MTFP Addition 2017-19 - Ministerial Response - 9 November 2016

Findings

Comments

1

The Panel highlights the fact that the financial forecasts were prepared prior to the BREXIT vote and in light of this, strongly believe updated forecasts should be used for the MTFP Addition.

The Panel received a private briefing on the updated forecasts within 2 weeks of the revised economic assumptions. The Panel were informed that States Members would receive a written update ahead of the MTFP Addition debate.

The briefing to the Panel clearly showed that the adjustments to income were small and did not require changes to the MTFP Addition.

The  CoM  then  presented  a  4th  Addendum  to  the  MTFP Addition in advance of the MTFP Addition debate, providing an interim update to the States' income forecasts based on the FPP August 2016 economic assumptions, post-BREXIT.

The Minister would reiterate the fact that the  Fiscal Policy Panel (FPP) had recommended within its August 2016 Report that  the  States  of  Jersey  continue  to  implement  the  MTFP Addition in line with its previous advice given in March.

2

The last BTS was published in March 2016 and will not be continued. Given the importance attached to the survey by the FPP and in the MTFP Addition, the Panel find this concerning.

The CoM has provided for sufficient budget in the MTFP to secure the immediate reinstatement of the Business Tendency Survey, as confirmed to the Assembly during the course of the MTFP  debate.  The  Statistics  Unit  is  now  undertaking recruitment to identify the necessary staffing to deliver this, and is expected to include the BTS in its 2017 statistics schedule when released.

Findings

Comments

3

The Panel finds it highly concerning that the Minister for Treasury and Resources did not recalibrate the income forecasts at an earlier stage, and believe the reduction in interest rates and market trends currently speak for themselves. This is likely to result in higher drawings on the Strategic Reserve or mean the Island is running higher forecasted deficits well beyond 2019.

The Panel received a private briefing on the updated forecasts within  2 weeks  of  the  revised  economic  assumptions  being received. It is considered that this is the quickest turnaround time advisable. The Panel were informed that States Members would receive a written update ahead of the MTFP Addition debate.

The briefing to the Panel clearly showed that the adjustments to income were small and did not require changes to the MTFP Addition.

• The  August  2016  economic  assumptions  from  the  Fiscal Policy Panel showed a slight slowdown in the economy in the short term.

• The  updated  forecasts  show  a  reduction  in  income  of £6 million  (or  1%  p.a.)  from  2017  onwards,  mainly  in personal income tax.

• Ministers proposed, as advised by the FPP, that there should be  no  change  to  the  existing  proposals  in  the  MTFP Addition.

• The reduction in income forecasts is slight, and the proposals are to maintain flexibility through growth, contingencies and reserves.

4

The Panel is strongly of the view that achieving a surplus of

£1.5 million by 2019 was never achievable and will now not be achieved in light of the downgraded income forecasts.

The Minister does not agree, as the evidence and advice at the time made it clear that a £1.5 million surplus by 2019 was realistic. The FPP has concluded that the broad approach and package of measures proposed in the MTFP Addition is still appropriate following the U.K. referendum on BREXIT.

• Their advice is clear – the States has a plan and should stick to it.

• The Brexit vote has added additional uncertainty to the local economic climate.

• The States must not take knee-jerk decisions and add to that uncertainty.

• The aim must still be for broadly balanced budgets by 2019, but with a plan to present a sustainable balanced position in the next MTFP.

• The position to be reviewed at each FPP report and each annual budget based on greater certainty in the economic outlook.

The updated forecasts provided in the 4th Addendum to the MTFP  Addition  shows  that  the  financial  position  remains broadly  balanced  by  2019,  despite  the  slight  reduction  in income forecasts post-BREXIT.

5

Many of the items listed under Contingency in the MTFP Addition are not for unforeseen

The  use  of  earmarked  carry-forwards  was  explained  to  the Panel;  and  the  Panel  were  assured  this  did  not  reduce  or commit  the  level  of  funding  previously  available  for

Findings

Comments

events and have already been designated for certain purposes. Such use of Contingency artificially distorts departmental budgets.

