STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 10th NOVEMBER 2026

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 9

1. Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor .................................... 9

2. Tribute to former Deputy Gerard Baudains .............................................. 9

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS .......................... 10

2. Resignation of Deputy C.D. Leck of St. Saviour from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel........................................................................................ 10

QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 10

3. Written Questions .......................................................................... 10

1. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding essential worker accommodation. (WQ.219/2026) ............................ 10
2. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding d'Auvergne School operating below capacity. (WQ. 220/2026) .... 15
3. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries regarding expenditure from the Climate Emergency Fund. (WQ.221/2026).. 16
4. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Social Security regarding the proposal to increase (WQ.222/2026) ...................................... 18
5. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Chief Minister regarding measures of efficiency across departments. (WQ.223/2026).......................................... 19
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding Part 11 of the Jersey Immigration Rules. (WQ.224/2026) ............................... 20
7. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding the total number of individuals who have attended courses funded by the Skills Development Fund. (WQ.226/2026) .......................................... 22
8. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Social Security (Reserve) Fund. (WQ.227/2026) .......................... 22
9. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Housing regarding the Affordable Housing Gateway. (WQ.228/2026) .......................................... 25
10. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Planning and Regulation regarding hazards in agricultural workers' accommodation. (WQ.229/2026) ........... 27
11. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the current arrangements for access to consultant neurology care. (WQ.230/2026) ........................................................................... 28
12. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding hospital consultant staffing. (WQ.231/2026) .................................. 29

13. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Government of Jersey Social Impact Report for 2025. (WQ.232/2026) ........................................................................... 34
14. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for External Relations regarding the Sustainable Finance Action Plan. (WQ.233/2026) .............. 36
15. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Treasury Advisory Panel's work on aligning the Common Investment Fund with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (WQ.234/2026) ........................................................................... 39
16. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding violence against women and girls funding. (WQ.235/2026) .................. 43
17. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Social Security regarding the structural deficit in the Health Insurance Fund. (WQ.236/2026) .................... 48
18. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding an income-based rental policy for Andium Homes. (WQ.237/2026).......... 48
19. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Social Security regarding abolishing the Social Security Cap. (WQ.238/2026) ..................................... 49
20. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central of the Chief Minister regarding the publication of Freedom of Information requests and responses. (WQ.239/2026) ....................... 50

22. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Children and Families regarding children on the Jersey Exploitation Pathway. (WQ.241/2026) ................ 54
23. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding expenditure on student finance support for higher education. (WQ. 242/2026)

 ............................................................................................ 54

24. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding applications received for higher education student finance. (WQ.243/2026) . 59
25. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the proposed increases in Long-Term Care (LTC) contribution rates from 2028. (WQ.244/2026) .................................................................... 61
26. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the delay to Phase 1 of the redevelopment of Fort Regent. (WQ.245/2026) ....................... 62
27. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the medicines regulatory framework. (WQ.246/2026) ........................ 64
28. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

regarding the recurring savings included in the Proposed Budget 2027-2030. (WQ.247/2026) ........................................................................... 68

29. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement of the Chief Minister regarding each strategic priority set out in the Common Strategic Policy 2026-2030. (WQ.248/2026) ........... 70
30. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding the Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) legislation and its impact on the criminal justice system. (WQ.249/2026) ................................................. 70

4. Oral Questions ............................................................................. 73

1. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement of the Chief Minister regarding structures, capacity and capability of the public sector. (OQ.114/2026) ............................ 73

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): .................................................... 73

1. Deputy K.M. Wilson : ..................................................................... 74
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 74
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 74
4. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ..................................................... 74

5. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 74
6. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: .............................................. 75
7. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 75
8. Deputy K.M. Wilson : ..................................................................... 75

2. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Housing regarding assisted home ownership schemes. (OQ.118/2026) ................................................ 76

Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour (The Minister for Housing): ................................ 76

1. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 76
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 76
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 76
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 77
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 77
6. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: .............................................. 77
7. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .................................................................... 77
8. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 78

3. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Chief Minister regarding residential and nursing home capacity. (OQ.121/2026)................................................... 78

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): .................................................... 78

1. Deputy S.J. Gleave: ...................................................................... 78
2. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ..................................................... 79
3. The Connétable of St. Helier : ............................................................ 79

4. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding additional consultant neurology capacity. (OQ.111/2026) ........ 79

Senator T.J.A. Binet (The Minister for Health and Social Services): .......................... 79

1. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .................................................................... 80
2. Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ......................... 80
3. Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson : ............................................................... 80
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 80
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 81
6. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................... 81
7. Deputy K.M. Wilson : ..................................................................... 81
8. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .................................................................... 82

5. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée of St. Helier South of the Chief Minister regarding the International Cultural Centre (OQ.109/2026) ........................................... 82

Senator H.M. Miles (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur): .................................. 82

1. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée : ............................................................ 82
2. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ..................................................... 83
3. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central: ................................................. 83
4. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 83
5. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée : ............................................................ 83

6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Regulation regarding the Jersey Care Commission's reduction in budget. (OQ.104/2026) ....... 84

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat (The Minister for Planning and Regulation): .......................... 84

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 84
2. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: .............................................. 84
3. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .................................................................... 85
4. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 85

7. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St Helier North of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding private rental income. (OQ.116/2026)........................................ 86

Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ...................... 86 4.7.1 Deputy M.B. Andrews : ................................................................... 86

8. Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Housing regarding Andium home exchanges and refusals of housing offers. (OQ.107/2026) .............. 86

Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour (The Minister for Housing): ................................ 87

1. Deputy L.D. Carpenter:................................................................... 87
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 87
3. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 88
4. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central: ................................................. 88
5. Deputy C.S. Alves : ....................................................................... 88
6. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South: .................................................. 89
7. Deputy S.J. Gleave: ...................................................................... 89
8. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................... 89
9. Deputy K.M. Wilson : ..................................................................... 90

9. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Economic Development regarding industries he wishes to attract to Jersey. (OQ.107/2026) .............................................................................. 90

Deputy F. G. Voisin of St. Helier North (The Minister for Economic Development): ......... 90

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 90
2. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: .............................................. 91
3. Deputy L.V. Feltham : .................................................................... 91
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 91
5. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 92
6. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ....................................................................... 92

10. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Planning and Regulation regarding identified hazards. (OQ.112/2026) ............................... 93

Senator Sir M.J. Boleat (The Minister for Planning and Regulation): .......................... 93

1. Deputy L.V. Feltham :.................................................................. 93
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 93
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune :.................................................................... 94
4. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................. 94
5. Deputy K.M. Wilson : .................................................................. 95
6. Deputy L.V. Feltham :.................................................................. 95

11. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Economic Development regarding employment protections. ........................... 95

Deputy F. G. Voisin of St. Helier North (The Minister for Economic Development): ......... 95

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune :.................................................................... 96
2. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : .................................................... 96
3. Deputy A.F. Curtis : .................................................................... 96
4. Deputy H.L. Jeune :.................................................................... 96

12. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Chief Minister regarding the Common Strategic Policy. (OQ.122/2026) .......................................................... 97

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): .................................................... 97

1. Deputy S.J. Gleave: .................................................................... 97

2. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : .................................................... 97
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 98
4. Deputy H.L. Jeune :.................................................................... 98
5. Deputy S.J. Gleave: .................................................................... 98

13. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the reasoning behind the decision of the Council of Ministers not to reinstate the full States Grant to the Social Security Fund before 2030. (OQ.105/2026)  99

Senator A.J.H.M. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ...................... 99

14. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement of the Minister for Children and Families regarding exploitation and grooming of children in Jersey. (OQ.115/2026) .......... 99

Connétable R.P. Vibert of St. Peter (The Minister for Children and Families): ................ 99

1. Deputy K.M. Wilson : ................................................................ 100
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .................................................... 100
3. Deputy K.M. Wilson : ................................................................ 100

15. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding the rehabilitation of offenders. (OQ.120/2026) ............................. 101

Senator H.M. Miles (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs): ........................... 101

1. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................... 101
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .......................... 101
3. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................... 102

16. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée of St. Helier South of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the performance of the DFDS ferry service. (OQ.110/2026)  102

Deputy F. G. Voisin of St. Helier North (The Minister for Economic Development): ........ 102

1. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée : ....................................................... 102
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .................................................... 102
3. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................... 103
4. Deputy B.B. de S.V.M. Porée : ....................................................... 103

17. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Housing regarding the Homelessness Cluster. (OQ.119/2026) .................................................. 103

Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour (The Minister for Housing): .............................. 103

1. Deputy C.S. Alves : ................................................................... 104
2. Deputy H.L. Jeune :................................................................... 104
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .......................... 104
4. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South:.............................................. 104
5. Deputy T.A. Coles :................................................................... 105
6. Deputy C.S. Alves : ................................................................... 105

18. Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Housing regarding assessments of homes currently advertised for sale. (OQ.117/2026) .................. 105

Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour (The Minister for Housing): .............................. 105

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Social Security ............ 106

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :........................................................ 106 Senator M.E. Millar (The Minister for Social Security): ...................................... 106

5.1.1 Deputy M. Tadier : ....................................................................... 106

2. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South: ................................................. 107

5.2.1 Deputy T.A. Coles : ...................................................................... 107

3. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: ............................................. 107

5.3.1 Deputy L.V. Feltham : ................................................................... 107

4. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 107

5.4.1 Deputy H.L. Jeune : ...................................................................... 108

5. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South: ................................................ 108

5.5.1 Deputy S.J. Gleave: ..................................................................... 109

6. Deputy B. Ward of St. Clement : ........................................................ 109

6. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Economic Development .. 109

1. Deputy L.D. Carpenter of St. Helier Central: ........................................... 110 Deputy F. G. Voisin of St. Helier North (The Minister for Economic Development): ........ 110

1. Deputy L.D. Carpenter:.................................................................. 110
   2. Deputy G.A. Raimondo of St. Brelade : ................................................. 110

6.2.1 Deputy G.A. Raimondo: ................................................................ 111

3. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South: ................................................ 111

6.3.1 Deputy S.J. Gleave: ..................................................................... 111

4. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: ............................................. 111

6.4.1 Deputy L.V. Feltham : ................................................................... 112

5. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North: ....................................................... 112

6.5.1 Deputy V. Li : ............................................................................ 112

6. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :...................................................... 113

7. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister .......................... 113

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ....................................................................... 113 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): .................................................. 113

1. Deputy M. Tadier : ....................................................................... 113
   2. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 114

7.2.1 Deputy H.L. Jeune : ...................................................................... 114

3. Deputy B. Ward of St. Clement : ........................................................ 114

7.3.1 Deputy B. Ward : ........................................................................ 115

4. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South: ................................................. 115

7.4.1 Deputy T.A. Coles : ...................................................................... 115

5. Deputy T.A. Coles : ...................................................................... 116
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ....................................................................... 116
7. Deputy T.A. Coles : ...................................................................... 116

7.7.1 Deputy T.A. Coles : ...................................................................... 116

8. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :...................................................... 117

7.8.1 Deputy A.F. Curtis : ...................................................................... 117

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED .................................................. 117 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT ................................................................. 117 STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY ...................... 117

8. The Minister for Infrastructure will give a statement regarding the States of Jersey Complaints Board: findings (R.139/2026) .............................................. 117

8.1   Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade (The Minister for Infrastructure): .................... 117

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central: ................................................ 119
2. Deputy C.S. Alves : ...................................................................... 119
3. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 119

4. Deputy H.L. Jeune : ...................................................................... 120
5. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :........................................................ 120
6. Deputy M. Tadier : ....................................................................... 120
7. Deputy T.A. Coles of St. Helier South: ................................................. 120
8. Deputy T.A. Coles : ...................................................................... 121
9. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : ................................................... 121
10. Deputy C.J. Rebindaine of St Mary, St Ouen and St Peter: .......................... 121
11. Deputy C.J. Rebindaine:.............................................................. 122
12. Deputy J. Renouf : .................................................................... 122

PUBLIC BUSINESS .............................................................................. 122

9. Reduction of lodging period.............................................................. 122

9.1  Senator M.R. Le Hegarat (The Minister for the Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries):

 .......................................................................................... 122

10. Common Strategic Policy 2026 – 2030 (P.75/2026) - as amended ..................... 123

Senator L.J. Farnham (Chief Minister): ....................................................... 123

1. Senator L.J. Farnham (The Chief Minister): ............................................ 125

2. Common Strategic Policy 2026 – 2030 (P.75/2026): twenty-second amendment (P.75/2026 Amd.(22)) - Subsequent Common Strategic Policy ........................ 126

1. Deputy C.J. Rebindaine of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ........................ 127
2. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................ 128
3. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South: .............................................. 130
4. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central: .......................................... 131
5. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :..................................................... 133
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .................................................... 133
7. Deputy C.J. Rebindaine:.............................................................. 134

3. Common Strategic Policy 2026 – 2030 (P.75/2026): twentieth amendment (P.75/2026 Amd.(20)) - Island-wide outcomes data for schools.................................... 136

1. Deputy V. Li of St. Helier North:.................................................... 137
2. Deputy C. D. Curtis of St. Helier Central (Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning): ................................................................................ 139
3. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .......................... 140
4. Deputy C.J. Rebindaine of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ........................ 140
5. Senator Sir M.J. Boleat : .............................................................. 140
6. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ................................................ 140
7. Deputy V. Li :......................................................................... 141

4. Common Strategic Policy 2026 – 2030 (P.75/2026): twenty-fourth amendment (P.75/2026 Amd.(24)) - Remove the provision for more homes........................ 144

1. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement : .................................................. 144
2. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour :................................................... 146
3. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South: .............................................. 147
4. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : .................................................. 147
5. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .......................... 148
6. Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary :............................................... 149
7. Deputy A.F. Curtis : .................................................................. 149

5. Common Strategic Policy 2026 - 2030 (P.75/2026): twelfth amendment (P.75/2026 Amd.(12)) - Increase Government transparency, openness and accountability ...... 152

1. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central: ............................................ 153
2. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :..................................................... 156
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................ 156
4. Connétable A.N. Jehan of St. John : .................................................. 157
5. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :......................................... 158
6. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South: .............................................. 159

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 159

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Bailiff :

1. Welcome to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor

On behalf of Members, I would like to welcome His Excellency to the Chamber this morning. [Approbation]

2. Tribute to former Deputy Gerard Baudains

Members will be aware that former Deputy Gerard Baudains passed away last month at the age of 79. There is an echo. Is that someone remote who needs to turn off their computer?

Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement :

I think it may be Constable Troy online. The Bailiff :

Yes. Still some heavy breathing, I think.  [Laughter] That has been attended to, has it, Greffier? Members will be aware that former Deputy Gerard Baudains passed away last month at the age of 79. Mr. Baudains was born to a St. Clement farming family. He went to Victoria College and trained as an engineer at Farnborough Technical College. He was a highly proficient motor engineer, and his projects included complicated commercial and leisure boat work. He was also an active member of the Jersey Motorcycle and Light Car Club, competing in motorsports, as well as sharing his technical engineering knowledge and skill. He lived most of his life in St. Clement , apart from a spell in the U.K. (United Kingdom), working as a fighting vehicle research development engineer. He also ran his own engineering business from 1975 until 2013. Mr. Baudains was first elected as Deputy for St. Clement in 1998, serving 3 terms, then a break between 2008 and 2011, and then serving a final fourth term until 2014. During his parliamentary career, he served on a number of committees prior to the introduction of Ministerial Government; Housing and Telecom, and latterly P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) and  the Planning Committee. He developed a reputation for detailed examination of policy and a willingness to challenge established views. He was a strong advocate for transparency, accountability and the role of elected Members in decision- making. He was particularly associated with debates concerning Jersey's system of government, repeatedly arguing for greater involvement of elected Members and a return to the committee system. Throughout his time in office, he championed issues affecting parishioners in St. Clement, including opposition to rezoning of farming land for development and the protection of interests of the community within that Parish. He pursued proposals relating to public sector reform, the machinery of government, higher education grants and measures intended to strengthen public accountability. He was widely known for his independence of thought, his forthright contribution to debate, and his determination to represent the views of those who had elected him. Whether Members agreed with him or not, there was never any doubt as to the sincerity of his convictions and his commitment to Scrutiny and dedication to public life. Indeed, after he left the States, he stood unsuccessfully for election to Senator and Connétable . Outside the States, he was a member of the Management Committee of Le Squez Youth Club from 1998 and a council member for the Jersey Lifeboat Association. Drawing on his extensive technical skills, he, along with his son, recently helped redesign the power input from the engine of the J.L.A. (Jersey Lifeboat Association) lifeboat. Last week saw that boat's commission and we join his family in their sadness that Mr. Baudains was not there to see the vessel launched. Mr. Baudains's daughter told us that after his retirement, if he was not busy in his workshop or working on the farm, you would likely find him working on his boats or shooting or tackling some complex engineering problem he had set himself. He was never one for

sitting still, and his ingenuity and determination in everything he did were second to none. On behalf of all Members, I extend our sincere condolences to his friends, family and all who knew him. I ask Members to stand for a moment's reflection. [Silence]  May he rest in peace.

