Government Plan 2022 -2025 Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel Review

Government Plan 2022-2025 Scrutiny Review

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

9th December 2021 S.R.18/2021

1  CHAIR'S FOREWORD  1

2. INTRODUCTION / METHODOLOGY  2
3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  3

Findings  3 Recommendations  8

4. DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS  10

Departmental Heads of Expenditure  10 Minister for the Environment  12 Minister for Infrastructure  13 Minister for Housing and Communities  15

5  EFFICIENCIES  17

Rebalancing and Efficiencies  17 Minister for Infrastructure  18 Minister for the Environment  19 Minister for Housing and Communities  19

6  SUMMARY TABLES OF SCRUTINY RAG' RATINGS  20

Previously reviewed programmes and capital projects (GP 2020-23 / GP 2021-24)  20 New programmes requiring additional revenue expenditure (GP 2022-25)  24 New capital expenditure (GP 2022-25)  24

7  PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS: UPDATE REPORTS  25

Programmes  25 GP20-CSP4-2-01 --- Housing Policy Development Board and Long-Term Plan  25 GP20-CSP4-2-02 --- Tenants' rights  30 GP20-CSP5-2-02 --- Countryside Access  35 GP20-CSP5-2-03 --- Jersey National Park  38 GP21-CSP5-2-04 --- Natural Environment - Water  45 GP21-CSP5-2-05 --- Marine Resources Management  47 GP21-CSP5-C-01--- Covid-19 Bus Contract  51 GP21-OI3-20 --- 28-30 The Parade  54

Capital Projects  57 CSP 5 --- Infrastructure Rolling Vote and Regeneration Including St. Helier (2022) – Major Project  57 CSP 5 --- Sewage Treatment Works – Major Project  60 CSP 1 --- Redesign of Greenfields (Major Project)  63 CSP 5 --- La Collette Waste Site Development  64

Prison – Phase 8  66 CSP 1 --- Dewberry House SARC  67 Piquet House – Family Court  69 CSP 5 --- Drainage Foul Sewer Extensions  71

8. NEW PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IN GP 2022-25: REPORTS 73

Programmes  73 GP22-CSP4-1-06 --- Housing & Food Licensing Schemes  73 GP22-CSP5-2-07--- Increased Liquid Waste Processing  76 GP22-CSP5-2-10--- Hazardous Waste Disposal  78

Fund as required programmes  81 Fund as Required --- UK/EU TCA Biosecurity Border Controls and Vienna Convention Vehicle Testing  81 Fund as Required --- Climate Emergency Fund and Sustainable Transport  85 Fund as Required --- Future Fisheries and Marine Resources Management  96 Fund as Required --- Disposal of Recycling Materials  98 Fund as Required --- Glass Contract  99

9. CONCLUSION  101 10 WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE GATHERED  106 APPENDIX 1  107

Terms of Reference  107 Panel membership  107

APPENDIX 2  109

1  Chair's Foreword

My panel is fortunate to have a productive relationship with the Ministers falling under our scrutiny remit. This enables us to carry out constructive and effective scrutiny of the Housing, Environment and Infrastructure portfolios, thus providing the checks and balances so necessary in light of the significant levels of expenditure.

Demands from Government by the general public continue to evolve with the result that departmental expenditure must also change. It is easy for this expenditure to escalate, and both Brexit and Covid have much to answer for. We have closely looked at the services provided by our Government to ensure that good value for money continues to be at the forefront of Ministers' minds.

I commend the report to States Members and the general public and I take this opportunity to thank the Greffe staff for their support and assistance during the Government Plan 2022-2025 scrutiny process.

Constable Mike Jackson

Chair,

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

2  Introduction / Methodology

The proposed Government Plan 2022 sets out the approach the Government of Jersey has taken in responding to COVID-19 whilst continuing to invest in the Common Strategic Policy priorities:

1. Put children first
2. Improve Islander's wellbeing and mental and physical health
3. Create a sustainable, vibrant economy
4. Reduce income inequality and improve the standard of living
5. Protect and value our environment.

The Plan outlines the investment proposed in each of these five strategic priority areas and also includes a number of proposed efficiencies within the Government.

The Government Plan Financial Annex has also been lodged which contains supporting information for the Government Plan 2022-2025.  

The Scrutiny review of the Government Plan has taken a thorough approach, looking at the projects identified for additional revenue expenditure and capital expenditure last year, as well as new projects requiring additional revenue expenditure and capital expenditure in 2022. The Panel has undertaken this review in as much detail as possible with the information provided by Government.

A summary table of all business cases is provided in Chapter 6, along with the Panel's RAG rating.

In line with the methodology used during previous reviews, all Scrutiny Panels have agreed to use a common system to report on the status of each business case, as follows:

The Panel has reviewed the background information and is satisfied with the business case.

The Panel has reviewed the business case and either has concerns or considers that it needs more work, or further detail should be provided. It might also mean that the Panel considers it too early to make an informed decision.  This  may  or  may  not  lead  to  recommendations  and/or amendments.

The Panel has reviewed the business case and is not satisfied or does not agree with the proposal. This may or may not lead to an amendment.

3  Findings and Recommendations

Findings

FINDING 1

There is currently a lack of transparency over how departmental budgets and resource are allocated to the Minister for Housing and Communities' remit.

FINDING 2

There are no efficiencies assigned to the Minister for Housing and Communities and Minister for the Environment. There are proposed efficiencies totalling £500k under the remit of the Minister for Infrastructure which relate to proposed recurring spend reductions by Jersey Property Holdings.

FINDING 3

The Housing PDB and Long-Term Plan programme has been designated amber by the Panel due to a lack of co-ordination which has resulted in slow progress to date. Whilst it is acknowledged that measures are proposed to improve co-ordination moving forward, the Panel will continue to monitor the progress of this programme throughout 2022 in order to determine whether coordination has improved and funds are sufficient to deliver the intended aims of this programme.

FINDING 4

The Tenants' Rights programme has been designated amber by the Panel given the significant work which remains in respect of the workstream throughout 2022 and beyond including for social rent, rent stabilisation and the Residential Tenancy Law. The Panel notes that to progress this work, the direction regarding a licensing or registration scheme for landlords would need to be decided and approved by the States Assembly.

FINDING 5

Notwithstanding  the  notable  success  of  the  Jersey  National  Park  to  demonstrate  its achievements to date, this programme has been designated amber by the Panel, due to the following:

1. Clarity is required regarding JNP's role, purpose and responsibilities and its objectives should be clearly defined.
2. Clarification of JNP boundaries and its legal status is required and the concerns raised are dependent, to some extent, on the outcomes of the Bridging Island Plan.
3. There is a risk that with potential changes in Ministerial roles after the election, that JNP's future strategy and how it aligns with any changing Government priorities may impact its continued progress.

FINDING 6

Funding allocations agreed in the previous Government Plan 2021 for the Marine Resources Management Programme has enabled the appointment of two fisheries officers. In addition, progress has been made for the resourcing of the vessel monitoring system and online logbook system. Funding of £92k is being requested in 2022 of £92k to continue to fund the retention of two fisheries officer posts.

FINDING 7

The implementation of the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement is still in its infancy and the vessel licensing regime is yet to be resolved. Consequently, uncertainty remains regarding whether the level of funding will be sufficient moving forward. However, the Panel notes that funds are available in the General Reserve to fund as required' the new Future Fisheries and Marine Resources Management Programme and has therefore designated this programme with a green RAG rating. The Panel will continue to closely monitor progress of Marine Resources Management during 2022.

FINDING 8

A total of £1,021,000 for the Covid-19 Bus Contract programme has been spent to date from the funding allocation agreed in the previous Government Plan 2021 and any underspend will remain with Treasury. The Government Plan 2022 requests a funding allocation of £1.2m which is deemed sufficient and will only be drawn down if required.

FINDING 9

Bus ridership is still down 65% on 2019's pre-pandemic levels, despite restrictions being lifted. The reason for this change in travel behaviour is not fully known at this stage, although it is surmised that the pandemic might have instilled a lack of confidence to resume use of public transport, as well as people continuing to work from home and there being less requirement to travel to and from the workplace. It is also unknown to what extent this reduction in ridership has had, and will continue to have, on the operator's profits.

FINDING 10

Whilst the continued leasing of the 28-30 The Parade has provided unforeseen opportunity to accommodate the Covid-19 Response Team, it does not appear to be providing value for money through its current under-utilised use. It has been identified that the intention is to not extend the lease beyond 2023, although the Panel is uncertain why indicative funding has therefore been proposed in the Government Plan 2022 for 2024 and 2025.

FINDING 11

There is uncertainty over whether the allocated funding of £2m for 2022 for Regeneration, including St. Helier ' is sufficient to make substantial improvements to the Island's public realm. In 2020, funding was significantly reduced by 75% to £3.4m over the four funded years of the programme and despite additional funds of £1m provided in March 2021, as well as the potential to draw down £730k from Jersey Development Company, the programme remains significantly under-funded against the funding projections made in the 2020 Government Plan.

FINDING 12

Additional funds of £10.7m are required for the Sewage Treatment Works Major Capital Project. A breakdown was provided by the Minister for Infrastructure which includes additional funds for Biosolids Storage Facilities; STW Odour Mitigation; and Bellozanne Outfall Rehabilitation. Also included in the £10.7m is £1.85 which is required to fund additional costs incurred by the pandemic.

FINDING 13

There are likely to be delays to achieving project completion of the Sewage Treatment Works Major Capital Project by October 2023, although, it is hoped by the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department that it will be able to complete the project by the end of 2023. It is further considered that the IHE Department is sufficiently resourced in this area to able to manage the project through to completion now that the main contractor has gone into administration and the contract now having been terminated.

FINDING 14

The proposed increase in spend for the Dewberry House Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) Capital Project from £500,000 to £882,000 in 2022 is to ensure space for Victims First (VF) thereby allowing Government to maximise synergy between the work of SARC, the Child's House, Jersey Domestic Abuse Support (JDAS) and VF and to realise economies of scale with having these services all co-located in the new building. The increased space will also allow services to support the recently released Children and Young Peoples' Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health Strategy and provide services from the new building to those who have suffered all types of trauma and abuse.

FINDING 15

The removal of funds for the Piquet House – Family Court capital project is a result of the Family Court now relocating to alternative premises at International House following a States' approval to enter a lease contract.

FINDING 16

Anticipated funding of £1m for 2022 for the Drainage Foul Sewers Extension project has been withdrawn due to funding pressures and further funding is not proposed until 2023. The delivery of future extensions to the foul sewerage network will therefore be impacted by delays.

