States Meeting Transcript - 2nd May 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 2nd MAY 2017

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................8

1. The Bailiff :..............................................................................8

QUESTIONS......................................................................................8

2. Written Questions........................................................................8

1. DEPUTY P.D. MCLINTON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING STEPS BEING TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOURCES: [1(245)]..............................8
2. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING THE CAPACITY OF LES QUENNEVAIS SCHOOL: [1(246)]........13
3. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING THE CAPACITY OF HAUTLIEU SCHOOL'S SIXTH FORM: [1(247)] .........................................................................................14
4. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR ENTITLED STATUS ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS: [1(248)].15
5. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PROSPECT OF INTRODUCING PROVISIONS TO RECOGNISE NO FAULT' DIVORCES: [1(249)]..................................................................15
6. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PROSPECT OF HEALTH CAMPUS' SERVICES BEING DELIVERED AS PART OF THE FUTURE HOSPITAL: [1(250)] ............16

2.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING MONITORING OF THE APPLICATION OF THE POLICY THAT RENTS IN SOCIAL HOUSING WOULD BE CHARGED AT 90 PER CENT OF MARKET RENTS: [1(251)].......................................................................16

8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT ON THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET OF THE DECISION THAT RENTS IN SOCIAL HOUSING WOULD BE CHARGED AT 90 PER CENT OF MARKET RATES: [1(252)]...........................................17
9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSEHOLDS IN RECEIPT OF INCOME SUPPORT: [1(253)].......................................18
10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL

SECURITY REGARDING THE LEVEL OF ZERO-HOUR JOBS IN THE ECONOMY: [1(254)]..................................................................20

11. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REGARDING LIQUID AND SOLID WASTE CHARGES LEVIED ON COMMERCIAL ENTITIES: [1(255)]....................................20

2.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED NURSES AND THE DEIVERY OF COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES: [1(256)] ....23

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING TEACHERS ENGAGED IN TEACHING G.C.S.E., AS LEVEL AND A- LEVEL WITHOUT A DEGREE-LEVEL, OR EQUIVALENT, QUALIFICATION IN THE SUBJECT: [1(257)] ..............................................................24

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING EXPENDITURE ON THE PUPIL PREMIUM: [1(258)] ...............24
15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS AUDITS OF JERSEY'S COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: [1(260)].................................................................25
16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROVISION WITHIN JERSEY'S COURT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR EQUALITY OF ARMS' IN HUMAN RIGHTS TERMS: [1(261)]..............26
17. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS COMPATIBILITY OF THE CENTENIER'S ROLE IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND PARISH HALL ENQUIRIES: [1(262)]....26
18. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING SERVICES FOR ORTHOPAEDIC PATIENTS AND THOSE WITH BACK-PAIN PROBLEMS: [1(264)]............................27

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................29

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding consultation in respect of proposed changes to the location of sewage treatment equipment within the Department's complex at Bellozanne: [1(269)].................29

Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (The Minister for Infrastructure):..........................29

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................29
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................30
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................30

2. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the cost of engaging Ramsay Jones in respect of public relations advice and training relating to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry's findings: [1(265)]..................................30

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................31

1. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................31
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:........................................................31
3. The Deputy ofSt.John:................................................................31
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................31
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................32
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................32
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
8. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................32
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................33
10. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................33

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding measures to ensure the evidence received by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry would remain publicly accessible and complete: [1(273)]...................................................................33

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................33

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................33
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................34

4. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding his assessment of whether health and safety concerns arose in relation to the delivery of home care: [1(274)] ......................................................................34

Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................34

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
4. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................35
5. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................35
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................35

3.5. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the prospect of action being taken to stop the service known as Jersey Lifts': [1(271)]..36

The Deputy of St. Peter (The Minister for Home Affairs): ....................................36

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................36
2. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................36
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:.................................................37
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................38

6. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for the Environment regarding the money to be raised per year from the proposed infrastructure levy: [1(270)].......................38

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):.........................38

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................39
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................39

7. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding cover and treat' odour mitigation technology to be used in the proposed sewage treatment works in Bellozanne Valley: [1(266)]...........................................................40

Deputy E.J. Noel (The Minister for Infrastructure):...........................................40

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................40
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................41
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................41
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................41
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
6. The Constable of St. Helier:............................................................42

8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the impact of the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union on the development of a new population policy by the Council of Ministers: [1(267)]................................43

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

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................43
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................43
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................43
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

5. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................44
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................44

9. Deputy M. Tadier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding targets for vehicular traffic reduction: [1(272)] ...............................................................44

Deputy E.J. Noel (The Minister for Infrastructure):...........................................45

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
2. The Constable of St. Helier:............................................................45

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
4. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................46
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................46

10. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the implementation of States' approval of Assistant Ministers' appointments' (P.53/2016): [1(268)].................47

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................47

1. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................47
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................47
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................48
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................48
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................48
6. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................48

11. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding zero-hour contracts: [1(275)].......................................................................49

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................49

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................49
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................49
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................49
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................50

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture:............................................................50

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................50 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture): .........................................................................................50
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................51
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................51

4.3.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................51

4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................51
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
6. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................52

4.6.1 Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................52

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52

4.8.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52

9. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................53

4.9.1 Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................53

10. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................53

4.10.1 The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................54

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Health and Social Services: ...........................................................................................54

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................54 Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................54

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................54
   2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................54

5.2.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................55

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55

5.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................55

5.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................56

5. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................56
6. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................56
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................57
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................57
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................57

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................58

6. The Minister for Health and Social Services made a statement regarding advice received from Jersey's Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council............................58

6.1 Senator A.K.F. Green (The Minister for Health and Social Services):..................58

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................59
2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :................................................................59
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
5. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :...............................................60

6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60

7. The Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel made a statement regarding the Panel's report, School Starting Age......................................61

7.1 Deputy L.M.C. Doublet (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):.....61

7.1.1 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................61

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................62

8. Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment No. 4) Law 201- (P.136/2016).........62

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................62
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................63
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................64
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................64

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................64
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................65

9. States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of members (P.20/2017)............66

9.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence (Vice Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................66

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................66 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................66

10 E-Petitions (P.14/2017)..................................................................66

10.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden:...............................................................67

1. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin : ........................................67
2. Deputy M.J. Norton: ................................................................68
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................69
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................70
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................71
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................72

7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................72
8. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................72
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................72
10. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:.........................................................72

11. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 9) Law 201- (P.18/2017)......................75

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................76 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................76

1. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....77

1. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John:.................................................77
2. The Connétable of St. Martin : .......................................................78
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................80
4. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:...............................................81
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................81
6. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................84
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................86
8. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................86
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................89
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ............................................................90
11. The Connétable of St. Helier:.....................................................91
12. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:..............................................92
13. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:..................................................94
14. Senator P.M. Bailhache :..........................................................94
15. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:...............................................95
16. Deputy R. Labey :.................................................................96
17. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ..........................................................97
18. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Peter:..................................................98
19. Senator L.J. Farnham : ............................................................98
20. Deputy J.M. Maçon:..............................................................99
21. The Connétable of St. Clement:..................................................100

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 9) Law 20-1 (P.18/2017) Second Reading listed to resume on 6th June 2017......................................................104

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis : ................................................................104
2. The Connétable of St. Clement:....................................................104
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ..........................................................105
4. The Connétable of St. John : ........................................................105
5. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................105
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..............................................................106
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis : ................................................................106

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY......................108

12. The Chief Minister made a statement regarding the Innovation Fund ..............108

12.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :.....................................................................108

1. The Connétable of St. Mary : .......................................................110
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................110
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................110
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................111
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis : ................................................................111
6. Deputy A.D. Lewis : ................................................................111

7. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................111
8. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................112
9. Deputy R. Labey :..................................................................112
10. The Connétable of St. John : .....................................................113
11. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:.......................................................113

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

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

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................114

[9:30]

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

1. The Bailiff :

First of all, I would like to welcome His Excellency on behalf of Members of the Assembly. [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY P.D. MCLINTON OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING STEPS BEING TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOURCES: [1(245)]

Question

In light of the objectives of Energy Plan: Pathway 2050' (R.37/2014), will the Minister inform the Assembly what steps, if any, his Department is taking in relation to each of the areas specified below to ensure the public are encouraged to take up the use of sustainable energy sources?

1. Offering incentives for the installation of solar panels –
   1. by private residential properties; and
   2. by businesses.
2. Offering incentives to encourage road users to move away from diesel- or petrol-driven vehicles and toward electric or hybrid options –

1. in relation to private vehicles; and
2. in relation to commercial vehicles.

Where steps are being taken, will the Minister supply an outline of his plans (including timelines), and where none are currently being taken, will he explain his rationale for not pursuing such measures?

Answer

Delivery of the Energy Plan, Pathway 2050 is overseen by a Ministerial oversight group, the Energy Executive. Specific areas of policy related to energy still remain within Departments whilst working within the framework of agreed actions in Pathway 2050.

The Minister for Environment has responsibility for the Action Statements in relation to buildings to which part (a) of the question refers. The Minister for Infrastructure holds responsibility for transport to which part (b) of the question refers. The respective Ministers have provided answers to these questions.

Answer Part (a) answered by the Minister for the Environment

Pathway 2050 outlines a plan to achieve secure, affordable and sustainable energy for Jersey alongside a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 80% by 2050 compared to a 1990 baseline. In P.38/2014, the States were asked to approve the following policies to deliver the plan:

1. Demand management

2. Energy security and resilience
3. Fuel poverty and affordability of energy

There are 27 Action Statements that provide costed and timed actions to deliver specific policy outcomes within an overall framework of secure, affordable and sustainable energy for Jersey. The Plan is clear that in the first instance the most cost-effective way to deliver carbon reductions and to meet the affordability and security of supply goals is to manage energy demand. Therefore, increasing the uptake of micro-renewable energy via solar panels (or other micro-renewable energy technologies) is not a priority action in the early stages of the Energy Plan. This long term approach is deliberate as micro-renewables are factored in for the future when more favourable market conditions are expected to drive behaviour change rather than relying on financial incentives to drive consumer behaviour. Elsewhere to date, generous financial incentives have been needed as many of the micro-renewable technologies are not at price-parity with traditional solutions and require significant upfront investment with many years of pay-back required.

Action Statement 4 in the Plan outlines the approach to micro-renewable energy in the domestic sector over the longer term. It makes the assumption that by 2030, due to advances in technology and price-parity, replacement boilers in houses that currently using hydro carbon fuel sources, be replaced with micro-renewable systems e.g. solar thermal, ground source heat pumps when they reach the end of their lifespan[1].

Despite the longer term approach, there are still some immediate incentives / measures in place to drive the uptake of micro-renewables in the shorter term for those that are able to make the initial capital investment. The Deputy 's question asks about incentives for the installation of solar panels in both the residential and business sector. Before I go on to answer this part of the question, depending on the type of solar panels installed, the energy generated and therefore the impact of this energy in meeting the Pathway 2050 objectives are different. They can be summarised as follows:

1. Photovolatic panelstakeenergyfrom the sun and convert this into electricity for usebythe home or business owner or to be sold back into the grid for onward sale by Jersey Electricity. Locally generated renewable energy fromPVpanels partially meets the security goalofthe Energy Plan goals by providing non-imported electricity so adding diversityto the electricity grid. However depending on the installation costs ofthe PV system this electricity may not be as affordable as Jersey Electricity supplied electricity although, it is worth noting that the costs of purchasing and installing PV systems have dropped significantly in recent years which has increased uptake. Finally, the impact of locally generatedPV electricity in supportingtheEnergy Plan's sustainability goal is slightly more complex. If we define sustainable as low-carbon', then locally generated PV electricity is undoubtedly low-carbon. However, Jersey Electricity-supplied French nuclear-hydro mix electricity is also relatively low-carbontoo. Therefore in the scenario of PV panels generating local energy, very low carbon PV electricity is displacing relatively low-carbon Jersey Electricity-supplied electricity and the overall gains from a global carbon perspective are small.

2. Solar Thermal Panels take the sun's energy and use it to heat water which is then used to heat the space of residential or business premises. In this instance the security and affordability goals of the Energy Plan are the same as in the PV scenario but the sustainability goals are different. If the solar thermal panels are generating energy to heat spaces that would otherwise have been heated by oil or gas central heating systems then a very low-carbon energy source is displacing high-carbon energy systems and the overall carbon reduction gains are much more significant.