[9:45]

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

2. Resignation of Deputy C.D. Leck of St. Saviour from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

The Bailiff :

Under F, I can announce that Deputy Leck has resigned from the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. QUESTIONS

3. Written Questions

1. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding essential worker accommodation. (WQ.219/2026)

Question

"Further to the response to Written Question 194/2026, will the Minister provide the following information regarding all essential worker accommodation owned, leased, funded or otherwise held for  his  department's  use  (including  at  Hue  Court,  Westaway  Court  and  Plaisant  Court)  and

accommodation managed on its behalf by another department or body –

1. as at 30th September 2026, the total number of accommodation units, broken down by site and bedroom size, separately identifying rooms in shared accommodation, and stating how many were occupied and how many were unoccupied, including those reserved for future occupants;
2. for those unoccupied units, the duration and reason for each vacancy, whether the accommodation  was  habitable,  and  any  confirmed  or  anticipated  occupation  date, distinguishing accommodation reserved for incoming health staff from any held for hospital construction workers;
3. the total rent, service charges and other costs incurred during periods of vacancy between 1st January and 30th September 2026, broken down by site and type of expenditure, together with the ongoing monthly cost of the units unoccupied on 30th September; and
4. what assessment has been made of the number of units required to meet forthcoming staffing needs and the value for money of retaining unoccupied accommodation?"

Answer

Taken as written, this question demands, in parts, a degree of detail that seems both unreasonable and unnecessary.

Whilst the democratic right to information must be upheld, given that our government information structure is not yet highly digitised, these questions require some information that would not be possible to collate in the time available and, furthermore, the process would prove expensive. Enhanced digitisation is an objective I am pursuing across the Health Department.  

In order to substantiate this, the following information and comments are provided on each of the sections requested –

1. as at 30th September 2026, the total number of accommodation units, broken down by site and bedroom size, separately identifying rooms in shared accommodation, and stating how many were occupied and how many were unoccupied, including those reserved for future occupants;

The total number of accommodation units – see table (a) below Accommodation units broken down by site – see table (a) below

Bedroom size – the accommodation portfolio consists of 388 units. No record of bedroom sizes is known to exist. This part of the question would require each of the bedrooms to be physically measured. This would be time consuming, expensive, and arguably, produce information of no useful value.

Units occupied and unoccupied on 30th September 2026 – see table (a) below Units reserved for future occupants – see table (a) below

2. for  those  unoccupied  units,  the  duration  and  reason  for  each  vacancy,  whether  the accommodation was habitable, and any confirmed or anticipated occupation date, distinguishing accommodation reserved for incoming health staff from any held for hospital construction workers;

Duration and reason for each vacancy of each unoccupied unit – see table (b) below Is accommodation habitable - see table (b) below

Confirmed or anticipated occupation date – N/A

Reserved for incoming health staff or held for hospital construction workers - see table (b) below

3. the total rent, service charges and other costs incurred during periods of vacancy between 1st January and 30th September 2026, broken down by site and type of expenditure, together with the ongoing monthly cost of the units unoccupied on 30th September; and

Total rent, service charges and other costs incurred during periods of vacancy between 1st January and 30th September 2026, - this is not available in the form requested, in the time permitted

Ongoing monthly cost of the units unoccupied on 30th September – see table (c) below

Please note that specific accommodation site addresses have not been included. This is to protect the privacy of those  living in that accommodation and so as not to  publish details about  vacant accommodation which could prejudice the public interest.

Table (a)

 Table (b)

Table (c)  

4. what assessment has been made of the number of units required to meet forthcoming staffing needs and the value for money of retaining unoccupied accommodation?

The accommodation provision is retained as part of our overall workforce strategy to support the recruitment and retention of staff, particularly those relocating to Jersey where access to suitable and affordable housing can present a significant challenge. The availability of accommodation helps ensure that the organisation can attract essential workers in hard-to-recruit roles and respond flexibly to changing workforce demands.

While  some  accommodation  units  may  be  temporarily  unoccupied  at  any  given  time  due  to maintenance, refurbishment, tenant turnover, or alignment with future recruitment plans, the value- for-money assessment considers the wider benefits of maintaining housing capacity. These include reduced recruitment risks, improved staff retention, lower reliance on temporary agency workers, and the ability to support service continuity during periods of workforce pressure. The number of units required is kept under regular review through workforce planning processes, and occupancy levels are monitored to ensure that accommodation stock remains aligned with current and forecast staffing needs and represents an appropriate use of public resources

Historically HCJ, struggled to recruit in a number of areas and had to rely heavily on Agency and Locum staff which necessitated the need to increase its property portfolio. Over the last 2 years Agency usage has significantly dropped with no Agency nurses being utilised at the General hospital and medical vacances currently at 24, the lowest it has been for a number of years.

A new Acute Hospital will provide islanders with critical infrastructure. Whilst there will be opportunities for local companies be part of the supply chain, as well as for islanders to work directly for the main contractor (or other organisations), it is anticipated that additional, off-island and specialist workforce will be required.

As a result, HCJ and other government departments have been planning with the NHFP to allocate unused properties to construction workers. This provides a self-evident value for money solution since it covers the cost of any unoccupied stock as well as avoiding higher construction costs (as the main works delivery partner priced in the risk and cost of accommodation on island). It will also provide an opportunity for HCJ (and other GoJ departments) to prepare to rationalise accommodation portfolios once the peak for NHFP construction workers has passed.

2. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding d'Auvergne School operating below capacity. (WQ. 220/2026)

Question

"Will the Minister advise whether d'Auvergne School is currently operating below capacity and, if so, why this is the case and whether there are any plans to increase the number of classes from two to three in each year group?"

Answer

D'Auvergne is operating below its physical capacity as a result of the decline in births across the Island since 2012, as reported in the Births and Breastfeeding Profile 2024, see chart below from the Report.

The number of children attending Government of Jersey primary schools has reduced by 9% (584 children), from 6,605 in the 2018/19 academic year to 6,021 in the 2025/26 academic year i. As a result, most year groups at d'Auvergne now operate with two classes rather than three.

The additional accommodation available within the school is being used to support other educational priorities. This includes hosting the Play and Learn at d'Auvergne pilot, delivered in partnership with the Jersey Child Care Trust, which provides nursery provision for 2 to 3-year-olds, as well as additional specialist provision for school aged children.

Allocation of classes per school and per year group are reviewed on an annual basis in line with demand. There are no plans to increase the number of classes from two to three in each year group currently.

The Minister has a duty to ensure that there is available to every child of compulsory school age full- time education appropriate to the child's age, ability and aptitude. The Minister is also required to ensure the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resourcesii.

1 Schools, pupils and their characteristics 1 Education (Jersey) Law 1999

3. Connétable I. Gardiner of St. Helier of the Minister for Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries regarding expenditure from the Climate Emergency Fund. (WQ.221/2026)

Question

"In relation to expenditure from the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), will the Minister provide –

1. itemised expenditure from the CEF in years 2024, 2025 and in 2026 to date, including details of any expenditure from the CEF on the Western Bus Gate; and
2. itemised detail of any expenditure planned for the remainder of 2026 and in 2027?"

Answer

Please see below table which covers Climate Emergency Fund expenditure for 2024, 2025 and 2026 spend and forecast spend.

Planned spend for 2027 will be confirmed in the publication of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap delivery plan for 2027-2030, which will be published by the end of Q1 2027. The intention is that the primary focus will be on supporting Islanders to transition away from fossil fuel heating.

Note: Refer to Carbon Neutral Roadmap for relevant policy details.

4. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Social Security regarding the proposal to increase (WQ.222/2026)

Question

"In relation to the proposal to increase the parental grant to £1,800 in the Proposed Budget 2027– 2030 and the Common Strategic Policy 2026-2030, will the Minister advise –  

1. what progress she has made in responding to finding 50 and recommendation 20 of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel's Family Friendly Legislation Review;
2. whether she will undertake a review of the parental grant eligibility criteria and, if so –

1. confirm the timeframe for this review, including the commencement date and the end date;
2. whether all findings will be published; and

(iii)whether consideration will be given to the options recommended by the Panel's

Review,  including  a  needs-based  safety-net  payment  and  clear,  proactive communication with families; and

3. the date by which she expects that parents who have experienced barriers accessing the parental grant, as identified in finding 50 of the Panel's Review, will access the grant and detail any support available in the meantime to ineligible parents?"

Answer

1. The previous Minister for Social Security presented her response to the Scrutiny Panel's Family  Friendly  Report  in  March  of  this  year:  States  Assembly  |  Scrutiny  |  Review Government and Share Your Views

This response explained that the Employment, Social Security and Housing Department (ESSH) are advised of all births in the Island to help ensure that parents are receiving the support they need. Where additional support is required for a vulnerable parent, safety net mechanisms are in place to protect the family.

2. In terms of eligibility for the parental grant, almost all parents qualify for this. For the 3 months from June to August 2026, of 180 children born and registered in this period, a parental grant was paid in respect of 173 children.

