Approved Panel Minutes - Environment, Housing and Infrastructure - 2021

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Foreshore Encroachment Policy Review – Draft Report

The Panel approved a first draft of the main body of its report S.R.1/2021 Foreshore Encroachment Policy. The Officer advised that, with immediate effect, excerpts of the main body of the report would be circulated to the Department for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment and all other stakeholders who contributed evidence to the Panel's report for factual checking. It was agreed that the executive summary, key findings and recommendations would then be discussed and agreed at the Panel's next scheduled meeting on 12th January 2021, with a view to presenting the report shortly thereafter.

NH

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair

Deputy Inna Gardiner

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard [items 3,4,5, 6 and 7 only]

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Deputy Steve Luce (Panel Guest)

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the record of the meeting held on 15th December 2020.

2. Bridging Island Plan Review

The Officer updated the Panel on the progress regarding the report. The Officer informed the Panel that report writing had commenced and the intention was for the first draft of the report to be shared with the Panel within the coming weeks. The Officer explained that a section regarding the Draft Covid-19 (Island Plan) Regulations 202- which would enable the shortened Bridging Island Plan to be proposed would be included in the report.

It was noted that part of the Panel's Terms of Reference encompassed the inclusion of the Future Hospital in the Bridging Island Plan and therefore it would be pertinent to raise concerns regarding the planning approval process for access routes to the Future Hospital and how the Bridging Island Plan would be connected with this.

The Panel raised concern regarding the timeline of the Bridging Island Plan and the lack of clarity regarding when it would commence and when it would be surpassed by the subsequent 10-year Island Plan. In addition, regarding the current absence of clarity over which projects would be allocated to the Bridging Island Plan and which would be attributed to the subsequent 10- year Plan.

Regarding terminology used within the Plan, the Panel noted that phrases had been used without clarifying their meanings. It was highlighted, for example, that the term sustainability' was mentioned multiple times throughout the Bridging Island Plan without defining what was meant by it.

3. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- Review

The Panel noted and discussed a letter received from the Minister for the Environment in relation to the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202-.

The Vice-Chair informed the Panel that conversations were continuing between the Assistant Minister for the Environment and the Jersey Farmers' Union (JFU) regarding the Law. He noted that it was likely that areas remained to be resolved.

The Panel noted that the guidelines required to accompany the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law had not yet been received. The Officer was requested to draft a letter to the Minister for the Environment for the Panel's approval, requesting the Minister to defer the debate of the Draft Law until the guidelines had been issued and agreed.

The Officer informed the Panel that the deadline for amendments to the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- was 25th January 2021. The Panel noted it would wait for the guidelines to be issued, however, it was not likely that it would lodge an amendment.

The Panel discussed the potential impacts of the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- on the building sector. The Officer was requested to draft letters for the Panel's approval to send to the Jersey Construction Council and representatives of the building sector requesting their views in that regard.

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard joined the meeting at this point (9.54am).

The Officer was requested to follow up with the JFU and the Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society (RJA & HS) to confirm whether they had any further concerns in relation to the Draft Law.

The Panel agreed to present a Comments paper for its review of the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law -202.

NH NH

NH

NH NH

4. Foreshore Encroachment Policy Review

The Panel noted and agreed the factual accuracy checking comments received from stakeholders' regarding evidence that had been used to inform the review.

The Panel approved the final report and its findings and recommendations.

The Officer informed the Panel that the final report would be presented to the States Assembly on Thursday 14th January 2021.

5. UK-EU Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (TECA') – Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey (P.170/2020) – Review of fisheries related implications

The Panel discussed the Scoping Document and Terms of Reference for its review regarding the fisheries related implications of the TECA.

The Panel discussed the review and its intention to ensure the views of Jersey's fishing industry and the potential consequences of the agreement on the industry would be highlighted. The Panel noted the importance of considering the practical implications of the agreement on Jersey's fishing industry.

The Officer informed the Panel that a list of key targeted stakeholders, primarily within the fishing industry, would be identified and a letter requesting written submissions would be drafted for the Chair's approval.

The Officer noted that she was awaiting the complete legal text in relation to the TECA and once received scrutiny work would commence in that regard.

Regarding the public hearings to inform the review, the Officer asked whether the Panel would be inclined to hold a joint hearing with the Minister for External Relations

NH

NH

and the Minister for the Environment. The Panel agreed that it would be beneficial and requested the Officer to schedule a date for the hearing.

The Officer was requested to identify key stakeholders to attend a public hearing, as well as potential suitable dates.

The Officer explained she would look to schedule hearing dates for the end of January / first week of February.

NH NH

5. Administrative matters

Regarding (R.4/2021), Deputy Gardiner raised concern in relation to the decision taken by the Minister for Infrastructure to extend the lease of the Broad Street office by 25 years. The Panel agreed it would include this as an area of questioning in its upcoming hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure on 26th January.

6. Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure

The Panel noted its upcoming hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure on 26th January and discussed areas of questioning for the hearing.

7. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next meeting would take place on 26th January 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair

Deputy Inna Gardiner

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard [items 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 only] Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Deputy Kevin Lewis , Minister for Infrastructure

Deputy Hugh Raymond, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure

Triston Dodd, Head of Transport and Infrastructure

Ellen Littlechild, Group Director of Operations and Transport

Tim Daniels, Director, Jersey Property Holdings

Gordon Forrest, Head of Driver and Vehicle Standards

Andy Scate, Acting Director General, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment

John Littlewood, Head of Finance Business Partnering

Robert Hayward, Senior Transportation Planner

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Item 3

Don Thompson, President, Jersey Fishermen's Association

Item 8

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy Planning and Performance

Lisette Jones, Senior Policy Officer, Strategic Policy Planning and Performance

Steve Skelton, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Strategic Policy Planning and Performance

Jane  Burns,  Eco-  Active  Programme  Manager,  Strategic  Policy Planning and Performance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique  Magalhaes,  Research  and  Project  Officer  [items 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 only]

Fiona Scott , Research and Project Officer [item 3 Only]

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the record of the meetings held on 22nd December 2020 and 12th January 2021.

2. Public Quarterly Hearing with the Minster for Infrastructure

The Panel discussed the question plan for the hearing with the Minister scheduled for 11.30am that day.

The Panel received Deputy Kevin Lewis , the Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Hugh Raymond, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

3. Public Review Hearing with the Jersey Fishermen's Association

The Panel discussed the question plan for the hearing with the Jersey Fishermen's Association (JFA) scheduled for 2pm that day.

The Panel received Don Thompson, the President of the JFA for a public hearing in relation to the review of the fisheries implications regarding the UK-EU Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (TECA') – Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey (P.170/2020). The proceedings were video recorded via Microsoft Teams and a transcript was produced.

4. Bridging Island Plan Review

The Officer updated the Panel on the progress regarding the report. She informed the Panel that it was her intention for the draft report to be shared with them on Friday 29th January. The Officer confirmed that a section of the report would consider the Future Hospital within the scope of the review's Terms of Reference.

NH

5. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- Review

The Panel noted and discussed a letter received from the Minister for the Environment on 22nd December 2020 updating the Panel on progress that had been made in relation to addressing the concerns of the farming industry in respect of the Draft Wildlife (Jersey)  Law  202-  and  regarding  the  development  of  the  guidance  that  would accompany the draft Law.

The Panel noted and discussed the Comments paper on the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- to be presented prior to the States debate.

The Panel discussed Deputy Luce 's amendments to the draft Wildlife Law.

The Panel noted that it was reasonably satisfied that the principles had been adopted in the draft Law to allay the concerns of the farming industry and that the role the Attorney General would represent a level of confidence regarding the application of the draft Law.

The Panel discussed the marine sector and whether the protection of the sector had been adequately presented in the draft Law. The Panel highlighted its confidence in the Marine Resources team to ensure good representation for the marine sector.

The Panel noted it had requested views from the building industry regarding any potential impact of the draft Law on the industry. At the time of meeting, the Panel had not received a response from the industry.

The Panel requested that the Officer incorporate a section within the Comments paper to emphasise it may seek to review the guidelines that would accompany the draft Law, at a later date, should concerns come to light.

The Panel requested the Officer present the Comments paper once the revised changes had been made. The Officer noted she would present the Comments paper later that week.

NH NH

6. Foreshore Encroachment Policy Review

The Officer informed the Panel that the Ministerial Response to S.R.1/2021 was due by 25th February 2021.

The Panel observed that correspondence had been received from Jersey Property Holdings (JPH) in relation to its report and its recommendations. The Officer informed the Panel that she would consult with the JPH to further understand their intention.

The  Panel  raised  concern  in  relation  to  property  transactions  that  were  being hampered as a result of the foreshore encroachment policy. The Panel highlighted that if both JPH as well as the property owner were content with a transaction or contract that there should be no reason for the transaction to be delayed.

The Panel discussed whether foreshore transactions and agreements of boundaries would be brought before the States Assembly. Noting, when a transaction did not involve a transfer of funds, that it would involve a contract between the parties. The Panel noted it would discuss this area with the Minister for Infrastructure at its Quarterly Public Hearing later that day.

NH

7. UK-EU Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (TECA') – Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey (P.170/2020) – Review of fisheries related implications

The Panel noted and discussed the compressed timeline for its review. The Officer informed the Panel that the call for evidence would close on the 29th January. Additionally, that public hearings had been scheduled with the President of the Jersey Fishermen's Association (JFA) for later that day, and a joint hearing with the Minister for the Environment and the Minster for External Relations had been scheduled for the following Tuesday. The Officer highlighted that there was a 30-day notice period should Jersey wish to withdraw from the agreement and therefore the deadline for the Panel to present its report would be the week commencing 15th February so as to allow enough time for the Council of Ministers and the States Assembly to fully consider the Panel's report before this time elapsed.

The Panel noted and discussed the submissions it had received. The Officer informed that Panel that, to date, it had received 34 submissions of which majority had been received from the fishing industry. She informed the Panel that a document highlighting the key themes demonstrated throughout the submissions would be shared with the Panel later that week.

The Panel proposed that the Officer request Simon Bossy (a member of the public and former Marine Resources advisory officer for the Government of Jersey) to attend a hearing in relation to its review. Alternatively, if this would not be possible as a result of the compressed timeline, to request his views or comments through a written submission.

The Panel highlighted the importance of considering a broad range of opinions, noting that the submissions that it had already received seemed to reflect similar views.

NH

NH NH

8. Briefing – Citizens Assembly – Climate Change

The Panel noted that it was due to receive a briefing in relation to Jersey's Climate Conversation and Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change scheduled at10.30am that morning.

The Panel received officers from the Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance for a briefing in relation to Jersey's Climate Conversation and Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under the Qualification Exemption Article 35.

9. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next meeting would take place on 2nd February 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Inna Gardiner

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 1

Matthew Berry, Legal Advisor, Law Officers' Department Item 2

Simon Bossy

Item 3

Deputy Young, Minister for the Environment

Deputy Guida, Assistant Minister for the Environment

Mr. Peggie, Environment Director and Acting Director of Regulation Mr. Morel , Marine Resources Officer

Senator Gorst , Minister for External Relations

Ms. Leroy, Director, Bureau des Îles Anglo-Normandes

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique  Magalhaes,  Research  and  Project  Officer  [items  1, 4,5,6,7,8,9 only]

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Meeting with Law Officers' Department

The Panel noted its meeting scheduled with the Law Officers' Department (LOD) at 10.30am that morning and discussed the question areas for its meeting.

The Panel met with Mathew Berry, Legal Advisor, from the LOD in relation to UK/EU TECA Fisheries Review at 10.30am that day. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under the Qualification Exemption Article 32.

2. Public Review Hearing with the Simon Bossy

The Panel received Simon Bossy for a Public Hearing in relation to the Panel's UK/EU TECA Fisheries review. The proceedings were video recorded via Microsoft Teams and a transcript was produced.

3.  Public Review Hearing with the Minister for External Relations and Minister for the Environment

The Panel noted and discussed the question plan for the Public Review Hearing with the Minister for External Relations and the Minister for the Environment scheduled for 2pm that day.

The Panel received Senator Gorst , the Minister for External Relations and Deputy Young, the Minister for the Environment for a hearing in relation to the Panel's UK/EU TECA Fisheries review. The proceedings were streamed live via Microsoft Teams and a recording was made so that a transcript could be produced.

4. Bridging Island Plan Review

The Panel noted and discussed its draft Report on the Bridging Island Plan Review. The Panel agreed it would approve the report by 11am the following day. The Officer informed the Panel that the report would be sent for fact checking following the Panel's approval and would be presented to the States Assembly on Friday 5th February.

The Panel discussed the potential impact of the Island Plan being considered and debated so close to the next Jersey election. The Panel observed that the proposed process regarding amendments to the draft bridging Island Plan would not be ideal.

Deputy Gardiner arrived at this point and was in attendance from 10am.

NH

5. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202-

The Panel noted that its Comments paper had been presented to the States Assembly on Friday 29th January.

6. Foreshore encroachment policy

The Panel discussed email correspondence that had been received from Jersey Property Holdings (JPH) in relation to the Panel's report scrutinising P.111/2020. The Panel requested the Officer to schedule a meeting with the Minister for Infrastructure and JPH to discuss the recommendations made within its report S.R.1/2021. It was suggested that a meeting be scheduled for 16th February.

The Panel discussed that any proposed working drafts of potential amendments brought by the Minister for Infrastructure should be shared with them to ensure the Panel  would  have  sight  of  any  amendments  prior  to  the  States  debate  of  the proposition. The Officer informed the Panel she would inform the Department of the Panel's request.

NH

NH

7. UK-EU Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (TECA') – Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey (P.170/2020) – Review of fisheries related implications

The Panel discussed its review. It highlighted an area of contention in relation to the interpretation of the TECA and what was meant by the 3-mile limit. The Panel noted that Jersey's proximity to the Minquiers and Ecrehous added a level of challenge for Jersey. The Panel discussed the maritime boundary in relation to the Granville Bay Treaty and the TECA.

The Panel suggested it should discuss the negotiations of the agreement with the Minister for External relations to gain an understanding of what it had involved.

The Panel discussed the potential impact of Brexit and noted that Jersey would be represented as a third country by the EU, if Jersey was not signed up to the TECA.

Connétable Rennard arrived at this point and was in attendance from 9.40 am.

The Panel highlighted and discussed a media article that had been published in the Times regarding a ban of British shellfish export.

The Panel discussed the challenges that Jersey's Oyster producers were facing regarding the administration process required for the export of their product. The Panel noted that producers were finding it challenging to acquire the assistance of officers within the time frame to meet their export deadlines. The Panel observed that the paperwork required was more complicated and it would necessitate more time to learn the process and iron out any issues in that regard. The Panel agreed that assistance would be required in the early days. Regarding inspections of product, the Panel observed that the department was understaffed and therefore support was not readily available.

