the EU requires all Member States to exempt the supply of medical services from VAT[1]). The EU also requires all Member States to exempt the "services and goods closely linked to welfare and social security work (including those supplied by old people's homes)" when supplied by "public bodies or other bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing". Jersey adopted a similar approach on the implementation of GST; exempting those supplies listed in Group 4 of Schedule 5 (medical and paramedical supplies) to the Goods and Services Tax (Jersey) Law 2007[2].

To ensure that this exemption is sufficiently restricted and unambiguous in its interpretation it applies only to supplies which meet the specified conditions. In particular in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) the exemption is restricted to persons registered under either the Health Care (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1995 or the Nursing and Residential Homes (Jersey) Law 1994. Furthermore, in the context of sub-paragraph (d) the particular supply has to be made in the course of the practice of the relevant registrable occupation.

Group 4 of Schedule 5 does not give an exemption to all supplies made by agencies registered under the Nursing Agencies (Jersey) Law 1978; although a proportion of the supplies made by these agencies may be exempt if they fall within the scope of the exemption in sub-paragraph (d).

Personal care agencies (i.e. those that provide a range of social care – rather than medical care – from cooking and cleaning, through to assistance with washing, dressing, eating, taking medication etc.) are not required to register under any of the pieces of legislation outlined above; although the majority will fall under the Approved Provider Framework[3]. Crucially however these personal care agencies are not supplying medical services and hence are not within the scope of the exemption from GST.

The Treasury is aware of the activities being undertaken regarding the future regulation of care homes, care at home and adult day care under the Regulation of Care (Jersey) Law 2014. When the necessary regulations have been drafted the Treasury will give due consideration to whether the exemptions in Group 4 of Schedule 5 should be extended.

9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DECISION OF JT TO INTRODUCE A SURCHARGE ON POSTAL BILLING AND PAYMENT BY CHEQUE: [1(111)]

Question

Will the Minister, as shareholder representative, review the decision by JT to impose a surcharge on customers in respect of postal billing and payment by cheque and, if not, why not; and will he explain what consideration, if any, was given to the option of offering a discount for payments made through the mechanisms JT wishes to encourage?

Answer

The Minister for Treasury and Resources has delegated to the Assistant Minister for Treasury & Resources, Connétable John Refault, responsibility for shareholder matters.

Whilst this is an operational issue and one for the Board of Directors of JT Global, the Assistant Minister has maintained contact with JT throughout. Members, on 7th February 2017, will have received an email from the Chief Executive Officer of JT providing a briefing document setting out the background to the changes and the steps being taken to deliver them. Hopefully this will have helped clarify the position.

It is important to stress, that whilst this issue has caused some concern, the Assistant Minister is advised that the total number of queries to JT have numbered 197 over the last two weeks whereas the number of completed forms received to date is 2,688.

In terms of those customers who do have concerns, the Assistant Minister is assured by JT that appropriate mechanisms are in place to deal with them based on their own individual circumstances. It is important to stress that such customers should make direct contact with JT based on the information contained in the letters they have received or will receive from JT over the course of the next few weeks.

On the issue of JT offering a discount, the Assistant Minister is advised that a number of promotions have been run over recent years along such lines, including monthly discounts, and this has resulted in over 70% of customers moving to e-bills and/or direct debit payments JT's only remaining option was to follow the approach of its competitors in applying these charges, although it remains the case that such charges can be completely avoided (which is JT's clear preference).

JT have advised that it continues to supply heavily subsidised line rental of £11.25 per month to 9,390 customers under the PrimeTalk tariff.

The Assistant Minister receives and will continue to receive regular updates.

10. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING AIR QUALITY IN THE TUNNEL: [1(112)]

Question

Will the Minister advise –

1. what internationally recognized benchmarks are known to his Department to assess pollution levels in road tunnels, especially those which are used by both pedestrians and road traffic;

2. whether Jersey is signedup, either directly orindirectly,toE.U. air quality standards; if so, what those standards are and, if not, why Jersey is not signed up;
3. what the Department considers to be the maximum safe level in the Tunnel of harmful gases and fine particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres (i.e. PM 2.5);
4. when the last test of air quality in the Tunnel was done, if ever, and what the levels recorded were; and
5. when the warning sign about air quality for pedestrians was removed, why,andwhen it will be replaced?

Answer

1. my department is aware of several internationally recognised benchmarks used to assess pollution levels in Road Tunnels including:

• World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines
• Tunnel construction guidelines UK 1999
• Air Quality in and Around Traffic Tunnels – Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council 2008
• New South Wales TP11: Criteria for In-Tunnel and ambient air quality

2. Jersey is signed uptospecificoxidesof nitrogen (NOx)and volatile organic compound (VOC) protocols, which come under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and therefore emission inventories for these two pollutants have been generated and are included in the UK emission estimates submitted to the UNECE. However, the emissions are expressed as the UK and "other territories", and therefore emissions arisingfrom Jersey are not quoted individually. This also means that targets are associated with the UK and other territories, hence there are no targets applied specifically to Jersey alone.

Currently the States of Jersey have obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and include the reduction targets for greenhouse gases in their international commitments.

The States of Jersey have committed through the Air Quality Strategy to achieving standards that are as good as or in excess of those applying in the European Union which includes meeting air quality standards. In addition, the States of Jersey have international obligations under the Climate Change Convention to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The relevant standards are as set out in the EU air quality directive (2008/50/EC).

3. This question must be looked at from several angles.

• In determining a "safe" level we must also look at those people exposed and the nature and time of that exposure.
• There is no internationally agreed exposure limit for Carbon Monoxide.
• The data taken from the New South Wales criteria for in-tunnel and ambient air quality suggest a Maximum exposure level of 0.1ppm for an exposure of an hour – most people spend far less time than that in the tunnel. The same study suggests a maximum daily

exposure of 25 µgm-3 for PM 2.5 and 50 µgm-3 for PM10. It should be noted that these standards apply to general population exposure rather than hot spots' or the control of individual point sources.

4. We have anecdotal evidence of the pollution in the tunnel being tested last century but no data.
5. The signs outside the Tunnel are managed by the Department for Infrastructure. I have been informed that the signs were taken down as partof a recent refurbishment and replacement signs will be placed outside the Tunnel soon.

11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF POLICY CHANGES WITHIN INCOME SUPPORT: [1(113)]

Question

Will the Minister advise what estimates, if any, she has made of the impact that the following changes would have on her Department, both in financial and policy terms?

1. Movingtheageatwhich Income Supportandaccesstohousing may be claimed from25to 18;
2. Recognising an 18 year old as a separate household within a family;
3. Allowing Income Support claimants to access higher education without there being any reduction in their Income Support;
4. Not removing the component for a young adult who has gone to university; and
5. Disregarding the grant received, as income, for young adults within a household who are studying in higher education.

Answer

Income Support is a household benefit, and a fundamental principle of this benefit is that it is paid to support low-income families as a single unit. The total amount of benefit is calculated by adding up components' that meet different expenses for a household, such as rent and a personal component for each child, adult or young person. So, where a young person lives in a low-income household the Income Support system acknowledges the extra cost to the parents and increases the overall benefit paid to the household. This includes young people who are in further and higher education.

Income Support is designed to support local families and in general is not payable off-island. Most components of Income Support are not paid during term time when the young person is away at university and support for personal expenses is replaced by the maintenance grant from the Education Department. However, Income Support will continue to support the household with the rental cost of keeping a bedroom for the student, and by continuing to pay any personal care or mobility components that a disabled student is entitled to.

The principle of considering the needs of a family unit means that parents with overall incomes too high to qualify for assistance from Income Support themselves are expected to support a young person who lives with them, rather than allowing that young person to claim a tax-funded benefit. Exceptions are made for young people who can't live with their parents, and for young people with a high level of disability or long-term illness. In those cases, Income Support can be paid to the young person directly irrespective of the income of their parents.