The contribution condition is that 3 months of Social Security Contributions have been paid by either parent at any time up to 6 months before the birth or the adoption. In light of the details above regarding the number of parents who receive the grant, I do not currently propose to review the eligibility for this grant. It is also a fundamental principle of our Social Security system that only those who contribute to the fund receive benefits from it.

3. As identified by the response to the Panel's report, ESSH are advised of all births. Parents who are not eligible for the parental grant are contacted and their household income and circumstances are assessed to see if they would be eligible for Income Support or other benefits.

Additionally, ESSH are in regular contact with Brighter Futures, and there is a clear route for Brighter Futures to contact the Department if there are any situations that cause them concern.

5. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Chief Minister regarding measures of efficiency across departments. (WQ.223/2026)

Question

"Will the Chief Minister advise –

1. what  measures  are  used  across  Government  departments  to  assess  the  efficiency  of administrative processes, including processing times, repeat contacts, reopened cases and errors requiring correction;
2. whether data is collected on the proportion of service requests resolved at first contact without requiring further information or intervention;
3. whether any assessment has been undertaken of the cost to the Government of repeat contacts, duplicated processes and administrative errors requiring correction;
4. whether  the  Government  has  identified  administrative  processes  that  involve  multiple departments or repeated submission of the same information by Islanders; and
5. whether there are any plans to introduce consistent cross-government performance measures to identify opportunities for process simplification, automation and digital transformation and, if so, when these will be introduced?"

Answer

1. The Annual Performance Report in the 2025 Annual Report and Accounts includes a range of Service Performance Measures that support the assessment of departmental performance and the efficiency of administrative processes, including monitoring customer satisfaction. Measures relating to repeat contacts, reopened cases or errors requiring correction are not included. In addition, individual departments have their own dedicated Service Performance Measures and use their own performance reporting mechanisms, such as the Annual Report prepared by the Jersey Policy Authority, the Quality and Performance Report prepared by Health and Care Jersey, and published Revenue Jersey statistics, to assess the effectiveness of service delivery.

2. Where applicable, information on the proportion of service requests resolved at first contact without requiring further information or intervention can be noted within individual service request records held by departments.
3. An assessment has not currently been undertaken of the cost to the Government of repeat contacts,  duplicated  processes  and  administrative  errors  requiring  correction.  Such  an assessment would be challenging to undertake in a meaningful and reliable way because these activities are generally managed as part of the normal operation of existing services and are not routinely recorded as discrete cost categories. In many cases, the resources involved form part of the fixed staffing and operational costs required to deliver a service, regardless of the volume of repeat contacts or corrective activity undertaken. Consequently, it is often difficult to distinguish between costs that are genuinely additional and avoidable, and costs that would continue to be incurred even if repeat contacts, duplicated processes or administrative errors were reduced.
4. Several  processes  have  been  identified  that  involve  multiple  departments  or  repeated submissions for information. This includes customer complaints, data protection and freedom of information requests, and some application processes. Where this is the case, effective triage arrangements and customer engagement processes ensure proper assignment and clear customer service.
5. As part of our ongoing commitment to deliver a leaner and less complex public sector, we are exploring opportunities to strengthen the use of existing data and reporting arrangements to provide greater visibility of administrative efficiency. While Government departments require performance measures tailored to their individual services, we recognise the potential value of a small number of common indicators that can help identify opportunities for simplification, automation and improved customer experience across the Government where these can be implemented proportionately and cost-effectively.

Departments will continue to identify opportunities for process simplification, automation, digital transformation and the appropriate use of Artificial Intelligence to improve service delivery and operational efficiency. Any future development will seek to balance the benefits of greater consistency with the need to avoid unnecessary administrative burden and to reflect the differing nature of Government services.

In pursuing continuous improvement, departments also have regard to the findings and recommendations of the Controller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee, Scrutiny Panels and the States Assembly.

6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding Part 11 of the Jersey Immigration Rules. (WQ.224/2026)

Question

"In relation to Part 11 of the Jersey Immigration Rules, and specifically Articles 327A, 328, 329 and 345, will the Minister advise –  

1. the status of an individual who arrives in the Island and claims asylum because they fear persecution in their country of origin;
2. how such claims are handled, whether in practice such asylum claims are processed in Jersey or the UK and whether the person faces being sent to a safe third country;
3. whether,  in  her  assessment,  Jersey  currently  has  appropriate  operational  and  legal arrangements,  procedures  and  resources  necessary  to  determine  asylum  claims independently;
4. if Jersey does not currently determine asylum claims in practice, what legal and operational arrangements govern the treatment of an asylum claimant in Jersey (including in respect of accommodation and other essential welfare needs); and

how many individuals have presented themselves to claim asylum in Jersey in the past 5 years, and what proportion have had their claim processed by the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service?"

Answer

1. Any individual who presents in Jersey and claims asylum is treated as an asylum claimant and is subject to the procedures set out within the Island's immigration and asylum framework. Their claim will be assessed to determine whether it is an admissible claim and whether Jersey has responsibility for considering the claim.
2. All asylum claims made in Jersey are processed by the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service (JCIS).

Individuals arriving in Jersey on commercial air or sea services will have travelled from a safe country, as Jersey does not have direct international air links from countries that would typically generate significant numbers of asylum claims.

Any individual claiming asylum will initially be subject to an asylum screening interview. Where a claim is determined to be inadmissible, the individual will normally be refused entry and returned to the safe country from which they travelled to Jersey. In such cases, the individual may be detained pending removal. The decision on the validity of the claim is determined by JCIS.

Where a claim is deemed admissible, the individual may be detained pending a substantive asylum interview and a decision on their claim. Decisions on admissible asylum claims are determined by the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs.

3. Jersey has well established legal and operational arrangements for the consideration of asylum claims. All asylum applications made in Jersey are processed locally by JCIS in accordance with the applicable immigration and asylum framework.

4. Asylum claims are determined in Jersey. Asylum claimants have no recourse to public funds and are not permitted to undertake employment while their claim is being considered.

During the past five years, five individuals have presented themselves to claim asylum in Jersey.

All five claims were processed by the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service. Accordingly, 100% of asylum claims made in Jersey during this period were processed by JCIS.

In all cases, the asylum claims were unsuccessful, and all 5 individuals were returned to a safe third country.

7. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regarding the total number of individuals who have attended courses funded by the Skills Development Fund. (WQ.226/2026)

Question

"Further to Oral Question 35/2026, will the Minister advise the total number of individuals who have attended courses funded by the Skills Development Fund from March 2026 to date, and will she provide details of the specific courses that have been funded in 2026?"

Answer

Courses funded in 2026:

8. Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Social Security (Reserve) Fund. (WQ.227/2026)

Question

"Will the Minister provide the following information –

1. the total amount of the States Grant to the Social Security Fund that was withheld for the period since the Covid-19 pandemic (March 2020) to date;
2. the total amount transferred from the Social Security (Reserve) Fund to the Social Security Fund during the same period; and
3. the estimated current value of the Social Security (Reserve) Fund had the States Grant to the Social Security Fund been applied in full across the same period?"

Answer

1. Since the pandemic, the Government has made contributions to the Social Security Fund through the States Grant that are forecast to reach £131 million by the end of 2026. The amount paid each year is the amount set out in the Social Security Law. States members have taken a number of decisions to set a specific value for the States Grant for a specific year during this time.

When compared with the underlying formula included in the Law, the grants paid represent an adjustment of £422 million. In comparison, taking the latest forecasts into account, during the same period the Social Security (Reserve) Fund will have grown by £548 million.

 £000s  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  Total Full States Grant Formula  65,00 80,00 77,00 77,5 90,36 97,02 552,2

65,300

Value  0  0  0  96  8  7  91

77,5 30,36 22,76 130,7 States Grant allocated  -  -  -  -

96  8  8  32 65,00 80,00 77,00 60,00 74,25 421,5

Total adjustment  65,300  -

0  0  0  0  9  59

The adjustments made during this period reflect the strong financial position of the Social Security (Reserve) Fund. Primarily as a result of investment returns exceeding expectations, the Fund has grown  significantly  faster  than  anticipated  when  the  original  States  Grant  formula  was established. This strength has allowed the Government to put forward proposals for temporary adjustments to the level of the States Grant to fund urgent priorities. Each proposal for a variation from the underlying formula is then subject to a law change and a debate in the States Assembly.

The Government spent more than £360 million to support the Island through the Covid-19 pandemic. This funded the public health response, including the Test and Trace Programme as well as economic support measures such as the Co-Funded Payroll Scheme and Fiscal Stimulus Fund. Adjusting the level of the States Grant played a significant role in enabling this expenditure, reducing its impact on wider public services, and allowing for short-term borrowing that was incurred to be repaid.