FINDING 17

The previous Government Plan 2021-24 was set on the assumption that £1m in fees would be raised to enable food safety and housing legislation to be regulated on a cost neutral basis. However, the States Assembly did not support fees in relation to housing licensing at the time, nor the subsequent regulations, leaving the cost of activities surrounding the enforcement of the existing primary laws unfunded.

FINDING 18

The Jersey Landlords' Association has expressed concern regarding insufficient clarity in respect of the use of the funds and how the funding amount for the Housing and Food Licensing Schemes programme has been determined. The response from Government was that ongoing costs and the requirements are known. What is unknown is any works that would be included in post-Brexit requirement or with increasing workload going forward, for which an increased budget requirement has been made in the Government Plan bid for 2022. The £1m figure has therefore been estimated by Government on this basis and is deemed sufficient to fund the necessary requirements.

FINDING 19

The funds for 2022 for the Housing and Food Licensing Schemes programme is deemed, by Government, to be sufficient enough to cover the costs associated with the backlog of works and will allow the works to continue. However, there is uncertainty regarding additional potential costs resultant of any post-Brexit requirements or increasing future demand. Moreover, uncertainty exists in respect of the evolving nature of the two workstreams and the impact thereof on resourcing for delivery of the objectives. Therefore, the Panel has designated this programme amber.

FINDING 20

The Government Plan 2022-25 requests funding of £250k for Increased Liquid Waste Processing within the pumping stations and tanker service. It was found that £170k of the £250k is due to increased electricity costs, with the balance relating to some of the maintenance within liquid waste and increased cost relating to tanker transportation. Increases in population and adverse, wet weather conditions have also contributed to increased costs in using Government of Jersey tankers, as well as contracted tankers. The Panel is satisfied with the level of funding requested and has designated this programme green.

FINDING 21

The Government Plan 2022 seeks approval for a funding allocation of 1.25m for 2022 in relation to Hazardous Waste Removal which seeks to support the effective disposal and processing of all hazardous waste while adhering to waste management regulations and ensuring that the construction industry has a route to dispose of its hazardous waste. The Panel received evidence which confirmed that the funds allocated for 2022 are a contingency measure for if income targets of hazardous waste are not met as a result of reduced activity. If income targets are met, and the allocated funds are not required, the funds would be returned to Treasury. The Panel has therefore provided a green RAG status for this programme.

FINDING 22

Previous funding allocations for the Vehicle Testing Centre Major Capital Project have been withdrawn on the basis that it is now expected this will be delivered by the provider. The implications of this have been assessed by Government and based on confirmation provided from potential providers who had made an expression of interest, this has been deemed a workable model. The outcome, therefore, is that this capital funding is no longer available, and the preferred option is that the provider will be required to construct and operate the inspection centre, preferably on a site provided by government.

FINDING 23

A new fund as required' UK/EU TCA Biosecurity Border Controls and Vienna Convention Vehicle Testing programme is included in the Government Plan 2022 to support the adoption of new border control requirements in line with the UK-EU Trade Co-operation Agreement and practical steps the UK DEFRA requires the Island to implement. In addition, to enable the periodic technical inspection of all vehicles that will ensure the Island is fully compliant with the articles of the Vienna Convention for Road Traffic. However, it is uncertain at this stage how much funding will be required for 2022 and beyond. The Panel has therefore designated this programme with an amber RAG rating.

FINDING 24

The Climate Emergency Fund has been designated amber by the Panel given the significant work which remains in respect of the workstream throughout 2022 and beyond. The Panel notes that to progress this work, the policy direction within the Carbon Neutral Roadmap will still need to be approved by the States Assembly. Moreover, agreement will need to be reached on the additional revenue streams to fund the additional monies that will be required to meet the Government's ambitious aims to be achieved by 2030.

FINDING 25

The carbon neutral and sustainable transport workstreams are still in their infancy. Consequently, uncertainty remains regarding the level of funding and resourcing that will be sufficient moving forward. However, the Panel notes that the Carbon Neutral Fund will fund as required' the new Carbon Neutral Fund and Sustainable Transport Programme. The Panel will continue to closely monitor progress of this programme during 2022.

FINDING 26

The Panel observed a willingness from private organisations/stakeholders to play an active part in assisting the Government to achieve its ambitious policy aims in respect of combating climate change. However, views expressed by stakeholders to the Panel suggests that Government should be doing more to involve those stakeholders and to form the partnerships required to impact timely change on carbon neutrality.

FINDING 27

Measures have been put in place to manage the crossover of remits through the establishment of the Carbon Neutral Steering Group and with the policy development function for the Carbon Neutral Roadmap and the Sustainable Transport Policy both falling within the Sustainability & Foresight team under the Strategy and Innovation Directorate within SPPP. However, it is the Minister for the Environment's view that the current arrangement for the climate emergency portfolio was predisposed to cause confusion as it crossed the remits of both the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure. The Panel observed that improved political oversight of the climate emergency portfolio may be beneficial through a dedicated ministerial role for the portfolio.

FINDING 28

Funding has been set aside in the General Reserve for the fund as required' Future Fisheries and Marine Resources Management Programme. Although funding amounts are uncertain, £263k has been estimated for 2022 with additional estimates of £253k in 2023 and £238k in 2024 and 2025. Since the implementation of the UK-EU is still in its infancy and the vessel licensing regime is yet to be resolved, uncertainty remains regarding the level of funding that will be sufficiently required moving forward. Considering the scope of work and the uncertainty regarding the level of funding, the Panel has designated an amber RAG status for this programme.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Minister for Housing and Communities should, in his Ministerial Response to this report, provide a breakdown of the apportionments from relevant departmental budgets which are applicable to his Ministerial portfolio. The purpose and aim of doing so would be to aid better understanding and enable greater transparency in relation to the budget resources attributed to Common Strategic Priority 4 which seeks to improve the quality and affordability of housing and improve social inclusion.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture should provide clear guidance on Jersey National Park's role, purpose and responsibilities. Since the JNP is an arms-length organisation of Government, consideration should be given to whether its role can be separately identified, as well as how its objectives can be clearly defined. The Minister should consider how this clarity might be incorporated into the Rural Economy Strategy for 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Department for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment, in collaboration with LibertyBus, should undertake an evaluation of the reasons for decreased ridership, as well as an analysis on measures which can be further taken to promote and incentivise bus ridership as a sustainable travel option. This should work should be undertaken before the end of Q2 2022 and the outcome reported back to the Panel.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Minister for Infrastructure should outline in his Ministerial Response why indicative funding has been suggested for 2024 and 2025 in the Government Plan 2022 if it is not the intention to renew the lease on 28-30 The Parade after 2023.

RECOMMENDATION 5

It being acknowledged that there will be considerable funding constraints across Government going into 2022, the Minister for Infrastructure should ensure that funding for public realm is prioritised and allocated in gradual increases throughout 2023-25, to ensure that any shortfall resulting from these funding cuts is suitably addressed and that improvements to the public realm can be sufficiently funded moving forward.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Minister for Infrastructure should report back to the States Assembly in time for the next Government Plan 2023 to confirm whether it is the intention to make up the shortfall of funding for 2022 in future Government Plan bids for 2023-25, as well as providing a revised target date for when, wherever practicable, the whole Island will be connected to the foul sewerage system.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure should, moving forward, actively seek to consult and involve, where appropriate, local organisations who are willing and able to contribute to the Island's journey to reach carbon neutrality. The Ministers should seek to form partnerships with local organisations and stakeholders to accelerate the Government's aims to realise its ambitious plans.

RECOMMENDATION 8

Given the crossover between the remits of the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for the Environment, further consideration should be given, before the next term of Government, as to how political oversight for the climate emergency portfolio can be strengthened and improved. Specifically, whether the climate emergency portfolio would benefit from a dedicated ministerial role.

4  Departmental Budgets  

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel scrutinises the work of three Ministers; the Minister for the Environment, the Minster for Infrastructure and the Minister for Housing and Communities. Therefore, the project policy work contained in the programmes and capital projects assigned to the Panel predominantly sit under:

Minister for the Environment, Deputy John Young

Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Kevin Lewis

Minister for Housing and Communities, Deputy Russell Labey

Departmental Heads of Expenditure

In the Government Plan 2022-2025, the States Assembly has been asked to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund for 2022, for each head of expenditure. The tables below provide a summary of the proposed "Heads of Expenditure" allocated to the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department for 2022 and estimates produced for 2023-2025:

A further breakdown of these figures is provided on page 28 of the Annex to the Government Plan 2022-24 as follows:

The 2022 resources allocated to the Ministers which fall under the Panel's remit are as follows:

Minister for the Environment

The Panel requested information from the Minister for the Environment in relation to how the IHE Department base budget for 2022 is apportioned across the Minister's portfolio and was provided with this lower-level analysis of the budget by service area (excluding overhead costs) for 2022:

The Panel further notes that, in relation to the Minister's portfolio, the 2022 budget compares to the 2021 budget as follows:

In addition, the Panel was advised that £1.35m is held, within the Minister's remit, under the service area of Strategy and Innovation within the departmental budget for the Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) Department.[5]

The Panel questioned the Minister for the Environment on what funding pressures exist in relation to the services under his Ministerial remit and whether they were being adequately addressed by the Government Plan. The Minister responded as follows:

The States debates on Private Sector Dwellings licensing schemes and charges thereon caused a significant financial shortfall in the budget of the department in 2020 and 2021 as since 2019 there has been an assumed income stream associated with this new legislation (introduced as a "user pays" measure in the MTFP 2016-19). It has now been recognised that there is no likelihood of achieving this income in this GP period and CSP4-1-06 above seeks to correct this.

In addition, following the C&AG's report on the Use of Enforcement Powers additional resource has been included under OI3-25 to address the concerns raised, details of which can be found on page 74 of the GP22 Annex document.

The impact of Brexit on the Regulation and Natural Environment teams has been met by the allocation of funding within Reserves, to be released as required, as has additional funding required to bolster the capabilities of the Marine Resources team.

The continuation of funding in respect of growth introduced in previous Government Plans is welcomed and is in line with the funding profile indicated in those previous plans.[6]

Minister for Infrastructure

The Panel requested information from the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to how the IHE Department base budget for 2022 is apportioned across the Minister's portfolio and was provided with this lower-level analysis of the budget for 2022 by service area[7]:

The Panel was further advised that additional support for the bus service of up to £1.20m in 2022 is also available under the Covid Head of Expenditure, should it be required.