The Panel discussed whether these issues could be improved through better lines of communication between the Department and the Jersey Fishermen's Association (JFA).

8. Climate emergency – Citizens' Assembly

The Panel discussed the role it would undertake in the Climate Conversation – Citizens' Assembly project. The Officer informed the Panel that its role should be purely observational in order for the Panel to be able to scrutinise the policy at a later date, if it was so inclined.

The Officer informed the Panel that the Citizens' Assembly was scheduled to meet between March and May and that it would be likely that the Advisory Panel and an Officer from the States Greffe would attend those sessions to take the minutes. Therefore, the Panel would not be required to attend all the sessions as independent minutes would be available.

The Panel requested the Officer to identify whether the sessions would be recorded so that the Panel could view the sessions after they had taken place in the instances that the Panel could not attend all the sessions.

The Panel agreed it would be necessary for at least one of its members to attend the sessions, particularly the initial sessions, to ensure they were being run fairly and were balanced.

The Panel agreed that Connétable Le Maistre would act as rapporteur for the Panel and would attend the sessions, however, in the instance when he would be unable to attend other Panel members could attend.

The Officer noted the Panel had a meeting scheduled for Monday 8th February with the Sortition Foundation to gain an understanding of the process that was used to establish the members of the Citizens' Assembly Panel.

NH

9. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next meeting would take place on 16th February 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Graham Truscott

Deputy Inna Gardiner

Apologies

Deputy Steve Luce

Absent

In attendance

Chris Le Masurier, Jersey Oyster Company Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. UK/EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fisheries Review – Public Hearing with Jersey Oyster Company

The Panel received Chris Le Masurier, owner of the Jersey Oyster Company, for a Public  Hearing  in  relation  to  the  Panel's  UK/EU  TECA  Fisheries  review.  The proceedings were video recorded via Microsoft Teams and a transcript was produced. Due to a declared financial conflict of interest, Deputy Luce gave his apologies and did not attend the hearing.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Deputy Graham Truscott

Deputy Steve Luce

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Bridging Island Plan 2022-24: An analysis of the Island Plan Review process

– Publication of report

The Panel approved the publication of its report S.R.3/2021 Bridging Island Plan 2022- 24:  An  analysis  of  Island  Plan  Review  process.  The  Officer  advised  that,  with immediate effect, the report would be presented to States Members and circulated to the media with an accompanying press release.

NH

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Inna Gardiner

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy Planning and Performance

Lisette Jones, Senior Policy Officer, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance

Brett Hennig, Sortition Foundation

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Briefing – Sortition Foundation on the Citizens' Assembly Selection Process for the Climate Change Project

The Panel received a briefing from Brett Henning of the Sortition Foundation in relation to the selection process being used for establishing the Citizens' Assembly for the Climate Change Project.

To assist in informing the Panel, it was shown the services brochure of the process that had been followed to determine the 45 member Citizens' Assembly.

It was explained that a two-step random selection process was followed which had mirrored the process that was typically used to recruit for a group of 50 members. However, the process had been slightly adjusted to accommodate a group of 45 members which would establish the Citizens' Assembly Panel. It was explained that the first step of the selection process had involved the random selection of households and for that process a factor of 200 was used which had equated to 9000 Jersey households.

The Panel was informed that the 9000 households that were approached had been randomly selected by Statistics Jersey. It was explained that each of the 9000 households was sent an invitation to register their interest in the Citizens' Assembly process and that the communications had included the details regarding how the households could respond. For ease, the households were provided with a variety of response options including to register using a free telephone option as well as through an online form for which the URL link was provided. The Panel was informed that the same  process  would  be  followed  for  all  response  options  and  that  for  those

respondents who had opted to use the telephone option to register their interest, a representative was tasked to fill out the form on the persons behalf. It was explained that the form was identical to the online version that individuals had been provided a link to. Therefore, it was emphasised, that both options would result in the same form being filled out.

The Panel was advised that the form had collected data including information in relation to age, gender, geographic position (which would be represented via the respondent's postal code) as well as information regarding an attitudinal question.

Regarding the attitudinal question, the Panel was informed that a question relating to how important climate change was to the respondent was asked of the respondent.

It was explained that the typical response rate to invitations such as those that had been sent out to Jersey residents would be between two and four percent. In addition, the Panel was informed that the responses would usually encompass those individuals who generally would not engage in political processes.

Regarding step two of the process, the Panel was told that stratified random selection was utilised whereby it was intended that the selection would match the target population of Jersey. It was explained that the second random selection had intended to correct the skew in selection that had formed within the first random selection process and that a computer algorithm was used to remove the skewing that had developed during the selection process.

It  was  explained  that  once  the  45  members  had  been  selected,  the  Sortition Foundation would call the successful candidates to inform them that they had been selected as a member of the Citizens' Assembly Panel. The Panel was advised that typically a few candidates would choose to drop out at that stage and that finding exact matching for those candidates at that point in the process was usually challenging. Therefore, when exact matches were not possible, a slight divergence to the target could be expected.

Regarding areas of potential skewing in the selection process, it was explained that usually the process could present skewing in the over 60 years age category as well as in the younger age groups.

The Panel was informed that the socio-economic factor was defined by considering the housing aspect as well as the response to the attitudinal question that had been asked regarding climate change.

Regarding Jersey's response rate, it was noted that Jersey had received a good response rate to date, however, a week still remained for people to register their interest in the process.

Regarding potential skewing that was relative to Jersey, it was explained that areas of skewing had been noticed in more women registering their interest, more urban (St Helier) households and in the age group of 45 years. The Panel was advised that the variation of individuals from a variety of birth places was balanced. Regarding the attitudinal question, it was explained that a significant skewing was apparent as very few individuals who had registered to date were not concerned about climate change. It was explained that a balance would need to be achieved between the individuals who were concerned and those that were not.

Regarding the targets set by the Sortition Foundation as part of the selection process, the Panel asked how the Sortition Foundation had matched its targets and why, when individuals had responded to the selection process, those targets were not accurately reflected.

It was explained that when people responded that skewing was possible. However, the Panel was informed that when the Sortition Foundation undertook the selection it would attempt to match the government census or target statistics in order for the selection to match the microcosm of the population. It was noted that the process had involved selecting individuals in respect of the targets that had been set and not on the response rates that had been received.

Regarding  how  the  Sortition  Foundation  would  ensure  the  Citizens'  Panel  had balanced views regarding their climate change concerns, the Panel asked how that was safeguarded by the selection process. The Panel was informed that it was an imperfect measure. It was explained that in the registration process it was important to ensure that the process was as simple as possible and that the questions asked were simple and few. The Panel was told that to assist with that process the Sortition Foundation had used an Ipsos MORI survey and that it had asked one attitudinal question.  

The Panel raised concern regarding the potential for individuals with extreme views (individuals who are sceptical and those that are overly concerned) rather than more balanced views being selected which may affect the process and its outcomes. The Panel asked how the process had ensured that individuals from all areas of the concern for climate change' spectrum would be selected. It was explained that this aspect was identified during the second selection process. The Panel was informed that  the  process  would  identify  individuals  that  were  pragmatic,  sceptical  and extremely concerned and that the balance could be achieved.

The Panel emphasised that it would be important to ensure the views of the members of the Citizens' Assembly were balanced.

The Panel was informed that although the selection process would encourage the establishment of a Citizens' Assembly that matched the microcosm of Jersey, when 45 individuals had worked through the deliberation process they would ultimately come to the same opinion. It was explained that this would be likely even if a couple of the members were to be replaced. It was emphasised that the deliberation process would play an important role in the process.

The Panel asked how the 9000 households had been selected. It was explained that Statistics Jersey had provided the selection of households to approach to represent the households in Jersey.

The Panel asked if the selection process had matched a subsection of categories including men, women, young people and areas, for example. It was explained that the random selection process could not guarantee the matching of each subsection. The Panel was informed that it only ensured that the 45 people was a microcosm of Jersey.

The Panel asked if the selection process had connected any categories. It was explained  that  the  algorithm  that  was  used  had  not  cross  connected  between categories and that it had only optimised fairness across the categories.

Regarding the meeting times that had been allocated for the Citizens' Assembly to meet, the Panel asked what consideration had been given to those times and if those times had been detailed in the invitation or during the registration process. The Panel noted that the times may seem inflexible for some people and that it may impact upon some people wishing to take part in the process. The Panel was concerned that the meeting times may result in a low turnout of participants and asked what could be done to improve participation and prevent the exclusion of people if that was the case. The Head of Sustainability and Foresight explained that the times had been considered and that the timings would not be ideal for everyone and that as a result of all the bank holidays during that period those times had been chosen. It was explained that where the commitment would be too demanding for individuals, they would be able to get involved through other dialogue and events options.

The meeting came to a close and the Panel thanked those in attendance for their time.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair [items 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 only] Deputy Inna Gardiner

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard

Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Deputy Kevin Lewis , Minister for Infrastructure

Tim Daniels, Director of Property, Jersey Property Holdings

Philip Ahier , Manager - Principal Property, Jersey Property Holdings Duncan Mills, Legal Advisor, Law Officers' Department

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the record of the meetings held on 15th December 2020 and 5th January 2021.

2. Informal meeting with the Minster for Infrastructure and Jersey Property Holdings (JPH)

The Panel noted and discussed the Encroachments on the Foreshore: Revised Policy, (P.111/2020) Amendment (2) that had been lodge au Greffe on 16th February. The Panel noted and discussed the recommendations that JPH had not accepted.

The Panel discussed the possibility for transactions to be allowed where both parties had come to an agreement regarding the terms of contract and highlighted that this should be supported where an agreement had been realised without pressure being placed on the party involved.

The Panel discussed the appeals process and suggested it would deliberate this further at its informal meeting with the Minister and JPH. Regarding the proposed appeals process, the Panel raised concern in relation to the utilisation of a third party in the appeals process and suggested it should explore that aspect further as an independent Panel could result in inconsistencies.

The Panel received the Minister for Infrastructure and JPH for an informal meeting to discuss the recommendations made in the Panel's report: S.R.1/2021 – Foreshore Encroachment Policy Review at 10:30am that day. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

3. Bridging Island Plan Review

The Panel noted that its report S.R.3/2021 had been presented on 5th February 2021 and noted that the Ministerial Response was expected by 19th March 2021.

The Panel raised concern that if the public enquiry for the Island Plan was to be undertaken remotely due to Covid-19 restrictions it would raise challenges.

The Panel discussed the Island Plan and future provision for affordable homes. The Panel agreed that it would look into this further as a possible topic for its next review.

The Panel discussed the housing challenges that individual parishes were facing regarding affordable housing and first-time buyer homes. In addition, the priority lists for housing in parishes and their functioning as well as how the process could be improved. The Panel discussed the possibility for working across parishes on housing schemes to assist with managing adequate housing opportunities for all Islanders. It emphasised  that  consideration  should  be  given  to  each  parish  scheme  and consistency should be encouraged for policies across all the parishes. The Panel raised concern that community facilities and facilities for children and young people in the east of the Island were limited.

The Panel discussed the importance of ensuring long-term affordable housing was provided so that when first-time buyer homes or affordable housing was sold on, the benefit of affordability would continue for the long term. It was highlighted that a process would be required to manage that aspect so that affordable housing was not sold in the open market for full price.

The Panel discussed the demand for affordable housing for the ageing population. In addition, the requirement for care homes and suitable homes for downsizing. The Panel noted that by providing suitable housing for downsizing, the Island could make best use of the housing stock that was available.

5. Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202- Review

The Panel noted and discussed a letter received from the Minister for the Environment on  5th  February  2021  in  relation  to  the  recommendations  made  in  the  Panel's Comments paper of the Draft Wildlife (Jersey) Law 202-.

The Panel discussed the aspects of the legislation that related to bats inhabiting residential properties. In addition, the potential effects of mitigation measures on preventing bats from inhabiting homes and the impacts of that on the necessity for bat surveys under the legislation and planning obligations.

7. UK-EU Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (TECA') – Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey (P.170/2020) – Review of fisheries related implications

The Panel noted and discussed a letter of response received on 5th February from the Minister for the Environment.

The Panel discussed its draft Report and findings and recommendations. The Panel requested the Officer to make a minor amendment to one of the key findings, after which it agreed the report and requested the Officer to proceed with the report fact checking process.

The Panel discussed scallop dredging and the size of vessels that would be tolerated in Jersey's waters. It highlighted that the Minister should clarify the expectations with regards to those aspects so that Jersey's fishing community was aware of any changes that would be required going forward.

NH

8. Briefing – Citizens Assembly – Climate Change

The Panel discussed the meeting it had attended on 8th February in relation to the Sortition Foundation's process for establishing the Citizens' Assembly.

As rapporteur, Constable Le Maistre debriefed the Panel regarding the Advisory Panel's meeting held on 11th February that he had attended on behalf of the Panel in its  observational  role.  Constable  Le  Maistre  informed  the  Panel  that  during  his observation he was content that the Panel had been independent in its role. He highlighted that the Advisory Panel was not afraid to challenge the Government of Jersey where appropriate to do so. The Panel's free autonomy was demonstrated by discussing the process that would be followed should the Panel disagree with the Government of Jersey or the process regarding the Climate Change project. Constable Le Maistre informed the Panel that the starting point for the process would be taken from the standpoint that the Government would be reducing carbon emissions.

Constable Le Maistre informed the Panel that he would not be able to attend the next meeting and requested the Officer to share the meeting dates with the Panel so that another member could attend if they so wished.

Constable Le Maistre left the meeting at this point at 10.30am

Deputy Luce highlighted recent data showing the increased uptake of electric vehicles. He explained that the industry was at the tipping point where the cost and the range of the vehicles available would be acceptable to the public. However, he raised concern that the charging facilities on the Island were not adequate to meet the growing demand for electric vehicles. He explained that sufficient charging points had not been provided by the Department for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment and raised concern that when the uptake of these vehicles increased, Islanders would find it challenging to charge their vehicles. He suggested that the Panel should hold discussions  with  the  Jersey  Electricity  Company  (JEC)  as  to  who  would  have involvement in that area. In addition, to understand the work that the JEC was undertaking to address the challenge and the consideration or work in relation to solar panels and the replacement of gas use with electricity on the Island.

NH

9. Government Plan Review 2021: Ministerial Response

The Panel noted and discussed a Ministerial Response it had received regarding its Government Plan 2021 Report.

10. States Assembly Business

The Panel noted and discussed Proposition P.6/2021 – Draft Road Traffic (No.65) (Jersey) Regulations 202- . It was anticipated that it would be debated on 23rd March.

11. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next meeting would take place on 9th March 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Deputy Graham Truscott

Deputy Steve Luce

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: fisheries – Publication of report

The Panel approved the publication of its report S.R.5/2021 Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: fisheries. The Officer advised that, with immediate effect, the report would be presented to States Members and circulated to the media with an accompanying press release.

NH

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard [item 2 and 3 only] Deputy Inna Gardiner

Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard [item 1, 4-10 only]

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Chris Ambler, Chief Executive, Jersey Electricity

Peter Cadiou, Director of Commercial Services, Jersey Electricity

Item 3

Deputy John Young, Minister for the Environment

Deputy Gregory Guida, Assistant Minister for the Environment William  Peggie,  Acting  Director  Group  Regulation,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Steve Skelton, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Kevin  Pilley,  Head  of  Place  and  Spatial  Planning,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Greg   Morel ,  Assistant  Director,  Marine  Resources,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Tim  du  Feu,  Director,  Environmental  Protection,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Ben  Markwell-Sales,  Private  Secretary  to  the  Minister  for  the Environment

Item 4

Deputy Russel Labey , Minister for Housing and Communities

Sue Duhamel, Director, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Timothy Millar , Senior Policy Officer, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Marie Claire Hannigan, Private Secretary to the Minister for Housing and Communities

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the record of the meetings held on 26th January, 2nd, 4th, 8th and 16th February 2021.

2. Informal meeting with Chris Ambler CEO of Jersey Electricity

The Panel met with Chris Ambler, Chief Executive of Jersey Electricity (JE) and Peter Cadiou, Director of Commercial Services, for an informal meeting to discuss a written submission provided in confidence by JE to the Panel's previous Government Plan 2021 Review and to discuss JE's involvement in plans for Jersey to be carbon neutral by 2030. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 26.

3. Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for the Environment

The Panel discussed the question plan for the hearing with the Minister scheduled for 11.30am that day.

The Panel received Deputy John Young, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Gregory Guida, the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

4. Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for Housing and Communities

The Panel discussed the question plan for the hearing with the Minister scheduled for 2.30pm that day.

The Panel received Deputy Russel Labey , the Minister for Housing and Communities, and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

5. UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA') – Inclusion of the Bailiwick of Jersey (P.170/2020) Scrutiny Review

It was noted that the Panel's report had been presented to the States on 19th February 2021 and a Ministerial Response was expected by 2nd April 2021.

The Panel discussed ongoing difficulties faced by the fishing industry following Brexit and the adoption of the TCA, including difficulties with landing catch and aquaculture produce. It was noted that there was growing tension in relation to Jersey's fishing industry and an apparent lack of communication and engagement from Government. Furthermore, that the industry was planning a blockade of the harbour in protest of the current situation.

The Panel discussed how it might wish to scrutinise the proposed vessel licensing regime  once  the  detail  had  been  considered  by  Government,  in  particular,  the proposed conditions which would be attached to licences. It was agreed that in the first instance the Panel would meet with the Minister for the Environment and Government officials to be updated on the matter. The Officer was requested to arrange a further briefing update for the end of March 2021.

NH

6. Citizens' Assembly – Climate Change

The Panel discussed its ongoing observational role of the Climate Change Citizens' Assembly process, noting that individual Panel members had now observed three meetings of the Citizens' Assembly Advisory Panel. It was noted that there were differing views shared amongst the Panel as to the independence of the Advisory Panel given that Government officials were present for, and participated in, these meetings. However, the majority view was that the meetings were being conducted in an independent manner with the independent members of the Advisory Panel taking a strong lead on the conduct of the meetings and challenging Government officials where appropriate to do so.

The Panel discussed the scheduled dates for the Citizens' Assembly sessions, noting that the first session was that coming Saturday 13th March 2021. It was agreed that Constable Le Maistre would attend to observe the first morning session and Deputy Gardiner would attend the afternoon session. The Panel requested that the Officer liaise with Government officials to request if an overview of the session content could be shared with the Panel in advance, so that Panel members could decide their attendance based on this.

MM

7. Possible housing-related scrutiny review

The Panel discussed a briefing paper which had been prepared by the Officer in relation to the outcome of the Housing Policy Development Board report which had been circulated to the Panel in confidence prior to its upcoming publication. The briefing paper also explored other policy issues and/or challenges which had been identified. The Officer explained that the paper had been prepared with the aim of providing the Panel with an overview of current housing-related challenges facing the Island and to explore a range of possible topics which the Panel could choose to review as follows:

• Housing supply and affordability
• 90% market rent policy
• Affordable Housing Gateway eligibility criteria
• Housing and population policy
• Housing and keyworker accommodation
• Homelessness strategy

The Panel discussed current challenges of housing supply, including the identification and delivery of viable affordable housing sites for development and agreed that this topic should be scoped further for a review. It was also discussed that the review could explore the supply of housing in terms of Jersey's ageing population which was identified as a current problematic issue.

The Officer was requested to prepare a Scoping Document and draft Terms of Reference for further consideration and input by the Panel.

It was noted that other topics of interest for potential review were the current social rent policy, as well as Jersey's two-tier housing system and its link to population policy. It was noted that all the topics outlined above could be kept on the Panel's work programme for future possible review.

NH

8. States Assembly Business

The Panel noted and discussed Proposition P.6/2021 – Draft Road Traffic (No.65) (Jersey) Regulations 202- which was due for States debate on 23rd March. The Officer was  requested  to  arrange  a  briefing  with  the  Minister  for  Infrastructure  and Government officials.

NH

9. Correspondence from member of the public

The Panel discussed email correspondence received from a member of the public who was concerned that information had been withheld from the Panel by Government officials at a meeting held on 8th January 2019 in relation to concerns surrounding plans to introduce netting for bass fishing. It was noted that the Officer had liaised further with the Assistant Director of Marine Resources to investigate the matter further and following the outcome of their correspondence the Panel was satisfied that information had not been deliberately withheld.

10. Future meeting

The Panel noted that it had a briefing scheduled for 11th March 2021 and that the next Panel meeting would take place on 30th March 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard (Item 1 only) Deputy Inna Gardiner

Deputy Graham Truscott

Deputy Steve Luce (Item 2 only)

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 1

Piers Tharme, Assistant Manager, Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Gordon Forrest, Head of Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Liz  Walsh,  Legislative  Drafter,  Legislative  Drafting  Office,  States Greffe

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Item 2

Michael de la Haye, Independent Chair, Housing Policy Development Board

Timothy Millar , Senior Policy Officer, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Briefing on Driving Licence Medical Requirements P.6/2021 (public)

The Panel received a briefing from Officers of the Department for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment on the Draft Road Traffic (No. 65) (Jersey) Regulations 202- which was lodged au Greffe by the Minister for Infrastructure on 2nd February for States debate on 23rd March 2021.

The  Panel  received  a  brief  PowerPoint  presentation  on  the  legislative  updates regarding the medical requirements for driving licences.

The Head of Driver and Vehicle Standards explained that the legislative update would align Jersey's legislation with the United Kingdom's (UKs) legislation. Noting that the requirements for the changes to be made to the legislation had been approved in the States Assembly in 2014, it was explained that work had been ongoing regarding the updates for several years. The Panel was informed that the work had been delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit.

The  Panel  was  informed  that  P.6/2021  would  align  the  Motor  Vehicles  (Driving Licences) (Jersey) Order 2003 as far as was possible with the UK requirements.

Firstly, it was explained that this would enable Jersey to benefit from extensive UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) materials. It was emphasised that through mirroring the UK legislation, Jersey could align its requirements with the UK DVLA guidance when assessing the fitness of individuals to drive and that parishes would be mindful of the requirements applicable to that guidance.

Secondly, it would ensure Jersey was compliant with the Directive 2006/126/EC (the 3rd  Directive)  on  Driving  Licences.  It  was  highlighted  that  through  achieving compliance, other jurisdictions would be more likely to recognise Jersey driving licences abroad.

Thirdly, the Panel was informed that the former Jersey Medical Officer of Health, Dr Turnbull,  prior  to  her  retirement  in  2020,  had  recommended  that  all  medical practitioners  in  Jersey  should  work  under  the  Jersey  Law  and  the  UK  medical regulation (General Medical Council). It was explained that this had assisted with the alignment of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Jersey) Order 2003.

The Panel was provided with an overview of the proposed regulation changes as outlined in the proposition.

It was explained that the proposed changes intended to better organise the referral process and would ensure that the route for assessment was transparent in respect of the role of the Constables.

The Panel was informed that once the regulation changes had been adopted by the States Assembly the Order changes would follow. An overview of the proposed Order changes was provided to the Panel as outlined in the proposition.

It was explained that the changes to the Order intended to align the licence categories with the UKs Group 1 and Group 2 licence categories.

Regarding impairment of vision and when a licence application should be refused or a licence revoked, the Panel was informed that the Order changes would alter the requirements in that regard. It was explained that currently the law required an applicant or licence holder to be able to read a registration mark on a vehicle at a distance of 20.5 metres (with corrective lenses if necessary). Moreover, a "heavy licence" would be refused if visual acuity in one eye was worse than 6/9 and 6/12 in the other eye or where sight was only possible through one eye, unless the visual acuity in that eye was not worse that 6/9.

It was explained that the proposed new changes to the Order would provide new requirements in relation to licensing and:

• vision impairment
• epilepsy and seizures
• diabetes

An overview was provided to the Panel of the above changes as outlined in detail in the proposition.

The Panel was informed that the peripheral vision standard would be detailed within the guidance provided and not within the Order.

It was noted that the current legislation required epilepsy to be declared by the applicant. Moreover, if an applicant had experienced an epileptic seizure since the age of 5 years an application for a "heavy licence" must be refused. For a "light licence" an application may be granted if an applicant had not experienced an epileptic seizure during the year preceding the application or had only experienced any epileptic seizure whilst asleep during the 4 years preceding the application. It was noted that under the current legislation a licence holder was not required to declare epilepsy except in the case of a heavy vehicle licence if the holder had an epileptic attack since the age of 5 years.

The Panel was informed of the timeline of the development process. It was noted that P.6/2021 was lodged on 2nd February 2021 and would be debated on 23rd March. It was explained that a minimum six-month implementation period after the Assembly debate of the proposition would follow, before the Order and Regulation changes would come into effect. The Panel was informed that this implementation period would allow for the preparation of supporting documentation, liaison with specific medical departments, charities and organisations and for the changes to be communicated to the public.

The Panel questioned if the life of a licence were to be reduced if this would be reflected in licence fees and asked whether the licence fee would be reduced. It was explained that the aspect was still being considered, however, that allowance was available for fees to be reduced and that the approach would be consistent across all licences issued.

The Panel understood the benefits of aligning the legislation with that of the UK, however, questioned whether an international driving permit would still be required for holders of Jersey licences when driving in the EU. It was explained that work was being undertaken regarding driving licence recognition and driving licence exchange. It was noted that more clarity was required in relation to how this could work within the EU and, therefore, an international permit would still be required when driving in the EU. Regarding the exchange of a Jersey licence, it was explained that was dependant on the jurisdiction and that work in that area was more complex and slow moving.

The Panel questioned whether statistics were available regarding how many people the legislative changes would impact. The Panel was informed that the actual numbers were not available as part of the legislation relied upon self-declaration of a medical condition. However, it was highlighted that through charities it had been identified that a number of people with conditions including epilepsy and diabetes were waiting in anticipation for the changes to occur in order to apply for "heavy licences" which under the current legislation was not possible.

The  Panel  raised  concern  regarding  the  requirement  to  self-declare  a  medical condition and questioned whether this would involve a risk as individuals could choose to withhold information during the application process or to not inform the parish of any change in medical conditions. The Panel asked whether the parish would be able to require an individual to undertake a medical examination to rule out such a risk. It was explained that the onus was on the applicant or holder of licence to declare any medical condition or change in medical conditions and that the approach was working when used by authorities within other jurisdictions. It was highlighted that consideration had been given to the implementation of eye tests prior to the re-issue of licences however, the peripheral test could only be carried out by an optician and that would not be feasible. It was emphasised that, to date, there was no evidence to suggest this to be an area of concern.

The Panel suggested that a police officer could require a driver to undertake an eye test if suspicion arose and that could be arranged via the parish Constable.

The Panel questioned whether the self-declaration component of the legislation would be communicated clearly with the community to create awareness of what was required  of  the  public.  The  Panel  was  informed  that  public  engagement  and  a communication drive with charities would ensure public awareness in that regard.

The Panel asked what factors dictated the age of 66 as the notable age. It was explained that the age within the current legislation was 66 years and no reason had prevailed to consider a different age. It was highlighted that ageing impacted an individual's health and that controls were needed to avoid any potential danger to the public. It was explained that age was not a determining factor for a standard driving licence.

The Panel questioned whether a person of the age of 66 years and over who wished to drive a heavy vehicle would be required to complete a medical form as part of the application process to prove that no medical conditions were apparent. The Panel highlighted, regarding gun licences, that the parish Constable could require a doctor to ascertain that the medical form had been correctly filled out, and asked whether that would be an option under these circumstances or if any other mechanism would be used to ensure the information provided was accurate. It was explained that a medical form would need to be provided and this aspect was covered within the regulations to ensure the ongoing safety of the individual.

It was noted that the self-declaration aspect was a complex area and that some people may not accurately declare medical conditions.

The Panel asked whether Article 10 of the law could be used, whereby a Constable could refer the individual to a doctor as this would be a means to circumvent the risk of inaccurate information being supplied. The Law Drafter explained that Article 10 had been more broadly defined in the new legislation, therefore, the parish would be able to require a medical examination under Article 10.

The Panel questioned what the consequence would be for knowingly submitting the incorrect information on the application. It was explained that it was a criminal offence to provide the incorrect information to the parish and a criminal offence to submit the declaration when knowing that the information supplied was inaccurate.

The Panel asked whether a distinction had been made in the legislation regarding type 1 or 2 diabetes. It was explained that a distinction had not been explicitly made. It was explained that evidence had suggested that people were more aware of this condition and that it would be diagnosed and treated more readily.

The Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure offered the Minister's apologies for not attending the briefing and requested that any questions that the Panel may have be directed to him if required.

The meeting ended and the Panel thanked those in attendance for their time.

2. Briefing on the Housing Policy Development Board Report

The Panel received Michael de la Haye, Independent Chair of the Housing Policy Development Board and Timothy Millar , Senior Policy Officer, for a briefing on the Housing Policy Development Board Report. The record of this meeting was classified

as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 36.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Deputy Graham Truscott

Deputy Steve Luce

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Draft Road Traffic (No. 65) (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.6/2021]

The Panel approved the publication of a Comments paper in relation to P.6/2021. The Officer advised that the Panel's Comments would be presented to States Members on 19th March 2021.

