Report - Environment, Housing and Infrastructure - Government Plan 2021-24 - 2 December 2020

Scrutiny Review of the Government Plan: 2021 - 2024

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel Report

2nd December 2020 S.R.12/2020

GOVERNMENT PLAN REVIEW  1

1. PANEL MEMBERSHIP  1
2. CHAIR'S FOREWORD  2
3. METHODOLOGY  3
4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  4

Findings  4 Recommendations  7

5. DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS  10

Departmental Budgets  10 Departmental Heads of Expenditure  11

6. PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ACTIONS, PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS (GOVERNMENT PLAN 2020 – 2023)  14
7. UPDATE REPORTS ON PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ACTIONS, PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS  18

Actions  18 Programmes  18 Capital Projects  45

8. NEW PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GOVERNMENT PLAN 2021

– 2024  88

New Programmes Requiring Additional Revenue Expenditure  88 New Capital Expenditure in the Government Plan 2021 - 2024  88 Reports on New Programmes Requiring Additional Revenue Expenditure  88

9. EFFICIENCIES  100

Rebalancing and Efficiencies  100

10. CONCLUSION  104

11. WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE GATHERED  107 APPENDIX 1  108

Terms of Reference  108

Government Plan Review

1. Panel membership

The Panel comprised of the following States Members:

Constable Mike  Constable John Le Jackson (Chair)  Maistre (Vice-Chair)

Constable Sadie Le   Deputy Kirsten Morel   Deputy Inna Gardiner

Sueur-Rennard

2. Chair's Foreword

The Panel has endeavored to review the proposed plan and spending proposed for the next 3 years in some depth.

Timeframes have been extremely tight for the Government to produce their plan and, as a consequence, challenging for it to be scrutinized adequately.

I am therefore grateful to those Ministers who have responded to our requests for added information to enable us to take an informed view as elaborated and rated in the report.

The Panel's work is unusual in that we have the remits of several Ministers to consider and this has made us aware of a need for more collaborative working within the Government.

It can't go without saying that the work to achieve our report in such a short time is in a large part the result of the diligent work of our scrutiny officer and the States Greffe team to all of whom we are grateful.

Constable Mike Jackson

Chair,

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

3. Methodology

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

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

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

The Government Plan Financial Annex has also been lodged which contains supporting information for the Government Plan 2021 – 2024.  

The Scrutiny review of the Government Plan has taken a thorough approach, looking at the projects identified for Additional Revenue Expenditure and Capital Expenditure last year, as well as new projects requiring Additional Revenue Expenditure and Capital Expenditure in 2021. The Panel has undertaken this review in as much detail as possible with the information provided by Government.

A summary table of all Business Cases previously reviewed by this Panel is provided in Section 6. Additionally, a summary table of new revenue initiatives which the Panel has been allocated to scrutinise for 2021 is provided in Section 8. It should be noted that there are no ongoing Actions' from last year's Government Plan.

In line with the methodology used during its review of the Government Plan 2020 – 2023, all Scrutiny Panels have agreed to use a common system to report on the status of each project, as follows:

This status means that the Panel has reviewed the background information on the project and is satisfied with it.

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

This status means that the Panel has reviewed this and is not satisfied or does not agree with the proposal. This may or may not lead to an amendment.

4. Findings and Recommendations

Findings

FINDING 1

The removal of the economy function from the IHE Departmental Budget is the main contributing factor in the 20k reduction in Heads of Expenditure from the previous Government Plan, although there are various other small changes to the budget which make up the 20k figure

FINDING 2

The projected income in the IHE Departmental Budget is reduced largely as a result of the "growth" item in 2020 for waste charges (£6.9m) being classified as expenditure growth in the GP 20-23, but reclassified in base budgets in 2021 as a reduction in income. The Panel is advised that the net impact of this reclassification is nil.

FINDING 3

The funding proposal for the Housing Policy Development Board – Long-Term Plan has been cut by half and whilst the Chief Minister has provided assurances that the level of funding should be sufficient, it remains to be seen as what key outcomes this will deliver. The Board is also yet to publish its report setting out recommendations for a long-term housing policy.

FINDING 4

The funding proposal for the Tenants' Rights programme has been cut by half and whilst the Chief Minister has provided assurances that the level of funding should be sufficient, it remains to be seen if this will be the case. The Board is also yet to publish its report setting out recommendations for a long-term housing policy.

FINDING 5

External stakeholders were not consulted at an early stage on the plans to introduce a new Housing Advice Service and therefore have not contributed to shaping how the new service will be delivered.

FINDING 6

The Panel's initial concerns that at least one initiative (strengthening environmental protection against Japanese knotweed as an invasive species) which proposed to be funded by the Climate Emergency Fund did not appear to meet the Terms of Reference of the Fund. These concerns have been alleviated and the Panel is satisfied that these initiatives are linked to responding to the impact of climate change.

FINDING 7

The Minister for the Environment is the lead Minister for the assessment of public infrastructure and resources' programme. However, there is uncertainty as to how much joined up working there is between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to the crossover of remits within this programme.

FINDING 8

Progress is being made in relation to the objectives of the Jersey National Park project, however, due to the Covid-19 restrictions there have been limited opportunities for education and interpretation events.

FINDING 9

There are concerns of inadequate support being provided to Jersey National Park with it being noted that there is a lack of contact and participation on a practical level from the IHE Department.

FINDING 10

There is a lack of clarity as to whether the reduction in funding from £1.5m to £1m in 2021 will be sufficient to meet the aims of the Drainage Foul Sewerage Extensions capital programme which seeks to extend and enhance the sewerage network to keep pace with continued growth in population size.

FINDING 11

There are substantial reductions proposed in relation to funding for the Island Public Realm capital project and a lack of clarity as to whether the revised funding will be sufficient to meet the project's aims.  

FINDING 12

The Minister for the Environment was not aware of the reductions in funding for the Island Public Realm capital project, suggesting a lack of collaboration and joint working with the Minister for Infrastructure who is lead Minister for this capital project and raising concerns of an ongoing silo approach within Government.

FINDING 13

There has been a funding increase from what was projected in the last Government Plan for the Replacements and Minor Capital for 2021 (2,862,000) to what is now being requested for 2021 (£3,500,00), however, the Panel is advised that even this amount might not be sufficient to meet the project's aims and that realistically £5,000,000 is required.

FINDING 14

Funding of £3.7m which was projected in the capital programme for 2022-23 for refurbishment works of Elizabeth Castle in the 2020 Government Plan has been cut in the 2021 Government Plan projections. No explanation was provided for this in the Government Plan, however the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture has indicated that there are other possible funding options available.

FINDING 15

The Vehicle Testing Facility Capital (Major) Project has been deferred in full, including the associated funding. The outcome of the Options Appraisal study is likely to be known in March 2021.

FINDING 16

There is a lack of clarity in the reduced funding proposal for the deferred status of the Courtroom 1 – Magistrates Court capital project in relation to a discrepancy of a reduction in £10k which does not appear to be accounted for.

FINDING 17

Although it is accepted that there is an expectation that the prefeasibility study for the Picquet House Family Court capital project is unlikely to conclude and that the project is unable to be undertaken, without the outcome of the feasibility study being known, there remains a degree of uncertainty in regard to whether the funds would be sufficient for the project's requirements.

FINDING 18

With the outcome of the prefeasibility study currently unknown, there remains a degree of uncertainty in regard to whether the funds would be sufficient for the requirements of the eventual Rouge Bouillon site outcome.

FINDING 19

In relation to Fleet Management, there have been delays experienced in committing to new or replacement vehicle assets and the associated revenue leasing charge. As well as a resultant carrying forward of unallocated budgets, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the allocations.

FINDING 20

The Jersey Car Parking Fund has suffered a loss of income due to the Covid-19 pandemic which is likely to impact significantly on its capacity to fund capital refurbishment of the parking estate going forward.

FINDING 21

The exact future use of the 28-30 Parade office building is uncertain at present and assurances could not be provided as to how this arrangement would ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

FINDING 22

The Covid-19 Bus Contract is a new programme in the Government Plan 2021-24 which seeks approval for additional revenue funding of £2m in 2021 to subsidise the bus operator to enable them to break-even due to the significant impact on bus ridership resulting from the impact of the pandemic.

FINDING 23

The bus operator is a social enterprise and has returned a profit share to Government of in excess of £1.4m in the last five years, however due to the impact on its commercial operations it is not envisaged that there will be profit share return for the period April 2020 – March 2021 and it will depend on Covid-19 restrictions in place in any given financial year and the levels of ridership as to whether this will be the case for future Government Plans.

