Transcript - Government Plan Review 2022-25 - Chief Minister - 10 November 2021

Government Plan Review Panel Government Plan 2022 - 2025 Witness: The Chief Minister

Wednesday, 10th November 2021

Panel:

Senator K.L. Moore (Chair)

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary

Witnesses:

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré, The Chief Minister

Mr. P. Martin, Interim Chief Executive

Mr. A. Hacquoil, Group Director, Strategic Finance

Mr. T. Walker , Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance Mr. D. Danino-Forsyth, Director of Communications

[12:03]

Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier (Chair):

Good afternoon and welcome to the Government Plan Review Panel hearing with the Chief Minister and team. We will start with the usual introductions, if we could. I am Senator Kristina Moore and I am the chair of the panel.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier :

Deputy Mary Le Hegarat , District 3 and 4, St Helier.

Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

Deputy Robert Ward , member of the panel.

Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier :

Deputy Inna Gardiner , member of the panel.

The Chief Minister:  

Senator John Le Fondré, Chief Minister.

Interim Chief Executive:

Paul Martin, Interim Chief Executive.

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

Andy Hacquoil, Group Director of Strategic Finance.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Tom Walker , Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance.

Director of Communications:

Dirk Danino-Forsyth, the Director of Communications.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Chief Minister, first, if we could start with a simple question really. For the benefit of the public, could you provide us with a clear description of the full function and purpose of the Government Plan please?

The Chief Minister:

In essence, it lays down the spending and revenue-raising measures for the Government Plan to be approved by the Assembly or amended or otherwise for the next year. But it also gives a period of time looking out beyond that plan as well. So it gives you a general trend and hopefully there are no nasty surprises the year after the period of the Government Plan, which is something we have had in the past.

Senator K.L. Moore :

How do you anticipate that the public engage with it and use it?

The Chief Minister:

In terms of how they engage with it, we did a variety of areas of engagement. Obviously there were the usual types of publicity in, for example, J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post), Bailiwick Express, quite a lot of detail of coverage there.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Sorry, I was asking how you expect to inform the public about the actual plan itself. How do you think the public will find it helpful?

The Chief Minister:

It lays out the plans and they will see, if they go through it, the links back to our original proposals in terms of the strategic vision when we originally established the Government Plan, and how that all ties through. It obviously is presented in a fairly simple way in certain areas for things like impôts increases. So I would have said it was laid out in a reasonably comprehensive, but I would have thought readable, way for this type of document for the public to understand. But on these levels a lot of them are done through the comms messaging as well and the direct engagement that we have done at various opportunities. Do you need the Connétable of St. Brelade to give his details?

Senator K.L. Moore :

We will do that in a moment. But the Deputy would like to ask a question.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Just for the benefit of the public that are listening today, can you please describe how a member of the public can find a simple explanation on the matters that are of his interest? For example, if someone would like to find the funding of Rouge Bouillon School, what will happen on the education level, on the construction level, where they can go to the document and find what interests them?

The Chief Minister:

If you are looking at spending on education and schools you would go to the capital programme, and you will see under there a section that does say spending, I think it is labelled "North of Town School"; I would have to go and check the detail.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

What I am trying to say, I am trying to look into the process because on Monday and Tuesday we have been out and trying to engage with the public and see what the public are thinking about the Government Plan. People ask how we can find about this, how we can find about that. There are several examples, say, from infrastructure through to education that people asked: "Can you give us an idea, if you look through the link, how we are going through the document to find if the First Tower Community Hub will be developed?" for example. It is not about specifics. We would like for the benefit of the public if you can give a process, if a person new to the document can find the relevant information.

The Chief Minister:

The reason I am pausing, it kind of depends what you mean by "a member of the public". The reason I am saying that, and what they are looking for, is they are looking for a very, very specific issue. It depends because this is still a summary document. It is a detailed summary document but every departmental plans and things get published at the end of the year. This is for the Assembly obviously to approve the overall envelope, if you like, of the spend that we are doing. But I am just looking down to find, for example, the issues around Rouge Bouillon School and they will see, I think it says "North of St. Helier School" which is roughly £24 million, £25 million, which is scheduled to commence in 2023 and is spread over a timetable to 2024 and 2025.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

The question I asked, I mean North of St. Helier School; is it Rouge Bouillon, is it d'Auvergne; is it Janvrin?

The Chief Minister:

That has not been decided yet, as you know, because you have a proposition ...

Deputy I. Gardiner :

What I am trying to ask: how have the Government - yourself and your team - communicated to the public what you are going to spend money on? That it will be clear in a simple message.

The Chief Minister:

That is where I was going back but I got cut off slightly. I was saying we have done various programmes around obviously the normal media engagement, which was through the J.E.P. and, for example, the Bailiwick Express; and I am looking down at 5 links here the Bailiwick did coverage on. We obviously did the briefings for Scrutiny and States Members; I accept it is not the public. We did the media release, various strategies there, and we did 2 "Ask the Ministers" Government Plan specials, which were the normal livestreaming that we have done. They were hosted on the 20th and the 21st. We have also done, through the electronic media, some small videos that are being used on social media which will explain some of the C.S.P. (Common Strategy Policy) and investments in the plan, and obviously we have done some engagement, and I am down for things like the "Hot Seat". You might want some more details from the head of Comms.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Could you tell us how many people watched the "Ask the Ministers" event?

Director of Communications:

Across the 2 evenings it is 8,000 accounts that clicked into the event to watch it. That is across the 2 that we have done so far.

The Chief Minister:

Whereas, just to give an example, previously in 2019 we were starting to do ... we did the Parish Hall . We were lucky, 30 people turned up.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

How accessible do you think these documents are for the general public in terms of those people who will be our voters, who live in different Parishes and want to know what the Government is going to do next year with the money and taxes that they pay? Perhaps you can grade it in terms of one being it is completely unusable and 10 being you open it and all the information is in your head. What sort of level of accessibility would you say that these documents have for the general public?

The Chief Minister:

There is an awful lot of information available online but we have also stuck to traditional media as well. Then obviously if they need hard copies that is down to one of the policies at the bookshop. In terms of online it is all there.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But in terms of the actual way it is produced and what it says in the layout, because we have spent a lot of time on this, as you can imagine, being a Scrutiny Panel. There are things that are linked all over the place and you have to spend an enormous amount of time with officers and so on to access the output. Do you think it could be more accessible?

The Chief Minister:

Is this accessible or are you finding it difficult to read?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I mean accessible for the general public. Is it difficult to read? No, the words are okay. But in terms of finding difficulty in what the actual outcomes would be, I think it is difficult for everybody because it is linked in a number of different places and it takes a significant amount of time and understanding. That is why we are having these hearings. For one of my constituents, who wants to come to my constituency drop-in, and say: "What are they doing in the Government Plan for me?" would you suggest I say: "Well if you go away and read it you will find out" because I do not think they will find out? I just wonder whether ... I know it is a difficult thing to do - sorry, this is a long question - but

as a Government, and we talk about openness and transparency, just some idea of what you think the level of transparency of these documents are. Whether we agree with your judgment on it is another thing. But what do you think in terms of the level of transparency of the documentation and things that have gone out to people so they know what their money is being spent on?

The Chief Minister:

I need to respond to a question on that because the level of transparency, I would have said, is pretty good because it is all there. Now the level of understanding, which I think is different in terms of the question you are asking, that will also come down to the individual and what they are looking for. For me, for most I would have thought, if anybody who does follow the principles of government or understands the documents that we generally do, this was understandable. But I would have thought also we have done other media, which then make that message at the high level, and depends what level of detail somebody is looking for because if they have basically just one thing to say: "What is happening on my pint of beer?", which you will see is frozen this year, then that is summarised on an infographic in this document and I think is elsewhere in social media and on relevant pages. If you want to go and counter, for example, some of the comments that we are not investing in education, when we are doing around £140 million over the next 4 years in growth, that is excluding this year ... sorry, that is C.Y.P.E.S. (Children, Young People, Education and Skills) as a whole - not just education but obviously education is in there - there is a significant increase. It depends when you are saying: "What is the Government Plan doing for me?" is who is "me"? Because if it is somebody who is focusing, as I said, on C.Y.P.E.S. and children and young people, the headline answer would be there is £140 million extra spend, excluding this year, which is already in the programme. That should transfer it too.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I see where you are going.

Senator K.L. Moore :

If I could just ask Deputy Gardiner to move her microphone slightly to the right and then the 2 members who have joined us from their busy schedules could introduce themselves for the record, and then we will continue.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

Mike Jackson , Constable of St. Brelade , as Chair of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel.

Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

David Johnson , Deputy of St. Mary , Chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

[12:15]

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

You have indicated already that obviously you have done the engagement in relation to the 2 evenings and that last year you did some focus groups. Is it your intention to do more workshops or focus groups in relation to the public leading up to the debates in December in relation to the Government Plan?

Director of Communications:

The Minister for Treasury and Resources has a focus group with Chamber of Commerce on 17th November to discuss the Government Plan. The Chief Minister will be doing a BBC Radio "Hot Seat" in early December and there will be other workshops going on with other departments; the bits that pertain to them within the Government Plan.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

The panel is keen to understand how public perception and understanding of the provision of services and their interaction with the Government are fed into the plan. How do the public understand those services and where does that understanding feed into the plan, is what we are trying to say? Can you explain where in the Government Plan the public perception of where services are is evidenced? How is what people understand is happening now fed into the Government Plan?

The Chief Minister: Public perception.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

What do the public think of the quality of services, et cetera, and how is that fed into the Government Plan in order to improve them or carry on? If the public think that is great then carry on. Where does that feed into the Government Plan? I am trying to get a context of where this was developed. You are nodding, so I hope that makes sense to you.

Interim Chief Executive:

I understand the question. My understanding is that the framework for the Government Plan is largely set after elections through the creation of the common strategic framework and that that guides priorities and spending plans throughout a 4-year term. So in that sense, the Government Plan for 2022 is the final year of this Assembly period - this period of administration - reflecting the priorities as determined in 2018 and honed and revised through development since then. Obviously especially over the pandemic. So, in my view, through the public's elected representatives' priorities and the priorities for investment have already been formed and set and this final year reflects that position. That process will begin again next summer after the June 2022 elections.

