States Meeting Transcript - 18th April 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 18th APRIL 2017

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................9

1. Tribute to a former Member of the States – the late Harry Hall ewell Baudains .......9 The Bailiff :....................................................................................9
2. Appointment as Dean of Jersey- Reverend Mike Keirle ................................9 The Bailiff :....................................................................................9

QUESTIONS......................................................................................9

2. Written Questions........................................................................9

1. DEPUTY G.J. TRUSCOTT OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE DELIVERY OF COMMUNITY AND PRIMARY CARE SERVICES ONCE THE NEW HOSPITAL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED: [1(203)]..............................................................9
2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF REVIEW OF PERSONAL TAX (STAGE 1) – DATA ANALYSIS' (R.30/2017) IN RESPECT OF THE EFFECT OF G.S.T. ON PEOPLE ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE INCOME SCALE: [1(204)] .........................................................................................11
3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF REVIEW OF PERSONAL TAX (STAGE 1) – DATA ANALYSIS' (R.30.2017) IN RESPECT OF POST-TAX INCOME FOR MIDDLE EARNERS AND THE RAISING OF REQUIRED AMOUNTS OF REVENUE: [1(205)] ..................................................12
4. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN APPLICATIONS CONCERNING THE PARISH OR DISTRICT THEY REPRESENT: [1(206)].............................................14
5. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE USE OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY ROADSIDE CAMERAS: [1(207)]................................................................................14

2.7 DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING RELATIVE LOW INCOME IN JERSEY: [1(208)]....................................15

7. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO INCOME SUPPORT IN LEVELS OF RELATIVE LOW INCOME: [1(209)] ...................................16

8. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE RAISING OF THE LONG-TERM CARE CHARGE RATE: [1(210)]........................................................................19
9. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING DISCUSSIONS WITH GUERNSEY AND ALDERNEY ABOUT ISLAND- HOPPING': [1(211)]...................................................................20
10. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) LEGISLATION: [1(212)]...........................................21
11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE E-GOV BUDGET: [1(213)] ....................................................................21
12. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ROLE AND BUDGET OF THE INFORMAITON SERVICES DEPARTMENT: [1(214)]....23
13. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE COST OF PLANNING PERMITS AND THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR SUCH PERMITS: [1(215)] ................25
14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING WAITING LIST TIMES FOR PROCEDURES AT THE HOSPITAL: [1(217)] ..................................................................26
15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE QUALITY AND SAFETY OF CARE DELIVERED BY HOME CARE AGENCIES: [1(218)]................................27
16. DEPUTY G. P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL

SECURITY REGARDING THE LEVELS OF INCOME SUPPORT FOR PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS IN 2017 COMPARED WITH THE LEVELS IN 2009: [1(219)]................................................................................28

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING CONSULTATION WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF JT REGARDING THE DECISION TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CHARGES: [1(220)]................................................................................30

2.17 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF MAXIMUM WORK TIME LEGISLATION: [1(222)]..............................................................30

19. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME INEQUALITY: [1(223)].................31
20. DEPUTY R. LABEY OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ENGAGEMENT OF PORTLAND COMMUNICATIONS IN RELATION TO MEDIA TRAINING IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE INDEPENDENT JERSEY CARE INQUIRY'S REPORT: [1(224)]....................32
21. DEPUTY R. LABEY OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DECISION TO LIMIT THE PERIOD IN WHICH APPROVED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BEGIN: [1(225) ..................33
22. SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON OF THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REGARDING SERVICES OUTSOURCED FROM HIS DEPARTMENT: [1(226)]...34
23. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICIES ON HOUSEHOLDS RELIANT UPON INCOME SUPPORT: [1(184)]....................35

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................38

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding measures under consideration to raise the revenue required to fund the provision of public services: [1(244)]....................................................38

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................38

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................38
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................39
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................39

5. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................39
6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................39

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding approaches to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution head office in the U.K. in relation to the standing- down of the St. Helier Lifeboat Crew: [1(228)].........................................40

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):.................................40

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................40
2. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:..........................................................40
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................41

3. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding work undertaken behind the granite hospital building between 3rd and 7th April 2017: [1(234)]......................................................................41

Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................41

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................41
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42

3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................42
4. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................42

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Chief Minister regarding the progress made in addressing the standing-down of the St. Helier lifeboat crew: [1(237)]................43

Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):.................................43

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................43
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
3. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................44
4. The Connétable of St. Martin:..........................................................44
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................45
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................45
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:.......................................................46
10. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................47
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................47

5. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Attorney General regarding the Human Rights compliance of procedures in the Magistrate's Court: [1(242)].........................48

Mr. M.H. Temple, QC, The Solicitor General (Rapporteur):..................................48

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................48
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................48
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................49

6. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen of the Chief Minister regarding the prospect of bringing forward the next Jersey Income Distribution Survey: [1(230)]..............49

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................49

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................49
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................49

3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................50
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................51 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:.....................................................52

7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the prospect of delaying the implementation of the waste disposal charge in order to engage with the business community: [1(241)]...........................................................52

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Infrastructure):..........................52

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................53 The Solicitor General:........................................................................53
2. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................53
3. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:........................................................54
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................54

5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................54
6. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :...............................................55
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................55

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding measures under consideration to ensure that existing standards of home care would be maintained and improved: [1(235)]..................................................55

Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................55

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................56
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................56
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................56
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................57
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................57
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................57
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................57

9. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour of the Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the commemoration of the centenary of the legislation enabling women to vote in Jersey: [1(239)].......................................................58

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...58

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................58
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................58

10. The Connétable of Grouville of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture regarding work undertaken by his Department on assessing the impact of the proposed liquid waste and solid waste charges on businesses: [1(233)].59

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

.........................................................................................59

1. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................59

2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................59
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................59
4. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................60

11. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Chief Minister regarding the appointment of the new Chief Executive of the States: [1(227)].........................................60

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................60

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................60
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................61
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................61
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................61
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................61
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................62
7. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................62

12. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the implementation of additional charges by commercial renewable energy producers: [1(231)]......................................................................62

Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources -

rapporteur):.............................................................................62

1. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................63
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................63
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................64
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................64
6. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................64

13. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for External Relations regarding his involvement in the work being undertaken with the local synod on whether Jersey should be part of the diocese of either Winchester or Dover: [1(243)].................64

Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):...............................64

14. The Deputy of Grouville of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the use of guest houses as halfway houses for ex-offenders: [1(232)]....................................65

Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs):............................65

1. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................65
2. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................65
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................65
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................66
5. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................66

15. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Education regarding the prospect of including a sixth form in the new Les Quennevais School: [1(238)]................................67

Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier (The Minister for Education):..............................67

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................67
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................67

16. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the principal conclusion of Review of Personal Tax (Stage 1) – Data Analysis' (R.30/2017), especially in relation to low and middle-earning taxpayers: [1(236)]....68

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................68

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................68
2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................68
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................69
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................69
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................69
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................69

17. Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding requirements arising from Jersey's membership of the Common Travel Area and whether they included an obligation for airlines to ask for passports for booking and travel within the Area: [1(229)]...................................................................................70

Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs -

rapporteur):.............................................................................70

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................70
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................71

18. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the Committee's plans to encourage more women and people from minority groups to become involved in politics in Jersey: [1(240)]....................71

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

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources...71

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................71 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):.........................72

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
   2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72

4.2.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73
4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................73

4.4.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................73

5. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................73
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................74

4.6.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................74

7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................74

4.7.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................74

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................75
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................75

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................75

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................75 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................75
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................76
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................76
4. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................76
5. Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................77
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................77
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................77

5.7.1 Senator P.C.F. Ozouf :..................................................................78

8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................78

5.8.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................79

9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................79

6. Chairman of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel - statement regarding the panel's report, Review of Nitrate Levels in Jersey's Water (S.R.3/2017) ..............................................................................79

6.1 The Deputy of St. Mary (Chairman, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):..................................................................................79

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................81
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................81
3. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................82
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................82
5. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................82

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................83 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:......................................................................83

7. Future Hospital Funding Strategy (as amended) (P.130/2016) Proposal to defer debate to 6th June 2017 .........................................................................84

7.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................84

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................84
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................85
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................85
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................86
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................86
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................86
7. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................86
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................87
9. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................87

8. Future Hospital Funding Strategy (as amended) (P.130/2016) Proposal to defer debate to 2nd May 2017.........................................................................88

8.1 Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................88

8.1.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................88

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................90

9. Draft Public Elections (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.13/2017)..90

9.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):..................90

10. J.T. (Jersey) Limited: administrative charges (P.16/2017).............................91

10.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................91

1. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................93
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................95
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................97
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................98
5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................99 The Deputy of St. Ouen:......................................................................99 The Solicitor General:........................................................................99
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:............................................................100
7. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:...............................................100
8. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................100

9. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................102

11. Draft Main Roads (Classification) (No. 29) (Jersey) Act 201- (P.17/2017)............103

11.1 Deputy E.J. Noel (The Minister for Infrastructure):....................................103

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ..........................................................105
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................106 The Deputy of St. John:.....................................................................106 The Solicitor General:.......................................................................106
3. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................107
4. Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour:.................................108
5. Deputy E.J. Noel:..................................................................109

12. Jersey Financial Services Commission: re-appointment of Commissioner (P.19/2017) ..........................................................................................111

Senator I.J. Gorst :...........................................................................112 Deputy M. Tadier : ..........................................................................112 12.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):..............................................113

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................113

13. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):...113

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

[9:30]

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

1. Tribute to a former Member of the States – the late Harry Hall ewell Baudains The Bailiff :

Perhaps I can inform Members that Deputy Harry Baudains unfortunately died at the weekend. He joined the States of Jersey as the Deputy of St. Clement in 1986 and, as the Connétable would have us know, was Deputy of God's own Parish until he retired in 2002. He was a retired farmer and took a keen interest in protecting the countryside. He was twice appointed as Vice-President of the then Island Development Committee, and in 1998 was elected as President of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee. He served as Vice-President on the Housing Committee from 1999 and was a member of the first Privileges and Procedures Committee. I came across him first when I was Attorney General as he was then a member of the Legislation Committee. For all of us who served with him we would remember him as a true gentleman. He provided balanced and thoughtful contributions to a wide array of the committees on which he served, and he had a great sense of humour. He was quiet and unassuming; when he spoke in debates his input was always measured. As many would say, he was a lovely man, God rest his soul. Can I ask Members to stand in the usual way? May he rest in peace. On to happier things, I am very pleased on your behalf to welcome His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor. [Approbation]

2. Appointment as Dean of Jersey- Reverend Mike Keirle The Bailiff :

I am also pleased to announce that the Reverend Mike Keirle has been appointed as the next Dean of Jersey. He currently serves as a Vice-Dean in Guernsey and Rector of St. Martin's Church on that Island, where he has been for the last 14 years. He comes to us, we hope, in September although he might be arriving for an early foray to find out more about us in July. His experience has been in Christ Church Orpington in the Diocese of Rochester, and then to the link Diocese of Harare in Zimbabwe where he was Rector in St. Paul's Marlborough for 3 years. On his return he served as Rector of Keston Parish Church and the overseas link officer in the Diocese of Rochester before moving to the Channel Islands in 2003. I think the date set aside for his swearing in will be 7th September, if Members would like to note their diaries.

The Bailiff :

We now come to the Consolidated Order Paper. The last item to mention under A is the Regulation Investigatory Powers Report of the Commissioner which has been lodged, I draw that to the attention of Members.

[9:45]

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY G.J. TRUSCOTT OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE DELIVERY OF COMMUNITY AND PRIMARY CARE SERVICES ONCE THE NEW HOSPITAL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED: [1(203)]

Question

Will the Minister list the services that will need to be transferred to the community and primary care sectors to allow the new Hospital to function effectively within its proposed capacity? Furthermore, given the anticipated increase over the next 20 years in the number of people aged over 65, will the Minister explain how he can be confident that the proposed expansion of community and primary care facilities will be delivered on time and will be sufficient to meet any extra demand; and can he provide any indication of the annual future cost of providing these services?

Answer

The Acute Service Strategy is a key aspect of P.82/2012 A New Way Forward for Health and Social Care'. It is clear that hospital services will be delivered on-Island where it is safe to do so. This requires the hospital to be optimally staffed, in order to provide a range of emergency and elective services. As part of the health and social care transformation work (P.82), the services that are delivered from within the hospital building are being redesigned as part of the planning for the future hospital, to ensure the hospital is the right size and to further improve pathways.