The Panel further notes that, in relation to the Minister's portfolio, the 2022 budget compares to the 2021 budget as follows:

The Panel questioned the Minister for Infrastructure on what funding pressures exist in relation to the services under his Ministerial remit and whether they were being adequately addressed by the Government Plan. The Minister responded as follows:

A number of ongoing issues for the department have been, at least temporarily, resolved for 2022 following the recognition of pressures particularly in the solid and liquid waste areas of the service and allocation of additional resource both within the base budget and held in reserve.

Additional emerging pressures for 2022 and beyond include high rates of building material price inflation impacting on both the remit of the Property division and the capital programme, increasing costs of process chemicals and off-Island maintenance support for major infrastructure (sewage treatment works and energy recovery facility), income risk based on existing chargeable waste streams and availability of disposal sites and, of course, the termination of the main contract for replacement of the sewage treatment works at Bellozanne and progression of those works to completion. All of these matters continue to impact the department and will need to be considered in the context of the next government plan, particularly in the capital programme for 2023 and beyond.[9]

The Panel notes that, other than annual increases limited to a maximum of 2.5% in general, there are no major changes proposed to any of the existing income streams under the Infrastructure remit. However, proposals for the new Commercial Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Jersey) Law 202- is likely to be lodged shortly which, if adopted by the States, will introduce new charges in due course for commercial vehicle operators.[10]

Minister for Housing and Communities

In a public hearing, the Panel questioned the Minister on how department base budgets and service areas are mapped to his portfolio and was advised that the Minister's portfolio runs across three separate departments: Infrastructure Housing and Environment; Customer and Local Services; and Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance and it was therefore difficult to map the various budgets under his portfolio.[11]

As noted above, the Government Plan 2022-25 indicates that £650,000 of resources has been mapped to the Minister for Housing and Communities' portfolio for 2022. The Panel considers that further details should be provided in relation to the breakdown of this figure across the three departments and service areas.

The Panel notes it is not possible to compare the £650,000 resources mapped to the Minister's portfolio for 2022 with the resources for 2021 as the Ministerial remit has now fundamentally changed from Children and Housing' to Housing and Communities' and therefore any cross- comparison of the total figures would not be based on a like for like' comparison.

FINDING 1

There is currently a lack of transparency over how departmental budgets and resource are allocated to the Minister for Housing and Communities' remit.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Minister for Housing and Communities should, in his Ministerial Response to this  report,  provide  a  breakdown  of  the  apportionments  from  relevant departmental  budgets  which  are  applicable  to  his  Ministerial  portfolio.  The purpose and aim of doing so would be to aid better understanding and enable greater transparency in relation to the budget resources attributed to Common Strategic Priority 4 which seeks to improve the quality and affordability of housing and improve social inclusion.

5  Efficiencies

The Government Plan 2020-2023 set out the ambition to achieve £100 million of efficiencies, with the first £40 million to be achieved in 2020. The plan for £40 million in 2020 was published in October 2019 and a performance update was included in the Government 6-month report, published in August 2020. The Government Plan 2021-2024 set out the 2021 plan to deliver £20 million of efficiencies and other rebalancing measures.

Rebalancing and Efficiencies

The Government Plan proposes £21 million of rebalancing measures in 2022, with the intent that a further £40 million of savings will be delivered across 2023 and 2024. The table below shows the efficiencies and rebalancing totals for each Minister under the Panel's remit:

The summary description of proposals reviewed by the Panel are set out in the table below:

Panel analysis

Minister for Infrastructure

In respect of the above efficiency, the Panel asked the Minister for Infrastructure what impact a rebalancing measure of £300,000 (to reduce a portion of property maintenance budget) had on the department and service delivery to date and whether he considered the recurring efficiency appropriate for 2022. The Minister provided the following response:

The rebalancing measures will occur in light of the Office Modernisation project and will be delivered by acknowledging that we will be moving out of several office spaces in 2024. In this context, the maintenance requirement can be shorter term. It will not affect the safety of occupation or the ability of the government to discharge its obligations and is appropriate for 2022.[14]

In respect of the above efficiency, the Panel also asked what impact this efficiency has had on the Department and service delivery to date and whether he considered the recurring efficiency appropriate for 2022. The following response was provided:

Restructured facilities management was one of the original goals of setting up JPH in 2005. These savings are coming from all departments, particularly those that have been carrying out property activity independently of JPH and will be delivered by extending existing contracts across a wider number of premises and using existing personnel more efficiently. There will be limited impact on the department, but an overall benefit to the government.[15]

The Panel further questioned the Minister on progress on the review of the Government of Jersey property portfolio. Specifically, how it would be determined which properties should be maintained and which should not within the scope of this review. The Minister's response was as follows:

The review of the Property portfolio is occurring as a result of the new office project, the Our Hospital project, the Fort Regent project and the review of primary school education. It is allowing options to be considered to meet the current need for housing, for efficient provision of blue light services, for public realm and regeneration use. All the buildings are maintained to a greater or lesser degree, depending on whether they will be demolished, refurbished, or reused.[16]

Minister for the Environment

The Panel notes there are no efficiency measures solely assigned to the Minister for the Environment. When questioned on why this was the case, the Minister provided the following in a response to the Panel's written questions:

Initially a target was set for the department in respect of efficiency measures, however, the list of available options, given other funding pressures being experienced by the department as a whole, was unacceptable to myself, my fellow IHE Ministers and the Council of Ministers and, I believe, represented an unacceptable further reduction in the department's budget.

Over a number of years both the former Departments of the Environment and Infrastructure have taken significant reductions in budget through the various efficiency and savings rounds and this has continued under the IHE department. Growth funding has been more limited. The IHE department reduced its budget by over £6m in the last Government Plan and already had a target set for a further £500,000 reduction in 2022, which is still contained within the cash limit, albeit within the Infrastructure Minister's portfolio under Property.

Minister for Housing and Communities

During the Panel's previous review of the 2021 Government Plan, it was noted that an efficiency spend reduction of £25,000 had been identified, and approved by the States, to delay policy development of the Long-Term Plan Housing Plan by one year. Noting that no efficiencies have been assigned to the Minister for Housing and Communities in the 2022 Government Plan, the Panel wished to understand whether this was due to the current issues facing the Island in relation to housing affordability and supply. The Panel questioned the Minister on this during the public hearing:

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Departmental budgets and efficiencies; the panel understands that no direct efficiencies measures have been applied to your remit of housing and communities. You could translate what Sue just mentioned just now into efficiencies. Is this correct and if so, has the Council of Ministers identified that the area should not be scaled back due to the urgency of addressing the housing supply issue?

The Minister for Housing and Communities:

I think that is a fair summary. The housing issue occupies a lot of our time on Council of Ministers' meetings, I am pleased to say. We are working across departments. As I mentioned last time we met, the spike in the house price index for a fourth year running is a concern. Alarm bells are ringing. We are looking at ways in which considering the rises and the wage growth has not kept pace with that. Considering the effects of that, families living where they can just about afford and find instead of where they really need and the problems that that can store up. It makes sense to work on this as much as we can. It is a tricky technical area but we are looking, as I say, across departments on what we might be able to do. What I am saying is, supply is vital. We are not taking the foot off the accelerator on supply. But are there other interventions, if you like, that Government can make? There are a few obvious ones and we are looking at them.

FINDING 2

There are no efficiencies assigned to the Minister for Housing and Communities and Minister for the Environment. There are proposed efficiencies totalling £500k under the remit of the Minister for Infrastructure which relate to proposed recurring spend reductions by Jersey Property Holdings.

6  Summary tables of Scrutiny RAG' ratings

The Panel has undertaken review of the various programmes and capital projects that were assigned to it by the Government Plan Review Panel, and passed comments were necessary. Following its review's Terms of Reference, the Panel carried out scrutiny of projects based upon the following guideline criteria:

• Where funding over £500,000 has been allocated

• Where funding has been withdrawn or decreased significantly from the previous year

• Where funding has been increased significantly from the previous year

• Projects which the Panel consider are of most concern (as a result of, for instance, delays, deferrals, overspends or because they are not in keeping with Common Strategic Priorities)

• Projects which have been identified as of concern by stakeholders

• Projects which are contentious and/or in the public eye.

• Projects where insufficient information has been provided and more information is sought

• Concern is held on the project's alignment with Common Strategic Priorities, social impact and impact upon children.

This section provides a summarised overview of the Panel's RAG ratings assigned to both previously reviewed programmes (GP 2020-23 / GP 2021-24) and new ones which have been identified in the Government Plan 2022-25.

Previously reviewed programmes and capital projects (GP 2020-23 / GP 2021-24)

The tables immediately below identify the programmes included in previous iterations of the Government Plan, which will continue to be invested in in 2022, and indicates whether the projects are Complete', On Track', Reduced', Delayed', Deferred' or subject to Partial Deferral'.

New programmes requiring additional revenue expenditure (GP 2022-25)

The table below identifies the programmes that will receive first-time investment in 2022 and were therefore not included in previous iterations of the Government Plan.

*FaR[17]

New capital expenditure (GP 2022-25)

The table below identifies new capital projects that will receive first-time investment in 2022 and were therefore not included in previous iterations of the Government Plan.

7  Previously  reviewed  programmes  and  capital  projects:

update reports

This section provides an update on the Programmes and Capital Projects that were previously reviewed by the Panel that it has caried out further scrutiny of in concordance with this review's Terms of Reference.

Programmes

The purpose of this programme is to implement the actions arising from the "Creating Better Homes: an action plan for housing in Jersey" published in June 2021, including various recommendations made by the Housing Policy Development Board.

Additionally, to undertake a review of the key worker accommodation and take actions during 2020 to extend the number of units available. The review is also intended to provide a clear definition of the roles to be included in the key worker scheme.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains that the final report of the Housing Policy Development Board was published in April 2021. The Minister for Housing and Communities then published "Creating Better Homes: an action plan for housing in Jersey" in June 2021. This action plan sets out 22 actions under five headings and reflects themes from the Housing Policy Development Board as well as broader issues. Actions already underway include a review of social rent policy and the development of a Housing Advice Service. A Political Oversight Group has been established and a new Strategic Housing and Regeneration team is being established and will be operational in the second half of 2021.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2020 -23 plan and 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

Considering the reduction in allocated funding for 2021 of £1,425,000 (GP 2020-23) to £725,000 (GP 2021-24), the Panel sought to understand whether the significant reduction has impacted the delivery of the programme's aims in 2021 and asked this of the Minister for Housing and Communities during a public hearing. Although the Minister highlighted that he was not aware of the reduction in funding, as a result of his late appointment to the role in February 2021, it was the Minister's view, in respect of his work responsibilities since his appointment that he had not experienced any impact as a result of the available funding. The Minister emphasised his satisfaction for what has been achieved to date in 2021. As the Minister was not party to the funding allocation for 2021, the Director for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance clarified further.[18]

Chairman, you are referring back to the changes that were made last year before the current Minister was in post. During 2020, all Ministers were asked to try and find some savings. The Minister for Housing at the time identified that the money that had been allocated in the previous year was perhaps not as best tote as it could be. There were areas where perhaps things were not going to take place as quickly. He put in place a more strategic use of the money and slightly smaller amount of money, but that has led to all the things that the current Minister for Housing and Communities has just described. In particular the ability to recruit into the strategic housing team, which is going to be a great asset to the government as a whole, having a central resource there to co-ordinate actions between the different partners and bodies.