The Chief Minister:

What you must not forget - I will ask Tom to talk in more detail about it, we did cover it a little bit in one of 2 previous hearings, I think - was the performance framework that has been established, which obviously continues to evolve. But that will then give you the measures which do tie back to the K.P.I. (key performance indicators). But obviously they are K.P.I.s which are in the media report, which then feed into how we are doing, which then influence perception. Obviously we have introduced a new level to that.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Perhaps I should have asked this question first. My fault because I should have asked this one first. Last year's report, finding 15 regarding communication and gathering public perceptions, the response was that the Communications Directorate have set up its own Facebook group Have Your Say, which has been supporting an extra 2 new platforms for public engagement; Citizen Space and Dialogue. Can you outline the progress of developing these platforms and how they have helped the Government Plan? I think it would have been helpful if I had asked that first.

The Chief Minister:

That might have been better.

Deputy R.J. Ward : We are there now.

Director of Communications:

We set up those platforms last year to support the departments in going out and having active citizen participation. Those platforms still exist but departments are taking on other measures of doing it. So the Chief Minister will be with the Youth Parliament on 24th November to make sure that we are getting engagement from those young people who are members of the Youth Assembly, but also individual departments will go out through their Director of Comms or through S.P.3 (Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance) to their individual stakeholder networks to see what progress is perceived that we have made since last year's Government Plan and what we will be doing for this year's Government Plan. The function of the Communications Department is to facilitate that dialogue, not to dictate what the dialogue is going to be.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

I would like to give an example. At the Public Accounts Committee hearing, when we worked with Customer and Local Services, and questioned when the Customer and Local Services will be open to the public, we have been told ... we consulted. We had a survey of 250 people who called us in and 88 per cent said that they would like to receive a telephone call, which is obviously when you are asking people who are calling in anyway. Since then there were several articles and around 300 people commented: "We would like to walk in and to have service at the point of delivery", which is from your public engagement. It happened. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I do not know what is the makeup, but the question: what is happening with delivering services at Customer and Local Services? Is anything changing this year? Do we get more funding to ... because I am not on that Scrutiny Panel and it is just raised here.

Interim Chief Executive:

The question was raised at the Scrutiny Committee on Friday and the Government has a strategy of seeking to deliver services through digital channels, through telephone services and through face- to-face contact and, over a period of time, is looking to migrate as much resident interaction as we can into digital formats because it is most convenient for Islanders. It is 24/7. It is also the most cost effective for taxpayers. So that is the overall strategy and we found during the pandemic inevitably that a lot of traffic has moved towards digital channels, and for most Islanders that is very satisfactory. Supplemented by telephone and face-to-face visits. I think the balance that we have struck currently is if people want a face-to-face meeting they are able to have one by appointment. That is the system that we have currently. We think, based on the feedback that we have had so far, that that is satisfactory to most residents. I am not saying to all residents but we believe it is satisfactory to most and the right balance between our overall strategic priorities and the feedback that we are getting from Islanders. But these processes will continue all the time. So we will constantly be listening and checking back with Islanders to check that the balance is right and that it meets their needs.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

What survey have you done that you know the public is satisfied? What evidence do you have, apart from 250 people who called in already?

Interim Chief Executive:

The feedback will be captured in the Jersey performance framework through customer feedback and it will be the daily feedback, particularly in customer responses that staff in C.L.S. (Customer and Local Services) receive on service provision.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Another quick very technical question. I really appreciate that a lot of work is done in a relatively short period of time to produce the Government Plan. There are some formatted and typographical errors, which while minor it is a bit difficult to navigate and I am just checking what is the level of reassurance. The example, page 78, at the Government Plan and page 90, so it should be in GP22O14 and not OI14. I know that it is only a minor typo and it just got through. What is the reassurance process that both annexe and the main plan are connected and the same numbers are used?

The Chief Minister:

Basically you mean how did we try and reduce rather than remove typos?

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Can you please describe the levels of quality assurance process used in the development and publication of the Government Plan?

Interim Chief Executive:

Sorry, I did not catch on page 78 the error was ...?

Deputy I. Gardiner :

If you are looking at page 78 it is written GP22OI14-4.

The Chief Minister:

What is the error on page 90?

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Basically if I understood correctly, the O1402 or O140 it should not be OI14. It is only O14. It is minor things but sometimes I think is there anything else there?

Interim Chief Executive:

I think the strict answer is that we have a careful proofreading process that is done kind of separately from the authorship of the plan. So we do our very best to ensure that the draft plan is error free and that if typographical issues are picked up I guess it is obviously inevitable there might be a few that slip through that have been unnoticed that careful reading subsequently we can correct, as it goes through this process.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

If I go back to the Government Plan review recommendations last year, what consideration was given to clear presentation of tables and their contents? What was done to ensure that the tables are really understandable? Because there is lots of cross that we need to do.

Director of Communications:

I think it is fair to say there is an ongoing dialogue between members of the Communications Directorate, my team, and the report producers, from quite an early stage of what is the look, the feel and the general layout as to our terms; not economists or accountants. What would a layman think and how would they go through? All the way through to the very end where it appears we have missed out a typo, predominantly I would say through eye fatigue. We do not want to be commissioning lots of people to be in the document as there is other work that needs to be done. But there is that early sense when it hits the designer that can the designer literally input it into a format that they would understand or are they losing numbers and figures as they go? But then making sure that that meets the standard that the accountants and the economists are going to need for what would be a nationally recognised standard of a public finance document. We have a healthy debate every year of what infographics are going to go in, how they are presented, because for us obviously the challenge is - as per some of the earlier questions - to communicate this document to make sure that individual Islanders, no matter what their interest is, that they can see the relevance and the value of the document while maintaining that if you did receive a hard copy or a digital copy, and went through it at a higher term, it would also make sense and you would also understand and be able to, as we are today, interrogate it. That is that balance we are trying to do every time.

Interim Chief Executive:

I just want to return to the important question of how Islander opinion is fed into the Government Plan just because possibly we did not fully answer the point, and it is a very important one: is the Government Plan sufficiently guided by feedback from Islanders and are their views and priorities reflected here? I think perhaps an element that we did not cover as much as we should have done is I think the Government Plan is a crystallisation of all of the policies and programmes and intentions of the Government for the coming year together with how those will be financed. If this was the only point at which Islander opinion and feedback was gathered I think your point would be well made. It would be an incomplete and imperfect process. I am sure it can be improved because everything always can be. In practice, the vast majority, I believe, of what is in here has at earlier stages been the subject of more detailed input and engagement. The hospital project would be an obvious example of that. That is described and crystallised in the Government Plan as an intent but is subject to its own separate processes. I hope that the way that Islanders see the Government Plan is inevitably a highly technical document, which it needs to be to comply with the law. It is not an easy document for many people to engage with. I think that is a very fair point because of the constraints of a document of this kind and its predecessors that have been the same in that regard, but that for the most part what has been advanced here has been the subject of separate and detailed resident engagement.

[12:30]

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Not all though. Some significant things that do not have outcomes yet, and we talked about education. The education sites review is not finished so the public would not have sight of that, and neither has the Scrutiny Panel. The education reform programme is not completed. We have not had the outcomes of the school spending formula, neither has the panel and the public certainly would not have. What I am trying to say is that if you are going to say that you have public input there are some things that you cannot possibly have because they have not been completed yet.

The Chief Minister:

This is what we said on Friday, I think, this is a budget estimation process. You are trying to say the education site review essentially is a piece of work that is happening, you know you are going to spend roughly a sum of money in there and that is roughly the sum of money that is going to come through. You are signposting that that is a piece of work that is happening. That is the amount of money that is assigned to it. But of course the actual outcomes will come out as a separate part of that process when it is finished and a report produced and all that type of thing. That is later down the process. You would not expect the detail to be in there because, as you say, it is not complete.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But the priorities that are being made in this, how are they being driven by public opinion if the public do not know the outcome of some of those reviews. There are priorities made. There are priorities made for certain things happening in certain schools right now; the money is there. Music things and new builds. Whereas others are waiting for the school review when there is a real demand in certain areas to do something about town schools. Obviously I speak up for that, and I think everyone would. How are those priorities decided upon when there are not outcomes from really important reviews? That is what I think I am trying to ask as well. I would have asked it later but it is not my ... is that okay? In terms of how those priorities are being ... I am just trying to get an understanding of where the priorities came from because - sorry, this is again getting on - because the public cannot have fed into it because there is not an outcome from the reviews that are going on. Scrutiny has not because there is no outcome from the reviews going on. It appears that the Minister has only just seen them himself. I just wondered who made those priorities?

The Chief Minister:

You have just alluded to 3 lots of work that are ongoing. Unless I have missed something here, the figures that are in, for example, the capital programme are not specific. The one that says "North of Town School", it does not say what particular site.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

No, but there are some specifics.

The Chief Minister:

There will be measures that were agreed in previous plans which we are carrying forward. There is obviously the C.S.P. that was approved by the Assembly, which was fed in from basically our take of election time and what the public priorities were. That was laying out a stream of work and obviously, as we know, we have had an interruption, shall we say, for the past 18 months. We have covered some of that in previous hearings.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

There are priorities that are not specifically targeted. For example, specific builds in specific areas of schools such as music areas in J.C.G. (Jersey College for Girls), V.C. (Victoria College) Prep will be rebuilt, the money is put there and they are very tangible things that will be done, are being prioritised now. But then other areas we are still waiting on reviews. Could priorities not be made for those specifically? Are those reviews being late affecting the way in which you can prioritise in this Government Plan?

Senator K.L. Moore :

If I could add to that. For example, Rouge Bouillon School and the need for a replacement was known prior to 2018, and therefore it is unusual that it has slipped in this process whereas others have moved up the ranking ahead of them.

The Chief Minister:

I think there are 2 things. Perhaps Andy might want to talk about the capital programme and how this works. But if we use Rouge Bouillon as the example. For me that is covered under where it says "North of St. Helier School", which as I said is £25 million, which is a provision. That is starting in 2023. But I think if one goes to the top you will see under central planning, and bearing in mind because of the completion of the site review, which we have been talking about and was happening and is ... I have a feeling it might have come in in the last few days. Something has. But there is a planning provision in 2022, which basically ends that starting point of once the outcome of that site is agreed in accordance with the proposition, and the Assembly has agreed, it then starts moving forward. But you cannot magic up the site without having done that site review. But what we have done is put a figure in there, which is what is budgeted for.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

You have also got £1.25 million for the site review to be ongoing next year as well. Is that planning permission that that money will be spent on?

The Chief Minister: Sorry, for the ...?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

The site review. The school site review has £1.25 million associated with next year's spend.