There is, and will always be, a difference between the service provided in the hospital and the services provided in a person's own home. The service changes across health and social care relate to pathways, and aim to ensure people can remain in their own homes for as long as possible – which is what Islanders told us they wanted in the P.82 consultation.. This helps to ensure the hospital focuses on the services that should be delivered in hospital and requires an increase in some community and primary care services, as it will be achieved through:

• Admission avoidance – doing all we can so that patients don't need to come to hospital in the first place
• Admission prevention – when Islanders do need to come to hospital, making early decisions and providing treatments in ways that reduce the numbers needing to be admitted
• Early discharge – ensuring that when patients have been admitted to hospital, their care is as safe and clinically effective as possible so that they can return home or to care outside hospital safely at the earliest opportunity

Admission avoidance includes initiatives such as the Care Hub, GPs accessing step-up beds rather than hospital, working with residential and nursing homes to manage fluctuations in their residents' health without sending them to hospital, improving outputs from the falls clinic and memory clinic, rolling out the Gold Standards Framework, managing long-term conditions in the home i.e. Community Respiratory team etc. Most of these services are delivered in Community and Primary Care settings.

Admission prevention includes an Ambulatory Emergency Care model, extended nursing roles in the Emergency Department, Consultant level assessment in the Emergency Assessment Unit, hot clinics', telephone advice for GPs and community specialist nurses, and the Rapid Response and Reablement Team and step-up beds. Most of these are services provided within the Hospital (other than Rapid Response and Reablement and step-up care).

Early discharge/transfer initiatives include implementation of the Gold Standards Framework, Rapid Response and Reablement Team, improved access to diagnostics, improved social worker provision, improved acute rehabilitation at Westmount, enhanced recovery programmes, increased day case surgery rates, introduction of new treatments and techniques etc. Some of these services, such as step-down care, are provided by Community and /or Primary Care providers.

The proposed expansion of community and primary care services is described  in the Outline Business Case. The priority investments were identified with a range of stakeholders, based on the identified gaps in service provision and international best practice in making an impact on reducing hospital demand. The Future Hospital project is refreshing its demand and capacity modelling; this will be used to inform the refresh of the Out of Hospital priorities and to target investment into services which will be able to meet the increasing demands into the future.

The ongoing planning and implementation is project managed by the Deputy Director of System Redesign and Delivery, supported by a Project Officer. The programme is overseen by a cross- system Implementation Group. The programme remains under review, with priorities being considered regularly.

In Phase 1 (2013 – 15), £3.0m has been invested recurrently in Out of Hospital services. In MTFP 2 (2016 and 2017), the additional investment totals £0.7m recurrently. Recurrent funding of £2.1m has been indicated for 2018 and 2019; this is subject to annual approval by the Treasury Minister. Funding for 2020 onwards will be identified in due course.

The KPMG projections  indicated that the older  adult  population was set to  increase by 35% between 2010 and 2020, 75% by 2020 and 95% by 2030. This, along with the need to ensure the future hospital is the appropriate size, means that investment in Community and Primary Care services must continue; both the services being provided and the ways in which the services are organised must remain under review in order to ensure the services achieve their aims of helping people remain healthy in their own homes for as long as possible.

2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FINDINGS OFREVIEWOF PERSONAL TAX (STAGE 1) – DATA ANALYSIS' (R.30/2017) IN RESPECT OF THE EFFECT OF G.S.T. ON PEOPLE ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE INCOME SCALE: [1(204)]

Question

Following the publication of R.30/2017, Review of Personal Tax (Stage 1) – Data Analysis', does the data contained in Figure 5.3 (p. 37) show that the impact of GST is regressive, having a greater impact on those on low incomes than it does on higher earners; will he apologise, on his own and his predecessors' behalf, to the public and Members for repeated statements that the effect of GST is not regressive; and if not, why not?

How is his argument that tax paid by the lowest earners has been reduced over the past decade borne out by the data in figures 6.2 to 6.8 in that report, which appear to show that when all taxes and contributions are included, the lowest earners in each household illustrated are subject to a higher effective rate of tax in 2015 than in 2006?

Does the combination of GST and the caps on social security and the Long-Term Care charge result in regressive effective rates of tax for those on higher earnings?

Answer

The Review of Personal Tax was commissioned by the Minister and overseen by a political oversight group made up of Ministers and other States Members.

The analysis in the Review is not inconsistent with previous analysis of the distributional impact of GST. For example, the 2009 Fiscal Strategy Review Green Paper stated that "while a certain proportion of every family's expenditure is made up of GST it has more impact on lower-income households". In recognition of this, Ministers increased the components of Income Support subject to GST by 3% when GST was introduced and increased them further when GST rose from 3% to 5%. In addition, tax exemption thresholds were increased and a Food Costs Bonus was introduced to benefit those who were not eligible for Income Support and who did not pay income tax.

Taxes on consumption are accepted to be regressive: at 5% Jersey's GST is mildly regressive compared, for example, to VAT rates in the European Union which often exceed 20%. Nevertheless, paragraph 35 of the Review's Work Stream 3 (policy considerations) paper notes that the "Literature suggests that corporate and personal income tax have a strong negative impact on growth while consumption taxesare found to be less harmful.." The introduction of GST was a necessary part of our responses to make Jersey's corporate tax system internationally compliant and competitive; and to retain the many economic benefits which the financial-services industry brings to the Island.

Figure 2.32 demonstrates that for the range of households considered those on lower incomes paid less income tax in 2015 than they would have done if the changes to income tax had not taken place in the period since 2006. Figures 6.2 to 6.8 take account of the impact of the changes to GST, Social-Security Contributions and the LTC Contribution over the same period.

Broadly speaking, the combination of GST and the caps on social security and long-term care contributions does mean that, at higher incomes, the effective tax rate starts to fall slightly but the system overall remains broadly progressive as those on higher incomes still pay a higher effective rate than those on lower incomes.

All of the fiscal measures covered by this review were adopted by the States Assembly because the Assembly considered that they were in the best interests of all of the people of Jersey. Nobody in this Assembly needs to apologise for securing our people's jobs and financial wellbeing through a period of severe economic upheaval worldwide.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FINDINGS OFREVIEWOF PERSONAL TAX (STAGE 1) – DATA ANALYSIS' (R.30.2017) IN RESPECT OF POST-TAX INCOME FOR MIDDLE EARNERS AND THE RAISING OF REQUIRED AMOUNTS OF REVENUE: [1(205)]

Question

With reference to figure 6.9 of R.30/2017, Review of Personal Tax (Stage 1) – Data Analysis', what has been the scale of increase in post-tax income since 2006 for the majority of middle- earning couples, other than those couples with a child at university whose annual tax bill is reduced to assist with higher education costs?