We can therefore see that there are different objectives that would be fulfilled depending on which type of solar technology is installed. Increased uptake of locally generated energy are incentivised in the following ways:

With reference to Action Statement 2 of the Energy Plan, in 2016 the Department of the Environment consulted upon and introduced more stringent Building Bye Laws. They included: energy targets for all new buildings up to 30% higher than the previous 2011 standards; new fabric efficiency standards to reduce the need for space heating; requirements to make improvements to the energy performance of existing dwellings when extension works are proposed; higher standards for replacement windows and doors and improved insulation when renovating the external fabric. The new BBLs are underpinned with calculations that require new dwellings to pass or fail when measured against energy targets obtained from a highly insulated reference building that uses low carbon electricity for space heating. The effect of this change means the new target is more demanding for dwellings that choose to use higher carbon fuels, such as oil and gas, for space heating and means they are more likely to use renewable energy options to obtain a complaint building. In respect of commercial buildings, the 2011 Island Plan has a requirement for

developments with a gross floor space of 1,000 m2, whether new build or conversion, to incorporate on-site low carbon or renewable energy production equipment to off-set predicted carbon emissions by at least 10%, unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Furthermore the Minister for Environment has incentivised the uptake of solar panels and photovoltaic panels by exempting them from planning control, subject to certain criteria. In general, up to 90% of a roof plane can be covered in PV panels, except on Listed Buildings and within the final approaches to the runway and other specific instances.

These incentives combined with the lowered installation costs are intended to increase the natural uptake of these technologies. Jersey Electricity are standardising their buy-back tariffs for the sale of micro-generated PV electricity back into the grid which from later in 2017 will be flat rate of 6 p/pW which further adds to the financial case for installing electricity generating micro renewables like PV.

It is currently believed that a combination of these factors alongside the fall in purchase and installation costs mean that direct financial incentives are not required. This is in line with many other jurisdictions where previously generous financial incentives have fallen away as cost parity is achieved. Progress of the Energy Plan against the targets outlined in the Plan is monitored and reviewed annually and there is a five year review period for the entire Plan. These mechanisms provide and an opportunity for the political oversight group (the Energy Executive) to review progress and alter policies that are not delivering the anticipated outcome. The uptake of renewable energy is a key area that will be discussed at the review period. The Deputy is invited into the Department to discuss this matter in further detail if he would like.

Answer Part (b) Answered by the Minister for Infrastructure

In relation to Part B of the above question, the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) are undertaking the following work/projects to assist with meeting the objectives of Energy Plan: Pathway 2050' (R.37/2014).

Although not explicitly covered in detail below, DfI undertake a wide range of projects and activities that are designed to complement the objectives of the Energy Plan Pathway by reducing the amount of diesel or petrol driven vehicles on the Island's roads. The department focusses its efforts on reducing trips being undertaken by these vehicles by promoting alternative modes of travel such as walking, cycling and public transport.

DfI are making sustainable travel more accessible by increasing, promoting and investing in infrastructure. There are many examples of this throughout the Island, ranging from cycle paths and cycle parking to bus services and bus infrastructure. All of these projects are important elements and part of a wider offering that goes towards encouraging users to move away from private vehicle travel.

DfI recognise that a shift to more sustainable modes of travel is not always appropriate for everyone and therefore has a range of incentives and measures for encouraging the uptake of less polluting vehicles by encouraging hybrid and electric vehicles. These are explained at length below.

A summary of the measures being undertaken is given below, broadly categorised into three areas, those affecting trips or ownership of private vehicles, those affecting trips or ownership of commercial vehicles and those which affect the ownership of both private and commercial vehicles.

Private Vehicles Eco-Permits

The existing eco-permits scheme has been successful in encouraging the use of smaller, less polluting vehicles. At present, in excess of 767 vehicles have been issued an eco-permit. The scheme works by enabling drivers to park in the States' car parks and on street at half price. This means that transport users who genuinely want to undertake journeys via car have an incentive to use a more efficient vehicle, which will assist in meeting the targets outlined in Pathway 2050.

DfI is currently reviewing the eco-permits scheme with a view to building on the success of the existing scheme. It is anticipated in the future that the emissions threshold for eco-permits may be changed, encouraging the take up of exclusively electric or hybrid vehicles, which produce fewer emissions and are generally smaller and less polluting.

Car2Cycle Scheme

The Car2Cycle scheme has been popular, with over 500 e bikes being purchased since the scheme's inception. The scheme is designed to reduce the reliance of mostly petrol and diesel vehicles by encouraging the take-up of electric bicycles by providing a subsidy for would-be owners.

DFI has also provided 20 e bike grants to Jersey Post, which will reduce the requirement for van deliveries, an important step in reducing the amount of traffic on Jersey's roads.

Users of the scheme were asked to complete an on line survey. As of 21st April 2017 212 responses had been received. 58% said that the e bike had replaced travel by car/van/scooter/motorbike. Transferring trips to e bikes from these modes will contribute towards reducing Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions and assist with meeting the targets in Pathway 2050

The States Sustainable Transport Policy aims to reduce the impact of high levels of private car use in Jersey and encouragement of cycling is a key aspect of that policy. Studies show that "soft" measures (i.e. not hard infrastructure) can be very cost effective.

Electric Car Parking Spaces

Currently there are two car parking spaces for electric vehicles in most of the States' multi-storey car parks. At present to use these spaces you must be charging a vehicle whilst parked. In the future it is intended that a scheme will be rolled out that offers free car parking for electric vehicles. Initially a pilot of this will be trialled at Pier Road car park. This scheme offers the ability for drivers of electric vehicles to park for free and is one of the measures the department is using to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles.

Planning Obligation Agreements

DfI and the Environment Department work together through the planning process, and the consultation responses that DfI submit as a statutory consultee are focussed towards exploring opportunities for improving sustainable transport and promoting the uptake of electric and hybrid vehicles. For example a recent planning application in St Clement included the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) as part of mitigating the highways impact of the site. This work (of securing infrastructure) to enable widespread take-up of electric and hybrid vehicles is ongoing and the requirements for EVCPs are continually revisited by officers when responding to planning applications.

Commercial Vehicles

Commercial vehicles are the most polluting vehicles on Jersey's roads, by virtue of the fact they cover more distance, are larger in size and are used more often than private vehicles. To have the biggest impact on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the Island's fleet, tackling commercial vehicles is crucial.

The Environment Department and DfI recently worked together to enable Jersey Post to switch part of their van fleet over to electric vehicles, ensuring that the post will now delivered by zero emission vehicles in many areas.

The States' are playing their part in ensuring it leads by example and operates a fleet of electric vehicles across several departments and has invested in charging infrastructure to support this.

