{"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json","first":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json","last":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=13","next":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=2","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":200295,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200295.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Put Jersey on a lockdown during the Coronavirus outbreak.","background":"Prevent any spread of the Coronavirus in our Island by only allowing in food, medical and other needed supplies until a vaccine or treatment has been created.\r\nDo not allow the general public or anyone else into the Island, without quarantine, or staff wearing PPE removing any goods needed.","additional_details":"Protect the people of this Island, by joining this petition. \r\nJersey is a very small island, therefore making it easier for any viruses to spread.","state":"closed","signature_count":6048,"created_at":"2020-01-31T10:54:37.890Z","updated_at":"2023-06-21T11:20:32.700Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-02-28T08:34:46.161Z","closed_at":"2020-08-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-01-31T11:19:43.848Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-11T21:37:12.545Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-04-24T07:25:11.466Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-22T08:49:00.910Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-04-06T15:04:26.752Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-08","summary":"Jersey entered 'lockdown' on 30 March so there was no need to debate the e-petition. However, the Assembly met on 2 April (online) to debate legislation to enforce the lockdown.","details":"I understand and share the concerns of the signatories of petition about the spread of coronavirus.\r\n\r\nJersey’s medical experts have made clear that Covid-19 cannot be stopped, but it can be slowed, and since this petition was launched, rapid and extraordinary changes have been introduced to how we live and work in Jersey to curtail the virus. The restrictions that these changes have placed on Islanders significantly limits civil liberties and have not been imposed lightly.\r\n\r\nThe Government is pursuing a contain, delay, shield strategy. \r\n\r\nCONTAIN\r\n\r\nIn order to contain Coronavirus where cases are proven or suspected, people with confirmed COVID-19 are required to isolate, along with their whole household. Our contact tracing team is then identifying people who may have been infected by confirmed cases, and they are also required to isolate. Further, since Friday 20 March, anyone arriving in Jersey has had to self-isolate for 14 days, regardless of where they began their journey or whether they are displaying symptoms. \r\n\r\nOnly essential workers not working in health or social care can, by exception, be exempt from this requirement to isolate and, where they are not required to isolate, these workers have been instructed to follow strict social distancing procedures. \r\n\r\nDELAY\r\n\r\nSince 30 March, to delay the virus’ spread, all Islanders have been instructed to stay at home, in order to significantly reduce social contact. This instruction has had an enormous impact on every sector of our economy and community but staying at home whenever possible, and observing social distancing during brief necessary excursions from home (up to a maximum of two hours per day if required), is shown internationally to be the most important change we can make to limit the spread of COVID-19.\r\n\r\nSHIELD\r\n\r\nIn parallel, we must take extra precautions to shield those people extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. That is why the Government has asked people with listed conditions to protect themselves by isolating themselves at home. These people have been individually contacted by their doctors. We have also issued strong guidance to those with a range of underlying conditions that make them somewhat more vulnerable to COVID-19, and those over 65, to practice strict social distancing. \r\n\r\nAll these measures will continue, and could be extended, until our medical experts confirm that it is safe for the restrictions to be lifted. \r\n\r\nA vaccine may be created, but we cannot guarantee whether or when that will happen. Instead, our objective is slow the spread of the virus so that our health and care services can cope, and so protect the lives of every Jersey resident. We will take the most appropriate actions at the most appropriate time in order to achieve that.\r\n\r\nWe have not placed restrictions the kinds of goods being imported because it is not believed that it would have any impact on the spread of Coronavirus; if it did, then the measure would be introduced.\r\n\r\nEssential workers must of course be protected. They are doing amazing work and we are grateful to every one of them. Guidance on the appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been issued as well as guidance on how to minimise risk of infection across a range of different sectors and services. PPE provision is now also being centrally coordinated for all essential services in Jersey, to make sure the right equipment is available as needed.  \r\n\r\nThe most important actions to prevent the spread of Coronavirus, however, lie with all Islanders. Cleaning hands, not touching your face, maintaining social distancing, and wearing a cloth mask outside the home are all valuable in slowing the spread, and I thank everyone who has done so, and will continue to do so in the coming weeks. \r\n\r\nThank you again, for your continued cooperation and understanding as we face this challenge. Please, stay home and save lives.","created_at":"2020-04-24T07:25:11.462Z","updated_at":"2020-04-24T07:25:11.462Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"Jersey entered 'lockdown' on 30 March so there was no need to debate the e-petition. However, the Assembly met on 2 April (online) to debate legislation to enforce the lockdown."}}},{"type":"petition","id":200326,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200326.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Emergency support for self employed business affected by coronavirus epidemic.","background":"The Government so far offer only GST and Social payment deferral, which doesn't help. They need to look at including rent deferrals / mortgage holidays, higher statutory sick pay, otherwise many local businesses that deal with the public like trades and shops will have no choice but to close up.","additional_details":"In previous live debates the Government have only included the employees and employers in their discussions with no mention of small self employed businesses which are the back bone of Island life.\r\n\r\nThey need to support local shops,trades and other small businesses more or end up losing a large  portion of small independent businesses, many will not survive and will end with many losing more than a business, it will be their lively hoods possibly their homes.","state":"closed","signature_count":5876,"created_at":"2020-03-15T07:55:09.006Z","updated_at":"2023-06-21T11:20:43.839Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-16T08:15:00.644Z","closed_at":"2020-09-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-15T08:12:08.933Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-16T13:00:57.242Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-08-19T08:18:57.088Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-22T19:54:24.932Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-08-19T08:21:29.978Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-02","summary":"\"Support for Self-employed People\" - Statement made by the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture. ","details":"The 2020 Coronavirus pandemic has caused a global public health crisis.   \r\n \r\nCritically important measures introduced to manage the spread of Coronavirus in Jersey, which include social distancing and a ‘Stay at Home’ Order; have caused unprecedented disruption to our society, local businesses and the wider economy. \r\n \r\nI know you all want to get back to work, and back to business.  \r\n \r\nThe Coronavirus pandemic will cause a global recession, and it will cause a recession in Jersey.  \r\n \r\nThis recession will be severe, as many of you already know. We must be prepared to be in this for the long haul, and that requires careful management of the crisis and the recovery.  \r\n \r\nHowever, without our local businesses, and their experienced workforce, this recession will be even more severe and long-lasting.  \r\n \r\nThis is why we need to support our employers, employees and self-employed workers; to stand ready to get our economy back onto its feet - as the crisis abates. \r\n \r\nThe Coronavirus pandemic is the most significant challenge our economy, and our society, has faced in modern times. \r\n \r\nWe will meet this challenge with the boldest set of measures to support business that this Island has ever seen. \r\n \r\nThe emergency business support package I announced throughout March includes measures to support employers, employees, and our self-employed workforce. \r\n \r\nIn addition to deferrals of business GST and Social Security payments we launched on 12th March, we have yesterday launched Phase 1 of our wage subsidy scheme: the Government Payroll Cofunding Scheme. \r\n \r\nPhase 1 was designed and launched, in short order, to provide fast access to subsidies for businesses severely affected by Coronavirus containment measures. \r\n \r\nThis includes our - \r\n \r\n hotels;  restaurants;  bars;  fishermen;  hairdressers, beauticians; and  many of our shops. \r\n \r\nPhase 1 will run from 20th to 31st March inclusive and will provide a subsidy to employers, and selfemployed workers, of up to £200 per employee, per week. I am informed that in the first 30 minutes of the website going live yesterday, we had already had 25 applications – and this is before we had \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nactively communicated this to anyone. This demonstrates the real need business have for these schemes at this unprecedented time in our lives.  \r\n \r\nAn even more generous subsidy will be available to even more of the most severely affected businesses in Phase 2. \r\n \r\nIn Phase 2, we will offer employers and self-employed workers a subsidy of 80% of their wages - up to a cap of £2,000 per worker.  This means that employers and self-employed workers will receive a subsidy of up to £1,600 per worker, per month, for pay periods in April, May and June 2020. \r\n \r\nWe will monitor this scheme, and we will extend its term if the disruption continues – I want to be absolutely clear that we are committed to providing the appropriate support to business and employees for the duration of this crisis.  \r\n \r\nWe have now committed to providing the final detail on Phase 2 by 10th April 2020. We appreciate this is needed to allow businesses to plan appropriately for the coming challenging months. Many businesses have already written to me, to other Ministers and to Members in general and outlining how their business has been impacted – and the fact that they are not currently within the scheme.  \r\n \r\nIn order to carefully protect our public finances, in what will be a long road to economic recovery, the Government is taking an approach of ‘economic triage’ with our support schemes. This means that we can’t include all sectors of the economy immediately – we must do this based on careful review and consideration of impact of Coronavirus on the economy. To do otherwise would place our public finances at significant risk.  \r\n \r\nHowever, I can assure you – we are listening to you – and this is why I have committed to providing final details on the operation and scope of Phase 2 by 10th April 2020 – to give us an opportunity to properly consider these requests.  \r\n \r\nI can absolutely assure you that Government officials will work hard in the meantime to ensure Phase 2 provides the boldest and fairest scheme available; within our budgetary constraints. \r\n \r\nWe have also announced a bank loan guarantee scheme - to help our banks provide cashflow support to local businesses - through the economic shock we are experiencing. That has been launched – and banks are now lending as of yesterday.  \r\n \r\nWe will also rescue any strategically important, but vulnerable business through our new Special Situations Fund. \r\n \r\nI said that these measures are the boldest Jersey has ever seen.   \r\n \r\nThese measures are expensive, and we will need to work hard in the coming years to restock our reserves. \r\n \r\nBut without these measures, many of our businesses, which make up much of the fabric of our society, would not survive. \r\n \r\nMany people in Jersey would lose their jobs, and many people in Jersey’s lives would drastically change. \r\n \r\nWhile expensive, these carefully designed measures will truncate our recession and enable our businesses to return to profitability as quickly as possible. \r\n \r\nThey are value for money, and they will provide us with the tools we all need to get back to business, together; as this crisis abates.","created_at":"2020-08-19T08:18:57.085Z","updated_at":"2020-08-19T08:18:57.085Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"A debate did not take place as the scheme was implemented."}}},{"type":"petition","id":200487,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200487.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Write off income tax liability for prior year if moved to current year basis.","background":"Around two-thirds of taxpayers currently pay their tax for the previous year in the current year. When this amendment was made in Guernsey  the prior year tax was written off. This petition requests both the move to current year basis and that the tax liability for the prior year be written off.","additional_details":"The Government is seeking to move to current year basis whilst still holding taxpayers liable for what they owe for the previous year – in effect doubling their tax liability. Those with a £21,000 tax bill would be charged an additional £350 per month for 5 years (£4,200). Their earnings needed to cover this payment would itself be taxed during the current year at 20% (so you would need to earn £5,250).With many people struggling under the current pandemic the Government proposal is unjust.","state":"closed","signature_count":5774,"created_at":"2020-07-31T14:09:48.434Z","updated_at":"2023-06-21T11:20:57.194Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-08-03T08:42:37.992Z","closed_at":"2021-02-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-31T15:22:45.252Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-03T18:34:33.524Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-08-26T14:22:01.630Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-09T11:59:35.701Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-27T08:57:36.453Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-08-26","summary":"The Minister for Treasury and Resources does not support this petition and has made it clear that the Government is not in a position to write off the tax liability for 2019. ","details":"Moving taxpayers who currently pay their tax a year in arrears – or Prior Year Basis (PYB) – onto the Current Year Basis (CYB) has been discussed for a number of years. The Government Plan 2020-2023 committed the Government to look at options for all taxpayers (apart from companies) to be moved to CYB for paying tax. This would mean all taxpayers would pay tax on their income in the year that they earned it.\r\n\r\nThe Minister for Treasury and Resources asked for this work to be accelerated so that the Government might be able to provide some extra financial relief to many Islanders when it is needed most. The proposed change is part of the Fiscal Stimulus package that was announced in early July and could leave around £18 million in the pockets of PYB taxpayers. \r\n\r\nThis PYB reform proposal would affect around 45,000 people who currently pay their tax in arrears.\r\n\r\nThe proposal, to be debated in the States Assembly in this autumn, would move all PYB taxpayers onto a CYB for paying tax. Their tax payments in 2020, which have been going towards their 2019 tax bill, would be moved at the end of this year to pay their 2020 tax liability. It is proposed that the payment of their 2019 tax bill would be frozen until January 2023. \r\n\r\nPYB taxpayers would not be expected to pay their 2019 tax bill in full in 2023, unless they choose to do so. Options to pay the 2019 tax liability over a period of time, such as five or 10 years, are being developed. This could also include payments being made in monthly or quarterly instalments. An affordability test to support people who might need to pay their bill over a longer term is also being considered.\r\n\r\nThe Minister would like to be clear that it would not be fair to islanders or financially responsible for the Government to write off the Prior Year Basis tax liability for 2019 of £320 million. Such a move would effectively allow two thirds of taxpayers to not pay tax on a year of their income, whilst those former Prior Year Basis taxpayers who have already paid off their Prior Year Basis liability and Current Year Basis taxpayers would not be given the same treatment. Particularly in light of the additional COVID-19 related costs the Government has had to meet over the last few months, such a proposal is not deemed responsible\r\n\r\nIslanders can provide their feedback on the PYB reform proposal and the payment options for the frozen 2019 tax bill in a survey at gov.je/TaxReform. \r\n\r\nAs it has now passed 5,000 signatures, the petition will be considered for debate in the States Assembly, although the reform proposal is due to be debated this autumn.\r\n\r\nMinister for Treasury and Resources \r\n","created_at":"2020-08-26T14:22:01.627Z","updated_at":"2020-08-26T14:22:01.627Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-21","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=13222B6B-E242-40A0-8C25-DDFCA7537731","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"This e-petition was debated \"in committee\" on the morning of 21st October 2020. There was no vote just a general debate."}}},{"type":"petition","id":200108,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200108.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it law to stop ‘Hit and Run’ for Cats","background":"Certain animals involved in RTAs require the driver to inform the police;this doesn’t include cats. Cats are free agents and are more likely to be victims to RTAs. We wish to see the law changed to reduce their suffering, by getting them to a vet quickly.\r\nPlease help by signing to protect our cats.","additional_details":"Our suggestion would be to make a RTA with a cat ‘reportable’ just like other animals; the driver must inform the (Honorary) Police only if other notifiable parties can’t be reached; the owner and/or the JSPCA. The offence would be failing to report the RTA. We don't expect drivers to be blamed, just that they stop to report.\r\nWe appreciate that it costs to change a law; perhaps the licensing of household cats would help generate the funds needed.\r\nSandra Jasmins, Jo Abraham, Chris Jackson \u0026 team.","state":"closed","signature_count":5385,"created_at":"2018-08-31T21:54:29.501Z","updated_at":"2025-01-08T11:35:21.114Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-05T08:16:41.741Z","closed_at":"2019-03-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-01T06:50:08.481Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-07T09:31:27.591Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-10-11T16:49:45.980Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-05T17:59:48.396Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-05T10:10:36.199Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-11","summary":"Cats are already well provided for in the Jersey Highway Code and the Animal Welfare Law.","details":"Since the 2015 petition and the discussions in the States that followed, the Jersey Highway Code (which can be referred to in Court) has been updated to reduce the suffering of cats who are the victims of Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs), by requiring drivers to contact a veterinary service. The code now stipulates that, if there is an incident or accident involving a cat, the JSPCA should be contacted as soon as possible and that they will dispatch a pet ambulance to the scene. The JSPCA provides a 24hr ambulance service and responds to every call, and the recommended procedure and JSPCA’s contact details have been promoted. \r\n\r\nOther options for addressing the issues raised in the petition were considered. It was concluded that amending the Road Traffic Law might be a heavy-handed approach which would place an extra burden on the Police. It is already an offence, carrying heavy penalties (up to 12 month imprisonment and or a fine up to £10,000) under the Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004, to do or omit to do any act so as to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic animal (including cats). \r\n\r\nWhat is really required are preventative measures to try and reduce the likelihood of cats being harmed by traffic.  While not definitive, there are studies that show that a cat’s age and sex are amongst most important factors in determining whether they would be involved in a RTA, along with the time of day.  Young cats between the ages of 7 months to 2 years are most likely to be in a RTA and cats 6 years or older were less likely.  Overall, the likelihood of being in a RTA decreased by 16% for every year increase in the cat’s age.  This may be due to changes in the behaviour of cats as they get older such as spending more time indoors, staying closer to home, and being more cautious.  Unneutered male cats were more than twice as likely to be involved in a RTA as female cats, as they will roam further and be more likely to come into contact with a road. The majority of accidents occur at night, and often very close to the cat’s home.\r\n\r\nWhile, if a cat has outdoor access, it is not possible to completely remove the risk of an RTA ‘Cat Care International’ provide advice on how cats can be kept safe https://icatcare.org/advice/keeping-cats-safe-campaign/road-traffic-accidents. We propose to work with the States Vet and the JSPCA with a view to more widely publicising this information”. \r\n\r\nMinister for Infrastructure\r\n","created_at":"2018-10-11T16:49:45.977Z","updated_at":"2018-10-11T16:49:45.977Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-03","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=21C08862-1AA8-4A63-9A6F-F8E032F4B92B#_Toc11066410","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Propositions.aspx?ref=P.30/2019\u0026refurl=%2fPages%2fPropositions.aspx%3fdocumentref%3dp.30%2f2019","overview":"The Assembly unanimously agreed the following proposition (brought by Deputy Jeremy Macon):\r\n\r\nto request the Ministers for Infrastructure and the Environment to consult on how cats could be given additional legal protection in the event of death or injury in a road traffic accident involving a motor vehicle, with the consultation to include consideration of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, the Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004 and other legislation as appropriate.\r\n\r\nThe links give you more information about the issues and the views of the minister and the constables' committee.\r\n\r\n"}}},{"type":"petition","id":201163,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201163.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reconsider \u0026 reverse the decision to reduce funding for Jersey Employment Trust","background":"The States of Jersey have recently decided to cut the level of funding provided to the JET.  This decision places at risk vital services that support some of the Island’s most vulnerable members of the community.","additional_details":"JET supports people with learning difficulties, disabilities, and long-term health conditions to find and keep meaningful employment.  It also provides an essential social lifeline for individuals who may otherwise face isolation.\r\n \r\nCutting funding threatens independence, wellbeing, and inclusion for some of the Island’s most vulnerable people.  We call on the States of Jersey to recognise the value of JET and protect this vital service.","state":"open","signature_count":5332,"created_at":"2026-01-14T14:25:09.360Z","updated_at":"2026-05-12T10:39:51.524Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-15T14:27:54.539Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-14T16:10:03.866Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T21:01:52.261Z","ministers_response_at":"2026-02-06T14:31:52.286Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T09:32:11.454Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jamie cauvain","rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-06","summary":"Government will maintain its current level of support to JET throughout 2026, and will provide total funding of £2.74M, while discussions continue on a longer-term funding arrangement.","details":"On the 20th January 2026 it was announced that Government will maintain its current level of support to JET throughout 2026, and will provide total funding of £2.74M, while discussions continue on a sustainable, longer-term funding arrangement.\r\n\r\nThe base grant of £1.95M remained at existing levels for 2026 and had not been reduced. Following a meeting in December, JET had been due to receive £2.14M in taxpayer funding for 2026 to provide employment support services (this included a top-up for the first quarter of 2026).\r\n\r\nSound departmental financial management led to Departmental underspends that the Minister was able to redirect to JET via top-up funding, but it was made clear to the organisation that this was a temporary one-off amount to assist them and not part of the base budget. In December 2025, the Minister committed to do the same for Q1 2026.\r\n\r\nThe Government and community greatly value the services provided by JET and wants to ensure that, together, we continue to support vulnerable islanders. My team and I have been working with the Trust over the past year to clarify its ongoing role and to make sure the service can continue on a stable and sustainable footing. The old contract with JET expired at the end of 2025 and in many respects, it was out of date so needs to be revisited and updated to reflect current needs.\r\n\r\nI hope that the recent reassurances regarding 2026 funding will provide sufficient opportunity for Government to continue to work collaboratively with JET to develop a longer-term, fit for purpose funding arrangement. This will focus on:\r\n\r\n•  A revised contract for providing employment services to provide the support that best meets the needs of each individual client.\r\n•  An agreement on appropriate data sharing that enables us to move forward positively together. Government’s aim here is to work with JET to provide support that best meets the needs of each individual client. By sharing information on who is receiving employment services from JET, other services can be co-ordinated to fully support the overall needs of each person\r\n•  A JET Business Plan and subsequent evidence based Departmental Business Case: In January 2026, the commitment to retain JET funding at 2025 levels (£2.74m for 2026) was made. At this juncture, the departmental financial position required a reprioritisation of Departmental funding to make this commitment to JET, in the absence of forecast Departmental underspends providing any flexibility in 2026. Future funding prioritisation, therefore, must be subject to a JET Business Plan and subsequent evidence based Departmental Business Case to establish future sustainable funding for JET, in accordance with the Public Finances Manual. This is essential to ensure fiscally responsible decision-making and to evaluate proposed Government funding in a way that delivers the greatest benefit to Islanders across all services, within the constraints of limited departmental resources.\r\n\r\nThe focus from hereon needs to be on developing the above, so that JET can continue to do what they do best – providing employment support to Islanders with disabilities.","created_at":"2026-02-06T14:31:52.282Z","updated_at":"2026-02-06T14:31:52.282Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200992,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200992.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make states old age pensions exempt from tax","background":"All employed persons are obliged by law to pay social security contributions. Contributions are not deducted from gross pay for taxation purposes.  At pensionable age such pensions received are again liable to tax. This amounts to double taxation and such pensions should be exempt from taxation.","additional_details":"The Gov.je website states that 'Any pension or annuity income that you receive is taxable when you're entitled to it.'\r\nI believe this amounts to double taxation. Contributions to pension schemes are quite different as they represent deferred taxation.\r\nThe UK Government is about to make pension income exempt from taxation as part of their manifesto.","state":"closed","signature_count":5305,"created_at":"2024-05-29T22:28:19.047Z","updated_at":"2025-06-06T05:19:02.446Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-05-31T07:38:19.698Z","closed_at":"2024-11-30T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-05-30T08:32:34.821Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-06-10T22:55:08.112Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-07-03T09:26:41.997Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-08-24T06:36:18.622Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2024-11-13","debate_outcome_at":"2024-12-20T14:47:45.863Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-07-03","summary":"Jersey has a world-leading tax threshold of £20,000 for single individuals. Anyone with income below that threshold does not pay a penny in income tax. \r\n","details":"The allowance is even higher for most married couples and civil partners at £32,000.\r\n\r\nThe generous tax allowances ensure that, even though the old age pension is taxable, pensioners on low incomes who receive only the old age pension do not pay any income tax. In fact, approximately 50% of pensioners do not pay any income tax. Making the States old age pension exempt from tax would not benefit those pensioners with the lowest incomes.\r\n\r\nIntroduction\r\nThe petition suggests that a person who pays social security contributions in Jersey, pays these contributions into a personal pot that funds their old age pension – in the same way that private pension provision works.  This is not the case for two main reasons:\r\n1.\tPaying social security contributions gives Islanders access to the old age pension and a range of other benefits.\r\n2.\tThose old age pensions and benefits are funded by multiple sources, not just Islanders’ own individual contributions.\r\n\r\nDifferences between the old age pension and a private pension\r\nSocial security contributions made into the Social Security Fund are very different from contributions into private pension schemes. Accordingly, they are treated differently for tax purposes. \r\n\r\nGovernments across the world incentivise their working age populations to make additional provision for their old age, to supplement the old age pension, by offering them income tax relief for paying into a private pension. Payments into a private pension are commonly relieved from tax when they are paid in (usually with some limits or caps) and taxed when the pension income is paid out on retirement.\r\n\r\nSocial security contributions paid by working people are not the same as private pension contributions. They are a sum of money paid into the Social Security Fund to provide a range of benefits for Islanders, including the old age pension, but also other benefits. These benefits include short- and long-term incapacity allowances, carer’s allowance, parental grants, and many other benefits.\r\n\r\nSocial security contributions can be thought of as a form of insurance, for financial support that Islanders might need at some point in their lives.\r\n\r\nHow old age pensions and benefits are funded\r\nAlthough these contributions pay for old age pensions and a wide basket of benefits, it is also important to note that employee social security contributions are not the only payments into the Social Security Fund.\r\n\r\nOld age pensions and benefits are funded from multiple sources: by Islanders’ own social security contributions, by contributions from employers, and from direct tax support through the States Grant.\r\n\r\nThe States Grant is an annual payment of general tax revenues into the Social Security Fund. It is sometimes called ‘supplementation’ because it subsidises the contributions for Islanders who earn less than the standard earnings limit (£65,400 in 2024) so that they can maintain their contributions record – for example during periods of illness. Three-quarters of Islanders receive this support from Government to ‘top up’ their contributions records – and nearly all Islanders will benefit from the States Grant at some point in their working lives. This support allows Islanders to build up their entitlement to the old age pension and other benefits.\r\n\r\nAlthough there is no direct income tax deduction for employee social security contributions, Government support is being provided in an alternative way through the States Grant – funded by general taxation.  This allows a higher and more sustainable level of benefits to be paid out.\r\n\r\nIndividuals receive tax support, not via tax deductions, but by the support of the States Grant and supplementation. Without the tax support from the States Grant, all payments from the Social Security Fund, including pensions, would be either lower, or not sustainable.\r\n\r\nIncome tax and the old age pension\r\nThe petition correctly states that pension and annuity income is taxable when a person becomes entitled to it. However, I do not agree that this amounts to double taxation.\r\n\r\nIt is notable that Jersey’s personal income tax thresholds mean that around 50% of pensioners do not pay income tax on any of their income. Those who do pay tax are only taxed on the excess over the tax threshold (£20,000 for single individuals and £32,050 for married couples and civil partners in 2024). Any Jersey pensioner whose only income is the old age pension will not pay any income tax.