Contingency expenditure.

The Treasurer also explained that these allocations were made to  ensure  that  the  strong  governance  which  applied  to Contingency expenditure would also apply to these allocations, and that was the purpose of allocating the funds in this way.

• All contingency allocations are subject to strict governance arrangements.

• The purpose of including specific allocations within central contingencies is to ensure that strict governance applies to these funds as well.

6

Part of the EPGDP has been used to support the budgets of External Relations and Digital, Innovation, Financial Services and Competition, which in the Panel's opinion sits outside of the original intent for the Fund as set out in the MTFP 2016– 2019 and approved by the States.

The External Relations Department and the Digital, Innovation, Financial  Services  and  Competition  (DIFSC)  Team  play  an important role supporting economic growth and productivity in the economy. Given the fiscal constraints faced when preparing the MTFP Addition 2017 – 2019, all departments were issued savings  targets  and  asked  to  develop  proposals  to  reduce expenditure. After considering the impact of savings on the External Relations Department and DIFSC against the range of EPGDP proposals  that were  submitted  or in the process of being  developed,  the  CoM  recognised  that  better  economic outcomes could be achieved by protecting existing budgets in these areas.

The EPGDP procedures are clear that funding will be made available to the  projects that offer the  best value  economic outcomes.  Recognising  the  better  value,  following  the prioritisation exercise, the  CoM  determined  that  funding  be assigned to protect existing budgets rather than money being made available for projects that would potentially have smaller or less well-defined economic impacts.

The  Panel  has  been  provided  with  the  revised  Terms  of Reference for the Provision which accommodates protecting existing economic growth and specifically includes BREXIT initiatives – this can be provided again if necessary.

All  Ministerial  Decisions  in  respect  of  central  contingency allocations  will  be  public  and  available  to  Scrutiny  and  all States Members, once approved.

7

The lowering of the savings and efficiencies target points to the fact that the target has only been met because the goalposts have been moved. As there is no certainty that the targets will not be adjusted again in future years, this makes it virtually impossible for the Public or States Members to judge whether or not savings targets have actually been met.

The CoM has already committed to monitoring the delivery of savings and efficiencies, and has proposed that growth for 2018 and 2019 be set aside in a central growth provision.

This would be reviewed before each budget and the delivery of savings  and  efficiencies  taken  into  account  before  growth proposals are put before the Assembly.

Findings

Comments

8

The savings and efficiencies target has been reduced from £90 million to £77 million (including user pays charges).

Following the distributional impact analysis, the CoM felt that the target savings should be spread over a longer period to lessen any impact on Islanders.

Scrutiny  have  already  been  provided  with  examples  of  the many savings which would have impacted on public services – and so were not included by the CoM.

Instead, the CoM has committed to extending the period of efficiency  savings  into  the  next  MTFP.  Further  to  the agreement of the MTFP by the Assembly, the targets are now hardwired into cash limits.

9

The MTFP does not show the savings and efficiencies opportunities rejected by the Council of Ministers.

During the course of 2016, the CoM considered submissions from all departments that outlined reductions to services and efficiencies that could be met in order to remove £90 million.

The  CoM  concluded  that  some  proposals  had  too  great  an impact on front-line services. They therefore concluded that the target should be reduced to £77 million, which was considered to be more acceptable.

The components of the £77 million were published as part of the Draft MTFP Addition for 2017 – 2019.

10

The direction from Ministers to Chief Officers to make savings and bring in efficiencies is not robust enough nor precise enough for an organisation of this size.

The CoM rejects this finding.

Chief Officers and respective Ministers provided to the CoM the range of savings and efficiencies. The CoM considered the impact of savings and efficiencies and concluded that those put forward in the MTFP were appropriate and did not have too significant an impact on services to the Public.