Vehicle Operator Licencing

DfI is developing a vehicle operator licencing system as a first stage requirement that operators ensure their vehicles are properly maintained and fit for use on the islands highway network. Ensuring vehicle standards are met will ensure that it is more likely older, more polluting vehicles are retired' earlier in their working life, as it becomes less economical to maintain them.

Initially vehicle operator licencing will apply to vehicles over 7.5 tonnes and it is intended to be rolled out to all commercial vehicles in the future.

Private and Commercial Vehicles Vehicle Emissions Duty

The Vehicles Emissions Duty (VED) is an import (excise) duty on vehicles. This includes vehicles already in the Island that have not yet been registered with J plates.

VED directly influences the decision of islanders to buy a new to the island' vehicle by introducing progressive rates of taxation relating to the tailpipe emissions. The basis of the scheme is that more polluting vehicles attract a larger duty.

The Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for Environment worked together to take proposals to the Treasury for consideration to updated the scheme at end of 2015, to bring the taxation bands more into line with modern vehicle efficiencies. These changes were approved in the budget for 2016. This included removing the discount rate for older vehicles which were being imported to Jersey.

The Minister for Infrastructure will be reviewing the VED bands again in 2017 to ensure they stay relevant to modern vehicle design and efficiencies. It is anticipated that these will encourage the take up of electric vehicles which do not attract any duty under the existing system.

2. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING THE CAPACITY OF LES QUENNEVAIS SCHOOL: [1(246)]

Question

Will  the  Minister  provide  a  breakdown  of  figures  for  the  total  number  of  students  at  Les Quennevais School for each of the past 25 years, as well as the projections for student numbers for the next 25 years at 5-year intervals?

Answer

Data for the student roll at Les Quennevais is available from 1999 onwards. The figures generally show the total in the September of that calendar year, which is the start of the academic year.

2015 688 2016 678

Forecasts  for  student  numbers at Les Quennevais School were updated as part  of the recent planning inquiry and remain current. These are shown below.

Forecasts for the period after the academic year 2027-28 relate to children who are not born yet and it is therefore not possible to predict numbers with the same level of accuracy. The Education Department  continuously  monitors  student  numbers and demographics  and updates  its  figures regularly. It should also be noted that the Education Department allocates all school places, not the school themselves, and is therefore able to place students in schools across the island in a way that ensures the system overall is efficient and cost-effective and places are filled appropriately.

Forecast Les Quennevais School

student numbers

2017 687

2018 695

2019 691

2020 697

2021 695

2022 710

2023 727

3. DEPUTY  M.  2024 727 TADIER  OF ST. BRELADE  OF THE  2025 727 MINISTER  FOR

EDUCATION  REGARDING  THE CAPACITY OF HAUTLIEU SCHOOL'S SIXTH FORM: [1(247)]

Question

What is deemed to be the current maximum capacity of Hautlieu School's sixth form; and what are the projections for sixth-form numbers at Hautlieu School for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045?

Answer

Sixth form includes Year 12 and Year 13 (Key Stage 5). It should be noted that forecasts for the period after the academic year 2033-34 relate to children who are not born yet and it is therefore not  yet possible to predict numbers with precision. Fluctuations  in the  birth rate  and  inward migration will have an impact on the accuracy of the forecasts so far into the future.

Predicted numbers for Hautlieu sixth form

2020 454 2025 521

2030 551

Hautlieu school buildings can accommodate 850 students within Years 10 to 13. Overall numbers within Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5 are managed in accordance with demographic fluctuations.

The Education Department continuously monitors student numbers and demographics and updates its figures regularly. It should also be noted that the Education Department allocates all school places and has the discretion to place students in schools across the island in a way that both meets their education needs and aspirations and ensures the system is efficient and cost-effective.

4. DEPUTYM.TADIEROFST.BRELADEOF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR ENTITLED STATUS ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS: [1(248)]

Question

How many applications for Entitled status on hardship grounds were made in 2014, 2015 and 2016; and how many were granted?

Answer

The following table outlines applications in 2014, 2015 and 2016 for "entitled" status on the grounds of hardship under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law, 2012, and how many were granted:

5. DEPUTYM.TADIEROFST.BRELADEOF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PROSPECT OF INTRODUCING PROVISIONS TO RECOGNISE NO FAULT' DIVORCES: [1(249)]

Question

What consideration, if any, has been given to introducing provisions recognising 'no blame' or no fault' divorces; will a policy for the introduction of such provisions be brought forward; and, if not, why not?

Answer

In July 2015 the States Assembly agreed in principle that new legislation should be brought forward  to  allow  for  the  introduction  of  a  new  system  of  divorce  and  dissolution  in  Jersey (P77/2015).

In October 2015, the Jersey Law Commission published a review of divorce law and there has been preliminary consultation with family law professionals on no fault' divorce.

It is anticipated that a public consultation on divorce reform, including matters relating to no fault' divorce and a potential statutory requirement to access mediation services, will start in 2018.

6. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE  PROSPECT OF HEALTH CAMPUS' SERVICES BEING DELIVERED AS PART OF THE FUTURE HOSPITAL: [1(250)]

Question

Will the Minister advise what definitions he and his Department use for hospital' and health campus' and will he explain whether the funding being requested for the future Hospital includes provision for the building of a health campus; and will he provide a list of the items which are to be paid for from the budget for the future Hospital directly relating to the Hospital and hospital services, rather than other services which would be provided on a health campus?

Answer

No formal option has been put forward to develop a health campus' per se. It is only a vision or concept at this stage and no formal costings have been done. It would be about considering over time the development of the current site in a way that could see, for example, complementary services in close proximity to the Future Hospital – perhaps research and care facilities provided by the independent sector. But any of these opportunities would require a separate business case, with the funding independent of HSSD and the future hospital project, and needing to be considered and tested in the Island Plan.

Therefore, the development of a health campus' adjacent to the proposed Future Hospital is outside the scope of the Future Hospital project and the Future Hospital budget does not currently include any funding for services that would be provided on a health campus'.

2.6 THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING MONITORING OF THE APPLICATION OF THE POLICY THAT RENTS IN SOCIAL HOUSING WOULD BE CHARGED AT 90 PER CENT OF MARKET RENTS: [1(251)]

Question

Following implementation of the policy of charging 90 per cent of market rents in social housing, will the Minister advise what data is used to assess the movement in rental rates in the housing market on an annual basis and whether the 90 per cent rent policy is being applied appropriately?