In response to the specific bulleted points:

1. Social housing policy in Jersey has always restricted the level of assistance available to the under 25s, and IncomeSupport continues to reflect this ongoing policy. Extending the eligibility for support with housing costs to single people aged under 25 would represent a significant increase to the costof Income Support, and would alsoput pressure on Jersey's limited social housing stock. Any move in this direction would need to be taken very carefully.

Support with housing costs through Income Support is available to a claimant from school- leaving age if they are unable to live in the family home or have the care of a child. Other young people receive support through the family unit, including housing costs.

2. As outlined above, young people are treated as a separate household from their parents if they are unabletoliveat home oriftheyhave a highlevelof disability or long-term illness. Young people who are under 25 but are in full-time employment are removed from the parental Income Support claim, so that their earnings to do not reduce the amount of Income Support payable to their parents. This is designed to increase the incentives for young people to find work.

Students have always been included in the parental household up to the age of 25, but the States have twice debated the age at which young jobseekers are included in the parental household. A change in 2011 included young jobseekers up to the age of 19 in the parental household, and this was then increased to age 25 in 2015 – bringing the treatment of jobseekers in line with those young people who remain in full-time education. The impact of these changes was to remove support from young people living in better-off households, as in both cases young people living in a low-income household continued to be supported by increased payments as part of the parental Income Support claim. The result of these changes has been positive: an increased motivation for the young person to find work and a steady decrease in the numbers of young people registered as Actively Seeking Work.

Any decision to treat young people as a separate household from the age of 18 would have the effect of paying benefit to people living with parents who are not themselves a low- income household. In a period where overall benefit expenditure has been limited as part of the Medium term Financial Plan, it would be very difficult to justify this change.

3. Young people living in an Income Support household are supported to be in full-time educationuptotheageof25. This applies to degree-level (or equivalent) courses providing

they commenced the course prior to their 22nd birthday. Exceptions are made for vulnerable

young people, and people who are studying on a "critical skills" course designed to meet the needs of Jersey's economy. For those courses, Income Support will support somebody regardless of their age.

Extending the provision for Income Support to pay for people over the age of 25 to undertake full time higher education would have the effect that fewer people would be expected to find work, and people who would otherwise find employment might choose to study instead. Although some people would increase their potential earnings through education, this is by no means guaranteed, and would have a significant cost to the benefit budget. The mechanism of selecting "critical skills" courses is a good compromise, as it supports educational courses that guarantee paid employment in fields where Jersey has struggled to recruit skilled workers, such as nursing. Many higher education courses are part-time, allowing the claimant to work and study at the same time. There are also increasing opportunities for distance learning, for example through the Open University.

4. As stated in (c), Income Support is available to people undertaking higher education in Jersey, subject to certain conditions. Income Support cannot be paid off-Island, although students are supported as part of a household claim when they return to Jersey outside term- time, and by their parents receiving a housing component to maintain a bedroom for them. Funding for day-to-day living expenses of students studying outside Jersey is provided through the maintenance grant from the Education Department.
5. As household income increases, the level of income support reduces as the household need less help with meeting the costof their basic living costs. Income Support does contain mechanisms to disregard a proportion of certain forms of income from the benefit calculation. This is used in orderto encourage households to pursue types of income that increase financial independence such as income earned from employment and old age pensions. The disregard allows people to keep a percentage of these incomes so that they are better off than households who have not worked towards them, which supports the Department's message of financial independence.

Other forms of income reduce the amount of Income Support received by a household on a pound-for-pound basis, for example, other contributory benefits received by family members. The Education maintenance grant, like the components of Income Support, is designed to pay towards living expenses. If we were to disregard the value of the grant people would effectively be paid twice by different States departments towards the same expense. Aside from increasing the amount of benefit somebody could receive by approximately £92 a week, this would set a very difficult precedent for Income Support when considering other forms of income.