FINDING 24

It is not entirely clear how the 1.4m profit share returned from the bus operator to Government has been spent and that prior to 2020 will have been consumed within the year and included within the revenue income and expenditure of the IHE Department.

FINDING 25

The business case contained within the Government Plan 2021-24 was unclear as to what the proposed funding would be spent on. It was identified during the Panel's review that the funding will cover various water management initiatives.

FINDING 26

The funding bid for Marine Resources Management proposes to fund a vessel monitoring system, in addition to the recruitment and retention of two fisheries officers, in response to foreseeable implications related to Brexit.

FINDING 27

Government currently utilises independent research through third party organisations and university bursaries in relation to Marine Resources matters, although the Minister advised there is a move to internalise this work where possible.

FINDING 28

Spend reductions in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of condition of the government's property estate are likely to impact on the prioritisation of sites for maintenance and repair and this could lead to maintenance being delayed on some sites which may be deemed less or a pressing priority for repair.

FINDING 29

There are no efficiencies assigned to the Minister for the Environment, only a joint efficiency with the Minister for Infrastructure and Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and culture in relation to the Target Operating Model for the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department.

FINDING 30

The £25k spend reduction by deferring policy development under the Housing Policy Development Board is not considered to have an impact on the overall housing programme.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Chief Minister, together with the newly appointed Minister for Children and Housing, should publish the findings and recommendations of the Housing Policy Development Board's report as soon as practical.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Minister for Children and Housing should ensure, going forward, that engagement and consultation with external stakeholders (such as social housing providers and private landlords) happens in the early stages of policy development in order to provide valuable contributions to the delivery of policy outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism Sport and Culture should, by the end of Q1 2021, put in place suitable protocols to ensure a more collaborative approach to their involvement in the Jersey National Park project and in the support extended to the Jersey National Park.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Minister for Infrastructure should, by end of Q1 2021, provide the Panel will a detailed analysis on how the foul sewerage system together with the surface water system is coping with demand, as well as further details on the rationale for the decrease in funding in this area, given projections of growing population size.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Given the extensive crossover between the two remits of Infrastructure and Environment, both Ministers should put in place suitable protocols to ensure more joined up working, with a greater emphasis on breaking down silos and adopting a more collaborative approach. Both Ministers should report back to the Panel by the end of Q1 2021 with an action plan as to how this will be achieved going forward.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture should clearly outline, in writing, the reasons and potential detrimental effects of the cut in funding to the Elizabeth Castle capital programme in the Government Plan 2021-24 to both the Panel and Jersey Heritage before the end of December 2020.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture should investigate other possible sources of funding to facilitate the refurbishment project and inform both the Panel and Jersey Heritage, in writing, of any such outcome before the end of Q2 2021.

RECOMMENDATION 8

The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture should, without delay, ensure that suitable protocols are put in place to ensure open lines of communication with Jersey Heritage, as well as all key stakeholders, to ensure proper engagement and consultation is carried out.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Chief Minister should, by end of Q4 2020, provide an explanation as to the rationale for the £10k reduction in funds from what was anticipated in the 2020 Government Plan to what is being requested now. Further consideration should also be given as to how, in future Government Plans, the figures can be provided with clear explanation as why they might differ from previous year's projections.

RECOMMENDATION 10

The Minister for Infrastructure should provide the Panel, by the end of Q4 2020, with further information as to how the proposed funds have been calculated and determined given that the outcome of the prefeasibility and the future use for the Rouge Bouillon site is unknown.

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Minister for Infrastructure should ensure that further detail be provided in future Government Plans in relation to the distribution of funds across the Fleet Management programme.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Minister for Infrastructure should, by the end of Q1 2021, provide further information to the Panel regarding the potential impact the lack of sufficient funds is likely to have on the allocation of funding for the Jersey Car Parking Fund in future Government Plan bids.

RECOMMENDATION 13

The Minister for Infrastructure should ensure that further information is provided in the next Government Plan Progress Review update, as well as any future Government Plans, as to how 28-30 The Parade will be utilised and how the arrangements will provide the best value for money.

RECOMMENDATION 14

The Minister for Infrastructure should ensure that going forward any future profit share returned to Government under the bus contract is, for transparency, clearly accounted for in terms of demonstrating how this money is invested back into sustainable transport initiatives for the benefit of the island. Furthermore, the Minister should ensure there is greater transparency surrounding the sum returned by the bus operator to its UK parent company so that a clear distinction can be made between what is reinvested for the benefit of the island and what sum is distributed out of the island back to the parent company in the UK.

RECOMMENDATION 15

The Council of Ministers should ensure that all future Government Plan bids include detailed information of what the funding is intended to cover, why the funding is needed and a breakdown of all associated costs. This should be rolled out in time for the Government Plan 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 16

The Minister for the Environment should seek to ensure going forward that a wide variety of reputable, independent research on marine resources related matters is drawn upon by Government, and given the implications arising from Brexit, endeavour to find ways to collaborate and engage with voluntary and third sector organisations to form mutually beneficial partnerships and new, innovative ways of working.

RECOMMENDATION 17

The Minister for the Environment should seek to ensure that, now and post-Brexit, suitable engagement and support is extended to the fishing industry, given the significant implications this will inevitably have for the industry.

5. Departmental Budgets

Departmental Budgets

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

Minister for the Environment, Deputy John Young

Minister for Infrastructure, Deputy Kevin Lewis

Minister for Children and Housing, Senator Sam Mézec resigned from his position as Minister for Children and Housing on the 9th November 2020

Minister for Children and Housing, Deputy Jeremy Maçon was appointed as Minister on 17th November 2020

Departmental Heads of Expenditure

In the Government Plan 2021 - 2024, the States Assembly has been asked to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund for 2021, for each head of expenditure. The tables below provide a summary of the proposed "Heads of Expenditure" allocated to the Departments for 2021 and estimates produced for 2022 - 2024:

A further breakdown of these figures was provided on page 22 of the Annex to the Government Plan 2021-24[2]:

The 2021 resources allocated to the Ministers which fall under the Panel's remit are as follows:

In written questions, the Panel asked the Minister for the Environment that aside from the removal of Economy, what the other reasons were for the £20,000,000 drop in the Heads of Expenditure between the two Government Plans, despite the considerably lower drop in project income. The Minister responded that after taking account of the transfer of the Economy function (which is the major driver for the reduction in Head of Expenditure), changes to the departmental budget included:

The Panel was further advised that the projected income is reduced largely as a result of the "growth" item in 2020 for waste charges (£6.9m) being classified as expenditure growth in the GP 20-23 but reclassified in base budgets in 2021 as a reduction in income. The net impact of this reclassification is deemed nil.

FINDING 1  

The removal of the economy function from the IHE Departmental Budget is the main contributing factor in the 20k reduction in Heads of Expenditure from the previous Government Plan, although there are various other small changes to the

budget which make up the 20k figure. FINDING 2  

The projected income in the IHE Departmental Budget is reduced largely as a result of the "growth" item in 2020 for waste charges (£6.9m) being classified as expenditure growth in the GP 20-23, but reclassified in base budgets in 2021 as a  reduction  in  income.  The  Panel  is  advised  that  the  net  impact  of  this

reclassification is nil.

6. Previously  Reviewed  Actions,  Programmes  and  Capital Projects (Government Plan 2020 – 2023)

The Panel completed its review of the Government Plan 2020 – 2023 and the various actions, projects and capital projects that were assigned to it by the Government Plan Review Panel. This section provides an overview and update on each of the projects and capital projects reviewed last year.

The tables immediately below identifies the projects included in the Government Plan 2020- 2023, that will continue to be invested in in 2021, and indicates whether the projects are Complete', On Track', Reduced', Delayed', Deferred' or subject to Partial Deferral'.

7. Update  Reports  on  Previously  Reviewed  Actions, Programmes and Capital Projects

This section provides an update on the Actions, Programmes and Capital Projects that were previously reviewed by the Panel during its review of the Government Plan 2020 – 2023.

Actions

There are no ongoing actions which are not already linked to programmes or capital projects.

Programmes

The purpose of this programme is to publish the Housing Policy Development Board's wide- ranging review of housing in Jersey and begin to develop detailed plans to implement the agreed recommendations. The Board is taking a long-term view of the housing market and is considering options:

• to ensure appropriate renting and ownership choices are available in Jersey;

• to help with housing costs; to increase the supply of land and finance;

• to maximise the use of existing stock and to consider options to reduce the cost of building new homes.