With reference to paragraph 31 of work stream 3 in R.30/2017, what measures does the Minister have under consideration for "raising the required amount of revenue to fund the provision of public services in the Jurisdiction" in the light of the ongoing structural deficit and other than continued austerity, and in particular, how much revenue, if any, does he expect the measures in work stream 4, "Tax Compliance Framework", to raise?

Answer

The Review of Personal Tax  was commissioned by the  Minister and overseen  by a political oversight group made up of Ministers and other States Members.

With reference to the Review of Personal Tax, illustrative households 3 and 4 broadly represent working couples without children in higher education. The review was not tasked with establishing changes in income levels - rather the impact of fiscal measures introduced by the States Assembly.

As the Chief Economist explained during the Minister's presentation of the Review to States Members on 24th April, there is no single definition of "middle earner".

The Statistics Unit  advises that an empirical definition of  middle-earning  households  may  be derived from the income distributions of the 2014/15 Household Spending and Income Survey. The Unit suggests that the middle three quintiles of such an income distribution represent an appropriate definition of middle earners in Jersey.

For the purposes of this question, from the perspective of the post-tax income of "middle earning couples", the relevant income distributions from the survey are those of unequivilised household income before housing costs of working age couples without children and of couples with at least one dependent child aged under  16 years. The  ranges of post-tax income of  "middle-earning couples" in 2014/15 were:

The Statistics Unit does not hold survey information of sufficient granularity to enable calculation of the change in the above income ranges since 2006, in either nominal or real terms.

The Minister outlined the principal revenue-raising measures he has under consideration during his presentation (Slides 5, 67 & 68) of the Review to States Members on 24th April – as well as in his last Budget speech.

Briefly, the principal measures the Minister is consulting on for Budget 2018 are the case for a so- called "Tesco Tax"; and the case for extending the range of finance-sector companies taxed at rates other than the Standard Rate of zero per cent.

Insufficient data exists to estimate the revenue benefit arising from improved compliance with Jersey's tax law arising from the possible range of measures upon which the Taxes Office is currently consulting. As was also discussed during the presentation to States Members on 24 April, the Taxes Office aims to undertake "tax gap" analysis work over the coming two years which will assist with such estimations in future.

4. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN APPLICATIONS CONCERNING THE PARISH OR DISTRICT THEY REPRESENT: [1(206)]

Question

Would the Minister explain whether States Members on the Planning Committee have been known not to take part in determining applications concerning the Parish or district they represent and, if so, how often this occurs and what formal protocol, if any, has been agreed in respect of this practice?

Answer

Members will be aware that Article 9A of the Planning and Building Law, 2002 (as amended) permits the Planning Committee to determine its own procedures.

The Members of the Planning Committee have decided not to take part in any applications concerning the Parish or district they represent. This arrangement, which was also followed by the predecessor Committees, has been formalised into the Planning Committee members Code of Conduct of April 2015, which reads as follows:

"7. With the exception of any Senator sitting on the Committee, where an item is within the electoral district that a Committee Member represents then that Member should withdraw from discussion of that item making it clear that they will not be taking part in the decision making process. Any such Member would remain entitled to make representations in connection with that item as an elected representative of the district."

The Department does not record the frequency in which this protocol applies.

5. THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE USE OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY ROADSIDE CAMERAS: [1(207)]

Question

Is it her understanding that evidence produced by roadside cameras is admissible in Parish Hall enquiries and prosecutions in Jersey without further corroborative evidence? If not, does the Minister consider such evidence should be admissible and what steps, if any, is she taking to that end?

Answer

Matters under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, including for speeding offences, are the primary legislative responsibility of the Minister for Infrastructure. The sole legislative responsibility of the Minister for Home Affairs under this Law is to approve devices for measuring breath alcohol levels.

With the above said, it is presently the case that Jersey has no statutory provisions which specifically provide for evidence from fixed roadside cameras to be admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings. By way of comparison, in England and Wales, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 specifically provides for such evidence to be used in criminal proceedings provided the device is prescribed and approved by the relevant Secretary of State. Evidence from properly approved speed and traffic light cameras is admissible in evidence in the UK in its own right and does not require corroboration.

It would therefore likely be necessary to seek to amend the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 if it were thought appropriate to use such devices in Jersey. This responsibility would fall to the Minister for Infrastructure, after appropriate consultation, including with the Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs, the States of Jersey Police and the Parishes.

The use of fixed speed cameras was considered at a programme of road safety workshops held in 2015 involving the Ministers for Home Affairs and Infrastructure, Connétable s, States and Honorary Police. With regard to traffic legislation, the workshop identified the introduction of penalty points with graduated licences and lower drink drive levels as the highest priorities. This is reflected in the Jersey Road Safety Action Plan 2017-2019 (http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2016/R.132-2016.pdf). The Minister for Infrastructure is therefore progressing these matters. The workshop did not support the introduction of fixed speed cameras and no steps are currently being taken to pursue their implementation.

It should be noted that a fixed speed camera system similar to that of the UK would involve significant infrastructure costs in addition to the required law amendments. Although fixed speed cameras are proven to lower road injury rates in areas where there has been a history of speed related injury accidents, there are few locations in Jersey where the rate of speed related injuries would reach the level typically required to justify the introduction of speed cameras in the UK.

2.7 DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING RELATIVE LOW INCOME IN JERSEY: [1(208)]

Question

With reference to the answers given by the Assistant Chief Minister to oral questions about relative low income at the sitting on 28th March 2017, does the Chief Minister stand by the claim made in Written Question 1(160) that relative low income is reducing in Jersey?

What assessment has the Chief Minister made of the effect of cuts to support for pensioners, single parents and those claiming Short or Long Term Incapacity Allowance on the number of such people entering relative low income?

Answer

Until we have another income distribution survey, we cannot be definitive about the impact of the complex interacting factors that influence and effect income distribution. The last survey was conducted in 2014/15, and we are working to bring forward the next survey.

It is the case that the number of individuals living in households in relative low income before housing costs was 16% in 2002; 13% in 2009/10; and 13% in 2014/15. However, headline rates before housing costs should not detract from the fact that, after housing costs in particular, the position deteriorated between 2009/10 and 2014/15 as our economy fared less well. In particular, employment earnings fell after the financial crisis; and low interest rates reduced mortgage costs for some while rents rose for others.

Our economy is now improving: Average earnings have risen by more than inflation for the last four years; unemployment was most recently reported as having fallen further and remains at a six year low; and economic growth took place of 5% in 2014 and a further 2.2% in 2015, more than double the forecast.