Answer

Social housing providers (Andium Homes and the housing trusts) charge rents in accordance with the States of Jersey rents policy, which was approved by the Assembly in P.33/2013The Reform of Social Housing'.

Social housing providers are required to set rents with a view to achieving the following:

• Rent for accommodation is set at a level that is no more than 90% of the estimated market rent for the accommodation.
• Rent for accommodation increases each year by an amount that is no more than RPI +0.75% until the rents reaches the 90% limit.
• Rent for accommodation is reset based on a new valuation each time a new tenancy commences for the accommodation.

Social housing providers set rents by obtaining independent valuations from reputable estate agents who will conduct a valuation of social housing properties against comparable properties in the private rented sector. Social housing providers will also carry out a review of the valuations against comparable properties in their housing stock in order to determine an appropriate rent level for a property.

Since the 3rd quarter of 2015, the Statistics Unit has also produced a Private Rented Sector Rental Index. The Index now provides additional data to inform the assessment of market rent when a new tenancy commences for a property.

8. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT ON THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET OF THE DECISION THAT RENTS IN SOCIAL HOUSING WOULD BE CHARGED AT 90 PER CENT OF MARKET RATES: [1(252)]

Question

Will the Minister advise what the impact has been on her Department's budget of the Assembly's adoption on 16th May 2013 of The Reform of Social Housing' (P.33/2013) and the agreement that rents in social housing would be charged at 90 per cent of market rents?

Answer

The agreement that rents in social housing would be charged at 90 per cent of market rents impacted the Income Support Budget across three types on tenancy: Andium, Social Housing Trust Rents and Private Sector. The impact was discussed in the 2015 Annual Update to the MTFP Department Annex (Page 94):

Income Support Costs

The financial impact of the return to near market rent levels in the Social Sector is now significantly reduced from that previously detailed in the MTFP as the implementation will be phased over many years as new tenancies are created.

The additional Income Support costs arising from the return to near market rent levels will be met as follows:

• In the States sector, the additional cost estimated to be £300,000 in 2014, £700,000 in 2015 and potentially increasing to £2m by 2043 will be met from the Social Security budget for Income Support. The increases in Income Support in 2014 and 2015 will be topped up from Central Contingencies, if the current MTFP funding levels prove to be inadequate.

• In the Housing Trust sector, there is estimated to be a small additional cost of Income Support in 2014 and 2015, increasing to £1m by 2043. The increases in Income Support in 2014 and 2015 will be topped up from Central Contingencies, if the current MTFP funding levels prove to be inadequate.

• In the Private sector the revised rates of Income Support have been implemented with effect from April 2014. This additional cost has been provided as a growth bid in the current MTFP of £750,000 in 2014 and £1 million in 2015 which is proposed to  be allocated  to  Social Security Income Support  as part of the 2015 Budget allocation of Central Growth.

From 2016 the impact has been built in the base budget for Income Support approved in the MTFP. The amount increases each in year in line with the expectations of the number of properties moving to near-market rate.

The table below summarises the amount included for each year from 2014 to 2019.

9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSEHOLDS IN RECEIPT OF INCOME SUPPORT: [1(253)]

Question

Given the data comparison provided in answer to Written Question 184 between Table 7 of Social Security Department: Income Support 2011' (R.126/2012) and the figures given in Table 31 of Social Security Department: Minister's Report 2015' (R.104/2016), will the Minister provide a breakdown  of  the  sources  of  income  (such  as  earnings,  maintenance,  Long-Term  Incapacity Allowance) included as "average other income" for adults with children in these tables?

Will the Minister further advise, in relation to the Income Support claims from families with children shown in Table 33 of R.104/2016, in how many of those claims did the claimants involved have earnings from full-time, part-time and zero-hour jobs; and will she indicate whether the proportion of claimants with zero-hour jobs in this group differs from that proportion for the workforce as a whole?

Answer

For the benefit of Members, extracts from the two reports referenced in the first question are provided below.

Table 7 – R.126/2012

Table 7 indicates the average weekly income received from Income Support and from other sources for each of the household types at the end of 2011.

Table 31 – R.106/2016

Table 31 indicates the average weekly income received from Income Support and from other sources for each of the household types at the end of 2015, as well as the percentages of the Income Support households that are wholly reliant on Income Support.

Table 11: Total average (mean) weekly income based on claims as at 31 December 2015

Q.1:  will  the  Minister  provide  a  breakdown  of  the  sources  of  income  (such  as  earnings, maintenance, Long-Term Incapacity Allowance) included as "average other income" for adults with children in these tables?

The analysis of "average other income" in the tables above is shown in the table below for adults with children.

* Income in this row includes rental income, insurance payments, benefits from other countries and charitable income, as well as Social Security contributory benefits.

Income from savings and investments (bank interest etc.) is not included in this table and this type of income is not included in the Income Support calculation. Charitable income is recorded but is then wholly disregarded from the Income Support calculation.

Q.2: Will the Minister further advise, in relation to the Income Support claims from families with children shown in Table 33 of R.104/2016, in how many of those claims did the claimants involved have earnings from full-time, part-time and zero-hour jobs; and will she indicate whether the proportion of claimants with zero-hour jobs in this group differs from that proportion for the workforce as a whole?

Table 33 shows the distribution of adults with earnings amongst all claims consisting entirely of working age adults as at 31/12/2015.

Table 33: Working age adults with and without earnings as at 31 December 2015

Detailed information on the type of employment contract held by individual claimants is only recorded at the level of the individual record. It is not possible to use Income Support data to make a comparison between the proportion of Income Support claimants with a zero-hour job and the proportion for the workforce as a whole.

10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  LEVEL  OF  ZERO-HOUR  JOBS IN  THE ECONOMY: [1(254)]

Question

Will the Minister provide her assessment of any trends revealed in the latest data from the labour market report published by the Statistics Unit on the changes to the number of zero-hour jobs in the economy; and will she commit to work with the Statistics Unit to interrogate the data and to examine what proportion of zero-hour contracts relate to minimum-wage or low-pay jobs?

Answer

Standing orders require written answers to be submitted to the States Greffe by noon on the working day before a States sitting. As Monday 1 May is a bank holiday, this answer has been prepared prior to Friday, 28 April 2017.

The  labour  market  report is published on Friday 28  April and  it  is therefore  not  possible to comment on the latest data in this answer.