\r\n\r\nThe UK position\r\nThe tax treatment of social security contributions and the old age pension is not unique to Jersey. The position in Jersey broadly mirrors that in the UK, the other Crown Dependencies and in many other jurisdictions.\r\n\r\nThe petition states that the UK “is about to make pension income exempt from taxation”. This is incorrect.\r\n\r\nThe Conservative Party has pledged to increase the tax-free personal allowance for pensioners each year in-line with the increase to the UK state pension, so that pensioners who receive only the UK state pension remain outside the tax net.  This is already the position in Jersey.  UK pensioners with other income, who therefore exceed the UK tax-free thresholds, will be subject to taxation on their total surplus income above the threshold – in the same way as they are in Jersey.\r\n\r\nThe UK state pension remains part of a person’s total taxable income – just like any other source of income for that person e.g. bank interest, private pension income, etc.\r\n\r\nAn equivalent policy to the Conservatives’ proposal is not necessary in Jersey because the tax thresholds far exceed the old age pension (the Jersey old age pension is higher than the UK state pension).\r\n\r\nExempting the old age pension would not benefit lower earners\r\nExempting the old age pension from income tax would only benefit pensioners who pay income tax. It would do nothing for the half of pensioners (the lower earners) who do not already pay tax.\r\n\r\nThe resulting loss in taxation would result in other groups, such as young families, having to pay more in tax or social security contributions, to maintain the Social Security Fund and allow the current pension and benefits to be maintained.\r\n","created_at":"2024-07-03T09:26:41.990Z","updated_at":"2024-07-03T09:37:22.952Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-11-13","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.je/publications/hansard/2024/official-report-13th-november-2024","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":""}}},{"type":"petition","id":200077,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200077.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Rental price caps law to limit rental prices to reasonable rents","background":"A law to limit rental prices is required in Jersey in my opinion.\r\n\r\nRents are far too high. Rents should be around 30% of people's salaries. The present rents are causing rent distress in individuals and businesses to close.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":5298,"created_at":"2018-08-13T11:37:52.016Z","updated_at":"2023-06-21T11:20:06.900Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-14T08:59:59.538Z","closed_at":"2019-02-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-13T22:41:42.331Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-15T18:01:56.991Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-09-19T10:54:41.518Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-09T21:57:06.771Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-12","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-13T12:31:55.104Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-09-19","summary":"The Minister for Housing will pursue policies that improve the standard of living for islanders, including improving the quality and affordability of housing.","details":"The Minister for Housing recognises that the cost of housing is a challenge for many households in Jersey. 73% of lower-income household living in qualified private rented accommodation could be considered in ‘rental stress’, with some families paying over half of their income in housing costs. \r\n\r\nThe Income Distribution Survey 2014/15 showed that the cost of housing was the single biggest contributory factor for relative low income. \r\n\r\nThe Minister is determined that this government must pursue policies that will improve the standard of living for islanders, including making housing more affordable across all sectors – owner-occupied, social rented and private rented housing.\r\n\r\nLegislating to cap rents at a particular level is just one option, however it has shown limited success when it has been used previously in Jersey and in other jurisdictions. There are many other options to improve the affordability and quality of housing that must be considered too.\r\n\r\nThe Chief Minister intends to establish a Policy Development Board to look at the affordability of housing. The Minister for Housing intends to work with this board to explore in detail the options for improving housing affordability, including the formula for calculating rents in the social housing sector.\r\n\r\nOngoing work to improve housing affordability will include:\r\n\r\n-\tThe introduction of the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Law 2018, which will provide a mechanism to ensure that properties in the rental market meet minimum standards, so that no tenant is having to pay rent to live in a substandard property.\r\n\r\n-\tMeasures to improve transparency in relation to the fees and charges tenants are required to pay when letting a property. The Tenant Fees Bill in the UK will, if adopted, prevent landlords and letting agents from requiring tenants to pay certain charges. The Minister is actively considering the introduction of similar measures here.\r\n\r\n-\tExpanding the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 to protect against discrimination in the rented sector for tenants with children.\r\n\r\n-\tConsideration of ‘rent stabilisation’ measures that require landlords to provide longer leases with no above-inflation rent increases permitted.\r\n\r\n-\tImproving the supply of housing, with more than 1,000 affordable homes being built between now and 2020.\r\n\r\n-\tExamining ways to bring long-term vacant properties back into use as homes and measures to tackle under-occupation.\r\n\r\n-\tExploring additional schemes to support assisted home ownership.\r\n\r\n-\tExploring the introduction of a moratorium on buy-to-let properties by unqualified persons on new developments.\r\n\r\nIn relation to commercial rents, the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, while recognising the challenges faced by many businesses in Jersey, believes that rents are a function of the market and is not minded to introduce rent controls that might negatively impact on the supply and quality of commercial premises.","created_at":"2018-09-19T10:54:41.515Z","updated_at":"2018-09-19T10:54:41.515Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-12","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=C0080BA2-2796-4C64-8A46-568C1A3C5F58#_Toc3558587","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"https://www.jerseypolicyforum.org/static/files/JPF%20E-Petition%20Briefing%20Pack.pdf","overview":"General debate on the subject of rent controls and affordable housing in Jersey"}}},{"type":"petition","id":200169,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200169.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Higher sentences for paedophiles.","background":"The people of Jersey are sick and tired of seeing paedophiles either found guilty of abusing, or attempting to abuse, our children being handed lenient prison sentences (if any prison sentence) by the Jersey courts.","additional_details":"We therefore demand the States of Jersey implement mandatory minimum prison terms for such offences, starting from a minimum of 3 years and change the signing of the Sex Offenders Register to life.\r\n\r\nThis is the only way we can deter paedophiles from harming our children and partaking in the vile downloading of indecent images and videos of children online.","state":"closed","signature_count":5100,"created_at":"2018-12-28T22:16:46.058Z","updated_at":"2024-09-18T11:27:24.555Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-04T15:32:59.253Z","closed_at":"2019-07-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-28T22:38:56.959Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-06T11:04:09.403Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-02-01T14:37:40.844Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-25T08:26:56.062Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-17","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-29T08:35:02.174Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-01","summary":"It is not common practice in Jersey to use legislation to set minimum prison terms. Further research is needed to establish if resources should be diverted to monitoring offenders for their whole life","details":"It should be made absolutely and abundantly clear that all Ministers completely deplore the actions of paedophiles and the consequential harm that is caused by them to our children. \r\n\r\nThe Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018, which came into force on 23rd November 2018 and consolidated most sexual offences into a single enactment, was prepared in order to meet the needs and expectations of the police, prosecutors, modern Jersey society and international standards. \r\n\r\nThe 2018 Law covers offences by adults against children aged 12 or younger (Articles 9 and 10 of the Law), offences by adults against children aged 13 to 15 (Articles 11 and 12), other offences against children aged 15 or younger (Articles 13. 14, 15, and 16).  The 2018 Law also maintains the offences in relation to abuse of trust where an adult engages in sexual conduct with a person aged 16 or 17 (Articles 18, 19 and 20). The positions of trust have also been extended by the 2018 Law to include people involved in coaching children in sports or other activities.\r\n\r\nIn particular, it should also be noted that Article 15(4) of the 2018 Law created an additional offence in relation to the sexual grooming of a child. The previous offence in Article 15(1) addressed the situation where an adult communicates with a child and then travels to meet the child with the intention of committing an offence.  The additional offence in Article 15(4) applies where an adult intentionally communicates (by any means, including online) with a child who is 15 or younger and the communication is sexual or intended to encourage a sexual communication in response. There is a defence where the person communicated with is 13 or older and the defendant reasonably believed the person was 16 years of age or older. This offence provides more comprehensive protection to children as it is now not necessary for the adult to have travelled to meet the child for the offence to be committed.  \r\n\r\nIt is not common practice in Jersey to use legislation to set mandatory minimum prison terms for offences. Legislation usually refers to the maximum sentence that can be imposed for an offence. This is the case for the 2018 Sexual Offences Law and maximum sentences are set out throughout Articles 9 to 20. The maximum prison sentences have been set having regard to the nature of the behaviour giving rise to the offence and the penalties and range from liability to imprisonment for life to imprisonment for 5 years. \r\n\r\nWith these maximum sentences set, it is for the Courts, having considered a case and the associated evidence in full, to then make a decision as to the appropriate sentence to be applied. In doing so, the Court will take into account recommendations from the Attorney General or a Crown Advocate acting on the Attorney General’s behalf.\r\n\r\nMinisters also note the further comments recently made by the Attorney General in response to this e petition, with regard to sentencing policy in Jersey, especially in relation to offences involving possession of and distribution of indecent images of children.\r\n\r\nOnce convicted, offenders are placed on the sex offenders register, allowing the relevant authorities to keep track of their whereabouts and providing greater powers to enter and search their premises. In contrast to the position in England and Wales, offenders are not automatically removed from the register at the end of the period, but must make a public application to be removed which is then determined by the Court. \r\n\r\nThe Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) have been in operation for 8 years since 2011 following the introduction of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. Partnership agencies work together through this mechanism in order to work with and support both sex and violent offenders, thereby protecting local communities. These arrangements have proved highly effective since introduction with year on year very low reoffending annually – almost exclusively for lower level unrelated offending. On average annually during the last 8 years, just 6 offenders being managed through these arrangements have re-offended out of an annual average of 56 offenders (out of a current total of 140 registered sex offenders). The Minister publishes and tables an annual report in the States on these arrangements. \r\n\r\nIn terms of the benefits of lifelong registration, further research would be needed to establish if resources should be diverted to monitoring offenders for their whole life, keeping in mind that there will likely be circumstances where an individual has not reoffended in decades and may no longer pose a threat to the public.\r\n","created_at":"2019-02-01T14:37:40.841Z","updated_at":"2019-02-01T14:37:40.841Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-17","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=1E821FBF-4817-4339-82FC-5496B20DEF30#_Toc14451076","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"This e-petition was debated 'in committee' on the morning of 17 July (section 6 of the transcript). There was no vote, just a general debate, led by the Home Affairs Minister."}}},{"type":"petition","id":200806,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200806.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce an immediate reduction in road fuel duty","background":"The international fuel situation has changed dramatically following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has led to a further rise of driven fuel prices. Some of the highest prices in decades. Consumers are faced with a cost of living crisis on many fronts, not limited to, but including fuel.","additional_details":"We believe that the government has the fiscal flexibility to support a reduction as, government will have had an unexpected revenue upside from the GST component of the escalating fuel prices. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, ATF fully supports the transition to renewable fuels.\r\n\r\nOn that basis we propose the following:\r\n•\tFuel duty cut of 2.5 ppl as a temporary measure, which we believe equates to the additional GST being received\r\n•\tAdditional cut for biofuels of 3 ppl to support transition to  renewable fuels","state":"closed","signature_count":5078,"created_at":"2022-04-21T12:53:34.545Z","updated_at":"2024-12-20T14:50:38.199Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-04-22T09:33:41.648Z","closed_at":"2022-10-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-04-21T13:07:01.268Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-04-26T19:26:21.339Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-05-10T12:26:33.130Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-07-25T19:46:34.166Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-10-04","debate_outcome_at":"2024-12-20T14:50:38.199Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-05-10","summary":"The Minister does not support fuel duty reductions and believes that more targeted interventions will be more effective in reducing the impact of rising costs on lower-income households.","details":"The Government has already taken action to put money directly into the pockets of lower-income families to help alleviate the rising cost of living. In March, the Social Security Minister announced the introduction of a direct monthly payment of £20 to every adult or child in a household claiming Income Support and every pensioner claiming a means tested benefit from April to December 2022. Ministers are not convinced that the range of fuel duty reductions proposed in this petition would deliver the outcomes sought. In any event, it would not be possible to lodge the necessary legislation before the General Election.  \r\n\r\nFuel duty reductions are a blunt way of delivering help to struggling households (who may be less dependent upon private transport than higher-income households) and their success would rely on the reduction being reflected in the pump price. Pump prices for unleaded petrol in Jersey already vary from 151.9p per litre at the cheapest pump to 190.0p at the most expensive (as at 26th April 2022). The situation for diesel is the same, with pump prices ranging from 155.9p to 190.0p per litre.   \r\n\r\nAverage mileage and fuel consumption in Jersey is significantly lower than in the UK and spending on motoring accounts for a relatively small percentage of typical household budgets, albeit subject to price inflation of 10.5% over the 12 months to March 2022. Indeed, analysis of consumer spending in Jersey suggests that spending on motor fuel does not fall evenly across the income distribution, with those on the highest incomes accounting for a disproportionate share of total spending. Assuming that the proposed duty reduction is reflected in the pump price, such a move would tend to benefit those households with higher incomes to a greater extent than those on lower incomes.\r\n\r\nAs has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions that have recently implemented emergency reductions in fuel duty, the saving is not always passed on to the consumer. This may be because of pricing decisions taken by fuel retailers, or it may be because subsequent rises in wholesale prices erode the saving generated by a fuel duty reduction. If that were to happen, the fuel duty reduction proposed in this petition may not even reach the consumer.\r\n\r\nFailure to pass on the cost saving to the consumer would also limit the extent to which the proposed additional reduction of 3p per litre for biofuels would stimulate demand. Ministers recognise the need to promote the uptake of more sustainable fuels and modes of transport as underpinned by the pledges of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap. However, at such a time of volatility in global markets and the recent experience in other jurisdictions, the case for duty relief targeted to biofuels is uncertain at best.\r\n\r\nFinally, leaving aside the previous points, the necessary legislative changes to give effect to the proposals cannot be brought into force in a timescale that is consistent with this rapidly evolving situation. As we have now entered the pre-election period, draft legislation can neither be lodged nor debated by the States Assembly prior to the formation of the new Government in July. \r\n\r\nMinisters will continue to monitor the cost of living; the impact of global fuel prices; and local pump prices in Jersey.\r\n","created_at":"2022-05-10T12:26:33.126Z","updated_at":"2022-05-10T12:28:16.141Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-10-04","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.je/publications/hansard/2022/official-report-4th-october-2022","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":""}}},{"type":"petition","id":200271,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200271.json"},"attributes":{"action":"STOP the government extending car park charging hours from 8AM-5PM to 7AM-6PM.","background":"Parking is expensive enough as it is with the current hours of 8AM - 5PM. Now the government plan to extend these hours further by an extra 2 hours per day claiming that this is part of a major savings plan and will encourage people to use more sustainable modes of transport.","additional_details":"The government SHOULD implement free forms of transport, helping Jersey be more eco-friendly. The government WON'T do this because too much money is generated from parking fees and fines. \r\n\r\n£1,672,725 was generated in parking fines from 2016-2018 and the price per unit of parking has gone up 51.79% from 2008 (£0.56-£0.85)\r\n\r\nThis is not savings, but rather punishing/stealing from the working class and people that want to shop locally. \r\n\r\nPeople who work 12 hour shifts, starting at 7:30 will have to pay an additional 2 hours per day for parking. This is punishing essential workers such as nurses!","state":"closed","signature_count":4986,"created_at":"2019-10-22T11:20:19.926Z","updated_at":"2020-10-23T23:01:03.266Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-10-23T08:47:27.677Z","closed_at":"2020-04-23T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-22T13:13:08.552Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-10-24T19:06:08.303Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-11-21T16:16:55.313Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-11-21","summary":"The Government has amended the original proposal and is now proposing to extend chargeable parking hours until 6pm and increase the unit cost of parking by 5p. ","details":"Deputy Kevin Lewis, Minister for Infrastructure, recognises and is sensitive to the concerns raised in the petition to stop the Government extending car parking hours from 8am to 5pm to 7am to 6pm.  \r\n\r\nIn fact, this Government Plan measure had not been finalised. While the Minister had agreed to the principle of £700,000, he was still to decide how this could be fairly achieved and wished to undertake further analysis. The extension of car parking charging hours was one of the options being evaluated. This was noted in the Plan itself by the words “While the Minister supports the value of this efficiency, the precise nature of delivery is subject to further analysis by officers.”\r\n\r\nSince the petition was started, an amendment to the Government Plan has been lodged by Deputy Labey calling for the Government Plan to be altered and not ‘include any extension of standard car-parking charging hours from the current 8am to 5pm to 7am to 6pm (as was initially proposed in ‘Efficiencies Plan 2020-23’ (R. 130/2019))’. However, no alternative method of achieving the equivalent income was offered and the proposition made the assumption that the budget would therefore be reduced by the equivalent amount.\r\n\r\nIn effect this amendment is calling for the same outcome as your petition.\r\n\r\nHaving reviewed Deputy R Labey’s Amendment and listened to the arguments put forth within the petition and elsewhere, in conjunction with the further analysis by officers, the Minister has brought forward a compromise measure to achieve the same outcome: \r\n\r\n1.\tExtend chargeable hours from 5pm to 6pm only (so if a customer parks at 8.30am in a long-stay car park and returns to their vehicle at 5.30pm, they would not have to pay for an additional unit of parking).\r\n\r\n2.\tTo increase the unit cost of parking by 3p over the annual RPI(Y) increase of 2p, resulting in a total increase in the retail cost of parking for 2020 of 5p per unit.\r\n\r\nTherefore, it is proposed the retail cost of parking is increased by 5p per unit, from 85p to 90p, and that chargeable hours will run from 8am (as before) to 6pm (an extension of one hour on the previous arrangement). The early morning extension has been dropped in order to lessen the effect on those living in St Helier.\r\n\r\nThe matter has been discussed at the Council of Ministers and they support the compromise as pragmatic alternative to the original proposal, which recognises the concerns raised by Deputy R Labey, the petition and elsewhere, and is consistent and complementary to Government policy.\r\n\r\nA third of the Island’s carbon emissions arise from road transport.\r\n\r\nOf the approximately 10,000 vehicles that travel to St Helier each workday morning approximately 8,500 are single occupancy. Fundamental to reducing these carbon emissions is encouraging people away from single occupancy cars to shared journeys or public transport.  \r\n\r\nThe cost of parking is fundamental to the relative attractiveness of other travel choices. To be financially sustainable and to maintain service levels bus fare have to increase by inflation, thus in order to encourage more sustainable transport choices parking charges will have to increase above the rate of inflation. \r\n\r\nA new Sustainable Transport Policy is being developed which will contain a number of measures and incentives to encourage and support sustainable transport. This proposal is intended to complement the forthcoming Policy.\r\nAlthough no parking charges increase is welcomed by customers, it should be noted that nationally, the 2019 UK average hourly fee for off-street parking is £2.08. In Jersey, it is currently 85p with the proposal to increase to 90p.\r\nThe money generated from parking fees and fines is used primarily for the upkeep of the 81 car parks across the Island, operational costs and investment in future parking provision. The commercial return to the States from the investment in  the car parks has from 2016 been used to fund sustainable transport initiatives and bus passes for persons with a disability and it is intended that this will also continue.\r\n\r\nSince 2008 the cost of parking has risen 20% above the rate of inflation (approximately 12p). The rises included in this above inflation amount were the result of States decisions to introduce (and increase) GST in 2008 and 2011, in 2010 to use the Car Park Trading fund to raise funding for the Eastern Cycle Network and as an increased financial return, and in 2018 to pay Parish Rates on States of Jersey’s properties, including the car parks.\r\n\r\nMinister for Infrastructure","created_at":"2019-11-21T16:16:55.301Z","updated_at":"2019-11-21T16:16:55.301Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200562,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200562.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep gyms open and enforce masks and 2-metre distancing for extra protection.","background":"Please consider keeping the gyms open and enforcing masks and 2-metre social distancing to further prevent the spread of COVID, instead of closing gyms and causing mental health issues to rise in the Island.","additional_details":"Only 2% of transmissions locally have come from gyms and indoor sports facilities. There's only been one gym with an outbreak due to a member coming in unwell, not due to the safety measures that gym has in place. Other sectors with a higher transmission rate are allowed to remain open.\r\n\r\nThe gym isn't just a place people come to exercise, for most it's their 'safe place' and a place where they feel a sense of belonging. During the last lockdown there was a 200% increase in calls to mental health services. If gyms remained open it would certainly help prevent this detrimental damage to happen again.\r\n\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":4433,"created_at":"2020-12-02T20:21:57.476Z","updated_at":"2021-12-04T00:00:41.375Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-03T15:23:15.603Z","closed_at":"2021-06-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-02T20:29:37.275Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-03T20:17:05.714Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-01-19T15:22:18.745Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-19","summary":"Decisions about when to apply measures are based on the specific infection patterns observed. This targeted approach led to the difficult decision to temporarily close indoor sport and exercise venues","details":"It is recognised that indoor sports and recreation facilities, which include gyms, play a vital role in ensuring the ongoing health and wellbeing of Islanders. That is why, throughout 2020, we followed a managed return to activity, whilst ensuring that public health measures were maintained. This balanced approach ensured the mental and physical wellbeing of Islanders. However, the safety of customers, staff, volunteers and their families always remains the absolute priority. \r\nThe exponential rises in COVID-19 activity across early warning indicators over November and December pointed to a meaningful and consistent increase in positive cases where community transmission was established. The case evidence of the time showed that Jersey was moving rapidly through the escalation framework ‘Early Warning’ Phase and toward the ‘Epidemic Response’ phase. Robust additional action to target the virus alongside stronger universal measures was needed to slow the spread of infection. The COVID-19 Winter Strategy states that Government will attempt to counter threats on a targeted basis, before putting in place significant island-wide, or universal restrictions. Decisions about when to apply targeted or more universal measures are based on the specific infection patterns observed. This targeted approach led to the difficult decision to temporarily close indoor sport and exercise venues, while outdoor sport and exercise and exercising at home remain open and available.\r\nTwo metre physical distancing is currently a universal public health measure and the guidelines do not recommend the wearing of masks during exercise or strenuous activity. This is due to potential health harms and difficulty breathing if worn during physical activity. \r\nEvidence shows that gyms and other providers of indoor exercise are lower risk when compared to hospitality. However, they are not risk-free. Accordingly, when gyms were open there were restrictions in place regarding the intensity levels, with the stipulation that only low or moderate intensity activity was permissible. This is because the virus is spread through droplet transmission in the air as well as via the many touch points and surfaces where the virus can land. Heavy breathing, as a result of high intensity activity, raises this risk considerably and there is reasonable biological plausibility of respiratory droplets and aerosol spread as well as through touch points etc.\r\nThe Government is committed to protect Islanders through the targeted de-escalation of measures based on evidence as well on local data and intelligence. We have had at least one indoor exercise business linked to significant spread of COVID-19; several other providers have also seen cases amongst clients. A review of our cases associated with indoor exercise provision show one large cluster of 22 cases from one setting – these cases included personal trainers. The direct contacts from this cluster had a median range of 9 with a maximum of 32. \r\nAt least a further 20 cases (again including personal trainers/instructors) have been identified across six other indoor exercise settings during a likely infectious period. \r\nAt the time when case numbers were rising, it was increasingly likely that positive cases would use services. Additionally, we know that the 20- to 40-year age group is both a strong demographic in this sector and linked with community spread. \r\nRisk had been established in the local context and therefore a cautious approach was taken in order to protect Islanders from further spread in the context of increasing case numbers. This is consistent with other measures taken to minimise the potential for people gathering. As the Government policy and guidance makes clear, everyone should limit the number of people with whom they have social contact to help restrict the spread of COVID-19. Furthermore, Islanders have been advised to socialise outside, wherever possible, as the risk of the spread of the virus is higher inside.\r\nWe will continually monitor the situation with a view to relaxing this measure as soon as it is safe to do so.\r\n","created_at":"2021-01-19T15:22:18.742Z","updated_at":"2021-01-19T15:22:18.742Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200565,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200565.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Break up from school a week earlier","background":"Breaking up a week earlier from school would give us a 2-week time frame to isolate so we can make sure we keep our families from catching COVID-19 on Christmas Day. It would make sense for us to be able to do online lessons if this would affect school time.","additional_details":"This would give us the normal Christmas all of us are wanting, by also keeping our families, especially those that are vulnerable to the virus - such as the elderly - safe.","state":"closed","signature_count":4259,"created_at":"2020-12-03T14:11:35.105Z","updated_at":"2022-04-14T10:12:36.482Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-04T08:35:54.907Z","closed_at":"2021-06-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-03T14:24:29.246Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-04T19:28:45.030Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-12-24T08:28:13.335Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-24","summary":"Many families are naturally concerned about Christmas, but the legal powers to close schools depend on the risk of spreading the virus and medical advice has not supported closure on these grounds. ","details":"The Minister recognises that many families are concerned that contact tracing, isolation or catching Covid-19 may have an impact on their plans for Christmas Day. \r\n\r\nA States Assembly debate on school closures was held on 10 December 2020 following the lodging of Deputy Ward’s proposition P163.2020. After several hours of debate on the main proposition and two amendments, the States Assembly voted not to close schools a week early.\r\n\r\nNotwithstanding this, any decision to close schools for Covid-19 reasons is governed by the COVID-19 (SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE OF CHILDREN) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2020. The Regulations require that in order to publish a notice closing schools the Minister for Education must first:\r\n\r\n(a)   consult the Council of Ministers;\r\n(b)   obtain the consent of the Minister for Health and Social Services; and\r\n(c)   be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate, having regard to the foreseeable risk of the spread of Covid‑19 in Jersey, to publish the notice.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the Minister for Health and Social Services must consult the Medical Officer of Health before giving any consent to the Minister for Education. \r\n\r\nThe medical advice received by the Minister for Education, the Council of Ministers and States Members, ahead of the debate, was that schools should remain open until the end of term, including noting the limited effectiveness on the spread of the virus by closing schools.