NH

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair

Deputy Inna Gardiner (Items 1 - 7 only)

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard (Items 1 - 8 only) Deputy Steve Luce

Apologies

Deputy Graham Truscott

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Deputy Gregory Guida, Assistant Minister for the Environment

Greg Morel , Head of Marine Resources and Management

William Peggie, Director, Natural Environment/Acting Group Director, Regulation

Matthew Berry, Legal Advisor, Law Offices Department

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the records of the meetings held on 5th and 19th February and 9th, 16th and 18th March 2021.

2. Briefing: Update on the Vessel Licensing Regime and the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing Regulations 202-

The Panel received the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Officers at 10.30am for a briefing on the Vessel Licensing Regime and the IUU Fishing Legislation. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

3. Bridging Island Plan Review

The Panel noted and discussed the Ministerial Response from the Minister for the Environment to the Panel's report S.R.3/2021.

The Panel raised concern regarding the timeline for the Island Plan process, noting the  debate  was  scheduled  to  take  place  prior  to  purdah  which  could  present challenges.

The  Panel  discussed  the  proposed  expansion  of  the  National  Park  and  raised concerns regarding the public's understanding of its definition and the challenges it may pose to the public or sectors, in particular, the farming community. The Panel discussed the National Trust's involvement with the fisheries sector.

4. UK – EU TECA Jersey Fisheries Management Review

The Panel noted and discussed the Ministerial Response (MR) from the Minister for the Environment to the Panel's report S.R.5/2021.

It noted the recommendations that had been accepted and those that had been rejected by the Minister. The Panel noted discrepancies regarding the delays that shellfish  exporters  had  experienced.  The  Panel  had  identified  through  evidence gathering during its review process that delays were apparent, however, this was not clearly acknowledged within the MR. The Panel agreed it would follow this up with stakeholders and the Minister for the Environment once the MR had been published.

The Panel noted the importance of ensuring a consistent presence of the States Veterinary Officer on Island.

NH

5. Climate Conversation – Citizens' Assembly

The Panel discussed the Citizens' Assembly Sessions that it had attended to date. A discussion took place as to whether the Citizens' Assembly approach was the best method to utilise to inform the production of a Carbon Neutral Roadmap. The Panel noted that it would observe further sessions to identify how the process would develop before it formed a final and holistic view of the process. The Panel requested to receive the budget for the entire Climate Conversation and Citizen Assembly Project.

The Panel was pleased to observe that assembly members had raised their points of view at liberty, however, raised concern that two presenters who had presented to members on the same topic had provided opposing data which was confusing.

The Panel noted that no presentations it had observed had demonstrated an opposing, sceptical view regarding the climate emergency. The Panel noted the reason for this was because the climate emergency had already been recognised and agreed by the States Assembly and therefore the Citizens' Assembly members would not be required to decide whether the climate emergency was concrete or not, it was required to decide on how and when to achieve carbon neutrality for Jersey.

The Panel noted and discussed the dates for the upcoming block three Citizens' Assembly sessions in April and agreed which members would be attending those sessions. The Panel agreed which member would attend the next Advisory Panel meeting.

The Panel requested to receive the minutes for the Advisory Panel meetings to date and questioned whether the minutes would reflect any concerns that had been raised by Panel members during the Advisory Panel meetings.

MM

MM

6. Possible Housing–related Review

The Panel noted and discussed the progress regarding the scoping of a housing- related review and agreed it would be beneficial to have sight of and be briefed on the draft Island Plan for it to be included in the scope of the review.

It was noted that the draft Island Plan was due to be published on the 19th April along with the outcome for the call for sites.

Connétable Le Maistre highlighted a conflict of interest. He noted that a family member owned a potential housing site that may be considered.

NH

7. Possible Review into the Cannabis Industry

The Panel noted that concerns had been raised by some parishes in relation to potential cannabis cultivation and questioned whether a review of the growing aspect including land usage, run off and odour production should be considered. However, the Panel questioned the necessity for a review as significant concerns regarding the environmental aspect had not yet developed.

The Panel discussed that the growing of cannabis for medicinal purposes would require a highly controlled environment to ensure its quality.

The  Panel  noted  that  the  Economic  and  International  Affairs  (EIA)  Panel  was considering a review in relation to the commercial side of cannabis production and regulation, however, would not be considering the environmental aspects.

The Panel agreed it would speak with the EIA Panel to determine the scope of its potential review to avoid any duplication of work and would discuss how it should proceed depending on the outcome of those discussions. The Panel deliberated whether there would be scope to work jointly on a review with the EIA Panel.

The Panel agreed it would benefit from initial briefings from Officers and stakeholders as this would provide further scope for any scrutiny work it may wish to progress. The Panel agreed to discuss this further at its next Panel meeting.

Deputy Inna Gardiner exited the meeting at this point – 11:40am

NH

8. States Assembly Business

The Panel noted and discussed the Draft Road Traffic (No. 66) (jersey) Regulations 202 [P.15/2021] to be debated on 20th April and agreed that no action would be required.

The Panel noted and discussed the Les Quennevais Park Flats: Loan Scheme [P.19/2021] and requested that a briefing be arranged prior to the anticipated debate of the proposition on 20th April. The Panel raised concern regarding the precedent for responsibilities that the proposition may create for other properties.

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard exited the meeting at this point – 12:04pm

The Panel noted that the Public Health and Safety (rented Dwellings): Request for new Licensing Regulations [P.20/2020] had been lodged for debate on 20th April.

NH

9. Jersey Youth Parliament – Chosen Campaign

The Panel noted that the Scrutiny Liaison Committee had agreed to involve the Jersey Youth  Parliament  in  the  scrutiny process.  It was  noted  that  one  of  the  chosen campaigns was on climate change which was under the Panel's remit. The Officer informed the Panel that she had met with the group to inform them of the workings of Scrutiny. The Panel agreed it would pose questions to the Ministers within its remit, when  the  opportunity  arose,  by  including  the  Jersey  Youth  Parliament  as  a stakeholder.

The Panel agreed it would arrange to meet with the Jersey Youth Parliament group.

NH

10. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next meeting would take place on 13th April 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair (items 1 - 3 & 5 - 7 only) Deputy Inna Gardiner (items 1 - 3 & 5 – 7 only)

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard (items 1 - 3 & 5 - 7 only) Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 1

Deputy Russell Labey , Minister for Housing and Communities

Jack  Norris,  Policy  Principal,  Strategic  Policy,  Planning  and Performance Department

Simon Hayward, Director of Treasury and Investment Management Philip Ahier , Manager - Principal Property, Jersey Property Holdings, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Item 3

Deputy Kevin Lewis , Minister for Infrastructure

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Ellen  Littlechild,  Group  Director  of  Operations  and  Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Piers Tharme, Assistant Manager, Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Triston Dodd, Head of Transport and Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Gordon Forrest, Head of Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Tim  Daniels,  Director  of  Property,  Jersey  Property  Holdings, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Louisa Phillips, Senior Policy Officer, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Robert  Hayward,  Senior  Transportation  Planner,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Item 4

Deputy John Young, Minister for the Environment

Deputy Gregory Guida, Assistant Minister for the Environment

Steve Skelton, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Kevin  Pilley,  Head  of  Place  and  Spatial  Planning,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Ben  Markwell-Sales,  Private  Secretary  to  the  Minister  for  the Environment

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer (items 1, 2 & 4 - 7 only)

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Briefing: Les Quennevais Park Flats: Loan Scheme [P.19/2021]

The Panel received the Minister for Housing and Communities and officers for a briefing  on  the  Les  Quennevais  Park  Flats:  Loan  Scheme  (hereafter  the  "Loan Scheme") which was lodged au Greffe on 9th March 2021 by the Minister for Housing and Communities to approve, in accordance with Article 6 (4) of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019, a variation to the purpose and terms of the 99-Year Leaseholders Fund (hereafter the "Fund"). It was explained that, if approved by States Members, it would enable monies from the Fund to be lent to individual property owners for the repair of balconies on properties in Blocks A to H, Les Quennevais Park Flats under the terms set out in the Report of the proposition. The Fund was considered as the most appropriate means for providing the required support to residents

The Panel was provided with a background of the history of the Les Quennevais Park Flats and the rationale for the proposed Loan Scheme. It was noted that the flats had been constructed on behalf of the former Housing Committee in 1964 and had been sold on a 99-year leasehold basis. Subsequently, during recent maintenance of the flats, defects were identified on several balconies and it was concluded that the defects had stemmed from the original construction method. The rationale for the proposed Loan Scheme was to provide financial assistance to the residents to undertake the works as outlined in the proposition. It was highlighted that in the absence of the Loan Scheme that residents, many of whom were elderly, would not be in a position to raise the funds required commercially.

Noting that the defects to the balconies had been identified during recent maintenance, the Panel questioned whether any alternate opinions had been sought regarding the matter. The Panel was informed that Brunel Management Limited, who would oversee the programme of repairs, had received advice from a local civil and structural engineering consultancy firm. In addition, meetings had been held between co-owners and engineers. It was noted that a co-owner had taken a second opinion on the matter which had confirmed the balconies were structurally flawed.

The Panel raised questions regarding the purpose for the Fund and its workings and asked what the original purpose for the Fund was. It was explained that it had originally been established to provide loans for 99-year lease properties and had been used for that purpose to date. However, it was noted that one complication with the mechanism of the Fund was in relation to it being able to provide the appropriate source of funding at present. It was explained that the current Fund could only provide loans to lease holders, however, the Les Quennevais Park Flats now comprised both leasehold and flying-freehold flats. It was highlighted that the approval of the proposition would enable accessibility of the loans to both leasehold and flying-freehold residents which was not possible under the structure of the existing Fund.

Noting that some of the flats were flying-freehold, the Panel raised a point of concern that some residents may choose to opt out of repairing the balconies and asked whether this would be an option. It was explained that all residents would be obligated to have the work undertaken as the balconies formed part of the Les Quennevais Park

Flats common area. Therefore, in line with the declaration of the Association, all flats would be required to contribute their assigned percentage to repair the balconies. The importance  of  ensuring  that  all  balconies  were  repaired  was  highlighted  as  the insurance of the Les Quennevais Park Flats depended upon this given that the balconies had been declared as defective to the insurer by Brunel Management Limited.

The Panel questioned whether all of the balconies were defective and, if not, whether they would all need to be repaired. It was explained that it was possible that some of the balconies would not have suffered in the same manner as others as renovations to some flats had meant that several of the balconies were now under cover and protected from the external elements. However, it had been identified that the existing concrete beams that had been used for the balcony structure could not handle force, so work would be required for all the balconies, nonetheless. It was clarified that even where residents had renovated, and the balconies were protected from the weather, that the precast beams would still require support to be provided.

The Panel asked for clarity regarding whether the monthly payments on the loans would be paid into the same Fund. It was confirmed that would be the case. Noting that the loans would bear fixed interest at a rate of 2% per annum for the period of the loan, the Panel questioned the reasoning for posturing the interest at 2%. It was explained that existing legislation had required an interest rate of 7.5% to be charged, however, that the Fund would allow for this rate to be amended to 2%. In addition, the loan would not be secured so it was felt that the rate would be appropriate for the low level of risk associated with provisioning an unsecured loan to residents.

The Panel questioned how it was concluded that the loan would deliver a low level of risk. The Panel was informed that it was recognised through the expression of interest for the Loan Scheme that had demonstrated approximately 40 of the 96 flats would apply for a loan. In addition, the value of the monthly payments was considered, which were relatively low in value. It was noted that the highest monthly payment would be £130 per month over the 10-year period of the loan. The Panel was informed that a further protection measure would be the ability to utilise the Petty Debts Court to recover debts if that was deemed necessary. Therefore, when considering all of these factors, it seemed appropriate to categorise the risk level as low.

Considering the flats belonged to many elderly residents and that the loans would be provided, unsecured, over a lengthy period, the Panel raised a point of concern regarding a means for debt recovery. It was explained that a loan agreement had been produced by the Law Officers' Department and that the main route of debt recovery would be via the Petty Debts Court. It was noted that the decision was taken to provide the loans on an unsecured basis due to the low value of the loans that would be required.

The Panel questioned whether any legal obligation existed on the Government to provide assistance regarding the repairs outlined. It was explained that there was no legal obligation on the Government to provide support, however, as the fault was resultant of the original construction method, it was felt that a moral duty existed to provide a means of assistance to rectify the issues.

The Panel understood the rationale in relation to the Government's moral obligation to residents, however, raised a point of concern regarding the potential precedent that the Loan Scheme may set going forward, should the proposition be approved by the States Assembly. The Panel questioned whether consideration had been given in that regard and whether any knowledge existed in relation to any prevailing issues with

other estates where assistance may be sought in the longer term. It was noted that there was currently no evidence to suggest that other properties were experiencing similar issues, however, that a risk of a precedent being set for similar schemes could not be negated. It was highlighted that a media release of the proposed Loan Scheme had been published in March and that to date it had not elicited any enquiries from other estates regarding any issues.

The Panel questioned whether any mitigation measures had been put in place to safeguard against requests of further loans over the longer term for areas outside of those that had been outlined in the proposition. It was clarified that the proposed Loan Scheme was for the purpose of reconstructing and repairing the balconies alone, and that going forward, any further work would depend on the type of improvement that was required and the reasons for that improvement. It was noted that the Loan Scheme had clearly established that the loans would only be for the balconies and that the money would be paid directly to the contractor to settle the payment.

Noting that Les Quennevais Park Flats were nearly 60 years old, the Panel questioned whether consideration had been given to the complete redevelopment of the flats rather than its continual maintenance, as would be required with any older building. It was explained that, although it was not likely to have been discussed at length by the Association, the Association would likely not decide to redevelop and that the route of continual improvement would be the preferred option as many of the residents would not be in a position to redevelop. It was highlighted that it may be different for properties that were not privately owned.

The Panel questioned whether the one block of the Les Quennevais Park Flats that was owned by Andium Homes would also be considered under the Loan Scheme. It was  explained  that  it  would  not  as  Andium  Homes  was  responsible  for  the maintenance of that block. It was noted that the block that was under the ownership of Andium Homes had already undergone refurbishment about five years previously.

The Panel asked whether the work on the balconies would enhance the value of the properties. It was thought that it would and would aid in the sale of the properties as currently owners wishing to sell had found it challenging due to the significant structural concerns and the insurance issues that this posed.

It was noted that to arrive at this point had taken nearly a decade and that Brunel Management  Limited  was  content  with  the  proposed  arrangement.  The  Panel highlighted that it had been aware that this was an ongoing issue for many years and was pleased to see an advancement to finally resolve the challenge that the flats' residents were facing.

The Panel thanked the Minister and his Officers for the briefing and the meeting ended.