Observing the progress highlighted within the Government's  mid-year review, in written questions to the Minister for Housing and Communities, the Panel sought further detail in that regard and for the breakdown of specific spend allocation for the programme to date of the £725,000 for 2021. The Panel was informed that the funding had been apportioned to the implementation of a strategic coordination function on housing as was recommended by the Housing Policy Development Board. In addition, funding had been apportioned to the Shelter Trust Grant in line with the recommendations of the Homelessness Strategy and to the Vacant Homes Project.19 The specific breakdown was described as follows:

Regarding the Government Plan 2022-25 allocated funding of £950,000 for 2022, the Panel sought  to  understand  whether  the  level  of  funding  was  deemed  sufficient  to  meet  the programme's aims. The following response was provided:

Director  of  Strategy  and  Innovation,  Strategic  Policy,  Performance  and Population:

our recent discussions have suggested that that is the right amount of funding for that work to progress in its different parts.

The Panel was made aware that, previously, budgets had been earmarked for possible future areas of housing policy. However, in light of the Housing Policy Development Board's Report and the Creating Better Home's report, a more focused approach to policy development was now possible to address housing problems in accordance with their urgency. It was noted that some funding had been earmarked to specific projects and that the Minister for Housing and Communities has sufficient resources at his availability. The Panel sought further clarity on what the allocated funding for 2022 would cover and was advised:[19]

Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:

The £250,000 is a sum that has been allocated to the strategic co-ordination. That is not broken further down than that. The team will deal with the priorities at the time. In addition to the £250,000 there is some other money which is allocated too. The homelessness project has got its own funding. The Housing Advice Service has its own funding. Next year there is funding to support affordable purchase, so that is a separate new funding of £2 million for that. The Minister has also secured an extra £30 million [sic][20] for future years to go against affordable housing purchase. There are some smaller amounts of money for more specific projects. There is a decent amount of funding available. Our problems are perhaps more to do with the co-ordination and how to solve some of these problems, other than lack of money to get the staff there to do it.

Considering a potential change in Ministerial roles in 2022, the Panel sought to understand how the programme's objectives for 2022 would be carried forward in the next Government term and raised this with the Minister during the public hearing. The Minister informed the Panel that through the implementation of the Strategic Housing and Regeneration Team, a team dedicated to the Minister for Housing and Communities, the role and the work of the Minister for Housing and Communities would be appropriately identified going forward. It was the Minister's view that the Strategic Housing and Regeneration Team would be invaluable for any future Minister for Housing and Communities and to carry forward the work[21].

The Panel observed during its previous review of the Government Plan 2021-24 that progress regarding key worker accommodation was not planned for 2021. Therefore, the Panel sought to understand what progress, if any, had been made to date and was anticipated for 2022 considering the Creating Better Homes report identified key worker accommodation as a priority area. The Panel asked the following during the public hearing with the Minister for Housing and Communities.[22]

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

The Creating Better Homes report identified key worker accommodation as a priority area. Can you outline progress, if any, made during 2021 and what progress can we expect to see during 2022?

The Minister for Housing and Communities:

That is definitely high on the list and, as I have said to you before, Chair, I am working very hard with Property Holdings to get sites released for this. Andium might be able to come to my assistance here a little bit more than me. Obviously I have my eyes on Westaway Court. That seems to be ideal potentially for key workers. Andy, can you update us and help us out?

Director General, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment:

Yes, thanks, Minister. There are a number of sites which are effectively not being used now for their primary use; so Westaway Court being one of them. That is still technically in the health estate. We are going through a process at the moment. We have just had our office H.Q. (headquarters) decision. So we are just waiting for the appeal process to expire, the 28 days on that before that commences. I referred to that because it is an important decision because it means that the dominoes start to fall elsewhere within the estate. That one being a main one. Obviously the hospital is another main one. As the Minister has rightly highlighted, there are a number of sites which then effectively get freed up. We go through a process through our Corporate Asset Management Board, through to the Minister for Infrastructure then to make a decision on what we do with those sites; taking on board the views of the Regeneration Steering Group along the way. So there is a bit of a pipeline process for us to follow. But yes, the Minister is correct. We have a number of sites where we would expect housing to be that end use.

The Panel raised concern that the term key worker accommodation' may create an additional social layer and asked the Minister's view in that regard:

The Minister for Housing and Communities:

we must have an eye on this and I would like to see dedicated key worker accommodation and perhaps a scheme in which the key workers can, instead of paying rent, have a right to buy, so whatever stage of career they are at they are investing in property while they are in Jersey. They might want to move on in 5 or 10 years but they are not just with only the rental option. I think that is something we should explore.

The Panel was informed that work was underway with the Central Human Resources to correctly identify the services that would benefit from key worker accommodation. Key worker accommodation was being considered for areas including health, social and children services. Considering the challenge to recruit and retain teaching staff as well as staff for the Department for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment, the Panel questioned whether key worker accommodation was being considered for those areas as well. The Panel identified that the current work aimed to identify areas of key tension and gaps to determine the services that would benefit from key worker accommodation.[23]

On reviewing the information available and the responses to written questions received, the Panel maintains its amber RAG status for this programme. The Panel has observed that progress has been made in respect of the programme in 2021.

The Panel welcomes the publication of the Housing Policy Development Board report and the Minister's subsequent report, Creating Better Homes, which outlines an action plan to address the issues raised by the Housing Policy Development Board. The Panel has observed the improvements being made to the strategic coordination function on housing, particularly,

through the appointment of the new Interim Head of the Strategic Housing and Regeneration Team, the establishment of the Strategic Housing Partnership and the Cross-Ministerial Housing Political Oversight Group.

Observing little progress in respect of key worker accommodation to date, the Panel is pleased that key worker accommodation has been prioritised under Action 5C of the Creating Better Homes25 to increase the supply of new key worker accommodation. The Panel understands that policy work is planned to develop a clear definition of key workers, for the purpose of accessing accommodation. Moreover, that a minimum target of the delivery of 25 key worker homes each year through to 2025 has been set. The Panel will continue to monitor throughout 2022 the progress in respect of key worker accommodation.

Noting  that  a  lack  of  coordination  was  highlighted  as  a  challenge  to  progressing  the programme's aims, rather than a lack of funding, with strengthened coordination on housing, the Panel will monitor during 2022 whether the improved coordination function delivers further progress as anticipated. Although progress has been observed during 2021, considering the significant housing challenges the Island continues to face, the Panel will continue to monitor the programme's progress throughout 2022 to determine whether coordination has improved and funds are sufficient to deliver timely policy development, with solutions and meaningful outcomes for housing affordability in Jersey.

FINDING 3

The Housing PDB and Long-Term Plan programme has been designated amber by the Panel due to a lack of co-ordination which has resulted in slow progress to date. Whilst it is acknowledged that measures are proposed to improve co- ordination moving forward, the Panel will continue to monitor the progress of this programme throughout 2022 in order to determine whether coordination has improved and funds are sufficient to deliver the intended aims of this programme.

The purpose of this programme is to strengthen the legal protection afforded to tenants in the private and social rented housing sector. The project includes a number of separate actions,

2525 Creating Better Homes: an action plan for housing in Jersey

which together enhance the statutory framework for letting residential property in Jersey. Not all of the measures will require additional funding.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains that the Tenants' Rights project is focusing on improving the standard access to and security of rented housing. In the first half of 2021, the Jersey Homelessness Strategy was published, and work has begun to deliver the actions in the strategy. This includes setting up a housing advice service in Customer and Local Services to provide housing advice and guidance and a Critical Support Team  has  been  established  to  support  people  to  sustain  their  housing  and  prevent homelessness.  A  simplified  banding  system  for  the  Housing  Gateway  has  also  been introduced. Work is ongoing to create appropriate support models including pathways for individuals to access housing and support and multi-agency arrangements to provide these services.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2020-23 plan and 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

Considering that the original funding allocation for 2021 was reduced substantially from £680,000 to £300,000, the Panel questioned what impact the reduction in funds has had on the delivery of the programme's aims to date in 2021. It was noted that the initial estimated funding allocation of £680,000 was quite generous and theoretical whereas a more targeted deliverable plan has since been developed. It was confirmed that, although more needed to be accomplished, good progress had been made to date. Considering the remit for housing and communities has not been tasked to provide any additional efficiency savings for 2022, the funding allocation of £380,000 for 2022 was also anticipated to be sufficient to meet the continuing aims of the programme.[24]

In written questions the Panel requested a breakdown of the allocated funding for 2021 and how it has been spent to date. The Panel was informed that the funding allocation for 2021 was apportioned to: rent stabilisation measures as recommended by the Housing Policy Development Board; homelessness services and; the Housing Advice Service which was the outcome of a previous independent review – Review of Access to Social Housing in Jersey

and also recommended by the Jersey Homelessness Strategy.[25] The spend to date as well as the spend allocation for the 2022 funding bid was outlined as follows:

Rent Stabilisation: to introduce rent stabilisation measures

• £70,000 – for policy development and consultation, including potential legislation and the creation of rent stabilisation function for 2021.

• £90,000 - for the rent officer/tribunal function and any associated expenses which will be a recurring cost per annum or held in reserve from 2022 onwards.

Homelessness Services: to enable the development of a structured pathway for individuals to access housing and coordinated support, including the adoption of approaches to address homelessness.

• £60,000 – for specialist consultancy support provided by UK-based Homeless Link. £44,200 is due for 2021 and the remaining funds will be retained for 2022 for follow- on work.

• £60,000 – for one full time employee to maintain a caseload of clients and provide personal support to individuals with multiple, high and complex needs and help them to sustain a tenancy.

• £30,000 – to deliver homelessness and housing need services to clients (the intention is to use these funds in Q4 of 2021 for resource, emergency housing, deposits, room retention, cleaning costs)

• £120,000 – a 2022 allocation for two full time employees which will be actively recruited for Q4 2021

Regarding the 2021 £60,000 funding in respect of staff costs, it was noted that only £13,000 of the allocation for 2021 has been spent and the balance would be spent on homelessness and housing needs (to include additional staff costs and resources) in Q4 of 2021.