As to those at the lower end of the income distribution, benefit budgets we proposed by the Council of Ministers and approved by the Assembly, and as far as possible, changes were designed to support moves towards financial independence, to target benefits more carefully, and to minimise the impact on individual households. The Minister for Social Security has answered a similar question (208, 18th April, 2017) on this topic.

Indeed, the number of working age households in receipt of income support with no other income has reduced from 60% in 2011 to 49% in 2015; with this improvement mirrored in the number of children living in working age households in which no parent works, which reduced from 60% to 49% over the same period.

As to pensioners, the pension is directly linked to the level of earnings, so improvements in the economy and earnings does benefit pensioners, and most pensioners receiving income support at the end of 2015 have not been effected by the changes to the disregard rules.

In all this, while relative income is important, so is absolute income: In Jersey, median incomes are 50% higher than the United  Kingdom, and while costs may be higher too, this is more than compensated by higher incomes.

This is not to say that there are not pressures and costs which bear down on incomes, or that Ministers do not wish to reduce relative low income, or improve standards of living.

7. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO INCOME SUPPORT IN LEVELS OF RELATIVE LOW INCOME: [1(209)]

Question

Following the implementation of the cuts to Income Support paid out to claimants who either receive a pension or Short-Term or Long-Term Incapacity Allowance (as a result in the changes to the disregard rules), plus the phased abolition of the Single Parent component of Income Support, what work, if any, has the Department undertaken to assess what proportion of those claimants are officially living in relative low income, and how have these cuts affected those figures?

If such a piece of work has not been done, why not? Answer

To clarify the context of the question, the States agreed a number of changes to the Income Support system as part of the overall MTFP.

These changes held the benefit budget more or  less constant over the 4 years of the MTFP, releasing a budget of £10 million to be invested in the priority areas of health and education. As far as possible, these benefit changes were designed to support moves towards financial independence, target benefits more carefully, and minimise the impact on individual households. Investments made in health and education include new services specifically aimed at low income and vulnerable groups, such as the introduction of a Jersey Pupil Premium and enhanced maternal services for at risk families.

The wording of the question suggests that a range of Income Support claimants have seen cuts in the income disregards that they are entitled to. This is not accurate.

• Most  pensioners receiving Income Support  as at 31/12/2015  were not  affected by the change in the disregard rules for pensioners and continue to receive their previous disregard allowances
• A minority of pensioners saw an increase in the amount disregarded
• Short Term Incapacity: there have been no disregard changes affecting STIA recipients.

The Department monitors relative low income in the context of the Income Distribution Survey (IDS) produced by the Statistics Unit. The most recent IDS was published in late 2015, reporting on income data from 2014 and 2015. A detailed explanation of relative low income was included in the response to the Scrutiny Review of Low Income published last year and extracts from that response are provided as an appendix to this answer.

The Department maintains detailed statistics on Income Support households and information is published each year in the Annual Report. However, as relative low income can only be measured in the context of a full income distribution survey, these annual Income Support statistics cannot be used on their own to provide official statistics on relative low income. Annual statistics do provide detailed information on the level of earnings, overall household income in Income Support households and the number of households partially and fully reliant on Income Support as well as broader indicators such as RPI and AEI.

The Department is committed to encouraging moves towards financial independence and continues to support income support claimants into work. Recent initiatives have improved employment support to parents of children starting nursery and to adults with long term health conditions. In 2017, a new project will start to explore additional services in other areas that could support claimants towards financial independence.

Appendix: Extract from scrutiny response The measurement of income

Income distribution and buying power'

The remit of the Review makes extensive reference to the Income Distribution Survey and the measurement of relative low income in Jersey. The income distribution survey published in 2015 by the Statistics Unit provides an income distribution across all Jersey households.

In order to make comparisons, a process called equivalisation is used to standardise the size of the households included in the survey. From this, an average (median) household income can be [1]calculated, based on a household of two adults. This average income includes all income sources including wages, pensions, and unearned income. The cost of income and property based taxes is then deducted to give the headline figure. The survey allows for incomes to be measured before and after housing costs are taken into account. These are standard techniques used in many countries, including the UK.

• Before housing costs are removed, the median household income in Jersey is £680 per week. This figure is 50% above the same figure for the UK, which is £453 per week.
• Average housing costs are affected by mortgage interest rates, the cost of rented accommodation and the proportion of households that own their homes outright, are paying a mortgage, or are paying rent.
• After housing costs are taken into account, median household income is £560 per week. The median income is 45% above the same figure for the UK, which is £386 per week.

This confirms that average incomes are higher in Jersey than the UK, but it is also true that costs are often higher. An analysis undertaken by the Statistics Unit (Jersey-UK Relative Consumer Price Levels for Goods and Services)1 in 2013 looked at all areas of household expenditure and compared costs across the two jurisdictions.

Overall, prices in Jersey were 20% higher. Although these surveys relate to different years, it is clear that the higher costs identified in Jersey are more than compensated for by the higher level of average household income. In summary, the median income in Jersey has more buying power' than the median income in the UK.

Relative low income

The measurement of relative low income sits within this framework of overall income distributions. The measure used by the Statistics Unit is the internationally recognised standard of 60% of the household median income[2].

Relative low income

The measurement of relative low income sits within this framework of overall income distributions. The measure used by the Statistics Unit is the internationally recognised standard of 60% of the household median income[3].

To recap the numbers provided by the survey, the relative low income thresholds for a couple with no children are:

Having 20%  uplift prices  to

applied  a to  UK reflect

Jersey costs, this table confirms that the buying power of a household at the RLI threshold in Jersey is significantly higher than the UK equivalent[4].

The number of households lying above and below the relative low income threshold provides useful information about the overall income distribution within a jurisdiction. However, on its own, it does not provide information on the level of actual poverty within a country. Whereas it is useful to

track these statistics and they can be used in some areas to support the development of various areas of government policy, they should not be used on their own to determine benefit policy.

8. DEPUTY  S.Y. MÉZEC  OF ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE RAISING OF THE LONG-TERM CARE CHARGE RATE: [1(210)]

Question

What timetable does the Minister foresee for raising the Long-Term Care charge rate to 3% by 2044, as was envisaged in P.99/2013 Long-Term Care Scheme'?

Answer

The Long-Term Care (LTC) contribution rate is 1% (as of 01/01/16) and there is currently no intention to increase this before the end of 2018, in line with a commitment given by the previous Minister for Social Security.

important complementary measure, relating to the shape of the distribution below the RLI threshold. The depth of RLI can be very different between jurisdictions (with different tax-benefit systems) and lead to important additional interpretations of the relative positions.