Additionally, to undertake a review of the key worker accommodation and take actions during 2020 to extend the number of units available. The review will also provide a clear definition of the roles to be included in the key worker scheme.[7]

Six Monthly Report Status – On track  Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Amber

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that the Housing Policy Development Board undertook significant research during 2019 and was close to the production of a final report when the Board was suspended due to the pandemic. Work will restart soon to finalise the Board's recommendations to the Chief Minister before the end

of 2020. This work will be completed in-house with a saving provided against anticipated consultancy fees.

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

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

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

Observing that R.91/2019 noted the Board would publish its report in the spring of 2020 for consideration by the States Assembly in 2020, and the progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review highlighting that the work on the final report was suspended due to the pandemic, in written questions to the Minister for Children and Housing, the Panel requested further information on the progress of this work and reasons regarding its delay.[8] It should be noted that due to the resignation of the Minister for Children and Housing from his role, responses in relation to housing were provided by the Chief Minister in the absence of a Minister for Housing at that time. The Panel was advised that the Board had submitted its report to the Chief Minister and a date for publication would be later determined. The Panel also asked what the challenges had been that had led to the considerable delay and was advised:

The Covid-19 public health crisis delayed the work of the Board. The Board's work had been nearing completion prior to lockdown in March 2020. The Board re-convened in September to complete its work. The Board judged that it was important to consider if the impact of Covid-19 on Jersey's economy/housing market had affected any of its recommendations before submitting the report. A Covering Note on the Board's conclusions around the impact of Covid-19 will be published alongside the Board's report.[9]

The Panel requested information for the breakdown of the spend to date for the £140,000 allocation for 2020 and was advised:

The £140,000 2020 allocation was to fund staff costs (£75,000) and consultancy fees (£65,000). Although a member of staff occupied the related housing post in Q1 2020, staff member was not funded from this allocation and the staff post is currently vacant. Consultancy fees to Altair in 2020 amounted to £45,988. Total spend/savings on the project can be summarised as follows:

Regarding the saving provided against anticipated consultancy fees through work being carried out in- house as was stated in the progress update provided in the Government's 6- month progress review, the Panel requested information on the amount of savings that had been made and whether the savings would be put towards reducing costs:

The finalisation of the Housing Policy Development Board's report, including the Board's response to Covid-19, was carried out in-house and reflects the £19,012 saving identified in Question 3. The saving will not be drawn down. [11]

Moreover, the Panel requested further detail regarding the rationale for shifting to in-house rather  than  using  external  consultancy  support  as  was  initially  planned.  The  following questions were asked in written questions, and responses provided.[12]

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel:

Is there a reason why external consultancy was planned for in the first instance? The Chief Minister:

The need for specialist external advice was identified at the start of the project. Altair (external consultants) were appointed; their knowledge and analysis of national and international housing markets formed a significant part of the input from which the Board formed their recommendations.

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel:

Is it your aspiration to achieve work in-house where at all possible instead of incurring the extra expense of consultants?

The Chief Minister:

SPPP provides an in-house policy resource that supports ministers across a range of portfolios.  The  need  to  draw  on  external  expert  policy  advice  will  be  carefully considered in respect of each individual policy project. External contacts are only awarded where specialist knowledge and expertise are not available from internal resources.

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel:

For what ongoing, or future, planned work might it be deemed necessary to call upon external consultants?

The Chief Minister:

This is decided on a case by case basis for each project. There are currently no external expert contracts in place with respect to housing policy tasks.

Noting that the Government Plan 2021-24 allocates funding of £725,000 for 2021 which is a reduction from the estimated amount allocated for 2021 in the Government Plan 2020-23, in written questions, the Panel requested the breakdown of the 2021 funding in relation to what it would cover and as to why the reduction in funding had been made.

Of the £1,425,000 requested under the "HPDB and long-term plan" allocation, £725,000 has been re-profiled with a revised total of £700,000 submitted in 2021. The breakdown is as follows:

• Housing strategic coordination (IHE): £250,000

• Housing policy development (SPPP): £150,000

• Grant to Shelter Trust (CLS): £300,000

Moreover, as the reduction is significant, reduced by half, the Panel questioned whether the funding will be sufficient to meet the aims of the project.  

Yes. The Board's recommendation points to the need for better coordination between housing supply and delivery across Government departments and arm's lengths organisations. The level of funding for this role is considered sufficient. The grant to the Shelter Trust reflects a Government assessment of the Trust's financial need based on the number of service users it receives annually. [13]

Within written questions the Panel asked what the Minister hoped to achieve by this time next year if this funding was secured. It was explained that with respect to the activities highlighted above, to which the £725,000 funding had been allocated towards, business cases had been submitted for the following:

• Recruitment of one senior officer, one support officer and project costs for the introduction of Housing strategic coordination.

• Provision of a grant to Shelter Trust to help fund staff resource requirements and operational costs.

• Support for ongoing need for new housing legislation and policy advice. [14]

Regarding the extension of key worker accommodation, the Panel queried what progress had been made and how funding would be apportioned to this aspect of the project.

SPPP does not have any 2021 plan for key worker accommodation. The work is in transition from agreed policy into delivery. Phase 2 of the Altair review of key worker accommodation - modelling potential demand and costs for key worker accommodation for the introduction of key worker housing products - will be transferred to IHE to progress with work and coordinate with Property Holdings, HCS and Andium

Homes. Hue Court, St. Helier , has been refurbished of 90 homes in delivery has been completed all of which have been allocated to Health and Community Services as Keyworker  accommodation.  Further  opportunities  to  provide  key  worker accommodation will be considered as part of the strategic coordination role with Andium Homes as part of their ongoing development plans. [15]

On reviewing all the information available and the responses to written questions received, the Panel maintains its amber RAG status for this programme. Due to the substantial reduction in funds, the Panel will monitor the Board's progress throughout 2021 to determine whether the funds are sufficient to deliver the aims of the project and ultimately positive outcomes for housing affordability in Jersey.

FINDING 3  

The funding proposal for the Housing Policy Development Board – Long-Term Plan has been cut by half and whilst the Chief Minister has provided assurances that the level of funding should be sufficient, it remains to be seen as what key outcomes this will deliver. The Board is also yet to publish its report setting out recommendations for a long-term housing policy.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Chief Minister, together with the newly appointed Minister for Children and Housing, should publish the findings and recommendations of the Housing Policy Development Board's report as soon as practical.

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

which together enhance the statutory framework for letting residential property in Jersey. Not all of the measures will require additional funding.[16]

Six Monthly Report Status – On track  Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Amber

Panel analysis

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that significant  support  was  provided  to  tenants  during  the  initial  stages  of  the  pandemic. Emergency powers were used to freeze private sector rent levels and to prevent eviction proceedings. An emergency housing team worked with local housing providers and charities to provide additional accommodation. In the second half of 2020, work is planned on the implementation of the Affordable Housing Gateway Review, to include a simplification of the banding system and the development of an advice service for housing issues.

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

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

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

In written questions, the Panel requested a breakdown of the allocated funding for 2020 and how it had been spent to date. The following response was provided.

£80,000 of this funding was deferred from 2020 to 2021. This was recommended to the Housing Minister by the CLS Director General following reviews of the Government Plan  proposals  following  the  Covid-19  crisis.  The  remaining  £30,000  has  been allocated towards development of a system to support the Housing Support Officer. We are currently in negotiations with a supplier for the system, so this budget has not been spent. We are anticipating that approx. £25,000 of this budget will be spent in [sic] before the end of 2020.[17]

The Minister confirmed as affirmative to the Panel's understanding that of the £300,000 requested funding for the Tenants' rights programme for 2021, the apportionment for Housing Advice Service will cost £110,000 annually was correct.[18]

Within written questions the Panel requested the breakdown for how the remaining £190,000 would be spent. The following response was provided.

The breakdown of the bid for the remaining £190,000 is as follows:

• One off funding bid of £70,000 in 2021 to support policy development and consultation, including potential legislation and the creation of a rent stabilisation function (e.g. rents officer or tribunal).