I can confirm that my officers work closely with the Statistics Unit to understand the data included in the labour market report. However, that data does not include information on wage levels and so it is not possible to identify the proportion of zero hours contracts that relate to minimum wage or low pay jobs.

11. THE  CONNÉTABLE  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REGARDING  LIQUID  AND  SOLID  WASTE  CHARGES LEVIED ON COMMERCIAL ENTITIES: [1(255)]

Question

Will the Minister set out in detail how it is proposed to charge commercial entities for liquid and solid waste arisings and the timetable for doing so; and will he explain how the proposed charging mechanism or mechanisms will –

1. be fair, given any seasonal and sectoral variations in current waste arisings;
2. incentivise recycling, re-use and waste reduction; and

3. provide the predicted level of income required by the Department's revenue budget?

Answer

Liquid Waste charging mechanism

The charges will be based on whether customers receive a full or partial service.

A full service is applicable to customers that are connected either directly or indirectly to the public sewer. This charge covers the costs associated with the network and pumping, treatment and safe disposal of their wastewater.

A partial service is applicable to users where there is no connection to the public sewer and where cesspits, and tight and septic tanks are used to collect wastewater before it is transferred to Bellozanne by tanker. This charge therefore covers the costs associated with the treatment and safe disposal of their wastewater only. In this case, customers will make separate arrangements with either DfI or private tanker providers to convey their wastewater to Bellozanne, and therefore the private tanker providers will not be charged at Bellozanne for tanker deliveries. It is estimated that there are only around 40 non-householders that fall into this category.

The user pays charges will be composed of a fixed and variable element. The fixed element will be based either on the size of the water supply, or the trade effluent consent*. It will be charged at an equivalent rate per day**. The variable element will be a volumetric charge that is based on 95% of the water usage. The 95% value is the typical figure used in England and Wales for consumption returned to the sewer. Where there is no volumetric information on water usage, an assessed calculation will be undertaken by DfI Assessment Officers.

There are a few large industrial customers that create large volumes of liquid waste. These are special cases that could require an individual agreement to ensure affordable and realistic charges are implemented. In the UK customers are typically charged using the Mogden formula***, which accounts for the volume, type and strength of the liquid waste produced by the user. In the future DfI may apply the Mogden formula as the basis for any special agreement, and will agree any adjustments with the users to encourage pre-treatment by customers, and, also to ensure that the agreed charges are reasonable.

* trade effluent consent is required by certain businesses if their effluent is highly variable in terms of strength and volume, for examples, laundrettes and larger hotels with swimming pools.

**rate per day is the fixed daily cost of the standard charge.

***The Mogden formula is used by sewerage companies to calculate the charges of trade effluent requiring treatment. The cost depends on the volume and strength of the discharged effluent.

Solid Waste charging mechanism

Solid waste is received by DfI either via Parish collections or directly from non-householders. Route 1: Non-householder Waste collected by Parishes and delivered to DfI facilities

The solid waste that is generated by the non-householders at their premises and which is collected by the Parishes or by hauliers working for the Parishes will be charged directly by DfI to the customers for the treatment and safe disposal of the waste, and not via the Weighbridge at La Collette or via the Parishes. Collection and charging for collection will remain the responsibility of the Parishes and will continue to be undertaken according to current arrangements or any arrangements Parishes may decide on in the future.

This element is estimated to be around 13,000 tonnes per annum of non-household solid waste each year. The new treatment and disposal charges will be based on the volume of waste produced by the non-householder. More specifically, it will be based on the size, number and frequency of the bins collected each year from the customer. Customers will be issued with stickers for the bins to demonstrate payment and confirm requirement for the service. This is the same process that is being used in much of the United Kingdom.

Route 2: Waste delivered to DfI facilities by non-householders

The other types of solid wastes that are delivered, by non-householders directly to DfI facilities will be charged via a gate fee. The existing charges will be revised and based on the full cost of treating and safe disposing of the waste. A new charge for wastes treated through the Energy from Waste plant will be introduced, as will charges for some recyclables which are currently subsidised and free at point of use.

Timetable

1. How will the charging mechanisms ensure that the charges are fair, given any seasonal and sectoral variations in current waste arising?

For the majority of non-householders (greater than 99%) the liquid waste charge will be based on a volumetric charge that is based on 95% of the water usage so will take into account any seasonal and sectorial variations. Where there is no volumetric information on water usage, an assessed calculation will be undertaken by DfI Assessment Officers.

Again,  for  the  majority  of solid  waste  that  are  delivered,  by  non-householders,  including hauliers, to the DfI facilities (74%) will pay a gate fee for the waste that they produce. For those non-householder (26%) for whom the Parishes collect the Waste they will be charged on the size, number and frequency of the bins collected each year from the customer. This assessment will done by DfI Assessment Officers and will take into account any seasonal variations etc.

2. How will the charging mechanisms incentivise recycling, re-use and waste reduction?

If the Island is to move forward and achieve progressive waste reduction and recycling targets, it is essential that producer responsibility becomes a cornerstone of Jersey's future waste strategy. This means that tools need to be employed so those generating the waste are responsible for its management upwards through the Waste Hierarchy.

The most significant barrier to changing behaviour in regard to waste in Jersey is the absence of fiscal measures that apply a level of cost to behaviours that are to be discouraged while promoting other preferable waste management behaviour. This mechanism would encourage a sense of ownership for waste producers and enable them to take responsibility for the amount and type of wastes they produce.

This follows best practice elsewhere.

Professor Wouter Poortinga, an environmental psychologist at Cardiff University, who has undertaken research in this area, was quoted as saying in respect of a field experiment to reduce coffee cup waste, "People are far more sensitive to losses than to gains when making decision – so if we really want to change a customer's behaviour then a charge is more likely to be effective."

3. How will the charging mechanisms provide the predicted level of income required by the Department's revenue budget?

An appropriate and fair assessment was made of the proportionate costs associated with non- householder liquid and solid waste services based on the current view of the non-household customer base. This was the basis for the predicted level of income required which was approved in the MTFP debate in 2016. It is estimated that introducing new and increasing existing waste charges for non-householders will generate net £11.35m annually.