Without any other changes to the scheme, the LTC contribution rate will need to increase steadily over the next two decades to ensure that the LTC Fund can sustain the increase in benefit expenditure due to an ageing demographic.

However, P.99/2013 also outlined a variety of other policy levers that could be altered to make the scheme more or less generous, which could in turn have an effect on the LTC contribution rate.

An internal review is currently in progress to determine the timing of the next increase to the LTC contribution rate and I will advise Members once this is complete.

9. DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING DISCUSSIONS WITH GUERNSEY AND ALDERNEY ABOUT ISLAND- HOPPING': [1(211)]

Question

What discussions, if any, has the Minister had with his counterparts in Guernsey and Alderney, including their tourism bodies (Visit Guernsey and Visit Alderney) to discuss joint opportunities for attracting tourists from Europe and the U.K. to Island hop' across our Islands?

Answer

I discuss a range of tourism matters, including our air and sea links, during the course of regular meetings with my political counterparts in the Channel Islands. Specific destination marketing opportunities are, however, considered and actioned by Visit Jersey in accordance with its Destination Plan for Jersey and successive business plans, which I review and approve on an annual basis.

At an operational level Visit Jersey are in regular contact with their counterparts across the Channel Islands. Significant activity includes –

• jointly developing a C.I. website http://www.visitchannelislands.com/
• the roll-out this year of a Channel Islands Heritage Festival- "Heroes, Myths and Legends" (8th April to 10th May)
• collaboration with Visit Guernsey to support direct triangular summer air routes from Germany, Austria and Holland.
• collaboration at important trade exhibitions (e.g. at ITB Berlin and WTB London, Visit Jersey jointly present under the Channel Islands banner).

In March, the CEO of Visit Jersey met the Marketing & Tourism Officer at Visit Alderney two weeks ago. They emphasised the importance of inter-Island connectivity (was informed about the possibility of Alderney based airline introducing a scheduled service between Alderney and Jersey). There are currently no direct air or sea routes between Alderney and Jersey, though we do have the periodic sailings from Sark.

A Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted between Visit Jersey and Visit Guernsey and is with Guernsey for comment. I anticipate this being finalised soon.

10. DEPUTY  S.Y. MÉZEC  OF ST.  HELIER OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) LEGISLATION: [1(212)]

Question

What plans, if any, does the Minister have to introduce TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) legislation in Jersey?

Answer

The Minister has no plans at this time to introduce TUPE-type legislation in Jersey.

11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE E- GOV BUDGET: [1(213)]

Question

Could the Chief Minister provide a full breakdown of the budget that has been agreed and provided to the eGov team since its creation including what the funds have been spent on based on outcomes and objectives during which time periods?

Answer

Budget and expenditure breakdown

eGov Programme Deliverables

Foundation components – aka eGov services platform

The vision and objectives set out in the original business case remain the same, while the method of delivering the programme changed. The revised method focussed on an approach which comprised three main areas of delivery:

The sequence of delivery is important.

The Design Authority helps move the States away from planning as individual departments to planning as a single organisation. It does this by designing new common standards and principles for systems, cyber security and data. It influences how the foundation is built.

The Foreground projects provide all departments with experience in redesigning services and delivering them using new technology. They provide value to customers by delivering new services during the life of the programme and they provide confidence that the programme is making progress.

The Foundation projects create the tools and technology that will enable the States to build new online services. As such it is a significant enabler to the digital transformation of the States of Jersey.

12. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ROLE AND BUDGET OF THE INFORMAITON SERVICES DEPARTMENT: [1(214)] Question

Could the Chief Minister provide a breakdown of the budget provided to the Information Services Department, specify that Department's role within the States of Jersey and state how its work correlates with that of the eGov team?

Answer

Information Services (IS)  is responsible  for  delivering and supporting  information technology across the States of Jersey. It is part of the Chief Minister's department and is based at Jubilee Wharf. IS has 93 staff and covers all States departments except schools, parishes and the police.

IS manages 400 servers in 50 racks across 2 data centres and 700 network switches. It supports 6,000 users, 100+ sites and 700+ applications.

The  work  of  IS  is  subdivided  into  operations,  business  enablement,  portfolio  management, information  management  and  security  and  digital  delivery.  The  teams  support  operational capabilities and technology driven change. The teams also advise departments on a variety of initiatives.

The annual revenue budget is £11m, broken down as follows:

IS is providing expertise and resource for the eGov programme. Once the eGov foundation is delivered IS will support it, promote its use and implement services online.

IS is currently restructuring to improve its support as the States transforms to a digital organisation. More  technology  projects  are  being  introduced,  IS  is  implementing  the  changes needed and supporting an increasing level of technology.

13. THE  DEPUTY  OF ST.  JOHN  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR  THE  ENVIRONMENT REGARDING  THE  COST  OF PLANNING  PERMITS  AND  THE  IMPACT  OF CHANGES TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR SUCH PERMITS: [1(215)]

Question

Following the Minister's decision to reduce the time limit of planning permits from 5 to 3 years, could the Minister justify the costs that apply to planning permits, state whether there will be a reduction in these costs with the change in time limit and explain what impact this change is likely to have on supply in the local market?

Answer

The assessment and determination of planning applications are funded, almost exclusively, through the receipt of fees accompanying those applications. This is a user-pays service available to Islanders where the funding model has been approved by this Assembly and administered by successive Ministers.

I do not intend to reduce planning application fees as a result of my decision to change the length of time available for the commencement of work. Nor do I see any need. Islanders will still receive the same assessment service and the resultant uplift in value of the property (following an approval) will not change as a result of this decision.

This  is part  of a package  of  measures I  have  introduced  since  becoming Minister,  aimed at encouraging development to take place to boost the economy. Members will already be aware of the reductions in red tape I have brought forward, by increasing the allowances to property owners for work which can be carried out without planning permission. My intention is to stimulate the development industry, not fetter it.

14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING WAITING LIST TIMES FOR PROCEDURES AT THE HOSPITAL: [1(217)]

Question

Would the Minister provide an update on waiting list times for procedures in the Hospital and advise what impact, if any, the new hospital build is expected to have on waiting lists for patients?

Answer

The April 1st 2017 position for waiting times for procedures in the hospital is:

*The Orthopaedic team has worked hard to reduce the number facing long waits for surgery. There are now only 39 patients waiting over 90 days, compared to over 250 two years ago. Once these long waits have been eliminated, the average wait will decrease.