11

There is a general lack of drive behind the savings programme, with savings being made through simplistic departmental budget reductions rather than introducing fundamental structural change to deliver long- term savings and efficiencies.

The CoM rejects this finding.

There  have  already  been  fundamental  structural  changes  in some departments in order to achieve savings; for example, in the  Department  for  Infrastructure,  and  a  number  of  smaller cross-departmental  collaborations.  As  part  of  the  rolling review, further opportunities may be identified that will look at the structural redesign and the way that services are provided.

12

The vacancy rate of 12.9% across States departments is very high, and this money is included in departments' annual budgets. The Panel questions whether this funding is really needed by departments if current service levels are deemed to be acceptable.

This  misunderstands  vacancies.  Average  staff  turnover  in August for the States was 13%. This is higher than in previous years due to the amount of change  across the organisation, including service redesign and redundancies.

Vacancies include – posts under recruitment (27%); posts being held  pending  service redesign  outcomes  (26%); posts  being covered  by  temporary  workers  such  as  agency  staff,  locum workers,  bank  nurses,  supply  teachers  and  visiting lecturers (25%); and growth not appointed to (7%). A further 15% of the vacancy figures are for posts where there is no longer a budget, either because they will be given up as savings at the end of the year, or because they are posts being held without a budget to allow flexibility of resources.

Findings

Comments

13

The level of vacancies across the States is significantly higher than U.K. levels.

The States' turnover is similar to the U.K. public sector, but the vacancies  percentage  looks  higher  because  of  the  way  the States  currently  records  vacancies.  As  explained  above (point 12)  the  vacancy  figure  considered  includes  15% unbudgeted posts; and a further 25% are covered by temporary workers, so in effect are not true vacancies, as the budget is being used to fund non-permanent appointments.

Once these 2 elements are removed, the vacancy level for the States of Jersey falls to a figure in line with the levels quoted by Scrutiny as being average in the U.K. public sector.

14

States Members are being asked to approve artificially increased levels of expenditure which include a high level of vacancies.

The CoM disagrees with this finding. See comments made in points 12 and 13 above.

15

Despite the savings and efficiencies being targeted within the public sector for a number of years, overall expenditure to 2015 and also for 2016 has continued to rise year on year. This leads the Panel to question whether the level of savings and efficiencies will actually be achieved.

This  CoM  has  not  suggested  or  proposed  that  total  States expenditure would be reduced. The Strategic Plan set priorities for  investment  in  Health,  Education,  Economic  Growth, Infrastructure and St. Helier , but also that States finances must be sustainable.

The MTFP 2016 – 2019 agreed in October 2015 the overall framework  within  which  that  investment  must  take  place, which required significant levels of savings and efficiencies.

Within  the  total  States  expenditure  limits  agreed,  there  is significant investment in States strategic priorities, but also the need for £77 million of efficiencies, savings and user pays to help fund this investment.

Although  total  States  expenditure  is  not  being  cut,  overall expenditure is not proposed to rise between 2016 and 2019. Total States expenditure in 2016 is £767 million, and in 2019 is £767 million. Whilst prices have continued to rise whilst the level of services is being maintained, this means the real cost of delivering essential public services has reduced.

2016 net revenue expenditure is £740 million, and 2019 net revenue expenditure is £735 million.

These expenditure limits have now been proposed, debated and the detail agreed, and the CoM and departments are required to work within these.

16

Despite being given an additional 12 months to prepare the MTFP Addition, there is a significant lack of detail within the document.

The CoM disagrees with this finding.

The MTFP Addition report covers almost 200 pages, provides information  to  support  the  income  forecasts,  summaries  by department of the additional funding, efficiencies, savings and user  pays  and  details  of  the  fiscal  measures,  funding mechanisms and short-term funding proposals.

The MTFP Addition Report is supported by 3 Addenda –

 The  department  Annex,  providing  details  of  each department's spending plans by service for all 3 years of the

Findings

Comments

MTFP Addition period, with further details of savings and growth to be delivered.

