States Meeting Transcript - 14th November 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 14th NOVEMBER 2017

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

1. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PEOPLE CONTRACTED TO WORK FOR THE STATES: [1(584)] ...................7
2. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING WORK BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE DESIGN COUNCIL: [1(585)]..............7
3. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE LOAN PROVIDED TO LOGFILLER LIMITED FROM THE JERSEY INNOVATION FUND:[1(586)].........................................................8
4. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WAITING LISTS FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY: [1(587)]....................................................................8
5. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING REQUESTS TO USE DEPARTMENTAL UNDERSPENDS TO REDUCE WAITING LISTS FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY: [1(588)]...................................................................10
6. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE USE OF UNDERSPENDS TO REDUCE WAITING LISTS FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY: [1(589)]....................10
7. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH HIS DEPARTMENT PUTS CHILDREN AT THE CENTRE OF ITS WORK: [1(590)] ......................11
8. THE DEPUTY OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO THE FUTURE HOSPITAL: [1(591)]11
9. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING PROJECTIONS FOR INCOME YIELD FROM SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS: [1(592)] .............................................12
10. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE POTENTIAL COST OF EXTENDING THE MATERNITY ALLOWANCE PERIOD: [1(593)] .....................................15
11. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS REGARDING THE CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN: [1(594)] ......................16

12. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF WOMEN TO JUDICIAL POSITIONS: [1(595)]...........16
13. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING HIS POLICY POSITION IN RESPCT OF LEGISLATION ON SMACKING CHILDREN: [1(596)]..................................................................16

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING NURSING VACANCIES: [1(597)]........17
15. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SALE OF APARTMENTS AT COLLEGE GARDENS, ROUGE BOUILLON: [1(598)]...........................................18
16. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SALE OF APARTMENTS AT THE PROPOSED HORIZON DEVELOPMENT IN LA RUE DE L'ETAU: [1(599)].....................18
17. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING GOVERNANCE WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SYSTEM: [1(600)]..............................................................19
18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REVIEW OF THE SICIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTORY SYSTEM: [1(601)]................................................20
19. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE COST OF USING U.K. COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROYAL COURT: [1(602)]............22
20. DEPUTY G. P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES EGARDING THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF STAFF: [1(603)]....................................................................23
21. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTUCTURE REGARDING TRAFFIC SAFETY AROUND THE MILLENNIUM TOWN PARK: [1(604)]...............................................24

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................29

2.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the results of a C.P.A. benchmarking exercise completed in 2016: [1(612)]............................................................................29

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...29

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................30
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................30
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30

2.2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding the latest part of the Social Security Review: [1(615)]..................................31

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................31

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................31
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................31
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................32
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32
7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................33

3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for the Environment regarding the use of artificial fertiliser, herbicide and pesticide on Jersey fields: [1(608)]...................................................................................33

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):.........................33

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................34

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34
4. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :...............................................35
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................35
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................36
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36

4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding the introduction of a substance test' to assist Jersey in playing its part to prevent the operation of aggressive tax avoidance schemes: [1(613)].............................................................37

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................37

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................37
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................39
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................39
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................39
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................40
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................40
10. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................41

5. Deputy A.D. Lewis of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding commercial recycling facilities: [1(611)]........................................................................41

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Infrastructure):..........................42

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................42
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................42
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................42

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Chief Minister regarding correspondence in respect of the prospective blacklisting by the European Union of Jersey as a financial services centre: [1(609)]..........................................................................43

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................43

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................43
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................43
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................44
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................45
6. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................45
7. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................45
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................45

7. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the making of an official statement on the response of the Council of Ministers to the recommendation of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry: [1(583)] ......................................46

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................46 2.7.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................46

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the Tunnell Street access to the Millennium Town Park: [1(606)] .........................................47

Deputy E.J. Noel (The Minister for Infrastructure):...........................................47

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49

9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding complaints made by children or young people in Residential and Secure Services: [1(610)]...................................................................................49

Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................49

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................49
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................50

10. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the estimated annual gross income from the first completed building of the International Finance Centre: [1(614)]................................................................50

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................50

11. Deputy J.M. Maçon of the Chairman, States Employment Board regarding an independent review of the Serious Concerns Policy: [1(605)] ..........................50

Senator A.K.F. Green (Chairman, States Employment Board):...............................50

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................51
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................51

12. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding States Workforce Management programme: [1(607)]....................................................................51

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................52

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

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for the Environment...........53

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53 The Deputy of St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):...............................53

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
   2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................55
   3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................55
   4. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:..................................................55
   5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................56

3.5.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................56

6. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................57

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for External Relations.........57

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................57 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):...............................57

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................57
   2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................58

4.2.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................58

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................58

4.3.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................59

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................59
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................60

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................60

5. Health and Social Care System: a new governance model (P.60/2017)................60

1. Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):......61

2. Health and Social Care System: a new governance model (P.60/2017) – amendment (P.60/2017)...............................................................................65

1. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen (Chairman, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel): 65
2. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................65
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................68

3. Health and Social Care System: a new governance model (P.60/2017) - as amended.69

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................70
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................70

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

3. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................74
4. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................76
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................76
6. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................77
7. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................78
8. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:......................................................79
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................80

4. Health and Social Care System: a new governance model (P.60/2017) - reference back ...........................................................................................83

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................83
2. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................83
3. Deputy P.D. McLinton: ................................................................84
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................84
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................85
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................86
7. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................86
8. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................86
9. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................87
10. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................87
11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................88
12. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................90
13. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................91
14. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................91
15. Deputy S.M. Brée: ..................................................................93
16. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:............................................................94
17. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................94
18. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................97

5. Health and Social Care System: a new governance model (P.60/2017) - as amended - resumed ..................................................................................99

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................99

2. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................99
3. Senator A.K.F. Green: ................................................................100 Mr. R.J. MacRae , H.M. Attorney General:..................................................102

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................102 The Attorney General:......................................................................102 Deputy G.P. Southern :......................................................................102

6. Draft Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Immunities and Privileges) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.68/2017)...........................................................103

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):........................104

1. Deputy S.M. Brée:....................................................................104
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................105
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:..............................................................105
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................105
5. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................107 The Attorney General:......................................................................107
6. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:.......................................................108
7. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ..............................................................108

2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ..............................................................110
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ..............................................................111

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:.............................................................111
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ..............................................................111

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................113

[9:31]

The Roll was called and the Acting Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

QUESTIONS

1.Written Questions

1. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PEOPLE CONTRACTED TO WORK FOR THE STATES: [1(584)]

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide a breakdown of how many people he has contracted to work for the States since October 2014 who have charged over £400 per day; and will he further provide details of which Departments they have worked for, what type of work they have undertaken and to which politician they were ultimately accountable?

Answer

Yes. My officials will provide a breakdown when the information has been collated.

2. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING WORK BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE DESIGN COUNCIL: [1(585)]

Question

Will the Chief Minister explain –

1. when and where contact was first made by a representative ofthe Jersey government with the Design Council;
2. when a decision was formally made to contract the Design Council to undertake work for the States; and
3. on which projects they are currently leading and what the States is paying for this work?

Answer

Contact was first made with the Design Council in London in March 2015 in relation to the concept of Design Thinking and how this could benefit the States of Jersey.