The Chief Minister:

I cannot give you the specifics because I am afraid I try to keep an eye level, but you will have to go back, unless Andy can elaborate.

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

I am afraid I do not have the specifics on that. Just to elaborate on what the Chief Minister was saying how the capital programme is constructed. Obviously it is a quite complex programme. There are a lot of assets held by the Government and it is part of what the capital programme or the projects programme is, is make sure that those assets are maintained and enhanced to deliver the outcomes for Islanders that require it. There are lots of things that need to be done. Some of those are at different stages in the process and if colleagues from Infrastructure were here they would talk about the need to go through feasibility, pre-feasibility, and begin to move through the planning process.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just push one thing that is specific on that? In those processes priorities have to be made, with all the processes that are going on. So a priority has been made to give £500,000 for music facilities for a school in 2022. The money is there, it will happen next year. But the other schools are the year after, year after, is that priority being made because it is simply doable next year or is that priority being made because that is a priority within the C.S.P.?

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

Obviously officers are comparing input into the political process to prioritise which projects go ahead in which years, i.e. I think it is fair to say that what we are very keen to do is make progress in the relevant areas. So if things are ready to be delivered or to begin to move into delivery that is something that should be considered when prioritising the programme otherwise there is a chance that nothing will be delivered. But it is a political process and the Council of Ministers have had a number of meetings to look at how the projects could fit into the programme over 4 years. When we talk about capital programmes and projects it is not a single year plan. It very much has to be 4, 5 years, even looking further into the future, to make sure that we are maintaining that asset base. So it is quite a complex process I guess but one that hopefully we provide the adequate information for the Council to make those recommendations and prioritisations.

The Chief Minister:

Ordinarily there would have been - I say "ordinarily" because I have not gone back to compare to previous years because of the interruptions of COVID - the starting point would have been the previous year's capital programme, which is approved by the Assembly, which then laid out the timing. In theory then, they have all come forward a year. But as I say, COVID has caused interruptions, which then comes back to it might have plan B, which is now ready to go, and plan A got delayed. So we are now giving priority to plan B because that can be delivered now.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Would it not be though that the priority for a replacement school or, should I say, should not the replacement of a school be higher priority than another school having an additional facility?

The Chief Minister:

You would have to ask the Minister for Children and Education on that one. I do not know how that has come through. But we go back to that point, if for £500,000, or whatever the number is, that project is ready to go then they may say: "Yes, we will deliver that." I think you referred to V.C. Prep, for example. That has been, as I understood it, on the books in trying to produce new facilities for 20 years, I am not too sure. At which point do you bring those priorities in? Yes, you can take the view they are fee paying therefore the donators get it versus a state school which should do, or what is the difference because I do not know.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I do not think anyone is suggesting that. I think we are just trying to get some idea of how the priorities are made.

The Chief Minister:

I was saying, so the priority which the States Assembly have agreed is that the Rouge Bouillon site will be determined once that site review has been finished, if I can recall roughly.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

The site review should be finished, according to when you were Acting Minister for Education, in May you said it will be finished within 4 to 6 weeks. We are really far away from that.

The Chief Minister:

My understanding was that something had come in quite recently but I have obviously not seen it. But the point being is that that site review then determines certain things - I cannot remember the proposition itself - but in some shape or form it has either got to come back to the Assembly or be reported on. The point being is you have not, at this stage, got a decision on a site therefore for a budgetary purpose you cannot say that on 1st January next year we can be starting to build a new school on X. Because at that point, when this was being put together, which is broadly speaking in June, you did not have that data. You have a provision there which then says, actually, you have some planning ... under the central planning reserve you have some money there which says during 2022, which is going to be based on the outcome of that site review, work will be happening. Then obviously that then goes through the planning process, and all the rest of it, and then of course, depending what is on the site, you have demolition and decant to do.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

You say there is £500,000 put aside for just Home Affairs to develop ... sorry, I think you were going to say the same thing.

Deputy I. Gardiner : Yes.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

To develop the Rouge Bouillon site for ambulance and fire, so money has been put aside before the estates review has come back to accommodate that change.

The Chief Minister:

I think the comment I would make is I am assuming that - I have to be slightly careful about taking words too literally - that if, for the sake of argument, the review comes back and says they are going to use the site for a school they are still going to have to spend the money to find the site for the fire station somewhere.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

If you look back to the public hearing we had, the plan would be to spend that money on a different facility for fire, which is another issue altogether, not necessarily on another site. So it does seem to me that some things have been predetermined and our concern is that if priorities are being made and held back because of school reviews, which have some predetermined bits already there, what we have got is a blockage in the system, which is not enabling new schools to be built.

The Chief Minister:

I think we are talking at odds here. My perception is, and I have not looked at this terribly closely, is that you have a sum of money there. One is for the new school in the north of town and one sum of money is for what happens with the fire station. Once a decision is made those 2 sums of money will be used on the, if you like, specific outcomes for those 2 projects, irrespective of where they end up. I am not aware there is any predetermined outcome. I would not be that stupid because if it is not an outcome that does not make sense there will be another proposition in the Assembly. At the moment this is a budget estimation process which says you have some sums of money there for planning purposes, once you have the outcome of that report. That planning process takes place during the course of next year and then your large capital spends are coming in, starting roughly - I think I have the right column - in 2023. There is a process there. No matter how much you like, unless you want to completely carve out every process we have got and consultation and planning process, there is no point in putting a sum of money on, let us say, £5 million for the first stage of development of whatever Rouge Bouillon School is on 1st January next year because it just will not be spent. Therefore you are then delaying other projects which are ready to go, and that is why that timing is there because it is the sheer mechanics of what we can do. It is frustrating sometimes but that is the issue we are building and all the rest of it.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

The frustration is that the delay in the review has meant that children will still be in those inadequate schools for a whole generation of their education.

The Chief Minister:

I accept that, but the point is you cannot keep ... every time people jump to a solution on a jigsaw- like property you cause another problem somewhere else. That means for the sake of argument, right, Rouge Bouillon School here, take the point, they need the new facilities - there is no question

- where are you going to put the fire station? Because that is people dying. Those are the 2 priorities. That is why you have to have a considered outcome as to how these things work together. We wait for the outcome of that review but the point of this process is that there is money there that as soon as that decision is made, and provided that fits in with the details of the proposition now that gets reported back, that process then says: "Right you have a decision, we have nailed down that bit, and off we go.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

First my apologies to the Chief Minister and his team, and indeed my own colleagues, for being slightly delayed due to another public hearing. It is a general question. The adviser to the Corporate Services Panel on its Government Plan review offered the general preliminary opinion that the lack of evidence contained in the document to support service level provision is a concern. The plan is

silent on the number of users of any given service, for instance how many children are predicted to be in schools during the period. The plan does make reference to a percentage of sections of the population in some areas but does not provide the demographic information to back this up. Accordingly, this makes it difficult to quantify the level of investment outlined in the document. So the question I have really is: can you please explain where the evidence can be found to support growth and the size of public services?

[12:45]

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Perhaps on that specific example, the plan does make provision for the demographic change and then I think the business case explains what that demographic change is in the schools. So in that instance, the justification for the investment due to demographic change in the schools will be followed through in the business plan.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

In that case, more generally can you comment on the point that the adviser made that it is difficult to find evidence?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

The Government Plan process will include the things that need to change, the things that are different. In that example, for school demographics, it is in the plan because clearly something is changing and the business case shows that for something like the fire service that we have just been talking about, then there is not anything in the Government Plan specifically about demographics and the effect on the fire service because there is not anything that needs to change there at the moment. The Government Plan will deal with those things that are proposed to change in some way.

Interim Chief Executive:

Just adding to that, I think probably ... I do not know whether the advisers have had an opportunity to look at the Jersey performance framework but that might be a helpful document to look at, alongside the Government Plan, in the sense that it does comprise some resident service volumes and how those are fluctuating. Service demands and how they are fluctuating. Having said that, even that, because of the pandemic, some services' demands have fluctuated enormously because they have been closed for large parts of the year or, in the case of bus patronage, would be an example, it plummeted and is on a recovery path; they are probably not quite back to where it was. So service volumes have changed enormously and have not yet stabilised. I think perhaps I would suggest if the adviser looked at the performance framework alongside the Government Plan that might help.

Senator K.L. Moore :

The performance framework is out of date quite considerably, so often giving the most up-to-date data is 2015. Some of the most recent data is 2019.

The Chief Minister:

I think we covered that in the 2 hearings.

Senator K.L. Moore :

We have indeed. Perhaps if we could just move on.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Perhaps, Chair, just to finish on the other point to help the adviser finally. Of course the Island Plan process includes a significant review on key public service infrastructure with changing demographics as well. So part of the Island Plan suite is a very comprehensive review on the effect of demographic change upon key public infrastructure and the critical services that are affected by those changes, so that might assist them as well.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Thank you. One point that does assist often is to look at the previous year and I think, in fact, we did recommend that the previous year was included in the documentation for this year to assist people. Could you just explain why that has not happened, please?

The Chief Minister:

I look towards our Treasurer representative

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

Okay. As Dirk said earlier, when we look at the presentation in the plan, we obviously have to make sure that we are meeting the points of the Public Finances Law. We do also endeavour to try and make things as understandable as possible for people to look at. The previous year the figure has not been included. I think in some instances we have included some reference to previous years, for example, when you look at what the impact of COVID has been across the Government Plan we have not excluded 2020 or 2021; those numbers have been included to give that context to people, so they can see the overall impact across the pandemic. It is something that we can still consider though, whether we can include previous years' approvals in some of those tables; I am very happy. Some of the tables are already quite unmanageable in terms of the size. I know Dirk's team have some excitement in terms of typesetting and in a way that is legible for people but where possible we could look at that. If there are specific tables, certainly something we could consider.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Ultimately, the core information is in the proposition and the summary table is there. We have simply had to print out each year's propositions here, I have got 2019, 2020 and 2021 and we constantly have to move from one to the other, which seems a slightly clunky way of doing things but thank you for the answer.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

An accepted recommendation of the panel's review of the Government Plan 2021-2024 was that a new business case should be presented if a programme is unachievable due to budget constraints or if its aspirations are enhanced. Why have updated business cases not been provided for projects where bids for funding have changed from previous Government Plans?

The Chief Minister:

Could you possibly give an example?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Yes, the people in Corporate Services enhanced capabilities, the technical transformation programme, office modernisation.