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF REDUCED PAYMENTS OF INCOME SUPPORT: [1(114)]

Question

Further to the response to written question 1(9), tabled on 17th January 2017, and the reductions that it described being paid in Income Support, what assessment, if any, has the Minister undertaken of whether such reductions see the claims of those households affected reduced below the minimum level of income needed for their circumstances and of whether such reductions may thereby cause hardship for these households?

Answer

As stated in answers to the written and oral questions on this subject, there are a variety of different reasons that might affect the level of payments of Income Support benefit. They are not directly comparable, and are made on different legal basis depending on the type of reduction made. Many are carried out at the request of the customer. What can be said is that the impact of any reduction is considered on a claim-by-claim basis by Determining Officers, and there are always options that can be considered where there is a clear risk that the household will not have sufficient income to support themselves.

The caveat to this statement is that in many cases a household's benefit is reduced because of an action they have taken, or have failed to take. In particular, where a household has reduced income because of a failure for an adult member to look for work, this is because a person has chosen to ignore their responsibility to actively seek work and has also ignored a previous written warning from the Department. If this is the case, the person bears responsibility for reducing their household income.

For clarity, the response to this question has been broken down into the list of four areas that has been used in previous questions.

1. Work-related sanctions

For most working age adults, Income Support includes a requirement to be in work, or actively seeking work. The Back to Work teams provide a wide range of support to job seekers and have achieved significant results over the last few years. Alongside a financial incentive for finding work, there is also evidence that a job seeker regime that includes both incentives and financial sanctions is more effective than one that concentrates on one aspect or the other. As such, Income Support now includes a set of phased sanctions that increase in severity for repeated failures to actively seek work.

These sanctions are designed to function as a financial deterrent, so a noticeable impact on household income is inherent to the way they work. Jobseekers are comprehensively warned about the consequences of failing to look for work, and receive a detailed written warning the first time they break the rules. This explains that their benefit is at risk if they do not change their behaviour. The minority who go on to receive a financial sanction have therefore chosen a course of action that will impact their financial circumstances. This is initially for a short period, but it increases with each offence and ultimately for persistent offenders this can remove all entitlement to Income Support.

2. Overpayments

The Income Support system is designed to respond to current need and provides payments in advance to ensure that low income households can meet their basic living costs as they arise. The amount of Income Support received depends on the number of adults and children on the claim, rental and other costs as well as the wages and other income of the household. A change in any of these areas can lead to a temporary overpayment of benefit. Claimants are advised that they should notify the Department as soon as changes in circumstances occur.

When this happens, the revised benefit level is confirmed, the overpaid amount is calculated and ongoing benefit payments are reduced to recoup the extra benefit that has already been paid. In each case, a Determining Officer considers the claim and sets the repayment at a level the household can afford, taking into account the extra payments that have already been received. The repayment levels used do not result in hardship.

3. Household Medical Account payments

Each adult and child component within Income Support includes an allocation for four General Practitioner (GP) surgery visits a year. On top of this, additional components support those with health conditions who need regular GP check-ups. Most income support households receive these amounts as part of their regular benefit payment and are able to budget for their own GP costs.

However, the Income Support system does provide extra support with budgeting for some Income Support claimants. This support is provided through Household Medical Accounts, which are a mechanism for a claimant to allocate a set amount of their benefit each week into the account to ensure that they can meet the cost of GP visits in the future.

The HMA is simply a budgeting tool that allows a household to save small amounts from its own benefit. If the household prefers to manage their GP costs without the HMA, it can be closed.

Loan repayments on Special Payments

As well as providing support with weekly living costs, the Income Support system also helps with the cost of larger, one-off items such as rental deposits and white goods. Most support is provided through an interest free loan with some payments being provided as grants.