2.  Panel  debrief  following  the  Les  Quennevais  Park  Flats:  Loan  Scheme [P.19/2021] Briefing

The Panel discussed the briefing it had received from the Minister for Housing and Communities and Officers that morning and agreed to present a Comments Paper prior to the States Assembly debate of the proposition. The Panel agreed it would finalise the Comments Paper on Thursday that week in order for it to be presented on Friday 16th April ahead of the debate of the proposition on Tuesday 20th April.

NH

3. Public Quarterly Hearing – Minister for Infrastructure

The Panel discussed the question plan for the hearing with the Minister scheduled for 11:30am that day.

The Panel received Deputy Kevin Lewis , the Minister for Infrastructure, and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

4. Briefing: Draft Island Plan and Call for Sites outcome

The  Panel  received  the  Minister  for  the  Environment,  Assistant  Minister  for  the Environment and Officers at 2.30am for a briefing on the Draft Island Plan and Call for Sites outcome. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

5. Climate Conversation – Citizens' Assembly

The Panel noted that no member had attended to observe the Citizens' Assembly session on Wednesday 31st March. The Panel noted which members would be attending the block three Citizens' Assembly sessions commencing on Saturday 17th April and agreed this should be confirmed with the department.

The Panel noted that Connétable Le Maistre would be attending the Advisory Panel meeting to observe on behalf of the Panel on Monday 19th April.

The Panel noted it had received the costings for the Climate Conversation project as requested and agreed to consider these. The Panel noted it had received the approved records of the Advisory Panel meeting held on the 11th and 22nd February and 8th March.

The Panel discussed whether the costing could be shared in confidence with the Public Accounts Committee. The Panel agreed for the Officer to confirm with the department whether that would be appropriate.

MM

MM

6. Possible review into the cannabis industry

The Panel discussed a potential review in relation to the cannabis industry. It noted the agreed Scope and Terms of Reference for the Economic and International Affairs (EIA) Panel's review and noted and discussed a letter of response from the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture to the EIA Panel's written questions that had been shared with the Panel.

The  Panel  agreed  it  would  need  to  further  understand  the  various  cultivation processes, the preferred option for cultivation, as well the proposed scale of cultivation, as those factors would determine the potential environmental impact. In addition, it wanted to further consider factors including light and noise pollution, the odours that would be produced, the water usage, runoff, disposal of waste, and the implication of the security measures such as fencing in relation to how that may impact surrounding neighbourhoods. The Panel agreed it should also consider how ecologically friendly solutions could be utilised for the cultivation process.

The Panel agreed it would request a briefing with a focus on the above areas which could inform its view on any scrutiny that may be required.

NH

7. Next meeting

Following the changes to the Government guidance regarding Covid-19, the Panel discussed  whether  it  would  be  inclined  to  commence  in-person  meetings  going forward. The Panel agreed that its next meeting would be a virtual meeting, and a view could be taken then regarding the meeting that would follow. The Panel agreed it could

consider a hybrid option for its Panel meetings if required. The Panel agreed that physical hearings would be the better approach and that, when attendee numbers allowed for it, physical hearings could be scheduled.

The Panel noted its next meeting scheduled for 09:30am on 27th April 2021 via Microsoft Teams.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Deputy Graham Truscott

Deputy Steve Luce

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Les Quennevais Park Flats: Loan Scheme [P.19/2021]

The Panel approved the publication of a Comments paper in relation to P.19/2021. The  Officer  advised  that  the  Panel's  Comments  would  be  presented  to  States Members on 16th April 2021.

NH

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair (items 1 - 3 only) Deputy Inna Gardiner (items I and 2 only)

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard

Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Deputy John Young, Minister for the Environment

Robert  Bowditch,  Environmental  Health  Officer,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Scott Meadows, Assistant Director of Rural Economy and Head of Plant Health, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department Jody Robert, Head of Water Resources, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Chris  Jones,  Senior  Planner,  Head  of  Major  Development, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Ben  Markwell  –  Sales,  Private  Secretary  to  the  Minister  for  the Environment

Item 3

Triston  Dodd,  Head  of  Transport,  Highways  and  Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Terry   Renouf ,  Assistant  Manager  Parking  Control,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Item 4

Chris Clarke, Chief Executive Officer, Prosperity 24/7

Piers Tharme, Assistant Manager, Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Gordon Forrest, Head of Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Record of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the records of the meetings held on 30th March, 13th and 15th April.

2. Briefing: Cultivation of medicinal cannabis

The Panel received the Minister for the Environment and Officers at 10.30am for a briefing on medicinal cannabis production and its environmental impact. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

3. Briefing: Decriminalisation of parking enforcement – P37/2021

The Panel received Officers for a briefing on P.37/2021, Draft Road Traffic (No.67) (Jersey) Regulations 202- at 11.30 that morning. The background and rationale for the changes were explained as outlined in the proposition. It was noted that P.37/2021 would decriminalise parking enforcement. The Panel was provided with a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.

It was explained that P.37/2021 aimed to provide a solution to ease the current burden on the Honorary Police of each Parish who currently had to hold a Parish Hall Enquiry for each unpaid parking infraction. If adopted by the States Assembly, parking offences would change to a civil enforcement process. Changes to the regime would include:

• a  formal  appeal  process,  the  appointment  of  an  adjudicator  for  each enforcement authority to consider appeals, the reasons for which an appeal could be upheld,
• a maximum fine level which was set by the Minister by Order, the responsibility for  a  parking  penalty  would  lie  with  the  registered  owner  of  the  vehicle concerned and would set out the process for the Petty Debts Court to handle cases and the reasons for upholding these in favour of the enforcement authority.

It was explained that the application of fines collected would remain unchanged. It was highlighted that to deal with the backlog of cases due to Covid-19 restrictions, the new Regulations would be applied retrospectively to all unpaid parking infractions which had not received a summons to the Magistrates' Court.

The Panel asked who would be responsible for appointing the adjudicator and who the adjudicator would be. It was noted that this would be left up to the authority to decide and that the Centenier could continue to be the adjudicator.

The  Panel  raised  concern  regarding  whether  the  Petty  Debts  Court  would  be adequately resourced for the new regime. It was noted that the courts had been consulted on the change and that they were satisfied that they had the capacity and resources necessary. It was anticipated that people would aim to resolve any issues outside of the Petty Debts Court and therefore cases reaching the court system would be reduced.

The Panel questioned why it was anticipated that the new regime would result in fewer appeals. It was explained that currently, people tended to ignore the fines and the court process, and all issues were directed to the Viscounts Department to resolve. It was hoped that by removing the Magistrates Court from the process and replacing it with the Petty Debts system that people would be more inclined to resolve the issues as a petty debt would remain with them.

It was noted that each Parish would need to decide upon its own method for the debt collection process.

The Panel questioned who would be responsible for the payment of the court costs. It was explained that as the Petty Debts system would be used, the person who would incur the charge would be responsible for settling it.

The Panel asked how the appeals process would work. It was explained that the appeals process would be left to each Parish to decide. Each Parish would be required to decide who would adjudicate and that the legislation and the Order would allow the Parish to handle the process how it believed was appropriate.

It was noted regarding the Car Parks system that an adjudicator process was in place whereby an individual would utilise provided policy guidelines to consider a matter, in the first instance, and if the individual required further assistance the case would be passed on to the manager for consideration. The Panel questioned whether the guidance that had been developed by Car Parks could be shared with them as that would be beneficial for the Parishes to base their guidelines upon. The Panel noted that consistency across the Parishes regarding the approach would be advantageous.

The  Panel  questioned  whether  the  Department  for  Infrastructure,  Housing  and Environment would be able to develop the appeals system to provide the consistent guidelines for the Parishes to use. It was noted that a meeting was scheduled with the Parish secretaries for the 11th May 2021 and that option could be presented to them.

The Panel raised concern that an appeals mechanism was not currently available and questioned which body an individual would be required to appeal to. The Panel noted the importance of ensuring a working appeals process existed and raised concern that the Parish Hall would be burdened with that process, should an effective appeals mechanism not be in place.

4. Briefing: Periodic Technical Inspection (PTI) Options Appraisal

The Panel received Officers from Driver and Vehicle Standards and Chris Clarke, CEO Prosperity 24/7, at 12.30pm for a briefing on the Periodic Technical Inspection Options Appraisal. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

5. Climate Conversation – Citizens' Assembly

The Panel discussed the Citizens' Assembly process to date and agreed it would attend the final block of sessions to see how it would progress. The Panel agreed which Panel members  would attend the block four Citizens' Assembly sessions scheduled for 8th, 12th and 13th May. Constable Le Maistre agreed to attend the Advisory Panel meeting scheduled for 17th May.

The Panel noted and discussed the costings shared with it regarding the Citizens' Assembly process and discussed the possibility of investigating the outcomes of the process to determine whether the desired objectives for the process had been met.

The Panel noted Deputy Luce 's apologies for not being able to attend and observe the Citizens' Assembly session on Wednesday 21st April. It was noted that the Officer had attended that session.

The Panel noted that Constable Le Maistre had attended the Advisory Panel meeting on 19th April. He informed the Panel that the process for the establishment of the Citizens' Assembly's recommendations had been discussed as well as how they would be reported. He anticipated that the process remained a work in progress. He noted

MM

MM

that consideration was being given to the steps that would follow once the Citizens' Assembly sessions had ended. Constable Le Maistre was satisfied to see that the Advisory Panel had presented themselves in an independent manner during the meeting.

6. Possible review into the cannabis industry

The Panel agreed to discuss this agenda item at its next Panel meeting on Tuesday 4th May 2021.

7. Possible review into the supply of affordable housing

The Panel noted and discussed the Scoping Document and Terms of Reference for its review into Affordable Housing Supply and Delivery. The Panel agreed minor changes to its Terms of Reference.

The Panel discussed and agreed the list of targeted stakeholders to request comments and views from regarding its review.

The Panel discussed whether any adviser should be contracted to assist with the review and agreed that a shortlist of potential advisers should be compiled for its consideration.

The Panel agreed for the Scoping Document and Terms of Reference to be sent to the Scrutiny Liaison Committee for its approval.

NH NH

8. Draft Island Plan

The Panel discussed how it could approach the consultation and amendment process regarding the draft Bridging Island Plan. The Panel considered whether it would be appropriate to hold a public hearing with the Minister for the Environment to help inform its work and to help the Panel to identify possible amendments it could bring during the consultation period of the Plan. The Panel considered whether it could inform its questioning through engagement with the Public and States Members.

The Panel requested that a briefing note be prepared to identify a potential process. It agreed it would discuss this further at its next Panel meeting on 4th May.

The Panel noted that if it did decide to go ahead with the hearing that it would need to be undertaken virtually via Microsoft Teams.

NH

NH

9. States Assembly Business

The Panel discussed the following propositions that had been lodged in the States and scheduled for debate on 8th June:

Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.33/2021]

The Panel agreed for a briefing note to be prepared which would consider and compare the recommendations it had made within its report S.R.1/2020, Minimum Standards for Rented Dwellings: Licensing Regulation, with P.33/2021. The Panel agreed to discuss this further and to potentially present a Comments Paper prior to the debate of the proposition. In addition, the Panel considered the possibility of requesting views from the Jersey Landlords' Association and Tenants' Forum, to further inform its Comments on P.33/2021.

NH

Draft Road Traffic (No. 67) (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.37/2021] (Decriminalisation of parking enforcement)

The Panel noted and discussed the proposition and anticipated that further discussion regarding P.37/2021 would take place at a Parish level.

Draft Road Traffic (No. 68) (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.39/2021]

The Panel noted and discussed the proposition and highlighted that the intention of P.39/2021 was to provide additional protection for cats.

10. Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for Housing and Communities

The Panel noted its next public quarterly hearing was scheduled for 4th May 2021. Considering that it had recently had a hearing with the Minister for Housing and Communities the Panel agreed to defer the hearing and requested that the hearing be arranged for 15th June, if possible.

NH

11. Next meeting

The Panel noted its next meeting was scheduled for 09:30am on 4th May 2021 via Microsoft Teams.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Inna Gardiner (items 2, 3 only) Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Chris Ambler, Chief Executive, Jersey Electricity Company Item 3

Deputy John Young, Minister for the Environment

Greg Morel , Head of Marine Resources and Management

Paul Chambers, Marine and Coastal Manager

Deputy David Johnson , Chair, Brexit Review Panel

Ben  Markwell-Sales,  Private  Secretary  to  the  Minister  for  the Environment

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the records of the meeting held on 27th April 2021.

2. Informal meeting with Chris Ambler CEO of Jersey Electricity

The Panel met with Chris Ambler, Chief Executive of Jersey Electricity (JE), for an informal meeting to discuss carbon neutrality for Jersey. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 26.

3. Briefing: Update on Fishing Vessel Licensing Conditions

The Panel received the Minister for the Environment and Officers for an update on the vessel licensing conditions. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

4. Possible Review into the Cannabis Industry

The Panel recalled that the Economic and International Affairs (EIA) Scrutiny Panel was undertaking a review of the licensing aspects of the industry, in the main, and noted that as a consequence would be considering areas including Environmental

Impact Assessments and planning regulations which would normally fall within the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure (EHI) Panel's remit.

The Panel noted that significant crossover between the two Panel's remits existed regarding this piece of work and concern was noted that, should EHI consider a review of the industry at the same time as the EIA Panel's review into the topic, this may cause confusion with stakeholders and members of the public. Therefore, the Panel agreed it would avoid undertaking a review while the EIA Panel was in the mid-review process.

The Panel noted that the EIA Panel was well positioned to consider many of the issues that had been highlighted by the Panel and agreed that it would support the EIA Panel, should it request the Panel's support, and would consider potentially reviewing the topic once the EIA Panel had concluded its review and presented its findings and recommendations, should it be necessary.

The Panel agreed that it would be content with the EIA Panel investigating areas that were within the Panel's remit and requested that this be relayed to the Officer of the EIA Panel. It was agreed that this would prevent any duplication of work and would provide clarity regarding the scope of work that the EIA Panel would be able to address as part of its review.

The Panel noted that concern had been raised regarding the cannabis industry by the Constable of St Lawrence and requested that be relayed to the EIA Panel.

Noting its upcoming Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel requested that the Officer liaise with the Officer of the EIA Panel to determine whether the EIA Panel would find it beneficial to contribute questions regarding the cannabis industry for the Panel's upcoming hearing with the Minister.

NH

NH NH

5. Affordable Housing: Supply and Delivery

The Panel noted and discussed the initial list of potential advisors for the review and agreed that the engagement brief should be sent to all of the potential advisors to request their expressions of interest. It was noted that the list of advisors had included academics as well as housing consultant agencies and therefore each would be able to offer a different approach to the Panel's review. The Panel agreed that the day rate provided by the advisors would also be a determining factor regarding who the Panel would contract for the advisor role.