In May 2016, a further meeting was  held to discuss design thinking, and also to discuss the interaction with Design Council (CABE) formerly the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and how this could benefit the States of Jersey in its master planning work.

These meetings resulted in a design thinking half day session for Council of Ministers and Corporate Management Board, and key delegates both officer and political from the States of Guernsey, on the 25th January 2017. This was at a cost of £6,440.

As a result of this half day, a joint piece of work with the States of Guernsey was commissioned on 17 July 2017, to use design thinking for six service challenges (3 in Guernsey and 3 in Jersey). This work is scheduled to run from September to November 2017 at a cost of £67,500. The cost is shared equally between the States of Jersey and States of Guernsey (£33,750 each).

In addition, the Environment Minister is currently using advisors from the Design Council (CABE) and their wider Built Environment Experts panel, for his work on the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan review. This work was agreed on 19 May 2017. The core contract was £49,300 and a further cost of £10,950 has been incurred in additional engagement work, taking the total to £60,250.

3. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE LOAN PROVIDED TO LOGFILLER LIMITED FROM THE JERSEY INNOVATION FUND:[1(586)]

Question

In relation to the loan provided to Logfiller Ltd from the Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF), will the Chief Minister advise –

1. whether the then Minister for Economic Development accepted all ofthe recommendations made by the JIF Board and, if not, why not;
2. whether the States secured any rights over intellectual property before the loan was granted;
3. why all ofthe loan was released in one go,given that the loan was toassist with cash flow for the business; and
4. whether his Department considers the absence of any terms in its agreement with Logfiller to be the cause which led to the loss of £400,000?

Answer

1. The then Minister for Economic Development accepted the recommendations of the JIF Advisory Board.
2. The States did not secure rights over Logfiller's intellectual property before the loan was granted. This was not recommended by the JIF Advisory Board, and the Minister accepted the recommendations of the Board. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the Innovation Fund expressed concerns that the consideration ofall reasonable security was not evident in all cases.
3. The JIF Advisory Board's recommendation to the then Minister for Economic Development proposed the advancement of £500,000 to enable Logfiller to rapidly scale the business', create a significant number of full time jobs in the Island' and support the needs ofthe business in the first year'. The Minister accepted the recommendations of the JIF Advisory Board.
4. This matter is under  investigation by the Jersey Financial Crimes Unit. The liquidator's proceedings are also ongoing. We do not wish to prejudice this work. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to comment on this point at this time.

4. DEPUTYJ.M.MAÇONOFST.SAVIOUROFTHEMINISTERFORHEALTHAND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WAITING LISTS FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY: [1(587)]

Question

Will the Minister request his Department to publish –

1. the number of people on the waiting list for gastric bypass surgery;
2. how many such people are in the urgent category;
3. how long each of them has been waiting for this surgery;
4. over the past five years, how many people have been moved up the waiting list;
5. how many of these people were moved up the waiting list due to their health deteriorating or other conditions developing as a result ofnot receiving this surgery in a timely fashion; and
6. what the increased costto the Department has been, if any, fromnot being able to provide this surgery in a timely fashion?

Answer

1. the number of people on the waiting list for gastric bypass surgery;

There are several stages that a patient goes through before they are accepted for gastric surgery (bypass/banding/sleeve).

There are currently 14 patients waiting to be allocated a date for surgery by our UK partner hospital (Portsmouth).

There are 7 patients prioritised to see the surgeon at the next clinic appointment (consultant visits the island).

There are 143 patients waiting assessment and onward referral.

2. how many such people are in the urgent category;

21; these are the 14 awaiting a surgical date and the 7 waiting to be seen in the next clinic.

3. how long each of them has been waitingfor this surgery;

Individuals may be identifiable from a response, but can say that of the 14 awaiting a surgical date, 93% have waited 18 months or less.

Of those waiting for the next clinic, all have been referred or re-referred in 2017.

For those on the routine' list, waits vary considerably and may be due to a variety of reasons including pre-surgical weight loss programmes, requests to wait until personal circumstances suit, watch and wait etc.

45% have been referred since 2015; 55% were referred between 2007 and 2014.

4. over the past five years, how many people have been moved up the waiting list;

This is almost impossible to answer as the list is dynamic and regularly reviewed by the consultant and dietician, with input for other professionals such as GPs.

There have been 68 patients receiving surgical intervention in the last 5 years, 22 of those in 2017.

There have been 43 removals from the waiting lists for a variety of reasons including not being fit for surgery and where the patient has changed their mind about surgery.

5. how many of these people were moved up the waiting list due to their health deteriorating orother conditions developing as a result of not receiving this surgery in a timely fashion; and

Again this is almost impossible to answer.

Patients are re-prioritised on a regular basis (as they are within any specialty) if their condition changes and a greater priority is warranted. How many of these are due to their weight issue is not possible to say without looking at the notes of every patient. Similarly, without assessing every patient's medical history it is not possible to ascertain how many patients have other health needs relating to their weight.

If the patient's GP or other health care professional caring for the patient believes that the patient needs re-prioritising, they contact the service and the patient's waiting status is re-assessed.

6. what the increased costto the Department has been, if any, fromnot being able to provide this surgery in a timely fashion?

Again this is impossible to answer as per answer to (e).

5. DEPUTY J.M. MAÇON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING REQUESTS TO USE DEPARTMENTAL UNDERSPENDS TO REDUCE WAITING LISTS FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY: [1(588)]

Question

Has the Minister received any request from the Minister for Health and Social Services for the use of departmental underspends towards ensuring that the Department of Health and Social Services is able to perform more gastric bypass surgeries and to reduce the waiting list for such surgeries and, if so, what was the Minister's response to that request?

Answer

There has been no request from the Minister for Health and Social Services. The 2017 carry forward process has not yet started.

6. DEPUTYJ.M.MAÇONOFST.SAVIOUROFTHEMINISTERFORHEALTHAND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE USE OF UNDERSPENDS TO REDUCE WAITING LISTS FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY: [1(589)]

Question

Will the Minister use underspends within his Department's budget to address the waiting lists for gastric bypass surgery and, if not, why not?

Answer

The Department has been attempting to secure additional gastric surgery capacity for several months, but NHS providers have been unable to offer any spare capacity due to their own demands.

Further exploration of the private sector has been made, assuming the price is in line with NHS Trusts. One organisation has responded positively and we are working with it to try and take advantage of its offer before the end of the financial year.

7. DEPUTYJ.M.MAÇONOFST.SAVIOUROFTHEMINISTERFORHEALTHAND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH HIS DEPARTMENT PUTS CHILDREN AT THE CENTRE OF ITS WORK: [1(590)]

Question

Given the report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017), will the Minister advise how his Department puts children at the centre of what it does and explain whether this includes, as an example, the examination of waiting lists for gastric bypass surgery and, if not, why not?

Answer

The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry made it clear in its report that one of the lessons to be learned was that:  "The welfare and interests of children are paramount and trump all other considerations". This is a lesson for all States Departments and the wider community.

The initial response to the Care Inquiry from the Council of Ministers (P108/2017) has been submitted to the States Assembly and is scheduled for debate in December 2017. HSSD is taking a significant role, along with other stakeholders, in improving services which support improved outcomes for children, including working to develop a new Jersey Children's Plan, in which the welfare and interests of children as a guiding principle is paramount.