\r\n\r\nAs such, having examined the issues, and based on the above steps, and further to the States Assembly having debated the matter thoroughly, it was concluded the schools should remain open. \r\n\r\nIn concluding this, practical realities have been considered, including measures within schools to promote teacher and pupil safety; and schools have also been able to make individual decisions on how they approach attendance in the run up to Christmas. \r\n\r\nNotwithstanding all the above, the Minister for Education appreciates the concerns of parents, and teachers, and the very real challenges of trying to maintain schools physically open during the pandemic, and has asked for more work to be done in advance of the start of the Spring term.\r\n\r\nSenator Tracey Vallois, Minister for Education","created_at":"2020-12-24T08:28:13.331Z","updated_at":"2020-12-24T08:28:13.331Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200626,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200626.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change the law to protect all vulnerable road users - Introduce Freddie’s Law","background":"Our 14yr old son Freddie was left for dead following an horrific hit and run cycle collision. The driver drove on and later used a little known loophole in the law to evade justice. ","additional_details":"This is just one example of a long history of road traffic collisions where, under the current Jersey law, the vulnerable road user has had little to no protection which often allows perpetrators to avoid any accountability and continue to drive carefree on our island roads. This loophole also undermines the abilities of the Police to conduct proper investigations. The States Assembly should urgently commission a review of the Laws governing the rights and protections of all vulnerable road users with a view to making it safer to cycle, walk and horse ride on Jersey’s roads.","state":"closed","signature_count":3737,"created_at":"2021-01-14T07:58:50.369Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:20:10.059Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-14T15:02:38.666Z","closed_at":"2021-07-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-14T08:41:54.397Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-15T13:50:42.091Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-16T14:15:00.236Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-10","summary":"The built environment, legislation, education and publicity all contribute to improving road safety. The STP will include consideration for how new liability laws could encourage change .","details":"It is always traumatic when someone is injured on our roads, and my thoughts are with Freddie and his family. \r\n\r\nThe purpose of the petition is to seek to initiate a review of the Jersey’s laws “governing the rights and protections of all vulnerable road users with a view to making it safer to cycle, walk and horse ride on Jersey’s roads”. \r\n\r\nThere is already work underway to try to make the roads safer for all users, including \r\n•\troad improvements to create space for cyclists\r\n•\tthe ensure consistency in speed limits\r\n•\tthe promotion of consideration for other road users and the prioritisation of road users who are not in cars\r\n•\twork to encourage people to use active travel instead of cars  . \r\n\r\nI have set out this below, yet this work will hopefully make it safer for cyclists, walkers and horse riders, and it may reduce the number and severity of collisions, but it will not stop them. \r\n\r\nThe law serves a number of functions in helping to make road use safer for everyone, and the applicable laws in this case fall into two categories: criminal and civil. The purpose of these two categories are distinct and it is important to be clear on the differences before discussing what I interpret as the loophole mentioned in the petition.\r\n\r\nCriminal law and civil law:\r\nCriminal law deals with crime and criminal offences. It aims to deter and punish conduct which is perceived as threatening, harmful or endangering to the public, its property or moral welfare.  \r\n\r\nJersey’s Attorney-General is the prosecuting authority for criminal cases. The criminal justice system acts with dual focus:\r\n-\tcriminal laws are used to control society’s actions\r\n-\tthey are in place to help citizens understand the effects of their actions by way of the punishment, deterrent and rehabilitation of offenders.  \r\n\r\nIn criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the outcome of a completed criminal trial process will be a guilty or not guilty verdict. \r\n\r\nCivil law deals with disputes between individuals or organisations, and are therefore brought by private parties. \r\n\r\nWhere a claim is brought by one person against another, the principle that applies is ‘he who asserts must prove’.  For example, where one person brings a claim in negligence, that person must prove (1) that a duty of care is owed by the other party (2) that there has been a breach of the duty owed by that other party, and (3) that the damage suffered by that person was as a result of the breach of the duty of care.\r\n\r\nCivil courts assess claims against the balance of probability standard, meaning that the court determines whether it is satisfied, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. It is therefore a much lower bar than the beyond reasonable doubt of criminal law.\r\n\r\nThe results of the civil court process is a finding of liability or a finding of no liability. The remedy in most successful civil claims will be financial damages.  \r\n\r\nThe situation under criminal law – Road Traffic Law (Jersey) 1956:\r\nWhile not explicit in the petition, there have been statements made surrounding the petition in local media that one route to achieve this would be through the adoption of presumed liability legislation. \r\n\r\nThis Ministerial response considers these matters in the round and sets out the work that the Government of Jersey is undertaking in this area.\r\n\r\nThe Road Traffic Law (Jersey) 1956, sets out criminal offences, including what is commonly referred to as failing to stop. \r\n\r\nIn response to a question in the States Chamber on the 19 January 2020, the Solicitor General said that to incorporate presumed liability into criminal law would run contrary to the fundamental principle of criminal justice that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This centuries-old principle is enshrined and confirmed in the European Convention on Human Rights, which is given effect in Jersey by virtue of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.\r\n\r\nWhile the UK and Jersey road traffic laws are worded differently, they place the same duties on drivers and in effect, provide for the same offences and defences.\r\n \r\nGiven the requirement to adhere to the ECHR, there is no reason to believe that Jersey’s current legislation is deficient. However, when the law is next revised I will ask for consideration to be given to amending the wording to more closely reflect the UK’s. This would not alter the principles of the offences or defences.\r\n\r\nThe situation under civil law:\r\nIn some jurisdictions (but not Jersey), presumed liability means that, where a more vulnerable road user suffers injury or loss of life in a road accident, the less vulnerable road user is presumed to be to blame, unless they can prove otherwise.\r\n\r\nThe concept of presumed liability is not used in criminal cases.\r\n\r\nPresumed liability for road traffic collisions is not part of Jersey or UK law, and any injured party seeking damages would have to prove that the other party was to blame.\r\n\r\nWhat we want to do to make roads safer:\r\n\r\nThe Sustainable Transport Policy (STP) seeks to promote walking and cycling in order to reduce the Island’s carbon footprint and to support public health by encouraging active lifestyles. \r\n\r\nThe STP uses a wide range of initiatives, including changing the built environment and legislation, as well as education and publicity, to encourage people to change their modes of transport. Among the barriers that people have to change are the concerns that people have for their and their family’s safety when cycling on roads.\r\n\r\nThe success of the policy will depend on addressing this and other concerns. It means that we are committed to reviewing the law, and consulting the public, in order to make the strategic choices needed encourage changes in behaviour. \r\n\r\nThe STP will include consideration for how new liability laws could encourage change. That will be as part of a balanced package of measures to ensure that increasing active travel is matched by improved safety and protection for vulnerable roads users, such as cyclists.\r\n\r\nIt should be remembered that cycling is relatively safe. There is inherent risk with all transport, including cycling, but it also has undisputed health benefits. I hope that Freddie makes a full recovery and that the package of measures I have set out make road use safer for everyone.\r\n (lhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757756/Cycling_and_walking_for_individual_and_population_health_benefits.pdf ).\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-16T14:15:00.233Z","updated_at":"2021-02-16T14:15:00.233Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200630,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200630.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Support a proposal to improve the unused recreational sporting area at FB Fields","background":"The area of land was gifted to the public for recreational sporting use. We should all be disappointed that a recreational area which was gifted for the public’s (i.e. all of our) enjoyment is neither being used nor in a position to be used in its current state.  ","additional_details":"Jersey Property Holdings and/or the relevant States department should do everything within their powers to ensure the land can be used by the public for the purpose intended.\r\n\r\nIn 2015 the Government spent a considerable amount of money improving the area (re-surfacing and installing new floodlights). However, even after that expenditure the area has not been used and is currently left dormant and in a sorry state.\r\n\r\nPlease consider showing your support to an individual that has the time, energy and inclination to make it a thriving sporting facility for all the public to use once again, whilst improving physical and mental well-being.","state":"closed","signature_count":3473,"created_at":"2021-01-15T12:59:26.465Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:20:27.661Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-20T09:33:09.626Z","closed_at":"2021-07-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-15T14:05:05.202Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-20T20:09:33.744Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-18T09:10:35.484Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-17","summary":"The proposed lease of the site to a third-party business venture and the creation of five-a-side football pitches is considered a breach of conditions created when the land was gifted to the Public.","details":"A request has been received from a private organisation, JS Fives, to convert an area of FB Fields to five-a-side football venue. A planning application has also been submitted. Regrettably, it will be difficult to achieve this new facility because of a covenant on the land and because it has not been possible to get agreement from the beneficiaries of the covenant.\r\n\r\nThe area in question was previously used primarily for netball and it remains in a functional state. The Government is aware that this small space needs to be brought back to use and will continue to look at alternative recreational and sporting options for this area. \r\n\r\nIn line with the ‘Inspiring an Active Jersey’, Ministers support sporting ventures that will provide more opportunities for islanders to follow healthy lifestyles. The Government will further support the applicant to explore possible alternative sites that might be suited to accommodate this five-a-side football business proposal.\r\n\r\nThe piece of land in question was gifted to the Public in 1961 by the owners of a neighbouring property known as “Peverell” (now known as “Villa d’Azette”) situated to the west of the site and various conditions were created in the contract.  Since that time, the site of “Peverell” has been sub-divided and there are now seven owners who are entitled to claim the benefit of the restrictive clauses.\r\n\r\nThe specific conditions that would affect the JS Fives proposal at FB Fields are as follows:\r\n\r\n\"2. That the said piece of land is also hereby gifted, ceded and transferred for public use and shall be used by the Committee of the States known as the “Education Committee” (or by such other States Committee duly authorised in this respect by the States Assembly) as that Committee shall think fit in order to encourage sport and the spirit of sporting competition, and furthermore, the said piece of land shall become a sporting recreation ground joined to and incorporated in the neighbouring property known as “F.B. Playing Fields” belonging to the Public.\r\n\r\n4. That there shall only be erected or constructed on the said piece of land hereby gifted, ceded and transferred one sole building or pavilion with changing rooms and appurtenances for use of the players.\"\r\n\r\nThe submitted proposal, which includes the installation of cycle stands, new fencing, playing surface and caged netting around the existing netball courts, would be considered a breach of the condition 4 above. \r\n\r\nAny future use of this part of FB Fields will be considered in line with the covenant. The close proximity of residential homes, and potential noise and disturbance, will need to be carefully considered.\r\n\r\nObjections to the planning application have already been submitted by the majority of the beneficiaries of the covenant, it would suggest that the Public would be challenged to obtain approval from all of the property owners in respect of amending the restrictions.\r\n\r\nDeputy Kevin Lewis\r\nMinister for Infrastructure\r\n\r\nDeputy Hugh Raymond\r\nAssistant Minister with Responsibility for Sport\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-18T09:10:35.481Z","updated_at":"2021-02-18T09:10:35.481Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200754,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200754.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Have a radiotherapy unit in the new hospital","background":"It is hard dealing with cancer without the added physical and emotional distress of travelling to the UK for treatment.  I had 7 and 8 year old boys. I flew home every weekend to see them. It was so tough. 17 years later I was there again. I got very ill and was scared. I needed my loved ones.","additional_details":"Jersey desperately needs a radiotherapy unit. It can service the whole Channel Islands. Patients who travel for treatment are put up in an apartment. This can be very lonely if one is feeling unwell and unable to get out and about. Not everyone is able to have someone with them. You also have to cook your own meals. Again not everyone is well enough to do this.","state":"closed","signature_count":3449,"created_at":"2021-10-29T07:58:18.900Z","updated_at":"2023-08-08T08:26:41.619Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-11-02T11:56:03.199Z","closed_at":"2022-05-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-29T15:13:52.622Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-11-04T20:23:42.221Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-12-10T09:43:37.720Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-12-09","summary":"“I have requested a full business case to consider the possibility of providing Radiotherapy on-island because I wish to bring this to Jersey if it is safe for patients and we can afford to do so.”","details":"I am aware of the negative impact of off-island travel for patients and their loved ones when they are already coping with an illness. Sometimes, there can also be waiting times for off-island treatment which can add extra stress at an already worrying time.\r\n\r\nThe possibility of offering radiotherapy on-island is something which I am keen to investigate and, for this reason, scoping work to be developed into a full business case is being carried out over the next few months. \r\n\r\nThe provision of radiotherapy is an area of medicine which requires great clinical expertise and islanders currently undergo treatment in the UK at a specialist centre to ensure their treatment is carried out at the highest level. We need to ensure that clinical safety and patient outcomes are always at the forefront of further considerations.\r\n\r\nCurrently, approximately 150 patients from Jersey a year receive radiotherapy in the UK and we know that some patients choose not to undergo that treatment because of the difficulties of travel and separation from their families. It is therefore likely that the potential demand for on-island therapy is higher than the current off-island activity.\r\n\r\nIn September 2021 a working group was established. The group discussed the possibility of radiotherapy treatment on-island and potential considerations to undertake. The group requested that information across a number of areas was brought together to inform the decision to move to a full business case. A pre-feasibility study was therefore conducted. \r\n\r\nThe pre-feasibility study highlighted the rationale for investigating the option of on-island provision and highlighted four key areas to consider in further detail in a full business case. \r\n\r\nThese are: 1) personal needs and outcomes; 2) clinical safety (including workforce availability, resilience of the unit and backups, safe application of a range of treatment on island, assurance on quality of the unit and clinical use); 3) finance (including detailed demand and capacity data, capital and on-going revenue costs) and 4) location and set-up of the unit (including co-location /separate location options, power supply and infrastructure).\r\n\r\nThe group made the decision to move to a full business case to give greater clarity and information on these four key areas and to provide options for a future decision on this topic. \r\n\r\nI have asked that the business case be presented to me by the end of March 2022.\r\n\r\nIt is important to note that should a radiotherapy service be offered in the future in Jersey, some patients would still need to be referred for treatment in the UK, including patients being treated for head and neck cancers. This is because the treatment of those cancers is very specialist and therefore must be provided in a specialist centre.\r\n\r\nWe want patients to get their treatment on-island where possible, but we need to make sure that treatment is safe and resilient, it is high quality and the outcome for patients is as good as anywhere else. \r\n","created_at":"2021-12-10T09:43:37.717Z","updated_at":"2021-12-10T09:43:37.717Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200887,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200887.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reverse the decision to add GST to all Amazon orders","background":"We run a self-funded rescue animal charity and paying 5% more on Amazon and eBay orders will add to our costs and is wrong. There are people in this island who are struggling with their own food costs, rents etc. this will only cause more worry. ","additional_details":"Think about those who don’t own their own properties. We are in a private rental, so we pay high rent for everything - the house, fields, sheds and feed for our animals etc. Many more animals are being rehomed as people are being forced to give them up although having animals is good for a person’s mental health. Unfortunately, we will be unable to continue to keep feeding and looking after these animals. GST should not be charged on orders that cost less than £60.00.","state":"closed","signature_count":3296,"created_at":"2023-06-23T12:27:27.013Z","updated_at":"2024-07-03T23:00:27.681Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-07-03T09:16:22.523Z","closed_at":"2024-01-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-28T11:06:52.307Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-07-08T11:43:05.132Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-08-04T07:13:16.146Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-08-03","summary":"The GST Law already allows registered charities to reclaim all GST paid to any suppliers, incurred in the course and furtherance of their charitable aims.  \r\n\r\n","details":"The GST Law already allows registered charities to reclaim all GST paid to any suppliers, incurred in the course and furtherance of their charitable aims.  \r\n\r\nIt would not be appropriate to provide a GST exemption solely for goods sourced from one named retailer as that would be discriminatory and susceptible to legal challenge by all other retailers. \r\n\r\nThe recent change to oblige larger offshore retailers to register for GST (and so charge GST at the point of purchase) fulfils a long-standing commitment of Governments since GST was introduced in 2007 to help “level the playing field” between domestic and offshore retailers.  Affected retailers were given a year’s notice (later extended by a further six months) to make systems changes – that is since before the Ukraine war started and precipitated the current cost-of-living crisis.  Ministers will continue to consider the best ways to support islanders in these difficult times.\r\n\r\nThe previous position (where offshore retailers did not have to register for GST) was only tenable while they did not have the capabilities to charge Jersey GST.  That situation changed in 2021 following UK and EU moves to require large retailers to charge VAT at the rate in force in the countries of destination of goods and to pay that tax over to the relevant national treasuries.  Having accommodated changes in the UK and EU, the marginal cost of doing the same for Jersey made economic sense.\r\n\r\nCollection of GST by offshore retailers means the goods will proceed through customs smoothly, as there is no longer a requirement for tax to be collected at the border and checked through ‘CAESAR.’\r\n \r\nThe GST De Minimis level of £60 (from 1 July) remains to assist Customs Officers in clearing lower-value consignments through Customs expeditiously, from offshore retailers not required to register (those with less than £300K turnover in Jersey). \r\n\r\nWhere islanders buy goods from offshore retailer who are not GST-registered, they are liable to pay GST on goods valued at £60 or higher in the normal way.  ","created_at":"2023-08-04T07:13:16.142Z","updated_at":"2023-08-04T07:13:16.142Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200331,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200331.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Legalize, Decriminalize and regulate Cannabis for Islanders","background":"There are many Islanders suffering from health issues that Cannabis has been PROVEN to treat, there is a serious mental health issue and the majority of people who experience these issues use Cannabis to help, it will increase Islander's quality of life and turn a profit for the Island's economy.","additional_details":"As somebody who has lived with several mental health issues for over two decades I use Cannabis to treat my disorders, without it I would be on numerous DANGEROUS medications, I have managed to go without prescription medication because I use Cannabis. The majority of our Islanders use Cannabis daily, the recent raids due to 'Operation Shark' have caused A LOT of suffering and mentally unstable people are now resorting to alcohol, harder drugs and abusing prescription medication. This is not right.","state":"closed","signature_count":3021,"created_at":"2020-03-16T09:03:42.481Z","updated_at":"2022-04-14T09:23:21.940Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-17T08:16:33.368Z","closed_at":"2020-09-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-16T09:59:00.361Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-19T18:22:50.685Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-05-01T13:43:26.823Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-01","summary":"The Minister, having taken into consideration factors including those listed in full below and the position of the World Health Organisation, rejects the petition.\r\n","details":"•\tThe Minister has legalised the use of medicinal cannabis when prescribed by a medical practitioner.  \r\n\r\n•\tWhere cannabis is taken, other than as prescribed, that is a criminal offence.  \r\n\r\n•\tThere is no current intention to decriminalise cannabis generally, and it will continue to be regulated under the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.\r\n\r\n•\tIt is not accepted that the majority of islanders use cannabis on a daily basis.\r\n\r\n•\tThe 2019 UN World Drug Reports states that treatment demand for cannabis use disorders is increasing. All regions, except Africa, have seen an increasing proportion of people entering treatment for cannabis use disorders as the primary drug of concern (UN. 2019, p20) . The report also states that the scientific literature suggests that people using cannabis who progress to daily use have a higher probability of developing cannabis use disorders, while regular and heavy use of cannabis with a high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content has been identified as a risk factor for acute and chronic adverse health outcomes, including mental health problems and cannabis use disorders (UN.2019, p20) .\r\n\r\n•\tThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) do not recommend the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain.\r\n\r\n•\tCannabis use by adolescents has been linked to an increased prevalence of mental illness, including depression, anxiety and psychosis; impaired neurological development and cognitive decline; and diminished school performance and lifetime achievement . Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia in young people . Early cannabis use (\u003c15 years) brings greater risk for schizophrenia than use before the age of 18 years .\r\n\r\n•\tCannabis use may impact upon the fertility of both women and men . \r\n\r\n2\tTHE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION POSITION \r\n\r\n2.1\tAcute health effects of cannabis use\r\nThe acute effects of cannabis use has been recognized for many years, and recent studies have confirmed and extended earlier findings. These may be summarized as follows: \r\n\r\n•\tCannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabis is used both during learning and recall periods;\r\n\r\n•\tCannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.\r\n\r\n2.2\tChronic health effects of cannabis use\r\n\r\n•\tselective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;\r\n\r\n•\tprolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;\r\n\r\n•\tdevelopment of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;\r\n\r\n•\tcannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;\r\n\r\n•\tepithelial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;\r\n\r\n•\tairway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;\r\n\r\n•\theavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;\r\n\r\n•\tcannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in foetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;\r\n\r\n•\tcannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.\r\n\r\n3 \tConclusion\r\n\r\nThe Minister, having taken into consideration factors including those listed above and the position of the World Health Organisation rejects the petition.\r\n\r\n4\tHELP AVAILABLE\r\n\r\nFor those who are currently struggling with drug dependency we would encourage them to contact the Alcohol and Drugs Service (ADS) to access support around personal use of any substance and to discuss what other options may be available.  The focus of the ADS is to ensure that any drugs taken do the minimum amount of harm, whilst enabling service users to understand and feel supported on a road to recovery. The ADS is also happy to speak to anyone who has a concern about a relative or a friend.  The ADS provides a confidential service. To contact the ADS directly please email or telephone +44 (0) 1534 445000.  \r\n","created_at":"2020-05-01T13:43:26.819Z","updated_at":"2020-05-01T13:43:26.819Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200298,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200298.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reverse the decision to spend £200,000 on the child abuse memorial","background":"Being a survivor of the Child Care Homes that were closed including Haut de la Garenne, I am enraged, along with a large portion of the general public, that £200,000 is going to be spent on a Memorial. This money could be spent elsewhere and do more good than a memorial will ever do.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2886,"created_at":"2020-02-14T18:06:46.817Z","updated_at":"2022-04-14T09:24:39.362Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-02-21T12:55:37.203Z","closed_at":"2020-08-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-02-14T18:22:31.497Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-02-22T17:07:27.821Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-03-12T10:02:43.496Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-12","summary":"We understand and appreciate Islanders’ concerns. As a key part of our response to the Care Inquiry, the memorial must be a sensitive focus for reflection and an enduring promise to Jersey’s children.","details":"We understand and appreciate Islanders’ concerns about the Memorial. As a key part of our overall response to the Care Inquiry, it must be a sensitive focus for reflection and an enduring promise to Jersey’s children. \r\n\r\nAfter a long process of engagement, we are now inviting design proposals which will need to meet the criteria developed by the Citizens Panel:\r\n\r\n1.\tInclude an apology \r\n2.\tIs thought provoking and forever \r\n3.\tHonours victims and survivors, those lives lost, lives ruined and those who are still suffering \r\n4.\tEnsures that what happened does not get forgotten and stops the past being repeated\r\n5.\tIs easily accessible to the public \r\n6.\tIs highly visible and cannot be ignored. A memorial should be located in a highly prominent position so that all are constantly reminded of the injustice that took place and how the children were failed in the care system. It should remind the Jersey government as the corporate parents (i.e. acting parents), but not shock the survivors and bring back memories \r\n7.\tIs meaningful to a range of experiences suffered in the whole care system \r\n8.\tIs a transparent and clear acknowledgment of what happened\r\n\r\nThe funding allocated for the memorial has not been diverted from frontline services or either of the redress schemes but secured from the £23 million allocated for the Care Inquiry process. This represents a one-off pot of money which is not available for recurring costs such as staff or services for children. Reversing the decision to commission the memorial would not automatically release £200,000 for other children’s projects. \r\n\r\nIt is important that the community is involved in selecting the final design.  We will therefore be holding a public exhibition of shortlisted designs in June, to allow Islanders to share their feedback. This will ensure everyone’s views are taken into consideration when making the final decision. We have not defined what form the memorial should take so applicants can creatively respond to the design brief. It might be a garden, a playground, a sculpture, a fountain or something interactive.\r\n\r\nIn 2017 the IJCI Panel said that Jersey should create: “some form of tangible public acknowledgement of those that have been ill served by the care system over many decades.” (IJCI report, para 13.22)\r\n\r\nThis was accepted by the Council of Ministers. Survivors from the Island’s historic care system were recruited to form a Citizens Panel to consider how Jersey should remember this difficult history. In 2019, the returning IJCI Panel praised Jersey’s work to implement their 2017 legacy recommendations:\r\n\r\n“We heard from the Citizens Panel, which was set up following the publication of our report, and from the officers who have worked alongside the members of the Panel. Their work has been commendable and we understand that there is a commitment to taking their recommendations forward, with funding having been set aside. The creation of a memorial, of an emblem and the establishment of an annual Children’s day, will be very visible features of remembrance. It will be important that the commitments made are seen through. We hope that there will be widespread respect amongst islanders for what is planned. … we would recommend that the memorial commissioned is a high-quality piece of public art, which attracts interaction with both islanders and the many visitors to the island.”  (IJCI 2-year review, para 24)\r\n\r\nOver the lifetime of the Government Plan 2020-2023, we are making an additional investment of £42.4 million to deliver our strategic priority of ‘Putting Children First: Supporting and Protecting Children.’ This includes £6.4 million to embed the changes recommended by the IJCI.  (GOVERNMENT PLAN 2020–2023: FURTHER INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND CAPITAL AND MAJOR PROJECTS EXPENDITURE See p. 14)\r\n\r\nIn February we launched Love Never Leaves, a landmark £1.67 million package of support for children in care and care leavers which underpins the role of Government as a responsible corporate parent. The Care Leavers’ Offer and Support Entitlement for Children in Care will fund the everyday necessities that any loving parent would normally pay for, to ensure that our children are enabled to flourish, regardless of their start in life.\r\n\r\nWithin the Government Plan priority to ‘Improve Wellbeing’ £16.3 million of additional investment has been allocated for mental health initiatives over the next four years. This will include establishing an effective and sustainable complex trauma pathway of care for adults, including survivors from our historic care system.