2.11 DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED NURSES AND THE DEIVERY OF COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES: [1(256)]

Question

Given the continuing challenges to recruitment of qualified staff from the U.K., including potentially E.U.-qualified nurses following Brexit, and the turnover rates for care assistants, will the Minister –

1. provide the latest quarterly figures for vacancy rates amongst qualified nurses in hospital services and in community services, along with a like-for-like comparison with figures in both service areas for the past 3 years;
2. explain what confidence he has in respectof nursing and other staff currently delivering the fully-funded care services in the community that their terms and conditions will not be eroded following the opening of care services to market forces; and

3. provide  his assessment  of whether the provision of 3-year Service  Level  Agreements, instead of shorter-term agreements, would achieve greater stability in the planning and delivery of such services?

Answer

1. Vacancy rates amongst qualified nurses in the hospital are given below. Community nursing services are provided by Family Nursing and Home Care, an independent organisation for which we do not have vacancy rates.
2. Terms and conditions of employment are, as I have said many times, a matter for the employer of those providing the services.
3. The majority ofour service level agreements are annual, as there is greater certainty over the budget for a year ahead than there is for three. However, we do have two organisations with which we have a 3-year agreement in principle. These are subjectto quarterly Quality Board meetings and a formal annual review, which enables us to update and revise the Service Specification and metrics before the following year. This ensures we are able to secure ongoing quality improvements and update the requirements in line with emerging best  practice  and  with the strategic  intentions  of both the Health  and  Social  Services department and the service provider.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION REGARDING TEACHERS ENGAGED IN TEACHING G.C.S.E., AS LEVEL AND A- LEVEL WITHOUT A DEGREE-LEVEL, OR EQUIVALENT, QUALIFICATION IN

THE SUBJECT: [1(257)]

Question

When  will  the  Minister  inform  members  of  the  proportion  of  teachers  engaged  in  teaching G.C.S.E.- AS- and A-level subjects without a degree-level, or equivalent, qualification in that subject, given his indication on 13th September 2016 that he would do so following consultation with head teachers; and if he will not do so, will he explain why not?

Answer

For new appointees, relevant qualifications at degree level are a pre-requisite of employment and it is recognised that students benefit from having the most highly qualified teachers possible. The Education Department does not  keep a central statistical record of this  information  but  head teachers of States secondary schools have been asked. The respondents have advised that the majority of their teachers hold a high level qualification in the subject they teach or in a directly related subject.

14. DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR EDUCATION REGARDING EXPENDITURE ON THE PUPIL PREMIUM: [1(258)]

Question

In relation to the pupil premium, will the Minister inform members –

1. what sums have been spent on the premium to deliver additional support to pupils; and
2. how many pupils have been supported and in which secondary and primary schools?

Will the Minister further explain why any such support could not be delivered through normal budget funding and, if it could not be delivered in this way, will he explain why not?

Answer

1. In the financial year 2016 a totalof £421,661 was allocated to the Jersey Premium. This was the pilot year and this initiative is being fully implemented from 2017. A further £1.4 million is budgeted over the course of this Medium Term Financial Plan.

Funding is targeted at pupils who are at risk of  lower attainment due to socio-economic disadvantage. Evidence shows that some pupils are impacted by social, emotional or economic influences and do not always reach their full academic potential. Another objective of Jersey Premium is to develop a greater understanding of 'disadvantage' in the island and how to remove the barriers to learning this can generate.

2. In 2016 a total of 50 projects were supported in 17 primary schools and two secondary schools, as below:

Primary:  Grands Vaux, Samares, Springfield, Plat Douet, Rouge Bouillon, Janvrin, St Saviour's, First Tower, St Luke's, d'Auvergne, Grouville , La Moye, St Clement, Les Landes, Trinity , Mont Nicolle, St Lawrence. Secondary: Haute Vallée, Le Rocquier.

A total of 1,926 children and young people are known to be eligible for Jersey Premium.

Normal budget funding' is calculated using a formula called the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) and is used to fund a school's core operations so that it can meet its duties under the Education (Jersey) Law 1999, as amended. This funding is fully committed each year and there is little financial flexibility to meet the additional needs of disadvantaged students and provide targeted support. Extra resources available because of Jersey Premium enable schools to identify individual barriers to learning (if they exist) and opportunities to realise the potential of every student but particularly those at risk of lower attainment. Initial evidence suggests that the new Jersey Premium, like the English Pupil Premium that has been in place since 2011, has delivered positive results for individual pupils and will ultimately help to raise standards across all schools in line with the aspirations of the Education Business Plan.

15. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS AUDITS OF JERSEY'S COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: [1(260)]

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General explain what Human Rights audits, if any, were conducted of the practices and procedures of each of Jersey's courts and tribunals to ensure that they were compatible both prior to, and after, the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 was enacted; and will he further explain when any such audits took place, by whom they were conducted and where, if anywhere, the findings of any such audits can be examined?

Answer

In 2000 the Policy and Resources Committee set up a Human Rights Working Group, which decided that each States and non-executive department would be responsible for reviewing its own legislation and administration, to ensure that processes were human rights compliant.

Reviews were undertaken across departments between the time the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 was adopted by the States, and when it was brought into force on 10 December 2006.

The Judicial Greffe section of the Jersey Court Service is responsible for the provision of judicial and administrative support for the Island's courts and tribunals namely, the Court of Appeal, Royal Court, Magistrate's Court, Petty Debts Court, Youth Court, Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal, Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal, Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal and Social Security Tribunal.

All courts and tribunals in Jersey, whether criminal or civil, are public authorities and therefore are required by the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 to act in a way which is compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, so far as it is possible to do so, principal legislation and subordinate legislation, whenever enacted, including all legislation that underpins judicial processes, must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.

16. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROVISION WITHIN JERSEY'S COURT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR EQUALITY OF ARMS' IN HUMAN RIGHTS TERMS: [1(261)]

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General explain what the phrase equality of arms' means in a Human Rights context and will he further explain, with examples, whether Jersey's court and justice system provides adequate protection to Islanders in that regard?

Answer

As recently defined by the European Court of Human Rights, the principle of "equality of arms" requires a "fair balance" between the parties: each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent or opponents.

Jersey has a legal aid system more extensive than that which exists in England and Wales, enabling Islanders of modest means to access legal representation at no or reduced costs in certain circumstances. There is no requirement under the Convention that in civil cases every party should have a lawyer, or the same number of lawyers, or the lawyers of the equivalent years of experience as the opposing party. In respect of criminal cases, the entitlement to representation is met by the current legal aid system.

Where legal aid is not available, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that sufficient latitude is given to unrepresented litigants so that they have a reasonable opportunity to put their case. In such circumstances the Court may raise points that litigants in person have not appreciated to assist them. The Court may in appropriate cases at public cost appoint a lawyer to act as amicus curiae ("friend of the court") to assist where an unrepresented litigant would be at a significant disadvantage.