The Inquiry Report set out the necessity of culture change to improve the circumstances of children. Culture change across the system is a work in progress and will take concerted effort by all parties supporting children.

There are no children on the waiting list for gastric bypass surgery. Such surgery for under 18s would only be considered in exceptional circumstances and would be carried out at a specialist paediatric centre and only after maturity had been reached.

8. THE DEPUTY OF GROUVILLE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO THE FUTURE HOSPITAL: [1(591)]

Question

Will the Minister request from the independent planning inspector leading the Future Hospital public inquiry an explanation as to why the inspector is holding the open submission forum when there are no detailed plans or building model to refer to and whether the inspector will be holding another forum when these are ready?

Answer

I don't believe it is necessary to request an explanation from the planning inspector in relation to the current Future Hospital Planning Inquiry. Jersey Property Holdings has submitted an application for outline planning permission. If this application is approved, the applicant will be required to submit a  reserved matters application for consideration. This two part planning application process was established a few years ago to allow applicants to establish whether the scale and nature of a proposed development would be acceptable before a fully detailed proposal is put forward and any substantial costs are incurred.

It is the outline planning application that is currently being considered through the planning public inquiry. The applicant has submitted plans and a model with the planning application, requested that the three matters for determination are: siting, mass and scale and means of access. The applicant has reserved the matters of external appearance and materials and landscaping for later determination, to be included in their second reserved matters application.

Part of the current planning application related to the 1860s granite building, and for this part of the application Jersey Property Holdings have decided to submit full details.

If the current outline planning application is approved, the applicant will need to submit, prior to any development taking place, a detailed design of external appearance and materials, together with landscaping of the proposed hospital building. This application will be determined through an appropriate route, chosen once the application has been received.

9. DEPUTY  S.Y. MÉZEC  OF ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING PROJECTIONS FOR INCOME YIELD FROM SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS: [1(592)]

Question

Further to the answer provided to Written Question 8473 on 9th September 2014, will the Minister provide up-to-date projections for income yield if Social Security contributions were set at 4%, 5% and 6%, respectively, with no Standard Earnings Limit (SEL) or Upper Earnings Limit (UEL) and with employer contributions remaining unchanged?

Will the Minister further provide projections for income yield if the employer contributions rate under Class 2 contributions was set at 0%, 1% and 2% below the SEL?

Answer

The Social Security scheme

The Social Security scheme is a social insurance scheme which covers all adults who have lived in Jersey for at least six months. Insured people are either Class 1 as employed people, or Class 2 which includes everyone else, for example self-employed people and other people who are not employed.

Every adult is expected to pay contributions in to the scheme, although there are exceptions in certain situations, for example having a low income, being unable to work through sickness or disability, being in full-time education or starting a family.

The contributions that people pay are a percentage of their earnings, and the percentage depends on the level of their earnings as follows:

Earnings limits for 2017

£ per month £ per year

Standard Earnings Limit (SEL) 4,180 50,160 Upper Earnings Limit (UEL) 13,828 165,936

Contribution rates in 2017

on  earnings on  earnings  between  SEL up to the SEL and UEL

Class 1: Employee 6% 0% Class 1: Employers 6.5% 2%

Class 2 12.5% 2%

Employees who earn less than £50,160 a year (the Standard Earnings Limit (SEL)) pay a 6% contribution of their earnings. Employees who earn above this pay a 6% contribution on £50,160 of their earnings and do not pay any further contributions above this earnings level.

Employers pay 6.5% of the employee's earnings up to the SEL, and a further 2% on any earnings between the standard and upper earnings limit (UEL).

Self-employed people and others not in employment (Class 2 people) pay a total contribution rate of 12.5% on their earnings up to the SEL and 2% in respect of earnings between the SEL and the UEL.

Estimates

The table below provides an estimate of yield under a flat rate, no earnings limit scenario with 4%, 5%  and  6%  levied  on  Class  1  employees.   The  same  options  have  been  applied  to  class  2 individuals, with the table excluding the contributions made by class 2 individuals which are equivalent to employer contributions.

Estimates of contributions on earnings up to the UEL are based on actual contributions received by the Social Security Department in 2015.

Estimates of contributions on earnings above the UEL are based on income tax data for 2015. These estimates are less certain due to variations arising from the ways in which income and earnings are defined.

In particular, the contributions estimates for the highest earners are based on a small number of people. Any changes in the number of these people could have a disproportionate impact on the estimate and the actual sum achieved will be subject to considerable variation.

The estimates also do not take into account any changes in individual or business behaviour, or any wider economic impacts, that might result from changing the current contributions structure to the ones described in this question.

Estimate part 1

Estimated  change  in  employee contributions (including Class 2)

Total  2015

contributions:

Employer,

Employee

and Class 2 4% rate  5% rate 6% rate

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Class 1 below SEL 175,013 -28,002 -14,001 0

Class 1 between SEL and UEL 5,495 10,990 13,737 16,485 Class 2 below SEL 15,651 -2,504 -1,252 0 Class 2 between SEL and UEL 1,632 3,264 4,080 4,896 Estimated  contributions  above

UEL 4,622 5,778 6,933 Difference compared to actual -11,630 8,342 28,314

Total 197,791 186,161 206,133 226,105

These estimates suggest that a flat 4% rate would reduce payments into the Social Security Fund by at least £11.6m million; a flat 6% rate would increase payments into the fund by up to £28.3 million. The estimates of yield above the UEL should be treated with considerable caution as noted above, this yield relies on a small number of individuals and the assumption that their current income structure would be unaffected by this move.

Estimate part 2

This part of the question asks the Minister to "provide projections for income yield if the employer contributions rate under Class 2 contributions was set at 0%, 1% and 2% below the SEL."

The Class 2 contribution rate is 12.5% for earnings below the SEL. This is set in line with the total Class 1 employee and employer contribution rate which is also 12.5%.

The equivalent change suggested would therefore be to have a Class 2 contribution rate of either 6%, 7% or 8% below the SEL, rather than the current rate of 12.5%. (In this scenario, the Class 2 contribution rate of 2% of earnings between the SEL and UEL remains the same).

At present, the Class 2 contribution rate is the same as the total Class 1 contribution rate so than an individual or a business pays the same contribution percentage whether a worker is employed or self-employed. The benefits available to Class 1 and Class 2 individuals are also identical.

If the Class 2 contribution rate is reduced below the total Class 1 contribution rate, the Social Security  scheme  would  favour  self-employment  over  employment.   The  Class  2  rates  being suggested are significantly lower than the Class 1 rates, and therefore individual and business behaviour is more likely to change. For example:

• Some people may move from employment to self-employment.
• Some businesses may prefer to engage self-employed people rather than employ people.
• There is a risk this could leave some more vulnerable workers less protected if they are self- employed rather than employed.

A reduction in the Class 2 rate would reduce the amount of contributions paid by every Class 2 person, including those with high earnings. There are currently 1,300 Class 2 people who have earnings above the SEL. This includes a wide range of business owners and professions including lawyers, accountants and doctors. In all, one in three Class 2 contributors have earnings above the SEL.

Taking the current distribution of Class 2 individuals, the reduction in income would be as shown below. Figures are given for 2015, to allow comparison with the first half of the question.