• A  detailed  distributional  analysis  of  the  MTFP  Addition proposals – summarised in the main report.

• A comprehensive report on the States' income forecasts for 2016 – 2020.

The MTFP Addition covers 3 years and includes significant areas of service review and re-organisation. As these reviews are still underway in many departments, it is not possible to provide precise details for every savings measure.

At  each  annual  MTFP  Annex  update,  departments  will  be required to update progress on their programme of savings over the period of the MTFP.

17

There is no clear link between the amount to be charged and the type and level of service that will be delivered to members of the Public. Furthermore, there is no detail yet about how the money will be appropriately ring-fenced and channelled to the Health Department.

The  case  for  additional  funding  of  health  was  made  in P.82/2012 – it wasn't the purpose of the MTFP Addition to make that case: it had already been made. Furthermore, this was  an  in principle  agreement,  with  further  detail  to  be provided subsequently.

If a health charge is introduced in the future, the Minister for Treasury and Resources will ensure that it is accompanied by a mechanism  that  clearly  demonstrates  that  funding  is  ring- fenced for that purpose.

18

The Panel is highly concerned with the lack of detail contained within the MTFP Addition with regard to the health charge. Given the absence of detail or link between usage and liability, the Panel finds it difficult to see how a "charge" for provision of Health services can be justified, and that the argument for imposing this charge has not been adequately made.

In  the  CoM's  view,  the  MTFP  Addition  documents  (main document plus  distributional analysis  prepared by the  Chief Economic Adviser) contained sufficient detail of the proposed health charge in order for States Members and the Public to understand who would pay the charge and how much.

19

The capping of the charge results in higher earners paying less as a percentage of their overall income than middle- to lower- earners. This is non-compliant with the tax principle of low, broad, simple and fair.

The  5  long-term  tax  policy  principles  shaped  the  CoM's thinking regarding the proposed health charge. For example, the second principle that "taxes should be low, broad, simple and  fair"  resulted  in  the  health  charge  using  income  tax principles rather than (say) social security principles. As the health charge was based on income tax principles, those with the lowest income who do not pay income tax would not have paid anything in health charge either. This use of income tax principles  would  have  meant  that  approximately  30%  of Islanders  would  have  been  fully  exempt  from  the  proposed health charge.

Again, due to the use of income tax principles, those taxpayers entitled to marginal relief would have seen their health charge

Findings

Comments

liability  reduced.  Due  to  the  availability  of  marginal  relief, most people paying the health charge would have suffered an effective rate below the headline rates of 0.5% in 2018 and 1% in 2019; with many suffering effective rates well below these headline rates.

However,  as  noted  above,  there  are  5  long-term  tax  policy principles which need to be considered and balanced whenever a decision on revenue-raising measures is taken. In this context, the CoM gave specific consideration to the fourth principle: "Taxes must be internationally competitive".  They therefore proposed the introduction of a cap, to limit the contribution made by any single individual.

This cap recognised that Jersey operates in an internationally competitive  environment,  not  only  through  its  business  tax regime, but also its personal tax (in its broadest sense including taxes,  contributions  and  charges)  regime.  In  order  for  the Island's economy to thrive, it is important that the Island can attract  and  retain  highly-skilled  individuals  to  work  in  the Island.

This isn't just a question of tax rates; the "whole package" has to be right, including – the natural environment, educational facilities,  quality  healthcare,  transportation  links,  etc.  The package offered by Jersey as a place to work and live is highly compelling, but it is naïve to exclude tax rates and other cost- of-living  factors  from  the  issues  considered  by  people considering relocating.

20

States Members are being asked to vote on a waste charge with no detail behind it.

The States Assembly has approved in principle the introduction of a waste charge.

The detail of the charge will be developed in consultation with affected businesses and other stakeholders – including tourism, agriculture, and other businesses.