Further temporary adjustments in 2025 and 2026 enabled investment in healthcare, children's services, and support for Islanders including the following specific investments:

- £27 million p.a.  – investment in Health and Care Jersey that included £8 million for Digital Health and £4 million for Preventative Health schemes

- £18 million one-off – for the Loving Homes programme to expand and improve residential care facilities for children

- £20 million one-off – for the Better Business Support package to help businesses manage the transition to the living wage

- £8 million p.a. – for the Children's Services Improvement Programme to strengthen provision for looked after children

- £5 million p.a. – to introduce subsidised early years provision for 2 to 3-year olds and make improvements in education through the teachers' terms and conditions

- £2  million  p.a.  –  additional  support  for  Islanders  including  expanded eligibility for Pension Plus and the 2026 Back-to-School Bonus

2. Since the pandemic, a total of £397 million has been transferred out of the Social Security (Reserve) Fund to the Social Security Fund.

The Social Security scheme holds ringfenced money in two funds. The Social Security Fund is an operational Fund used to meet weekly benefit payments and administrative costs. This Fund maintains an appropriate cash balance with spare funds placed on short-term deposit to maintain income.

The Social Security (Reserve) Fund acts as an investment fund to hold and manage the large reserves that have built up this century. Funds are invested according to an agreed investment strategy and managed by specialist investment managers. By design, money will be transferred between the two funds as needed.

£000s  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  Total TransSSF fers from SSRF to  55,000  60,000  78,500  89,000  -  -  9[1]  396,759

114,25

3. Assuming that the additional grant would have reduced transfers from the Social Security (Reserve) Fund or resulted in additional transfers into the Fund, and that the Fund would have achieved the same investment returns, it is estimated that the Reserve Fund balance would be £3.1 billion

9. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Housing regarding the Affordable Housing Gateway. (WQ.228/2026)

Question

"Will the Minister provide the following information in respect of the Affordable Housing Gateway –

1. further to the response to Written Question 195/2026, the number of Band 1 applicants currently awaiting social rented accommodation, broken down by property size required and distinguishing between new applicants and existing social housing tenants seeking transfers;
2. the number of existing social housing tenants awaiting transfers, broken down by reason, including overcrowding, under-occupation, medical need and other recorded reasons;
3. the number of households allocated social rented accommodation during the last 12 months who have subsequently reapplied to the Gateway or requested a transfer, together with the reasons recorded for doing so;
4. whether applicants who accept accommodation which does not meet their assessed housing requirements retain their original application date and priority status when subsequently applying for a transfer; and
5. what policies or procedures, if any, apply when an applicant accepts accommodation which does  not  meet  their  assessed  housing  requirements,  including  any  arrangements  for maintaining their position on the waiting list?"

Answer

1. The number of applicants in Band 1 on the Affordable Housing Gateway currently awaiting social housing, broken down by bedroom requirement and applicant type, is set out below.

For the purposes of this data, "new applicants" refers to applicants currently living in private sector accommodation. The figures are correct as of 27 October 2026.

2. The number of existing social housing tenants awaiting a transfer across all Bands, broken down by application type recorded by the Affordable Housing Gateway, is set out below. The figures are correct as of 27 October 2026 and include all active transfer applications.

3. The Affordable Housing Gateway does not hold data in a form that identifies households allocated social housing during the previous 12 months who have subsequently reapplied to the Gateway or requested a transfer, together with the reasons for doing so. This information is therefore not available.
4. The Affordable Housing Gateway undertakes a comprehensive assessment of applicants' housing needs, supported by professional evidence where appropriate. Applicants are then prioritised and allocated available accommodation by social housing providers, having regard to their assessed housing needs, priority on the waiting list and the suitability of the property. Once a person has entered into a tenancy, the accommodation provided would ordinarily reflect their assessed housing needs.

The Affordable Housing Gateway eligibility criteria do not make provision for retaining an original application date or priority where an applicant has been allocated accommodation and entered into a tenancy. Any departure from this approach would require exceptional consideration outside the standard eligibility criteria.

Existing social housing tenants may apply for a transfer where a change in their circumstances gives rise to a demonstrable housing need that cannot be met within their current home. Any such application is assessed in accordance with the published transfer, banding and waiting list criteria.

5. Access to social housing is underpinned by a comprehensive assessment process undertaken by the Affordable Housing Gateway. The assessment framework is designed to ensure that applicants are allocated accommodation appropriate to their assessed housing needs.

The eligibility criteria do not contain specific provisions relating to applicants accepting accommodation that does not meet those needs, including provision for maintaining a position on the waiting list following allocation of a property.

Properties are allocated on the basis of an applicant's assessed housing needs and the information recorded in their application. Social housing providers should only make offers of accommodation that are suitable for those needs, including any relevant medical or support requirements.

Where concerns arise that an offered or allocated property does not reflect an applicant's assessed housing needs, the Gateway and the relevant social housing provider would review the circumstances and determine whether any action is required to ensure those needs are appropriately addressed.

10. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Planning and Regulation regarding hazards in agricultural workers' accommodation. (WQ.229/2026)

Question

"Further to the response to  Written Question 214/2026, and his subsequent media statements concerning hazards in agricultural workers' accommodation, will the Minister –

1. publish the evidence and officer advice supporting his statement that all identified hazards had been dealt with, including when the evidence was made available and the advice provided;
2. explain how that statement aligns with his written answer that outstanding remedial works could not readily be quantified, his Assembly answer that hazards were generally addressed quickly, and the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs' statement that work to resolve hazards was ongoing;
3. confirm how many of the 315 hazards had been verified as resolved when he spoke to the media, how this was checked, and whether any remained subject to temporary measures, outstanding repairs or unverified completion;
4. identify any survey, inspection data or research supporting his comparison with hazards in most Jersey homes, including whether it concerned hazards of comparable severity; and
5. state whether he will correct or clarify his statements to the Assembly and the media if the evidence does not substantiate them?"

Answer

1. I have asked officers to compile a report on this programme of work setting out the scope of the inspections undertaken, the nature and extent of the hazards identified, and the progress made to date. This is intended to ensure that the context, evidence and timeline of decision making are presented fully and transparently. I intend to publish the report by the end of the year. Any information published will be presented at an aggregated level and will not identify individual properties, residents or landlords.
2. The statements referenced relate to different aspects of the programme or to different stages of the work. My officers are inspecting properties in accordance with the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Jersey) Law 2018 but are working closely with partners through the Migrant Safeguarding Partnership to support a coordinated approach to accommodation, welfare and safeguarding matters. The forthcoming report will provide context regarding the distinction between hazards that have been addressed, hazards requiring ongoing monitoring, and the wider remedial works that remain in progress.

3. The report will set out the methodology used by officers to assess and verify compliance, including the number and type of hazards identified, the measures taken to address them, and the processes used to confirm completion. It has not been necessary to issue any formal notices.
4. The comparison was not based on any specific survey, inspection data or research study examining hazards across Jersey homes. The comment was a general observation regarding housing conditions.
5. I am committed to ensuring that information provided to the Assembly and the public is accurate and appropriately contextualised. The forthcoming report will set out the evidence available in relation to the inspection programme, the hazards identified, and the actions taken to address them.

11. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding  the  current  arrangements  for  access  to  consultant  neurology  care. (WQ.230/2026)

Question

"Will the Minister explain the current arrangements for access to consultant neurology care, including –

1. the substantive, locum and visiting consultant capacity available and how continuity of service is maintained;
2. which off-Island providers currently accept neurology referrals from Jersey, including any restrictions on referrals and when the position was last confirmed;
3. the number of patients awaiting an initial neurology consultant appointment or an off-Island referral, broken down by clinical priority and waiting times, with any overlap between these groups identified; and
4. the alternative arrangements for clinical review and escalation where local or off-Island neurology services are unavailable?"

Answer

1. The department retains one locum Consultant Neurologist who is supporting our Botox clinics, as well as an acute medicine physician with an interest in Neurology who is supporting a cohort of MS patients and a middle grade doctor in the department. Our most recent locum Neurologist unfortunately had to leave the island earlier than anticipated, due to personal reasons. They have offered to continue offering a hybrid model, with virtual clinics and on- island presence every few weeks. Governance processes are being reviewed before signing off  the  agreement.   In  addition,  the  department  is  actively  seeking  locum  cover,  but unfortunately has not been successful as yet. Our usual agencies have confirmed that demand for these roles is high across the UK and not just in Jersey, with very limited clinicians available. The department is also approaching targeted recruitment agencies, headhunters, and UK insourcing providers, with further meetings planned this week. HCJ are in discussions with UK providers to set up a formal tertiary link, with associated on-island provision and a long-term relationship. HCJ are also in an active recruitment process to hire substantive Consultants and have made an offer of employment to one candidate.