\r\n\r\nAs a key element of our wider programme to respond to the recommendations made by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, we remain committed to completing the open tender process launched in February and announcing the final design for the Care Memorial in July.\r\n\r\nTimeline\r\nJuly 2017: \t\tIndependent Jersey Care Inquiry\r\nOctober 2017: \t\tImplementation of the Care Inquiry’s Recommendations - P.108/2017\r\nApril 2018: \t\tSurvivors sought to develop memorial ideas\r\nApril 2018: \t\tJEP: Care abuse survivors asked to help develop a memorial\r\nJuly 2018: \t\tCitizens Panel Final Report\r\nJuly 2018: \tCouncil of Ministers decision on former Haut de la Garenne site and children's memorial\r\nJuly 2018: \t\tBBC: Jersey Children’s Day suggested for 3 July\r\nJuly 2018: \t\tChannel ITV: Public vote Haut De La Garenne to stay\r\nJuly 2019: \t\tGovernment Plan 2020 - 2023\r\nJuly 2019: \tGOVERNMENT PLAN 2020–2023: FURTHER INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND CAPITAL AND MAJOR PROJECTS EXPENDITURE\r\nAugust 2019: \tThe Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel scrutiny review: response from the Jersey Citizens Panel\r\nSeptember 2019: \tREPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT JERSEY CARE INQUIRY PANEL 2019 (TWO-YEAR REVIEW)\r\nSeptember 2019: \tBailiwick Express: Care leavers scold government over memorial inaction\r\nSeptember 2019: \tChannel 103: Abuse Survivors Frustrated By Government 'Heel-Dragging'\r\nNovember 2019: \tCare of Children in Jersey Review Panel - Response to the Care Inquiry: Update Report \r\nFebruary 2020: \t\tSummary of Progress: Responding to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry \r\nFebruary 2020: \t\tDesigns invited for care memorial","created_at":"2020-03-12T10:02:43.494Z","updated_at":"2020-03-12T10:06:08.350Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200660,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200660.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Open the pubs before Easter weekend","background":"There is no reason for the pubs to not be open. People are allowed to go to the gym and play indoor sports which, with all the heavy breathing and sweating, is more of an infection spreader than sitting in the pub having a pint!!","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2800,"created_at":"2021-03-23T07:00:24.619Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:20:53.734Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-03-25T14:20:35.590Z","closed_at":"2021-09-25T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-24T12:39:57.399Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-26T14:45:36.302Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-04-09T13:50:00.273Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-04-09","summary":"From Good Friday 2 April, alcoholic drinks table service resumed, without the need for an accompanying meal. ","details":"This petition was submitted before the announcement by Ministers of the intention to accelerate the reconnection roadmap from Friday 2 April. This meant that pubs and nightclubs offering seated drinks service were able to open from Good Friday if they retained 2 metre distancing, limited table numbers to ten people and collected customer details for contact tracing.  The 10pm earlier closing time was also removed, although the requirement to wear a mask if moving around inside the pub was retained.  \r\nThis move, some ten days earlier than originally anticipated, followed advice from the Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell (STAC) which, following a review of the latest figures on active cases, the high level of testing and contract tracing,  and the number of Islanders vaccinated, believed it safe to bring forward the relaxation of restrictions and permit further reconnection. \r\nThis reopening fits with the phased approach being adopted by Ministers. This is intended to safeguard the community and our successful vaccination programme, while also relaxing restrictions and allowing Islanders to resume more of their regular activities. \r\nSo long as the number of Covid cases continues to be controlled, the intention is to resume standing alcoholic drink services on Monday 10 May, while nightclubs will be able to fully reopen from Monday 14 June.  However, a need for vigilance remains and Islanders need to play their part by adhering to the rules and upholding public health measures. None of us wishes to experience a resurgence in Covid activity, which threatens our return to normality. \r\n","created_at":"2021-04-09T13:50:00.267Z","updated_at":"2021-04-09T13:50:00.267Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200681,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200681.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the double taxation of the Jersey pension","background":"The Jersey pension is included in the assessment for yearly income taxation even though a person during their working life paid tax on their GROSS income including their Social Security payments an element of which goes towards their pension.","additional_details":"Income tax during working life is based on GROSS earnings including Social Security payments and tax is paid on the GROSS amount.\r\n\r\nWhy therefore is it taxed again if a pensioner is above the tax threshold?","state":"closed","signature_count":2743,"created_at":"2021-04-28T16:04:33.608Z","updated_at":"2024-11-06T09:13:06.628Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-04-29T10:14:56.957Z","closed_at":"2021-10-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-28T20:41:59.548Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-11T16:39:47.919Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-06-04T07:24:40.108Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-06-03","summary":"Personal tax allowances exceed the maximum amount someone will receive for a Social Security pension. Making old age pensions tax exempt would not benefit the 50% of pensioners that do not pay tax.","details":"It is notable that the tax allowances in Jersey ensure that, even though the States old age pension is taxable, pensioners on low incomes who receive only the States old age pension do not pay any income tax. \r\nIn fact, approximately 50% of pensioners do not pay any income tax. \r\nMaking the States old age pension exempt from tax would therefore not benefit those pensioners with the lowest incomes.   \r\nThe tax treatment of social security contributions and the old age pension is not unique to Jersey; in particular the position in Jersey broadly mirrors that applied in the UK. It is routine practice to subject pensions to income tax. \r\nContributions to private/occupational pension schemes are routinely relieved from tax but social security contributions provide wider social-insurance benefits and the rates of contribution take account of the overall need to provide adequate levels of support.\r\nFor that reason, the Minister for Treasury and Resources cannot at this time support measures which would reduce the funds available to deliver public services to the people of Jersey.\r\n\r\nTax treatment of contributions\r\n\r\nSocial security contributions fund a social-insurance scheme which provides a range of benefits, including the States old age pension. If a tax deduction was available for these contributions, it would materially reduce States income and this reduction in tax revenues would have to be recouped through other taxation measures in order to maintain public services.\r\nFor employed people, social-security contributions are paid both by the employee and the employer.  The employer’s contribution – some 6.5% up to the Standard Earnings Limit (SEL) and a further 2.5% between the SEL and the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL) - is not subject to income tax and is a deductible expense of doing business. \r\n\r\nTax treatment of States old age pension\r\n\r\nThe vast majority of private and state-provided pensions are taxable but a significant proportion (estimated to be 50%) of Jersey pensioners pay no income tax. This is because Jersey enjoys relatively high tax exemption thresholds before which income is taxed.\r\n\r\nIn particular if a Jersey-resident pensioner’s only source of income is the States old age pension, he or she will not pay income tax: a single pensioner in receipt of a full States old age pension would receive around £11,750 in 2021 but would not pay income tax until their income exceeded £16,000.  A married pensioner in receipt of a full States pension would receive around £19,500 but would not pay income tax until their income exceeded £26,100 (note this threshold assumes the married pensioner was born before 1952).\r\n\r\nMaking the old age pension exempt from tax would materially reduce States income without providing any benefit whatsoever to the poorest pensioners. The reduction in tax revenues would have to be recouped through other measures in order to maintain public services.\r\n\r\nMinister for Treasury and Resources ","created_at":"2021-06-04T07:24:40.106Z","updated_at":"2021-06-04T07:28:51.121Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200205,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200205.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Cease paying income tax on Social Security pensions.","background":"Money earned is taxed before being placed in a pension scheme, so why are we being taxed again when it is paid out ?","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2705,"created_at":"2019-04-04T07:57:14.687Z","updated_at":"2024-11-06T09:14:16.938Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-04-09T14:57:18.963Z","closed_at":"2019-10-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-04T13:39:45.109Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-16T20:05:36.374Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-05-15T07:33:49.199Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-05-15","summary":"50% of pensioners do not pay any income tax.  Making old age pension exempt would not benefit those pensioners with the lowest incomes, because they do not pay income tax under the existing system. ","details":"It is notable that the tax allowances in Jersey ensure that, even though the States old age pension is taxable, pensioners on low incomes who receive only the States old age pension do not pay any income tax.  In fact, approximately 50% of pensioners do not pay any income tax.  Making the States old age pension exempt from tax would therefore not benefit those pensioners with the lowest incomes, because they do not pay income tax under the existing system. The tax treatment of social security contributions/old age pension is not unique to Jersey; in particular the position in Jersey broadly mirrors that applied in the UK.  It is routine practice to subject pensions to income tax.  Contributions to private/occupational pension schemes are routinely relieved from tax but social security contributions provide wider social insurance benefits and the rates of contribution take account of the overall needs of the Government to provide adequate levels of support.  \r\nFor that reason, the Minister for Treasury and Resources cannot at this time support measures which would reduce the funds available to deliver public services to the people of Jersey.\r\nThe tax treatment of social security contributions/old age pension (where individuals are not permitted to deduct the employee related contributions/the States old age pension is taxable income) is not unique to Jersey.  In particular the position in Jersey broadly mirrors that applied in the UK.\r\nTax treatment of contributions\r\nSocial security contributions fund a social-insurance scheme which provides a range of benefits, including the States old age pension.  If a tax deduction was available for these contributions, it would materially reduce States income and this reduction in tax revenues would have to be recouped through other measures in order to maintain public services.\r\nTax treatment of States old age pension\r\nThe vast majority of private and state-provided pensions are taxable but a significant proportion (estimated to be 50%) of Jersey pensioners pay no income tax.  This is because Jersey enjoys relatively high tax exemption thresholds before which income is taxed.\r\nIn particular if a Jersey-resident pensioner’s only source of income is the States old age pension, he or she will not pay income tax: a single pensioner in receipt of a full States old age pension would receive just under £11,400 in 2019 but would not pay income tax until their income exceeded £15,900; a married pensioner in receipt of a full States pension would receive around £18,900 but would not pay income tax until their income exceeded £26,100 (note these thresholds assume the pensioner was born before 1952).\r\nTherefore making the old age pension exempt from tax would materially reduce States income without providing any benefit whatsoever to the poorest pensioners.  The reduction in tax revenues would have to be recouped through other measures in order to maintain public services.\r\n","created_at":"2019-05-15T07:33:49.196Z","updated_at":"2019-05-15T07:33:49.196Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200835,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200835.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make fireworks with a ‘bang’ illegal in Jersey to prevent the stress of animals.","background":"It is possible to enjoy the beauty of fireworks without the ‘bang’ which causes unnecessary stress and pain to innocent animals across the island. \r\nWe can still enjoy the spectacular visuals of fireworks without the big noise which torments lovely animals.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2639,"created_at":"2022-11-06T00:32:09.166Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T11:36:36.378Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-11-08T10:43:05.527Z","closed_at":"2023-05-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-11-06T19:43:21.489Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-11-10T18:53:53.306Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-12-09T15:02:09.267Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-12-09","summary":"The Minister would like to see greater controls on the availability of fireworks and will bring proposals to that effect in the form of revised regulations during her term of office.","details":"The current situation \r\n\r\nPyrotechnic devices (fireworks) are divided into four categories of increasing size, from ‘F1’, including indoor fireworks and sparklers etc, to large display fireworks in category ‘F4’. This classification is based on the hazard that each type of firework poses to the public. That hazard assessment does not rely upon the volume of noise generated as there is no maximum volume for each category. The single point of limitation is that the maximum permitted volume for any firework available to the public is 120 decibels (dB).\r\n\r\nCurrently, members of the public can purchase fireworks in a wide range of sizes and types from category F1 to F3 for several weeks per year in the run-up to bonfire night. \r\n\r\nJersey imports fireworks almost exclusively from the UK, which does not distinguish between fireworks by decibel level (although all items meet the 120dB max criteria). Although it is reasonable to assume that F3 fireworks will be louder than F1, there is no rule that this must be the case. In addition, where fireworks are packaged together (such as in a selection box), they are likely to be a mix of loud, quiet and silent types designed to offer a range of experience. There is no standardised labelling or categorisation to distinguish between loud, quieter and silent fireworks.\r\n\r\nEffect of ban \r\n\r\nIt is therefore unlikely that any ban on fireworks over a specific level of noise could be enforced without banning most publicly available types. There may also be limitations on what ‘spectacular visuals’ can be achieved without generating an audible explosion to distribute pyrotechnic material . \r\n\r\nSome retailers do offer a restricted range of ‘low noise’ fireworks. However, ‘quiet’, ‘low noise’ and ‘silent’ are not recognised terms in the relevant legislation in the UK or Jersey, so although ‘silent fireworks’ typically have a lower noise level of 70dB to 90dB, in reality these terms offer no certainty about the noise generated.\r\n\r\nFuture plans\r\n\r\nBefore the pandemic the Government of Jersey published a consultation on proposed Regulations to be made under the Explosives (Jersey) Law 2014. The Minister has committed to bring those Regulations forward in her Ministerial Plan. These Regulations would modernise arrangements relating to the importation, manufacture, storage, possession, supply, retail, use, transport and export of fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles. \r\n\r\nThe proposed Regulations would strengthen controls on the supply, possession and use of fireworks, but as drafted they do not make specific distinction between quiet and loud fireworks for the reasons above.  \r\n\r\nTherefore, while the Minister shares the concerns of the petitioners in relation to the inconvenience and distress that noisy fireworks can cause to vulnerable people and animals, she cannot support this petition, as there is no clear mechanism to allow ‘loud’ fireworks to be banned. \r\n\r\nHowever, although she considers that a balance must be found between the right of people and animals to peaceful enjoyment and the right of individuals to celebrate events, there is certainly a strong argument that current regulatory arrangements are insufficient, and she does not support the current permissive arrangements for the direct sale of fireworks to the public.\r\n\r\nShe would like to see greater controls on the availability of fireworks, especially the larger and (most likely) louder types and will bring proposals to that effect in the form of revised Regulations during her term of office. \r\n\r\nNotes\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F1 fireworks are intended for use in a closed space, including fireworks intended for use outside residential buildings\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F2 fireworks are intended for use outside residential buildings in a closed space\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F3 fireworks are intended for use outside residential buildings in a large open space\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F4 fireworks are exclusively intended for persons with specialised knowledge, often called \"fireworks for professional usage\".\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2022-12-09T15:02:09.260Z","updated_at":"2022-12-09T15:56:41.812Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200856,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200856.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the removal of sports facilities from Fort Regent","background":"New campaign group, Friends of Fort Regent, would like the States of Jersey to pause the removal of sports facilities from Fort Regent and review the decision to remove sports facilities from the Fort.","additional_details":"We believe that these facilities are an essential part of the local community and that they play a critical role in promoting health, wellness, and physical fitness among people of all ages and abilities. \r\n\r\nPlease support our petition to keep Fort Regent as a sports and community centre for the people of Jersey.","state":"closed","signature_count":2615,"created_at":"2023-03-05T13:58:42.322Z","updated_at":"2024-03-07T00:00:46.017Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-03-06T12:25:08.373Z","closed_at":"2023-09-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-05T16:26:35.087Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-10T13:46:37.285Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-03-31T10:47:28.338Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-03-31","summary":"Sports are being relocated to more modern, more accessible, fit-for-purpose facilities in the community to modernise provision and enable Fort Regent to be redeveloped.","details":"Sports are being relocated to more modern, more accessible, fit-for-purpose facilities in the community to modernise provision and enable Fort Regent to be redeveloped.\r\n\r\nDetailed response\r\n\r\nThe relocation of sports facilities to keep islanders active has been underway for some three years. The delivery of new, modern, fit-for-the-future sports venues is the aim of the Inspiring Active Places strategy. This plan has been widely shared with current Fort Regent tenants and discussed and negotiated over an extended period. It was also informed by consultation with sports clubs and associations and islanders more generally. \r\n \r\nThe strategy recognises that Fort Regent as it currently stands is now beyond the end of its useful life from a sport perspective. The building is outdated and uneconomic to run. It is also acknowledged that, from a health and fitness perspective, Fort Regent’s location at which to improve the level of health and fitness activities of people living and working in St Helier or the wider island is a challenge. In addition, none of the spaces are designed specifically for fitness or health activities.\r\n \r\nA range of sports and activities is accommodated at Fort Regent and the Government has been working to ensure the continuity of provision. Clubs and activities are being relocated to new, often specially-designed facilities elsewhere in the Government sport estate or in better locations in the community. This has been carefully timed so that moves only occur when new developments are open or via temporary facilities.\r\n \r\nFor example, when further new facilities come online,the mixed martial arts clubs will have access to state-of-the-art dojos at Oakfield sports centre and a new permanent gymnastics provision will also be available at this venue. The timescales for these sports leaving Fort Regent is directly linked to the completion of the construction of expanded facilities elsewhere, and they will continue to be able to use Fort Regent until new facilities are available.\r\n \r\nFor many years, sports that decided to move to Fort Regent were retro fitted into locations and spaces which today would not meet modern standards required, specifically building standards and the requirements of national governing bodies in terms the levels of activity or intensity being undertaken.  \r\n \r\nIt is therefore right to be moving sport out of the Fort for the time being and to be making long overdue investment in sport to make improvements and provide new, fit-for-purpose facilities to meet the current and future demands of sporting islanders. The Government recognises that modern, accessible sports facilities are a vital component in improving the health and wellbeing of islanders. There may still be a place for sport at the Fort in the future in order to deliver on that. \r\n \r\nTo maximise the potential of the historic fort structure major refurbishment works are required. This is best achieved once the building has been vacated. It will then be a blank canvas for redevelopment. Ministers remain committed to agreeing a way forward for Fort Regent which makes use of the landmark building in future in a way that is realistic, affordable and sustainable.\r\n\r\nDeputy Lucy Stephenson\r\nAssistant Minister with responsibility for Sports Facilities","created_at":"2023-03-31T10:47:28.332Z","updated_at":"2023-03-31T10:47:28.332Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200466,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200466.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the de minimis level being reduced from £240 to £135","background":"The reduction in the de minimis level will make living standards even more difficult for Islanders given the financial impact of Coronavirus. The Government should scrap the reduction altogether. ","additional_details":"https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2020-06-24/changes-to-jersey-s-gst-threshold-brought-forward/ ","state":"closed","signature_count":2597,"created_at":"2020-06-24T11:14:14.498Z","updated_at":"2022-04-14T09:31:33.154Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-06-24T15:31:42.760Z","closed_at":"2020-12-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-24T11:29:20.575Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-26T21:46:27.148Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-07-24T09:20:59.646Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-07-24","summary":"The Treasury \u0026 Resources Minister does not support this petition. She considers the planned reduction strikes the right balance between the competing needs of consumers and those of local retailers.","details":"The reduction in the GST de minimis level was proposed in the draft Government Plan 2020-23 which was agreed by the States Assembly in December 2019.  The full rationale for the reduction was set out on pages 158-9.   The reduction was due to take place on 1 July 2020 but was postponed by the Minister, taking into account the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic.\r\nThe Minister believes that it is absolutely fair that all goods should bear GST regardless of whether they are bought from a local retailer (in a shop or online); or from an offshore retailer.  It is particularly important that Government seeks to recover some of the costs of processing the additional waste that is generated from significant volumes of small-package importations.   \r\nThe GST de minimis level is not primarily a tax allowance.  It is an administrative easement to ensure that Customs Officers do not spend more time collecting GST on imported parcels than the GST itself is worth.  Even at the margin, with a de minimis level of £135, the costs of administration are recovered fourfold.  There is therefore, no justification, for maintaining the current level of £240.\r\nIt is long-standing Government policy that the de minimis level will be reduced further – possibly to zero – when the European Union and the UK introduce changes in 2021 which will require offshore retailers to charge the taxes of the country of destination of goods and to remit taxes to the appropriate national treasuries.\r\nIn the meantime, the rationale for setting the level at £135 is set out in the Government Plan: it aligns the GST de minimis level with the Customs-duty de minimis level.\r\nThe Government will continue to develop and implement appropriate measures to stimulate Jersey’s economy following the Pandemic and to help islanders suffering financial hardship.  Encouraging local spending is an important consideration which has further justified implementation of this measure from 1 October 2020.  \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Treasury and Resources Minister\r\n","created_at":"2020-07-24T09:20:59.642Z","updated_at":"2020-07-24T09:20:59.642Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200670,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200670.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not roll out Covid-19 vaccine passports in Jersey","background":"We want the Government to commit to not rolling out any e-vaccination status/immunity passport, certification or whatever name they wish to use to the public. Such passports could be used to restrict the rights of people who have refused a Covid-19 vaccine which would be unacceptable.","additional_details":"This is discriminatory, unethical and wrong on so many levels and must not be allowed to happen.","state":"closed","signature_count":2524,"created_at":"2021-04-13T05:04:20.360Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:21:21.986Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-04-14T09:28:56.917Z","closed_at":"2021-10-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-13T07:34:59.168Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-15T17:49:54.004Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-04-30T15:19:22.267Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-04-30","summary":"The Government is exploring a number of potential policy options for COVID Status Certification. Full consideration is being given to the ethical and legal implications as part of this process.","details":"Background\r\nThe Government of Jersey is exploring the potential introduction of a COVID Status Certification scheme. As part of that process, it is recognised that consideration must be given to the following:\r\na)\tall associated ethical and legal implications, including the potential for inequality discrimination should vaccination status become a condition of travel and / or access to certain spaces or facilities such as gyms, concert venues and restaurants (1)\r\n\r\nb)\tthe fact that Jersey is ahead of many countries in the world with its vaccination programme. Further division between the vaccinated and unvaccinated has the potential to raise political and ethical questions. Supporting initiatives such as COVAX is important to ensure global equitable access to a vaccine, particularly protecting health care workers and those most-at-risk. This is the only way to mitigate the public health and economic impact of the pandemic (2)\r\n\r\nc)\tthe COVID-19 vaccination is not mandatory. Limiting access to services based on vaccination status risks the implication that the vaccine is mandatory. Any framework that comes into place will need to be harmonized, when it comes to standards and use cases, by a normative body – such as the World Health Organization (WHO) – to ensure that its use is ethical and fair (3).\r\n\r\nOverview of issues\r\nEthical\r\nThere are many ethical theories and concepts that can be applied to a complex issue such as CSC. As the COVID-19 vaccination is a health care intervention it is not unreasonable to apply a principle-based ethical approach to CSC that operates in health care – autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (4).\r\nThe extent to which these principles will apply will vary depending on whether a CSC provides proof of vaccination status and / or proof of immunity or evidence of negative COVID-19 PCR test.\r\n\r\nEthical Considerations\r\n\r\nAutonomy\r\nPeople should be self-governing and allowed to make decisions for themselves.\r\nThe vaccination is not mandatory, and people are able to determine whether or not to be vaccinated. However, one can also consider the rights of an individual to travel. The introduction of CSC could afford greater freedoms for this to take place but is not without risk. The rights and freedoms afforded to individuals does not provide them with the freedom to potentially harm others (5). \r\n\t\r\nNon-maleficence\t\r\nThe avoidance of doing harm\t\r\nTravel, importing new cases of COVID-19, and the risk of new variants could certainly be harmful to the island. A third wave and increased public health restrictions would impact many islanders. A fully informed risk analysis of the risk presented is required. \r\n\t\r\nBeneficence\t\r\nActive altruism\t\r\nCSC places the onus on the individual. A more altruistic approach could be striving for herd immunity, looking to benefit the whole population as opposed to individuals.\r\n\t\r\nJustice\t\r\nSuggests that the COVID-19 vaccine is available and fairly distributed\t\r\nGiven the limited supply and need to prioritize the vaccine roll-out this principle does not apply. Inevitably, any benefits introduced before all of those eligible have been offered a vaccine could be considered unjust. The COVID-19 vaccine is not yet licensed for children and represents an injustice to any person who cannot be vaccinated on health grounds.\r\n\r\nThe Ada Lovelace Institute convened a group of multidisciplinary experts to explore the evidence, risks and benefits of the potential roll-out of digital vaccine passports (6).\r\n\r\nThey identified the following immediate and future risks:\r\n\r\nImmediate Risks:\r\n\r\n1.\tUndermining public health by treating a collective problem as an individual one \r\nUltimately it will be national and international herd immunity that provides protection. CSC may offer a false sense of security and increase risky behaviours before this is achieved.\r\n\r\n2.\tThe opportunity cost of focusing on vaccine passports \r\nIn reality, the gap between having confidence in the scientific evidence on transmission and achieving population level herd immunity may indeed be relatively short. The UK remains on course to meet the target to offer a vaccine to all those in the phase 1 priority groups by mid-April, and all adults by the end of July (7). Jersey estimates that 80% of eligible islanders could have received 2 doses by the end of August (subject to vaccine supply). \r\n\r\n3.\tExacerbating distrust by marginalised groups and increasing vaccine hesitancy\r\nLinking vaccination to travel has been suggested as a way to encourage vaccine take up and address vaccine hesitancy. It must be acknowledged that the opposite may also be true. People may feel strongly that their liberties have been impacted by nature of being unable or unwilling to be vaccinated. It may also implicitly suggest that vaccination is mandatory if it affords additional benefits or imposes restrictions on those not vaccinated.\r\n\r\nIn Jersey vaccine uptake has been very good. 87% of the population 80 years and over have now been fully vaccinated. A 4insight survey, commissioned by the Government of Jersey, revealed that 83% of respondents positively supported getting the vaccine. It is therefore not clear if further incentivisation is required. A more balanced approach could include communications supporting vaccination towards achieving the collective benefit of the community as opposed to a benefit linked purely to an individual.\r\n\r\n4.\tExacerbating inequalities within societies\r\n‘The Data Divide’ explores how the accelerated adoption of data driven technologies and systems during the pandemic may have affected inequalities (8). People from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, and people on an income of less than £20,000 a year, indicated higher levels of concern that they would be unfairly discriminated against than White respondents and higher-income respondents.\r\n\r\nThis survey revealed that two thirds (64%) of the public were not concerned that vaccine passports will be discriminatory against them as individuals. Slightly more than half (55%) thought that they are likely to lead to discrimination against marginalised groups, such as young people, people who are shielding, members of the LGBTQI+ community, people from a minority ethnic background or those who are in precarious work (e.g. on zero-hours contracts or gig workers).