Housing Advice Service: set up in response to a recommendation made as a result of the 2019 Review of Access to Social Housing in Jersey and by the Jersey Homelessness Strategy. The Panel was informed that:

An £80,000 bid from the 2020-2023 Government Plan was retained to establish the Housing Advice Service in 2021. The Housing Advice Service was not established in 2020, but £30,000 of this allocation was retained and carried over into 2021. A total budget of £140,000 was therefore available establish and run the service in 2021, which includes the recurring £110,000 pa over the Government Plan period.[26]

The breakdown of the spend to date was provided as follows:

Considering the Government's mid-year review status noted the programme's progress as on track, however, did not provide an estimated target date for the programme's completion, the Panel sought further clarity regarding its progress. In a written response to the Panel, it was explained that the Tenants' Rights programme had been incorporated within the Creating Better Homes Action Plan and the various elements were set out in actions within the five priority areas of the Plan. It was noted that the timeline for the delivery of the individual elements therefore differed as a result.

During the public hearing with the Minister for Housing and Communities the Panel sought to understand the timeline and priorities regarding the actions outlined within the Creating Better Homes Action Plan including for: social rent policy; eligibility through the Housing Gateway; work to the Residential Tenancy Law; protection against excessive rent rises; as well as work to provide a framework for future social housing regulation. The Panel sought to determine when the community could expect to see tangible benefits from the workstreams.[27]

The Minister for Housing and Communities:

To be clear, the desired outcome here is to make being a tenant in Jersey as secure as possible and to give tenants as much protection as we can. This might be protection from  unreasonable  rent  increases,  unreasonable  and  hidden  surprise  costs, sometimes a lease renewal is used as one way of doing that. It might be protection from landlords thinking they have access 24/7 to the tenants' property in a non- emergency situation. That can be a great worry, especially to single women. So we are straying into the territory of the Residential Tenancy Law, which we know we want to rewrite and of course the Rent Control Law. Both of those are on the list to be redrafted. Both of those are on the list to be redrafted. We have had a 11 certain amount of uncertainty over the course of the last 2 years in terms of the efforts to either licence or register landlords in Jersey. As we know, that has gone around in circles and unfortunately has hindered us slightly in that it is difficult to proceed on some of this work without knowing exactly the direction of travel and certainty on those 2. But I think we have to assume that this Assembly will not vote to licence landlords in Jersey, and we have to work on the premise that there will be a registration. It is a priority. Sue, do you want to pick up on the timeline here for this work?

Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:

There are different areas included in this overall area. The social rents policy is the one that is most urgent, and that will be addressed by the end of this year. The Residential Tenancy Law, as the Minister has explained, it is very important that we make sure that the tenants do have some good basic rights. That might need to be a 2-stage process whereby we do some small adjustments in the short term, which are more straightforward to do, take less legal advice. So it is a possibility that they will ...

we will certainly be working on them this year; whether they will be able to get them through before the end of the year I am not quite sure. But I think we will probably be looking to get at least something ready to be debated in the early part of next year. You mentioned social housing regulations. That is less urgent for the time being. That is undoubtedly not going to happen in 2021 or 2022. That will be a longer-term project. So our key concerns at the minute are agreeing and making sure that everyone is happy with a social rents policy that everybody understands and is agreed to. Improving protection for tenants. The third area is rent rises in the private sector, which is rent stabilisation

In respect of the potential licensing or registration scheme for landlords, and the dependence of the approval of a scheme to further progress the programme's aims, the Panel suggested further engagement with landlords who are integral to the provision of housing, in order to establish a workable solution. The Panel observed within a submission received from the Jersey Landlords' Association (JLA) that the JLA had little issue with the improvement of the quality of rented dwellings in Jersey. The JLA explained:

As previously mentioned, the Jersey Landlord's Association (the "JLA") has little issue with the improvement of the quality of rented dwellings in Jersey. We have been opponents, however, of the proposed rented dwelling licensing scheme, which we feel is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, would be over-expensive and will not (in its current format) achieve its aims.[28]

Noting the action to apply the Andium Homes' rent freeze for 2022, the Panel sought to understand any consequential impacts in the short, medium and longer term. It was noted that the rent freeze would neither impact Andium Homes' business model nor their housing supply as the Government would cover the £700,000 cost for 2022 resultant of the rent freeze.[29]

The Panel sought further detail on the work underway to create appropriate support models for access to housing. The Panel was informed that Homeless Link had been engaged to review and develop a more robust service for tackling homelessness which was bespoke to Jersey's needs. It was further explained:

As part of this engagement, the Homeless Link charity will focus on service delivery and customer access, reviewing how housing and homelessness services are currently delivered across Jersey, customer access arrangements and the scope of the service. Homeless Link will support GoJ to develop new clear pathways for customers at increased risk of homelessness. They will also develop a pathway framework that details roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for cases and client groups that involve multi-agency working, to result in more joined-up services and improved customer outcomes.[30]

It's the Panel's understanding that on-island stakeholder engagement has commenced to review the current services with the intention for continued engagement throughout the project to ensure the views of stakeholders are taken into consideration when designing service improvements.

The Panel is satisfied to observe that stakeholder engagement has been undertaken early on and will continue through the review and development of the current services, considering that the lack of stakeholder engagement was highlighted as a concern during the Panel's review of the Government Plan 2021-24. The Panel is pleased to observe that the Minister for Housing and Communities has taken heed of the Panel's recommendation made regarding this programme, namely - The Minister for Children and Housing should ensure, going forward, that  engagement  and  consultation  with  external  stakeholders  (such  as  social  housing providers and private landlords) happens in the early stages of policy development in order to provide valuable contributions to the delivery of policy outcomes.

On reviewing the information available and the responses to written questions received, the Panel maintains its amber RAG status for this programme. The Panel has observed that progress has been made during 2021, particularly in respect of the Housing Advice Service and homelessness service. Notwithstanding, it has been noted that significant work remains in respect of the workstream during 2022 and beyond including for social rent, rent stabilisation and the Residential Tenancy Law to achieve the desired outcome of ensuring Jersey tenants have the best possible security and protection. Moreover, the Panel notes that to progress this work, the direction regarding a licensing or registration scheme for landlords would need to be decided and approved.

Although when reviewing the previous Government Plan 2021-24, the Panel raised concern regarding the reduction in the funding allocation from £680,000 to £300,000 and the potential impact of the reduced funds on the programme, the Panel has observed that the reduction in funds has not directly impacted the progress of the programme's aims during 2021. The Panel also notes that the Minister for Housing and Communities deems the funding allocation for 2022 to be sufficient to meet the continuing aims of the programme in 2022.

Considering the above, the Panel will continue to monitor the progress of the programme during 2022.

FINDING 4

The Tenants' Rights programme has been designated amber by the Panel given the significant work which remains in respect of the workstream throughout 2022 and  beyond  including  for  social  rent,  rent  stabilisation  and  the  Residential Tenancy Law. The Panel notes that to progress this work, the direction regarding a licensing or registration scheme for landlords would need to be decided and approved by the States Assembly.

As outlined in our previous review of the Government Plan 2021-24, the purpose of this programme is to obtain additional revenue to fund research to identify how people currently use the countryside path network and how to best adapt it to future leisure activities. In addition to this, the funding would be available for maintenance of the paths as well as to enable additional routes and clear signage / route marking.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains that this project is to understand the current and future requirements of users. The survey, which had been delayed  due  to  Covid-19  has  been  initiated  this  summer.  Survey  results  will  inform improvements to the Island's access infrastructure in order to maximise its use, enjoyment and benefits that it offers (social and economic). Respect the countryside campaign is planned.  Some  multi-user  paths and  a  path  for  those  with  alternate  needs  have been established. Solutions to the problem of mountain bike use, particularly on the north coast path, are being sought with Jersey Sport. Maintenance to ensure H&S for users is ongoing. Request for extended funding past Dec 2024 made to Treasury (£90k pa).

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2020 -23 plan and 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

In written questions the Panel requested a breakdown of the allocated funding for 2021 and how it has been spent to date. The Panel was informed that the actual budget for 2021 was £264,600 and the total spend committed to date was £201,306, However, it was noted that £26,000 had also been earmarked for 2021 branchage but had not been committed to date.[31]

The breakdown was provided as follows:

During the public hearing the Panel sought to understand further the programme's progress to date and whether the funding allocation of £160,000 for 2022 would be sufficient to meet the programme's continuing aims for 2022. The Panel was informed the following[32]:

 Head of Land Resource Management:

In terms of your first question, when will all the survey outputs be realised? At the end of this year we will get the first report, which will be good and that will inform and understand the current users and their future aspirations of using our access network. Which leads into your second question of how that money will be spent, will lead into a joint access with other large landowners, projects which is looking at signage and interpretation. That is working together with Jersey Heritage, National Trust, National Parks, Jersey Water, all the big landowners out there, it is on the basis of survey work as wellWhat we plan next year is to use Les Landes site as a guinea pig site to test these new signage. Then the plan is across the Island at relevant sites we will put the signage interpretation out in partnership with all the other big landowners, so that a visitor coming to Jersey has one standard sign, one standard Q.R. code and knows what to expect and let us hope that that will increase public access into our countryside as well.

The Panel sought further detail regarding the request for further funding beyond 2024 of £90,000. It was explained that countryside access has been recognised as being crucial for the Island in terms of health and wellbeing, especially during and after the pandemic. It was noted that the current revenue budget for the provision of the current access network has remained static for many years and has not kept in line with inflation. Therefore, in order to maintain an acceptable and reliant level of service, the revenue budget needs to increase accordingly.[33] The Panel was informed that the increased funding would allow for:

• increased infrastructure and paths which in turn will require funds for maintenance and to provide a safe and welcoming countryside

• the continuation of the additional Access Support Officer post deemed invaluable by the department if it is to improve on the quality of Countryside Access in the Island

• additional transport for the Countryside Ranger team to allow them to carry out their daily and longer-term work plans more effectively

The Panel notes that the spend forecast by the end of 2021 including the additional £26,000 (which was unconfirmed at the time) would be £227,306 which is lower than the actual budget of £264,600 for 2021. Based on the information provided, the Panel is satisfied to maintain the green RAG rating for this programme, however, from 2023 the funding is projected to decrease significantly to £90,000, so the Panel will continue to monitor the progress of this programme during 2022.