2. If a patient needs to be seen by a specialist, then we are consulting with our current UK partner (Queen's Square) and sending patients off-island where clinically urgent.
3. No of patients waiting for a first appointment: 1197

Of these:

1. 42 urgent
2. 225 soon
3. 928 routine
4. 2 suspected cancer

Note: Accurate as of 30/10/26 @ 16:30 (snapshot)

Patients awaiting a Follow Up: 2617, of which about 300 will be due in the next 3 months.

4. Patient priority is assessed on an individual basis, and this will guide the next steps in such circumstances. For example, if a patient is identified as urgent, we would consult with our current UK partner (Queen's Square). Pathways with UK tertiary partners for other different clinical pathways are in development.

12. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding hospital consultant staffing. (WQ.231/2026)

Question

"Will the Minister provide, as at 26th October 2026, a table of hospital consultant staffing by specialty, broken down by –

1. the number of consultant posts budgeted for, the number of permanent consultants in post and the number of vacant consultant posts, expressed as full-time equivalents;
2. the duration of each vacancy and the cover currently provided by locums, visiting consultants or other arrangements, distinguishing vacancies with cover from those without;
3. which vacancies are reducing clinics, delaying appointments or restricting services, and the effects identified; and
4. the recruitment status and expected start date for a permanent appointment for each vacancy, where known?"

Answer

NB: Fixed term cover represents that the individual is an employee of HCJ and not Agency workers. In addition, we have visiting consultants in the following specialties:

• Urology

• Neurology

• Cardiology

• Trauma and Orthopaedics

• Paediatric Urology

• Vascular

• Spinal

• ACHD clinics

In order to address the waiting list, we have also sourced the following specialities with waiting initiative monies:

• Endocrinology

• Endoscopy

• Gastroenterology

• Trauma and Orthopaedics

• Urogynaecology

• General Gynaecology

• General Surgery

• ENT

• Ophthalmology

Furthermore, we are trying to source neurology additional activity.

13. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Treasury and Resources  regarding  the  Government  of  Jersey  Social  Impact  Report  for  2025. (WQ.232/2026)

Question

"Will the Minister –

1. publish the Government of Jersey Social Value Impact Report for 2025 and, if not, explain why not;
2. explain the Government's current approach to social value in procurement, including the thresholds and weighting applied in tender evaluation, and how social value commitments are monitored and enforced once contracts are awarded;
3. list, for each year since social value was introduced into procurement, the key achievements delivered,  including  the  number  of  contracts  with  social  value  commitments  and  the measures used to assess whether those commitments were met;
4. provide examples of contracts where social value commitments have delivered demonstrable benefits for Islanders; and
5. advise what plans, if any, he has to develop and strengthen social value in procurement, including what support is proposed to be given to suppliers, and what specific steps he is taking, or is considering taking, to help charities and social enterprises tender for Government contracts?"

Answer

1. The draft Social Value Impact Report for 2025 will be published following completion of the necessary approval process.

Social value continues to evolve as a policy area. The Government is aware of recent updates to UK guidance, for example Cabinet Office PNN 026 The Social Value Model' on 28 October 2026 and will consider any relevant lessons and best practice as part of the continued development of Jersey's social value programme.

The Commercial Services Strategy 2026 –2028 states the following: -

Commercial Services will continue to manage and develop the Social Value Strategy for Government of Jersey, ensuring proportionate consideration is given to initiatives, with an increased focus on benefit to the local economy and jobs.

Social Value, ethical sourcing and sustainability procurement practices will remain a key priority. These principles will be embedded across all commercial activity, with the ambition of minimising environmental impact and maximising the social and particularly the economic benefits for Jersey's communities.

2. For procurements valued at over £100,000, social value forms part of the tender evaluation process and carries a minimum weighting of 10%.

Suppliers are required to demonstrate the social value they already deliver and any additional benefits they would provide if awarded the contract. These proposals are assessed alongside the other tender evaluation criteria.

Where social value commitments form part of a successful bid, they are incorporated into the contract and monitored throughout the contract term. Suppliers are required to report on progress, enabling the Government to review delivery and ensure commitments continue to support wider economic, social and environmental outcomes.

The Government encourages social value activity that aligns with key priorities, including supporting jobs and skills, strengthening local communities, retaining economic benefit within the Island, protecting the environment and promoting the sustainable use of resources.

3. Social value became part of the procurement process in 2020. Since then, the number of contracts containing social value commitments has increased year on year, alongside the breadth and impact of outcomes being delivered through suppliers.

4. Social value commitments are monitored throughout the life of a contract to ensure agreed outcomes are being delivered. Suppliers are required to provide regular updates, enabling the Government to review progress and achievement of commitments.

The figures above relate to contracts containing formal social value commitments approved through the Commercial Approvals Board.

Social value commitments are delivering a range of benefits for Islanders through Government contracts. Examples include:

• Supporting community initiatives and opportunities for young people through the donation and repurposing of assets.

• Investing in local skills and workforce development through bursaries, apprenticeships and professional training opportunities.

• Contributing to environmental improvements through the adoption of lower-emission technologies and more sustainable working practices.

5. Support and guidance for suppliers are kept under review. Measures such as early engagement, understanding capacity limits and overall design of procurement processes and delivery that may encourage broader participation in Government procurement.

The Government continues to develop its approach to social value in procurement, ensuring it remains proportionate, accessible and focused on delivering meaningful benefits for Islanders, while supporting skills development, local business growth and investment in the wider community.

As part of this work, the Government will continue to consider relevant best practice from other jurisdictions, as mentioned above.

14. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for External Relations regarding the Sustainable Finance Action Plan. (WQ.233/2026)

Question

"Further to the adoption of the Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): ninth amendment. Pillar 2 Allocations, as amended by the Council of Ministers, will the Minister advise –

1. what drivers to a net-zero economy have been identified through the Sustainable Finance Action Plan since the Budget was adopted, and by whom;
2. what funding, from Pillar 2 revenue or any other source, has been made available for those drivers in 2025 and 2026, with amounts and the projects funded, and if none, why not;
3. what action has been taken to support the decarbonisation of the finance industry and with what funding;
4. how the Council of Ministers has applied the "specific focus" on delivering the Sustainable Finance Action Plan when allocating Pillar 2 competitiveness funding, and how much of that funding has gone to the plan's delivery; and
5. what provision for these commitments is made in the proposed Budget 2027–2030 and, if none, whether the Minister still considers the 2024 wording to be Government policy?"

Answer

1. The Sustainable Finance Action Plan complements the main economic drivers to a net-zero economy  which  have  already  been  identified  within  the  Jersey's  wider  climate  policy framework, including the Carbon Neutral Roadmap.

Through implementation of the Action Plan, several financial services policy drivers relevant to Jersey's transition to a net-zero economy have been incentivised and reinforced in a collaborative effort between Government of Jersey, Jersey Finance and the Jersey Financial Services Commission. This includes the addition of new regulatory expectations, the support for new sustainable finance products, corporate social responsibility initiatives and the promotion of sustainable investments. For example:

• The  addition  of  new  sustainability  risk  management  and  anti-greenwashing obligations to our finance industry firms has promoted an increased awareness of firm's impact into the environment and encouraged the adoption of best practices to support the decarbonisation of the finance industry.

• The support for new sustainable finance products has encouraged local banks to lunch new  green  products  targeting  the  financing  of  local  sustainability  development strategies set by public sector entities as well as local businesses.

• Through  enhanced  awareness  raising,  skills  and  collaboration  a  range  of  new corporate social responsibility and philanthropic initiatives have been carried out by our finance industry supporting Jersey's reforestation and the protection of our marine and coastal habitats.

The Carbon Neutral Roadmap recognises that the biggest impact the finance industry can make  is  in  relation  to  the  deployment  of  sustainable  investments  internationally.  The promotion  of  Jersey  as  a  sustainable  finance  centre  and  further  understanding  of  the compatibility  between  fiduciary  duties  and  sustainable  investments  have  facilitated  an increase in focus on sustainable investments from our finance industry which supports the transition to a net-zero economy by other communities in other parts of the world.

2. The Pillar Two base case, which represents the level of recurring revenue that the Government can reasonably expect to receive on a sustainable basis over the medium term, is used towards:

- Servicing borrowing associated with Phase 1 of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme;

- Investment to enhance the competitiveness of Jersey's financial and professional services sector;

- Funding the ongoing costs of implementing, administering and maintaining the Pillar Two regime; and

- Providing sustainable baseline funding for public services.

Pillar Two income in excess of the base case is subject to significant uncertainty. Hence, such revenue  will  not  be  used  to  fund  recurring  expenditure  or  create  ongoing  spending commitments. It will be used to:

- Help fund the New Healthcare Facilities Programme;

- Reduce the need to draw from the Strategic Reserve;

- Reduce the need for further borrowing.