Total  2015  Estimated change in Class 2 contributions

contributions:

Employer,

Employee

and Class 2 Class 2 Class 2 Class 2

6% rate 7% rate 8% rate

£'000 Class 1 below SEL 175,013 Class 1 between SEL and UEL 5,495 Class 2 below SEL 15,651 Class 2 between SEL and UEL 1,632

£'000 £'000 £'000 0 0 0

0 0 0 -8,139 -6,887 -5,634 0 0 0

Difference compared to 2015 Total

-8,139 -6,887 -5,634 197,791 189,652 190,904 192,157

These estimates suggest that reducing the Class 2 rate would result in less contributions ranging from £8.1 million (Class 2 rate of 6% instead of 12.5%) to £5.6 million (Class 2 rate of 8% instead of 12.5%).

For  the  reasons  noted  above,  it  is  likely  that  reducing  the  percentage  liability  for  Class  2 contributions relative to Class 1 would lead to changes in employment structures, and the actual reduction in income would be greater than shown as businesses take advantage of the differential rates.

The Social Security scheme review

The UK Government  Actuary report on the Social Security Funds published earlier this  year suggested that the States should review the options to preserve its future viability.

The Social Security scheme review is looking at this over the next couple of years. We have gradually built up reserves in the Social Security Funds over the last 20 years and so there is time to undertake this work thoroughly.

The review also includes projects to improve and modernise the protection and benefits the scheme provides, bearing in mind how people live and work today and in the future. At the moment the department is consulting on maternity benefits and survivor's benefits.

10. DEPUTY  S.Y. MÉZEC  OF ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  POTENTIAL  COST  OF  EXTENDING  THE MATERNITY ALLOWANCE PERIOD: [1(593)]

Question

Will the Minister provide an estimate of the potential cost of extending the Maternity Allowance period from 18 weeks to 26 weeks?

Answer

Extending Maternity Allowance from 18 weeks to 26 weeks would result in an estimated additional potential cost to the Social Security fund of £1.5 million per year.

11. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS REGARDING THE CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN: [1(594)]

Question

Has Jersey signed up to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and, if not, why not?

Answer

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has not been extended to Jersey. The Government is considering whether it might be extended.

12. DEPUTYM.TADIEROFST.BRELADEOF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF WOMEN TO JUDICIAL POSITIONS: [1(595)]

Question

Further to the report of the Jersey Community Relations Trust entitled Contribution to the Women's Resource Centre, CEDAW Shadow Report', which was submitted in April 2012 and which recommended that "the Bailiff should explore the barriers to the appointment of women to judicial positions", will the Chief Minister request from the Bailiff 's Chambers an update on the steps taken by the Bailiff , if any, in relation to this recommendation?

Answer

I will write to the Bailiff 's Chambers as requested.

13. DEPUTYM.TADIEROFST.BRELADEOF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING HIS POLICY POSITION IN RESPCT OF LEGISLATION ON SMACKING CHILDREN: [1(596)]

Question

Further to the call from all four of the U.K.'s children's commissioners for a ban on smacking children, will the Chief Minister outline his policy position on the matter?

Answer

Corporal punishment of a child is treated as a criminal assault in Jersey, however under Article 79 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 the defence that corporal punishment was reasonable can be raised by a parent or a relative, or someone else with care of the child who has permission of the parent, and where no more than a hand is used.

The United Nations Committee on Rights of the Child have, however, recommended that UK prohibit as a matter of priority all corporal punishment in the family, including through the repeal of all legal defences, such as "reasonable chastisement". As UK has extended its ratification of the UNCRC to Jersey, this includes Jersey.

The issue of smacking has therefore already been considered by CAVA in June 2017 (Ministers for Health, Education, Housing, Social Security, Home Affairs). The Ministers have instructed officers to undertake a review of the matter in consultation with the Jersey's Children's Commissioner at the point at which they are appointed.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING NURSING VACANCIES: [1(597)]

Question

In light of figures provided to the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel in respect of nursing vacancies (presented on page 12 of Staff Recruitment and Retention at the Hospital' (S.R.1/2016)) and the figures given in response to Written Question 1(256) on 2nd May 2017, will the Minister –

1. account for the discrepancies in these figures, in particular the figure given on 2nd May 2017 of 521.3 in 2017 for budgeted head count for hospital nurses;
2. provide a monthly breakdown for the number of shifts which needed bank nurses on overtime (4,731) and those filled by agency nurses (5,011) over the first three quartersof 2017;
3. inform members what the costof bank and agency shifts in 2017 were, how the stated reduction in cost was achieved and advise whether this involved the closure of beds and/or wards, stating whether staffing levels were maintained at recognised safe levels throughout;
4. provide furtherdetails in respect of his statement that when the 29 new starters, 32 offers and 23 interviewed applicants areinplace a full complement of nursing staff will have been achieved?

Answer

1. Rather than there being any discrepancy between the two figures referred to, the fact is that they are inevitably different because they are describing very different groups or staff at very different periods in time.

In terms of time, the data presented on page 12 of the Scrutiny report was as at 31/12/2015; the data included in the 2017 response was from March of each year, so understandably they are different.

However, the far more important explanation for the difference between the figures is that they are answers to two completely different questions.

The numbers on page 12 of the Scrutiny Report clearly and appropriately relate to all qualified nurses, midwives and Health Care Assistants across the whole of the Health & Social Services Department.

In written question 256, answered on May 2nd 2017, the specific answer is explicitly described as being in relation only to qualified nurses in the hospital. This figure does not therefore include midwives, Health Care Assistants or qualified nurses based outside the hospital.

2. Bank staff and agency nurses are not employed on overtime
3. From 1 January 2017 to the end of September 2017, the General Hospital spent £765,790 on hospital bank nurses and £1,272,035 on external agency nurses. There have not been any bed closures due to staffing shortages.
4. My statement regarding the impressive numberofstarters, job offersandactivecandidateswas made in order to share and celebrate the achievements by the nurse leadership and recruitment staff inwhathas almost certainly beenthe most successful summer and autumn for nurse recruitment at the Hospital in recent times. Regarding the reference to full establishment, the reality is of course that alongside recruitment, turnover is always occurring due to resignations and departures so my comment should be taken in that context i.e. that I was referring toonly half ofthat equation and full complement is rarely if ever achieved in such a largeand complex workforce in anysectordue to recruitment cycles being longer than notice periods.

15. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SALE OF APARTMENTS AT COLLEGE GARDENS, ROUGE BOUILLON: [1(598)]

Question

In relation to the 107 Category B apartments at College Gardens, Rouge Bouillon, developed by the States of Jersey Development Company, will the Minister, as shareholder representative, advise –

1. whether the apartments have been sold as flying freehold or share transfer units; and
2. what factors were taken into accountby the Company inreaching a decisionon the method of sale of the apartments and whether the Minister was consulted on the matter?