\r\n\r\n5.\tIncreasing inequalities between nations\r\nJersey is in a privileged position and ahead of many countries in the world with its vaccination programme. While this may afford on-island benefits and achieving herd immunity may be possible sooner than elsewhere, this will be compromised if new variants are brought on to the island and allowed the circulate. The risk of a third wave must not be overlooked, and the impact of a further lockdown would have implications for all. Jersey cannot be considered independent of the global inequalities and access to vaccinations.\r\n\r\nFuture Risks:\r\n\r\n6.\tNormalising health status surveillance by creating long-term infrastructure in response to a time-bounded crisis. \r\nConsideration must be given to the longevity of CSC in the context of so much uncertainty and the future of SARS-CoV-2. The potential to revoke or impose time limits on any status should be incorporated from the outset. \r\n\r\n7.\tScope creep and information flows \r\nConcerns have been raised regarding data protection and the expansion of CSC beyond its initial remit. \r\n\r\nThe Royal Society identified core ethical principles in their report ‘Twelve criteria for the development and use of COVID-19 vaccine passports’ (5).\r\nVaccine passports that are exclusively digital could exacerbate the digital divide for the elderly or those without digital devices.\r\n\r\nBehavioural science\r\n\r\nA rapid review of behavioural responses to COVID-19 health certification was recently published (9). Literature suggests certificates to enable international travel is generally supported. Outside of the context of international travel, health certification in relation to COVID-19 has the potential for harm as well as benefit. \r\n\r\nLegal \r\n\r\nAdvice will be sought on all legal matters related to the potential introduction of CSCs in Jersey, including any potential requirement for new or amended legislation.\r\n\r\nIn the event that GoJ were to contract with a third-party provider of an ‘off-the-shelf” CSC / COVID passport app, GoJ would need to give particular consideration to the risks arising from such schemes including:\r\n•\tcreation of related digital infrastructure\r\n•\tthe ‘rules’ for where these systems should be implemented\r\n•\tlocal standards, enforcement and regulation (4).\r\n\r\nOperational\r\n\r\nThe vaccination programme was developed as part of the public health response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Linking vaccination to travel could exert pressure on the vaccination programme. \r\n\r\nThe vaccine programme must continue to be delivered at pace, in an equitable, efficient manner. While high coverage remains key, the vaccine programme should not be compromised by those wishing to avail of the perceived travel benefits of vaccination. \r\n\r\nSummary\r\n\r\nThis is a highly complex issue requiring consideration of many ethical and legal issues. As evidence regarding the impact of vaccines on transmission emerges from real world data the Government of Jersey needs to be in a position to address the public policy issues that arise, creating clear and specific guidelines and law around any appropriate uses, mechanisms for enforcement and methods of legal redress. \r\n\r\nIt is unlikely that CSC would become mandatory, but residents must be afforded the ability to provide digital proof of vaccination as this may become a requirement by external carriers in the future.\r\n\r\nThis response is by the Minister for Health and Social Services.\r\n","created_at":"2021-04-30T15:19:22.265Z","updated_at":"2021-05-04T08:54:48.878Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200554,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200554.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Follow Scotland and make period products free for all.","background":"Jersey needs to follow Scotland and make period products free for all and make them accessible for everyone who needs them.\r\n\r\nNow more then ever women are experiencing poverty due to the coronavirus pandemic but they’re still having to pay for products; this has crippled many families financially.","additional_details":"As part of a project for my Queens Guide award I have been researching period poverty and it shocked me how many women and girls need period products but cannot afford them.\r\n\r\nI’m campaigning to make a real difference in people’s lives and standing up for those who don’t have the power or strength to fight for a fundamental human female monthly necessity.","state":"closed","signature_count":2231,"created_at":"2020-11-25T20:49:01.965Z","updated_at":"2021-11-27T00:00:29.526Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-26T14:09:34.142Z","closed_at":"2021-05-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-25T20:55:39.650Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-30T21:10:11.912Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-12-21T09:14:06.625Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-21","summary":"The Minister welcomes this petition and recognises that everybody should be able to access menstrual products, but cannot commit to following the approach taken in Scotland.","details":"The Minister believes that everybody should be able to access safe and hygienic menstrual products and recognises the dignity that this affords. The Minister welcomes this petition but cannot commit to following the approach taken in Scotland without a better understanding of the situation in Jersey, including in relation to the needs of individuals, the cost implications and options for free provision.  \r\nFree period products are currently provided in 28 schools in Jersey by the Red Box Project and have been since 2019. It will be important to work with those schools and the Red Box Project to understand uptake amongst school pupils and to consider likely uptake in other settings and amongst other groups before any decision can be made by the States Assembly to endorse free provision of period products.   \r\nConsideration would also need to be given to the range of products that could be made available, to distribution logistics and to other issues that act as barriers to access or wellbeing. Research undertaken by Plan International indicates that, in the UK, there are a range of associated issues including knowledge gaps, attitudes, stigma and pain management which may, in turn, be influenced by factors such as education, religious and cultural practices and social media messaging.   \r\nWhilst there is some anecdotal evidence which suggests there may be barriers to access and wellbeing in Jersey, we need to know more if we are to properly understand the issue and meet needs. We must also consider the potential provision of period products alongside existing arrangements for other essential items. \r\nThe Minister has, therefore, asked officers to undertake further research on this issue with a view to reporting findings to the States Assembly within the term of this Government.  \r\n \r\nDeputy Judy Martin \r\nMinister, Social Security ","created_at":"2020-12-21T09:14:06.623Z","updated_at":"2020-12-21T09:14:06.623Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200728,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200728.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Save the parking spaces in front of Le Marquand Brothers Ltd (Pets Paradise)","background":"Following the decision to build the new hospital on the Overdale site, plans have been suggested for a new road system at West Park.\r\nThe plans show all the customer parking areas directly outside our premises and also the extra unloading bays to be removed completely.\r\nThis will ruin our business.","additional_details":"This means that customers arriving by car to our pet shop will have nowhere to park. \r\nThese parking spaces are invaluable for loading heavier goods.\r\nWe have not been consulted, at any time, by the Our Hospital Team.\r\nWe are a family run Company established in 1900, who continued to trade even during the German Occupation we are not about to be steam rolled out of existence.\r\nPlease help by signing this petition.","state":"closed","signature_count":2109,"created_at":"2021-08-23T10:45:29.069Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:21:34.338Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-08-23T12:43:18.047Z","closed_at":"2022-02-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-23T11:08:00.354Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-26T14:48:40.055Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-09-28T11:51:30.871Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-09-28","summary":"Consultation is underway, including with Pets Paradise, and the team are working to find a solution for the business and its customers that maintains good access to the shop. ","details":"The project is looking to provide better access to the whole area, including Cheapside and the surrounding roads, which will benefit from increased footfall once the new hospital is open. \r\n\r\nThe changes to the traffic system at West Park are intended to improve vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access to the park and the new hospital, including for patients, visitors and ambulances. They will also provide better access for residents and businesses in the area.\r\n\r\nThe draft plans described in this petition are not final and will be updated following  feedback from stakeholders.\r\n\r\nThe Our Hospital team are in the process of engaging with those who are affected, and meetings have taken place with nearby residents and businesses, including Pets Paradise. The consultation is ongoing and the Our Hospital team will do everything in their power to find an acceptable and safe solution that meets the requirements of Islanders who currently use the area.\r\n","created_at":"2021-09-28T11:51:30.864Z","updated_at":"2021-09-28T11:51:30.864Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201071,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201071.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Support ADHD Jersey to continue and expand the non-prescription service provided","background":"ADHD Jersey has been providing valuable support to individuals with ADHD in Jersey for the past three years. It would be unwise financially for the government to decline the recommendation for a specific hub, especially considering the significant demand for such services..","additional_details":"We kindly request your signature on this petition advocating for Deputy Tom Binet to reconsider his rejection of the ADHD hub. \r\n\r\nADHD Jersey is dedicated to supporting individuals awaiting a diagnosis, as well as those who have already received one. \r\n\r\nWe are in the process of training more facilitators to implement programs that have been shown to positively impact lives. \r\n\r\nWe urge the Government to assist ADHD Jersey in providing essential support to those in our community who require it. \r\n\r\nThank you for your consideration.","state":"closed","signature_count":2080,"created_at":"2025-02-04T10:38:46.405Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T00:00:40.489Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-02-04T15:07:53.553Z","closed_at":"2025-08-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-04T12:46:57.582Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-07T12:38:43.923Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-04-03T15:09:11.928Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-04-03","summary":"I am committed to enhancing ADHD services in Jersey, and I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the charitable and voluntary sector for the support they provide to islanders with ADHD. ","details":"Petition Response - Support ADHD Jersey to continue and expand the non-prescription service provided \r\n\r\nThank you for your petition regarding support for ADHD Jersey to continue and expand non-prescription services.  \r\n\r\nIn response to your request, I would first like to confirm that I am committed to developing the services available to people with ADHD in Jersey to better meet their needs, and recognise the specific challenges associated with this, currently.   \r\n\r\nMuch work has been done, and continues to be done, within our health and social care services in relation to this, and our soon-to-be-published Neuroinclusive Strategy will further this work and set out priorities for the next few years.   \r\n\r\nI am very grateful for the work that is being done by our charitable and voluntary sector partners to support both islanders diagnosed with ADHD and those seeking a diagnosis. Indeed, I have met with ADHD Jersey and other individuals and groups supporting and promoting Neuroinclusivity, and I am very impressed by their generosity, passion and commitment. \r\n\r\nHowever, the development of an ADHD hub needs to be planned and considered in the context of a rapidly evolving health and care system and is an idea that is expanded upon in the Neuroinclusive Strategy which will be progressed as this is implemented.   \r\n\r\nIt is also necessary for funding to be identified to support and maintain any such development, and, much as I would sincerely wish it to be otherwise, at present there really are no spare funds available within the Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) budget. It will, of course, continue to be reviewed as the implementation of the strategy is progressed.   \r\n\r\nFinally, I must also point out that, should we look to develop a new service (a hub, for example) there is a process that HCJ are required to follow to identify potential partner(s) to deliver services on behalf of HCJ.  A fundamental part of this process would be to ensure that potential service providers have the appropriate qualifications and registrations to safely and effectively deliver such services. \r\n\r\nOnce again, please be assured that I am fully aware of the pressures and need to develop services to assist islanders living with ADHD and those islanders seeking a diagnosis, and that work is under way as described above to support this. ","created_at":"2025-04-03T15:09:11.911Z","updated_at":"2025-04-03T15:09:11.911Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200553,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200553.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop residential planning permission at Seaside Cafe, Greve de Lecq.","background":"The JEP reported the sale by the Lewis family of the Seaside café and car park at Greve de Lecq. This is a much loved \u0026 needed facility at this popular beach and the building of ANY residential units and loss of the car parking facilities would be a great loss to Jersey residents and tourists.","additional_details":"It would be totally inappropriate to deprive everyone in Jersey from enjoying this beach, which would be the result if homes were built and the car parking spaces lost. The States, Jersey Heritage or similar should buy the site so that it can always be enjoyed by everyone and not the privileged few.","state":"closed","signature_count":2076,"created_at":"2020-11-19T23:17:43.101Z","updated_at":"2021-11-21T00:00:20.829Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-20T14:13:02.908Z","closed_at":"2021-05-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-20T10:33:56.660Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-25T10:55:40.110Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-12-17T09:35:14.986Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-17","summary":"The Development Control team within IHE, at time of writing, have not received any recent planning applications for the site in question.","details":"The Minister for the Environment has been advised by the Development Control team of IHE as follows.\r\n\r\n“The Development Control team within the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment (‘IHE) directorate have not yet received any recent planning applications for this site at Greve de Lecq. However, the team can confirm that a request for pre-application officer advice - a service which is available to all prospective applicants - has been received in relation to a development proposal here, which is currently being assessed. As with all such requests for advice, this advice is not binding, if a Planning application is lodged the proposal will be open to review and formal comment by members of the public.\r\n\r\n\"In seeking to assess any planning application, consideration is given to all the planning issues that are raised by a particular development proposal. The Island Plan is the principal document, approved by the States Assembly, which is used to assess development proposals in the Island.  As defined within the plan, the site is located in the Coastal National Park, which is the most sensitive planning zone in Jersey, and where there is the highest level of protection from development.\r\n\r\n\"It must, however, be recognised that there is already a range of development at the Seaside Café site including a café, residential units, a listed Occupation bunker (MY0096), and a private car park. There are several policies within the Island Plan which will be relevant to an assessment of any development proposal at this site including those which provide for: the retention of existing employment uses.\r\n\r\n\"These issues, amongst others, including those which might be raised by members of the public, will be considered as part of any planning application, as and when any proposal to redevelop the site is received.\r\n\r\n\"Public access to the beach; and public parking facilities at Grève de Lecq are important and would need to remain unaffected by any proposal to develop the Seaside Café and to ensure Grève de Lecq remains accessible by bus (Route 9); bike (Route 1); and on foot.\r\n\r\n\"The issue of whether the public should acquire the site is a completely separate matter from the determination of any planning application.”\r\n\r\nFor further information click on the following links:\r\nPre-application planning advice service: https://www.gov.je/planningbuilding/makingapplication/planning/pages/preapplicationplanningadvice.aspx \r\nRevised Island Plan 2011: https://consult.gov.je/portal/policy/pd/ip2011\r\nCoastal National Park: https://consult.gov.je/portal/policy/pd/ip2011?pointId=1405696217799#section-1405696217799 \r\nOccupation bunker MY0096: https://www.gov.je/citizen/Planning/Pages/HistoricEnvironmentDetail.aspx?s=3\u0026r=MY0096\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2020-12-17T09:35:14.983Z","updated_at":"2020-12-17T09:35:14.983Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201124,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201124.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reintroduce mortgage allowance on personal tax","background":"Revenue Jersey has phased out the mortgage allowance on personal tax assessments. With the increase of Bank of England base rates, this allowance is needed now more than ever to give much needed financial relief for home owners paying high mortgages.","additional_details":"In 2017 the loan interest relief started being phased out. At the time the BoE base rate was between 0.25% and 0.50% and the economy was in a different place. \r\nFast forward to 2025, the reality is quite different. BoE is currently 4.25% and the loan interest tax relief should be reviewed to reflect the current economy.","state":"closed","signature_count":1911,"created_at":"2025-08-04T18:07:38.742Z","updated_at":"2026-02-07T00:00:00.766Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-06T09:31:00.178Z","closed_at":"2026-02-06T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-04T18:13:15.057Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-31T16:31:20.541Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-11-27T11:52:52.178Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-25","summary":"Mortgage Interest Tax Relief is likely to increase housing demand and – with no compensating increase in housing supply – is likely to be capitalised (at least partly) in higher house prices.","details":"Mortgage Interest Tax Relief (MITR) provides tax relief for homeowners paying interest on loans relating to the purchase or extension of their main residence. It is currently available to taxpayers entitled to marginal relief (around 90% of personal taxpayers), for 2025 only.\r\n\r\nThe MITR calculation has two restrictions. Firstly, it is restricted to a maximum capital balance of £300,000. The second restriction is a cap on the amount of interest relief available to an individual. In the year of assessment 2023, around 10,000 taxpayers made a claim for MITR, reducing government revenue by around £9m.\r\n\r\nInternational research has consistently shown that MITR:\r\n\r\n•\tsupports artificially high prices for housing that benefits current owners and creates unnecessarily high barriers to entry for new buyers; \r\n•\tencourages the use of debt, with potentially negative consequences for financial stability and household finances;\r\n•\tdrives a wedge between the costs of owner-occupation and the rental market that primarily disadvantages those on lower incomes and with less capital available to them;\r\n•\tprovides the largest benefits to those with the highest debt and the highest incomes; and\r\n•\tappears to be positively correlated to greater volatility in the housing market.\r\n\r\nBudget 2016 proposed a slow phasing out of the relief. It stated:\r\n“Research by the OECD and work by PWC for the Property Tax Review has pointed out that Mortgage Interest Tax Relief (MITR) is inefficient and counterproductive. There seems to be little supporting evidence for such subsidies, not least because they do not appear to impact on home ownership rates, and many advanced countries have consequentially removed such reliefs.\r\n\r\nMITR is likely to increase housing demand and – with no compensating increase in housing supply – is likely to be capitalised (at least partly) in higher house prices. It encourages higher mortgage debt and tends to be regressive in nature (although the distributional consequences are complex, particularly in Jersey where the relief is only available for marginal rate tax payers) and may be disadvantageous to first time buyers. In addition, such relief will distort households’ investment and consumption choices, working against economic efficiency.”\r\n\r\nBased on that research, the States Assembly agreed to phase out the relief starting from the year of assessment 2016. Initially, a cap of £15,000 on the relief was introduced. Since then, the cap has been reduced by £1,500 annually. \r\n\r\nIt is not clear at what level the petitioner envisions the allowance being reintroduced. In 2025, the last year the relief is available, the maximum available relief is £1,500. This equates to a reduction of around £390 in tax for the year.\r\nAs part of the Government’s response to cost-of-living pressures, Ministers have continually focused on helping all Islanders by increasing the personal tax thresholds, rather than providing a benefit only to homeowners with a mortgage at the expense of those who rent or own their home outright.\r\n\r\nMinisters remain committed to helping Islanders struggling with the cost of living and believe it is more prudent to focus their efforts on carefully targeted interventions, aimed at those who need most help. This will not be achieved by continuing a discriminatory relief that benefits those who are better off and may contribute to housing inflation.\r\n\r\nReintroducing mortgage interest relief would target relief disproportionately at those with the highest incomes at a cost to the taxpayer of a minimum of £9m each year.\r\n\r\nAlthough house prices are falling, and housing affordability is improving, any measure that could increase housing inflation and slow this progress, such as reintroducing MITR, would be to the detriment of the Island. MITR has been removed in the majority of OECD jurisdictions, including the UK, for these reasons.\r\n\r\nProperty in Jersey has consistently grown in value since records began. Those investing in property are therefore holding a significant asset, the capital value of which will continue to grow, upon which they are not taxed at the point of sale.\r\n \r\nFor these reasons, I do not propose to reintroduce MITR. ","created_at":"2025-11-27T11:52:52.169Z","updated_at":"2025-11-27T11:52:52.169Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200775,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200775.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Independent inspection of all health facilities, including community care","background":"Commission an immediate full inspection, by the Care Quality Commission, of Jersey General Hospital, Overdale and Orchard House and all other services provided by Health and Community Services and should include buildings, services, policies, the Jersey Care Model and staff qualifications. ","additional_details":"The inspection should extend to care in the community.\r\n\r\nThe Jersey General Hospital may be operating in an unsafe environment and has not been fully independently inspected for very many years. \r\n\r\nThis is contrary to anything which would be allowed in the UK or most places in the world. \r\n\r\nThe people of Jersey deserve to know that they are getting the best services available. \r\n\r\nPartial inspections of a few departments is not good enough.\r\n\r\nInspection should include governance and policies relating to follow on patient care after discharge.","state":"closed","signature_count":1864,"created_at":"2022-01-24T20:25:49.112Z","updated_at":"2023-08-08T08:46:44.966Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-01-28T14:23:28.835Z","closed_at":"2022-07-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-01-25T10:54:18.170Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-02-06T10:32:16.033Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-03-07T08:34:37.430Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-03-07","summary":"The Minister for Health and Social Services supports regulation and independent inspection of hospital services.","details":"The Minister for Health and Social Services supports regulation and independent inspection of hospital services and work is being brought forward to bring the full inspection of hospital and associated services within the remit of the independent Jersey Care Commission.     \r\n\r\nIndependent inspection of services is vital to providing assurance about the quality, safety and effectiveness of health and social care. The Minister and the Health and Community Services Department (HCS) welcome such scrutiny. They recognise the role that inspection plays in helping ensure that Islanders receive the best quality care and are protected from potential harm. \r\nFurthermore, they recognise that inspection by an independent body is central to maintaining public confidence in services. \r\nThe Regulation of Care (Jersey) Law 2014 (“the 2014 Law”), which established the Jersey Care Commission (“Care Commission”) as Jersey’s own independent care regulator, came into force in 2019. From the outset, the States Assembly agreed that hospital services would fall under the remit of the Care Commission but that a phased approach would be taken with hospital services regulation being provided for at a later date. As set out at the time, it was provisionally intended that hospital services would be regulated after care homes, home care services and adult day care services – which have been regulated since late 2019 – plus children and adult social work services. \r\nThe Minister for Health and Social Services recognises, however, that there are legitimate calls for an earlier inspection of hospital services as demonstrated by the level of public support for this petition. The Minister supports regulation and independent inspection and since the launch of the petition he has consulted both the Council of Ministers and the Care Commission and agreed with them that work should commence in the coming weeks on extending the provisions of the 2014 Law to hospital and associated services. \r\nThis will place providers of those services under a legal requirement to register with the Care Commission in order that the Care Commission may undertake independent inspections.\r\nIf the proposal to extend the provisions of the 2014 Law is adopted by the States Assembly, it will be the responsibility of the Care Commission to determine how hospital inspections are delivered. This may include contracting with UK-based inspectors, such as the Care Quality Commission, to undertake the work. Contracting with UK inspectors is an established model of working; the Care Commission has previously contracted Ofsted – the UK’s independent inspector of schools and children’s services – to undertake inspections on its behalf.\r\nProviding for inspections that are planned, managed and overseen by the Care Commission under a legal framework has distinct advantages over the Government of Jersey directly contracting with a UK inspector such as the Care Quality Commission as proposed in the petition. These advantages include:\r\n•\tassurance of independence: the Care Commission, and not the Government of Jersey, will control the inspection process, will set the inspection brief and will determine which services should be inspected in what order. Islanders will know that their services are independently inspected against standards established in law, as opposed to inspected by external inspectors who would not have statutory powers, such as rights of entry onto premises and to require disclosure of information;\r\n•\tpowers to direct improvements required:  as inspections will happen under a legislative framework, the Care Commission will be able to issue improvement notices thereby setting out what must be done within a given timeframe. Failure to comply with improvement notices will be an offence. In the event that the Government of Jersey was to directly commission UK inspectors, those inspectors could do no more than make recommendations;\r\n•\tremit to inspect and impose requirements on services beyond those directly provided by Government: the Care Commission will have the remit to register and inspect services other than just government-provided services. This will provide greater assurance and protection for Islanders.\r\n  \r\nThe Jersey Care Commission is independent of Government. This independence is enshrined in Article 36 of the 2014 Law which prohibits Ministers or, by extension, Government officers from directing the activities of the Commission or interfering in any inspection process. \r\nIt is anticipated that the necessary legislative provisions will be lodged for debate by the States Assembly in 2023 allowing for the Care Commission to independently register and inspect hospital and associated services from 2024.  \r\nThere will be opportunities for full public consultation as the legislative provisions are developed. \r\nIn the intervening period, the Care Commission will be preparing to undertake an independent survey to better understand patients’ experience of HCS’s services. The information and learning that arises from that survey will help inform future inspections. \r\nHCS is committed to openness and transparency and, whilst work is underway to bring forward a regime of statutory inspection, the Department will continue to publish its quarterly Quality and Performance Report setting out how its services are meeting quality and performance standards; will remain subject to specific service inspections, such as those related to pathology and radiology services; and will continue to engage in assurance processes such as the Jersey Nursing Assessment and Accreditation System.\r\nhttps://www.gov.je/government/pages/statesreports.aspx?reportid=5475\r\nFurthermore, the Care Commission will continue to inspect the HCS services that are currently regulated under the 2014 Law such as its care homes and day care centres https://carecommission.je/inspection-reports/","created_at":"2022-03-07T08:34:37.427Z","updated_at":"2022-03-07T08:34:37.427Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200079,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200079.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Assisted Dying - allow individuals of capacity their own end of life choices","background":"We urge all members of the States to promote and support such legislation as will advance the right of individuals of capacity to make their own end of life choices including the time and manner of their death, and to receive appropriate medical assistance within an agreed legal framework.","additional_details":"Assisted Dying is currently illegal in Jersey but has been legalised or decriminalised to varying degrees in several European countries and USA States.\r\nIn Guernsey recently there was an unsuccessful requête for Assisted Dying and we think the time has come for it to be debated in Jersey with all options considered.\r\nA Jersey woman with terminal cancer has decided to end her life at Dignitas in Switzerland. Dying abroad is very burdensome but made necessary by current law to die as she chooses.","state":"closed","signature_count":1861,"created_at":"2018-08-14T05:55:35.967Z","updated_at":"2019-08-15T23:00:28.914Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-15T12:38:55.103Z","closed_at":"2019-02-15T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-15T12:11:34.836Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-04T19:55:09.719Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-10-02T09:33:16.012Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-01","summary":"Assisted dying is a complex and sensitive issue requiring further in depth consideration by the Council of Ministers, drawing on the extensive work undertaken in other parts of the British Isles.","details":"Ministers acknowledge the importance and significance of ensuring that people are able to end their lives with dignity and that services must be available to support this. The nature of end of life care and its relationship to what the petition calls 'assisted dying' is complex and one that is ethically and morally sensitive and therefore is guided by our personal values and beliefs. As a community, we place a high value on health and quality of life; this is no less so as our lives come to an end. \r\n\r\nThere is already choice in how we are treated, including choice over how and where we die. From the 1st of October, we have laws to support advance decision making around care so that our wishes as to our treatment in the event of future health events are known and can be fulfilled. Jersey has also adopted a multi-agency, cross-service ‘Gold Standard Framework’ to deliver consistently high quality care for people nearing the end of life. However, people suffering a terminal illness have the right to refuse treatment and, if they do so, their doctors have a duty to provide care with the aim of relieving the symptoms of their illness and to do their utmost to control any distress and pain. \r\n\r\nThe role of our doctors is to ensure good medical care within the guiding ethical principles of 'first, do no harm' whilst ensuring that their patients benefit from the best evidenced-based approaches to end of life care. In particular, palliative care aims to enable people who are dying to live well until the day they die, minimising pain and other distress whilst supporting families throughout. In this way palliative care, in participation with patients and their families, is already controlling the experience of dying and providing the best possible end of life care to the terminally ill. \r\n\r\nThe practice and clinical codes of conduct that guide our health care professionals are incompatible with models of 'assisted dying'. Any doctor actively assisting a patient to die would risk the removal of their General Medical Council licence to practice and be acting contrary to the basic 'do no harm' principle that underpins clinical practice.  