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

Those are some detailed questions, we can go in and look at what is being done in those spaces. Often there is a process obviously of constantly updating things when additional information becomes available and in each case you would still consider whether or not this stands up or whether or not there may be some instances where if the change is modish, shall I say, it may be that you accept that there is no material impact on our business cases and one can update an existing one, rather than a whole new business case starting again. I will speak to the technology transformation programme specifically, if that is helpful, because I know there has been a quite substantial change in the amounts that have gone through. That is due to us trying to use the new Public Finances Law to help make things clearer. There were amounts included in that programme originally which related to some of the core projects you would see in the projects programme. For example, revenue consequences of I.T.S. (integrated technology solution) and of the MS Foundations and of decipher programme, to try and make sure that people get a full view of what the cost of those programmes are. Those costs have to move from the T.T.P. (technology transformation programme), the revenue line, into those projects instead. There is an offsetting change between the 2 but the original business case that predicated them all has not changed. The numbers are the same, they have just moved in terms of presentation.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Okay. What improvements are being made in reconciling the performance framework Government Plan and the 6-month progress report more directly with common strategic priorities and demonstrating measurable progress against them? This was also a recommendation, number 6, of last year's report, which was neither accepted nor rejected.

Interim Chief Executive:

I think that has been taken on board, was it not? That was in the 6-monthly review and the end-of- year review; it was a recommendation, was it?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

This was the recommendation from last year's Government Plan.

Interim Chief Executive:

Yes. We have presented, I think for the first time, in the end-of-year review activity mapped against the 5 common strategic priorities, so I think that that process precisely matched the recommendation that was made.

The Chief Minister:

I am guessing the reason it was neither accepted nor rejected is it was probably in hand at the time; that is a guess mind you.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Yes, I think that is correct, Chief Minister. It was a helpful recommendation that reinforced the direction of travel overall that we are all trying to get to, which is to link the high-level outcomes in the performance framework with the overall sustainable well-being outcomes and then to let that flow through into each Government's common strategic priorities. So that those particular aspects have an enhanced focus during that term of Government and that that then flows through into the Government Plan, the mid-year report and the annual report as well. Yes, that is very much what we are seeking to do. Every year we make further progress towards that and I suspect that we will continue in future years to improve and enhance that system, based partly upon recommendations of this panel but also on the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and their work as well.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just ask when the Jersey performance framework will be updated because the dates that are on there are old?

The Chief Minister:

We covered that 2 sittings ago or a few hearings ago with the C.S.S.P. (Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel) and the head of Stats was here and apologised because they have had a resources impact in data. I will not repeat the dates he gave but they are on record.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

It is an analyst who had been working on getting the quarterly performance service measures published and is now working on updating the top end of the

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Have you seen the data? You have got new data

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Much of the data exists already because it is in official statistics, and what needs to happen is it needs to be reformatted out of the relevant statistical series into the outcome-based approach.

The Chief Minister:

Yes, the data is there but it is not on the same page as the performance framework for the relevant year; that has not been updated.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance: That is right and that will be

Deputy R.J. Ward :

That is the public-facing side of it, which is out of date, so

Interim Chief Executive:

But the service outcomes are published quarterly.

The Chief Minister: Yes.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

What we are talking about, the service performance measures, the lower part of the framework, that is where the analyst has spent his time - it is a single analyst - so that is where he has been spending his time. That is now published and he is up to date and he is good. Statistics Jersey have kept doing their regular statistical series. All the underlying data is already published and is already out there but it is in the statistical series, like the labour market review, hedge prices index. The bit that needs updating is the top end of the Jersey performance framework, which are the outcome analyses of that data. The analyst is sitting down right now and very diligently working his way through each of those outcomes and drawing the information from the relevant published official statistics and reformatting and re-presenting that in the outcome based and updating the narratives to explain how we do it.

The Chief Minister:

We covered that quite a lot in the 2 hearings ago.

Senator K.L. Moore :

If I may, while they are doing that, will they be also automating that process, so that in future it is updated with greater ease, less friction? Because at the end of the day this is about the public being able to access that data efficiently and without having to look all over the place for it.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Yes, and it is a very sensible point. The process when we started was very labour-intensive because we had to find where all of that data was published. Now that we know where all the data is published, then, yes, it is becoming increasingly easy to connect the data sources together. When the analyst is going through he will be making it easier for the future as we go and

The Chief Minister:

But it is caveated by the 2 comments that John Quinn made in the last hearing, which is, firstly, that of course it depends how often you are doing it, et cetera, and versus automation being expensive and, secondly, obviously is the state of the systems and getting that foundation in the right place, to then be able to build the automation on top of it.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Just a final bit of the jigsaw; some of the information that informs the outcomes are published more frequently than other data. Some of the data is biannual or every few years, some is annual, some is more often an annual, is quarterly. The up-to-dateness, if you like, of the outcome measures, as with any outcome performance system, will vary by measure because the underlying statistical series vary as well.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Recommendation 13 of the panel's report last year, which, again, was neither accepted nor rejected, stated: "The Government should make it easier to track, analyse and assess what the impact of COVID-19 has been on the Island's workforce, both in the private and public sector, and improve opportunities for training and skills." Has this been achieved and can you explain where this is evidenced in the Government Plan report?

The Chief Minister:

The opportunity for training and skills ... I am not going to turn my hand to the right page immediately, I am hoping Andy can but is in there definitely. In terms of the impact on the workforce, I would have to look to my left and to my right but

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

I think the wider information is published by Statistics Jersey. You may recall that States Members during the pandemic, there was quite a regular series of economic and labour market indicators that were published. That has then become more regularised and indeed the latest labour market data has just been published by Statistics Jersey.

[13:00]

You can see the effects of the pandemic on the public and private workforce through that kind of

Deputy R.J. Ward :

What about training and skills?

Interim Chief Executive:

There is a section on page 55 of the Government Plan: "Improving Islanders' skills to reduce reliance on inward migration." That describes the investment associated with that.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

I think the link here is clear, and we really appreciated and it was really helpful when it was published, what is happening with the workforce during the pandemic. But the question, the analysis: what has happened with the workforce during the pandemic, where we are now, impacts the skills and it is not necessary? It can be connected to immigration and it can be connected that some people decided to leave the care sector and they are still on the Island but they are not in the care sector. It is more the connection between the statistics to what is going into the Government Plan.

Interim Chief Executive:

I think in practice our understanding of the situation is continuing to evolve. It probably is not quite as neatly packaged up in the Government Plan as it might be because we are still assembling the information and the feedback to understand what the position is in reality. Probably a year ago we might have had a hunch about what the labour market would look like post-pandemic but it looks rather different perhaps to how we had envisaged it might be. We thought that we might have been wrestling with a high level of worklessness and economy that was really struggling in practice. Thankfully, that looks as though it is not the case, that the challenge that we thought we were going to have is different to the challenge that we now believe we have got, which is more around skills shortages and linked to housing affordability. Indeed, I have just been this morning with colleagues from the census team discussing what is emerging from the census earlier this year when there will be data releases in reports from the beginning of next year. That will provide further insight that we do not yet have about what has happened to the demography of Jersey and its population and its workforce during the pandemic. I think that what the Government Plan does do in the page that I referred to is to signal the priority that is placed on this and our current understanding, it also references a skills and productivity White Paper, which we are committed to preparing. But I think in practice this is going to be an evolution incrementally, rather than something that is clear at any one point in time.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

The page reference you gave us, and thanks for that, talks about: "The education reform programme will perform a feasibility study prior to the physical reprovision of Highlands College for their capital programme." It does put £150,000, on page 136, for an educational campus. Just say in terms of numbers, the way that this is set out with 3 zeros at the top, I still do not think is conducive to people understanding that particularly itself; that is just a little aside.

The Chief Minister:

Sorry, I do not agree with you on that. Every time you get to large numbers you take the thousands off.

Deputy R.J. Ward : Okay.

The Chief Minister:

In the newspapers, yes, it is financial account, if not

Deputy R.J. Ward :

With genuine respect you are an accountant, most people are not.

The Chief Minister:

No, what I am saying to you, read any paper and little columns can have that and, frankly, if not, your pages are going to get a lot wider.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. That might not necessarily be a bad thing because people will get a perspective of what is being spent. But there is nothing else, it seems, for an F.E. (further education) campus. Yes, there is in 2025. It just strikes me is we have got a skills issue that is being exposed by COVID and we have got the issues over population and issues over this; it seems a long way off.

The Chief Minister:

No, you have got 2 things that are conflating; one is revenue spend and improving

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I am talking about a capital project

The Chief Minister:

Yes, I know but you are doing 2 things here. Page 55 is both but will include revenue spend. The capital spend is about the facility and it is the fact that the facility needs a spend on it. It is the revenue spend, I would suggest, that

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I just wonder what happened to the previous plans for Highlands College because I have seen them. There was a plan for a new campus. I went to a lovely little presentation up at Highlands and you can just use that one to take the money, just

The Chief Minister:

You have to bear in mind, you can keep jumping in to individual solutions, and we have seen some of this, or you can try and sort out the long-term issues and get the thing stable and that is where we are.

Interim Chief Executive:

I certainly hope we will use that earlier work though.

The Chief Minister: Yes.

Senator K.L. Moore :

For the next Government.

The Chief Minister:

It depends how old it was.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Do you want me to ask question 14?

Senator K.L. Moore :

Yes, could you ask the next question, please?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can you describe how the Government Plan addresses the risks outlined in the Corporate Risk Register, which has developed alongside the plans that help inform Ministerial decision-making?

The Chief Minister:

I was going to say, where do you want to start? You want an outline of the risks.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is how it helped to inform the Ministerial decision-making. There is a risks register, surely that would be one of the things you address when you say: "We are going to make a decision but that is a huge risk, that decision, perhaps we will not do that one." To put it in the most-simplest form, and this is a public hearing and I am just trying to make it as understandable as possible.

The Chief Minister:

Okay, for the public record, obviously some securities are an issue; it is identified on the risk register and there is funding in here and has been funding in here since the first Government Plan to address that; that would be a very simple example.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Chief Minister, this is one for you, I think. Last year when the panel asked generally how content you are on scale of one to 5 with your Government's achievement with the various outcomes and measures that you have set yourselves, you answered 3½ to 4 out of 5. Where would you sit on that scale now and why would you give it that score?