Answer

1. The apartments have been sold as share transfer units.
2. There are several reasons why share transfer structures are used on almost all large residential apartment developments in Jersey:-

1. Share Transfer enables the developer (in this case SoJDC) to enter into binding / enforceable agreements on share purchases (this is restricted on flying freehold to a damages recourse). This is particularly important for SoJDC as one the main risk mitigation measures set down by the States Assembly was securing a sufficient level of pre-sales prior to commencing construction.
2. Transactional flexibility that sharetransferstructures provide – notbeing tied to Friday for completions before the Royal Court is an advantage when dealing with such a large number of units, with staged / phased completion dates; and
3. While the underlying flying freehold structure establishes the division of the properties, the share transfer overlay enables each ofthe owners within each individual block toadd their own occupation regulations (or rules) as well.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources considered such matters to be operational and as such it is up to the management and the Board of the States of Jersey Development Company to determine the appropriate legal structure for its various developments.

16. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SALE OF APARTMENTS AT THE PROPOSED HORIZON DEVELOPMENT IN LA RUE DE L'ETAU: [1(599)]

Question

In relation to the proposed development of 280 apartments at Horizon, La Rue de l'Etau, planned by the States of Jersey Development Company, will the Minister, as shareholder representative, advise –

1. whether the apartments will be marketed and sold as flying freehold orshare transfer units; and

2. what factorshave been taken into account by the Company in reaching a decision on the method of sale of the apartments and whether the Minister has been consulted on the matter?

Answer

1. The apartments will be marketed as share transfer units.
2. There are several reasons why share transfer structures are used on almost all large residential apartment developments in Jersey:-

1. Share Transfer enables the developer (inthiscaseSoJDC)toenter into binding / enforceable agreements on share purchases (this is restricted on flying freehold to a damages recourse). This is particularly important for SoJDC as one the main risk mitigation measures set down by the States Assembly was securing a sufficient level of pre-sales prior to commencing construction.
2. Transactional flexibility that share transfer structures provide – not being tied to Friday for completions before the Royal Court is an advantage when dealing with such a large number of units, with staged / phased completion dates; and

(iii)While the underlying flying freehold structure establishes the division of the

properties, the share transfer overlay enables each of the owners within each individual block to add their own occupation regulations (or rules) in perpetuity.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources considered such matters to be operational and as such it is up to the management and the Board of the States of Jersey Development Company to determine the appropriate legal structure for its various developments.

17. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING GOVERNANCE WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SYSTEM: [1(600)]

Question

What measures, if any, has the Minister taken to implement the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General in her report, Review of Community and Social Services' (R.131/2015) dated 10th December 2015, to "establish clear milestones for the completion and implementation of the governance framework of the Community and Social Services Directorate (C&SSD), covering all C&SSD services, business as usual' and change initiatives, and [to] monitor delivery against those milestones"?

Has any work carried out as a result of the recommendation influenced the proposed new governance model for the health and social care system described in Health and Social Care System: a new governance model' (P.60/2017) and, if so, how?

Answer

An action plan was presented to the Public Accounts Committee in February 2016 following the above review. Since the time of the action plan, there has been significant progress within Community and Social Services. A new governance framework has been implemented with progress on the action plan overseen by the service's senior management team.

The governance framework includes the Senior Management Team, Extended Senior Management, Health and Safety, Finance and Performance and Care Quality Group meetings. The service has a regular integrated report and enhanced performance information will be available when the Children's Social Work information system is implemented. The new system is due to go live in November 2017.

In addition, Community and Social Services is in the midst of an ambitious redesign and restructure, which has at its core planning principles and target outcomes:

• Co-production with service users and families
• Individuals are supported to live safely in their homes, families and communities
• The response is appropriate, proportionate and timely
• Support is provided to minimise/prevent an escalation of need
• Support and intervention takes place within legislative and policy frameworks, based on an assessment of need
• Support and intervention is outcome-focused.

In developing the new governance model (P.60/2017), the preparatory work was informed by a wide range of sources. This included the CAG's recommendations, learning from best practice in other jurisdictions and extensive consultation with those who provide health and social care in Jersey through a combination of interviews and workshops, attended by Voluntary and Community Sector  providers, public representatives,  Primary Care (GPs and Pharmacists)  and Health and Social Services staff.

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REVIEW OF THE SICIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTORY SYSTEM: [1(601)]

Question

Further to the Assistant Minister's answer to oral question 10 asked on 31st October 2017 (1(576)), will the Minister provide the following information about the current review of the Social Security contributory system –

1. whether it has been created internally or through an external agency and, if the latter, outline the tendering process, detailing the terms of reference employed and the budget for the contract and whether these were drafted internally or externally;
2. state what quality assurance measures are in place to assess the full rangeof options available to the Minister; and
3. explain why the second most popular option for paying for benefits in part 1 oftheSocial Security Review, that of increasing employer contributions, is not referred to in part 2 of the Social Security Review?

Answer

The Social Security scheme review is made up of a number of projects which altogether will:

1. Rebalance the social security scheme over the next 30 to 40 years as we tend to live longer and as more people reach pension age
2. Reshape and modernise the protection and benefits the scheme offers recognising:

1. Our society's values and the changes that have and are taking place in how we live and work

2. The government's role in supporting people now includes IncomeSupport, which helps households with low incomes according to their situation and subject to eligibility.
3. Developments in international best practice in supporting people and protecting people during times when they are unable to work.

3. Review and improve how people save for retirementsothattheycansupport themselves when they stop working, reducing their reliance on the next generation of taxpayers.

The first consultation last year, which started the review, focused on objectives 1 and 3. The current consultation is focusing on gathering views on the Social Security scheme's maternity and bereavement benefits. This is in line with the second objective above.

1. My Department has created and developed the overall Social Security review and its underlying projects. Some individual aspects of the Review are being undertaken by external experts. For example, for the current consultation, my department is working with a companyto run independently facilitated workshops to gather detailed public views and ideas about maternity and bereavement benefits. This company is also analysing the overall findings ofthe consultation and writing a report setting outthe results. The tendering process for this work was carried outin line withthe government's financial rules. Other external organisations and individuals have been used to provide design and print work, video content, content analysis and specialist advice. In all cases financial directions have been followed and budgets identified within overall existing cash limits.
2. The full range of options are being considered across the Social Security scheme review.

The conversation about some of the main features of the Social Security scheme – such as contributions, the areas of protection the scheme covers, the size of the pension, and the pension age – started last year in the Living Longer, Thinking Ahead consultation in very general terms.

This first part of the review was designed to gauge public interest in these areas, gather views and ideas early on in the review and to raise public awareness of the Social Security scheme and the need to review it. All of the feedback from 2016 has been recorded and will be used to shape the work in the rest of the review.

Other areas of the review, including the current consultation, Living Today Thinking Ahead, are focused on specific aspects of the Social Security scheme. The 2017 consultation looks at two types of benefit associated with significant changes in society and life styles since the 1970s when the scheme was first set up. Next year work will be undertaken looking at incapacity benefits.

The aim is that over the next couple of years all of the projects, all of the views will be used to inform a detailed ending to the public conversation around what our Social Security scheme will look like in the future. This will shape the final proposals which will be taken to the States Assembly once the review is drawn to a close.

The Department is using independent advice from a range of sources to provide quality assurance throughout the review. In particular, the Statistics Unit has been involved in the design of both public questionnaires.

3. A similar question was asked and answered in Written Question 1240/5(568) on 31October 2017.

Last year, the consultation focused on broader issues as to how we should adapt the overall social security scheme to longer lives. In particular one of the questions (question 9) asked: Which of these options do you think the government should look at in the next few years to adapt the Social Security scheme to longer lives?