3. The decarbonisation of the different economic sectors in Jersey (including financial services), including through energy, construction or transport transition policies, is established within the Carbon Neutral Roadmap, which is supported by a wide range of ministerial departments. Within this framework, as well as the Sustainable Finance Action Plan, the role of the Minister for External Relations with responsibility for Financial Services is to support the growth of local - and the attraction of new – sustainable finance investments. This in turn supports the fulfilment of net-zero commitments made by Jersey and its business community, as well as contributing to jobs, growth and the collection of tax revenue to fund public services in Jersey.
4. [see B]
5. The Sustainable Finance Action Plan has resulted in tangible outcomes, including increasing Jersey's regulatory expectations and deepening understanding of sustainable investments.

As outlined in the Common Strategic Policy, our focus must now turn to the growth of the finance industry, implementing Time to Win strategy to secure Jersey's competitive edge in financial and related professional services. The competitiveness funding is intended to:

- improve the competitiveness of Jersey's financial and professional services sector;

- modernise the sector;

- make it easier, faster and more attractive for customers to do business in Jersey; and

- help retain and maximise government revenue supporting public services.

Increasing Jersey's overall business attractiveness (speed, simplicity, cost) should make Jersey even more attractive to the sustainable finance business community, with the obvious additional positive impacts of accelerating the transition to a net-zero economy locally and internationally.

15. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the Treasury Advisory Panel's work on aligning the Common Investment  Fund  with  the  United  Nations  Sustainable  Development  Goals. (WQ.234/2026)

Question

"Further to the Minister's response to Written Question 210/2025, in which the Minister stated that the Treasury Advisory Panel's work on aligning the Common Investment Fund with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals was "ongoing throughout 2025," will the Minister advise –

1. whether that work has been completed and, if so, will he state –

1. on what date it was completed;
2. what its findings were;

(iii)whether a report on it will be published, and on what date; and if it will not be

published, why not;

2. if the work is not complete, why this is the case, and when it will be completed;
3. what the carbon emissions of the Common Investment Fund's portfolio have been for each year since 2023, and whether the Minister will publish this data annually;
4. on how many occasions since 2023, has the Treasury Advisory Panel escalated concerns with an investment manager over environmental, social or governance (ESG) risks, and whether any mandate has been ended or changed as a result; and
5. when an updated States Investment Strategies report will be presented to the Assembly to replace Report 184/2024, and whether it will include measurable targets for responsible investment?"

Answer

1. whether that work has been completed and, if so, will he state –

1. on what date it was completed;
2. what its findings were;

The work referred to in Written Question 210/2025 was concluded in October 2025. The exercise sought to understand the extent to which our range of investment managers' investment approaches could be mapped to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and formed part of the Treasury Advisory Panel's (TAP) broader responsible investment programme.

While  this  workstream  has  concluded,  responsible  investment  reporting  and  SDG  assessment methodologies continue to evolve, alongside improvements in underlying data availability and reporting standards. TAP therefore regards this as part of an iterative programme of continuous improvement and expects to revisit these issues periodically as industry practice develops and more robust and comparable data becomes available. This is particularly relevant in relation to SDG measurement, where methodologies and disclosure practices are still developing and there is not yet a universally adopted approach to portfolio-level reporting.

3. whether a report on it will be published, and on what date; and if it will not be published,

why not;

The work did not comprise a single report, rather, it formed part of a broader programme of responsible investment work undertaken by TAP. This included dedicated papers on the SDGs, carbon  statistic  capture  analysis  and  climate scenario  analysis  commissioned and  reviewed  at successive Responsible Investment days held by TAP.

The SDG workstream identified a number of SDGs that were considered particularly relevant to our investment portfolios and explored the feasibility of assessing and reporting portfolio alignment. The work however identified a number of challenges, highlighting that SDG assessment remains an evolving area. Approaches and data availability vary between managers and asset classes, and there is not yet a universally adopted methodology for measuring portfolio-level SDG alignment.

As a result, whilst the SDGs have been used as a reference framework in manager assessments and responsible investment discussions, the work did not result in the adoption of a formal SDG- alignment framework or portfolio-level SDG reporting methodology for the Common Investment Fund (CIF).

The findings have instead informed the TAP's wider responsible investment approach, including its focus on ESG integration, stewardship, manager engagement, climate-related analysis and ongoing monitoring of responsible investment practices. This forms part of an annual responsible investment dashboard which continues to evolve and shape TAP's efforts to develop a consistent benchmarking tool in this area.

2. if the work is not complete, why this is the case, and when it will be completed;

This particular workstream was concluded, though will likely be revisited as part of TAP's regular assessment process.

3. what the carbon emissions of the Common Investment Fund's portfolio have been for each year since 2023, and whether the Minister will publish this data annually;

A full carbon emissions analysis was conducted as at 31 December 2023 to establish a baseline and was repeated by TAP as at 31 December 2025 to assess progress over a meaningful period. No equivalent exercise was undertaken at 31 December 2024.

Collecting, validating and aggregating emissions data across multiple investment managers and asset classes is a considerable undertaking, further complicated by changes in data coverage, estimation techniques and reporting methodologies, which can significantly influence reported emissions.

Accordingly, longer-term comparisons were considered to provide a more meaningful indication of trends in the portfolio's carbon footprint.

The reported Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions for the CIF's non-sovereign portfolio were:

• 31 December 2023: 280,815 tCOe

• 31 December 2025: 251,117 tCOe

Sovereign bond holdings* are reported separately because they are calculated using a different methodology. Reported sovereign bond emissions were:

• 31 December 2023: 59,771 tCOe

• 31 December 2025: 57,374 tCOe

* Sovereign bonds are reported separately because they use a different and less standardised methodology to allocate a country's emissions to holders of its debt, making them difficult to directly compare with corporate emissions.

Currently the majority of the Fund's reported carbon footprint arises from the listed equity portfolio. This reflects both the nature of equity ownership and the fact that emissions data for listed companies is generally more readily available and robust than for other asset classes. Data coverage is not uniform  across  the  portfolio.  Coverage  is  high  for  listed  equities  and  corporate  bonds  where underlying companies regularly report emissions data, and lower for certain alternative asset classes such as private market and hedge funds.

Although the direction of travel has been positive, TAP caution that carbon reporting methodologies continue to evolve. Improvements in data quality, estimation techniques and manager reporting can result in changes to reported emissions even where the underlying investments have not materially changed.

Accordingly headline carbon figures can be misleading, for example, a material proportion of emissions stem from investments held in steel producers where operations are inherently carbon intensive. The managers holding these investments have been challenged on these positions but regard the selected exposures as industry leaders on decarbonisation and have demonstrated to TAP clear evidence of engagement with the company on its decarbonisation plans. Divestment of the position might reduce the portfolios carbon footprint but not necessarily deliver better progress towards  reducing  carbon  as  holdings  would  be  sold  to  shareholders  less  willing  to  advocate investment required to deliver a better environmental outcome.

TAP would caution that publishing a single carbon emissions figure in isolation could be misleading. Current emissions data coverage across the portfolio is approximately 71%, with strong coverage in listed equities but lower coverage in asset classes such as private credit and hedge funds. As a result, changes in reported emissions may reflect changes in asset allocation, data coverage and reporting methodologies, rather than underlying emissions.

While  data  quality  and  disclosure  standards  continue  to  improve,  TAP  remains  cautious  that publishing headline emissions figures alone may not provide a meaningful assessment of portfolio sustainability  outcomes  or  the  effectiveness  of  the  Common  Investment  Fund's  responsible investment and stewardship activities. The disclosure of emissions data, alongside commentary on wider portfolio activity and stewardship actions, will be considered as part of the annual accounts process, and TAP will continue to monitor developments in reporting standards and market practice.

4. On how many occasions since 2023, has the Treasury Advisory Panel escalated concerns with an investment manager over environmental, social or governance (ESG) risks, and whether any mandate has been ended or changed as a result; and

TAP has embedded responsible investment considerations within its ongoing manager oversight programme. As a result, managers are routinely challenged on investment performance, stewardship activities and the implementation of responsible investment policies as part of the normal oversight process. This includes dedicated asset-class review days, conducted annually, at which managers are required  to  present  and  support  their  approach  to  investment  management,  stewardship  and responsible investment.

Earlier this year, as part of its oversight programme, TAP identified a number of managers with holdings in companies that external ESG data providers had categorised as ESG "laggards". TAP undertook a targeted engagement exercise with those managers to better understand the rationale for holding these positions, the ESG risks involved, and the stewardship activities being undertaken to address those risks. Five equity managers were included in the review.

Managers were required to explain whether the holdings remained in the portfolio, the investment rationale for holding companies with lower ESG ratings, the ESG risks associated with those holdings, and the engagement and stewardship activities being undertaken.