• One off funding bid for £60,000 in 2021 to comprise policy work to investigate the Housing First model and other homelessness support approaches

• Funding bid to recruit Housing First staff to maintain a caseload of clients and provide personal support to individuals with multiple, high and complex needs and help them to sustain a tenancy. £60,000 would be spent on staff member in 2021.[19]

The Panel noted that the £110,000 funding will, in part, cover the cost of a full-time member of staff to fill the post of a dedicated support officer and asked, within written questions, whether the Minister considered this to be sufficient manpower for the operational delivery of the Housing Advice Service and was advised that it was.[20]

Regarding the reduction in funds allocated for 2021, compared to the amount that was estimated for 2021 in last year's Government Plan, the Panel queried what impact this might have on the delivery of the project:

The use of the funding has changed and the £300,000 on tenants' rights requested in 2021 is not just for one project. The breakdown of the £300,000 is set out in the Question 10, divided across rent stabilization, Homelessness and the Housing Advice Service. £300,000 is considered sufficient to meet the aims of the proposed activities. The reduction in the amount required can be attributed to a decision not to bring the tenancy deposit scheme in-house because the existing provider successfully re-bid for the contract and continues to provide this service. This released the budget that had been put aside for this potential cost.[21]

The Panel queried whether the reduced allocation of funding, £300,000, would be sufficient to meet the aims of the project. The Minister anticipated that it would.[22]

The Panel queried what form of consultation had taken place, noting that consultation in relation to the Housing Advice Service had taken place across Government and the Citizens Advice Bureau but not with other external stakeholders, such as housing providers. The response was as follows.[23]

The Housing Trusts (external social housing providers) will be shown a demonstration of the Housing Advice Service website before it goes live. Their feedback will be used to improve the service. Private landlords have not been consulted, however, all feedback, including from the public, will be encouraged. There will be clear signposting on how to submit feedback on the website.

Whilst the Panel notes that there has been engagement with social housing providers in other areas, such as the simplification of the Affordable Housing Gateway banding system, the decision not to consult with housing providers on the introduction of a Housing Advice Service until such time as it is being delivered is questionable. It is arguably conceivable that these stakeholders could have provided valuable input into the planning and scoping process, in

order to best shape what such an advice service might look like, as well as helping to form a view of what level of resourcing and manpower might be required.

On reviewing all the information available and the responses to written questions received, the Panel maintains its amber RAG status for this programme. Due to the substantial reduction in funds, the Panel will monitor any progress made throughout 2021 to determine whether the funds are sufficient to deliver the aims of the project and whether the Housing Advice Service in particular is adequately resourced.

FINDING 4  

The funding proposal for the Tenants' Rights programme has been cut by half and whilst the Chief Minister has provided assurances that the level of funding should be sufficient, it remains to be seen if this will be the case. The Board is also yet to publish its report setting out recommendations for a long-term housing policy.

FINDING 5  

External stakeholders were not consulted at an early stage on the plans to introduce a new Housing Advice Service and therefore have not contributed to shaping how the new service will be delivered.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The  Minister  for  Children  and  Housing  should  ensure,  going  forward,  that engagement and consultation with external stakeholders (such as social housing providers  and  private  landlords)  happens  in  the  early  stages  of  policy development in order to provide valuable contributions to the delivery of policy outcomes.

The Climate Emergency Fund (CEF) was established to fund various initiatives to tackle the climate emergency. It was established with an initial allocation, in 2020, of £5million from the Consolidated Fund. Plus, an additional income stream of £2million anticipated from raising revenue from road fuel duty.

Six Monthly Report Status - On track Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Amber

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that:

The Climate Emergency Fund is constituted by a States Assembly decision and is not yet fully operational. The Government Plan allocated £2m to be credited to the fund in 2020. This represented the forecast raised from fuel duty in 2020. The estimated £2m will likely need to be adjusted to account for the reduced levels of achievement in fuel sales and as a result of the lockdown and consequent reduced travel. The Government Plan allocated funds from the climate emergency fund for expenditure in 2020 as set out in CSP5-1-1[1] and these remain in place, although delivery dates will be adjusted. Where there are unspent funds from the proposed programme in 2020, the funding will remain in the Fund for expenditure in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the Fund, for future years. Additional expenditure from the Climate Emergency Fund will need  to  be  agreed  through  the  government  plan  process  or  through  specific amendments agreed by the Assembly as set out in the States agreed terms of reference for the fund.[24]

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

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

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

The Climate Emergency Fund proposes to fund the following expenditure in 2021:

• Policy development on Carbon Neutral and Sustainable Transport Plan - £500,000

• Initiatives to strengthen environmental protection - £295,000

• Sustainable transport initiatives - £3,150,000

• Strengthening protection of the Natural Environment - £458,000[25]

The Government Plan 2021-24 provides the following financial information on predicted income and expenditure for 2021-24.[26]

The Panel requested a breakdown of the spend to date for the various expenditure and was provided with the following table:

In the public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel was advised that in respect of the Carbon Neutral and Sustainable Transport Policy Development, preliminary costs had been incurred and work to progress on the Citizen's Assembly which was due to take shape in February / Spring 2021. In addition, part of the costs would cover the post of a Senior Policy Officer for Sustainable Transport.[27]

In  relation  to  sustainable  transport  initiatives,  the  Panel  questioned  the  Minister  for Infrastructure as to what progress had been made and was informed:

Head of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment:

Works  were  significantly  hampered  by  COVID  and  also  by  the  Government's response to COVID. We had to have staff that were assigned to other duties for a period. Budgets were also frozen for a period and so we are now just really starting to reconsolidate what we will be doing. The schemes are as set out within the Strong Start document, but we are also trying to find or are in the process of identifying and developing schemes that can be brought forward at pace as well to supplement those. The money is rolled over in the fund and it is envisaged that it will be spent in future years. The budget for 2021 is, I think, £3.15 million and we have got a series of schemes that we are in the process of developing. Also, if the Minister is happy for me to mention it, the Minister will also be bringing forward a document in the near future which will detail out some of those schemes for Members.[28]

In relation to the proposed additional expenditure of strengthening the protection of Natural Environment the Panel was advised:

Director, Natural Environment/Acting Group Director, Regulation:

we have scheduled in a soil health PhD. We also have scheduled in the recruitment of officers to strengthen our biosecurity offering, particularly in areas such as marine invader species, human and animal disease vectors, and Asian hornets. Really, we have to instigate something that was intended this year, which was the creation of an invasive species strategy. We had funds allocated to us last year which because of COVID we were not able to continue the work on, but that is now taking shape and will be pursued this year. But in addition to that and within the funding that the Minister is mentioning, we also then have habitat management marine research, which is proving increasingly more important, particularly from an invasive species perspective, and also funds to the implementation of the new wildlife law. So that is that £458,000 broken down, as it were.

This raised some concern with the Panel, specifically around the funding for invasive species, as it was noted that some of these invasive species, such as Japanese knotweed, were not a result of the effects of climate change:

Deputy K.F. Morel :

I asked the question regarding the climate emergency fund and this biosecurity initiative, so to speak. Essentially, I am concerned that the climate emergency fund will be used for ordinary work that should be undertaken by the Environment Department, and one of the things that came up there was Japanese knotweed as an invasive species. Now, Japanese knotweed is not here as a result of anything to do with the changing climate, so I would like to understand, number 1, to ensure that you will not be spending any money from the climate emergency fund on dealing with Japanese knotweed as an invasive species, but also how will you ensure that funds from the climate emergency fund are only used to deal with work to do with the climate emergency and will not be used for other areas which should come out of other parts of the department's own spending?

The Minister for the Environment:

I think it is an excellent question and, of course, it was discussed at C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) during the development phase of the Government Plan. The advice given to the Council of Ministers is that the terms of reference that were agreed in the States last year for the climate emergency fund were sufficiently broad to include a number of environmental purposes which are, in the advice of the officers given, within that. So I was clear as Minister that we would work within the bounds of those terms of reference, but obviously I do not have them immediately to hand here and I think we could take place in a long conversation. I think your question is a good one, but the direction that I was given by the Council of Ministers was clearly that they saw the logic that these items should be included. Obviously, there is absolutely no shortage of things to do. I personally do not believe that you can divide up the challenges into nice little boxes and I think even form the funding boxes. Even though you have heard, I think, the degree in which all of these issues are interrelated, sustainable transport is infrastructure but it is also environmental, in the same way I think there are a number of areas within biosecurity, the changes in our planet are causing species to come into Jersey waters which are unknown, that potentially could bring pathogens and so on, and I am advised that we need to upgrade our efforts on biosecurity. That does not even address the need to be able to prepare ourselves post-Brexit where we absolutely know that the focus of attention on us will be on how well we deliver our obligations to deal with those things. I think in the past we have not had the resourcing in place and we need to do that. About Japanese knotweed, I am just going to pass on that

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Minister, can I just ask you: in my view, if I can call it sidling money off from the climate emergency fund to mainstream expenditure requirements dilutes the importance of the climate emergency fund and I suspect will affect the willingness of States Members to agree to contribute to it. Would you not agree with that?