The options chosen by the public were (in order of popularity): Tighten benefit rules

Businesses pay more

Less benefits

People pay more

Pension goes up less quickly

Higher pension age

The second part of the review – concentrates on the details of maternity and bereavement benefits.

When a person taking part in the consultation questionnaire tells us that they think one of these benefits should be increased, the next question asks them to choose an option as to how this extra cost should be met:

• I would be willing to pay more contributions
• I would be willing to accept reductions in other working age contributory benefits

The other four options mentioned in the 2016 question were not included in this part of the 2017 survey for a number of reasons:

• We have already received clear feedback from the 2016 results that the public support an increase in employer's contributions. As such, the 2017 survey is probing further into some of the other options to understand these in more detail.
• This part of the review is focusing on specific benefits that people receive and how this affects them personally.
• We therefore chose two clear options that required the individual to judge the preferred impact on that person as an individual.

Each survey always includes a comments box to allow the respondent to add their own ideas.

In 2018 and 2019 we will build on the results of these surveys together with other planned work to provide overall options for the future of the Social Security Scheme so that it continues to provide benefits that people value and is sustainable for future generations. This will include options for contributions as well as benefits as the overall scheme is only sustainable if these remain  in balance. Contribution options will consider the split between employer and employee and the value of the standard and upper earnings limits.

19. THEDEPUTYOFST.JOHNOF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE COST OF USING U.K. COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROYAL COURT: [1(602)]

Question

Could the Chief Minister provide the average cost per case of using a U.K. Commissioner for Royal Court proceedings?

Answer

The provision of UK Commissioners in the Royal Court is managed by the Bailiff 's Chambers. The average figure for a UK Commissioner per case varies considerably depending on the length of the proceedings, the nature of the court and other particular constraints of a Jersey based judge sitting.

In total, spend on UK Commissioners for 2016 was £16,691.76 for 5 cases, and for 2017 to date was £42,780.48 for 7 cases.

To provide more context, the cost for a UK Commissioner for the current year is:

1. Fees - £864.60 per day;
2. Travel - £400 per visit;
3. Hotel - approximately £100 - £140 per day;
4. Transport – up to £100 per day;
5. Expenses – approximately £30per day.

It should be noted that UK Commissioners are only appointed in the following circumstances:

1. For his/her specialist skills and extensive experience in a particular field;
2. In order to satisfy an objection to a local Judge sitting;
3. When there has been a perceived needtohavean external Judge sit e.g. for the historic child abuse cases between 2008 and 2011.

20. DEPUTY G. P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES EGARDING THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF STAFF: [1(603)]

Question

Following the recent departure of senior staff members, including from the Child and Adult Mental Health Service and Orchard House, can the Minister advise whether –

1. the department finds it difficultto recruit and retain staff (i) under the constraints ofStates Employment Board policies relating to terms and conditions and (ii) given the high cost of living and accommodation;
2. advise what engagement there has been with the States Employment Board to ensure that Jersey canattract high quality staff for essential services;
3. state what gaps have been left in the social service provision and how positions vacated will be replaced.

Answer

1. There has been no pattern of departures of senior staff from the Child and Adult Mental Health Service or Orchard House. There are particular challenges for recruitment and retention of some professionally qualified staff. These challenges were also raised in the report ofthe Independent Jersey Care Inquiry published on 3 July 2017 and attention was drawn to some of Jersey's policies. The cost of living and availability of affordable, appropriate accommodation is often raised as a barrier to recruiting and retaining staff as is the negative impact of housing and employment legislation on spouses, partners and children of candidates. These matterswere also extensively covered in the review into Staff Recruitment and Retention attheHospital by the Health and Social Services Scrutiny Panel in 2016, and the response by HSSD.

2. The States Employment Board is supportive of any P59 applications for appropriately attractive salary packages for such key posts and has approved considerable flexibility in the use and deployment of recruitment agencies and strategies. SEB continues to support the development of key worker strategies.
3. There have been no gaps in social servicesprovision as a result of departures in Child and Adult Mental Health Service and Orchard House. There are vacancies in social services' posts (predominately in Children's Social Work, including the senior management post of Head of Children's Services)which are currently back-filled to ensure an appropriate operational service is in place. There has been ongoing recruitment toattractstaffto Jersey and a campaign is currently underway. Staff are attending a UK social work recruitment fair in November and work on developing an on-island social work degree continues.

21. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTUCTURE REGARDING TRAFFIC SAFETY AROUND THE MILLENNIUM TOWN PARK: [1(604)]

Question

Further to the Minister's response to question 1(533) asked on 10th October 2017 regarding traffic safety around the Millennium Town Park which stated that "all decisions and implementation work on these roads were undertaken by the Parish" ( St. Helier ), can the Minister clarify –

1. whether the Parsons Brinkerhoff safety reportwas commissioned bythethenTransportand Technical Services Department (TTS) and, if so, whether the report recommended the installation of rising bollards to restrict access to Tunnell Street;
2. whether TTS agreed to consider the "installation of automatic rising bollards in Gas Place which could be used to restrict traffic for events or to allow through traffic to be further restricted" following representations at a Roads Committee meeting on 9th February 2011.
3. the cost ofthe bollards that the St. Helier Director of Technical Services said had been "removed by TTS due to the cost" at a Roads Committee meeting on 18th December 2013;
4. whether £500,000 of additional contingency from the Town Park project was returned by the MinistertotheTTSandHousingrollingvotesasper Ministerial Decision0099/2012as the project was "complete and did not encounter any significant issues"?

Answer

1. In 2011 TTS commissioned TMS (via Parsons Brinkerhoff) to undertake a Safety Review as partoftheTownPark Development, the report considered layout options for rising bollards but did not make any recommendations.

We would add that the TTS design development presented the concept of rising bollards and no access to through traffic.

The Parish as the responsible roads Authority consulted with residents on these options in October 2010, but ultimately did not chose to install any device, such as a rising bollard or introduce any other measures to restrict access to through traffic.

It should be noted that the report is only limited to the layout and design that was current at the time (April 2011) and not the subsequent iterations implemented by the Parish in 2015 following its development of 32 Belmont Road to Create access for bicycles and pedestrians from Belmont Road to Millennium Town Park.

2. Partofthe bullet point extracted from the 9 February 2011 minute is missing from the question. For the sake of completeness the part of the Minutes of the Parish Roads Committee meeting on 9th February 2011 to which the Deputy refers show that ".Following representations TTS agreed to consider:-

• installation of automatic rising bollards in Gas Place which could be used to restrict traffic for events or to allow through traffic to be further restricted should the Committee wish to revisit its earlier decision"

The minutes are those of the Parish Roads Committee, the context of which was the Committee revisiting their own decision. TTS did consider and discuss this request with the Parish, however through traffic was initially maintained along Gas Place and therefore a rising bollard was not required.

Because of this practical constraint, it would appear that the Parish Roads Committee did not consider it necessary revisit their earlier decision.

3. In the minutes of the Parish Roads Committee meeting 18 December 2013 it states

"[the St. Helier Director of Technical Services] said that it was still the intention to designate the road access only at the start of the Park but plans for the bollards had been removed by TTS due to the cost".

The minutes are those of the Parish Roads Committee. It is clear from the minutes, that TTS representatives were not present at the meeting and so we cannot clarify as to what the St Helier Director of Technical Services was referring to.