If a claimant requests a loan, a repayment rate will be agreed at the start of the loan. The provision of a loan ensures that the claimant is aware of the value of the item, whilst enabling the claimant to spread the cost over a longer time period without incurring interest charges.

The recovery of a special payment loan will cause a small weekly reduction of benefit, but most households appreciate this facility as the alternative to having to find lump sums from their income to meet costs such as a replacement refrigerator. When a household is loaned the money for a rental deposit, they will receive this amount back at the end of their tenancy.

In each case of a special payment loan, a Determining Officer considers the claim and proposes to set the repayment at a level the household can afford. The repayment levels used do not result in hardship.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING NEWLY QUALITIED TEACHERS' SALARIES: [1(115)]

Question

Will the Minister provide a comparison between the earnings of a newly qualified teacher in Jersey during each of the first 5 years of their career under current policy, and what the earnings of a newly qualified teacher during each of the first 5 years of their career will be once the Minister's proposal to reduce the entry level for newly qualified teachers from level 3 (i.e. £38,000) to level 1 (i.e. £33,900) has been implemented?

Answer

Teachers in Jersey are paid according to the following scale and, in general, would advance one level per academic year. To be entitled to an increment, a teacher must have completed at least 26 weeks in the previous 12 months or 0.5 full time equivalent of teaching hours in the academic year. Any increment awarded would be subject to performance review.

A new teachers' typical earnings from the current starting point at MPS 3 would be:

This compares to the following earnings if the proposal is implemented (starting from MPS1). This is subject to negotiations with teaching unions.

14. DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING  THE  PUBLICATION  OF DECISIONS  BY THE  HOUSING  AND WORK ADVISORY GROUP: [1(116)]

Question

Will the Minister agree to publish figures showing the decisions made by the Housing and Work Advisory Group on licensed and registered employment permissions, grouped by employment sector, on a quarterly basis; and if not, why not?

Answer

The figures are already produced and published quarterly, inclusive of approvals and refusals, by sector, for registered and licenced permissions. The latest figures are available at:

https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=2609

15. DEPUTY  M.R. HIGGINS  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING HIS ROLE AND THAT OF THE MINISTER  FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES AT A MEETING AT WHICH IT WAS DECIDED TO BREAK THE CONTRACT WITH MR ALWITRY: [1(117)]

Question

Further to the answer to written question 1(72), tabled on 30th  January 2017, will the Chief Minister advise members of both his role and that of the Minister for Health and Social Services at the meeting that took place with health officials on, or around, 21st / 22nd November 2012 to discuss the breaking of Mr. Alwitry's contract of employment at the General Hospital; will he further advise on what written evidence, if any, they based their decision to break the contract; and will he undertake to publish this evidence?

Answer

An exhaustive response to this question risks trespassing into territory which is sub judice. It is important to distinguish between the roles of two separate organs of administration.

The respective roles were as follows: Health and Social Services ("HSSD")

The decision in principle to terminate the contract was taken by the Hospital Managing Director, the Joint Medical Directors, and the HSSD HR Director. The recommendation was made to the HSSD CEO and the Health Minister[s] who concurred with the recommendation.

The HSSD HR Director wrote to the SOJ HR Director explaining the reasons  for the HSSD intention to terminate the contract.

States Employment Board ("SEB")

The members of the SEB were advised by the SOJ HR Director of the day via email on 21st November 2012.

The evidence relating to this matter will not be published and no further questions will be answered concerning it because it is sub judice.

16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ZERO-TEN TAX POLICY FOLLOWING BREXIT: [1(118)]

Question

Will the Chief Minister advise what assessment, if any, his Department has made of the likelihood that Jersey could be placed on a new blacklist of tax havens' due to the Island's zero-ten tax policy once the United Kingdom has left the European Union?

Answer

On the matter of the proposed listing of non-cooperative jurisdictions by the European Union, we have now received a letter from the Chair of the EU Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation. The jurisdictions that have been written to by the Chair are those identified through a set of objective indicators (such as strength of economic ties with the EU, financial activity and stability factors ) used by the EU Commission in its scoreboarding exercise last September.