The Minister for the Environment:

No, I do not, absolutely not. I think that what you have seen in there is we are building that fund. It is a ring-fenced fund. It has a broad range of terms of reference. I have asked that that is a debate I think will need to take place subsequent. At the moment I would not accept that. If that is an issue of importance to the panel, then obviously we are going to have to follow it up and investigate it in much greater depth. But, of course, personally I am going to say this. Look, in our new Council of Ministers there are many things that I do not feel quite comfortable about in the way that we now operate as a government, but in the area of the environment we are achieving much greater integration across government functions than we have ever done. The idea that we are forced into putting very strict boundaries and artificial boundaries in front in that way I do not buy into. I think we are talking about very modest sums of money which are hugely important and are going to make a big contribution to the way in which Jersey looks after the environment because frankly ...

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I would not disagree with that ...

The Minister for the Environment:

... Chairman, it has been neglected. It has been neglected for decades. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Nobody would disagree with you, Minister, but realistically if funds are approved and allocated by the States Assembly for specific purposes, surely that is what they must be for. If they are to be used for other purposes, that needs to be declared at the outset.[29]

The Panel was concerned that biosecurity initiatives, specifically those relating to Japanese knotweed were seemingly unrelated to climate change and therefore not in keeping with the Terms of Reference of the Climate Emergency Fund.

However, on seeking further clarification from the Minister for the Environment following the public hearing, the Panel is satisfied that this type of initiative is in line with the Terms of Reference[30] of the Climate Emergency Fund:

Japanese knotweed, although long established on the island, disrupts natural eco- systems by nature of its smothering growth pattern. Its impact is to reduce the natural resilience of eco- systems and /or eradicate them entirely. This can, and has, occurred at broad scale. The erosion or loss of these naturally functioning local eco-systems reduces their ability to absorb carbon as well as diminishing or eradicating their intrinsic biodiversity.[31]

 Furthermore, the Minister explained:

biodiversity initiatives legitimately respond to the climate emergency and thus fulfil the principles of the fund, specifically i.e.:

1. They respond to the climate emergency by protecting and enhancing natural eco- habits and biodiversity including by ameliorating or building resilience against the negative  impact that  climate  change  has  on  eco-systems  (in  parallel  with  other detrimental factors including land-use change, species exploitation and the invasion of non-native species – the latter sometimes being driven or exacerbated by climate change) and /or
2. Natural healthy local diverse ecosystems themselves form an important mitigating response to the climate emergency through emission reduction by acting as carbon sinks (carbon sequestration).[32]

In relation to road fuel duty which is intended to provide income to the Climate Emergency Fund, the Panel questioned the Minister for the Environment as to what revenue had been achieved to date and was advised that the fund has not been credited with Impôts duty receipts (as at November 2020) and that work would be undertaken prior to year-end to finalise the amount which would be transferred to the fund. It was anticipated that £1.3m would be achieved by end of 2020. In addition, the Panel questioned what impact a reduction in funds received from fuel duty revenue would have on the CEF. The Panel was advised that the issue was mainly around timing as delivery of initiatives would be delayed rather than lost. Balances remaining at the end of 2020 are anticipated to be rolled forward to 2021 to fund future initiatives.[33]

On the basis of the information provided, the Panel is satisfied to designate a green RAG rating to this programme.

FINDING 6  

The  Panel's  initial  concerns  that  at  least  one  initiative  (strengthening environmental protection against Japanese knotweed as an invasive species) which proposed to be funded by the Climate Emergency Fund did not appear to meet the Terms of Reference of the Fund. These concerns have been alleviated and the Panel is satisfied that these initiatives are linked to responding to the impact of climate change.

The purpose of this programme was to secure revenue funding for the procurement of an external partner to develop an infrastructure model, carry out assessments and develop a future Island Infrastructure Plan.

Six Monthly Report Status – Delayed Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that the Stage 1 report has been completed and is under internal review. Stage 1 is, basically, a state of the nation' report looking at the Island's existing infrastructure provision and demand. This will inform a Stage 2 report, looking at future infrastructure needs. The work was delayed by the pandemic and now the remit has changed slightly owing to the three-year bridging Island Plan concept that is under development.[34]

The funding which was approved in last year's plan is indicated in the table below: Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

The funding requested in 2020 was a one-off' spend and it is therefore noted there is no funding bid for 2021. The Panel requested a breakdown of the breakdown and spend to date and was provided with the following forecasted amounts[35]:

When asked in the public hearing as to whether the funding was sufficient to meet the aims of the programme or if future funding bids would be anticipated, the Panel was informed:

Head of Place and Spatial Planning:

I think the first 2 phases will serve the purposes of the Island Plan review and they can be delivered within the £150,000 envelope. I think the third phase of the work will need to be scoped in more detail once the phase 2 requirements are known, but I think currently we would envisage that that could be funded within the £150,000 envelope and delivered in 2021.[36]

In the public hearing, the Panel asked the Minister for the Environment how the work would be carried out within the parameters of a shorter 3-year Bridging Island Plan. The response given was:

Head of Place and Spatial Planning:

we are working through 2 phases of that report. The first one was a sort of state of the  nation  report  looking  at  the  condition  and  capacity  of  much  of  the  Island's

infrastructure, and then the second phase was looking at future requirements of that infrastructure. We will use that for planning purposes to identify if there are any immediate requirements in the near term, as the Minister has indicated, and if so, they will be addressed in the bridging Island Plan. If there are longer-term implications, they will be acknowledged in the bridging plan but likely addressed in the subsequent Island Plan.[37]

The  Minister  for  the  Environment  acknowledged  the  need  for  a  longer  term  view  of infrastructure in the Island Plan, and that whilst some areas would be addressed in the Bridging Island Plan, a 3-year period was not ideal.[38] The Panel asked the Minister for Infrastructure about this programme in a public hearing, and specifically, what impact the delay would have on the future delivery of infrastructure services.[39] A response was not provided and no concerns were brought to the attention of the Panel. The Panel is therefore uncertain as to how much joined up working there is between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to this programme.  

On the basis of the information provided and in relation to the funding, the Panel is satisfied to maintain the green RAG rating for this programme. However, the Panel strongly advocates that there should be more collaboration and joined up working between the Minister for the Environment  and  the  Minister  for  Infrastructure  and  their  respective  teams  within  the Department. This programme is an example of where there is significant cross over between two ministerial remits and the Minister for Infrastructure should arguably be more involved with this programme than presently appears to be the case. The Panel would like to see more evidence of Ministers and the teams they work with, breaking down silos and adopting a more collaborative approach.

FINDING 7  

The Minister for the Environment is the lead Minister for the assessment of public infrastructure and resources' programme. However, there is uncertainty as to how much joined up working there is between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to the crossover of remits within this programme.

The purpose of this programme is to obtain additional revenue to fund research to identify how people currently use the countryside path network and how to best adapt it to future leisure activities. In addition to this, the funding would be available for maintenance of the paths as well as to enable additional routes and clear signage / route marking.

Six Monthly Report Status - Partial deferral Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green

Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that a recent survey of users of the countryside during Covid-19 lockdown instruction indicated that almost  two-fifths  of  respondents  visited  the  countryside  more  during  lockdown.  Over threequarters said that there was an increase in visitors during lockdown and almost everyone (97%) said they were likely to continue to visit once Covid-19 restrictions are lifted. The usual volunteer force (mainly Probation Service and the Back to Work Scheme) could not operate due to the Covid-19 restrictions. There was concern that paths and infrastructure would fall into disrepair. Footpath contracts have been re-tendered to ensure paths are maintained in a safe condition for users. Some of the allocated funds were used to keep these in good repair and compliant with health and safety concerns.[40]

In the public hearing, the Panel asked the Minister for the Environment what aspects of the project had been partially deferred. The response was:

Director, Natural Environment/Acting Group Director, Regulation:

as I recall from last year's bid we retained somewhere in the region of £650,000 over 4 years. Interestingly, as part of our cost-saving measures over into this year's Government  Plan,  we  have  lost  £40,000  from  that  to  balance  the  revenue  of Government. The Minister is right, we had huge problems implementing the work that was associated with year 1 of that programme. This is work that is intent on mitigating against the requirements of the 2016 Countryside Access Strategy, that we were to be approving and agreeing signage work, we were to be completing the construction of mapping  for  both  single-use  and  joint-use  pathways,  extending  pathways  and countryside access, creating new and uprating, all of which has been significantly hit and shunted on, I would suggest, by a year. So the works that have not been undertaken over the last year are being rolled forward with the permission of the funding strategy, as it were, to make sure that it will eventually be carried out within the Government Plan process.[41]

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

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

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

The Panel asked the Minister for the Environment for the spend to date for the 2020 allocation agreed in last year's Government Plan and was advised:

Expenditure to the end of October 2020 was £107,838, with a forecast spend to the end of 2020 of £169,800. Projects include maintenance and improvement of the Island's footpath network, fencing and tree surveys and associated works.[42]

The Panel notes that the spend forecast by the end of 2020 is lower than the £195k allocation agreed last year, which as alluded to in the public hearing, will be the result of works which were unable to be undertaken this year. However, it is expected that works will be rolled forward to ensure the works are eventually carried out within the Government Plan's life cycle. On the basis of the information provided, the Panel is satisfied to maintain the green RAG rating for this programme for the time being. Particular attention will be paid to scrutinising the progress made in 2023-24 when it is noted that funding is projected to drop off significantly.