21

No studies have been carried out in relation to the impact of the Waste Charge on the tourism industry or any other end users.

Please see comment 20 above.

22

An agreement has yet to be reached between the Comité des Connétable s and the Council of Ministers as to if, and how, a funding mechanism for the States' payment of Rates will be created.

In the MTFP Addition the CoM stated –

"Having considered the options for the compensating income stream, the Council of Ministers favours an increase in the non-domestic Island-wide rate. However, having reviewed the Rates Law the Council of Ministers is concerned that the current Rates system contains no mechanism for revaluation. Therefore the rateable value of property is effectively frozen, locked  in  rateable  value  largely  based  on  notional  rental values from 2003.

With property rental values changing with the market but rateable values frozen in perpetuity the inevitable result is that,  over  time,  the  burden  of  rates  becomes  unfairly

Findings

Comments

distributed  amongst  ratepayers.  Some  ratepayers  are currently  paying  proportionally  too  much,  (e.g. retailers) whilst other ratepayers are currently paying proportionally too little (e.g. offices).

The Council of Ministers does not consider it appropriate to increase the non-domestic Island-wide rate until such time that the Rates Law allows for the periodic revaluation of properties in the Island to address this unfairness, and will work with the Comité des Connétable s and the Island's Rates Assessors  to  bring  forward  changes  at  the  earliest opportunity. At this point the Council of Ministers intends to be in a position to bring forward proposals in such time as to establish  the  compensating  income  stream  from  2018 onwards."

The Draft 2017 Budget proposes legislation that would allow Regulations to be drafted which would facilitate the required periodic revaluation. These Regulations will be developed in partnership with the  Comité des Connétable s and the  Rates Assessors.

23

The Minister for Treasury and Resources has stated it is likely that a further charge will be levied on taxpayers to fund the new Hospital.

The Minister has not stated that a further charge to fund the Hospital is likely. However, the expected cost of building a new General Hospital has meant that this capital scheme is not affordable as part of the standard Capital Programme. This has led to the need to identify alternative solutions. Options are understood, and the Minister for Treasury and Resources has already identified that a blended solution seems likely. Part of that blended solution includes further debt for the States of Jersey; and because of that fact, a means of financing that debt must be found.

The  financing  options  include  using  existing  resources  or increasing income received. Work has been underway in order to decide how best to finance the debt, and the Minister is keen to avoid increases to taxes or charges if at all possible.

Uncertainty  around  the  impact  of  BREXIT  on  Jersey's  tax income is likely to affect any decision, and there are likely to be sufficient resources from investment returns in the short to medium term. But, as the future is unknown, this does not rule out any further charges to service this debt in the longer term.

24

In light of the statement from the Minister for Treasury and Resources in relation to the likelihood of a future hospital charge and lacking any further detail, States Members are unable to fully comprehend the total additional charges that are being envisaged by CoM over the life of this MTFP.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources did not suggest that a further charge was imminent. That is not what was intended – he wanted to highlight that it was a possibility.

As explained above, preferred options for funding are likely to be affordable within existing resources, at least in the short to medium term, and therefore would not require a decision over the life of this MTFP.

Findings

Comments

25

The introduction of new charges will increase the effective rate of tax for taxpayers.

As noted above, under the proposed health charge those with the lowest income who do not pay income tax would not have paid anything in health charge either. This use of income tax principles  would  have  meant  that  approximately  30%  of Islanders  would  have  been  fully  exempt  from  the  proposed health charge.

Again due to the use of income tax principles, those taxpayers entitled to marginal relief would have seen their health charge liability reduced by marginal relief. Due to the availability of marginal relief, most people paying the health charge would have paid an effective rate below the headline rates of 0.5% in 2018 and 1% in 2019; with many paying effective rates well below these headline rates.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The relevant funding be reinstated to the States of Jersey Statistics Unit in order for it to continue conducting the Business Tendency Survey.