The  length  of  time  a  patient  may  wait  does  vary  by  specialty  and  varies  each  week  within specialties. The variation is driven by:

Number of available consultants

Number of referrals received

Number of patients being added to the procedure list Bank Holidays

Time of the year

Number of patient cancellations

The new hospital will provide an environment that will facilitate the smooth flow of patients through Departments and provide additional capacity in terms of equipment, beds and theatres. Therefore:

• more patients will be able to be treated as day cases – making the surgical process more efficient
• increased capacity in diagnostics will speed up tests
• new layouts and treatment areas will offer opportunities for rapid assessment and treatment ie ambulatory emergency care and interventional radiology
• there will be sufficient capacity to appoint new staff as demand dictates and investment allows
• the environment will better meet the needs of more vulnerable patients, for example, those with dementia. This will shorten their time spent in the hospital, releasing capacity for increased throughput.

These initiatives need to be considered alongside the anticipated increases in demand generated by the ageing population.

15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE QUALITY AND SAFETY OFCARE DELIVERED BY HOME CARE AGENCIES: [1(218)]

Question

What assessment has the Minister undertaken, as a commissioner of home care services, into the use of zero-hours contracts, the absence of payment for travel time and the use of split shifts, on the quality and safety of the care delivered by home care agencies for which he has responsibility; and if none, will he consult on this matter with those responsible for assessment of need in his adult social work department?

Answer

My Department does not commission home care provision; clients who receive funding from HSSD or the Long-Term Care Scheme can choose to have their home care provided by one of the Approved Providers.

All Approved Providers are subject to a robust and rigorous application process to ensure that they meet the required standards of care and quality assurance. Thereafter, they are subject to an annual inspection. As part of this process, employers  and employees are subject to surveys and any employee can raise a concern which would instigate a visit. These visits may be pre-notified or the Quality Assurance Officer may choose to visit without notice.

Issues such as contracts of employment, working patterns and travel time are matters for the individual home care agencies, provided that they comply with the law (in particular employment law). As part of the annual inspections, the Quality Assurance Officer checks that staff receive the minimum wage and that terms and conditions of employment are legal.

16. DEPUTY G. P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE LEVELS OF INCOME SUPPORT FOR PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS IN 2017 COMPARED WITH THE LEVELS IN 2009: [1(219)]

Question

Is it the Minister's assessment that a single adult on the average Long-Term Incapacity Allowance benefit for disability, and unable or not required to seek work, and claiming Income Support is some £22 per week worse off in real terms compared to 2009?

What equivalent figure does she have for the real terms position for a pensioner claiming Income Support and in receipt of a full States pension, and if none, why not?

Answer

The most recent annual Departmental report gives detailed information on a wide range of benefits areas.

On page 35, Figure 14 indicates that a rate of 20% is the most commonly awarded rate for Long- Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA). The accompanying text confirms that the average (mean) award is 36% and that this average has not changed significantly over the last few years.

LTIA is an in work benefit and there are no limits placed on any recipient regardless of % award (including those at 100%) who are able to work in doing so with no restriction on their earnings. An individual with an LTIA award of up to 40% who is claiming Income Support is not normally exempt from job seeking requirements and would be expected to seek work. Exceptions are made for individual cases but jobseekers with mild to moderate long-term health conditions are now fully supported through both general and specialist advisers in the Back to Work teams. As such, it is not possible to answer the question as posed. However, the following details provide relevant information on this topic.

In December 2009, an Income Support claimant would have received a 10% allowance against earned income. Today, that figure stands at 23%.

• In cash terms, an Income Support claimant with wages of £250 a week in 2009 would have been £25 a week better off than a similar claimant who was unemployed and a jobseeker.
• Today an Income Support claimant with wages of £250 a week is £57.50 a week better off than a similar claimant who is unemployed and a jobseeker.

There will be some Income Support claimants with more serious long-term health condition who are exempt from job seeking. These claimants are likely to be receiving higher than average levels of LTIA payments, and may be receiving additional support through the Income Support system through the three types of impairment component – personal care, mobility and clinical cost.

For a single pensioner receiving Income Support at the end of 2009 an allowance of £32.69 was allowed against pension income. By the end of 2016, that pensioner would be entitled to an allowance of at least £55.23 per week, an increase of £22.54 per week since 2009.

A comparison of the same pensioner receiving Income Support at the end of 2009 and the end of 2016 is provided below.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING CONSULTATION WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF JT REGARDING THE DECISION TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CHARGES: [1(220)]

Question

What discussions has the Minister, as the shareholder representative, had with the management or management board of Jersey Telecom following that company's decision to impose an additional charge on those customers unwilling or unable to pay bills through e-payment or Bacs?

Answer

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

Since being notified by JT on 13th January 2017 that additional monthly charges for billing were to be introduced, the Assistant Minister has maintained contact with JT in a number of ways:-

• Regular updates from JT – this has ranged from, for example, discussions held by JT in January with Age Concern, through to the provision of the detailed Briefing Note which was provided to all States Members. In addition JT have provided updates on the take up rates for the move to e-billing and direct debit.
• Quarterly shareholder meeting – the Assistant Minister took the opportunity to discuss this issue with JT at the scheduled meeting on 8th February 2017. This included the rationale behind the charges, CICRA's view and steps being taken to ensure that vulnerable customers and those who were not on-line, were appropriately dealt with.
• Letters/emails from customers – a number of these have been received by the Assistant Minister setting out opposition to, and concerns about, the changes. The Assistant Minister, through officers, has liaised with JT to raise these individual concerns, provide the appropriate responses and to ensure that JT have engaged directly with those individuals.
• States questions – in responding to State questions there has been contact with JT to ensure correct and up to date information has been provided in the responses.

2.17 DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF MAXIMUM WORK TIME LEGISLATION: [1(222)]

Question

Are there any plans to introduce maximum work time legislation, including minimum break/rest periods between shifts? If not, why not?

Answer

The Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 provides that employees must have a 24-hour rest break each week. Alternatively, the rest break can be averaged over a two-week period, if the employer and employee both agree. The intention was to provide an appropriate framework of employment protection in relation to rest from work, but without the complexities that exist under the Working Time Directive.

Every employer in Jersey has a general duty under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 to look after the welfare of their employees. When considering appropriate breaks for employees, JACS advises employers to act reasonably bearing in mind health and safety legislation, safe working practices and industry specific legislation or guidance.