The purpose of this programme is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of areas within the Jersey National Park (JNP). Additionally, to promote opportunities of the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the JNP by the public.

Six Monthly Report Status – Reduced  Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Amber

Panel analysis

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that the Francis Le Sueur Centre is closed due to pandemic restrictions. Preparation for reopening and delivery of activities are underway.[43]

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

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

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

In written questions to the Minister for Economic development, Tourism, Sport and Culture the Panel requested a breakdown of the spend to date of the funds allocated for 2020.

Spend to the 30 September was £66,718. The organisation has appointed a part time officer,  agreed  the  lease  on  property  which  can  be  used  for  educational  and interpretation purposes; this government owned property is being refurbished by the organisation. A number of marketing and promotion initiatives have been carried out in 2020, some of which have been in conjunction with Visit Jersey[44]

A breakdown of the spend was provided as follows.[45]

In a submission received from JNP, the Park updated the Panel on its progress made thus far in 2020 and detailed where elements had been delayed or postponed and the reasons why.

The JNP explained that despite 2020 being a problematic year and despite the inevitable difficulties it had faced due to the Covid-19 restrictions, solid progress had been made towards the vast majority of the major objectives detailed in the JNP Plan. However, due to the Covid- 19 restrictions there had been limited opportunities for education and interpretation events were a major disappointment. It was noted that much preparatory work for the future had been undertaken which would translate into action as soon as some degree of normality had returned.  Regarding  planned  marketing  initiatives,  they  had  all  been  delivered  and  full participation in all the critical areas of relevant Government policy review had been secured. The JNP noted that some of the longerterm aspirational objectives had been significantly advanced.

Regarding opportunities to enhance biodiversity and habitats, the JNP commented much progress remained to be made. The JNP noted that there had been considerable success in securing financial and CSR support from a number of sources.

The latest "big win" has been in securing probono support from the JEC for a full carbon / energy survey to be conducted on the Centre with a view to developing a plan which in 2021 might allow us to take forward retrofitting adjustments to an ecologically sound building to reduce significantly its carbon footprint. If the required financial support to make adjustments can be secured it can be held up as an exemplar of what is possible in a Government owned building to others.[46]

JNP anticipates that all will be achieved except where there is direct impact from Covid-19 restrictions.

having agreed a full set of KPI's with the funding Department for 2020 it is assured at this stage in the year that all will be achieved except where the direct impact of Covid19 restrictions, in the case of events and volunteer activity for example, prevented plans being carried through.[47]

In response to written questions, the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture provided a detailed breakdown of how the additional funding of £150k for 2021 would be used as follows.[48]

Achievable with existing resources (2021 committed Government funding) and within JNP's control

• Build and develop relationships with key stakeholders of the Jersey National Park through Board membership organisations, local businesses within the Park, Government of Jersey ministers & officers, parish authorities and existing contacts

• Deliver the 2021 Marketing Plan.

• Complete the refurbishment of the Frances Le Sueur centre commenced in 2020

• Establish accounting system and bookkeeping records for the increasing Jersey

National Park activities.

• Recruit pro-bono secretarial support and ad-hoc legal assistance.

• Open the Frances Le Sueur centre as the headquarters of Jersey National Park and as an information, education and events centre. Establish operating terms, opening hours, the provision of information and the holding of educational events. Determine the scope of information, education and events activity in conjunction with awareness and promotional campaigns.

• Review the authority and powers of the Jersey National Park and its obligations, eg, becoming a statutory consultee for planning applications within Park boundaries.

• Represent the interests of the Jersey National Park in contributing to consultations and updates to Government of Jersey Strategies and policies including: - Island Plan, Rural Economy Strategy, Sustainable Transport Policy, Carbon Neutrality Energy Policy, Countryside Access Strategy.

• In respect of the Bridging Island Plan, support the increase in boundaries of Jersey National Park to include marine foreshore and RAMSAR sites.

• Establish cleaning and maintenance contracts for  the inside spaces and the outside windows of the FLSC and the adjacent pond habitat area. • Update signage for the FLSC to add Jersey National Park.

Aspirational

• Develop the north area of the Frances Le Sueur Centre site into an outdoor educational space and establish new fencing for that area and also the eastern boundary of the site.

• Obtain sole occupancy of the Frances Le Sueur Centre by becoming the only licensee of the building (apart from the rear storeroom used by the Back to Work team).

• In conjunction with Jersey Electricity Company, establish plans to install energy efficient and renewable energy solutions at the Frances Le Sueur Centre. Seek corporate partnership(s) to assist financially with implementation and installation.

• In conjunction with the GoJ Natural Environment Team, identify biodiversity habitats and associated maintenance programme at La Mielle de Morville.

• Explore opportunities for corporate sponsorship, charitable and philanthropic donations, and volunteer opportunities, identifying specific projects, events, habitat maintenance and the associated benefits, together with setting out acceptable

criteria for association with Jersey National Park

• Investigate opportunities for the Jersey National Park to assist the Rural Economy Strategy for mutual economic and awareness benefit.

• Develop the relationship with National Parks UK, through existing associate membership.

Jersey National Park:

We have started to revisit and adjust our Business Plan for 2021/24 which will be used as the basis for revisiting the proposed grant agreement with its attendant proposed funding should the Assembly see fit to support the Plan. We are determined to build on our current progress, tighten and develop our stakeholder and commercial support base and hopefully persuade the new reporting lines in Government to become more proactive in engaging with us to the benefit of all[49]

The Panel recalled that in last year's Government Plan 2020 it was anticipated that a portion of the funding would go towards creating a position for a Jersey National Park Manager. In written questions to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture the Panel asked whether the position had been filled. The Minister affirmed that it had.[50]

Within the submission received from the JNP, it was confirmed that the Park Officer was in the role and was well established.

Our Park Officer is well established in role and is providing much needed secretarial support and a probono qualified treasurer has been identified. Governance and Board

representation reflective of all major stakeholders progresses and alliances with other likeminded organisations are building all the time[51]

Noting that the Environment Minister is not the Lead Minister for this programme, however, as limited information was provided in the Government's 6-month progress review regarding the progress that had been made for this programme, during the public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel asked for the Minister's views.

The Minister for the Environment:

Well, I think we have covered this a number of times on our other quarterly hearings and I am quite happy to do so. As I personally see the work we have been doing in the countryside is first of all updating the Island Plan in both the boundaries of our planning zones, and it is the planning zones that I think are really important, identifying where the special areas are and the planning policies that we need to have, but of course as well as that we have a separate pot of funding which the Minister for Economic Development was keen to have leadership of. There should also be funds available to promote the use of that land or those areas for recreation and enjoyment and leisure and, indeed, for economic exploitation purposes. So I am content that we certainly work jointly, and the officers do. We fully co-operate with that group and provide advice and guidance, but am I in the lead in terms of how that money is spent? No. My own preference is to spend money on conserving that area, so I cannot give you an update on how another ministry is allocating that. I do not know if any of my officers are a little bit more aware. I have supported those initiatives, I am not against them, but I think they are very much, if you like, ancillary to our prime role, which is conserving and looking after those areas.[52]

Regarding the re-zoning of land to the Jersey National Park, the Panel asked in written questions to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture whether it would occur in alignment with the Bridging Island Plan 2022-24, or if would be deferred to the next 10- year plan.

Work has been commissioned, as part of the Island Plan Review, to review the definition of the current boundary of the Coastal National Park; and it is envisaged that the output from this work will inform the preparation of the Island Plan 2022-2024.[53]

Jersey National Park:

Full participation in the early stages of the Island Plan review had seen progress at least at a proposition level to rationalise and enhance the Park boundaries including extending same in the Marine Environment.[54]

In the public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel asked the Minister whether he felt the funding of £150k for this programme for 2021 was sufficient.[55]

The Minister for the Environment:

Well, I do not know. I do know that there was I think the gestation of that original sum, which was put into last year's plan, and I do not know whether any of it has been spent. I do hear that the building to Frances Le Sueur Centre has been allocated to the team. I understand that there is a proposal to spend some money doing improvements on it. I think there is a planning application potentially in the wings and I have read about their ideas. I think that is good because previously they were formed by the Minister for the Environment minus 2, I think. They were asked to do a job and they were asked to do a job with no funds, which I thought was a pretty poor do. I think eventually as part of last year's Government Plan some money was enabled, not a great sum, but I think when I listened to the team from the countryside national park - that is Mr. Stentiford and Mr. Hopley - with that start it was good to make a start and they could formulate their plans and obviously keep that under review.