As outlined in our previous review of the Government Plan 2021-24, the purpose of this programme is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of areas within the Jersey National Park (JNP). Additionally, to promote opportunities of the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the JNP by the public.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains that Stakeholder consultation is ongoing.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2020 -23 plan and 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

In written questions to the Minister for Economic development, Tourism, Sport and Culture the Panel requested a breakdown of the spend to date of the funds allocated for 2021.[34]

In addition, the budget for the second half of the year ending on 31st December 2021 which takes into account the second tranche of Government Funding of £75,000 for 2021 was also provided to the Panel within the Minster's response.

The Panel sought further detail regarding the progress that has been made to date for this programme. The Minister provided the following detail in respect of the reporting on KPIs for 2020 and activity for 2021.[35]

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture noted that good progress has been made towards the achievements of the 2021 Business Plan objectives. The Minister detailed the work completed to date including: the Frances Le Sueur Centre, Marketing and Aspiring Geopark. Moreover, the Minister outlined the work which continued to progress in various areas including in respect of JNP's governance, rewilding aspirations and campaigns (not limited to these).[36]

In a submission received from Jersey National Park, JNP updated the Panel on how the funding has been spent to date:

The financial resources given to us over the last two years have we hope been well spent and significant efforts to supplement these monies with private sector support, both financially and through volunteering have been made. The greatest step-forward we have secured to-date has been in having the wherewithal to engage on a part-time basis the services of a Park Officer Mr Jerry Neil whom you met to supplement the efforts of Mike Stentiford and myself. That along with financing, largely with non- governmental monies and volunteering, the reconditioning of our now secured base at the Frances Le Sueur Centre has been fundamental to securing this significant progress[37]

JNP also highlighted potential challenges as follows:

There are numerous challenges ahead as we touched on at the meeting with clarification of the Parks boundaries as part of the proposals in the Bridging Island Plan and the legal status of the Park itself being key amongst these but our draft Future Strategy also supplied gives a significant indication of our approach forward over the period 2022-25 and our alignment to the current CSP's. This strategy of course can be amended as necessary when a new government decides its priorities following the general election of next year.[38]

Within the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture's written response to the Panel, concerns regarding JNP's boundaries were also highlighted, as follows:

The proposed revisions to the Jersey National Park boundaries were put out to public consultation in April. There was particular concern raised by representatives of the farming community and a substantial landowner regarding assumed increased control over land use and land management, which clearly indicated that the communication by Government could have been better. Jim Hopley has met and has offered to meet with any interested parties, alongside Government officials, to help explain the rationale and intentions for the changes. From the Jersey National Park's perspective, the presumption is not one of no development, but rather reasonable and appropriate development, and the enhancement of biodiversity. The public consultation on the boundary proposals closed on 12 July 2021, following which a UK planning inspector will collate the information for presentation to Government and thereafter, for States Assembly debate in early 2022.[39]

During the public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel sought further clarity regarding the legal status of JNP and clarification of its boundaries.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Have you been in discussion with them regarding the clarification of the park's boundaries as part of the proposals in the bridging Island Plan and the legal status of the park itself? I wonder if there have been any challenges or concerns highlighted in that regard and how they might be addressed.

The Minister for the Environment:

That issue is a very current issue. It is known that the current boundaries of the Jersey National Park are well defined in the current Island Plan, which now will update. Of course, during the development of the new Island Plan, based on the work that was done as a result of the landscape appraisal work, the evaluation of the countryside and the lessons learnt, the experiences in the last 10 years since the plan was adopted, a recommendation was produced to revise the boundaries. Those boundaries were withdrawn and that current proposal sits within the draft Island Plan and that is going out, of course it is not just going out, it is going to the inquiry in a couple of weeks. Of course that issue has proved to be, I think, sadly and I believe disappointingly really, unnecessarily contentious. I think the objectives of that proposal have been, sadly, misunderstood and I am hopeful we will have a joint chance to recover from that and see through that at the forthcoming inquiry[40]

Considering that the Coastal National Park falls under the remit of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, the Minister for the Environment highlighted that, in his view, the role of the Coastal National Park, going forward, should be separately identified.[41]

 The Minister for the Environment:

I think the one thing that I think is important in the future, that the role of the Coastal National Park is separately identified because obviously it now sits within the Economic Development ministry, it is not part of the core ministry of Environment. I think it is incumbent upon that body and that Minister to produce some clear objectives. I think there is a case for redefining the boundaries for their special purpose with the clerk because the areas in the draft Island Plan proposed at the moment are much more extensive than they need to be, just for the purposes of, if you like, the St. Ouen 's Bay area or because they need to be for the purposes of a planning zone. In the future I think that likes to be something which I think will need to be more clearly identified. But I think the principle of having a body charged with helping wise use and people to understand because that is really important, understand the environment and that means it helps with them respecting it and living within environmental means, if you like, and the activities that go on is important..[42]

Although the Minister found benefit in the principal of having a body be responsible for educating the public on the respectful use of the environment, it was the Minister's view that Jersey National Park's progress was reliant on the money available to them.

The Minister for the Environment:

But I think the Jersey National Park team, sadly, were inhibited in how far they were able to go in that respect because they had no money. But of course we are able to put that money in place and of course that money has been available to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and at the moment I am not sure how it has been allocated[43]

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture notes within his written response to the Panel that the Board of Jersey National Park' was working to establish the Park's strategy, mission and vision, and the governance structure. It was the Board's view that clear guidance from Government on JNP's role and the expectations of the Board was needed, considering JNP is a Government arms - length organisation. It was noted that the Rural Economy Strategy for 2022 was considered a good opportunity to obtain clarity in that regard.[44]

With regard to the funding allocation for 2022 of £200,000, JNP explained that the budget and proposed expenditure for 2022 had not yet been prepared. This was reiterated within the Minister's response to the Panel, where the Minister noted that the business plan for JNP for 2022 was being prepared and would be agreed with the departments during Q4 of 2021. Notwithstanding, the Minister confirmed that the funding allocation of £200,000 would be sufficient to meet the programmes aims, subject to the acceptability of the Jersey National Park business delivery plan proposal[45].

We are yet to prepare our budget and proposed expenditure for the year 2022 and onwards into the next 4 year Plan but hopefully our Strategy document demonstrates the main areas of utilisation of pledged monies forward should the Assembly see fit to approve these. As indicated the further reconditioning of the Centre and more by way of opening it as an educational, information and interpretation facility for both locals and tourists alike, the establishment of a much extended stakeholder governance structure and a planned effort to improve in co-operation with Environment the bio- diversity and the utilisation and appreciation of Le Parc des Mielles by the public are key objectives. Certainly it is our intention to use all central monies supplied effectively and prudently and to supplement these where possible, particularly on a project basis, with non-governmental funding thus assisting with the process of rebalancing even in a small way the ongoing delivery of public services in the face of the current financial pressures.[46]

During the Panel's review of the Government Plan 2021, the Panel had recommended that the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism Sport and Culture should put in place suitable protocols to ensure a more collaborative approach to their involvement in the Jersey National Park project and in the support extended to the Jersey National Park. The Panel therefore sought to understand whether this recommendation had been actioned by the Minister and, if so, the outcomes thereof:

Officers from both Departments attend JNP Board meetings in an observer capacity, attend quarterly stakeholder management meetings and hold informal inter- departmental meetings to ensure a joined-up approach to the ALO is maintained. Quarterly  meetings  held  between  the  JNP  and  Departments  (Economy  and Environment) have a clear record of reporting and minute of actions where required.[47]

Although the Panel recognises that the Minister for the Environment is not the lead Minister for this programme, in respect of its recommendation, the Panel sought to understand how the recommendation had been actioned by the Minister for the Environment to improve collaborative working. The Panel raised this with the Minister during a public hearing.[48] The Panel notes that although the Minister, in his personal capacity, has not held meetings with Jersey National Park, that Officers have been in correspondence with JNP, on a weekly basis, to provide advice and support.[49]

Based  on  the  information  provided,  the  Panel  maintains  its  amber  RAG  rating  for  the programme. The Panel observes that significant progress has been made to date as a result of the Government funding as well as through the noteworthy support received from the private sector, both financially and through volunteering. The Panel observed that efforts are being made to improve collaboration between JNP and Government departments.

It's evident that clarity is required regarding JNP's role, purpose and responsibilities. Since JNP is a Government arms-length organisation, consideration should be given to whether its role can be separately identified, as well as how its objectives can be clearly defined.

Notwithstanding the success of the JNP to demonstrate its achievements to date, the Panel notes the challenges in respect of the clarification of JNP's boundaries and its legal status. Considering the concerns raised are dependent on the outcomes of the Bridging Island Plan to some extent, the Panel will continue to monitor the developments in that regard during 2022.

Considering the potential changes in Ministerial roles as a result of the new Government commencing in 2022, the Panel acknowledges that Jersey National Park's future strategy and how it aligns with any changing Government priorities would need to be closely monitored to safeguard JNP's alignment with Government and its continued progress going forward.

FINDING 5

Notwithstanding the notable success of the Jersey National Park to demonstrate its achievements to date, this programme has been designated amber by the Panel, due to the following:

1. Clarity is required regarding JNP's role, purpose and responsibilities and its objectives should be clearly defined.
2. Clarification of JNP boundaries and its legal status is required and the concerns raised are dependent, to some extent, on the outcomes of the Bridging Island Plan.
3. There is a risk that with potential changes in Ministerial roles after the election, that JNP's future strategy and how it aligns with any changing Government priorities may impact its continued progress.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture should provide  clear  guidance  on  Jersey  National  Park's  role,  purpose  and responsibilities. Since the JNP is an arms-length organisation of Government, consideration should be given to whether its role can be separately identified, as well as how its objectives can be clearly defined. The Minister should consider how this clarity might be incorporated into the Rural Economy Strategy for 2022.

As outlined in our previous review of the Government Plan 2021-24, the Government Plan 2021-24 states: We will invest in research surrounding inland water quality including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and pesticide research and essential staffing relating to catchment management.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains that this project contains  three  sub-activities  PFAS  hydrogeological  survey,  pesticide  monitoring  and employment of an agri-environment officer. Stage 2 highly specialist work will shortly go out to targeted tender. Monthly meetings of the Technical Officer Group continue to progress the 25 recommendations in the 2019 and 2020 update reports. Some sampling has taken place. Targeted  pesticide  monitoring  in  streams  and  groundwater  has  taken  place,  sampling undertaken by Jersey Water and results fed back to the industry via the Action for Cleaner Water Group.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

In a response to written questions the Minister for the Environment provided the breakdown of the total spend to date of the funds allocated for 2021 as follows:

PFAS related works:

Total spend for PFAS is £13,040. We are expecting to underspend in 2021 due to delays in recruiting external consultant into post. In order to deliver the project objectives, it is expected that the underspend will be needing to be rolled forward to 2022/23

Pesticide related work:

Total spend for pesticide related work this year is £35,543.73 with a further £74,201 raised to cover sampling and analysis costs to the year end. Approximately half of this work has been undertaken, but exact spend figures will be only available as and when invoices are received and processed.