The Chief Minister:

I just think back to where we were at this time last year. There are 2 issues. We are seeing some things coming through that are achieved. The C.Y.B. (current year basis)/P.Y.B. (prior year basis) is ticked and nailed down now, and that will have a very beneficial contribution to it more than pays for the COVID debt and will then contribute to whatever the Council of Ministers decides. But in my book it will be either reserves or reduction of debt or something along those lines, whereas previously I do not think it was entirely nailed down. It is now nailed down and it is happening. The hospital is obviously making progress. It is not in our subject to give planning permission but, hopefully, we are now out of the politics of the Assembly. The pre-1987 debt, which, if it is approved, certainly on the calculations I have been given, will save £3.6 billion over a long period of time but £300 million in the first 30 years, that is, firstly, subject to approval by this Assembly in this plan and obviously subject to the actual happening and the refinancing. I would say on the basis we were at the level you gave previously, we obviously have advance from that, i.e. things have improved because we have achieved certain things since that time and in fact one or 2, as I said, office strategy, Cyril Le Marquand. Cyril Le Marquand is happening now and stripping out and demolition is happening, and that is an improvement, compared with last year.

The Connétable of St. Brelade : So, 4 out of 5 maybe.

The Chief Minister:

I am not going to put a number on it but it is an improvement.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

How has the usefulness of the Government Plan for departmental planning been measured? What benefits in policy implementation and financial allocation has the Government Plan enabled over the Medium Term Financial Plan?

The Chief Minister:

The one thing we found, as you will recall when we first came in, is that we were constrained by the M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) until 1st January 2020, from memory. This does give a more, I would say, responsive result or flexible document. I think the other thing, from memory or particularly, as I said, this gives a rolling look forward. You will have 3 years, at least, look forward as well as the year being approved, whereas you might recall, I cannot remember if it was M.T.F.P. 1 but there was a point where there was almost a shutter had come down after 1st January of the end of that period and there were consequences that came through that we were not particularly aware of. If you look at it in that kind of macro level, I think it gives a more responsive and more flexible approach with an outline, which hopefully then people will say: "Yes, for the next 3 or 4 years this is what, ultimately, the bottom line looks like" and they should have a warmish feeling that comes out of that if they are following the document.

Interim Chief Executive:

Can I just add to that? I think another helpful element there would be departmental operational business plans that are published and publicly available as an accompaniment to the Government Plan. I am not sure if they have been published in previous years, whether they have or not I am not certain but certainly the intention is that they will be published. In a sense, they might help redress some of the questions that the committee has asked for greater level of detail around the plans and priorities of individual departments. But I think that is helpful to see because each of these operational business plans, which are in draft form at the moment, so we are working them up and testing them between ourselves as officials, but it means that each of these departmental operational business plans are within the context of an overall Government Plan by providing that greater level of detail that you would expect in a departmental plan. Also, it gives us the opportunity to ensure that the plans reinforce one another and that each department is supporting the work of their colleagues. We are doing our level best to pick up risks, which was mentioned earlier, risks that might be inherent in departmental plans but also interdependencies where for one department to be successful it will depend upon the co-operation and involvement of others. I think that that sort of overall framework with a single corporate Government Plan and then a series of detailed departmental plans underneath it that both support and provide that greater level of detail and reinforce one another, I think that is a very commendable planning process.

The Chief Minister:

Sorry, to add, I will also say structurally there is that link that goes from the C.S.P., the old strategic plan, directly then ties into the Government Plan and goes down to you have got the summary business cases but there is a thread that goes through. Then that does tie through the performance measures on the mid-year review as well. For me, as a structure, that is a lot more cohesive and should be coherent, compared to what we had previously, although it gave you obviously quite a lot of financial information, but this has got that kind of cohesive link to or that is certainly the intention.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Would you say there have been any drawbacks since the introduction of the Government Plan over the M.T.F.P.?

The Chief Minister:

I think the fair comment would be I probably have not gone back and assessed the 2, if that makes sense. We have got to also keep saying, it is the disruption over the last now 20 months in and out of COVID that has caused all sorts of issues. You have not always had the amount of time that is sucked out of the entire organisation of everybody's time, it has probably meant that some of these personally, I have not gone back and looked and talked about the downside of this compared to the M.T.F.P. I do feel that there are upsides to this, i.e. that it does give you that flexibility, that responsiveness on an annual basis. One issue I would say is future growth, is departments recognising that, in theory, COVID has caused a major problem in terms of we are recognising that there are whole impacts on departments where we have got to put more spend in. But the theory should be that this is the end of the 4-year cycle type and, in theory, there should be less growth in there. COVID has had a massive impact on that as a position but going forward I would expect for the next 4 years that will then start stabilising, if you see what I mean. But has also the advantage

- I think quite strong advantages - is that it is giving that extra 3-year projection, which, from memory, we were not getting on the M.T.F.P.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Indeed. This is one for Paul, I think. What understanding do you have of the improvements that could be made in future plans to ensure that staff are engaged at all levels and understand their part in delivering the Government Plan objective?

[13:15]

Interim Chief Executive:

Thank you. I think that is a very interesting question and perhaps relates back to the earlier questioning on resident and Islander engagement and the extent to which we are able to involve Islanders, as well as staff, many of whom of course are Islanders. I think that we could certainly do better in this area. I think it is an important area, employee engagement in the work of the organisation, its priorities and its programmes. The crucial part to get right I think will be as the next C.S.P. is developed. I think that that will be the greatest opportunity for our staff, as well as Islanders more generally, to influence the priorities and to guide their understanding and feedback as to sort of what we need to do next in order to help the Government get to the next level. We will be preparing for the summer of 2022 so that we are in a position to involve as many colleagues, as well as Islanders, as possible in the time that we have got to guide that process. Employee engagement generally is a really important area which is reflected in the Government Plan, so I think it is worth saying that. But some of the growth in chief operating officers' area, and specifically in People and Corporate Services, which the plan shows has seen growth over the period, some of that is about investing in our organisation development of capacity so that we have the people, the teams who can work with our colleagues and ensure that we are making progress in employment engagement, that we are not just measuring feedback from staff, as we did in the Be Heard survey, but that we are acting on it between surveys, which we are putting a huge priority on. I believe that our colleagues can see that, I hope they can see it and I believe they can, that we are putting a lot of effort into ensuring that we are not just listening but acting on what the workforce is. I think it is an area where I believe the Government has made progress and continues to do more.

The Chief Minister:

I was going to say, just to build on that in terms of positivity - well trying to be positive - there has been some quite good work done on things like interns and apprenticeships, which all lends that feedback into the organisation. We were at the staff awards last night, which, again, is building on something that was done 4 or 5 years ago, and you might be familiar with in previous roles but now is incredible, as the entire organisation has been made a much more a big event, was it 496 nominations from all staff? In terms of that interaction, yes, we fully recognise there is more to be done but they are relative to where we were, I think, into 2017 and 2018, I think we are in an improving place. Just to be clear, we know there is more work to be done.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Is there a schedule of forthcoming legislation in the Government Plan showing the resource needed to fund the drafting of that legislation? If not, what consideration was given to including this as a way of viewing the legislative programme in one table?

The Chief Minister:

I do not think there is in the Government Plan, but you will be aware, because it has gone to the Council of Ministers, that there is a legislative pipeline which has been ... and again, it has been trimmed, basically because of COVID, i.e. priorities in terms of trying to achieve Assembly decisions as far as we can and other priorities before the elections and obviously some things have slipped back, but that will be, I am sure - if you have not already requested - coming to you quite soon.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

You will understand the next question. The overall legislative programme is being trimmed to accommodate the election and to avoid the fiasco - if I dare call it that - of the last Assembly.

The Chief Minister:

That is the intention, shall we say. There has been an evaluation side and it is predominantly officer- driven, because it is basically trying to take the realities, in terms of the remaining time now, with the delays that have come through from COVID and the ongoing issues of the various ... whether it is policy or legislation or regulations that were developed over a considerable ... sorry, the considerable volume that was done over quite a short period of time pulled resource out of that area to deal with the COVID response and that has had a knock-on effect. Obviously people are now saying we have got this amount of months left, these are the deadlines we have to make ideally to avoid what we are talking about. It went to the Council of Ministers yesterday, so it should have been through. It only came to me a couple of weeks before. I am assuming on that basis it went to all the Ministers; it was certainly meant to. We are obviously going to monitor it on 2 occasions, end of the year and February, just to check where we are on timing. Personally, I will say this now, I very much want to avoid what happened in April and May 2018.

The Deputy of St. Mary : I am sure.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Thank you. Could we go to Deputy Ward , sorry?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is just one thing. It is just in that timescale, sorry, have you taken account of the officers who are planning on that legislative process taking account of Scrutiny in that in terms of the timescales that Scrutiny can ask for, i.e. worst-case scenario, if something comes to Scrutiny very late and we say: "We are going to call that in" and then it is going to go beyond the next election?

The Chief Minister:

This is the man who puts it all together.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I think the answer is yes or no.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance: I think the answer is yes.

Deputy R.J. Ward : Okay, that is fine.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

In your trimming or whatever, when might the Assembly see the benefit of that exercise, so your programme on what is coming forward before the end of the term?

Senator K.L. Moore :

A very quick answer, please.

The Chief Minister:

I do not think the programme is due to be published, as far as I am aware, but obviously it is being supplied to you.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Thank you, that will do. Could you move on to the next question?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Many of the efficiencies rely on general staffing productivity increase. Please can you be explicit about what this term means?

The Chief Minister:

I think my starting point would be page 134 onwards in the annexe, and particularly 135 and 136, which does boil it down to amounts as low as £4,000.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Sorry, I did not catch that.

The Chief Minister: Page 135 ...

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

No, I heard you say the page. I did not hear what you said after that, sorry.

The Chief Minister:

I said it does boil it down to amounts as low as £4,000. Obviously there are higher volumes in there as well, but I would have thought there was a level of detail in it. I did point that out to Deputy Southern , I think, in the Assembly some weeks ago.

Interim Chief Executive:

So there is a section in the plan which details how those will be found - here we go, thank you, perfect - on page 87 of the plan. There are a series of bullet points which provides insight into what we mean by that. Just to run through it, in case you do not have it there: "The implementation of zero-based budget, reductions in avoidable overtime, reduction in fixed-term contracting and agency staff, effective management of sickness, voluntary release and early retirement, vacancy management, introduction of career-linked grades."

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Perfect, thank you. Chief Minister, how confident are you that the technology transformation programme is sufficiently advanced to support general staffing productivity increase over the course of this Government Plan?