It is unsurprising therefore that the medical professional bodies and the majority of practising doctors surveyed in the UK are opposed to legalisation of 'assisted dying'. \r\n\r\nThe wider international debate raises many important and fundamental issues about medically assisted dying. Key issues include: clear eligibility criteria including conditions and prognosis; a framework to protect the vulnerable; assessment of free will and the absence of coercion; continuity of care; and where decision making responsibility should lie. \r\n\r\nWe acknowledge and take account of the situation that much of the debate in other jurisdictions has been informed by polarised positions whilst at the same time being underpinned by shared values of care, choice and compassion. It is these shared values that we should now draw on in first reviewing our own current laws around end of life to understand if a change is needed and if so what options exist to bring about change. \r\n\r\nDue to the complexity, sensitivity and gravity of the issue, this should first be considered in more depth by the Council of Ministers, with the necessary time provided to prepare an informed discussion, drawing on the extensive work undertaken in other parts of the British Isles. The Minister for Health and Social Services intends to bring this matter before the Council of Ministers to undertake this initial consideration (before the end of January 2019).\r\n\r\nResponse by: Deputy Richard Renouf, Minister for Health and Social Services","created_at":"2018-10-02T09:33:16.009Z","updated_at":"2018-10-02T09:33:16.009Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200921,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200921.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Government to subsidise the costs of childcare to enable women to return to work","background":"With the cost of childcare at nearly £2000 per month (for ‘full-time’ at a nursery), we are seeing an impact on our Island’s workforce as many women are forced to leave their jobs.\r\n\r\n","additional_details":"According to a 2023 report, ‘Careers After Babies’, 85% of women leave full-time work within 3 years of having children. If the Government significantly subsidised childcare for children from 6 months of age, this would improve women’s ability to work.  \r\n\r\nWe are seeing the lowest birth rate in decades as families simply can’t afford to have more children but by subsidising childcare people will be encouraged to increase the size of their families as they will be in an improved financial position. This, in turn, will reduce the issues of an aging population.\r\n\r\nWe need to have a varied and representative workforce in our island and childcare costs are a huge factor in this and needs to be addressed.\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1834,"created_at":"2023-09-27T08:42:52.098Z","updated_at":"2024-09-29T23:00:18.126Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-09-29T09:11:57.587Z","closed_at":"2024-03-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-09-27T11:14:12.911Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-02T20:52:28.225Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-10-30T16:12:02.729Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-10-30","summary":"Given the importance of early years in child development, a balanced approach is required to ensure that the best interests of the child are met in addition to the needs of parents and the economy.","details":"The Government is committed to ensuring all children in Jersey have the best start in life. This includes Government subsidies for childcare. Our income tax system lets working parents claim the cost of childcare on their tax return, increasing the amount of income they can earn before they start paying tax. This includes payments to registered childcare providers such as child carers, day nurseries, and accredited nannies.\r\n\r\nThe maximum claim for the 2023 year of assessment is £18,300 for pre-school children; Government Plan 2024-2027 proposes to increase this to £19,700. The latest available data shows that there were around 2,300 claimants for the relief, equating to a £3 million childcare tax break annually, meaning the Government subsidises the costs of childcare by an average of £1,300 per claimant each year.\r\n\r\nThere are also a range of additional payments, grants and allowances targeted at the parents of young children. \r\n\r\nSince 2020, new (working) parents in Jersey are entitled to 52 weeks of parental leave of which 6 weeks is paid by their employer – this is a “day one” employment right. Leave can be taken in up to 3 blocks, during a 2-year period and is available to both adoptive and surrogate parents. The law has also been updated to allow time off to attend antenatal and adoption related appointments.\r\n\r\nEntitlements have also been extended in relation to breastfeeding breaks and facilities.\r\n\r\nIn terms of benefits (under the Social Security (Jersey) law 1974), these were enhanced in 2021 to extend the previous allowance and grant to include all parents i.e. not just birth mothers. Parents are able to claim up to 32 weeks of parental allowance, which can be split between the parents, as well as a one-off parental grant to help with some of the costs associated with preparing for a new baby.  Plans are underway to better promote the availability of parental leave to both fathers and mothers, to encourage a more equitable use of this entitlement.\r\n\r\nJersey provides financial support for childcare through income support for low income working parents (and a limited number of full-time students). Support is available from 0-11 years inclusive. Hours cover working commitments. Current support is £8.84 per hour for under 3 years olds and £7.40 per hour for ages 3-11 inclusive (https://www.gov.je/Benefits/IncomeSupport/pages/components.aspx). \r\n\r\nMore details can be found on the following pages: Parental and family support (https://www.gov.je/benefits/maternityfamilysupport/Pages/index.aspx), Child care tax relief (https://www.gov.je/TaxesMoney/IncomeTax/Individuals/AllowancesReliefs/pages/childcaretaxrelief.aspx). \r\n\r\nThe recommendations of the Early Years Policy Development Board (https://www.gov.je/Government/PolicyDevelopmentBoards/pages/earlyyearspolicydevelopmentboard.aspx) have started to be implemented with an increase in the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) hours offered to children aged 3-4yrs from September 2021 (see Summary of childcare support offered by Jersey below).\r\n\r\nIn the short term, the Government has responded to the increasing cost of living by providing additional financial support measures for the early years sector. An annual increase to the NEF of 8% was agreed and brought forward from the autumn term to the summer term 2023. This equates to up to £627 additional funding per child in 2023 (https://www.gov.je/News/2023/Pages/AdditionalFundingForEarlyYearsProviders.aspx).\r\n\r\nThis increases the expenditure of the NEF to approximately £3.25m in 2023 or just under £8,500 per child.\r\n\r\nAdditional funding has also been provided to increase the targeted childcare offer for children aged between 2-3 years old. This provides Part-time (up to 12 hours a week) nursery placements for children aged between 2-3 years old with a developmental or financial need. By the end of 2023, 97 children were on the Best Start Plus Nursery Funding Programme.\r\n\r\nResponding to the need for more childcare spaces, the Government has identified the importance of childminders in providing families with flexibility and choice of childcare arrangements. Financial support has been made available to incentivise people to become registered childminders. Additional funding has been made available to registered childminders in Jersey, to enable them to manage the pressures of cost of living expenses associated with providing a high-quality service.\r\n\r\nEmployment and economy \r\n\r\nThe above measures signify how important the sector is, not just to families, but to the economy as whole. Parents rely on having access to early years provision so that they can continue to work; meanwhile, children who receive high-quality care and early education will see the benefits throughout their lives. A balanced approach is required to ensure that the best interests of the child are met in addition to the needs of parents and the economy.\r\n\r\nEconomic activity data collected by Statistics Jersey shows that 84% of 16-64 year olds are economically active (in work or looking for work).\r\n\r\nThis compares to the UK economic activity rate of 79.1%. There are just 700 people actively seeking work – some of whom are working but might be looking to increase their hours.\r\n\r\nThe economic activity data would suggest that childcare availability and costs in Jersey are not acting as a barrier to work to the same extent as in the U.K.  However, it may be that childcare availability and costs affect parents’ decisions on hours worked such that ideally, some would want to work more hours / in a different role.   \r\n\r\nThe gender pay gap impacts on a family’s decision to either seek child care or for one or more parents/ family members to forgo paid employment to provide care in the home.  Work is underway on tackling the gender pay gap and the message to larger companies is that they are expected to start voluntarily publishing their gender pay gap data along with an action plan of how they will eradicate any identified gap.  While women across the majority of professions are still paid less on average than men, many families will still therefore make a rational economic decision for the mother to give up all or part of her paid employment in order to provide care for a child/children. \r\n\r\nClosing the gender pay gap would deliver further gains in female earnings of 12% in Jersey (£187m) (https://www.pwc.com/jg/en/publications/women-in-work-index.html).\r\n\r\nPolicy development\r\n\r\nThe 2023/24 priorities of the Children and Education Ministerial Team include identifying and implementing a high-quality model of early years services that is child centred, equitable, efficient, and affordable, that can deliver very good outcomes for all children and families (https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government and administration/Ministerial Plans 2024 to 27.pdf).  \r\n\r\nThe complexity of this challenge is considerable. Any changes to the sector need to make the best use of public funds and be in the best interests of children and families. The first phase of this work included a review by the ISOS Partnership of key messages from UK and international evidence on what an optimal early childhood education and childcare (ECEC) offer looks like for children’s wellbeing and development (https://www.gov.je/government/pages/statesreports.aspx?reportid=5697).  \r\n\r\nThis review highlights the importance of thinking about ECEC reform in the context of a child’s home environment (the most important influence) and broader context. Any reforms need to be considered as part of a wider system of support for families.\r\n\r\nMinisters are acutely aware of the contribution from both the private and third sectors to the success of any policy changes. We will continue to work with early years providers to understand and address the challenges of workforce pressures. Preparation is underway for the next phase of this work, with roundtable events to be held with key stakeholders to constructively examine policy options. \r\n\r\nSubsequent phases of this policy work will involve a cross-government approach working towards an offer for families to be able to better access either parental leave or affordable high-quality childcare for children younger than 2 years of age.\r\n\r\nSummary of childcare support offered by Jersey (comparison to ‘Glossary 2 – terms related to childcare payments’ – https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/Resource%20Library/Childcare%20Survey%202023_Coram%20Family%20and%20Childcare.pdf)\r\n•\t2 year olds: Part-time (up to 12 hours a week) nursery placements for children aged between 2-3 years old with a developmental or financial need at two (https://jcct.org.je/programmes/nursery-funding-programme/). Funded by JCCT with additional support from Early Years COVID Recovery programme. \r\nSpecial Needs Inclusion Programme available from birth to school age, who have an additional need and are accessing a private nursery or preschool setting (https://jcct.org.je/programmes/inclusion-programme/)\r\n•\t3 to 4 year-olds: Free Government funded nursery education in the school year the child turns four years old. \r\nUp to 30 hours’ free nursery education each week, for 38 weeks, during school term-time only, from the beginning of the school year (September) (https://www.gov.je/education/preschool/pages/nurseryeducation.aspx). Universal offer irrespective of working status of parents.\r\n•\tChild care tax relief\r\n•\tIncome support ","created_at":"2023-10-30T16:12:02.722Z","updated_at":"2023-10-30T16:16:05.901Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200527,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200527.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reconsider the childcare memorial.","background":"The very act of ignoring the voices of abuse survivors is being symbolically repeated, with the proposed erection of a memorial that has the potential to re-ignite feelings in many of those who have been unheard at the lowest point of their lives and now oppose this statue and what it stands for.","additional_details":"In recent times it's been proven that statues hold more emotional weight than ever before. But yet the Government want to erect a Statue for Child Abuse Victims.\r\nAbuse survivors and the general public are once again asking their Government to listen and not to go forward with the erection of this memorial.","state":"closed","signature_count":1832,"created_at":"2020-10-08T15:26:23.373Z","updated_at":"2021-10-12T23:00:20.066Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-10-12T15:15:13.010Z","closed_at":"2021-04-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-08T16:39:15.903Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-14T14:43:40.920Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-01-06T08:08:30.652Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-05","summary":"Following my appointment as the new Minister for Children and Housing on 17 October 2020, I have committed to re-examine the proposed Jersey Care Memorial.\r\n\r\n","details":"Following my appointment as the new Minister for Children and Housing on 17 October 2020, I have committed to re-examine the proposed Jersey Care Memorial.\r\n\r\nI recognise and respect the full range of views about how Jersey should formally acknowledge and remember the failings addressed by the Care Inquiry. Last month, the Council of Ministers committed to ensure that survivors who have raised concerns about the memorial will be listened to. This important process is already underway and will support us to identify an appropriate and sensitive way for Jersey to remember.\r\n\r\nDeputy Jeremy Maçon, Minister for Children and Housing\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-01-06T08:08:30.650Z","updated_at":"2021-01-06T08:08:30.650Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200885,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200885.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop lowering speed limits","background":"Speed limits are set to be reduced again on up to 50 roads across 5 parishes (Trinity, St. John, St. Mary, St Peter, and St. Lawrence), this is further to 59 roads in St. Helier and 68 roads in St. Saviour in September and November 2021. \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"This repeated change to speed limits is causing disruption and confusion and needs to stop.","state":"closed","signature_count":1830,"created_at":"2023-06-13T19:08:12.590Z","updated_at":"2024-06-20T23:00:15.900Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-06-20T06:01:26.363Z","closed_at":"2023-12-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-13T19:27:14.906Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-30T19:00:56.844Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-07-31T13:08:04.861Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-07-31","summary":"Historically, Jersey’s speed limits have evolved on a reactive basis and have not always been applied coherently and consistently to roads of similar character. ","details":"Historically, Jersey’s speed limits have evolved on a reactive basis and have not always been applied coherently and consistently to roads of similar character, reducing the legibility of the road network to drivers. \r\n\r\nRecognising this, in 2016 the Minister for Infrastructure along with the Comité des Connétables, the Parish and States Police agreed a framework for speed limits across Jersey, which as lodged with the States Assembly (R.132/2016). The Framework can be found at https://www.gov.je/Travel/Roads/Pages/FrameworkSpeedLimit.aspx, this generally follows national best practice.\r\n\r\nEffective speed management is a key part of creating a road environment in which all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, etc. feel welcome and safe. Such measures support active travel in line with States’ policy, and just as importantly will provide a greater perception of safety and a more comfortable living environment for communities. \r\n\r\nAs well as being a legal limit, speed limits are a key source of information to guide road users as to the nature of the road environment they are moving within and what risks are posed to themselves and to all other road users. This is particularly pertinent for visiting motorists.\r\n\r\nThe Infrastructure and Environment Department has been working systematically with each of the Parishes in turn to review their speed limits and lower them where appropriate, in line with the Framework. The aim being to achieve a uniform approach and methodology to setting reasoned speed limits across the Island that the public understand and are generally willing to support. The current public consultation is part of that programme.\r\n\r\nIt is worth bearing in mind that a majority of proposed speed reductions occur within Village settings (or where there is an established road safety issue). Therefore one aspect of the review is to minimise the need for signing, for example matching the speed of residential side roads to that of the main road where the main road speed limit is being reduced, to avoid sign clutter at the junction. This accounts for many of the roads listed in the current proposals.\r\n\r\nUsing Speed Limits to address Road Safety\r\n\r\nIn Jersey, vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrian, cyclists, motorcycle and moped riders, etc.) form 64.2% of all road traffic accident casualties, and 81.8% of all those Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI). These proportions are significantly higher than those in Great Britain where vulnerable road users comprise 36.0% of overall casualties, with powered two-wheelers and pedal cycles combined comprising about a fifth of all KSI casualties. This discrepancy between Jersey and Great Britain highlights the need to focus on ways of reducing casualty rates among vulnerable road users and the severity of outcomes, the selective lowering speed limits is part of this.  \r\n\r\nStudies have shown that if hit at an impact speed of 50km/h (31.1mph), a pedestrian has a 29% risk of fatality, this reduces to 13% at an impact speed of 40km/h (24.9mph) and further to 5% at 30km/h (18.6mph). Speed reductions have also been shown to reduce cycling injury risk, with a study finding that 20mph roads have a 21% reduced chance of injury when compared with 30mph roads. \r\nBy comparing collision rates in St Helier (within the ring road) before and after the current 20mph speed limit was introduced in 2019 (excluding the period where Covid restrictions were in place), there has been a 35% reduction in the number of collisions in which people were injured. This compares to around 26% across the rest of the Island in a similar period.\r\n","created_at":"2023-07-31T13:08:04.859Z","updated_at":"2023-07-31T13:08:04.859Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200859,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200859.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 20 hours free childcare for children from 9 months old.","background":"Being around other children is a key aspect in their development, with their early years being the most important. Many parents remain at home for long periods of time, unable to work or introduce their young children to other babies on a daily basis.","additional_details":"Many parents give up work until their child is 3 as they are unable to afford to go back to work due to childcare costs. There are many people who would return to work and their tax contributions would cover the child care costs. \r\n\r\nBeing around other children will allow them to develop social skills and assist their development from an early age.","state":"closed","signature_count":1822,"created_at":"2023-03-16T18:40:02.929Z","updated_at":"2024-03-21T00:00:19.315Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-03-20T14:06:20.432Z","closed_at":"2023-09-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-16T18:58:29.991Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-22T17:47:29.833Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-04-19T08:49:00.757Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-04-19","summary":"It is a Ministerial priority to ensure families have access to high quality early years education and childcare, to deliver the best outcomes for children in this critical time for child development.","details":"One of the Minister for Children and Education’s priorities includes identifying and implementing a model of early years services that is high quality, equitable and affordable that can deliver good outcomes for all children and families.  Ultimately, the aim is to provide an equitable offer, ensuring that all children in Jersey have access to quality early childhood education and childcare (ECEC).\r\n\r\nThe Minister has ensured a continued focus and prioritisation of Early Years by formally delegating the political responsibility to her Assistant Minister Deputy Louise Doublet.\r\n\r\nIn 2023 the Minister will continue to actively consider provider architecture, sustainable funding models and workforce implications for Early Years. \r\nThis includes financial implications for the Government Plan 2024-27 and assessing how early years funding is spent and how well this supports the outcomes for children. \r\n\r\nThe petition for the introduction of 20 hours free childcare from 9 months old would require a considerable programme of work. It is important to ensure any future model of early years is right for Jersey. This includes engagement with local early years providers to understand and address the current challenges of workforce pressures. We know that the sector is currently under strain due to the increased cost of living and difficulties in recruitment. In recent years, three local early years settings have closed, seeing a loss of approximately 75 children’s spaces. Currently most, if not all, private settings are full, many with waiting lists until September 2024. Working parents tend to choose private settings due to the extended hours provided all year round. School nursery settings offer reduced opening hours during term time only. Regulations for staffing arrangements also differ across settings, with school nursery settings required to have at least one member of staff who has qualified teacher status. \r\n\r\nTo ensure any additional programme’s success and sustainability a phased approach to implementation will be required. This could include consolidating a targeted offer for 2–3-year-olds as a first step. A targeted offer is already in place for this cohort, funded by the Jersey Child Care Trust with additional time limited funding from Early Years COVID Recovery programme (part-time - up to 12 hours a week - nursery placements for children aged between 2-3 years old with a developmental or financial need at two).  \r\n\r\nThe Special Needs Inclusion Programme is available from birth to school age, for children who have an additional need and are accessing a private nursery or preschool setting.  Providing sustainable Government funding would provide funding stability for the voluntary sector in the targeted offer available for 2-3 year olds. \r\n\r\nEarly childhood education and childcare (ECEC)\r\n\r\nThere is a balance between childcare and early education. There is a case for increased early education for 3-4 years olds – this taking place in a school setting with qualified teaching staff. \r\n\r\nThere is also an identified gap within education settings in their ability to offer affordable wraparound (childcare) to enable working parents to easily access early education within this setting. Increasing the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) from 20 to 30 hours saw a number of parents choosing to stay in private settings due to increased hours and all year-round availability of care. Flexibility is a key factor in enabling parents to return to work. Childminders may be able to provide some of the flexibility required. \r\n\r\nEvidence-based programmes for early years\r\n\r\nDuring 2023 the Minister has committed to an increased focus on delivering evidence-based programmes for early years, including Government of Jersey supporting targeted childcare for 2–3year-olds, and an integrated development review for 3 years olds.  Ensuring families get the right help at the right time and that information is easily available and accessible is important. A new webpage and social media page for children and families, including a list of registered childcare, holiday clubs and activities, parenting programmes and support details in one place have been published.  Everyone in Jersey can download the ‘50 things to do before you’re five’ app for free. The app includes 50 fun, low cost or free activities that help to promote positive health and wellbeing habits with your child.  Recognising the importance of communication and language in the early years continues to be prioritised. Programmes are in place with Jersey Library and Every Child Our Future (ECOF) to increase literacy levels and enjoyment through all ages of our population. There are weekly events taking place at the Jersey Library to encourage early social and literacy skills for babies, toddlers and their parents or carers.  \r\n\r\nIn addition, the Learning at Home website has been designed to support parents and carers with their child’s learning and includes specific guidance and resources for 3- to 5-year-olds. \r\n\r\nVoice of the young child\r\n\r\nFurther action to be taken by the Minister includes establishing ways to meaningfully involve and engage children and young people in delivering improvements to services by developing participation standards across Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) and introducing accountability and governance structures. The Participation standards will be developed for and with the early childhood sector to ensure that the voices of all children, including those who are pre-verbal or non-verbal are listened to by adults who care for them, enabling them to respond appropriately to how babies and young children are feeling. A toolkit to support the early years sector has been developed and is currently being reviewed by the Best Start Partnership prior to implementation.\r\n\r\nVoice of parents and carers \r\n\r\nA balanced approach is required to ensure that the best interests of the child are met in addition to the needs of parents and the economy. This petition demonstrates local interest in extending the hours of free childcare provided. We will continue to consult with parents and carers as this policy work develops. \r\n\r\nSummary\r\n\r\nThe early years are a critical time in child development. Providing quality affordable early childhood education and childcare, which delivers the best possible outcomes for children in Jersey, is one of the Minister’s priorities. Consolidation of the existing targeted offer for 2–3-year-olds is the first step. Ongoing engagement across all key stakeholders will ensure any future model of early years is right for Jersey. An agreed approach to funding by both private and the public sector would need support by the Council of Ministers and the States Assembly as part of a future Government Plan.\r\n","created_at":"2023-04-19T08:49:00.754Z","updated_at":"2023-04-19T08:49:00.754Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200321,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200321.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Close School and colleges in Jersey during the outbreak of the COVID-19","background":"Close schools and colleges in order to prevent the spreading of the virus as these places have a large number of students gathering daily.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1781,"created_at":"2020-03-12T14:29:32.653Z","updated_at":"2021-03-13T00:00:31.335Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-12T16:34:49.015Z","closed_at":"2020-09-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-12T14:36:33.606Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-14T23:29:34.399Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-04-08T12:44:27.558Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-08","summary":"The Minister decided to close Government provided schools and colleges from 23rd March 2020. Her decision, made on 18th March 2020, was based on medical advice presented at the Emergencies Council.","details":"This petition started on 12th March and the Minister announced the closure of Government provided schools and colleges 6 days later, on 18th March. The closure took effect from Monday 23rd March. The decision to close was based on medical advice presented to the Minister and the Emergencies Council on 17th March.  \r\nThe decision to close schools and colleges had to consider a range of factors such as critical worker status, vulnerable children, continued education offering outside of a school setting and the risks to mental and physical health, balanced with the need to suppress transmission of Covid-19. \r\nA decision such as this is not one to be taken lightly by any Minister for Education and can only be determined when there is clear medical evidence to do so, with no alternative to keep them open. \r\nAs soon as the Minister was advised by the Medical Officer of Health that schools, colleges should be closed, she acted upon the advice and announced the closures. \r\nThe Minister will continue to receive and act upon the medical advice and will maintain the closures as long as it is necessary to do so. ","created_at":"2020-04-08T12:44:27.554Z","updated_at":"2020-04-08T12:44:27.554Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201197,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201197.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Amend restriction times for dogs on beaches","background":"Dogs are restricted to being on a lead on all beaches between 10.30 am and 6.00 pm between 1st May to 30th September. Beaches can become overcrowded during this period of restriction especially when the tide is high. \r\n \r\n","additional_details":"Why continue the restrictions until 30th September when not only are children back at school but potentially the peak tourist season is at an end? \r\n\r\nGiven that the beaches tend to be most popular between June and early September, it would make sense to amend the restriction period to between 30th May to 7th September. This would ensure that dog owners have more weeks to let their dogs off the lead to enjoy the beaches and, for those energetic dogs, more freedom when off a lead allowing plenty of exercise.","state":"open","signature_count":1773,"created_at":"2026-05-01T16:04:03.136Z","updated_at":"2026-05-17T21:28:33.579Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-05-07T12:27:25.632Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-04T08:21:59.486Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-11T07:35:49.869Z","ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sarah Esteves","rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200539,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200539.