When the same question was posed to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, he responded to the Panel's written questions that he was confident the level of funding requested for 2021 would be sufficient to enable the project to meet its stated aims.[56]

Considering that this work for this programme crosses both remits for the Minister for the Environment as well as that of the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, the Panel queried whether there was adequate joined up working between the departments. Moreover, whether ongoing adequate support was being provided to JNP regarding its work.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Do you meet them regularly? (Referring to Mr. Stentiford and Mr. Hopley) The Minister for the Environment:

When they ask to about advice and guidance, absolutely, of course we do, and they will be consulted as part of ... I think here my Assistant Minister is going to tell us his wisdom on this.

Assistant Minister for the Environment:

Just that I have seen them about 3 days ago, just at the end of last week, so I have had a complete update on what they have been doing and, most importantly, their work on the Frances Le Sueur Centre. So it is something that we will probably help them with because the other occupants of the centre, Trees for Life, are looking for another place to go and occupy. That is a planning issue, so we are trying to move the pieces around so that the park can use the Frances Le Sueur Centre exclusively.[57]

Within their submission, the JNP highlighted its frustration regarding the delays involved for the full refurbishment and equipping of the nominal Park HQ at the Frances Le Sueur Centre. Moreover, the lack of support and involvement for this project from the controllers of the site, the IHE Department, and the managers, Jersey Property Holdings. It was noted that the work was undertaken, despite the lack of support, and funding had been secured from a non- governmental source to equip the facility. It is hoped that the site will be fully operational by early 2021.[58]

Regarding ongoing Government engagement with the project in 2020, the JNP commented that although at a strategic level, particularly of late, this had been forthcoming there had been a frustrating lack of contact and participation on a more practical level.

The work we have had carried out on the Centre for example has been done despite the IHE Department rather than in conjunction with them. Relationship's with Economy and Partnerships are much better and developing which hopefully will auger well for the future of the Project.[59]

On the basis of the information provided the Panel is minded to maintain its amber RAG rating. The Panel commends the hard work of the Jersey National Park in achieving what they have to date, but is concerned to hear that there appears to be inadequate ongoing support being provided to the JNP and believes a more joined up approach between the Minister for the Environment,  the  Minister  for  Economic  Development,  Tourism,  Sport  and  Culture  and Departments is required.

FINDING 8  

Progress is being made in relation to the objectives of the Jersey National Park project,  however,  due  to  the  Covid-19  restrictions  there  have  been  limited opportunities for education and interpretation events.

FINDING 9  

There are concerns of inadequate support being provided to Jersey National Park with it being noted that there is a lack of contact and participation on a practical level from the IHE Department

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism Sport and Culture should, by the end of Q1 2021, put in place suitable protocols to ensure a more collaborative approach to their involvement in the Jersey National Park project and in the support extended to the Jersey National Park.

The purpose of this programme is to develop a draft Island Plan 2020-2030, with a view to lodge the new Plan by mid-2021.

Six Monthly Report Status – Delayed Panel analysis

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that as a result of the impact that the pandemic has had on the previously agreed Island Plan programme, Ministers have agreed a new strategy to develop a bridging' Island Plan. Work is underway to develop the bridging Plan to an adjusted programme.

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

The funding requested in 2020 was a one-off' spend and it is therefore noted there is no funding allocated for 2021.

In written questions to the Minister for the Environment, the Panel requested a breakdown of the use of funds allocated to this programme for 2020. The following breakdown was provided in response[60]. A further detailed breakdown of the total confirmed and forecast year end expenditures can be found in Appendix A of the response.

In the Government Plan 2021-24 a potential one off spend increase of £325,000 has been allocated with the reason given - deferred Island Plan Review activity from 2020.[61]

During the Government Plan public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel queried how the finances for 2020 would be apportioned, considering the programme had been delayed.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

The Island Plan review, Minister, we are aware of the reasons for the delay in this project, but so that we can understand how the finances are being apportioned, could you clarify whether the £650,000 that was approved in the 2020 Government Plan will be required in full for expenditure relating to the 3-year bridging Island Plan or will a proportion of this amount be ringfenced and moved on to the 10-year plan?[62]

The Minister for the Environment:

No, I am absolutely certain that the funds that we have allocated will be required. I think what will be ... so any notion that somehow or other what we are producing is a cut-down plan, it is not a full plan, that is not correct. The foundations of the plan require a huge amount of building up of evidence. I think a lot of that evidence is going to last beyond the boundaries of the 3-year transitional plan and is going to mean that those pieces of work will not need to be repeated in any subsequent Island Plan. So I really feel very confident that that will be the case. So, yes, there will be some costs as a result of having to do an update or a follow-on for the remaining 10 years, but I think that can be contributed very much to the COVID. So I could give you a bit more detail, Chairman, but we do not have a lot of time. If you want a little bit more, Mr. Pilley could list all the various evidence areas, and we have had to spend that money.[63]

On the basis of the information provided, the Panel is satisfied to maintain a green RAG rating for this programme.

Capital Projects

The Panel notes that the above requests for funding are based on pre-feasibility studies. The Panel has assessed the requests for funding along with all available supporting information and deems those rated green status to be satisfactory.

The Mont á l'Abbé secondary school pre-feasibility study does not include a request for funding in 2021 and therefore the Panel has highlighted this amber to indicate that it will be revisited  by the  Panel in  a  future Government  Plan  when  funding  is  being  requested. Therefore, in this instance, the amber rating indicates awaiting further information'.

Infrastructure including the Rolling Vote

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding for infrastructure related services, including maintenance and replacement of the sewerage network (pipes, manholes, storm water storage); roads, footways, traffic lights, streetlights; and sea defences.

Six Monthly Report Status - Partial deferral Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review provides the following summary of progress up until August 2020:

Liquid Waste:

Projects  consist  of  surface  water  separation  schemes;  foul  and  surface  water improvements; and, investigations into the effects of climate change on inland surface water  management.  Design  of  all  projects  has  commenced.  However,  funding pressures due to the pandemic has meant funds have been diverted to other critical areas and the delivery of some drainage projects have been put on hold.

Transport:

Planned upgrades to the traffic signalling and street lighting of the Island's highway network. The design and development of all projects has started. However, funding pressures due to the pandemic have meant funds have been diverted to other critical areas and the delivery of some planned transport projects have been put on hold.

Infrastructure:

Projects consist of slope stabilisation, maintenance and replacement of roadside structures and sea defences, which include condition assessment and investigation into the effects of climate change and sea level rise. Some projects are complete, others are ongoing, and some have been put on hold due to funds being diverted as a result of the pandemic.[67]

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

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

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

The Panel requested and was provided with a breakdown of: 2020 budget allocation: £9,552,346

Spend to date: £7,165,604 (as at end of Oct 20)[68]

A full and detailed breakdown was provided in the Summary of Capital Heads of Expenditure

– IHE table which can be found in the appendix to the Minister for Infrastructure's response to written questions.

Noting the reduction in funds from what estimated as required for 2021 in last year's plan (£12,370,000) to what is now being requested for 2021 (£10,232,000), the Panel asked the Minister for Infrastructure:

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Do you think this might exacerbate the continued historic underfunding in this area that seems to have prevailed in previous years? Will we continue to have a problem with underinvestment in our infrastructure?

Acting Director General, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment:

No, I do not think so. I think the number for 2021, it comes in at just over £10 million. It does creep back up to the sort of just under £13 million mark, so it is an area that we constantly keep an eye on. It is a big number in the capital programme and it covers quite a variety of spend within that area. I think within I.H.E. we are always balancing between repairs and things that get worn out in our replacement assets lines, as John has said. At the moment we are comfortable with the number that we have got there, but it is something we do need to keep an eye on just to make sure that we are reinvesting back into these assets to keep them running.

On the basis of the information provided, the Panel is satisfied to maintain the green RAG rating for this capital programme.

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding for a replacement Sewage Treatment Works.