The Chief Minister:

Productivity increases are - I am happy to be corrected - I do not think are directly tied in next year to the improvements in the I.T.S. I mean, there is an assumption as the I.T.S. comes online it will do, but I cannot remember the first date it comes online. It is towards the middle to end of 2022, is it not? Yes, so it is not, as I say, directly ... I think the 2022 is a direct correlation.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Okay, thank you.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can you explain how the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been factored into the efficiencies and rebalancing programme, particularly in relation to staffing levels and the continued provision of services at an adequate level?

The Chief Minister:

I have not done the breakdown, but certainly quite a lot of spend reduction - not all of it - is obviously non-staff.

Interim Chief Executive:

It is non-staff. It is, so there are relatively low levels of staff contributions to the rebalancing activities, so whether you conclude that is the right thing or the wrong thing depends on how you see efficiency and productivity going forward. I think that there are very modest reductions in staff in the rebalancing programme this year.

The Chief Minister:

Yes. Some of them, for example - and they are identified at page 135 in the annexe, so obviously External Relations - have got a one-off spend reduction on staff, which I would rather assume means they have got a vacancy which they are just going to delay recruiting to until further down the line.

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

Just to add to what the Chief Minister said, in terms of the staffing required for the response to COVID, there continues to be provision for amounts for support the COVID recovery into 2022 and indeed 2023. So in terms of keeping processes going, there are specific provisions which are not necessarily brought into part of the rebalancing, although obviously in terms of delivering the efficiencies, I think we have said in previous hearings, it has been more challenging to deliver efficiencies when you are under a state of pandemic. It has been very difficult because of the other pressures on teams who would otherwise be seeking them. That said, there has been a lot of progress towards getting us up to the £16 million that we have already had and indeed identifying those efficiencies into next year as well, which you can see in the Government Plan and indeed the 6-monthly reports in terms of the delivery of the existing rebalancing programme.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

On top of your staffing levels and the provision of services, what does that mean, "staff spend reduction"? What does that encompass? Just to add to that, you mentioned the words "modest staff reduction." Can you give some idea of what "modest staff reduction" means in figures? Would that be 2, is it 150?

Interim Chief Executive:

That will be reflected in the plan itself. Do you have that figure to hand?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Well, it is and is not at times, because there are suggestions about posts and vacancy management and that is sometimes very difficult to pinpoint.

The Chief Minister:

I mean, the actual spend, the staff spend from efficiencies, as I said, is allocated ... I thought we had summarised it somewhere, between 135 and 136. It does specifically say "spend reduction staff" and "spend reduction non-staff." I have to say, I do not have a summary figure on that, but ...

Interim Chief Executive:

You are looking for a headcount, are you, or ...

The Chief Minister:

Yes. Well, the trouble is that some of them will not ... so as I said, if it is a vacancy is there and it is just not going to be filled as early as perhaps was planned for whatever reason, then that generates a saving of money and that is a one-off, the one example I was giving.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. So is part of the reduction indicative of the issues with recruitment and retention in a number of sectors? There are issues in Health; there are issues in Education; there are issues probably in other areas as well. What is the best way to put it? Is it convenient with vacancy management that that situation has arisen?

Interim Chief Executive:

I do not know whether the right word is convenient or possibly inevitable. In other words, if a department is unable to fill vacancies and those vacancies are budgeted, they have budget cover for it, inevitably a saving will derive from that, not by strategic intent, but by inevitability.

The Chief Minister:

That would be a one-off saving usually.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But because that is not controllable, if you like, can that have implications on service levels within areas that are already struggling from the things that we review, for example, social workers, children's services?

Interim Chief Executive: Without doubt.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

So how are you managing that?

Interim Chief Executive:

So that really links to a different element of our work, which is on recruitment and retention, which is a crucial area for us, to make sure that the Government is seen as an appealing employer that people wish to work for and all of that. So I think that that, particularly in areas where we have acknowledged there has been under-investment and we are now seeking to increase the size of the teams, mental health, C.A.M.H.S. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) and the administration of that, where there is a very significant increase that is proposed, the challenge will be making sure that we attract those highly qualified and professional people.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I suppose the question is what came first, the fact that you cannot recruit or wanting to have the saving. To give you an example, there is the removal of one social worker role within the children's safeguarding and care service, which seems slightly counterintuitive at first sight when somebody is reading this, with the issues we have got with children's services and social workers.

[13:30]

You can see why there can be some confusion as to where the direction is going and what the drive behind that is.

Interim Chief Executive:

Yes. I mean, I cannot comment on that specific example. I am not entirely sure about that particular post, but as a whole we will be driven by a service need to provide the services that we are responsible for and to fulfil the intentions of the States Assembly in its adopted spending priorities. It will not be the case that we inhibit that for a financial efficiency, but clearly if we know, based on current and history data, that there will be a certain level of turnover and a certain amount of vacancies that will occur, of course we are sensible to budget for those and incorporate them in the financial planning work.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Would it be correct to find another term or what term can be found when we cannot recruit and we have not spent - the Government have not spent - X amount of money because we did not recruit, to call it somehow something else and a saving? Because it is not a saving, we did not spend the money, but it was not the money was saved intentionally planned.

The Chief Minister:

It is not a recurring ... well, to put it in the circumstances, it is not a recurring saving.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

It is still saving. It is not a real saving.

The Chief Minister:

Yes, so we are saying it is not a recurring saving, unless you are permanently taking the post out for whatever reason. But I am just going to pick up, Deputy Ward referred to Health, for example. Now, there are only 2, as far as I can see, staff reductions on health, of which one is about ... sorry, I tell a lie. I think there is one staff reduction on Health and that is essentially very similar to what we have said previously, which is talking about de-emphasising agency and basically recruiting - I will say the word - "permanent" and therefore that is not about your headcount, that is about the mix, which is therefore cheaper, because agency staff are more expensive, so that will not or should not in that particular circumstance impact on the service, provided you can do it.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

There are others where they are recurring and it is staff spend.

The Chief Minister:

You cited Health and C.Y.P.E.S. and those are the 2.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes. The other one was States of Jersey prison target operating model, looking for a recurring spend reduction of £315,000.

Interim Chief Executive:

Yes. I mean, I think it is important not to have as an instinct that any staff saving is therefore a staff ... is therefore a service diminution. There is always the possibility - and indeed, this is what we should be working towards - of greater productivity leading to higher service levels, even though the headcount decreases, so I think read-across ... possibly you are unconvinced by that, but in ...

Deputy R.J. Ward :

We remain to be convinced I think is the phrase.

Interim Chief Executive:

Okay. So in my view, we should not make the automatic assumption that smaller numbers of staff mean a reduced level of service.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Can I read from that that there is an intention to outsource? Because the old-fashioned way of reducing headcount is simply to outsource and move the budget somewhere else.

Interim Chief Executive:

I do not think there is that intent. I think that is a very interesting question to think about going forward, what is the right framework for value for money in the Jersey context, which I have given a lot of thought to while I have been here. In my previous work, often competitive tendering was the process through which one generated cost reduction. It is not necessarily, I think, the right outcome for Jersey for lots of reasons, not least the competitive providers are not always here in the Island; it is a different context. I think there might be different frameworks for achieving true value for money, particular around collaboration, so these are some of the things that I am thinking about. That there is a framework around competitive tendering, there is another framework around greater collaboration with the voluntary sector, maybe with States-owned entities, with the private sector indeed that could generate efficiency savings. I think this is something that we will need to be thinking about in the years to come.

The Chief Minister:

There is a lot of change built into the organisation, which we have talked about with people in Corporate Services and I.T. (information technology). Now, the ramifications of the I.T. side is there will be roles that will change. There has got to be, there is no question on that, and therefore will not be a diminution of service and how you deal with that will need quite careful consideration, which takes us back to the first point you were making.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just ask as a point of principle - sorry, just one quick thing - is it right to start a target operating model with the process, with the outlying ... underlying principle being that you are going to reduce spend on staff by £315,000?

The Chief Minister:

That is not necessarily the underlying assumption. That is the outcome that has come through.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

If that is an outcome that you want, there has got to be an underlying assumption, does there not?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Are you talking about the J.H.A. (Justice and Home Affairs) one where it says: "Removal of civilian posts following a staff review"?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

No, I am talking about the review of States of Jersey ... sorry, the service target operating model, recurring spend reduction. So you have got the target operating model review going on and from that, before you have done the target operating model, there is £315,000 on staff spend. You can imagine if you were a member of staff, you might be slightly concerned, just as a quick ... it did not seem to go with the principle of what we were talking about with target operating models when they came to us in the first place, although let us not get into that subject.

Interim Chief Executive:

That is the question for me to answer. Just to check I have understood the question properly, the risk is that we establish what people might think of as an arbitrary target and that then we pursue that rather than the actual level of service and performance we are seeking?

Deputy R.J. Ward : Yes.

Interim Chief Executive:

I do not think that is happening. You would need to question my colleagues more closely on any given example, but I do not believe that is happening. I think that there will always be a level of insight and evaluation about what a service needs that is much more thoughtful than saying: "We are going to reduce this by a round number." I do not believe that is happening.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sorry, just to finish off on that, that is not necessarily going to happen, that figure?

Interim Chief Executive:

In that example, I am not certain.

The Chief Minister:

I think what we are trying to say is that I do not think ... as I say, I think that you have got to go down to the detail and speak to the relevant officers because certainly at a high level, I am not going to be fully briefed on it.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just to help, when we did speak to the officers, they said that it might be that, it might be nothing, it might be an increase, depending on the target operating model.

The Chief Minister:

I think the point I am trying to say is ...

Deputy R.J. Ward :

So why is the figure there?

The Chief Minister:

... it is not a predetermined ... I do not think the number is determining the structure is that what I am trying to say.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Thank you. Could you explain what consideration has been given to providing enhanced explanations for each efficiency or rebalancing measure to increase transparency?

The Chief Minister:

Yes, I was going to say, they then go further back in the document on the pages beyond page 136.

Senator K.L. Moore :

You consider that they are clearer and improved upon last year's?

The Chief Minister:

I think they give an outline of what they are.

Senator K.L. Moore : Okay, thank you.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Please can you explain the final paragraph on page 84 of the Government Plan document? This relates to C.Y.P.E.S. and I.H.E. (Infrastructure, Housing and Environment).

The Chief Minister:

Yes. You might want to look at page 134 on the annexe, which then determines plan A, B, C, D and which I would have said are described reasonably well.