The Minister has no plans at this time to introduce additional legislation for rest breaks between shifts. If a decision is taken in the future to extend the provisions relating to working time and rest breaks, the Minister will first ask the Employment Forum to consult.

The Minister has given a commitment to the States that in the period 2017 to 2018 she will prioritise legislation to protect against discrimination on grounds of disability and to extend the family friendly employment rights.

19. DEPUTYM.TADIEROFST.BRELADEOF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME INEQUALITY: [1(223)]

Question

Would the Chief Minister clarify what was meant when his Assistant Minister (Senator Routier) stated during oral questions in the sitting on 28th March 2017, "I think we all in the Assembly want to ensure that the income distribution is better than what it currently is"? Is the Chief Minister committed to seeing income inequality reduce? If not, why not? What improvements does the Chief Minister wish to see in income distribution?

Answer

Ministers wish to see reduced relative low income.

The Council of Ministers have worked hard to reduce unemployment and to grow our economy, and want the benefits to be shared across our Island.

This is why it is pleasing that unemployment was again reported recently as remaining at a six year low; that less people are solely reliant on benefits; that earnings are rising above inflation, including the minimum wage; and that changes to our tax system are making it more progressive as recently shown in the report on personal taxes. This remains important.

As to benefit budgets, they have been approved by the Assembly, and as far as possible, were designed to support moves towards financial independence, to target benefits more carefully and to minimise the impact on individual households.

20. DEPUTY R. LABEY OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE ENGAGEMENT OF PORTLAND COMMUNICATIONS IN RELATION TO MEDIA TRAINING IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE INDEPENDENT JERSEY CARE INQUIRY'S REPORT: [1(224)]

Question

Will the Chief Minister advise if the services of Portland Communications have been engaged by the States of Jersey to provide media training to Ministers and/or others in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry's report, or for any other reason, and, if so:

1. which Ministers or other personnel are receiving this training;
2. if the cost of the programme including fees, flights and accommodation aretobemetbythe tax payer, how much will this amount to; and
3. what is the brief Portland Communications are working to and what exactly is the firm charged with delivering for the government?

Answer

Portland Communications were first engaged as a result of an open competitive tendering process initiated in 2011 by the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey for the provision of combined strategic support to the Islands, which at the time was mainly in relation to UK matters.

During 2012 and 2013, Portland Communications provided advice on UK Party conferences, Global transparency initiatives, FATCA and enhanced engagement with a number of key European countries. Since the offices in London, Brussels and Caen have become more fully established, in partnership with the Bailiwick of Guernsey, those offices have been able to take on these functions and Portland Communications is now engaged only to provide additional strategic advice, as needed, on matters where there is strong national or international interest.

Most recently, this has included the provision of advice on how best to engage with the anticipated national and international interest in the report to be published this year by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. The aim is to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response.

This strategic advice includes matters relating to anticipated national and international media interest and has been provided to officers and relevant Ministers (the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister/Minister for Health and Social Services, Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs), usually during telephone calls. In 2017 this has also involved the relevant Ministers visiting the offices of Portland Communications in London as convenient (usually when in London for other personal or official business).

Portland Communications has received £33,500 from the Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs for the provision of this strategic advice and support, with the aim of enhancing the provision of public information, including to the national and international media, following the release of the report by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.

21. DEPUTY R. LABEY OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DECISION TO LIMIT THE PERIOD IN WHICH APPROVED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BEGIN: [1(225)

Question

Would the Minister share any evidenced research used before making Ministerial Decision MD- PE-2017-0031 to limit the period in which an approved development shall begin from 5 years to 3 including, specifically, any information which suggests such a limit outweighs considerations of market conditions; and what weight if any did he accord to the argument that the limit could be counterproductive in disincentivising those for whom a 5-year window is more realistic and attractive?

Answer

The concept of reducing the period of commencement on planning permissions from five years down to three is not particularly new. The 2011 Island Plan contained the following statement of intent:

"To avoid the likelihood of developers sitting on unimplemented permissions, conditions will be used to limit the validity of consents for residential development, the extent of which will be set in supplementary planning guidance, but which will be initially set at three years and reviewed thereafter over the Plan period".

That Island Plan, with its statement of intent, was formally adopted in June 2011 following a comprehensive debate in this House.

In terms of evidenced research of the land-banking issue, my officers have reviewed several thousand planning permissions granted over the last few years. Taking just 2015 as an example, planning permissions were granted for a total of 79 new homes. There were also 770 new homes in the course of construction during the year. However, the telling fact is that planning permissions were renewed for a total of 417 new homes within 2015. These were the permissions granted in 2010 / 2011 – sometimes as far back as the 1990's where works had not commenced and where the owner or developer wanted to hang onto the site, with its planning permission intact.

2015 was a typical year in terms of planning permissions and the cumulative effect, year after year, of issuing and renewing five-year permissions does little to stimulate the economy, nor does it promote efforts in regenerating St. Helier and, most importantly, does nothing to help house our growing population.

Market conditions do, of course, play a major part in influencing when a development commences. However, I fail to see how sitting on unimplemented planning permissions for years, sometimes up to 20 years, benefits anybody, except the landowner. Other jurisdictions have also brought in measures to reduce the extent of land-banking; with England, Scotland, Wales and Guernsey all embodying a three-year time limit within their respective Planning Laws.

In introducing the reduced time limit on 3rd April this year, my aim was to stimulate the construction industry, bring more certainty in terms of carrying through planning permissions into results on the ground and, to help provide much needed homes for the Island.

22. SENATOR  S.C. FERGUSON  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR  INFRASTRUCTURE REGARDING SERVICES OUTSOURCED FROM HIS DEPARTMENT: [1(226)] Question

For each section or service within his Department which has been cut, could the Minister specify the name of the section or service and the annual cost prior to outsourcing and for the outsourced service?

Could he confirm that the specification for the outsourced service is identical to the specification required before outsourcing?

Answer

The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) has undertaken, and is continuing to undertake, a wide ranging programme of service reviews across the whole of its portfolio in line with Lean principles. Services have been redesigned, improved, out-sourced, transferred to other Departments, ceased or in some cases taken back in-house. In many instances, the standards of service have been at least maintained, if not improved, although the opportunity has been taken to review service standards and reduce if deemed appropriate.

The majority of the impacts have been seen in the following areas, which have been subject of the first tranche of service reviews (which commenced in 2015, so the figures below are based on the original service cost in 2014 compared to the average cost over the 5-year contract duration of the new provision – as contracts "bed in" minor changes to specifications and costs may be made should it prove necessary, however, these changes are expected to be insignificant):