Agri-catchment Office:

Total spend on the Agri-catchment officer is £6,500.00. The lack of spend to date was due to the Target Operating Model and the subsequent delay appointing to post.[50]

During the public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel sought to understand whether the allocated funding of £400,000 for 2022 would be sufficient to meet the programmes continued aims. It was explained that the work in respect of PFAS was progressing well and that the firm Arcadis who undertook similar work in Guernsey had been contracted to undertake the work for Jersey. It was anticipated that the work would progress quickly once Arcadis was on board. In respect of pesticide monitoring, the panel was informed that good progress had been made to date and the vital work would continue which, in the main, was a risk-based process. Regarding the recruitment of an Agri-catchment officer it was noted that the post had successfully been filled and the Officer had commenced work in the areas as projected.[51]

In respect of the funding for the clean-up process of the PFAS contamination, the Minister for the Environment emphasised that the funding allocation for 2022 would not cover that work. It was noted that the 2022 funding was only to identify the contamination and to consider a solution.[52]

Since the 2022 funding allocation did not include the funds for the potential PFAS contamination clean-up process, during the public hearing the Panel sought to understand how the clean-up process would be funded and when the funding would be required for that work.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

you highlighted that an outcome of the hydrogeological survey could recommend a clean-up process, which will be subject to further Government Plan bids. If so, when would that be forecast and to what level of funding do you anticipate that work would require?

The Minister for the Environment:

The second part I just cannot answer. I suspect it is mega money. What would depend is when the work that Tim has described, when it starts, what is their programme and how much extra sampling they want to do. It is really important that what is done there is as well informed as it can be.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Will  there  be  any  contribution  from  Ports?  I  understand  originally  they  were responsible. Do you anticipate further contributions from them?

The Minister for the Environment:

I think I will not as Minister be able to answer that question. I have certainly asked Andy Scate, as the Director General of I.H.E., because I think that kind of project would sit more within his overall management as part of the infrastructure side to investigate that. Because I think you are absolutely right, how such a cost would be funded, I think it has to look at all of those available possibilities, yes[53]

The Panel is satisfied that work is progressing in all areas and that the long awaited agri- catchment officer is now in post. The Panel has therefore designated this programme with a green RAG rating. Whilst it is noted that the outcome of the hydrogeological survey is still unknown and, consequently, the likely cost implications for a PFAS contamination clean-up process, the Panel will monitor the outcome of the hydrogeological study and consider any further business case put forward for this in future Government Plan funding bids.

As outlined in our previous review of the Government Plan 2021-24, the Government Plan 2021-24 states: We will provide additional resource to the Marine Resources Management Team to respond to implications arising from Brexit.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains that staff have been recruited and the assessment for the remaining spend is on track.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

In written questions the Panel requested further detail regarding how the funds of £250,000 for 2021 had been spent to date. It was noted that the funding was utilised to fund two additional officer posts, the purchase of a vessel monitoring system for the smaller vessels as well as access to an online logbook system. It was highlighted that work had been delayed in that regard as a result of the ongoing negotiations with respect to the vessel licensing regime underway.  Moreover,  it  was  noted  that  the  allocated  funding  of  £92,000  for  2022  and subsequent years would be used to fund the officer posts.56 57

Considering the current focus on the fishing industry and the importance to deliver in areas including data collection as well as scientific and industry analysis to ensure compliance and delivery of the obligations in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA), the Panel sought to understand whether the current staffing capacity will be sufficient to meet the required aims. In a written response, the Minister for the Environment raised concern in that regard, as follows:

The resources of the MR team are stretched due to current demands placed on the service, and this is of concern. The ongoing negotiations around the fishing vessel licensing under the terms of the TCA remain complex and, at this time, it is difficult to be clear as to what resources will be required to fulfil the eventual obligations and requirements of the TCA. However, it is safe to say that there will likely be an increased administrative, science and compliance burden placed on the team that will need to be resourced appropriately.[54]

During a public hearing with the Minister for the Environment the Panel asked whether the Minister anticipated that further staffing will be required and, if so, whether he was confident, considering the current climate, in his ability to recruit staff with the required skills to meet the programme's aims:

The Minister for the Environment:

My understanding is that we have made a strengthening of the team recently and that has gone well. But, of course, this money on science, I think what is important is that we work and identify with suitable partners. I think it is, therefore, not just a question of our in-house resource, it is a question of how we engage with external partners, the way in which they work, the infrastructure that we provide and do we provide them with use of vessels and boats and using local fishermen, fishing boats and so on. So far, Chairman, the work that I have seen and the progress of it has been extremely good but, of course, we know going forward that programme will need to not just carry on and grow...[55]

56 Written Response – Minister for the Environment – 17th November 2021 57 Written Questions – Minister for the Environment – 13th October 2021

It was further noted that the department was one of the areas in Government that, to date, was experiencing less issues recruiting the right people:

Director for Natural Environment/Acting Director for Regulation:

Interestingly, yes, we have recruited and it is one of the areas in government so far where we are having less trouble recruiting the right people into roles. I think, Chair, you might be conscious that in other areas in the department we are attempting to recruit and in some areas, principally because of the requirements for similar types of staff across other jurisdictions post-Brexit particularly, we are finding trouble recruiting the right people in. So, we are having more targeted approaches now which we are engaging with specific consultants to assist with.

The Panel was pleased to note that the Minister for the Environment endeavoured to continue to work with Jersey's fishing fleet who seemed willing to assist with the information gathering process to deliver what is required going forward:

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I am pleased to see and to know that you are using local fishermen to create some of this data, but I just want to be sure that you will continue to use the industry as much as you possibly can into the future to help them and to help you to come up with this information, which in turn then goes back and helps them to do more fishing in the future.

The Minister for the Environment:

Absolutely, Chair. It would be crazy to do otherwise. We have willingness from our local fleet to work with us in this way. All the reports I have had of that work so far are very good and certainly while I am in the chair, as it were, it will carry on. We, of course, have to use university partners as well. We bring those resources together in a way and I am very, very pleased in the way that Willie and the marine resources team have been able to shape up the particular piece of scientific work and really deliver what is needed. So, I think a big well done to that team and I can give that commitment. [56]

Considering the Panel's recommendations for this programme in respect of its review of the Government Plan 2021-24, the Panel sought to understand what efforts had been made to action those recommendations. In written questions, the Panel asked whether the Minister had endeavoured to find ways to collaborate and engage with voluntary and third sector organisations to form mutually beneficial partnerships and new, innovative ways of working to assist with marine resources matters and the implications of Brexit. The Minister for the Environment provided the following in a written response to the Panel:

I have committed to working collaboratively to ensure the best data and evidence is available to develop policy and management measures. Please see response to WQ.433/2021 which details the various organisations that have a long-established working partnership with the Department regarding research and management.[57]

A further recommendation made by the Panel, had recommended that the Minister for the Environment should seek to ensure that now and post-Brexit, suitable engagement and support is extended to the fishing industry, given the significant implications this will inevitably have for the industry'. Considering the level of pressures being felt by the fishing industry, the Panel sought to understand what extent of support and engagement has been extended to the fishing industry to date. The Minister for the Environment provided the following in a written response to the Panel:

I have consistently championed support for the fishing and aquaculture industry and, whilst officers can support and advise in that process, support funding for the industry is not within my ministerial remit but rather that of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture to provide direct financial support. In a recent Urgent Oral Question in the chamber, I advised the Assembly of the support that I am advised is being made available to fishers.[58]

During a public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel sought to further understand what challenges might inhibit the programme achieving its aims. The Minister responded as follows:

The Minister for the Environment:

Yes. Well, I suppose we are, of course, in a process of implementing the agreement, which  obviously  is  ongoing  on  a  daily  basis.  Not  a  day  goes  by without  major conversations between the parties and we are progressing, but of course it is known that we do need to get to the point where that licensing regime has settled down and we can have resolution of the issue that we all know is really important, what is called and what we all know is the nature and extent of fishing in our waters, which the agreement with the E.U. provides that that nature and extent should be managed no greater than it is now. Indeed, going forward, that nature and extent will lead to decisions having to be made about, I believe, conservation measures where it is needed to bring the fishery resource into sustainability. That is going to take a little time. I think when we get through that, and I really believe we have to focus on our being able to do that, we then will move into the realms of we do need some resolution as part of those negotiations of the framework, whereby we discuss the science with our E.U. neighbours. So that framework is not yet there and I have asked the Minister for External Relations to progress that. Again, I am pleased to report that in principle in our talks our Norman neighbours indicated that they were open to that as well. Of course, moving beyond that, we will get to hard-core scientific issues about what this particular piece of data means, how you interpret it and all that kind of thing. So those I think are the discussions ahead but, of course, we do all this in that Jersey is the licensing authority and responsible for conservation measures to ensure that fisheries remains sustainable. Of course, we need to do that in partnership or at least in agreement, rather, I beg your pardon - we have the duty of notification to the E.U. - and work in a way that we can be confident complies with the T.E.C.A. (Trade and Economic Co-operation 8 Agreement). Those are the challenges ahead. When do I think those issues will arise? Next year would be my guess.[59]

The Panel notes that an additional programme has been included within the Government Plan 2022-25 to Fund as Required', dependant on the proposal and approval of a business case, the workstream for Future Fisheries and Marine Resources Management. This programme is detailed further under Chapter 8 – New programmes and capital projects in GP 2022-25: reports.

The Panel is satisfied to observe that two fisheries officers with the required skills have been appointed to the roles. In addition, that progress has been made for the resourcing of the vessel monitoring system and online logbook system. The Panel is pleased to observe that the Minister for the Environment is endeavouring to collaborate and engage with external stakeholders and utilise the assistance of the Jersey fishing fleet to grow mutually beneficial partnerships.

Although good progress is evident in some areas, and the Panel is satisfied that the Marine Resources Team has been considerably strengthened, the Panel raises concern regarding whether the current resources will be sufficient to appropriately meet the ongoing demands. Moreover, since the implementation of the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement is still in its infancy and the vessel licensing regime is yet to be resolved, uncertainty remains regarding the level of funding the programme will need going forward. In addition, the level of support that the fishing industry will require and how any support will be funded. The Panel understands that funds are available in the General Reserve to fund as required the new Future  Fisheries  and  Marine  Resources  Management  Programme  and  has  therefore designated this programme with a green RAG rating. The Panel will continue to closely monitor progress of Marine Resources Management during 2022.