Interim Chief Executive:

Bearing in mind it is a public hearing, would it be helpful to refer to what those words are on page 84, just so it unpacks it a little bit for everybody? Shall I read it out very quickly?

The Chief Minister: Yes.

Interim Chief Executive:

I think the paragraph you are referring to says: "C.Y.P.E.S. and I.H.E. have undertaken reviews of all service areas and are unable to identify efficiency saving measures or proposals to deliver the full value of the targets requested for 2022. The proposals were not seen as deliverable/agreeable and therefore alternative measures have been identified for the Government Plan." For people who are watching, what that means is that 2 of our departments have not been able to meet the rebalancing targets, that is the reduced spend targets that had been set for them and therefore alternative measures have been proposed and are embedded in this Government Plan while we continue to work with those 2 departments to understand how those rebalancing savings might be made.

The Chief Minister:

So the plan D, which Andy can elaborate on further, but that is what is written down and which we covered in the quarterly hearing, I think, with C.S.S.P., essentially plan D is the end stop amount. So it will achieve a one-off saving to get us to the target and that is on raising part of the non-staff inflation budget and reducing that. The point that was covered at the time was that I think departments in the past did not have an inflation budget, if I recall, and so they have just got a

smaller one now, which is therefore bigger than what they have had previously, loosely. So that was the fall-back, but also we were pointing out that again with the whole levels of uncertainty, if you look at Health and you go back 6, 7 years, Health was a black box and you could never save any money out of it, so we are kind of challenging the review that Education is that same black box and saying: "We think you need to keep the pressure on" and it may be, having said all that, with the volume of that budget and with the growth, bearing in mind the level of growth that is in there as well, so C.Y.P.E.S., £140 million over the next 4 years, are you seriously going to tell me they are going to spend every penny of that year's allocation during 2022? So I think that is kind of the loose position, is it not, or high-level position?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just to get back to normal.

The Chief Minister:

Well, first, you want to get back to normal with COVID.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

A lot of it is deficit money, let us be honest. I mean, we have had this in another hearing. I cannot just let ... anyway, we had better move on.

Senator K.L. Moore : Thank you.

The Chief Minister:

Well, you have got £40 million-odd for Education specifically over the 4 years.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Thank you. We have heard your answer, so Deputy Le Hegarat has a question.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Yes, let us just move on. Throughout the Government Plan there are references to a sustainable well-being  impact  assessment  as a  critical  aspect  of  assessing  proposals.  It  is  the  panel's understanding that assessments are a response to the requirements outlined in paragraph 9 of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law. Please can you explain, first, how the assessments are carried out, how are they measured and how they are monitored over time, please?

The Chief Minister:

Who wants to go for that one?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

I can start. Looking at the effect of different measures on the Common Strategic Policy outcomes has been the first stage in bringing into place a more kind of holistic approach to well-being assessments. I think my assessment is that we have started the process, so now things like the efficiencies measures are tested against their impact upon the outcomes, the business cases are required to articulate how they contribute towards the outcomes, so I think we have started the process of embedding that sustainable well-being perspective into the routine way in which we go about making these proposals on expenditure, but I think there is still more to do.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Okay, thank you.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I am conscious of time, so I will miss a couple out. Our hospital project is the largest single item of capital expenditure by far. The Government's number one common strategy priority is putting children first. How do those 2 align?

The Chief Minister:

I would have thought improvement in the main health resource on the Island, which will include improving facilities and healthcare for children, does align with putting children first.

Interim Chief Executive:

If I can answer, Chief Minister. I think that for me it is a slight misunderstanding almost to see putting the interests and the needs of children as being completely separate from the interests and needs of adults, because nearly all children live in families and their parental and family experience will impact greatly on the children's ability to prosper, so something that I think is important to emphasise is that by supporting parents, we are supporting children in the process. I think that in well-run public services the best possible support to families will be arguably one of the best things that a Government can do to support children.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But that spend will not become an obstacle to future investment in specific areas of need for children?

[13:45]

The Chief Minister:

You have got the spend plans in here and there is a lot of money going to a whole range of areas in terms of supporting and improving services.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I will let you ask the next question and then I will come back.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Could you explain why and how you feel assured that allocations of funding made in the Government Plan meet the common strategic priorities that were set out at the beginning of this term of office?

The Chief Minister:

I think the only comment I would make - I will look to Mr. Hacquoil - is obviously the fact that they are referenced and allocated under the original C.S.P. and then, yes, as I said, allocated to specific ... each measure is specifically identified under C.S.P., which hopefully give the indication.

Senator K.L. Moore :

I think what we have pointed to in the past has been the tracking of those and the achievements. We have obviously talked today at length about the performance framework, but how, as a member of the public, can they identify, by picking up the Government Plan, the investments the Government have made through previous Government Plans and through this one, are taking your priorities in the right direction?

The Chief Minister:

I would suggest they are looking in the wrong place. They should be looking at the mid-year review and the accounts, frankly, because this is a forward-looking document, based on the budget estimation process. The evaluation of how we have been doing in K.P.I.s is in that mid-year review.

Senator K.L. Moore :

But yourself and your Council of Ministers would have made these decisions based on certain information and the strategic priorities that you set out at the outset.

The Chief Minister: Yes.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Okay, thank you. That will do.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

During the hearing with the E.H.I. (Environment, Housing and Infrastructure) Scrutiny Panel regarding the achievement of carbon neutrality, the number that we will need to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 was mentioned and that is between £250 million to £300 million. How did you get to the decision to allocate £23 million in this Government Plan to assess and to move to a lower carbon lifestyle? Why is it £23 million or not £33 million, how do we get it?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

The estimate for the cost of achieving carbon neutrality has been around for a while. I think that is a fairly familiar figure. We have published that a few different times now and it has been reported, but of course the actual costs will depend upon the carbon neutral roadmap, which is agreed by the Assembly. As you may be aware, the Assembly will decide the carbon neutral roadmap for the Island.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Absolutely. Why did you decide £23 million, how you got to this number? why £23 million and not £15 million or not £50 million?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

The figure that is in there at the moment is a pragmatic estimate of what is required to do the first stages of the process and so it is not hugely scientific in terms of it being linked to what the roadmap might require because the roadmap the Assembly decides. So there is an estimate of the initial funds required.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Do you think it is a proper level of funding for the Government response to the climate emergency?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

I think it is clear that it has been adequate to date to move things forward in a positive way, which has happened across a range of fronts and then the actual investment required to achieve carbon neutrality in full is the figure that you have referenced that has been published several times, and that will be determined by the roadmap that is decided by the Assembly.

The Chief Minister:

I think also, just to be clear, the reason the fund was originally set up was effectively as a quick fix to get some money into the right place and then top it up while all the other work in terms of producing that roadmap was going to be happening. It is a starting point. It was not going to be the end solution. We all know that.

Deputy I. Gardiner : Yes, we all know that.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Is that money allocated to specific projects?

The Chief Minister:

It was just to get a pot of money in there to start being able to do some work. Sorry?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Is that £23 million allocated to specific projects?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

No. Some of the resourcing is committed to work to get us this far. Some of it will continue to be committed as the ... we have been expending the climate fund for the last year or 2. The Assembly set that up a little while ago and the funds are being expended, as you will have seen from the annual report and the mid-year, so the funds are being expended. Some of them have been ... you can see how they are going to be used through this next phase in order to get us the next step along that roadway and some of them have not because the work needs to be done. So this is a bit like the discussion earlier, I suppose, where we are talking about the fact that the Government Plan has a timetable and gets lodged at a certain date and therefore it has within it estimates that are made at that date. But of course the carbon neutral process is going to keep running and the fund allows that to keep running and not have to continually wait for the Government Plan process.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But the carbon neutral roadmap has identified its priorities, so with those priorities must come projects. Why have those projects not been identified with the carbon neutral roadmap, given that they are spends that are being allocated in the Government Plan?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Yes, some of them are and some of them are taken forward because they are things that clearly need to happen regardless, and other items get taken forward and the fund gets developed once the roadmap is decided by the Assembly.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

To precis this, would you agree it is best-guessed under the circumstances at the moment?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

Yes, it is an estimate of the resources required to get to the next stage, while acknowledging that the final form of the roadmap will be decided by the Assembly and then that larger figure may or not come into effect, depending upon the timetable decided by the Assembly.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Sorry, can I just clarify, the Fiscal Policy Panel presentation yesterday, they obviously are not in favour of these individual funds on the basis that if the project is worth it, it should be out of central government rather than individual funds. Going forward, is the intention that this figure of £250 million, £300 million is routed through this fund or is this particular fund just the start-up cost to get things going and it will not continue?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

That is a very good question, and the answer to that lies largely in the form of the roadmap agreed by the Assembly and within that then the balance of costs and how those costs should be distributed. There is a model at one end that says the methodology should be that the resources are requested from Islanders by Government and then distributed out by Government in totality. There is another model which says that the Government should not do that and it should instead allow the private finances in the Island in order to fund those costs. I suspect the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, probably because of that key principle, that any transition to carbon neutrality should be a just transition and probably making sure that it is just, i.e. that it does not impact upon people disproportionately depending upon their circumstances and their income. "Probably" means that the Government needs to play a role in the funding of the total solution in order to get that kind of just transition.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

So the fund we now have you do not necessarily see as an ongoing fund with money put into it for the purposes ...

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

My hunch - and again, I do not want to usurp democracy - is that the Assembly will want to agree a roadmap which has that principle which the climate assembly suggested, which is any transition is a just transition and if it is going to be done in a way that does not impact say the rich and poor differently, then that will require Government to be involved in order to redistribute the resources in a just way. So if that is the case, and I suspect it might be, then the fund will need to continue.

The Chief Minister:

It depends on perspectives and I think we need that visibility.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Sorry, we do need to move on, if I may. It was highlighted at the Corporate Services hearing with yourself, Chief Minister, on 22nd October that £21 million of the additional spend on modernising government relates to hospital financing. Could you explain why this was not included under the improving well-being priority, please?

The Chief Minister:

Frankly, I cannot, off the top of my head. Andy might be able to, if you can tell me what page that was on as well.

Group Director, Strategic Finance:

In reality it is a judgment call, so for most projects or investments that we include in the Government Plan, we try to map them to the C.S.P. priority or indeed the ongoing initiatives, which best fit and what it means. So we did have some debate internally in terms of if you are paying interest on a borrowing, is that really something that you would like to classify as improving well-being? Are you looking through what you are using the borrowing for or are you looking at it as the context of the thing itself, which is paying interest on that borrowing? The judgment that was made was that it fitted better into the modernising government section rather than the improving well-being section. In reality, it important for both of those initiatives.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just ask a quick question about the hospital fund, because it is such a large part of the Government Plan and it seems to go throughout all of it, with the interest and the way it fits in? Can you confirm whether the Council of Ministers did consider an amendment to the panel's amendment of £620 million as to cost? Was that considered by the Council of Ministers?