Six Monthly Report Status - On track Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that:

Construction of the new tanker import facility is complete. The commissioning of process equipment has commenced and is in the final stages of reliability testing. Takeover of the new tanker import facility is anticipated in September 2020. Production and progress of the new sewage treatment works is ongoing and generally in line with the accepted overall programme. Construction of all main process structures and civil infrastructure  has  commenced,  and  some  areas  are  nearing  completion.  The installation of mechanical, electrical and ICA equipment and plant commenced in June 2020. A programme delay of approximately 12 weeks is anticipated due to the impact of COVID-19, with additional delays due to inclement weather. Commissioning of the works are expected to be carried out in stages with the first Phase being completed by late 2021. Due to the need to commence commissioning of the main treatment process in 2021, discussions are ongoing with a view to meet the key dates irrespective of the delays. The overall project is expected to be completed by the end of 2022 as planned.[69]

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

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

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

Noting a potential discrepancy between the 6-month progress review designating this project as on track', however the £4m funding appearing to have been deferred until 2022, the Panel asked the following in the public hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure:

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

The sewage treatment works, we notice that the 6-monthly progress report says that it is on track and to be delivered before the end of 2022. We see there is no further funding allocation provided in the 2021 Government Plan. In last year's plan it was indicated £4 million would be allocated to the project in 2021. This appears to have been deferred until 2022. What is the reason for that? Is it the case that the works are on track, is it simply a cash flow discrepancy?

Head of Finance Business Partnering, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment:

It is, Chairman. As part of all of the work looking at capital, both in-year and future years, partly in relation to coronavirus and partly in relation to the overall sums available, we have looked at the cash flows on all of our major projects. Most of the funding for sewage treatment works has already been allocated and the budgets approved. This is the final sort of very last stages of the project and because of timings it is possible to push that into 2022 without causing any issues on the project, so it was seen sensible to do that as it released funding for other areas within 2021.[70]

On the basis of the information provided, and that funding is not being requested for 2021, the Panel is satisfied to maintain a green RAG rating for this capital programme.

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding for extensions and enhancements to the sewerage network will be required to sustain projected increases in population.

Six Monthly Report Status - Deferred Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that this project has been deferred as the funding has been reallocated to Covid-19 Emergency Funding. The reduced funding as a result of the pandemic will need to be recovered in full in 2021-2024 Government Plan.[71]

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

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

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

Noting the deferral of funding the Panel asked the Minister for Infrastructure the following in the public hearing:

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Drainage and foul sewer extensions: once again this has been deferred and the funding allocated to the emergency fund. How do you hope to recover the funds in the course of the 2021 to 2024 Government Plan? I know, Minister, the extension of foul sewers is a keen area of yours. How are we going to get the funding back for it? Is there any indication where that might come in?

Acting Director General, Infrastructure, Housing and Environment:

I can answer for the Minister, if that is okay. Again, the focus for the department is to concentrate on the assets that we currently have and also to complete the projects underway, including the sewage treatment works. I think there is a debate longer term about whether we increase the drainage network and connect more properties. We would advocate at this very point in time that we focus our funds on the assets that we currently have rather than creating new assets in this area, mainly due to the fact that we would like the sewage treatment works also be completed within that window, thereby increasing capacity as well.

The Minister for Infrastructure:

I have mentioned, Chairman, that it is my desire before I leave office to have as many people as possible on mains drains as we can and, wherever possible, working with our colleagues in Jersey Water to lay fresh water to every house as well, as much as possible. I think we are at 94 per cent of the Island at the moment or thereabouts, but we have still got a way to go to get everyone on mains water and mains drain. But that is my desire before I leave office, to have as many people as possible on them.[72]

The Panel requested and was provided with a breakdown of:

2020 budget allocation: £350,000

Spend to date: £655 (as at end of Oct 20)[73]

On the basis of the information provided, the Panel has revised its RAG rating to amber, due to a lack of clarity as to whether the requested funding will be sufficient to meet the project's aims i.e. to extend and enhance the sewerage network to keep pace with continued growth in population size.  

FINDING 10  

There is a lack of clarity as to whether the reduction in funding from £1.5m to £1m in 2021 will be sufficient to meet the aims of the Drainage Foul Sewerage Extensions capital programme which seeks to extend and enhance the sewerage network to keep pace with continued growth in population size.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Minister for Infrastructure should, by end of Q1 2021, provide the Panel will a detailed analysis on how the foul sewerage system together with the surface water system is coping with demand, as well as further details on the rationale for the decrease in funding in this area, given projections of growing population size.

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding in 2022 for the covering of the primary settlement tanks at Bellozanne in order to address odour issues in the Bellozanne and First Tower area.

Six Monthly Report Status – N/A Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Amber Panel analysis  

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

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

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

No funding is requested for 2021, indicative funding for 2022 of £1,500,000 has been provided. Therefore, a decision on funding is not required at this time. The Panel has designated this business case as amber until the figure is confirmed and an assessment is undertaken for future Government Plan approval.

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding in 2023 to carry out rehabilitation work required to prevent deterioration on the downstream outfall pipe that carries treated effluent from the sewage treatment works down to St Aubin's Bay.

Six Monthly Report Status – N/A  Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Amber

Panel analysis  

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

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

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

No funding is requested for 2021, indicative funding for 2023 of £1,000,000 has been provided. Therefore, a decision on funding is not required at this time. The Panel has designated this business case as amber until the figure is confirmed and an assessment is undertaken for future Government Plan approval.

The purpose of this programme was to secure previous funding of £650,000 for 2020 to upgrade and refurbish the existing station, including new increased capacity pumps.

Six Monthly Report Status - On track Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that the upgrades are currently in progress. All pumping station upgrades, and asset replacement are programmed commenced in June. The current programme indicates that production and progress is in line with the accepted project programme and that the contract dates will be achieved.[74]

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

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

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

On the basis of the information provided, and that no further funding is being requested in 2021, the Panel is satisfied to maintain a green RAG rating for this capital programme.

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding for a feasibility study to confirm a future strategy for the local management of inert construction waste.

Six Monthly Report Status – Deferred Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6 month progress review explains that as La Collette reclamation site reaches capacity, the intention is to investigate options for either a new reclamation site or prolonging the life of the existing site. Progress has been made in raising awareness of Jersey's inert waste needs to the Island Plan team and other projects that could benefit from clean infill material have been identified and are being supported. To support the Government cash flow pressures relating to the pandemic it has been proposed that this capital project is deferred until 2021.[75]

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

In response to written questions, the Minister for Infrastructure advised the Panel:

Around £200,000 of the £500,000 funding for this project will be used in 2020 to support strategic project development that delivers the same solution via a different route, i.e. instead of supporting a new inert waste site, the same benefits can be delivered by supporting other projects that are looking for significant volumes of inert waste.

The funding to complete this important strategic feasibility project will be allocated from the 2021 Rolling Vote, if not available from carry forward from 2020. This is a developing key strategic project for GoJ with multiple benefits.

The change in focus of the project has occurred as a result of focusing on the outcomes and deliverables rather than simply trying to progress a new waste site.

The status of this project as "deferred" relates to the original outline project business case as the objectives are intended to be delivered by alternative means, subject to States approval.[76]

The Panel asked the Minister if he anticipated that a further bid for funding would be made for this project in a future Government Plan. The Minister responded as follows:

The project being assessed for feasibility will deliver all the benefits originally planned but due to its scale will require a number of years of design and planning. As such, a bid to re-allocate this funding has already been made via a Business Case variation. This  requested  that  the  £500,000  funding  allocated  for  2020  to  be  split  and proportioned over the remaining 3 years of the Government Plan. This variation bid was not included in the proposals in the Government Plan 2021 and no project specific funding has been allocated to future years. Funding will come from the Infrastructure Rolling Vote, should it not be possible to carry forward unused funds at the end of 2020.[77]

On the basis of the information provided, and that no further funding is being requested in 2021, the Panel is satisfied to maintain a green RAG rating for this capital programme.

The purpose of this programme is to secure funding of £500,000 per annum to allow the La Collette waste site to continue being developed to receive construction waste. The funding will enable the creation of new hazardous and contaminated waste cells.

Six Monthly Report Status - On track Previous Scrutiny RAG Rating – Green Panel analysis  

The progress update provided in the Government's 6-month progress review explains that the project concerns providing storage capacity for any hazardous or contaminated soils delivered to site from construction projects and developments. Lockdown measures put in place to delay the spread of the virus has reduced the amounts of waste being delivered, meaning that existing capacity is good.[78]

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

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

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

The Panel requested and was advised that the spend to date (as at end of October) was £439,366.[79] A full breakdown of this cost was provided in the Minister's response to written questions.

On the basis of the information provided, and that no further funding is being requested in 2021, the Panel is satisfied to maintain a green RAG rating for this capital programme.