The review concluded that managers generally provided robust and well-supported explanations for their holdings and were able to demonstrate active stewardship and engagement with the companies concerned to TAP's satisfaction. TAP identified a small number of areas where further engagement based on the explanations received would be beneficial, and these will be followed up at the next asset specific review day.

TAP considers this targeted engagement programme to be an example of active oversight of ESG risks within the portfolio. However, no investment mandate has been terminated or materially amended solely as a result of ESG concerns since 2023, though mandates have been terminated where the overall investment approach, in which the responsible investment approach is embedded, fell behind peers.

5. when an updated States Investment Strategies report will be presented to the Assembly to replace Report 184/2024, and whether it will include measurable targets for responsible investment?

The States Investment Strategies report is kept under regular review, and an update is expected in Q4 2026/Q1 2027. Any future revision will consider developments in responsible investment and the implementation of the CIF's Responsible Investment Policy.

The  Panel  continues  to  review  evolving  industry  standards  and  best  practice,  including  the availability of consistent and comparable data, when considering whether quantitative responsible investment targets would be appropriate in future.

However, at this time, no decision has been taken to introduce specific measurable responsible investment targets.

16. Deputy S.J. Gleave of St. Helier South of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs regarding violence against women and girls funding. (WQ.235/2026)

Question

"Further to Written Question 208/2026, regarding violence against women and girls funding, and the

Minister's response during Questions Without Notice on 20th October 2026, will the Minister advise –

1. which charitable organisations specialising in supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence were consulted during the preparation of the 2027 Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) funding proposals, and what input they provided;
2. whether  consideration  was  given  to  commissioning  additional  services  from  existing specialist  charities,  including  Jersey  Action  Against  Rape  (JAAR)  and  Freedom  from Domestic Abuse (FREEDA), as an alternative to creating additional Government posts, and, if so, what conclusions were reached, and if not, why not;
3. what assessment informed the decision to allocate £57,000 for an additional specialist therapeutic  post  within  Health  and  Care  Jersey,  including  whether  existing  charitable provision was considered; and
4. what criteria is used to determine whether VAWG services are commissioned from specialist charities or delivered directly by Government?"

Answer

1. Following the results of the election on 7th June 2026, and the subsequent lifting of the pre- election period restrictions, officers took the first opportunity to consult with charities and community services involved in work to address VAWG by hosting a workshop on 8th June 2026 which aimed to understand the demands on, and needs of, their services.

Invitations to this workshop were extended to members of the VAWG Taskforce that represent third sector services (including JAAR and FREEDA). However, invitations were also extended to a wider group of charities and community services who have not previously been involved in the work of the VAWG Taskforce, so as to ensure that all perspectives were captured. These invites were sent out via a range of mailing lists1 to ensure a wide reach across third sector and community organisations. Third sector members of the VAWG Taskforce were also encouraged to invite any additional charitable services that they felt the workshop would be relevant for.

During this workshop, attendees were asked a series of questions related to the operational pressures and capacity and resourcing challenges that their services are facing. Officers used the feedback garnered during this workshop to inform the content of the VAWG funding business case for consideration by the new Council of Ministers in July 2026.

Officers also contacted FREEDA directly to request a quotation for the delivery of a training package relating to routine and targeted enquiry processes relating to VAWG within Health and Care Jersey (HCJ). This work forms part of the wider workstream to deliver the remaining VAWG  Taskforce  recommendations,  and  relates  specifically  to  the  delivery  of Recommendations 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. The figures provided by FREEDA in their quotation for this work were used to inform the content of the business case, specifically the component amounts allocated to "HCJ Training and Delivery".

2. As explained in the answer to WQ 208/2026, a significant proportion of the budget allocated to VAWG in 2027 is designed to fund the operationalisation of the incoming package of VAWG  legislation.  As  statutory  services  are  the  primary  stakeholders  involve  in  the operationalisation of this new legislation, it follows that these services are the primary recipients of the funds allocated to the operationalisation of these new laws. For instance, a significant proportion of the funding is allocated to the States of Jersey Police to provide the additional  investigative  capacity  and  forensic  capability  required  for  the  effective implementation of the new legislation. These are not services that can be appropriately outsourced to specialist charities.

However, consideration was given to the commissioning of additional services from existing specialist charities as an alternative to the creation of additional Government posts, where this was appropriate. For instance, consideration was given to commissioning FREEDA to deliver a training package to support the implementation of routine and targeted enquiry processes relating to VAWG within HCJ. FREEDA was identified as the most appropriate service to approach for a quotation for the delivery of training as they already lead on the delivery of Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme, an evidence-based domestic abuse training, support and referral programme specially designed or GPs. They are therefore well placed to ensure that this new bespoke training package for HCJ is consistent and coordinated with Primary Care and have extensive experience delivering training to medical professionals where limited time availability for training can be a significant challenge. As a result, FREEDA was asked to provide a quotation for this work which was then used to inform the content of the business case that was submitted for the VAWG funding.

It is also important to note that a proportion of the funding allocated to Justice and Home Affairs relating to "Training and delivery costs" and "Marginalised community engagement" will provide the budget from which the government can then commission training and other services from existing specialist charities, such as to implement the remaining VAWG Taskforce recommendations that relate to training and further research.

A full breakdown of which additional VAWG services and/or posts were considered for delivery by the third sector and the rationale behind this decision is provided in Appendix 1.

3. The VAWG Taskforce report identified that the current provision of specialist counselling and therapeutic provision for victim-survivors is too limited.1 This resulted in VAWG Taskforce Recommendation 60, which directed that a gap analysis of current specialist counselling  provision  be  undertaken  and  subsequent  investment  to  improve  the appropriateness and availability of specialist counselling should follow.

This gap analysis was subsumed into a wider review into the structure and staffing of the Jersey Domestic Abuse Service (JDAS), as directed by Taskforce Recommendation 19.1. In particular, the review identified that long waiting lists for specialist therapeutic support in Jersey were found to be placing JDAS under significant pressures. In particular, the review identified that JDAS was having to provide long-term emotional support to victim-survivors, despite this form of support falling outside the scope of their service provision, because these individuals had been unable to access the therapeutic support they required via statutory mental health services.

This finding resulted in the decision to allocate £57,000 for an additional therapeutic post within Health and Care Jersey, primarily because it was the long waiting lists for the specialist counselling provision through statutory mental health services that was identified as placing unnecessary pressure on JDAS, a separate statutory service.

It is also important to acknowledge that we, as a government, have a duty to provide specialist therapeutic support for victim-survivors through our statutory mental health services.

JAAR provides one-to-one counselling for victim-survivors of sexual trauma and rape. This is an invaluable service provision which I understand has formed a key component of the recovery and healing of many victim-survivors in Jersey. However, the service does not provide specialist counselling provision to victim-survivors of domestic abuse.

Existing charitable service provision was therefore not considered to be an appropriate alternative to the HCJ post. The specialist support that will be provided by the HCJ post differs from the JAAR provision because it will provide long-term specialist counselling provision for victim-survivors of both domestic abuse and sexual violence via our statutory mental health service.

4. The criteria used to determine whether VAWG services are commissioned from specialist charities or delivered directly by government depends on the function of the specific service in question. A breakdown of which VAWG services were considered for delivery by the third sector and the rationale behind this decision is provided in Appendix 1.

VAWG  services  relating  to  the  implementation  of  statutory  functions,  such  as  the implementation of new legislation, necessarily need to be delivered by statutory services including the police, the courts, law officers, and staff working within the Dewberry House Sexual Assault Referral Centre and the Jersey Domestic Abuse Service.

VAWG services related to the provision of specialist support for victim-survivors must be appropriately balanced between statutory and charitable organisations. It is important to note that each specialist support service and charity in Jersey provides a different function and so their suitability for the delivery of specific VAWG services will depend on the type of services required. As noted above, the long waiting lists for specialist therapeutic support provided via our statutory mental health services were identified as putting a strain on the Jersey Domestic Abuse Service (JDAS). It follows then, that the most appropriate way to alleviate the pressure on JDAS would be to provide additional resource to our statutory mental health services so that these waiting lists can be reduced and victim-survivors can more readily access long-term specialist support.

The commissioning of services relating to education and training is more appropriately open to the charitable sector. There are a number of VAWG Taskforce recommendations, and recommendations arising from related workstreams, which call for additional training and guidance on different aspects of VAWG. A proportion of the VAWG funding for Justice and Home Affairs is allocated to "Training and delivery costs" in order to provide the government with the necessary budget to commission services and training from specialist charities and other organisations, depending on where the delivery of this work most appropriately sits.

The VAWG funding allocated to training and delivery in this budget represents the first step to securing the funds we need to commission VAWG services, including from specialist charities and organisations. Provided this budget is approved by States Members, the budget will then be used to commission services from specialist organisations including those which operate within the charitable sector.

Appendix 1