The Chief Minister:

I honestly cannot recall, sorry. There has been quite a lot on since, in the last few weeks.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Sorry, I am not sure that that is an adequate answer. One would imagine that given the Future Hospital Review Panel's amendment being a significant change to the proposal from the Council of Ministers, you would recall whether one of your colleagues asked the Council of Ministers to consider a change to that amendment.

The Chief Minister:

As I say, I cannot recall if an amendment was discussed or not. We obviously did discuss the amendment on the proposal, but that was a few weeks ago and funnily enough, I have been dealing with fishing and things since then.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. I do not know where to go with "cannot recall it."

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Put it this way: we were informed that the Deputy Chief Minister proposed £620 million for the hospital and it was brought to the Council of Ministers, so that is what we have been told and so we are asking you, but you cannot remember. That is fine, move on.

The Chief Minister:

Sorry, I tend to take the view that once something has been done, I know where to look it up if I need to and I move on and deal with the day. As I said ...

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

So the minutes will disclose whether that was the case then. I would assume so. We can ask for those minutes. That is fine, I think we will just move on.

Senator K.L. Moore :

It is quite extraordinary though, Chief Minister, that a potential amendment that would have had a difference of almost £200 million to a project is something that you do not recollect.

The Chief Minister:

No, I do not think so, because as I said, I work on the principle that once a decision has been made, I try not to go back on to it. I park it; I move on. I try not to dwell in the past and I deal with the issues that we are dealing with, which are a lot that comes across my desk on a daily basis. As I said, in the last 10 days I have been dealing with Brexit and fishing and that has been one of my priorities, among a variety of others.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Yesterday the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) published their report, which expressed some concern about the level of borrowing and the uncertainty of public finances. Has that given you cause to reflect on the general position of your Government Plan?

The Chief Minister:

I have to say, that was not quite my interpretation of their comments and recommendations, to be honest. It says "prudent use of Jersey's funds" and: "The financial fiscal deficit should be financed by borrowing rather than drawing on the strategic reserve" so we will obviously have to disagree on interpretations, I suspect.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

My interpretation is that the next Government will not have a choice, to strip the services or to raise taxes, because the level of our ... because the form of our finance in this situation is that they will need to raise taxes to be able to provide the same level of services. I may be making it very simple from what has been suggested.

The Chief Minister:

On the basis of the projections we have got at the moment, we are talking the same levels of services that should be ... and there is a lot of growth built in there and there is a lot of investment into improving things.

[14:00]

If there is a view that significant further growth is required, my frank position would be I think you need to allow the organisation to stabilise and bed in the investment that has been put in place and make sure it is being utilised properly, but there are long-term measures, we have said, to clear the debt within no more than 40 years. There are extra sums of money coming in as a result of the measures, some of which are banked in. We have talked about that earlier, so the P.Y.B. to C.Y.B. change off the top of my head will give £80 million to £100 million more, but that will be over 20 years. Originally it was designed to clear the COVID debt. It will easily do that and will leave a surplus. That is not banked into our figures here particularly, as far as I am aware.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

If I recall and I am correct - it is not in front of me, I am sorry, and please correct me if I am not - to make sure that the Island is safe, we need to have our strategic reserve should be around 30 per cent. Currently, if the finance industry ... tomorrow we have a major change in the finance industry and the finance industry will leave the Island, we will need a huge influx, so our strategic reserve should be approximately 30 per cent.

The Chief Minister:

Yes, and we are not there.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Currently they are looking at 21 per cent, 22 per cent, if I remember correct.

The Chief Minister: Yes.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

It does not look that we will be able to top it up sufficiently over the years and this is one of the risks.

The Chief Minister:

Well, then that is a slightly different question, I would suggest.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Then from there, it has gone towards they might need to ...

The Chief Minister:

Because the question was around maintaining level of services and that is a different thing, which is about increasing the level of effectively savings and do you put taxes up to do that. Now, bear in mind it is things, I think, for future Council of Ministers obviously and future Assemblies, but if, for example, the £387 million debt is agreed and does happen, then subject to other bits and pieces again, there is flexibility that comes through of extra monies coming in there, so I would suggest that there is - I would hope - a positive side to that thing, rather than the kind of bleak picture that was portrayed, but it is a longer-term position. It also comes down to once we have got the I.T. systems in the right place and we have got the culture in the right place, what is then the scope for the further modernisation to continue.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Chief Minister, are you aware that we have no idea how much we need to spend to bring our I.T. system to the right place? This was the response from director general to say how much money we need. We currently have in excess of £70 million, £80 million, and how much money we need to make up to where we need to be, et cetera. I do not know. Are we doing it £200 million, another £300 million?

The Chief Minister:

I think the point is that there are obviously elements of growth in I.T. banked into the revenue side and it is where that keeps going and when and what it gets spent on. The point I think he was trying to make is that you have got a number of applications and I think the discovery phase continues to identify more, which are archaic, and so ...

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Yes, we have had applications that we do not know what they are doing with them and how we are going to ...

The Chief Minister:

Yes, and that is the issue we are having to deal with.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

Sorry, I am coming back to the chair.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just ask one quick question?

The Chief Minister:

I am afraid I do have to finish on time. I am going straight into another meeting.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just ask, when you say "growth", are you just talking about more physical money being spent, if there is such a thing as physical money?

The Chief Minister:

That money is not spent on fresh air, it is spent on services, staff, facilities, whatever it is.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

So that is the growth, improvement in the ...

The Chief Minister:

You have got 2 areas of growth. You have got the ones on page 186 in the plan, which is for the current year and then you have got the other growth, which is stuff that has already previously been agreed, which is taking effect during this year ...

Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is the word "growth".

The Chief Minister:

... and that is identified on page 188 onwards.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. It was clear in the public hearing we had that £11.2 million of so-called growth in education, over £6 million of that was simply to repay deficits because schools have been running at a deficit for so long.

The Chief Minister:

It is still an improvement.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. I am just saying, do you see that as growth?

The Chief Minister:

Sorry, you have got less money here, you have got more money there, which we put in.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

So they were spending it anyway, they just should not have been spending it?

The Chief Minister:

Well, all I can say is they have got more money that has been put in and for children, for C.Y.P.E.S. as a whole, it is about £140 million over 4 years. Now, if that does not mean anything to you, I would suggest ...

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But it is not a question of it not meaning anything, it is a question of the reality of it when they were already spending a lot of it but just being in deficit and you are counting that deficit as part of growth. I just wanted the definition of growth.

The Chief Minister:

If you have gone from here to here ...

Deputy R.J. Ward : It is growth.

The Chief Minister:

... it has got to be growth.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Even if it is just paying off a deficit? So if I pay off my overdraft ...

The Chief Minister:

In revenue terms, we have gone from this level of spend to this level of spend.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

That is what I was asking.

The Chief Minister:

In other words ... sorry, for the purposes of the microphone, that is an increase.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

That was a visual answer there.

The Chief Minister:

I am sorry, I do have a meeting that starts in 5 minutes.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

A quick question that literally will be ... sorry.

Senator K.L. Moore :

No, that is okay, but we were not made aware of that commitment.

The Chief Minister:

Well, it is a 2-hour hearing.

Senator K.L. Moore : That is quite fair enough ...

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

I have a straightforward question.

Senator K.L. Moore :

... but we have received some very lengthy answers, so Deputy Le Hegarat has just one question and then we will turn off.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Which Minister has overall responsibility for implementing the Care Inquiry recommendations?

The Chief Minister:

They do fall now on to the individual Ministers where they land.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Sorry, what?

The Chief Minister:

Well, the Care Inquiry recommendations, Tom, do you want to give specifics? But they have been split.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

So basically there is no single Minister responsible for implementation of the Care Inquiry recommendations?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

My understanding is that the Care Inquiry recommendations have nearly always been a matter for the Council of Ministers because they range so widely. Obviously there is a lead role for the Minister for Children and Education in much of that and quite often there is a leadership role for the Chief Minister as chair of Council, but in the past - and I think it continues to today - it tends to be a Council of Ministers' responsibility collectively because the recommendations fall to different Ministers to implement, as they fall to different senior officers to implement as well.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

So effectively no one has 100 per cent responsibility for that implementation, so nobody is responsible overall for that implementation?

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

My understanding is that the Council of Ministers are responsible for that implementation under the ...

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

So not a single individual is what I mean.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

... leadership of the Chief Minister and that the majority of those recommendations fall to the Minister for Children and Education is my understanding. I stand to be corrected if I have got that wrong, but that is my understanding.

The Chief Minister:

I would agree.

Deputy I. Gardiner : That is the Chief Minister.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

That is not an ideal situation, I would suggest. Okay, that is lovely. Thank you.

The Chief Minister:

Sorry, can I ask if there are any that, from your perspective, have not been implemented?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

No, that was not the question. The question basically is who. It is not about whether something has been achieved or not, it is about who takes responsibility for something if it is not achieved. That is the question that I was asking. It is who takes responsibility if something is not achieved, because surely somewhere, for such a major inquiry, somebody should have ultimate responsibility for taking on board all of those recommendations and ensuring that they are implemented.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance:

My department has always played a role in monitoring all of the recommendations and so at various points over the years we have run projects and programmes to monitor the progress of implementing every recommendation. So there is a process and there has been a process whereby me and my department keep an oversight of all of the recommendations and then if any of them are falling short, then that is raised with the relevant Minister and senior officer. My children's policy team do that very diligently and have done it from the outset and so I hope that that at least reassures you that there is good monitoring and oversight to make sure that all the recommendations have been followed through and continue to be followed through.

Senator K.L. Moore :

Thank you, all. If I could offer some advice in terms of future planning and preparation for hearings, if the team could focus on giving concise answers to questions, it would be extremely ... and focused, that answer the question, it would be extremely helpful and we would not place such restrictions on your important time. I thank you for the additional time, but it was almost injury time, given the lengthy and waffling answers that we have received on occasion.

The Chief Minister:

I think it depends on the nature of the question that is asked. Thank you.

Senator K.L. Moore :

I close the hearing. Thank you very much.

[14:09]