The first step will be for the Code Group to undertake a preliminary analysis of the information already available such as information in the public domain, reports in the context of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes and the OECD Inclusive Framework for Tackling Base Erosion and Profit Shifting.

Should it prove necessary, we will be given the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with experts nominated by the Code Group on Business Taxation which will allow us to defend our tax system. If called upon to do so, we believe we will be able to convince the Code Group that our tax system is not harmful, as was the case when it was previously considered by the Code Group in 2011, and if so we do not see any reason for the Code Group to change that decision as a result of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. We will be in a better position to assess our position later this year whereupon, if we need to, we will consider what steps, if any, we would need to take to protect the Island's best interests when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

Our relationship with the EU is built on the good neighbour policy that we have pursued for many years. Jersey is not in the EU but it recognises that it is part of Europe. A desire to strengthen this relationship led to the setting up of a Channel Islands office in Brussels 5 years ago, ably led by Steve Williams. It is also reflected in an active engagement with EU institutions at both political and official level. Together with the Chief Minister of Guernsey I have visited three times in the past two years, which emphasises the importance we attach to developing our engagement with the European Union.

EU Commissioner Moscovici has commended the Islands for their cooperation and referred to them as important partners of the EU. Our voluntary support of the EU Directive on the Taxation of Savings Income, and in meeting the criteria of the Code Group on Business Taxation, are just two examples of that cooperation which also goes beyond tax  matters. Our active cooperation on sanctions implementation, which has been noted and appreciated by the European External Action Service, is another example.

17. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE ZERO-TEN TAX POLICY AND MEASURES TO ENSURE JERSEY'S TAX NEUTRALITY: [1(119)]

Question

Will the Chief Minister explain the role that the zero-ten tax policy plays in the maintenance of Jersey's tax neutrality; and will he advise whether or not the Council of Ministers has any plan that provides an alternative tax system to zero-ten that would maintain that neutrality in the event that the E.U. indicated that it would impose sanctions against Jersey if the zero-ten policy were maintained?

Answer

Income such as dividends and royalties received in Jersey from other jurisdictions will often have suffered tax in that jurisdiction. If that income when received by a company in Jersey was to be subject to tax in Jersey there would be double taxation and this would seriously detract from Jersey's competitive position as an international finance centre. This problem is avoided in other countries because they have a large number of tax agreements which prevent double taxation. As Jersey has few such agreements the way of avoiding double taxation is to apply a zero rate. Thereby a condition of tax neutrality is obtained.

The retention of the zero tax therefore is important if Jersey is to remain competitive as an international finance centre. As was stated in the Policy Framework for the Financial Services Industry published in 2014 we are committed to providing a tax regime that is competitive and also one that provides the stability and certainty that the business community and investors using Jersey require.

The finance industry has continued to be successful because we are competitive. The fact that employment in the finance industry is as high, if not higher, now than it was at the start of the financial crisis in 2007 is indicative of that success. The finance industry is a source of employment for thousands of Island residents, and provides well remunerated job opportunities for our young people which otherwise they would undoubtedly have to leave the Island to enjoy.

The European Union has indicated that it will consider what defensive measures or sanctions to apply to those jurisdictions that are on a list of non-cooperative jurisdictions which it is proposed will be published at the end of this year. We firmly believe that we will convince the Code Group that our present tax system is not harmful, as we did when the system was reviewed by the Code Group in 2011, and that we will not be on that list. We are therefore confident that we will be able to continue to give the business community and investors the assurance they require of the continued stability and certainty of our tax regime, and in our view there is no immediate need to plan for the provision of an alternative tax system.

18. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF STATISTICS IN RESPECT OF VISITOR NUMBERS TO JERSEY: [1(120)]

Question

Will the Minister advise whether or not figures published by Visit Jersey to show the number of visitors to Jersey include people coming to do business, people visiting families and friends, and language students; and, if so, will he further advise what steps, if any, he will take to ensure that future publication of such statistics show the number of visitors to be represented by the number of staying leisure visitors?