FINDING 6

Funding allocations agreed in the previous Government Plan 2021 for the Marine Resources  Management  Programme  has  enabled  the  appointment  of  two fisheries officers. In addition, progress has been made for the resourcing of the vessel monitoring system and online logbook system. Funding of £92k is being requested in 2022 of £92k to continue to fund the retention of two fisheries officer posts.

FINDING 7

The implementation of the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement is still in its infancy and the vessel licensing regime is yet to be resolved. Consequently, uncertainty remains regarding whether the level of funding will be sufficient moving forward. However, the Panel notes that funds are available in the General Reserve to fund as required' the new Future Fisheries and Marine Resources Management Programme and has therefore designated this programme with a green RAG rating. The Panel will continue to closely monitor progress of Marine

Resources Management during 2022.

As outlined in our previous review of the Government Plan 2021-24, the Government Plan 2021-24 states: We will increase the subsidy for the bus network to enable a break-even position whilst passenger capacity on bus services remains impacted by the need for physical distancing to reduce transmission of the virus'.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review, presented in August 2021, explains that bus ridership has seen some growth but remains, significantly below pre- pandemic levels (approximately 40-45% down). To manage operating costs, LibertyBus continue to operate a reduced timetable and have accordingly reduced staffing levels and vehicle numbers through natural wastage. The need for further financial support for 2021 from the Covid-19 support funding provided within the Government Plan remains under review.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

In written questions to the Minister for Infrastructure the Panel requested the spend to date for this programme and received the following response:

Covid-19 response payments covered the period May to December 2020 and totalled £1.021 million. No further amounts have been paid so far in 2021, at present the provision of £2.0m within the Gov Plan 2021 remains, pending evaluation of in year requirements. [60]

Considering the response received the Panel sought further clarity regarding the spend to date for 2021 during a public hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

We were informed that a total of £1,021,000 has been paid in COVID-19 response payments to LibertyBus for the period of May to December 2020. You noted that no further payments have been made in 2021. Considering an amount of £2 million has been allocated for 2021, should an underspend remain for this year, how will the remaining funds be utilised or recovered?

Head of Highways, Transport and Infrastructure:

If there is an underspend my assumption is it goes back to the Treasury. That is not our money, that is money that has been provided by Treasury to cover the response to COVID. It is highly likely that we will not need all of that money unless something particularly untoward happens this winter.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Given the payments have not been made in 2021 to date, is this a result of the operator no longer operating at a loss and if so, when did the operator begin to return a profit?

Head of Highways, Transport and Infrastructure:

Obviously we do not have the operator's accounts in yet but where we are at is that bus ridership remains down at about 65 per cent of 2019 levels. But the operator has reduced his operating costs. Until we have the accounts for the year we will not know exactly where he is at and the determination of whether any additional COVID support is required will be made on the basis of that.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Given that the payments were to support the operator during the pandemic, are we correct in assuming that no return has been made to the Treasury for investment in the Island infrastructure during this time?

Head of Highways, Transport and Infrastructure:

I would have to come back to you on that but yes, that would seem to flow.[61]

Regarding the decreased ridership levels, the Panel sought to understand why the levels remained approximately at half capacity of the pre-pandemic levels considering that restrictions have eased and asked whether it was anticipated that the pre-pandemic levels would resume. The Panel also sought to understand how the circumstances might impact any return in profits being made to the Government in 2022:

Head of Highways, Transport and Infrastructure:

It is a really interesting question, and I think transport authorities across the world are trying to answer that. There has obviously been a change in customer confidence to a degree although in the summertime, because we saw people using the buses, I think there is also a change in working habits. A number of people who are working as we are now online or working 2 or 3 days a week at home, all has an impact on that. I think the jury is out on that still. I do not think any authority has come to a conclusion yet.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I suppose it is difficult for you therefore to anticipate any return in profits being made or payments being made to the government for 2022? Have you any idea? Have there been any discussions as to when that might start?

Head of Highways, Transport and Infrastructure:

Not yet, but we are not anticipating anything significant at this stage[62]

The Panel raised concern that ridership levels had not recovered more quickly and noted its disappointment to observe a decrease in bus participation especially considering the move to encourage more sustainable transport. Moreover, noting the reduction in staffing levels that had taken place to accommodate the reduced service, the Panel raised concern regarding how staff would be recruited to accommodate future increased service levels.

The Panel's concerns regarding decreased ridership were acknowledged and it was noted that measures would be taken through the Rapid Bus Plan to encourage an uptake in bus participation going forward. In respect of staffing levels and recruitment of staff, this was not anticipated to be an area of concern, however, it was noted that in light of recruitment challenges being experienced across other industries on- island, it might result in an upward pressure of salaries. It was emphasised that no feedback on this had, to date, been received from Liberty Bus.[63]

During the public hearing the Panel asked whether the allocated funding for 2022 was deemed sufficient. It was confirmed that that it was. It was explained that the funding would be drawn down if required and that the allocated amount was based on a worse-case scenario.[64]

On the basis of the information provided, the Panel has maintained the green RAG status for this programme. The funding bid for 2022 has been deemed sufficient and will be drawn down only if required as a result of any developing Covid-19 pandemic conditions during 2022.

FINDING 8

A total of £1,021,000 for the Covid-19 Bus Contract programme has been spent to date from the funding allocation agreed in the previous Government Plan 2021 and any underspend will remain with Treasury. The Government Plan 2022 requests a funding allocation of £1.2m which is deemed sufficient and will only be drawn down if required.

FINDING 9

Bus  ridership  is  still  down  65%  on  2019's  pre-pandemic  levels,  despite restrictions being lifted. The reason for this change in travel behaviour is not fully known at this stage, although it is surmised that the pandemic might have instilled a lack of confidence to  resume use of public transport, as well as people continuing to work from home and there being less requirement to travel to and from the workplace. It is also unknown to what extent this reduction in ridership has had, and will continue to have, on the operator's profits.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Department for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment, in collaboration with LibertyBus,  should  undertake  an  evaluation  of  the  reasons  for  decreased ridership, as well as an analysis on measures which can be further taken to promote and incentivise bus ridership as a sustainable travel option. This should work should be undertaken before the end of Q2 2022 and the outcome reported back to the Panel.

The purpose of this funding allocation is to pay for the rent of 28-30 The Parade to provide flexibility to the Government of Jersey as part of a longer-term estate strategy.

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's mid-year review explains: we will continue to pay for the rent of 28-30 The Parade to provide flexibility as part of a longer-term estate strategy'.

The below tables provide an overview of the funding allocations that were proposed in the 2021-24 plan against what is now being proposed in 2022-25 plan:

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

In written questions to the Minister for Infrastructure the Panel requested the spend to date for this programme and received the following response[65]:

Annual rent for 28-30 the parade is £912,425. Occupants and users of the building such as Team Jersey are cross charged for use of the space – Team Jersey currently pays an annual rent of £109,268.

The Panel had identified uncertainty regarding the future use of 28-30 The Parade during its review of the Government Plan 2021-24, and as a result had recommended that the Minister for Infrastructure should ensure that further information be provided in the Government's mid- year status update, as well as in the next Government Plan, regarding the building's use and how value for money was being provided. During the public hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure the Panel sought further clarity on this:

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Considering that little information has been provided, can you provide further detail in that regard please? How is The Parade being utilised and by who?

Director, Jersey Property Holdings:

The Parade is currently in use by the Regulation Department, Team Jersey and the COVID support team and the COVID helpline, with the ground floor area being used for press briefings. The building came to Property Holdings as a result of the previous hospital project and it had been taken on to provide relief space so that when the General Hospital, the Granite building was being developed, the medical staff had somewhere to go. We have been using it as overflow space but it was fortuitous that we had it on the books, certainly for the COVID response, in terms of our ability to occupy it less densely at the time but also to use it to reduce the prospect of infection. So it has been used. We are currently getting rent from Team Jersey and there are internal transfers for the COVID response and for the Regulation Department.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

You mentioned that Team Jersey is cross-charged for occupying space there and is paying an annual rental of £109,268. Considering the annual rent is £918,425, is any other money being recouped. You spoke of cross transfers but what is the total income that The Parade has generated to date? In your view, is the continued leasing of it providing value for money for the taxpayer and is there any way of improving that?

Director, Jersey Property Holdings:

We were presented with a fait accompli when the previous hospital project was not successful so we are mitigating the building by using it. It is a challenge but, as I say, I think for COVID it was fortuitous that we had it and it did give us a breathing space, but that is why we will not be looking to extend the lease beyond 2023. [66]

During the public hearing the Panel identified that there was no intention to extend the 28-30 The Parade lease beyond its date of termination.

Director, Jersey Property Holdings:

We took on an assignment of a 20-year lease, which terminates in July 2023. At that point we will be moving towards the new office block. We will have to look at how we manage the space but the intention is not to extend The Parade beyond the termination of the lease.[67]

Considering the evidence gathered, the Panel is minded to maintain an amber RAG status for this programme. The Panel understands that the current situation is not ideal, and the continued leasing of the premises does not appear to be providing value for money through its current use. The Panel accepts that the premises has provided unforeseen opportunity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although the Panel has identified that the intention is to not extend the lease beyond 2023, the Panel is uncertain why indicative funding has been proposed in the Government Plan 2022 for 2024 and 2025 and will monitor any progress in that regard.

FINDING 10

Whilst the continued leasing of the 28-30 The Parade has provided unforeseen opportunity to accommodate the Covid-19 Response Team, it does not appear to be providing value for money through its current under-utilised use. It has been identified that the intention is to not extend the lease beyond 2023, although the Panel is uncertain why indicative funding has therefore been proposed in the Government Plan 2022 for 2024 and 2025.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Minister for Infrastructure should outline in his Ministerial Response why indicative funding has been suggested for 2024 and 2025 in the Government Plan 2022 if it is not the intention to renew the lease on 28-30 The Parade after 2023.

Capital Projects

Business Case: Overview

The Government Plan 2022-25 states that one of the largest ongoing programmes of work is the Infrastructure Rolling Vote and Regeneration including St. Helier which has now been designated as a Major Project. It is a programme of continual improvements to maintain key infrastructure such as: roads, drains and sea defences. The funding has no fixed end date, being a critical activity that aims to continue long into the future as part of the continual maintenance of critical areas of the Island's infrastructure. Regeneration including St. Helier (previously known as Island Public Realm under a separate additional revenue programme in previous Government Plans) is now included within the rolling vote to allow for the continual improvement and safety of roads, paths and public spaces in and around St. Helier and across the Island. It is asserted that amalgamating these similar schemes, provides for the effective delivery of priority activities as they are needed.

Panel analysis

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):