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban any fireworks for sale in Jersey unless they are low noise fireworks.","background":"The amount of terror caused to domestic pets and livestock is untenable. As the fireworks in Jersey seem to be let off over a 3 week period there is no way for owners to plan for the distress.","additional_details":"I have no problem with people having fireworks, it’s the noise associated that causes the distress. As low noise fireworks are available, the Law should change to only allow sale of low noise fireworks to the general public. Let's stop the annual suffering caused to domestic pets, livestock and wildlife.","state":"closed","signature_count":1742,"created_at":"2020-11-08T17:56:39.758Z","updated_at":"2025-07-14T13:27:33.413Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-10T09:16:54.244Z","closed_at":"2021-05-10T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-08T18:33:47.032Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-11T13:29:56.825Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-12-11T09:05:32.742Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-11","summary":"The Minister is unable to support this petition, but new fireworks Regulations will be brought in due course seeking to achieve a balanced approach to regulating the use of the noisiest fireworks. ","details":"The Minister for Home Affairs consulted on proposed Regulations relating to the importation, manufacture, storage, possession, supply, retail, use, transport and export of fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles in late 2019. These Regulations would be made under the Explosives (Jersey) Law 2014. \r\n\r\nThe proposed Regulations would enhance and broaden controls, primarily regarding the supply, possession and use of fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles, and bring the statutory framework around fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles into one piece of legislation.\r\n\r\nThe Minister is grateful to all of those who contributed to this consultation, and notes that the responses received expressed a broad range of views. These contributions will be considered again prior to a formal consultation response being issued, and amendments to the proposed regulations may be made accordingly.\r\n\r\nIt is unfortunate that work to bring these Regulations into force has been unavoidably delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it remains the intention of the Minister that they are brought in due course, subject to approval by the States Assembly.\r\n\r\nThe proposed regulations do include provisions which regulate fireworks differently depending on their noise level but do not seek to ban all noisy fireworks completely. \r\n\r\nRather, the Regulations would limit the ability to acquire or possess the noisiest fireworks, i.e. those with a noise level exceeding 120 decibels, to those with ‘specialist knowledge’. It would be against the Regulations to supply a Category F4 firework, T2 theatrical pyrotechnical article or P2 other pyrotechnical article to any person except a person with ‘specialist knowledge’. \r\n\r\nIt is proposed that the Regulations will consider a person with specialist knowledge to be any individual who can demonstrate having:\r\n• undertaken recognised training, in relation to the type of Category F4 firework/T2 theatrical pyrotechnic article/P2 other pyrotechnic article which is to be made available to that individual; and\r\n• used Category F4 fireworks/T2 theatrical pyrotechnic articles/P2 other pyrotechnic articles; and\r\n• valid liability insurance covering use of Category F4 fireworks/T2 theatrical pyrotechnic articles/P2 other pyrotechnic articles (this may be in the name of an individual or employer).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Regulations would require that any display where Category 4 fireworks or Category 3 fireworks with a noise of 120 decibels or more were to be used would require a licence from the Parish Connétable. \r\n\r\nIt is proposed that a person who wishes to operate a firework display and requires a licence would need to apply to the relevant Connétable no later than 21 clear days before the date of the proposed display and pay a prescribed fee.\r\n\r\nThe draft Regulations include a requirement for an applicant to whom a licence has been granted to publish a notice on two occasions (in a manner to be specified by the Connétable) to bring to the attention of the general public that the display will be taking place.\r\n\r\nThese limitations on the use of specific categories of fireworks arise from the fact that these fireworks potentially present a greater hazard to safety by their use, but also because they are much louder than other categories. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, the requirement for those using these types of fireworks to obtain a licence, and to notify the general public of a display, may assist those whose pets or livestock are distressed by fireworks to plan appropriately for this.\r\n\r\nAs well as the issue of noisy fireworks that this petition specifically addresses, the proposed regulations also contain several other provisions which introduce more robust controls around the use of fireworks, which it is hoped may also serve to limit the disruption caused by fireworks. \r\n\r\nThe Regulations propose prohibiting the use of Category F2, F3 and F4 fireworks anywhere in Jersey during “night hours.” It is currently proposed that night hours be defined as 11pm to 7am.\r\n\r\nThis restriction would not apply during a “permitted fireworks night”, which would be during the following periods:\r\n• 11pm to midnight on 5th November\r\n• 11pm on December 31st to 1am on 1st January\r\n• 11pm on the first day of Chinese New Year to 1am on the following day\r\n• 11pm on the day of Diwali to 1am on the following day\r\n\r\nThe Regulations also propose that general retail premises are only able to sell fireworks at specified times of the year, in accordance with the provisions of a retail licence. These times would be:\r\n• on Liberation Day and the 3 days immediately preceding it;\r\n• on the first day of the Chinese New Year and the 3 days immediately preceding it;\r\n• on the day of Diwali and the 3 days immediately preceding it;\r\n• during the period beginning on the 21st October and ending on the 10th November; or\r\n• during the period beginning on the 26th December and ending on the 31st December;\r\n\r\nAt other times of the year, fireworks could only be bought by members of the public from a person with specialist knowledge, provided that the person with “specialist knowledge” also possesses a retail licence to sell fireworks outside of the above periods.\r\n\r\nIt is clear that this is an emotive issue about which there are strong feelings on each side. It is important that any regulations achieve an appropriate balance between the need to minimise distress to pet owners and ensure public safety, with proportionate regulation of the events industry and respect for the rights of islanders to enjoy fireworks as has become a traditional part of certain holidays and events. \r\n\r\nIt is the Minister’s belief that the proposed regulations achieve this balance by ensuring that an appropriate degree of enhanced regulation is introduced around the use of the noisiest fireworks; and more generally by enhancing controls on the supply, use and possession of fireworks. \r\n\r\nThe Minister therefore does not support this petition to ban all fireworks other than low noise fireworks, as this does not achieve a proportionate balance between those disturbed by and those who gain enjoyment from the use of fireworks.\r\n\r\nMinister for Home Affairs\r\n","created_at":"2020-12-11T09:05:32.739Z","updated_at":"2020-12-11T09:05:32.739Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200747,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200747.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the Social Security (Overlapping of Benefits) (Jersey) Order 1975","background":"This antiquated law prevents people of pensionable age being allowed to receive a Home Carers Allowance or any other benefit as well as their Old Age Pension which is rightly theirs following years of contribution. HCA should be paid as well as OAP as carers save the States millions of £’s each year","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1699,"created_at":"2021-10-11T12:40:09.446Z","updated_at":"2022-10-14T06:25:26.284Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-10-13T10:35:13.693Z","closed_at":"2022-04-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-11T13:34:02.852Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-30T09:28:07.348Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-11-26T16:57:24.076Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-11-26","summary":"The Minister acknowledges the vital role of carers and is planning extra support. The Order is key to the rules of Social Security scheme. The Minister is not prepared to consider its repeal.","details":"The work done by family carers is extremely valuable to Jersey, and Government support is already available through a range of schemes.\r\n\r\nThe Long-Term Care scheme acknowledges the role of family carers within the overall care package for an individual and provides financial support towards respite breaks. The Income Support benefit provides additional support of £51.38 a week to a family carer of any age living in an Income Support household, on top of their normal Income Support entitlement. The Employment Law gives all workers the right to request flexible working, to help them arrange that caring responsibilities around paid work outside the home.\r\n\r\nThe Jersey Care Model was approved by the States Assembly last year and is currently being developed. It acknowledges the importance of providing support in the community, including that provided by family carers. Its 3 central principles are:\r\n\r\n- Ensure care is person-centred with a focus on prevention and self-care, for both physical and mental health \r\n\r\n- Reduce dependency on secondary care services by expanding primary and community services, working closely with all partners, in order to deliver more care in the community and at home \r\n\r\n- Redesign health and community services so that they are structured to meet the current and future needs of Islanders\r\n\r\nIn addition, through Local Services there are a number of clusters which see Government and Civil Society working to support islanders in specific areas such as Learning Disability, Older Persons, Cancer, Children and Young People, Homelessness and Mental Health as well as Government’s work to deliver the Disability Strategy.\r\n\r\nThe Minister has previously announced plans to provide extra financial support for family carers in the Government Plan. This project was originally planned for 2020 but has been delayed due to Covid.  The project will look at the extra household expenses incurred when a family is providing care to a family member at home.  The project has recently restarted and will continue into 2022.  The intention is that a new tax-funded payment will be created, and budget has been set aside for this purpose.\r\n\r\nThe Home Carer’s Allowance is a contributory benefit provided through the Social Security scheme. It is available to a working aged adult who gives up full time work in order to care for someone who has high care needs. This benefit is paid at the standard rate of £232.47 a week and requires the carer to satisfy contribution conditions. In November 2021 the States Assembly agreed a change to the Allowance. This will allow carers to undertake paid work for up to 15 hours a week and still claim the full HCA weekly amount. Previously, carers were restricted in the amount of wages that could be earned from an outside job. The change to hours was made following requests from carers to provide more flexibility in this area. When a carer is receiving HCA, they also receive a full pension record for that period.   \r\n\r\nAt pension age, if a carer is already receiving HCA, the Law allows them to choose between continuing to receive HCA or moving to their old age pension. In this way, the carer can choose the benefit which is most advantageous to them. It is not possible to make an application for HCA if the carer is a pensioner when they first make a claim.   \r\n\r\nThe Overlapping Benefits Order is an important part of the structure of the Social Security scheme. It sets out rules as to benefit entitlement when an individual qualifies for more than one benefit at the same time.  A fundamental principle of the overall scheme is that individuals who qualify for weekly benefits will only receive one benefit for each week. For example, if an individual is ill during a period when they are claiming a Parental Allowance, it is not possible to claim Short Term Incapacity Allowance and Parental Allowance for the same week.  \r\n\r\nIn most cases, the benefits paid from the scheme relate to the individual being unable to work during that week and the scheme then provides a payment for that week in which wages are not being received.  \r\n\r\nIf the Overlapping Benefits Order is repealed, these rules will no longer apply, and individuals will be able to make multiple benefit claims for the same period and receive multiple payments in respect of the same week.\r\n\r\nThis would be a significant change to the way in which the Social Security scheme currently works and would need major changes to IT and administrative systems to implement. It would also significantly increase the cost of running the scheme.\r\n\r\nThe main benefit paid out of the Social Security Fund is the old age pension. The number of people reaching pension age is increasing and will continue to increase as a result of the overall ageing demographic. The cost of providing pensions in the future will grow rapidly and some of the reserves that are being built up in the fund will need to be drawn up on to meet these increased costs. There may also need to be changes to contribution rates or other changes to the scheme in the future to support these pension payments.\r\n\r\nThe Minister does not support the repeal of the Overlapping Benefits Order. It would lead to increased costs as a time when the Fund is under increasing pressure from the growing number of pensioners supported through the fund and it is unclear why individuals should be able to claim multiple benefits for the same week.\r\n","created_at":"2021-11-26T16:57:24.072Z","updated_at":"2021-11-26T16:57:24.072Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200701,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200701.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give us BACK our FREEDOMS. It is time to live with Covid-19 - time to MOVE ON !","background":"Stop the Covid-19 positive test numbers being the metric! How many people are in hospital? How many people actually showing any symptoms?\r\nDouble vaccinated but still have to isolate – why?\r\nThis approach has no END - we have to LIVE with this as we do many viruses! NO MORE RESTRICTIONS!","additional_details":"No more executive powers! No more LAWS! We have done all that has been asked. We were told that we would protect the vulnerable - this has been done. We were told to get vaccinated - this has been done. The borders are open but our freedoms are still not returned. Time to STOP this time to live with it - MOVE on - this cannot continue!! We must make sure that NOW and this winter and next year this is not repeated!!","state":"closed","signature_count":1699,"created_at":"2021-06-18T19:53:48.784Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:21:48.456Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-06-22T10:41:00.672Z","closed_at":"2021-12-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-19T06:39:00.439Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-26T19:47:33.092Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-07-27T09:10:08.299Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-07-27","summary":"The Government of Jersey does not rely on only a single metric (such as case numbers) when making population level decisions on COVID-19.","details":"The Government of Jersey does not rely on only a single metric (such as case numbers) when making population level decisions on COVID-19. Instead a wide range of factors are considered including, but not restricted to, rates of hospitalisations and impact on critical businesses / industry with regard to levels of symptomatic cases amongst workforce, alongside expert guidance from local and international sources.\r\n\r\nAt the time of writing (26 July) there are:\r\n•\t15 people are in hospital positive with COVID-19\r\n•\t3,170 known active cases \r\n  o\tOf which 2,359 are symptomatic and 811 asymptomatic \r\n•\t 12,337 known direct contacts of active cases. \r\n\r\nUp to date data can be found on OpenData.gov (https://opendata.gov.je/dataset/coronavirus-covid-19-number-of-cases-in-jersey?_gl=1*198q6jp*_ga*MTE2NTU2Mjk1NS4xNjI2NzY5NDQx*_ga_07GM08Q17P*MTYyNjc2OTQ0MS4xLjEuMTYyNjc2OTQ1OC4w) \r\n\r\nWhile being double vaccinated reduces the risks of both being infected and passing the transmission onwards it does not eliminate these risks entirely. Due to individual health differences and other factors some of those who are double vaccinated will not have the same protection as others. \r\n\r\nThe Government of Jersey actively seeks to minimise all public health controls. They will only be imposed where it is deemed necessary to do so to reduce the impact of COVID-19 transmission. This includes, for example, the recent decision to remove isolation requirements for Direct Contacts from law.\r\n\r\nAt present few measures remain in place and much of the previous legislation has been relaxed into guidance. \r\n\r\nThe limited, remaining controls, apply to some of the highest risk activities, such as resumption of stand-up drinking and the full reopening of nightclubs. These activities, if resumed too quickly and prior to completion of vaccine roll-out could result in more harm to Islanders and businesses. Globally the COVID-19 pandemic continues to progress, and it is not yet at a stage (locally or globally) where it can be considered endemic. Vaccination and preventing transmission remain the key to reducing harm and returning to a true pre-COVID-19 normality when it is safe to do so. \r\n","created_at":"2021-07-27T09:10:08.296Z","updated_at":"2021-07-27T09:10:08.296Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201119,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201119.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove GST on food","background":"The cost to live is becoming very difficult for a lot of islanders so removing GST (Goods and Services Tax) would be a great help to everyone.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1693,"created_at":"2025-07-28T16:17:24.024Z","updated_at":"2026-02-01T00:00:22.713Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-31T11:25:17.812Z","closed_at":"2026-01-31T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-29T08:25:45.735Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-06T14:19:23.398Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-09-05T07:36:43.541Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-09-05","summary":"The States Assembly has debated this issue on at least eight occasions since 2005. In all cases, the Assembly has not supported the removal of GST on food. ","details":"The most recent debate was in 2022 (P.100/2022) when the proposition was defeated by 28 votes to 17. \r\n\r\nMaintaining a broad base of taxation with few exemptions is the key to preserving Jersey’s low rate of GST, one of the lowest in the world. It is also simpler to administer for businesses and Government.\r\n\r\nJersey’s low rate of GST on all goods and services, combined with generous personal income tax allowance and income-related benefits, keeps money in Islanders’ pockets and leaves spending choices to them. To balance the books and so maintain public services, lowering the GST rate on foodstuffs could mean raising the rate on other goods and services. Analysis undertaken by Treasury indicates that the GST rate on non-food goods and on services would need to be raised by roughly one percentage point (to 6%) to recover the revenue lost from removing GST on food. \r\n\r\nWhile some Ministers have expressed support for the removal of GST from food, the Minister for Treasury and Resources believes that a broad-based system remains the fairest and most sustainable approach. \r\n\r\nIf the States Assembly chose to reduce GST on food, this would indiscriminately remove tax for all Islanders. If retailers pass on the saving to consumers, a GST cut would benefit all households, including higher-income households, making it a poorly targeted tax cut. \r\n\r\nThe Minister for Treasury and Resources believes that the best way to help lower-income households manage the cost of living is through direct support. The Government does this through programmes such as Income Support; the Community Costs Bonus (which, at £516.50, is the equivalent of the annual GST on a weekly food shop of £198); the personal tax allowance – which is also higher than many comparable countries; and, where simple and right to do so, by providing items such as menstrual products for free.\r\n\r\nJersey’s standard GST rate of 5% is the same or lower than the reduced value-added tax (VAT) rate that many other countries apply to foodstuffs. For example, France’s reduced rate on food is 5.5%, with most EU Member States applying rates that are higher (the EU average VAT rate on basic foodstuffs is 10%).\r\n\r\nEvidence from targeted exemptions in other countries, most notably the UK, indicates that retailers do not always pass on reduced prices to the consumer. Given the wide variations in the prices of basic foodstuffs highlighted on the Jersey Consumer Council’s website, it is unlikely that removing GST from food in Jersey will lead to observable price reductions.\r\n\r\nGST exemptions will create administration costs for businesses, particularly smaller businesses, which makes price reductions less probable. The Government would also face a material increase in administrative costs from operating a multi-rate GST regime.\r\n\r\nFor all of these reasons, the Minister for Treasury and Resources does not propose bringing forward legislation to remove GST from food.\r\n","created_at":"2025-09-05T07:36:43.536Z","updated_at":"2025-09-05T07:36:43.536Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200354,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200354.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Freeze personal tax until 2021 and move all onto 'pay as you earn'.","background":"There has been talk of moving all taxpayers onto current year / 'pay as you earn' for some time now. Use Coronavirus as a change to help taxpayers by freezing tax immediately, and also migrate all taxpayers from 2021 to current year assessments.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1673,"created_at":"2020-03-22T17:53:38.391Z","updated_at":"2021-03-31T23:00:20.473Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-30T07:02:33.308Z","closed_at":"2020-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-22T18:38:35.684Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-02T12:02:19.282Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-05-01T13:39:48.871Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-01","summary":"The Minister is sympathetic to calls to move all taxpayers onto a current year payment basis. The Minister does not support the part of the petition calling for Government to freeze tax immediately.  ","details":"The Minister for Treasury and Resources is sympathetic to the calls to move all taxpayers onto a current-year payment basis (CYB). The Government Plan 2020-23 (pp. 164-5) recognised the problems with having a large number of taxpayers still paying off their previous year’s tax bill on the prior-year basis (PYB) and announced a review.  \r\n\r\n“Ministers are concerned that many taxpayers who, on a prior year payment basis, are often unaware that they have a latent tax liability that will need to be paid at some point in the future, their assumption being that their income tax is being fully settled through their ITIS deductions. In many cases, the first time the taxpayer becomes aware of their latent tax liability is when they retire, take a career break or leave the Island; ITIS deductions correspondingly stop and Revenue Jersey subsequently issues a demand for the outstanding tax.\r\n\r\nHowever, to prevent the issues caused when taxpayers have to pay their latent liability, often at a time when they are experiencing a reduction in their income, this Government will consider the options for bringing all taxpayers on to a current year payment basis.”\r\n\r\nThe Minister does not support the part of the petition calling for government to “freeze tax immediately”. Many Islanders and many businesses continue to receive income and therefore should remain capable of paying their taxes. To “turn-off” all personal taxation receipts would mean no money to pay for any of the services provided by Government on a day-to-day basis, in particular during the crisis. This would include salaries of healthcare workers and other frontline staff. This would be unacceptable. \r\n\r\nIslanders should continue to pay their taxes where they can - to help the Government to fund the support it is providing to those who have lost their incomes and to subsidise businesses to foster a speedy economic recovery.\r\nAdditionally, many islanders each year take steps to pay down their PYB liability, in particular when they are heading towards retirement.  It would not be fair on them simply to waive that liability for others.  \r\n\r\nThe Minister has asked Revenue Jersey to examine ways of moving people onto a current-year basis and this work will form part of the ongoing Personal Tax Review. About two-thirds of taxpayers still pay taxes on a prior-year basis (PYB). As part of this further work, careful consideration would need to be given to the “easy-payment” options that could be offered to PYB taxpayers to pay off the prior-year tax bill at some future point and over a reasonable period of time, to avoid asking them to pay two years’ tax in just one year.\r\n\r\nThe Treasury will report back to the Minister later this year, in good time to make proposals to the States Assembly, if appropriate.  \r\n\r\nThe Treasury and Resources Minister\r\n","created_at":"2020-05-01T13:39:48.868Z","updated_at":"2020-05-01T13:39:48.868Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200877,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200877.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Preserve Jersey's Mail Plane: Sign Petition to Safeguard Our Future and Economy.","background":"The potential cancellation of the daily mail plane service to Jersey threatens to disrupt our way of life, isolate businesses, and dismantle critical air freight infrastructure. \r\n","additional_details":"This service underpins commerce and air freight and, without it, the Island would lag behind in logistics and face the risk of reduced competitiveness and diminished resilience. The discontinuation of this service would threaten Jersey's economic vigour and connectivity and would be felt by all - from individuals to businesses.\r\n \r\nWe need a unified voice. Sign the petition to defend Jersey's future. The Government of Jersey must take action to protect Islanders’ interests and to ensure this vital service is maintained.","state":"closed","signature_count":1665,"created_at":"2023-05-23T16:00:32.102Z","updated_at":"2024-05-24T23:00:13.539Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-05-24T12:26:54.115Z","closed_at":"2023-11-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-05-24T07:24:25.206Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-18T20:15:20.186Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-06-30T14:51:37.289Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-06-30","summary":"The withdrawal of Royal Mail’s mail plane would have almost no impact on inbound deliveries to the Island because, with the exception of special delivery items, these are already delivered by sea. ","details":"The withdrawal of Royal Mail’s mail plane would have almost no impact on inbound deliveries to the Island because, with the exception of special delivery items, these are already delivered by sea. \r\n\r\nThis includes Amazon, HelloFresh, and Mindful Chef deliveries. Indeed Jersey Post is recognised as an exemplary service partner by Amazon, with 99% of deliveries delivered within or before the due date via the sea route.\r\nThis notwithstanding, I fully appreciate the difficult position many local online retailers and fulfilment companies will face if Royal Mail withdraws its daily mail plane service. \r\n\r\nI have been meeting Jersey Post and local online retailers and fulfilment companies to understand the potential effects that any withdrawal of the mail plane service might have, and I have written to Royal Mail to convey the concerns of local businesses as part of its consultation process.\r\n\r\nI am encouraged that Jersey Post understands the likely impact these decisions could have on the local economy and that the company has been actively working with the sector and other affected stakeholders, such as Durrell, to find alternative solutions and minimise any disruption to its customers and ensure Jersey remains an attractive jurisdiction for online retail businesses.","created_at":"2023-06-30T14:51:37.286Z","updated_at":"2023-06-30T14:51:37.286Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200619,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200619.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Offer one-off grants for the worst affected industries due to forced closures.","background":"Behind every business is a human and their family, we want to secure a government grant system to enable businesses to survive closures and loss of revenue due to the Covid-19 pandemic. ","additional_details":"The Co-funded payroll provides much needed contribution towards the wage bill incurred by businesses - however some are having to use what they receive to top up staff wages leaving them with nothing. Payroll is only one of many business expenses and the Co-funded Payroll scheme on its own is not sufficient to ensure the survival of businesses. A government grant scheme based on the level of detriment incurred by businesses would provide further support towards rent, supplier, insurance, utilities, employer contributions liabilities and other business costs, act as a safeguard against future unemployment and provide more economic stability during the reconnection of the economy. \r\n\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1608,"created_at":"2021-01-06T22:04:01.319Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:22:07.392Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-11T14:01:12.419Z","closed_at":"2021-07-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-06T22:17:41.680Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-12T13:36:31.204Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-16T09:01:44.259Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-15","summary":"A new financial support scheme was launched on 9th February to provide extra financial support for the worst affected businesses though a monthly lump sum payment or grant.\r\n\r\n","details":"Ministers recognise that this has been an exceptionally difficult winter for our Island’s businesses. Ministers launched the Fixed Costs Support Scheme (FCSS) on 9th February 2021 to provide additional financial support for businesses.\r\n\r\nThe FCSS will add £9.5 million to the support already available to businesses through the Co-funded Payroll Scheme, Business Disruption Loan Guarantee Scheme, Visitor Accommodation Support Scheme, and Visitor Attractions and Events Scheme.\r\n\r\nMinisters are committed to continue protecting businesses, lives and livelihoods in Jersey throughout the whole duration of the pandemic. This additional funding provides the necessary support to enable those businesses most impacted by public health measures to weather the winter period and to move ahead with more confidence into 2021. \r\n\r\nIsland businesses can apply to the scheme if they have been impacted by recent Government measures which have forced them to close as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scheme is backdated to 01 January 2021 and will run until 30 April 2021. \r\n\r\nApplicants need to show they have suffered a 20% fall in turnover when compared with a comparable month in 2019.\r\n\r\nThe maximum amount of monthly support a business can claim is set at four levels, determined by the business rates they paid on their business premises in 2020. Businesses and self-employed individuals that do not pay business rates are also eligible.\r\n\r\nSome businesses that have been able to open can also receive some assistance from this new scheme if they were affected by restrictions such as two-metre physical distancing or restricted trading hours.\r\n\r\nFull guidance on the details of the scheme and how to apply are available via the Government of Jersey website: https://www9.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/BusinessAndEmployment/Pages/GovernmentSupportForBusinesses.aspx#FCSS \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-16T09:01:44.257Z","updated_at":"2021-02-19T10:57:47.769Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200098,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200098.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the use of Round Up and all products containing glyphosate in the Island.","background":"Glyphosate has been found to be dangerous to humans and animals. Multiple countries are banning it. Recently a groundsman in America was awarded $280million in damages because the court agreed Round Up caused his cancer. It is creeping in to our food chain and is unacceptable.","additional_details":"https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-agriculture-chemicals/brazil-judge-suspends-use-of-agrochemical-glyphosate-idUSKBN1KR28Q\r\nhttps://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/glyphosate-oat-products-ewg-study/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.je%2F\r\nhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/weedkiller-chemical-glyphosate-cancer-children-cereals-quaker-cheerios-kellogg-monsanto-a8494286.html","state":"closed","signature_count":1588,"created_at":"2018-08-23T08:47:19.869Z","updated_at":"2019-09-28T23:00:20.822Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-28T09:11:48.785Z","closed_at":"2019-03-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-27T14:02:19.248Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-16T10:57:40.539Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-01-11T16:04:40.945Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-01-11","summary":"There is currently insufficient evidence to justify a ban of products containing glyphosate, and we will continue to monitor E.U. \u0026 U.K. professional authorities’ advice and respond appropriately. ","details":"Ministers and scientific officers within the Growth, Housing and Environment (GHE) department of the States of Jersey have carefully considered the petition and respond below to each point within the petition. \r\n\r\n“Glyphosate has been found to be dangerous to humans and animals”.