CMD

Accept

The  Council  of  Ministers understands  the  need  for accurate, regular statistics, and a solution is being identified that avoids the use of Contingency.

The Council will also look to find efficiency  savings  in  management from  combining  the  Health Intelligence Unit with the Statistics Unit. It is committed to maintaining important reports from the Statistics Unit.

December 2016

2

In light of repeated instances of downgraded income forecasts, the process by which income is forecast should be reviewed with immediate effect with the early involvement of the relevant Scrutiny Panel.

T&R

Accept

The Minister would point out that the  2015  income  forecast  in  the MTFP  last  year  was  described  as optimistic by the Panel, yet the 2015 General Revenues Outturn exceeded forecast by over £25 million.

The  recent  slight  reduction  to  the forecasts post-Brexit represent only £6 million p.a. or a 1% variation.

However, the Minister for Treasury and  Resources  is  committed  to review  the  Personal  Tax  Forecast model, and the intention is that this work will be carried out ahead of the next income forecast update in March/April 2017.

April 2017

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

The work will be carried out by the Economics Unit in conjunction with the IFG, and then shared with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel.

3

The Minister for Treasury and Resources must explain the full impact of the downgraded income forecasts and the measures he proposes to take to balance expenditure by 2019.

T&R

Accept

The  Panel  received  a  private briefing  on  the  updated  forecasts within  2 weeks  of  the  revised economic  assumptions.  The  Panel were informed that States Members would  receive  a  written  update ahead of the MTFP addition debate.

The  briefing  to  the  Panel  clearly showed  that  the  adjustments  to income  were  small,  and  did  not require  changes  to  the  MTFP Addition.

• The  August  2016  economic assumptions  from  the  Fiscal Policy  Panel  showed  a  slight slowdown in the economy in the short term.

• The  updated  forecasts  show  a reduction in income of £6 million (or 1% p.a.) from 2017 onwards, mainly in personal income tax.

• Ministers proposed, as advised by the FPP, that there should be no change to the existing proposals in the MTFP Addition.

• The reduction in income forecasts is slight, and the proposals are to maintain  flexibility  through growth,  contingencies  and reserves.

Complete

4

Contingency must only be used for money set aside for unforeseen events. Money already designated for specific purposes should not be held under contingency.

T&R

Reject

The  Minister  for  Treasury  and Resources  supports  the  principle that  the  specific  allocations  for contingency should only be used for unforeseen events. There are clear governance  arrangements  in  place to  ensure  full  visibility  of  all allocations.

However,  the  Minister  does  not agree that clearly identified specific funding  should  not  be  held  in

N/A

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

contingencies. Holding them in this way  subjects  the  funding  to  the strict  governance  arrangements  in place for all contingency allocations and  ensures  departmental  budgets are not distorted in the interim by funding  which  is  not  required immediately.

Consideration  will  be  given  to changes to the Public Finances Law to  distinguish  between contingencies  and  provisions  held centrally.

5

On making any allocations from the EPGDP, the Minister for Treasury and Resources must send a copy of the Ministerial Decision and report, on the date of signature, to the relevant Scrutiny Panel for that department.

T&R

Reject – decisions are already public.

All  MDs  in  respect  of  central contingency  allocations,  including those  from  the  EPGDP  provision, will  be  public  and  available  to Scrutiny  and  all  States  Members, once approved.

N/A

6

Growth expenditure must only be released when savings and efficiencies targets can be demonstrated to have been met. As such, targets for savings and efficiencies must be fixed achievable and realistic in the timeframes envisaged.

T&R

Accept in principle

The  Change  Portfolio  Office  will require departments to demonstrate their progress on achieving savings and efficiencies targets. This will be monitored through the year, and the Minister  for  Treasury  and Resources  will  consider  progress when  proposing  allocations  from the Central Growth Provision in the 2017 and 2018 Budgets.

Budget 2018

7

States Members should be presented with a detailed analysis of all of those areas that were rejected by the Council of Ministers which resulted in a reduced savings and efficiencies target.