The Panel agreed that it would be important for the advisor to have knowledge of the local housing conditions. The Panel discussed whether the advisor would consider the political aspects involved such as the affordability model that was utilised by affordable housing providers.

The Panel noted that the review should include the aspects of capacity and resourcing in regard to the construction industry and the impact of that on the delivery and cost of housing. It was noted that aspect would fall under the Terms of Reference that covered the barriers to affordable housing, supply and delivery.

NH

6. Citizens' Assembly – Climate Change

The Panel discussed its observational role of the Climate Change Citizens' Assembly process and noted that the final Citizens' Assembly session had taken place on Thursday 13th May 2021 which the Chair had attended. It was noted that no member had attended the session that had been held on the 12th May, however, the Officer had attended that session to observe.

The Panel noted the next steps would involve the compiling and presenting of the Citizens' Assembly Report in relation to their recommendations, after which the Panel would commence its work on producing its report regarding its observational role. It agreed that it would work towards a timeline of producing its report by the middle of July 2021.

The Panel noted that the Advisory Panel meeting had taken place on Monday 17th May and that the Officer had attended to observe that meeting.

As rapporteur for the Panel at the Advisory Panel meetings, it was Constable Le Maistre's view that the Advisory Panel had encompassed an adequate and well- balanced selection of members and that the Panel had navigated their role with an appropriate degree of independence. It was noted that concern had been raised regarding whether it was appropriate for the Advisory Panel to provide presentations to the Citizens' Assembly as part of the Citizens' Assembly deliberation process, considering their advisory role.

The Panel discussed the cost implications of the process and whether the Citizens' Assembly process represented value for money. It noted that this would also depend on whether the Citizens' Assembly's recommendations would be carried forward by the States Assembly.

The  Panel  discussed  whether  the  Citizens'  Assembly  process  would  be  more beneficial to larger jurisdictions, such as the UK. The Panel explained that Jersey was a small jurisdiction where the community had close relationships with the political system and that aspect could impact the success of the process.

7.  Draft  Public  Health  and  Safety  (Rented  Dwellings)  (Licensing)  (Jersey) Regulations 202 – P.33/2021

The Panel discussed a briefing paper which had been prepared by the Officer in relation  to  P.33/2021.  The  briefing  paper  explored  the  cross-referencing  of  the recommendations made in the Panel's previous report S.R.1/2021 on P.106/2019. The Officer explained that the paper had been prepared with the aim of providing the Panel with an overview of whether the Panel's recommendations had been addressed in P.33/2021.

The Panel discussed the potential challenges that a licensing scheme would pose to landlords, tenants and the Government and agreed it should present a Comments Paper prior to the debate of P.33/2021 which was scheduled for 8th June 2021. The Officer was requested to prepare a Comments paper for the Panel to consider at its next meeting on 1st June 2021.

MM

8. Work Programme

The Panel noted and discussed its upcoming work programme.

9. Draft Island Plan

The Panel discussed the amendment process and noted the deadline for amendments was the 12th July 2021. The Officer advised that further information and clarity on the amendment process would be provided by the Members' Resources team.

The Panel discussed and agreed areas of questioning regarding the Draft Island Plan to be included in its upcoming Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for the Environment.

NH

10. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next Panel meeting would take place at 9.30am on 1st June 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Apologies

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Absent

In attendance

Item 1

Deputy Russell Labey , Minister for Housing and Communities

Sue Duhamel, Director, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Marie Claire Hannigan, Private Secretary to the Minister for Housing and Communities

Item 2

Deputy John Young, Minister for the Environment

Deputy Gregory Guida, Assistant Minister for the Environment William  Peggie,  Acting  Director  Group  Regulation,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Kevin  Pilley,  Head  of  Place  and  Spatial  Planning,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Paul Chambers, Marine and Coastal Manager, Marine Resources, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Tim  du  Feu,  Director,  Environmental  Protection,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Ben  Markwell-Sales,  Private  Secretary  to  the  Minister  for  the Environment

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Edward Le Gallais, Communications Officer [items 2-8 only]

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Briefing: Housing Action Plan

The Panel received the Minister for Housing and Communities and officers for a private briefing  on  the  proposed  Housing  Action  Plan.  The  record  of  this  meeting  was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

2. Quarterly Public Hearing with the Minister for the Environment

The Panel received Deputy John Young, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Gregory Guida, the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

3. Affordable housing: supply and delivery scrutiny review

The Panel received an update from the officer on the current status of the review. It was noted that circa 40 submissions had been received to date. The deadline for submissions was Monday 7th June, after which time a document would be prepared summarising key themes arising from the submissions.

The Panel noted that four expressions of interest had been received from prospective advisors to the review. It was agreed the Panel would request full proposals from all four candidates in order to determine which would be best suited for the role.

NH

NH

4.  Draft  Public  Health  and  Safety  (Rented  Dwellings)  (Licensing)  (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.33/2021]

The Panel discussed the upcoming debate on P.33/2021 and noted and agreed a draft Comments paper with one minor addition to the concluding paragraph.

The Panel requested that the officer proceed with the presentation of the Comments prior to the upcoming debate on 8th June 2021.

It was noted that the Jersey Landlords' Association was seeking to amend the Draft Regulations, although it was noted that advice from the Legislative Drafting Office had determined that this was not feasible and instead a proposition would need to be brought to the States requesting the Minister for the Environment bring an amendment to the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Jersey) Law 2018 to specify that a registration scheme (not a licensing scheme) should be brought forward by the Minister.

The Panel agreed to consider any possible next steps after the debate on P.33/2021 had concluded.

NH

5. Draft Island Plan

The Panel discussed the amendment process and noted the deadline for States Members' amendments and initial representations from members of the public was 12th July 2021.

The Panel noted that areas of questioning regarding the Draft Island Plan had been included in the question plan for the upcoming Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for the Environment.

6. Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for the Environment – Question Plan

The Panel discussed and agreed its question plan and prepared for the upcoming hearing.

7. New Communications Officer – Introductions

The Panel was introduced to Edward Le Gallais who had recently joined the States Greffe as a Communications Officer. The Officer explained his role and how he could assist the Panel with various communications going forward.

8. Future meeting

The Panel noted that the next Panel meeting would take place at 9.30am on 15th June 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Graham Truscott

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Inna Gardiner

Apologies

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Deputy Russell Labey , Minister for Housing and Communities

Sue Duhamel, Director, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Tim Daniels, Director, Jersey Property Holdings

Timothy Millar , Senior Policy Officer, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Steve Skelton, Director, Strategy and Innovation

Marie Claire Hannigan, Private Secretary to the Minister for Housing and Communities

Item 3

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Department

Emma  Richardson-Calladine,  Recycling  Manager,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment

Christopher Rondel, Private Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer

Edward  Le  Gallais,  Communications  Officer,  Digital  and  Public Engagement

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Minutes

The Panel noted and approved the records of the meetings held on 18th May and 1st June 2021.

2. Public Quarterly Hearing with the Minister for Housing and Communities

The Panel received Deputy Russell Labey , the Minister for Housing and Communities, and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

3. Briefing: P.61/2021, Single - Use Plastics etc. (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law 202-

The Panel received Officers for a briefing on the Single-Use Plastics etc. (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law 202- (hereafter the draft Law'). The Panel was provided with a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.

It was noted that the States Assembly had supported the proposition P.64/2020 in June 2020 which had aimed to reduce waste, increase reuse and support Jersey's Carbon Neutral Strategy by removing single use bags and setting a minimum price for bags for  life'.  Subsequently,  it  was  explained  that  the  draft  Law  had  aimed  to encourage a bring your own bag' culture and to change behaviour away from single use consumption and disposal. It was noted that would support Jersey on its path to being a more sustainable place to live and work.

It was explained that the draft Law would set a starting point from which the use of other single use items could be reduced and that it would align to the sustainable behaviour change that was required to achieve Jersey's Carbon Neutral Strategy.

It was clarified that the draft Law had been informed by consultation with local traders and by collaborative working across a number of Government departments.

It was explained that three categories of bags would be banned should the draft Law be adopted including lightweight plastic carrier bags (between 15 to 50 microns in thickness), very lightweight plastic carrier bags (less than 15 microns in thickness and if not meeting the compostable standard) and paper carrier bags (with a weight of 50gsm – 170 gsm). It was emphasised that paper carrier bags had been included to ensure that they would not become an alternative to plastic carrier bags.

The Panel was informed that the specified minimum price of 70p had been decided upon as a result of the outcomes from the consultations with traders and in addition the  price  point  had  aligned  with  the  outcomes  of  the  research  that  had  been undertaken by Greenpeace which had demonstrated that 70p was the price point that would encourage a shift in behaviour.

It was explained that during the consultation process with industries that numerous industries had raised specific concerns regarding the ban of certain plastic bags. As a result, those concerns had been explored with Environmental Health, Customs and the States Vet and certain industry exemptions had been applied. It was noted that exemptions would be applied to bags that would be used to contain uncooked fish and fish products, prescription medicine and appliance, live fish or other aquatic creatures as well as goods in transport (at an airport, on a plan or ship, for example).

It was highlighted that clear guidance would need to be followed regarding gift bags which would have the sole purpose of gift wrapping.

Regarding the impact of the draft Law on traders, should it be adopted, the Panel was informed that traders would be required to ensure compliance within six months of the adoption of the Law. It was explained that shoppers would no longer be provided with free single use plastic carrier bags and paper carrier bags and that shoppers would be charged the minimum price of 70p for purchasing a bag for life.

It was noted that a communications plan would be undertaken to support traders and shoppers with the process and to facilitate familiarity with the changes in advance of the Law coming into effect. It was noted that there would be an implementation period of six months before the Law would come into force. The communications plan was

outlined to the Panel which would include media releases as well as communications which would be specifically directed at traders and shoppers.

The Panel was informed that enforcement of the Law would primarily be carried out by  Officers  from  Customs  and  Immigration  and  Environmental  and  Consumer Protection. It was explained that the enforcement would be pragmatic, and that support would be provided to traders through clear technical guidance. It was noted that Officers would be able to issue a Notice as required which could result in a Level 2 fine of £1000 being charged for non-compliance.

It was explained that the resource and cost implication during the first year of the Law coming into effect would be the highest and that the higher cost would primarily be due to the additional resourcing for the implementation and communications that would be required in the first year. The cost in the second year would be approximately half of that of the first year and was to cover the additional resource that would be required within the Environmental and Consumer and Protection Team. It was noted that the funds for the first year would be funded through the Contingency Fund through the Treasury Department and that any subsequent funding would be allocated within the next Government Plan.

It was explained that consideration had been given to how the performance could be managed in order to monitor the success of the Law. It was noted that traders, in the main, had suggested that they would not want to share their data for the purpose of monitoring the Laws performance. It was highlighted that it would therefore be difficult to quantitively report on the success of the withdrawal of single use bags and the introduction of minimum set priced bags. It was noted that in the absence of empirical data that the success could be measured through the behaviour change of shoppers.

It was explained that the intention was to extend the legislation to other single use items and that during the consultation, in the main, traders had been supportive of that. It was noted that the draft Law had been drafted to allow for other items to be included in the future as banned items.

Although supportive of the potential inclusion of further items in the future, the Panel raised concern that the necessary infrastructure was not in place to receive items for composting. The Panel highlighted that it had been made evident during the lockdown period that had resulted from the Covid-19 pandemic that the infrastructure was not available to handle the increased packaging that had accumulated from takeaways including paper cups.

The Panel questioned whether the set minimum price of 70p was changeable and raised concern that it would need to be adaptable to respond to changes in inflation. It was noted that the price could be updated as required.

The Panel raised concern that through stipulating the retail price for carrier bags that the cost price of the carrier bags would rise to align with the retail price to make it more profitable for the supplier. It was explained that the Government would not be able to control  or  influence  the  cost  price  of  the  carrier  bags.  It  was  noted  that  local wholesalers did not solely supply to the local market and although they would be free to alter the price of the bags that they sold, they would want to remain competitive within the market. It was highlighted that aspect could mitigate the risk that the Panel had raised.

The Panel asked if the wholesalers were content with the draft Law. It was explained that they were supportive of it and that some wholesalers were considering a take back service for traders as well.

The Panel referred to P.64/2020 and noted that the original proposition had called for the profits from the bags for life to be given to charitable causes and asked if that would still be the case. It was explained that aspect had been withdrawn by the Council of Ministers as it was their view that the retailer should have the freedom to choose.

The Panel noted that the fine for non-compliance was not high for a trader and questioned whether it may be too low. It was explained that if the fine was not adequate it would have been picked up by the Law Officers' Department, so it was believed to be suitable according to their scale of penalties.

The Panel asked if the Law would allow for excessive packaging to be banned to either reduce or eliminate packaging where it was not required. It was explained that the legislation would allow for other items to be added to the banned list, however, that a balance would need to be achieved. It was explained that some aspects would be achievable through changes that would be made to global standards, like excessive packaging, rather than locally. It was noted that paper cups could be addressed locally.

Deputy Steve Luce joined at this point in the meeting at 12.01pm

The Panel asked why dog waste bags were not required to be compostable. It was explained that if the bag was compostable, the bag would be composted with its contents and that dog waste was not suitable for composting.

The Panel asked why paper bags could not be used instead of plastic bags noting that they  would  be  compostable.  It  was  highlighted  that  paper  bags  had  a  larger environmental  footprint  than  plastic  bags  and  that  by  banning  paper  bags  that sustainable choices were being embedded in society. It was explained that if the switch was made to paper bags that Jersey would be open to environmental criticism as it would not promote a positive change. It was emphasised that the intention was to encourage a behavioural change so that people would bring their own bags and that the approach had been mirrored in the UK. It was highlighted that the aim was not to swap out one type of packaging for another but to promote a behavioural change and to reduce the negative impact on the environment.

The Panel questioned what would inhibit retailers from increasing the value of items by the 70p and then providing the bag for free to encourage sales. It was explained that legislation required retailers to make a charge for the item that they sold. It was noted that there would be ways in which retailers could use tools to encourage the sale, however, noted that the legislation would require the retailer to demand the money for the bag that they supplied to the shopper.

The Panel noted that the community should be encouraged to purchase local produce and to provide their own packaging to reduce the requirement for packaging locally. Noting that supermarkets would be required to abide by strict packaging requirements for health and safety purposes, the Panel emphasised that supporting local suppliers in that manner could be a positive approach for reducing the requirement for packaging at a local level.

The Panel noted that the six-month implementation period would be important to ensure that the appropriate messaging was supplied to traders and shoppers and highlighted that the messaging should be simple.

The Panel noted that bags for life could increase in value going forward depending on the branding that they encompassed and highlighted that aspect as a potential opportunity.