We note from reading the Minute that this meeting was held after the completion of the Tunnell St paving works by the Parish and was in the context of proposed further modification to the footpaths to the eastern end of Tunnell St, outside of Ruellan's Garage as part of a refurbishment and footpath widening project, two years after the park had opened.

The meeting was also shortly after the acquisition by the Parish of 32 Belmont Road, which is now the site of La Raccourche.

It may also assist the Deputy that planning permission to develop 32 Belmont Road to "Create access for bicycles and pedestrians from Belmont Road to Millennium Town Park" was granted to the Parish on 4 September 2014. The Parish adopted La Raccourche as a by road on 21 September 2015.

We would add with regards to the historic funding of traffic management measures in Tunnell St, TTS had previously informed the Parish that funding traffic management measures in Tunnell Street was a matter for the Parish, as the responsible Authority.

The assistance that TTS were able to provide the Parish for Robin Place and Tunnell Street in the context of the Town Park was the provision of a stock of granite paving.

This was set-out correspondence of 27th September 2011, between the Director - Engineering and Infrastructure, Transport & Technical Services and the Connétable . In response, the St. Helier Assistant Director of Technical Services informed the Director -

Engineering and Infrastructure, Transport & Technical Services that the Connétable and Procureurs would consider taking the matter of rising bollards to an Assembly for funding (See Appendix 1).

Again, it is recorded on Friday 27 January, 2012, in the Parish Roads Committee Minutes: "TTS presented various facts to the Committee

the  Council  of  Ministers  had  agreed  funding  for  the  creation  of  the  Park,  but  the responsibility for the roads rested with the Parish and not TTS"

4. We  refer  you  to the  Ministerial  decision  of 14  December  2012  which  explains  the repayment of carry over funding retained as an emergency contingency which was not required to fund exceptional events

https://www.gov.je/Government/PlanningPerformance/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx?do cid=FBBD917D-75CB-4FB4-A4A1-717E017EB2F9

APPENDIX 1

-----Original Message-----

From:  [POSH Assistant Director T & E Services] Sent: 04 October 2011 09:40

To: [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering] Cc:  [TTS Principle Engineer]

Subject: RE: Funding of the road improvements surrounding the new Town Park

[TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering]

I have attended the management meeting this morning when the matters in your email of 27 Sept. were discussed and I have been asked to respond.

It was agreed that the parish will take on responsibility for the laying of the new material in Robin place and Tunnel Street. Please advise how you see this working programme wise, I will try to juggle our current work schedule accordingly?

With regard to the street lighting can you please provide me with details including costs following which I will have to see whether our current street lighting budget can carry this. Please advise if there are any other material costs which the parish must allow for.

The board were not supportive of paying for the rising bollard in Robin Place as they saw this as an integral part of the park project and this has not been budgeted for. Is this still around  40k?   If  you  are  insistent  that  the  parish  should  fund  this  the  constable  and procureurs advise that they will have to take the matter to Parish Assembly for approval.

Kind Regards

[POSH Assistant Director T & E Services] Assistant Director T & E Services

* Direct Tel: (01534) 811

* Mobile No:

6 Fax: (01534) 811804

*

Website www.sthelier.je

Do it online at: www.sthelier.je

P Think of the environment..do you need to print this e-mail?

-----Original Message-----

From: : [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering] Sent: Mon 03/10/2011 08:22

To: Simon Crowcroft

Cc:  [TTS Principle Engineer]

Subject: RE: Funding of the road improvements surrounding the new Town Park

Morning Simon,

can we have a response before the close of play on Thursday please as we need to instruct this work by no later than this Friday

: [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering]

-----Original Message-----

From: Simon Crowcroft [mailto:Simon. Crowcroft @posh.gov.je]

Sent: 28 September 2011 07:29

To:  [TTS  Director  of  Infrastructure  and  Engineering];  Michael   Jackson ;  [TTS  Chief Officer]

Cc: [TTS Principle Engineer and POSH Officer]

Subject: RE: Funding of the road improvements surrounding the new Town Park

Thanks [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering]

I will put this to the procureurs and the rest of my team at the earliest opportunity. rgds

Simon

-----Original Message-----

From: : [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering] Sent: Tue 27/09/2011 15:32

To: Simon Crowcroft ; Michael Jackson ; [TTS Chief Officer]

Cc:  [TTS Principle Engineer]

Subject: Funding of the road improvements surrounding the new Town Park

Hi Simon,

Thanks for talking to me from your holiday last Friday regarding the funding of the road improvements around the new Town Park. Further to our discussion, I met with our Minister, Assistant Minister and [TTS Chief Officer] and all were happy with the solution we discussed.

As requested, I have listed out the details of what we agreed so there is no ambiguity The TTS capital budget for the Town Park will fund the following elements

* Full park remediation

* Full park construction

* Road improvements to Bath Street including street lighting and a new pedestrian crossing

* All road improvements including cycle track, street lighting and rising bollard in Gas Place and Oxford Road up to the junction with L'Avenue et Dolmen du Pres du Luminiere

* Provision of granite materials only for Robin Place and Tunnel Street

The Parish will fund all the remaining works in Robin Place and tunnel Street to include the laying of the granite, the street lighting and the rising bollard. We will arrange the transfer of the granite materials to your Parish yard in due course and provide copies of material suppliers, specifications and detailed drawings in due course

Trust this confirms our discussions and I would appreciate your confirmation of the above

: [TTS Director of Infrastructure and Engineering]

************************************************************************** ********************************************

Care : If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please reply to the sender, and then delete it.

Please treat our information in confidence. This communication may contain legal advice which is confidential and/or privileged. It should not be forwarded or copied to anyone else without the prior permission of the sender.

Contract : This email does not form any binding agreement unless it is supported by an official States of Jersey purchase order form.

Content : All States information systems may be monitored to ensure that they are operating correctly. Furthermore, the content of emails and other data on these systems may be examined, in exceptional circumstances, for the purpose of investigating or detecting any unauthorised use. This email has been scanned for viruses by the States of Jersey email gateway. ************************************************************************** ********************************************

________________________________ Note:

This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Parish of St Helier and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity.

Thank You. ________________________________

Note:

This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Parish of St Helier and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity.

Thank You.

ADDED INFORMATION - 2017 Data Protection Note

Names redacted and [titles] added in square brackets for purposes of data protection

2. Oral Questions

2.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the results of a C.P.A. benchmarking exercise completed in 2016: [1(612)]

Further to the C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) benchmarking exercise, which was completed in 2016 by a Privileges and Procedures Sub-Committee, does the chairman accept the findings of that exercise that there are areas for improvement and, if so, what steps are being taken to follow up in these areas?

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

I do accept the findings of the sub-committee that there are areas for improvement. Members will recall that the report of the sub-committee, which was circulated last year, highlighted how the Assembly was compliant or partially compliant against the C.P.A.'s benchmark for democratic legislatures. However, the report contained instances where Jersey did not comply. Some of that non-compliance stems from the context of Jersey's parliamentary democracy. For example, the fact that the majority of Members do not belong to a political party or the Assembly does not elect its own Speaker. But of particular note was the comparative lack of resources and support available to Members of the Assembly to carry out their parliamentary work. This was something which was emphasised to me recently during the debate we had on States Members' pay. This was something which the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) have taken on board and while of course we need to be mindful of budgetary considerations what we are going to do is to hold a series of workshops with Members in the new year to progress discussions in this particular area.