Answer

All visitors who spend money in the local economy are valued.

Understanding the volume and value of tourism to Jersey is a key requirement for Visit Jersey, the States of Jersey and the wider tourism industry.

This is why EDTSC and Visit Jersey have modernised and enhanced the data collection approach such that it corresponds to international standards, and adheres to the recommendations of the United Nations World Tourism Organisation.

Under the new approach, based on Exit Surveys with representative samples of departing passengers from the Island, Visit Jersey intends to make available statistics on the volume and value of tourism broken down by broad journey purpose and duration of stay.

This means that the following data will be published:

• Holiday visitors who stay overnight

• Holiday day-trip visitors

• Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) visitors who stay overnight

• VFR day-trip visitors

• Business visitors who stay overnight

• Business day-trip visitors

• Study visitors who stay overnight

• Study day-trip visitors

• Visitors for other trip purposes both overnight and day-trip

The international standard for defining who is and who is not a visitor' will be applied, meaning that as such we do not count those who become temporarily resident in the Island to undertake paid employment for a Jersey entity.

The previous approach relying on Visitor Registration Cards purported to show the number of staying leisure visitors' but captured no data on visitors, regardless of their trip purpose, if they chose to stay in unregistered accommodation, nor did it provide any data on, or insight into the economic value to Jersey of day-trip visitors.

3. Oral Questions

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the impact of the freeze on Income Support basic component levels since 2009 on living standards and disposable incomes: [1(126)]

What is the Minister's assessment of the impact the freeze on income support basic component levels since October 2009 has had on the living standards and disposable incomes of those poorest households which are dependent on benefits to meet their day-to-day living costs; and what measures, if any, does the Minister have under consideration to help improve living standards for those in relative low income?

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

Income support is made up of many different elements. Since 2009 the targeting of income support has improved significantly and we have seen a reduction in the number of households who are totally dependent on benefits. In 2011 18 per cent of income support households had no other income to call on. By 2015 this percentage was down to 13 per cent. It is true that some components have not been increased but instead improvements have been made to the proportion of wages and pensions retained by the household. Helping people move towards financial independence and helping them to increase their own living standards. Actions within this current Strategic Plan are also helping to improve the quality of life across key areas that affect low income families. Housing; increasing the quality of social rented homes. Jobs; extending Back to Work services. Health; improving health facilities in the community. Education; introducing a pupil premium. I intend to continue work with other Ministers to target support to families that need the most help across the full range of their needs.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister aware that the freezing of what she calls "certain components" like the adult component, the child component, since October 2009, that has resulted in the purchasing power of the benefit being reduced by a massive 17 per cent? People are 17 per cent worse off than they

were in the same situation on benefits in 2009. Is the Minister aware of this reduction and the effective disposable income of these households?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

As I said in my opening remarks, the whole point of income support and the methodology behind Social Security is to make sure that it is targeted and to encourage people back into work. That is not just to support their own financial independence but everybody knows that having a job is better than not having a job at all. It improves social contact, self-esteem and all the things we have been through so many times before. I must slightly correct the Deputy inasmuch as the child component and the rent component have been protected and have increased.

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

On that 17 per cent figure that Deputy Southern quoted about the poorest quintile in our society seeing their standing of living reduced, does the Minister accept that in a rich island that is unacceptable and disgraceful to see the poorest people in our Island, see their standard of living reduced by so much? Does she further accept that her policy to reduce the disregard for certain benefits is going to make this figure even worse?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

As I said, income support is composed of many different elements and the disregard has increased in a lot of cases from the original 10 per cent to now 23 per cent to encourage people to go to work, so 23 per cent of their earnings are disregarded and the number of people on income support has dropped quite dramatically; the number of households on income support over the last couple of years.