\r\nGlyphosate is a organophosphorus compound that inhibits a metabolic route (Shikimate pathway) used by plants, bacteria and other single-celled and simple life forms for the biosynthesis of folates and certain amino acids. The Shikimate pathway is not found in humans or animals and so glyphosate has no effect on their metabolic processes. \r\n\r\nGHE has neither the expertise nor the facilities to independently evaluate human or animal pesticide toxicology and so relies on the findings of European Union (E.U.) and United Kingdom (U.K.) expert regulatory bodies. These bodies currently approve glyphosate and authorise glyphosate-based products, and Jersey is currently following this approach. We do not agree with the petition’s claim that glyphosate “has been found to be dangerous to humans and animals”. To do so would be to accept that evidence that supports that statement has been wrongfully rejected by the E.U. and U.K. experts and we do not believe this to be the case. \r\n\r\nIn relation to the perceived dangers to human and animal health such as cancers and a number of other acute and chronic diseases, a detailed position statement was published on www.gov.je on the 26 September 2017. The statement sets out the position of a number of major approval / authorisation agencies regarding the lack of evidence to support claims of glyphosate carcinogenicity. The statement also refers to the U.K’s Health and Safety Executive statement that “all pesticide products must be shown to pose no unacceptable risks to people or the environment before an approval or authorisation is granted”. In this context, ‘unacceptable risks’ includes the consideration of potential human diseases and adverse health effects in addition to cancers. All such risks are constantly evaluated and re-evaluated by independent experts that comprise the European Union (E.U.) and United Kingdom (U.K.) regulatory bodies. These bodies operate according to a wide range of stringent legislation (such as Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and the U.K. Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011) and consider all relevant peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature to ensure that all qualifying criteria are met before approving a pesticide or authorising a pesticide product. \r\n\r\n“Multiple countries are banning it.”\r\nIt is acknowledged that the use of glyphosate is restricted in some countries. However, our research has failed to identify any country which has completely banned glyphosate. One possible exception is possibly El Salvador where a ban was introduced some years ago and the current status of this ban is unknown. \r\nThe petition includes a link to a Reuters story (06.08.2018) that refers to a Brazilian federal judge injunction, suspending the use of products containing glyphosate in Brazil, in August 2018. This injunction was overturned during the following month by a higher court which stated that the injunction was not justified. Currently, glyphosate-based products remain authorised for use within that country.  \r\n\r\n“Recently a groundsman in America was awarded $280million in damages because the court agreed Roundup caused his cancer”.\r\nIt is correct that in August 2018 a US jury awarded damages to a groundskeeper who is dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto, the maker of the week killer Roundup, were sued, claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, caused the cancer. \r\n\r\nIt is recognised that, as a civil action, the aggravating circumstances only have to be proven by a preponderance of evidence; this is not the same degree of burden of proof that has to be produced in a criminal case, when those same aggregating circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is believed that Monsanto plan to file an appeal of the verdict. \r\n\r\n“It is creeping in to our food chain and is unacceptable”.\r\nGHE officers (previously within the Department of the Environment) routinely carry out pesticide residue analysis on all edible crops produced in the island. Records (kept for a minimum of 10 years) confirm that glyphosate residues have never been found in Jersey-grown produce. \r\n\r\nSimilarly, glyphosate residues have never been detected in Jersey milk. The petition includes two links to a report produced by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington D.C. public health advocacy group, which claim that unsafe levels of glyphosate have been detected in oat-based cereal products produced for the U.S. market. Simply put, EWG have taken the proposed California acceptable daily intake (also known as the reference dose in the U.S.) for glyphosate of 1.1 mg per kg of body weight and divided that amount by 100 to obtain their own proposed limit of .011 mg/kg of bodyweight. They justify the 100 times reduction by reference to a proposal from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that some contaminants increase lifetime cancer risks by a factor of 10 and a proposal in the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act which supports an additional 10-fold margin of safety for children unless there is data to suggest such a margin is unnecessary. However, these two proposals are not supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science in respect of glyphosate and so EWG’s acceptable maximum limit of .011 mg/kg should be accepted as being arbitrary in nature. EWG subsequently claim that limits set by the California authorities are insufficient and because glyphosate levels in oat-based cereals exceed their own (arbitrary) limit, they are unsafe. \r\n\r\nWe reject their conclusions of unsafeness based on the fact that the levels of glyphosate detected are far below the limit imposed by the U.K. Health and Safety Executive 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight. Using the U.K. limit, it can be shown that a 50 Kg person would have to consume a minimum of 25 Kg of the same oat-based cereals per day before the acceptable daily intake limit was reached. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the EWG work involves U.S. oat cereal products only and not those available in the U.K. and in Jersey. We also point out that Jersey does not produce oats or any other cereals for use in the human food chain and that glyphosate is not used locally on any cereal crops to accelerate grain drying. In summary, glyphosate has never been detected in any locally grown produce; as such, we do not accept that the argument that “it is creeping into our food chain” is relevant in respect of a ban on the use of glyphosate on edible crops in Jersey.   \r\n\r\nAdditional Comments\r\nThe Jersey pesticide regulatory system relies on the robust scientific approach taken by the E.U. and the U.K. (both of which are notably pesticide risk-averse jurisdictions). At the E.U. level, regular and ongoing reviews since the early 1990s have resulted in the revocation of approvals for hundreds of pesticide active ingredients based on new information, tightened criteria and evidence provision requirements. When approvals are revoked at the E.U. level, they automatically fall away in the U.K. Pesticide products (i.e. formulations containing pesticide active ingredients and co-formulants) are assessed, reviewed and authorised at Member State level and products that are authorised by the U.K. are, in most cases, automatically authorised in Jersey as well. Exceptions to this occur if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a pesticide product is unsuitable when factors such as local environmental conditions or environmental fate are considered. These considerations are undertaken by the Natural Environment team within GHE, who regularly assess the characteristics of pesticide products and which, if required, acts to restrict or prevent use if there is any suspicion that they may be unsuitable for use within the island.\r\n\r\nThe standard of professional use of pesticides in Jersey has never been higher, with compulsory training, record keeping and calibration of equipment now standard. Additionally the majority of pesticide applications made in agriculture are now subject to external audit under internationally recognised schemes. \r\nThere are a number of glyphosate-based home landscape and garden products, such as Roundup, available to buy from garden centres and other retail channels. These contain varying concentrations of the glyphosate active ingredient. Users require no training or qualification to use these products, and should always follow the product instructions to ensure their safe and effective use and to minimise the risk of pollution. GHE plans to introduce and implement new codes of practice, including one specifically aimed at amateur pesticide users. It is also considering the introduction of new legislation that will ensure that retailers that sell pesticides to the general public have suitably trained staff to advise and educate customers in the use of such products.  \r\n \r\nFinally, The States of Jersey are aware of the current situation in France, in which synthetic pesticides have been restricted for amateur use and in certain public spaces. We are in communication with the French Regulatory authorities on this matter to establish the reasoning and monitor the outcome.\r\n\r\nMinister for the Environment\r\n","created_at":"2019-01-11T16:04:40.940Z","updated_at":"2019-01-11T16:04:40.940Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200727,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200727.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reinstate Samares Ward to its full complement of 28 beds and previous services.","background":"The rehabilitation ward has been reduced from 28 beds to just 12 beds and the services offered greatly reduced. This is not in line with the National Clinical Guidelines for stroke rehabilitation. Ensure that the new hospital reinstates the full services within it which we previously had in place.","additional_details":"According to the data from the National Clinical Guidelines for stroke rehabilitation, Jersey can expect a minimum of 250 people presenting with stroke symptoms each year, this is without taking into account the patients who have head trauma, prosthetic limbs or any other type of trauma which requires extended care. Our HCS management have reduced our bed numbers and the care package given by way of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dieticians etc to an unacceptable level.","state":"closed","signature_count":1561,"created_at":"2021-08-20T15:32:22.254Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:22:19.763Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-08-23T14:49:29.153Z","closed_at":"2022-02-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-20T19:06:07.748Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-03T12:37:37.727Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-12-06T12:10:12.348Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-12-06","summary":"Health and Community Services continues to provide a flexible and comprehensive stroke rehabilitation approach – one that is responsive to individual clinical need and good practice guidance.","details":"Rehabilitation services have not been reduced but are being delivered in different settings and in a number of different ways in line with National Clinical Guidelines for rehabilitation. \r\nIn relation to stroke rehabilitation, we continue to maintain sufficient inpatient services. It should be recognised that not all stroke patients require inpatient rehabilitation. The emphasis in most modern well-resourced healthcare systems is to provide inpatient care during the acute phase of rehabilitation which follows as soon as possible after a stroke has occurred. After the acute phase, ongoing rehabilitation and continuing support is usually delivered in the patient’s home or a community setting. This model of treatment delivers better outcomes and patient experience. \r\nHowever, some patients will still require rehabilitation and support in an inpatient setting after completing the acute phase of treatment. This was previously delivered in Samares Ward and is now being delivered in Plemont Ward. HCS is arranging to extend the inpatient rehab therapy service to the community. This will support timely discharges for islanders from Plemont Ward with support from the therapy team who work there. It will support the continuation of rehabilitation within a patient’s own environment at the earliest opportunity and provide a more seamless handover to the community team. By putting this service in place, HCS aims to enhance a patient’s discharge support, recognising it can be unsettling when transitioning through services. \r\nSamares Ward was close to many people’s hearts in the care and treatment that was provided. However, HCS would like to reassure islanders that the same professional team transitioned with the move to Plemont Ward. There are 14 beds dedicated to rehabilitation with four of those being in cubicles. These beds are flexed according to the number of neurological and stroke patients that are on the unit at any one time. However, rehabilitation is not just confined to Plemont Ward; if a patient on another ward requires rehabilitation, it can be provided within that setting. \r\nHCS recognises that this has made some people anxious about the changes that are currently occurring. It acknowledges that Samares Ward was a spacious, calm, healing environment where patients each had their own room. However, HCS is committed to improving Plemont Ward’s environment to ensure a better experience for patients.\r\nHCS is committed to providing the best care it can give to patients and retaining their confidence. To that end, HCS will be commissioning a report from an expert in rehabilitation services to review existing provision and advise upon the future direction and resource requirements of services locally. \r\nHCS will continue to listen to patients’ views and consult with local charities working with stroke patients and other patients using rehabilitation services. It is currently looking to recruit a consultant in stroke medicine and a consultant in frailty which will enhance the rehabilitation provision further.\r\nIn Jersey, the number of persons diagnosed with a stroke is between 100 and 140 people annually. Jersey reports into the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) and collects data on key multi-disciplinary indicators relating to stroke service provision. The SSNAP is a major national healthcare quality improvement programme based in the School of Population Health and Environmental Studies at King’s College London.  SSNAP measures the quality and organisation of stroke care in the NHS and is the single source of stroke data in England.\r\nIn accordance with the national stroke guidelines, the offer of rehabilitation is initially at least 45 minutes of each relevant stroke rehabilitation therapy for a minimum of five days per week to people who can participate, and where functional goals can be achieved. If more rehabilitation is needed at a later stage, the intensity of the rehabilitation is tailored to the person’s needs at that time. The therapy provision for stroke rehabilitation in Jersey is delivered by physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and dietetics. There has been no reduction in the staffing numbers for any of these therapy provisions when comparing Samares Ward with the current provision, and no reduction in the package of care offered. \r\nHCS will continue to monitor outcomes following the change in location of the rehabilitation service. This can be captured in a range of metrics including rehabilitation success and ongoing care needs such as the number of patients admitted to care home beds or requiring increased care at home. However, 2020 and 2021 have been challenging times to draw direct comparisons as, like all health and care providers, unscheduled and scheduled care activity has been significantly impacted by the pandemic with a reduction in emergency presentations, and fewer patients requiring inpatient emergency hospital care.  \r\nThe number of beds required for acute inpatient rehabilitation is accommodated within the bed base of the proposed new hospital at Overdale, and, importantly, these services may be required to function on more than one ward where patients in different specialist areas also require inpatient rehabilitation. This will mean inpatient rehabilitation will be wrapped around the patient rather than the patient being moved to one single ward to access rehabilitation services.  Support services such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists will provide support to all inpatient areas of the new hospital where there is a designated need.","created_at":"2021-12-06T12:10:12.345Z","updated_at":"2021-12-06T12:10:12.345Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200222,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200222.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Have an allocated beach in Jersey where dogs can be off their leads all year.","background":"Dogs need a place to run all year and cool off in the sea. It works in Guernsey, let’s have one in Jersey too.","additional_details":"I am not a dog owner but know plenty of owners and the Island is too small not to have 1 free reign beach for them. Limited exercise = Fatter unhealthy dogs.","state":"closed","signature_count":1542,"created_at":"2019-05-13T16:40:41.708Z","updated_at":"2023-03-28T06:13:02.966Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-14T08:14:49.754Z","closed_at":"2019-11-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-13T18:20:15.590Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-17T07:04:06.420Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-06-20T10:30:04.008Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-20","summary":"The existing rules are fair and are reasonably generous to dog walkers.  They take account of the broad range of other reasons why both residents and tourists visit Jersey’s beautiful beaches.","details":"Guernsey and Jersey have both adopted laws that regulate beach usage. Both islands have sought to strike a balance between the needs, expectations and concerns of the full range of stakeholders, dog walkers included.  There are nevertheless some differences in approach.\r\n\r\nIn Jersey, the relevant rules are set out in the Policing of Beaches (Jersey) Regulations 1959.  Those Regulations allow dogs to be exercised on any Jersey beach all year round and there are no rules preventing them from entering the water.  During the period May to September inclusive, however, a dog must be kept on a lead between 10.30 am and 6.00 pm.  \r\n\r\nCertain additional rules apply at all times.  A person in charge of a dog must, for example, keep that dog under control so that it does not rush at, worry or otherwise interfere with the safety, comfort or convenience of any other person on the beach.  They must also remove their dog faeces from the beach promptly.\r\n \r\nThe equivalent rules in Guernsey are similar to those of Jersey in some respects but there are also some key differences.  Dogs may be exercised on several Guernsey beaches all year round and without a statutory obligation to use a lead at all times.  They are nevertheless completely excluded from 7 specified beaches in Guernsey during the same May to September period (save for some very limited exemptions), as well as from beaches in Herm.  \r\n\r\nAt the end of April 2019, Guernsey authorities announced that they would be reviewing their existing rules and considering whether there might be an environmental case for extending the summer dog ban to additional beaches.\r\n\r\nThere are advantages and disadvantages to both the time-based restrictions in Jersey and the geographically-based restrictions in Guernsey.  Certain factors (for example where one lives or one’s occupation) may affect whether an individual dog owner might prefer one method over the other.  In Jersey, however, it is considered that the existing rules have proved to be a workable compromise that has allowed for a broad range of different beach uses to coexist relatively comfortably.  The existing rules also ensure that dog walkers in Jersey always have the convenient option to use the beaches that are closest to where they live – albeit that they must sometimes keep their dog on a lead.\r\n\r\nIt is worth noting that the rules affecting dogs on beaches have been raised frequently via conventional and social media in recent years, particularly during the April / May and September / October periods when the rules change. \r\n\r\nOne example of such discussions was an online poll, conducted in May 2014 by the Jersey Evening Post newspaper.  It concluded that 48% (726) of respondents supported maintaining the status quo, while 26% (393) considered that dogs should be allowed to run off the lead on beaches all year round.\r\n\r\nJersey is a relatively small island, as the petition acknowledges.  While it benefits from having a good number of beautiful beaches, all of those which might be considered large enough to service the demands of dog walkers may also be regarded as the favoured beach of Islanders and tourists who use the beach for other purposes.  Those other users may be inconvenienced or even deterred by the probable increase in numbers of dogs running off the lead on a designated beach.  \r\n\r\nOn balance, therefore, government is not proposing to change the rules at this time.","created_at":"2019-06-20T10:30:04.002Z","updated_at":"2019-06-20T10:30:04.002Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200096,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200096.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a free ‘Aire’ French style camping system in Jersey for locals.","background":"Would you support a 'Aire' style system like the French? Allowing local people to camp in designated areas for up to 48hrs. Giving people the freedom to camp in Jersey would dramatically improve the lives of local people especially families who live in built up areas and on a tight budget.","additional_details":"As it stands you are only allowed to camp in certified campsites therefore you are breaking the law even if you camp on your own property. The only place in Jersey you can free camp is Le Port where the  authorities have made concessions on this outdated law. I am calling for a change in the law so other Parishes can welcome local people who wish to take their families free camping and dramatically improve the lives of people especially young families living in built-up areas.","state":"closed","signature_count":1526,"created_at":"2018-08-22T07:36:47.315Z","updated_at":"2019-08-22T23:00:23.549Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-22T11:56:25.161Z","closed_at":"2019-02-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-22T08:52:00.705Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-25T15:15:29.192Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-09-26T11:19:07.898Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-09-26","summary":"Enjoying Jersey’s coast and countryside is part of island life but needs management to protect its qualities. A review of short-stay camping regulation is required to see how best to manage it.","details":"Being able to enjoy the special qualities of Jersey’s coast and countryside is part of what makes the island a great place to live and visit.\r\n\r\nAccess to the island’s special places, however, needs management to ensure that the qualities that make them special are not damaged or lost, and so that everyone can continue to enjoy them.\r\n\r\nThe current regulation of camping and the use of motorhomes has its origins in tourism and the regulation of housing accommodation: it was not specifically designed to manage short-stay camping in the island.\r\n\r\nOutside of designated campsites free-camping in vehicles designed or adapted for human habitation anywhere in Jersey, including Le Port, is presently unauthorised.\r\n\r\nThe petition refers to the French system of ‘aires’: to be clear, these are not free camping areas but motorhome stopovers which, whilst often free, allow motorhomes to park overnight. There are terms and conditions attached to their use, where vehicles must be ‘self-sufficient’ motorhomes (which might include campervans, Dormobiles, Winnebagos, American RVs, and motorcaravans), with their own waste, water, cooking and sleeping facilities within the vehicle, and not just a van with a mattress in the back. Camping is strictly prohibited, which means no winding out of awnings; setting out of tables and chairs; and no erecting of tents. For the avoidance of doubt, it is assumed that, given this definition, the petition is not seeking to establish motorhome stopover areas or ‘aires’, but instead, is proposing the establishment of free camping areas, where people can camp overnight in vehicles designed or adapted for human habitation.\r\n\r\nRegulatory framework\r\nThe protection of Jersey’s coast and countryside is a key principle of the planning system: it has sought to regulate various forms of tourist accommodation, including short-stay camping involving caravans; motorhomes or tents, with this as the main objective.\r\n\r\nAny vehicle or structure capable of being moved from place to place, that is designed or adapted for human habitation requires a permit under planning law. The conditions attached to the use of caravans and motorhomes differs if being brought into the island for a short period by a visitor; or owned or used by a resident.\r\n\r\nVisitors can only bring a motorhome or caravan into the island for 31 days and stay at a designated campsite: at Beuvelande; Rozel Camping Site; and the Jersey Accommodation and Activity Centre, all in St. Martin; Daisy Cottage Campsite in St. Ouen; or Hideaway Motorhome Stopover in St. Peter. Whilst visitors’ motorhomes may be driven around, they must return to their designated campsite each night.\r\n\r\nFor islanders, who own or use a motorhome or caravan in the island, the following conditions apply:\r\n\r\n•\tthe vehicle or motor caravan is not to be used for any habitable purposes; and \r\n•\ttrailer caravans are kept out of public sight, within a building. \r\n\r\nCampsites require planning permission and proposals for new ones are assessed against Island Plan policies. Proposals in the Green Zone or Coastal National Park (i.e. much of the coast and the countryside) need to ensure that they do not harm or seriously harm the landscape character of the area.\r\n\r\nWhilst planning permission is required for the establishment of a campsite, the island’s planning law does not regulate the incidental use of tents, except where camping might adversely affect the special interest of a designated site, such as a Site of Special Interest. Planning permission would be required to use a site for camping in tents where the frequency and intensity of that use resulted in a material change in the use of the land; and where the siting of any moveable structure, including a tent, caravan or other conveyance, remains on the same land for more than 28 days in any 12 month period. \r\n\r\nWhere business provides ‘lodging for reward’ for six or more people in Jersey, they need to be registered under tourism legislation. This ensures that ‘lodging places’, including campsites, are fit for purpose, and have a supply of water and appropriate waste facilities.\r\n\r\nAnd whilst not directly related to the regulation of short-stay camping accommodation, highways legislation prohibits sleeping in a vehicle that is parked in a designated public parking place. Similarly, parks regulations prohibit activities which might interfere with their enjoyment by other park users; designated parks include areas such as parts of St. Ouen’s Bay. \r\n\r\nIn addition to the regulatory framework set out above, the use of land for camping requires the consent of the landowner.\r\n\r\nExisting regulation\r\nExisting regulation has been successful in protecting the island’s coast and countryside from the adverse visual impact of holiday caravan parks and sites, whilst allowing visitors to camp, in a tent, caravan or motorhome on designated sites.\r\n\r\nEnforcement against sleeping in vehicles overnight, whilst not their specific responsibility, is currently undertaken by the island’s honorary police forces.\r\n\r\nWhat is now evident is an increasing demand for short-stay camping outside designated sites, such as that in evidence over the summer at Le Port, which is unauthorised.\r\n\r\nIssues\r\nWhilst there is a demand for short-term camping using vehicles designed or adapted for this purpose, this activity has an impact upon the local environment and its enjoyment by the wider community. Jersey’s Coastal National Park, for example, seeks to promote access and enjoyment, but it also seeks to ensure conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. The unauthorised use of land at Le Port is having an adverse impact upon this sensitive environment and needs to be managed.\r\n\r\nThe current system of regulation was not designed to deal with a local demand for short-stay camping outside of designated camp sites. The relevant legislation would require review to determine how best to manage this activity.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, the potential cost implications of servicing designated short-term camping sites, were they to be permitted at sites around the island, would require consideration.\r\n\r\nNext steps\r\nRelevant ministers and connétables will meet to discuss how the demand for short-term camping in St. Ouen’s Bay is best managed in time for next summer.\r\n\r\nConsideration will also be given to the necessity and capacity to;\r\n\r\n•\treview the current regulatory framework for short-stay camping in the island to see how this might be best regulated and managed; and\r\n•\tconsider how and where sites could be provided; and at what cost.\r\n\r\nAny proposals will be developed with stakeholder and community engagement.\r\n\r\n\r\nMinister for the Environment\r\n","created_at":"2018-09-26T11:19:07.894Z","updated_at":"2018-09-26T11:19:07.894Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201109,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201109.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Restore \u0026 maintain the 128-year old Victoria Marine Lake (sea pool at West park)","background":"Victoria Marine Lake is a site of significant historical and cultural importance.  Dating from 1897, it is one of the largest in the British Isles and one of only two such pools in Jersey. The pool provides access to seawater swimming, especially during low tides when the sea can drop up to 1.5 km.","additional_details":"Despite some investment in the past, the pool has seen minimal maintenance over its 128-year history.  Since 2023, the sluice gates have remained open, effectively rendering the pool unusable.  In response, the newly formed “Save Our Pool Working Group” - comprising local stakeholders - is advocating for its restoration.\r\n\r\nVictoria Marine Lake predates the listed Havre des Pas pool by eight years, yet it remains unlisted and at risk.  Restoring the pool would preserve a vital piece of Jersey’s heritage while promoting health, leisure, and tourism.\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1523,"created_at":"2025-06-24T07:43:49.641Z","updated_at":"2025-12-28T00:00:00.688Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-27T12:17:29.336Z","closed_at":"2025-12-27T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-24T08:43:42.355Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-10T21:55:44.902Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-08-07T14:26:45.289Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-07","summary":"A project to bring the Marine Lake back into full operation in 2014 cost £315,000 and was unsuccessful. There was minimal public use of the pool, largely due to sea lettuce, which remains an issue. ","details":"The Victoria Marine Lake has not been fully operational for several decades, save for a few years from 2014. £315,000 was spent on repairs to the pool to bring it back into service in 2014 and more would be required now. \r\n\r\nRegrettably, the project to bring the pool back into full operation in 2014 was ultimately unsuccessful. There was minimal public use of the pool, and the Bosdet Foundation understandably withdrew from running the Marine Lake. It should be recognised that a major issue a decade ago was the existence of sea lettuce, and this is a factor that remains present in St Aubin’s Bay today. \r\n\r\nWith these points in mind, careful consideration needs to be given as to whether the restoration of the Victoria Marine Lake would be an effective and efficient use of public funds, given the risk and probable likelihood that the same issues that resulted in low use of the Marine Lake in 2014 would arise again. \r\nThe Government has made, and will continue to make, significant investments at the Havre des Pas Lido which is a short distance from West Park. There are also plans for a 50-metre outdoor pool on the Waterfront. The Marine Lake is a historic site, but it is questionable as to whether there is sufficient demand in 2025 that would justify the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money that would be needed to restore and maintain it on an ongoing basis. \r\n\r\nNevertheless, the Minister for Infrastructure remains open to discussions regarding the future of the Marine Lake. A commitment has been made to make the pool safe in the short-term, and enquiries have been made as to the potential to lower the wall in the areas where it is damaged. Initial discussions have indicated, however, that any such work would be of a similar cost to a full renovation. \r\nThe Minister and Assistant Minister would welcome any new interest from external parties who may wish to operate or provide co-investment in the Marine Lake. The Marine Lake would again be made available for lease in the appropriate circumstances. \r\n\r\nThe Minister for Infrastructure will attend a public meeting regarding the Victoria Marine Lake at the Old Magistrate’s Court in the Town Hall on 5th September. \r\n","created_at":"2025-08-07T14:26:45.282Z","updated_at":"2025-08-07T14:26:45.282Z"},"debate":null}}]}