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

I thank the chairman for that response. The chairman may be interested to know that the subject of benchmarking did come up at the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary conference at the small workgroups that were held. It was an area of interest. It was felt to be valuable for those who took part in it. Does the chairman agree that for those of us in the Assembly who value the Commonwealth association and the benchmarks and the norms that they said it is important that we try to do everything we can to live up to those commonly applied norms?

[9:45]

The Connétable of St. Clement :

I think it is important we try stringently to maintain the highest democratic standards.

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Does that mean that P.P.C. will therefore adopt the issue of elected Speaker, which seems to be .. and having read also some other benchmarks of other democratic systems, the elected Speaker is fundamental in terms of the importance of that position. Does he agree and will he support therefore the elected Speaker being also part of our democratic system?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

The Privileges and Procedures Committee is a democratic institution and there are no whips and each member of the committee will cast his or her vote depending on the quality of the arguments made during the forthcoming debate.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The committee system used to be known as "first among equals". Is the "first among equal" chairman of the committee going to be supporting this fundamental issue of democratic democracy?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

The chairman will listen very carefully to the debate. The chairman will possibly make a contribution or 2 or 3 or 4, depending on which amendments we debate during the debate, and will cast his vote on the balance of arguments made. That is what is called democracy.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

Will the chairman note the feedback from such conferences, not just from myself and the recent delegates, but from those who have been in the past, that although Jersey in many ways punches above its weight, and the Public Accounts Committee is a great example in the Commonwealth of how Jersey can often demonstrate best practice to other Parliaments and Assemblies from around the Commonwealth. But when it comes to the singular issue of the elected Speaker, or absence thereof in the Jersey context, eyebrows are always raised on the international stage and at the Commonwealth level the fact that we do not have an elected Speaker in the Assembly. Not only that but that the person who automatically is the Speaker is also the Chief Justice of our Island. Could that be put on record and related to the P.P.C. and reflected perhaps in its comments during the debate we are going to have in the next couple of days?

The Connétable of St. Clement :

I will be absolutely honest with you, I do not think I understood the question. I will answer the question inasmuch as do we learn from our experiences when we attend conferences like the C.P.A., and of course we do. That is why we belong. We learn, we improve, we gain. But also of course other jurisdictions learn and gain from the experiences that our delegates are able to pass on to them. That is very important. I am not going to commit myself to my position on the elected Speaker. Members will find out my position when the vote is taken.

2.2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding the latest part of the Social Security Review: [1(615)]

Will the Minister update Members on the scope and progress of the latest part of the Social Security Review and indicate what the timescales are between now and the elections for any resulting changes in policy and legislation that may arise?

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

The latest part of the review of the Social Security Fund focuses on some areas where society has changed since the current scheme was set up. It asks for the public's views on maternity and bereavement benefits and drills down to some of the results from last year's survey. The consultation is open to everyone and we want as many people as possible to take part as we all contribute into the fund. For example, last week we noticed that the response rate from men was on the low side and we used Facebook to encourage more men to respond. That has worked well and we have now had over 1,000 responses to the online survey, which is running until 15th December. 1,200 people also gave their views and ideas through Apptivism's Facebook chatbot in October. Four workshops were held last week for organisations and members of the public with another 4 plans for later in the month. The results will be published early next year and will feed into the remaining stages of the review. This will continue after the election, leading to a co-ordinated set of policy and legislative changes which will be led by the next Minister for Social Security.

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Can the Minister confirm that there will be no actual changes to the maternity or paternity legislation in her term of office?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

As the Deputy will be aware, we are waiting for the results on family friendly responses and consultation from the Employment Forum, which I am due to receive in December.

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

Can the Minister explain to Members why, in the second part of this survey, they have not transferred a finding from the first part that employers could pay more to the options available for people to tick? The 2 options available are: "I would pay more myself" or: "I would accept a reduction in benefit." Why not the option for employers to pay more?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I think the Deputy has asked a similar question before. We have had a U.K. (United Kingdom) consultation agency who have put the consultation together with the help of the Statistics Unit and we also asked the public, based on the previous review, what their options were. In order of popularity it was to tighten benefit rules, businesses pay more, less benefits, people pay more, pension goes up less quickly and higher pension age. So we have tried to incorporate these into the second review. These 2 reviews so far and the third one will come together in 2020 to give an idea or a comprehensive response to what has been gathered.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Minister said she tried to get all these elements together and went through the list of options. The second option, to request employers to pay more, was supported by 71 per cent; it was significant. Yet it does not appear as one of the options on the second consultation; why not?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

As I said, because it is a different consultation from the first one. There is no point in putting out a second consultation which is identical in questioning to the first. The second one is on maternity benefits and survivors benefits, partners of whom have died, and this is what this second review is all about. All the results will come together at the end of the third review to be put out as a formal recommendation.

4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Following on from Deputy Doublet 's second question about maternity leave and the Minister saying that there are ongoing reviews looking at this; does she anticipate that any of these reviews will conclude anything other than statutory maternity leave in Jersey is wholly inadequate and needs to be increased?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Also, as I have said before, in other areas the Employment Forum is an independent body. It is apolitical and they get on with their job. They have had to fit the family friendly consultation in between the minimum wage and it is not for any politician, and certainly not me, as Minister for Social Security, to interrupt their findings until they give me the recommendation. But, as a working mother, I would sincerely hope that there would be an increase in some of the maternity benefits that we have at the moment.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Can the Minister tell us - and if she does not have the information circulate that information - about.. because we do of course have a Stats Department ourselves who I think are quite well respected throughout the States, which is the company that she has been using for this survey and how much are they being paid for that?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

When I said we use the Stats Unit, I did mean the one over here, who are very helpful in putting together our consultation and numerical findings. The company that is used is a U.K. company called CAG and the cost of it, for this one, off the top of my head I think is about £38,000.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Minister accept, as somebody who got this message on my phone, like I am sure many other people did in the Island, that my initial reaction, irrespective of the fact it was from Social Security, was that these are not full and complete questions and that they are very much leading? I, for one, was asking: where is the option here for higher earners, those who earn a lot or whether they are an employer, for them to be able to pay more in contributions at the same rate as everybody else so that we can all have access to the same benefits? That was not one of the questions that was asked and why is that the case?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I understand both Deputy Tadier and Deputy Southern 's questions on why were the questions not asked but there are only so many questions you can put in order to keep people's interest on an online survey. In this survey, which is almost completely online, we have included 3 different video outlets as well to make the whole survey and answering of it more enticing, which limits the amount of questions that you can put into the consultation. Otherwise it would take 30 minutes to do it and nobody would have the attention span for it. So thank you.

7. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

I thank the Minister for her answers. I wanted just to zero in on one of the areas in the survey. I believe a question has been asked about the maternity payments and whether they should in fact be available to either parent so that the father or mother could receive the maternity grant and the payments. Given that this is an issue under consideration can I ask the Minister for her view on something which is perhaps achievable within this term of office, for the States of Jersey as an employer to offer the maternity pay to their employees where both parents are employed by the States of Jersey could this be available to the mother or the father?