CMD

Reject

Please see comment 9.

N/A

8

In order to tackle the "almost cultural acceptance" of non- achievement of savings targets, the Council of

CMD

Reject

The  Council  of  Ministers  does currently  provide  strong  direction and  leadership.  A  programme  is currently  being  set  up  to  monitor achievement against targets. Subject

June 2017

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Ministers must provide stronger direction, leadership and clear policy statements in order to drive savings and efficiencies across the States.

to Council of Ministers' approval, it will be established and reported on throughout the period of the MTFP Addition.

9

In order to bring about fundamental structural change to deliver real savings and efficiencies, recommendation 16 in CIPFA's report in relation to outcome-based budgeting and additional zero-based budgeting should be put in place by the time of the next MTFP.

"Outcome-based budgeting and additional zero-based budgeting should be used to complement the prevailing incremental approach."

T&R

Accept

The  Minister  for  Treasury  and Resources  supports  the recommendation  for  additional zero-based budgeting. This process is already underway and has been used  in  varying  degrees  in  most departments;  it  has  assisted  in departmental reviews and resulting efficiency  programmes. Identification  of  desired  outcomes have  helped  to  drive  decisions around "what" and "how" services are delivered.

Ongoing

10

The ongoing vacancy rate for departments should be reduced to 3%.

T&R

Reject

This  proposal  is  rejected. Departmental  budgets  include savings agreed in the States under the  MTFP  2016 – 2019,  and  the staffing budgets set for departments reflect  these  agreed  plans  (see response to points 12 and 13 above).

As discussed in the MTFP addition debate 2017 – 2019 in response to Amd. (8),  a  reduction  of  the vacancy rate to 3% would have a significant impact on departments' ability  to  deliver  services,  and would  lead  to  redundancies  of permanent staff.

N/A

11

Detailed targets with realistic timeframes for public sector savings and efficiencies should be presented to States

CMD

Reject

Cash  limits  are  now  approved  as part of the MTFP debate which set targets and timeframes on an annual basis in order that departments live within their cash limits, and Chief

N/A

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Members.

Officers  will  account  for departmental savings against agreed cash limits.

12

States Members should be presented with a detailed breakdown of performance versus targets every 6 months, explaining where and why targets have not been met for any reason.

CMD

Accept in principle

Please  see  recommendation 8. Progress  will  be  reported  at  least annually.

June 2017

13

The proposal for a health charge should be withdrawn unless the Council of Ministers can clearly demonstrate that there are no further savings and efficiencies that can be made within Public Sector expenditure.

T&R

N/A

The  Council  of  Ministers  is considering  how  to  address  the outcome of the debate on the MTFP Addition, which did not approve the introduction  of  a  health  charge  at this stage.

Ongoing

14

A complete review of the capping of all charges, both existing and proposed, should be carried out with the outcome of the review presented to all States Members by June 2017.

T&R

Reject

During  the  course  of  the  MTFP Addition  debate,  the  Council  of Ministers committed to a review of the personal tax system (an outline of  what  the  review  will  cover  is provided here:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/A

N/A

ssemblyPropositions/2016/P.68-

2016Amd(9)Com.pdf).

This review will report by 31st March 2017

The Social Security Department has recently  launch  its  review  of  the Social  Security  Fund.  The consultation  document  specifically covers the issue of social security contributions and asks Islanders for their  views.  More  details  of  the review  can  be  found  here: http://www.gov.je/government/depa

rtments/socialsecurity/socialsecurity

fund/Pages/index.aspx.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

15

Any proposals to introduce a waste charge should be abandoned until further consultation and studies have been undertaken and the results presented to States Members.

T&R

Reject

The States Assembly approved the introduction  of  the  charge  in principle during the debate on the MTFP Addition in September 2017. Consultation  and  studies  will  be undertaken ahead of final proposals being lodged and debated.

N/A