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

The opposite is the case for people receiving disability benefits or pensions. But I did not get an answer to my question. I said: does she not consider the fact that the poorest quintile in Jersey have seen their standard of living reduced by 17 per cent in a rich Island, is that not absolutely disgraceful that we are letting these poor people in our Island suffer because of the financial incompetence of the Government she is a part of?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

No, I do not accept that at all. Income support is a hand-up, not a handout as is a well-rehearsed phrase, according to Deputy Southern . No, the income support system is there to benefit people who need help at certain times of their life. But equally we are running a very, very successful Back to Work system, which encourages people back into work, which has been extraordinarily successful.

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

The Minister talks about improving the quality of life for the poorest in Jersey. Is she aware that for many people in not social but private rental accommodation who are entirely reliant on income support in many cases their rents are going up above the maximum component allowed by Social Security?

[9:45]

They are being forced either to move property with no guarantee that they will find somewhere cheaper or affordable with all the hassle that relates to that, or start using their living component to pay rents that they cannot afford; a living component which has not gone up, we are reminded, since 2009. Is this acceptable?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I am not quite sure what the Deputy means by "living component". The various components of income support go through the personal component, the adult component, child component, rental component and household bills, all of which are paid in full if somebody is on full income support benefit.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

I will explain to the Minister what I mean. I think the bedsit rate is roughly about £130 a week maximum and if the landlord or a new landlord increases that rent to £151 a week the individual is therefore required to find £20 of their own money, which is not covered by income support for rental component and therefore find themselves in increased hardship. Does she understand the point I am making and does she find that acceptable?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes, I understand the point the Deputy is making but the rental component is devised through the average rental of Andium Homes, the social housing component, and that is what is paid to people in the private sector. In a lot of cases people in the private sector will choose to live somewhere different. If they wish to pay more out of whatever other components they receive, that is their choice. I agree with the Deputy that is not always the case but certainly we cannot control the rents in the private sector.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

The Minister stated this is a hand-up and not a handout. Does she agree though that unfortunately pensioners who may be spending all of their pension on rent and only have the adult component coming in, which has been frozen at £90.52 since 2009, cannot have a hand-up and they are the ones who are mostly affected?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I thank the Deputy . Actually it is £92.12 is the personal income support allowance. Pensioners, I agree, do face sometimes a very difficult time, especially in their older years when they would hope to sort of relax and enjoy themselves. However, we are conducting, as the Assembly and most of the public will know, a review into the Social Security Fund at present, Living Longer Thinking Ahead, doing a massive consultation, which will take about 18 months, into pensions and how we can adjust the culture and help pensioners into the future when pensioners are now claiming the pension for perhaps 30 years when before it might have been 6 years, 10 years. So, yes, we are well .. we have the situation as we see it well in hand and looking forward to the next 40 years as to how we adjust the pension scheme.

7. Deputy J.A. Martin:

A quick supplementary. Could the Minister, at the beginning she said that they have reduced from 15 per cent to 13 per cent people on income support, and could she then look at that 13 per cent and come back with the figures to tell us how many old age pensioners are on this 13 percent? Because if the figure is not moving that would be the explanation, but can she confirm this please?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes, I said that in 2011 it was 18 per cent of income support households and by 2015 it was 13 per cent. I think the Deputy is asking for the number of pensioners on income support in that 13 per cent. I will get her those figures.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Minister is proud of the rise in the disregard for earned income and the disregard for pensions. Is she aware that the 23 per cent disregard for earned income has not been improved since 2010 and that in fact the disregard at 23 per cent for pensions makes those pensioners on a full States of Jersey pension worse off rather than better off under the old system of a fixed disregard?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I think we are straying a bit off the mark here. The Deputy is correct in saying that any new pensioner will be affected by the changes from the previous allowance of £55 to the disregard of £23 but they also have the choice, any pensioner, as to whether they accept .. the people in the current situation accept the new ruling or the disregard. In some cases they will be much better off with the disregard.