The Panel asked whether a price point of £1 had been considered for the bag for life. It was explained that it had and that only a few retailers had opted for that price point during the consultation process. It was explained that the 70p price point had been decided upon as it had aligned with the research that had been undertaken by Greenpeace. It was noted that the optimum price had also matched the outcome from the consultation process. It was emphasised that the price could be raised as was required.

The Panel questioned what the status regarding single use plastic bags was in the UK. It was explained that in May 2021 a 10p charge had come into effect on single use carriers in the UK. Regarding Wales, it was noted that legislation similar to Jersey's had been adopted regarding single use plastic and paper bags in 2011. It was explained that France had introduced legislation in 2016 and that Alderney was in a similar position to Jersey. Regarding Guernsey's status, it was unknown. It was explained that Greenpeace had sought to align all cost points to a minimum price set to ensure that a level playing field for all could be achieved.

The Panel noted that work had been underway for 18 months regarding P.64/2020 and highlighted its support, in principle, for the primary legislation.

The briefing ended and the Panel thanked the Officers for their time.

4. Affordable Housing: Supply and Delivery Scrutiny Review

The Panel noted that the call for evidence had come to a close, however, that some stakeholders had requested an extension to submit their views. It was noted that several submissions were expected later that week.

The Panel noted that provisional hearing dates with the relevant Ministers had been scheduled during July.

The Panel agreed that hearings should be arranged with representatives from Andium Homes and Jersey Development Company to request their views.

The Panel noted that the Comité de Connétable s had decided not to send in a submission, however, that the Connétable s may wish to send through their comments in an individual capacity. The Panel requested that the Connétable s be reminded of the extended deadline of 18th June 2021 for any submissions.

The Panel noted that a community group had highlighted its intention to provide a submission. Noting that the deadline for submissions had passed, the Panel agreed that it would accept the group's submission if it was received by Friday 18th June 2021.

It was noted that the Panel would be interviewing the prospective advisors to the review the following week.

The Panel noted the Housing Action Plan that had been published.

NH MM

5. Climate Conversation – Citizens' Assembly

The Panel noted that the Citizens' Assembly's report on its recommendations had been published on 1st June 2021.

The Panel discussed the preparation of its report to review the Panel's observation of the process. The Panel noted that its report would consider the transparency and independence  of  the  sortition  process,  the  Citizens'  Assembly  process  and  the Advisory Panel meetings in line with the Panel's amendment to the Carbon Neutral Strategy. The Panel discussed its observations of the sortition process to establish the Citizens' Assembly, as well as the Citizens' Assembly Sessions and Advisory Panel meetings, which Members had attended.

Noting that the Citizens' Assembly's report had recommended that Scrutiny of the Government of Jersey's response to the recommendations be undertaken, the Panel agreed that any further observations which would fall outside of the scope of the Panel's review on its observation of the process may be considered in a subsequent review.

The Panel noted that the draft report would be prepared and shared with the Panel for consideration ahead of its next meeting on 6th July 2021.

MM

6. P.33/2021, Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202-

The Panel noted that the debate on P.33/2021 had been postponed until 20th July 2021.

The Panel noted and discussed the submission it had received from the Jersey Tenants' Forum regarding the Panel's Comments presented on the proposition. The Panel noted that the submission had been received after the Panel had presented its Comments. The Panel discussed the make-up and representation of the Jersey Tenants' Forum and noted that the Forum had a presence on Facebook, in the main.

The Panel agreed it would request a meeting with the Jersey Landlords' Association and the Jersey Tenants' Forum to discuss their views regarding P.20/2021.The Panel agreed  that  subsequently  it  would  request  to  meet  with  the  Minister  for  the Environment and his Officers if required. The Panel noted that it would be important to understand the views of all parties in order for a satisfactory outcome to be reached. The Panel noted that a simple mechanism was required and considered whether a register could be created as an alternative to a licensing scheme.

MM

7. Draft Island Plan

The Panel noted and discussed the responses it had received from the Minister for the Environment to the Panel's written questions. The Panel agreed that it would consider the Minister's responses and would communicate any further comments via email.

The Panel discussed the allocation of land within parishes for rezoning to enable the development of affordable homes and agreed that, where land had been allocated for affordable housing, it would be important that adequate community facilities would be available to support the families that the homes would house.

The Panel discussed how it could approach the amendment process of the draft Island Plan and noted that it would be able to bring amendments to amendments at a later stage on issues raised within the Inspectors Report, by other States Members or members of the public.

The Panel noted that members of the public would be required to use the online portal to make a representation and that the formal process for States Members to make a representation would be through the amendments process.

8. P.39/2021, Draft Road Traffic (No.68) (Jersey) Regulations 202-

The Panel noted that it had P.39/2021 referred to Scrutiny under Standing Order 72 at the States sitting on 8th June 2021. Noting that the proposition had related to the provision of additional protection for cats when involved in road traffic accidents, the Panel discussed concerns that had been raised regarding the practicality of policing the Law should it be approved by States Members.

The Panel agreed it would request views and comments from the Comité des Chefs de Police and the Equal Rights for Cats Action Group regarding P.39/2021.

The Panel agreed it would present a Comments paper ahead of debate of the proposition scheduled for 5th October 2021.

NH

8. P.61/2021, Single - Use Plastics etc. (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law 202- The Panel discussed the briefing it had received that morning on the draft Law.

The Panel discussed the cost of the bags and raised concern regarding how retailers, especially smaller retailers, may manage that cost. In addition, whether it would impact the wholesale price of the long-life bags that would be sold to retailers through wholesalers choosing to align their wholesale price with the agreed retail price of 70p. The Panel noted that wholesalers' profits may be reduced as they would be required to sell less bags in the form of long – life bags rather than multiple single use bags to retailers.

The Panel also considered how the draft Law would be enforced, if it were to be adopted by the States Assembly.

The Panel highlighted its surprise, having been informed that paper bags had a more negative environmental impact than plastic bags, and noted that a behavioural shift would be vital for beneficial change.

The Panel agreed that further consideration should be given to how any profits from the sale of long-life bags could be redirected to charities at a later stage.

The Panel discussed the launch costs for the draft Law, should it be adopted, and anticipated that it was unlikely that extra funding would be required by the third year of implementation as it would likely be embedded in society at that time. The Panel noted that the achievable benefits from the law would out way the costs.

The Panel noted that the first year's funding would be made available from the Contingency Fund and considered whether it should be retrieved from the Climate Emergency Fund.

The Panel agreed it would request views from the Jersey Hospitality Association, the Jersey Retail Association and the Jersey Chamber of Commerce regarding the draft Law with the intention to present a Comments paper ahead of the debate on the draft Law.

Deputy   Gardiner  advised  the  Panel  that  as  she  had  brought  the  proposition [P.64/2020] to request the Minister draft the Law, she would excuse herself from the Panel's review of the draft Law.

NH

9. Future meeting

The Panel noted that it would meet on 22nd June 2021 to hold advisor interviews and that the next regular Panel meeting would take place at 9.30am on 6th July 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Inna Gardiner

Apologies

Deputy Graham Truscott

Absent

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard Deputy Steve Luce

In attendance

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Affordable housing: supply and delivery scrutiny review - appointment of expert advisor

Following virtual interviews with three prospective advisors, the Panel met to discuss and agree the appointment of the expert advisor to its review. It was agreed to appoint ARK  Consultancy  Limited  on  the  basis  of  their  broad  range  of  expertise  and competitive bid which, in the Panel's view, clearly demonstrated good value for money.

The Officer was requested to inform the other members of the Panel, who had been unable to attend, of the agreed appointment and to seek their views, if any. In addition, to seek approval from the Scrutiny Liaison Committee for the increase of £14,700 to the review's budget.

Following a satisfactory outcome of both of the above, the Officer was requested to proceed with arrangements to provide ARK Consultancy Limited with a draft contract for their signature.

NH NH

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair

Deputy Steve Luce (Items 1 – 3 and 5 -10 only)

Deputy Graham Truscott

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard (1 – 3 and 5 -10 only) Deputy Inna Gardiner (Items 1, 2 and 4 -10 only)

Apologies

Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair

Absent

In attendance

Item 2

Kelly Whitehead, Head of Regulatory Improvement

Tim  du  Feu,  Director,  Environmental  Protection,  Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department

Deputy John Young, Minister for the Environment

Ben  Markwell-Sales,  Private  Secretary  to  the  Minister  for  the Environment

Item 3

Deputy Kevin Lewis , Minister for Infrastructure

E Littlechild, Group Director, Operations and Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment

Louise Magris, Head of Sustainability and Foresight, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance

Tristin  Dodd,  Director  of  Transport,  Infrastructure,  Housing  and Environment

Liz  Walsh,  Legislative  Drafter,  Legislative  Drafting  Office,  States Greffe

Tim  Daniels,  Director-Property,  Jersey  Property  Holdings Infrastructure, Housing and Environment

Gordon Forrest, Head of Driver and Vehicle Standards, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment

Andy  Scate,  Director  General,  Infrastructure,  Housing  and Environment

Item 4

Dr. Amy Hall , local Ecologist

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer (items 1-3 and 5- 10 only)

Ben Holmes (work experience student)

Agenda Matter

Action

1. Records of Meetings

The Panel noted and approved the records of the meetings held on 15th and 22nd June 2021.

2. Briefing: Tree Protection Strategy

The Panel received the Minister for the Environment and Officers for a private briefing on the Tree Protection Strategy. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 35.

3. Quarterly Public Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure

The Panel received Deputy Kevin Lewis , the Minister for Infrastructure and Officers for a quarterly public hearing. The proceedings were streamed live to the public and a recording was taken so that a written transcript could be produced.

4. Briefing: Dr. Amy Hall (Local Ecologist)

The Panel received Dr. Amy Hall a local ecologist for a briefing presentation. The record of this meeting was classified as exempt in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (as amended) under Qualified Exemption Article 26.

5. Affordable Housing: Supply and Delivery Review

The Panel noted that the Officer had met with the Adviser and that the Adviser was in the process of analysing the review submissions that had been received. The Panel noted that it was the Adviser's intention to produce a briefing paper on the themes identified throughout the submissions received.

The Panel noted that a question plan had been drafted with the Adviser's input for the public hearing with Jersey Development Company (JDC) scheduled for 13th July 2021. The Panel agreed that the Advisor would take part in the public hearing.

It was agreed that a request for a hearing with the Jersey Construction Council would be pursued. Alternatively, if a hearing was not possible, that follow up questions regarding their submission would be sent for a written response.

NH

6. Climate Change – Citizens' Assembly

The Panel noted and approved the draft report except for the executive summary and requested the fact checking process to commence.

7.  Draft  Public  Health  and  Safety  (Rented  Dwellings)  (Licensing)  (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.33/2021]

The  Panel  noted  its  in-person  meetings  scheduled  with  the  Jersey  Landlords' Association and the Jersey Tenants' Forum on Wednesday 7th July that week.

8. Draft Road Traffic (No.68) (Jersey) (Regulations) Law 202- [P.39/2021]

The Panel discussed P.39/2021 and noted its in-person meeting with the Comité des Chefs de Police scheduled for Wednesday 7th July that week to understand the Comité's view and position regarding the draft regulations.

The Panel agreed it would incorporate the views of the Comité des Chefs de Police in a Comments paper for presentation prior to the debate of the proposition scheduled for 5th October 2021.

9. Draft Single-use Plastics etc. (Restrictions) (Jersey) Law 202- [P.61/2021]

The Panel noted it had been made aware of the Minister for Infrastructure's intention to lodge an amendment to P.61/2021 to extend the time lead in time of the proposed Law from six to twelve months. The Panel noted that several retailers had commented that the period of six months provided within the draft Law would not be sufficient for them to use up the non-conforming bags. The Panel noted that the potential extension would result in the enforcement of the Law to occur during the next Government term.

10. Future meeting

The Panel noted its next Panel meeting would take place at 9.30am on 27th July 2021.

Present

Connétable Michael Jackson , Chair Connétable John Le Maistre, Vice-Chair Deputy Steve Luce

Deputy Inna Gardiner

Apologies

Deputy Graham Truscott Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard

Absent

In attendance

Item 1

Peter Lucas, Chairman, Jersey Landlords' Association

Guy Morris, Vice-Chairman, Jersey Landlords' Association

Emma Paul, Committee Member, Jersey Landlords' Association Mark Cummins, Honorary Treasurer, Jersey Landlords' Association Sharon Campbell, Landlord

Item 2

Stuart Langhorn, representative, Jersey Tenants' Forum

Item 3

Centenier Bougeard, Vice-chairman, Comité des Chefs de Police

Nikita Hall , Committee and Panel Officer

Monique Magalhaes, Research and Project Officer Ben Holmes (Student)

Agenda Matter

Action

1.  Meeting: Jersey Landlords' Association (P.20/2021 and P.33/2021)

The Panel met with representatives from Jersey Landlords' Association (JLA) to discuss the adoption of P.20/2021 which had proposed changes to the Draft Public Health  and  Safety  (Rented  Dwellings)  (Licensing)  (Jersey)  Regulations  202- [P.33/2021] and to seek the JLA's views on these changes.

The JLA informed the Panel that its membership constituted 240 members. The Panel noted it would also be meeting with the Jersey Tenants' Forum later that day regarding the revised proposition.

The JLA informed the Panel, that in the main, its view regarding the licensing scheme had not changed since its last meeting with the Panel 18 months prior. The JLA noted that the same concerns persisted, and it had highlighted these within its recent submission to the Panel. Regarding the Rent Safe Scheme, the JLA believed that the scheme had addressed many requirements needed for the Government to enforce its powers regarding substandard properties being rented out.

The JLA commented that the licensing conditions within the proposition were not appropriate and noted the scheme was inflationary. It was the JLA's view that the

proposed licencing conditions would impact negatively upon the taxpayer and would require significant continual resourcing to maintain. The JLA explained that it was concerned regarding the licensing conditions that had been proposed in the scheme in respect of their wording and the ability for the conditions to be altered going forward. In addition, the JLA did not agree with the criteria that was provided for the licensing scheme.

It was the view of the JLA that a register would be a better approach than a licensing scheme. The JLA noted that a licensing scheme was implemented for HMO's (house in multiple occupation), in the main, in the UK within some parts of council areas. However, it was noted that such licensing schemes were limited to a five-year period after which it would require renewal. The JLA explained that it would only be renewed by Central Government if the problems which it was set out to address still persisted. The JLA noted that the UK licensing scheme was implemented to address social problems. In addition, the scheme in the UK addressed concerns regarding housing for multiple occupancy. It was the JLA's view that the UK scheme was very different to the scheme that was being proposed for Jersey and had a different purpose. It was used for parameters including overcrowding in poorer areas and was not for licensing of new builds.

The Panel asked why the UK Government would choose to not approve a council to implement a scheme. It was noted that the licensing scheme in the UK was only implemented by councils when a specific targeted outcome was needed within a specific area. It was noted that the UK struggled to enforce licences as it lacked the necessary resources.