Further, all Advocates and Solicitors have professional duties to volunteer points of law adverse to their own clients.

17. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS COMPATIBILITY OF THE CENTENIER'S ROLE IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND PARISH HALL ENQUIRIES: [1(262)]

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General explain whether the roles of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court and at Parish Hall Inquiries are compatible with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000?

Answer

In relation to offences that fall to be considered at a Parish Hall Enquiry, the role of the Centenier is to consider whether to charge a person, whether no action should be taken, or whether the matter can be disposed of at the Parish Hall by way of (for example) a caution or a small fine. If a Parish Hall disposal is appropriate it can only occur with the consent of the person involved. It was made clear by the Royal Court thirty-years ago in Attorney-General v Devonshire Hotel Ltd that Parish Hall enquiries are not criminal trials. For that reason, the fair trial provisions in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights do not arise. As was recognised by the Rutherford Report in 2002, "the Parish and the process of Parish Hall Enquiries remains a cornerstone of the island's approach to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour."

As regards the role of the Centenier at the Magistrate's Court under Article 3 of the Honorary (Police) Jersey Law, this is to present defendants to the Court. Centeniers also decide whether to bail defendants prior to that appearance in Court, at which point bail becomes a matter for the Court.

The important point for human rights purposes is that the Magistrate no longer fulfils the dual role of prosecutor and judge during a trial as in such cases a lawyer employed by the Law Officers' Department conducts the case for the prosecution.

In short, the role of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court and in the Parish Hall is compatible with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

18. DEPUTYM.R.HIGGINSOFST.HELIEROFTHEMINISTERFORHEALTHAND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING SERVICES FOR ORTHOPAEDIC PATIENTS AND THOSE WITH BACK-PAIN PROBLEMS: [1(264)]

Question

Will the Minister advise members of the reasons for the current waiting times for orthopaedic patients and those with back-pain problems, and explain what steps, if any, he is taking to reduce those waiting times; and will he further explain how these services within his Department are manned and funded?

Answer

The orthopaedic service is one of the largest in the hospital and takes up 26% of all theatre capacity. The team sees approximately 1,800 patients per month in the clinics. In addition, there is the physiotherapy-led shoulder, wrist and spinal service.

The reasons for waiting times for any specialty are numerous and vary throughout the year. Below are some of these reasons, with specific application to orthopaedics:

• Demand for the service – or referral rates

Orthopaedics received 644 referrals from GPs in the first quarter of 2017. This is a slight increase from the 625 for the same period in 2016.

• The mix of urgent versus routine referrals received

Each referral is reviewed by a consultant and clinically graded for urgency as follows:

Urgent – seen within 2 weeks

Soon – seen within 8 weeks

Routine – seen in chronological order.

The greater the number of urgent' and soon' referrals, the longer the routine' referrals can potentially wait. The current average wait for an out-patient appointment (urgent/soon/routine combined) is 13 weeks.

• The number of patients who do not attend their out-patient appointment

Patients that do not attend their appointment have an adverse impact on clinic efficiency. Patients are sent text reminders about their pending appointment and work is underway to simplify the booking process.

• The number of available doctors to undertake the clinics and theatres lists

The number of available doctors has a major impact on the number of patients who can be seen; the number fluctuates with annual leave, sick leave, study leave and staff turnover.

• Access to diagnostic tests

MRI is a key diagnostic test used within orthopaedics and demand for MRI is high. The current MRI machine is already working extended days and an extended week.

• Number of patients with complex or specialist needs

Patients with complex or specialist needs may need to be seen by a visiting specialist consultant. These consultants visit at a frequency determined by the number of patients needing to be seen to make a visit viable. Urgent cases will be referred off-island, but waiting times in the UK are not within our control. However, contracts are reviewed and re-tendered and include our expectations of a responsive service. The spinal UK contract has just been let to a new provider in the South of England.

• The volume of emergency trauma cases presenting to the hospital

If the number of emergencies increases significantly (as they can do in icy weather), then the clinical teams have to divert their time, orthopaedic beds and theatre time to managing the emergencies. This can delay access for routine elective cases.

• Theatre space/access

This can be a limiting factor to increasing activity, however, the team has worked hard during 2016 to reduce the waiting times for a procedure. This time last year there were 459 patients waiting, with 240 of them waiting more than 12 weeks. Currently, there are 303 patients waiting, with 39 waiting more than 12 weeks.

Additional factors:

Funding has been identified to increase the medical staff complement and the associated cost of the activity. However, this post needs to be carefully considered alongside the access to theatres, out- patients and ward facilities.

Staffing and funding

The orthopaedic team consists of 12 medical staff including 3 Consultants and 9 junior doctors, 1 specialist arthroscopy nurse, ward nurses and support staff, outpatient staff and physiotherapists.

The 2017 funding for staff (excluding physiotherapists and outpatients as they are amalgamated within generic budgets) is £3,061,739.

The 2017 supplies and services budget is £1,624,360.

3. Oral Questions

1. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding consultation in respect of proposed changes to the location of sewage treatment equipment within the Department's complex at Bellozanne: [1(269)]

Will the Minister advise how much consultation, if any, has occurred with the residents most affected by the proposed changes to the location of sewage treatment equipment within his department's complex at Bellozanne?

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

The planning application for the new sewage treatment works at Bellozanne was submitted on 13th March this year and first advertised on 21st March. As the Deputy will already know, this opened the formal consultation period for the project, as with any other planning application. However, to provide local residents and Islanders in general with an opportunity to view the proposals and ask questions of the department ahead of the formal application submission and the formal consultation period, the project team organised a drop-in event at Bellozanne on 2nd February of this year. This event consisted of display boards providing information about the project and drawings showing a proposed final layout of the new works. The event was well attended and a number of officers were on hand to answer questions from the public. As well as the event being advertised on media outlets on a number of days preceding 2nd February, over some 200 residential and business properties, local to the Bellozanne area, were specifically invited by letter and an invitation was also issued to the members of the First Tower Residents Association. However, and I must apologise here, it transpires that approximately a dozen properties on the south side of West Hill were inadvertently missed off due to, we believe, postcode differences. I and my officers have since met with a number of these residents to discuss the concerns they may have and my officers are indeed on hand at any time to meet with residents, or indeed Islanders or politicians, to answer any questions they may have on this planning application.