The Panel noted that to fund the administrative costs for a licensing scheme that those monies would need to be derived from the licensing and the cost would impact upon the landlord. The JLA explained that the scheme was not appropriately targeted at those landlords that were providing substandard rental accommodation and was concerned that the cost would ultimately impact upon the taxpayer as a result.

The Panel noted that renting out a property was a business for many landlords and explained that like any other business, some sort of business license or registration would be required by that business. The Panel highlighted that any business would need to abide by certain conditions and asked how a licensing or registration scheme might be workable in the JLA's view.

The JLA explained that a registration scheme would be workable and that landlords may be more content to update a register on an annual basis. The JLA compared the process to that of a manpower licence, where people would update any changes to their  properties.  The  JLA  explained  that  self-declaration  backed  up  with  the requirement to provide information would be a workable position. The JLA highlighted that the process would provide insight to the accommodation as well as the electrical certificates, for example, and all the information would be repeatedly provided on an annual basis to maintain its accuracy.

The  JLA  emphasised  that  random  targeted  inspections  of  properties  could  be undertaken on consideration of the detail that the landlords provided annually and also resultant of complaints that were received. It was noted that existing laws allowed officers from Environmental Health to inspect properties as required.

The JLA raised concern that a licensing scheme would provide too much ministerial power by Order. In addition, it involved excessive bureaucracy and was administrative heavy. The JLA noted that fire certificates were already required by landlords for

lodging houses and HMO's in host circumstances and that only the fire service could issue them on provision of the commercial information provided by the landlord. It was noted that the fire certificate was valid for three years and cost £410. The JLA highlighted that the cost of a fire certificate had increased significantly in the last three years from £80 to £410. The JLA noted that landlords were already subjected to several layers of cost. In addition, that weekly checks were undertaken on fire doors and fire alarms. The JLA explained that the testing regime involved multiple layers.

The Panel asked whether the fire service checked the landlord's testing regime. It was noted that the information was available for them to check and that a Fire Inspection logbook was required to be kept on the premises.

The JLA raised concern that a licensing scheme would allow licences to be granted and removed.

The JLA highlighted, should there be an issue regarding tenants coming forward with complaints to exercise their existing legal rights, that research should be undertaken to determine a process which would encourage tenants to raise complaints.

The Panel raised concern that tenants should not be forced to live in substandard properties as a result of not complaining and highlighted that the issue needed to be addressed.  The  Panel  noted  that  if  the  issue  was  not  addressed  that  other departments would be stressed as a result. The Panel explained that if a family was living in a property with mould, that could potentially place strain on the health system.

The Panel questioned how these issues could be addressed if the tenants were not coming forward to complain and raise issues. The JLA emphasised that tenants needed to be educated on their rights and that an advice service should be accessible to them. In addition, leases should be made more user friendly. The JLA highlighted that if tenants felt that they were protected then they would come forward to complain.

The Panel explained that the education aspect should not fall to landlords, however, that poor quality housing was an issue for the landlords to address. The JLA explained that some tenants did not have a choice to move on from a bad situation as the housing supply was not sufficient.

The JLA informed the Panel that statistics had demonstrated that landlords were selling up and that 171 units within the registered market had been lost within 12 months. The JLA explained that those units would accommodate 454 people. The JLA raised concern that the properties would be converted and sold on as separate units to the local market and that would deplete the accommodation available to the rented market. The JLA noted that on occasion 10 units would be converted to a single house, or three bedsits to a single one bedroom flat.

The  JLA  highlighted  that  since  January  2020  sales  from  estate  agents  had demonstrated that 42% of landlords were selling properties and only 7% were buying. It was explained that this provided a net loss of 700 to the rental market. The JLA noted that those units had gone from the rental market to owner occupied properties. The JLA raised concern that people would be required to rent when it was not viable for them to buy.  

The Panel noted that private landlords did not provide social housing and questioned whether that caused a challenge. The JLA explained that as there was a housing shortage, people who could not find housing would come to private landlords looking for accommodation. The JLA highlighted that new investment in housing was required.

The JLA noted that there were some problematic landlords and that aspect needed to be  addressed  in  a  cost-effective  way  to  landlords  and  the  taxpayer.  The  JLA emphasised that the system needed to be acceptable to all parties involved.

The Panel noted that the JLA had seemed accepting of a register and questioned how a licensing scheme would be any different from a register. It was the Panel's view that the risk of licence removal would only impact those landlords offering substandard accommodation and other landlords would not be impacted.

The JLA explained that its concern regarding the licensing scheme was regarding the ability for a licence to be revoked. The JLA highlighted that it would appreciate to communicate its concerns with the Minister for the Environment to achieve a middle ground that could be suitable for all parties involved.

The JLA highlighted that the licensing scheme included additional conditions and raised concern regarding the aspect where one tenant may interfere with another's quiet enjoyment of the property and how that would be handled by the landlord. The JLA raised concern that a pressure would be placed on landlords to evict one of the tenants under such circumstances as it would be an offence under the law which would apply a £10,000 penalty.

The Panel suggested that the details of the licensing scheme should be resolved, and that guidance be provided. The JLA explained that if a register were to be implemented instead of a licensing scheme that licenses could not be granted or revoked, however, the powers would still be accessible to officers to investigate any complaints and inspect properties. The JLA raised concern that the proposed scheme would allow the Minister for the Environment to include further licensing conditions as required which provided a level of uncertainty for landlords.

The JLA noted that it had not been invited to discuss its issues or concerns regarding the  proposed  licensing  scheme  and  highlighted  that  it  would  welcome  those discussions with the Minister for the Environment and Government officials.

The Panel questioned whether the JLA had met at all with the Minster for the Environment. The JLA explained that it had met with the Minister via Zoom, however, that it was challenging as there were so many issues to discuss that it was not possible, at that time, to cover all the details involved. The JLA compared that meeting to a meet and greet type meeting. The JLA noted that the Minister for the Environment had spoken at a JLA event and that the JLA had invited the Minister to attend its Annual General Meeting (AGM). It was noted that the invite to the AGM was not accepted by the Minister.

The  JLA  suggested  to  address  the  issues  of  landlords  providing  substandard properties, tenants needed education and protection which would enable them to complain. In addition, limited random inspections of properties could be undertaken using existing legislation and that would inhibit revenge type evictions and would ensure that landlords maintained their properties at the accepted standard. The JLA noted that the register would enable the Government to keep updated regarding the location of properties being rented to tenants by private landlords. The JLA highlighted that the scheme should promote good standards, while being cost effective and delivered in the least disruptive way.

The JLA raised concern that the proposition would not help tenants and it would result in tenants being left with less choice regarding accommodation and rents would increase. In addition, it was the view of the JLA that the proposed scheme would be

intrusive on tenants as it would involve more agencies requiring access to rented accommodation to fulfil the requirements of the scheme.

The Panel thanked the JLA for their time and meeting ended.

2. Meeting: Jersey Tenants' Forum (P.20/2021 and P.33/2021)

The Panel met with the Mr Langhorn, representative of the Jersey Tenants' Forum (JTF) at 11am that morning to discuss the adoption of P.20/2021 and the proposed changes to the Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- [P.33/2021].

Mr Langhorn advised that JTF had sent a response to all States Members regarding the Panel's recent Comments paper on P.33/2021 which had concluded as not in support of the currently proposed licensing scheme. Mr Langhorn further advised JTF's response had included a number of evidence sources, including: Safe and Decent Homes: Solutions for the Private Sector – Shelter, A Roof Over My Head – Crisis, Our Life in Numbers – Jersey Children's Commissioner, Selective Licensing of Landlords House of Commons Briefing Paper 2019, Jersey Scrutiny – Retention and Recruitment of Teachers 2019.

Mr Langhorn explained that he had created the JTF in response to the lack of a voice for tenants. He explained that he had relocated to Jersey three and half years prior and had rented three properties on the island. All three of which had failed to meet minimum standards. Mr Langhorn noted that he had held lead roles; Leader of the Council and Chair of Scrutiny at Lancaster City Council, a district council and housing authority in Lancaster in the United Kingdom.

The  Panel  asked  whether  Lancaster  City  Council  had  implemented  a  licensing scheme. Mr Langhorn explained that the 2018 Licensing scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government as a reaction to the failures of previous schemes. These were targeted at areas where there had been historically poor housing and associated  social  problems.  Mr  Langhorn  advised  that  their  success  had  been evidenced in the Briefing Note to UK MPs which could be found in the House of Commons Reference Library.

The Panel asked Mr Langhorn about HMOs (Houses of Multiple Occupancy). It was explained that there were social issues regarding the behaviour of tenants and the licensing scheme was implemented to resolve those issues. Mr Langhorn noted that it was a different scheme to the one that was being proposed for Jersey. It was explained that the UK scheme was implemented as a result of problems and was targeted to certain councils to address specific problems with HMO's where wages were low, and the buildings were often used by social security and the property standards were low. Therefore, it was an inspection regime for those properties.[1]

The Panel asked whether the scheme could be invoked and whether approval would be required from the UK Government to invoke the scheme. Mr Langhorn was uncertain whether Government approval was required to invoke the scheme although it may be invoked by a housing authority as a by-law. The Panel questioned how the improved standards of the properties (as a result of the scheme) were maintained once the licensing scheme was removed.

Mr Langhorn highlighted that many Jersey hotels had been converted to shared housing and these had substandard living conditions for tenants based on the Public

Health  and  Safety  (Rented  Dwellings)  (Jersey)  Law  2018.  He  said  that  States Members were aware of examples of accommodation that did not meet the minimum standards and had not reported these, even though this was a safeguarding issue. The Panel asked whether that could be resultant of being an interim solution until the hotel owner determined how to exploit their asset.

Mr Langhorn raised concern that he had also experienced a situation whereby he was required to find a replacement tenant in order to exit a two-year fixed contract. He highlighted that legislation was in place to provide tenants' rights in relation to notice on tenancies, however there was a loophole whereby a two-year fixed contract did not give tenants the same rights. As a result, tenants were finding themselves unable to exit the two-year fixed contract or suffer the threat of legal action. Mr Langhorn advised that this was a common experience reported on the Jersey Tenant's Forum.

The Panel enquired regarding the membership and constitution of the JTF. It was explained that the JTF had no membership and that it had been set up as a platform for people to raise issues. It was noted that it provided a sounding board for tenants and that the JTF would seek advice on behalf of people through States Members, Environmental Health and Citizens' Advice Jersey.

The  Panel  asked  whether  the  JTF  had  discussions  with  the  Jersey  Landlords' Association (JLA). It was noted that it had not. Mr Langhorn said that he would be happy to meet with the JLA. Mr Langhorn said that he had met with Ministers and Environmental Health officers.

Mr Langhorn raised concern that tenants feared raising complaints about rental properties and landlords. This was because they feared eviction and were in a position that could be exploited.

The Panel asked how many people accessed the forum. It was noted that up to 2500 people would access the forum at any time dependant on the content that was posted on the site. Mr Langhorn said that the platform used was Facebook.  

Noting that it was the JLA's view that the scheme would reduce the number of rental properties available, the Panel asked for the JTF's view in that regard. It was the view of Mr Langhorn that the proposed licensing scheme would not result in a reduced number of rental properties or further substandard properties.

The Panel noted that it was aware that statistics had shown a potential net loss of rental accommodation and emphasised that it would be important to not encourage that.  Nevertheless,  the  Panel  agreed  that  satisfactory  management  of  rental accommodation was required.

It was noted that one of the reasons people rented in the Jersey housing market was due to the Island's transient population. It was Mr Langhorn's view that people rent for three main reasons: they may not intend to stay in Jersey for long; they cannot afford to own their house; they may not want to own a property in Jersey. It was noted that different categories of renters might have different attitudes to landlords.

Mr Langhorn requested that those members of the Panel present for the meeting declare whether they were currently a landlord of a rental property. Constable Le Maistre and Deputy Luce declared an interest as landlords, advising that this was already public information.

The Panel asked Mr Langhorn for his views on whether private landlords and social housing providers should be considered differently under the proposed licensing scheme. Mr Langhorn explained that affordability was linked to substandard property. He said that it had been reported that people on low incomes lived in poor housing conditions. In addition, that the Children's Commissioner had reported that Jersey could not evidence where children were living in poorer accommodation as the data was not available. (Our Life in Numbers – Jersey Children's Commissioner). He explained  that  during  the  Covid-19  pandemic  those  living  within  poorer accommodation had suffered the worst and many did not have outside space to enjoy. Mr Langhorn said that communities needed to be considered jointly with housing so that health and well-being of people were considered. This was best practice learned from regeneration projects in the North West of England. He noted that the UK had the statistics regarding that data, however, that Jersey did not. Reference to Shelter's Safe Decent Homes in the Private Sector was provided as a useful document. He highlighted the view that the Government of Jersey had let down children that were living in the poorest conditions and that was why the Children's Commissioner had supported the proposed licensing scheme.

It was noted that States Members had voted to keep children in school during the pandemic as they believed it was best for their wellbeing. Mr Langhorn said that decision was a result of not knowing the conditions that children were living in and whether they would be safe in their homes. Mr Langhorn advised that a number of children continued attending school for safeguarding reasons.

Mr Langhorn raised concern that landlords did not require 24 hours' notice to gain access to the accommodation that they rented to a tenant and that landlords could access the property without giving any notice to the tenant. Mr Langhorn expressed his disappointment at the Panel for not being in support of the proposed licensing scheme, one aspect of which had made provision to protect tenants from the entry of landlords into their homes without notice.

The Panel asked Mr Langhorn's view on the difference between a licensing scheme and a registration scheme. Mr Langhorn explained that a registration scheme had not been approved by the States Assembly, the Government or Citizens' Advice Jersey and noted that a register was a list. He emphasised that tenants needed protection and that the aim of the proposition was to protect citizens. He noted that currently no standard contract existed for tenants and that tenants were on different contracts. He explained that as a result the responsibilities of tenants for rented accommodation varied.

Regarding a register, the Panel asked whether combining a list of criteria to which a landlord would need to comply as well as random inspections of properties would suffice. The Panel noted that the location of the property would be known, and it could also be inspected. Mr Langhorn emphasised that the aim of the proposition was to ensure the safety of tenants and to remove rogue landlords from the system. He noted that the proposed scheme would impose no cost on landlords and the worst offenders would be targeted. It was Mr Langhorn's view that a licensing scheme would provide the enforcement powers required to address the problem.

The Panel asked for Mr Langhorn's view on how the objective of providing protection for the tenant could be achieved. It was Mr Langhorn's view that the proposed licensing scheme would achieve that.

The Panel thanked Mr Langhorn for his time and the meeting ended.