{"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=2\u0026state=closed","first":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=closed","last":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=10\u0026state=closed","next":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=3\u0026state=closed","prev":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=closed"},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":200485,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200485.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reopen Broad Street to traffic","background":"Broad Street was closed to traffic supposedly to help with social distancing (the rules of which have now been relaxed, and are expected to be relaxed further imminently). \r\nThe road is largely unused by pedestrians and being closed is affecting retailers and shoppers alike.","additional_details":"The road is not being used as al fresco seating areas for the restaurants located on that road. \r\nDisabled bays have been moved to Dumaresq Street meaning those with disabilities are having to walk much further to access essential amenities such as the Post Office. \r\nAccess to shops around Charing Cross is hindered by the route of one way roads to get there. Regular parking spaces on Dumaresq Street have been lost to accommodate the replacement disabled parking spaces although they are generally empty anyway due to a combination of being too far for people with disabilities to walk, and too difficult to reach by car. \r\n\r\nPlease reopen Broad Street!","state":"closed","signature_count":1506,"created_at":"2020-07-29T09:47:44.553Z","updated_at":"2021-07-31T23:00:14.124Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-07-31T08:47:07.016Z","closed_at":"2021-01-31T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-29T20:56:50.842Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-06T09:15:50.707Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-09-04T16:19:57.516Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-09-04","summary":"Broad Street will remain closed as long as there is health advice to support physical distancing in town.","details":"Ministers have received advice from the Medical Officer for Health and been asked to support infrastructure measures to help pedestrians in the town centre to adhere to current guidance and maintain at least 1 metre physical distancing, with 2 metres wherever possible.\r\n\r\nWe have also been advised that over the coming weeks and months, there is a potential for escalating COVID-19 challenges for the Island. These may require the more stringent application of physical distancing measures if we are to maintain as much as possible of our normal ways of life, including visiting the town centre.\r\n\r\nTherefore, as I previously stated, Broad Street has been closed to support physical distancing, by creating additional street space as this is one of the busiest areas and to reduce crowding pressure on the formal crossing points and provide an alternative walking route. It is accepted that while not everyone will avail themselves of this opportunity, some sections of the community are more sensitive to the requirement to physical distance than others and this is an important measure give confidence to their use of Town.\r\n\r\nBeyond this further work is being undertaken, to see if increased disabled parking can be offered temporarily nearby.\r\n\r\nThe measures and arrangements for Broad Street will continue to be kept under review. To better understand the public’s attitudes to the benefits of closing this road for physical distancing during the pandemic, I have asked my Department to arrange for some research into Islanders' views.\r\n\r\nBack in March and April with the Covid-19 Safe Exit Strategy unfolding, there was not the time for a full formal consultation. However, I would like to be clear to counter any rumour, when it is proposed to change the use of a street permanently, I would always instigate a full and fair consultation process that seeks to balance views and needs of all stakeholders.\r\n\r\nThe Minister for Infrastructure","created_at":"2020-09-04T16:19:57.513Z","updated_at":"2020-09-04T16:19:57.513Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200964,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200964.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Increase sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving","background":"Recent road traffic fatalities have highlighted the offence of causing death by dangerous driving which, in Jersey, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. ","additional_details":"In the UK the starting point for a single offence of this nature resulting in a single death is 12 years but if another death is involved in the same incident then this threshold is raised (Reference to sentencing guidelines) before any aggravating factor or mitigation is taken into account. Furthermore, the maximum sentence that can be imposed in the UK is one of life imprisonment.\r\n \r\nIt is time that Jersey legislation reflected the level of seriousness of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving and the Government must act to amend the existing legislation to increase the sentencing powers of the Jersey Courts to ensure that those convicted of the offence are properly held to account.","state":"closed","signature_count":1500,"created_at":"2024-02-14T22:37:06.759Z","updated_at":"2025-03-13T11:49:32.652Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-02-19T10:04:46.008Z","closed_at":"2024-08-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-02-14T22:47:10.538Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-03-03T11:38:25.433Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-04-03T14:03:25.185Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-04-03","summary":"The Minister for Home Affairs is acutely aware that offences of this nature can have a devastating impact on all who are affected, including victims, their families and the community more widely. ","details":"Keeping people safe on our roads is a key priority for the States of Jersey Police and the Government of Jersey, and the Police are committed to high quality investigation of any road traffic collision to bring offenders to justice. \r\n\r\nIn January this year, the new Strategic Road Safety Unit was established in order to develop and deliver a broad range of evidence-informed strategic road safety policy, strategy, delivery programmes and projects. Through collaboration with Ministers, Government of Jersey and key stakeholders they provide expert advice to ensure the Government’s road safety objectives are met, leading to a reduction in road traffic collisions and casualties in Jersey.  \r\n\r\nThrough the work of this unit, the Government will be publishing a Collision and Casualty Reduction Plan. This is anticipated to be delivered later this year. This new strategy will introduce the adoption of the Safe System Approach to Road Safety, of which one element is Post Collision Response. \r\n\r\nWhilst it is not immediately within the scope of that work, a review of sentencing and penalties for road safety offences does fall within that workstream more broadly and is something that I would support. This would require discussion and collaboration with other relevant departments and agencies, including the Police and Judiciary, in order to progress.  \r\n\r\nWhilst I am therefore not able to immediately make a commitment to increase sentencing, I can confirm that I would support a review of sentencing for these offences to ensure that they are acting as an effective deterrent to those who would commit offences on our roads, and to provide justice for road victims.","created_at":"2024-04-03T14:03:25.177Z","updated_at":"2024-04-03T14:03:25.177Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200595,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200595.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow companions to Ante-natal Scans.","background":"pregnant women won’t be allowed to take companions to ante-natal scans under new rules aiming to prevent the spread of covid to patients and staff.","additional_details":"There are many people going through fertility treatments, many miscarriages, the scan anticipations are so high for both, mother and father. This is heartbreaking for one of the party to be there alone. What if the scan doesn’t go to plan? What if this will be their first and only chance to experience seeing their first child? No one knows what people go through to try and conceive. Let’s keep current rules ie: companions only allowed in for scan and straight out.","state":"closed","signature_count":1455,"created_at":"2020-12-16T18:29:44.618Z","updated_at":"2021-12-18T00:00:17.819Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-17T09:43:13.640Z","closed_at":"2021-06-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-16T18:42:19.710Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-19T01:08:10.865Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-08T09:21:29.786Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-08","summary":"The importance of the support that partners and relatives can provide to pregnant women is recognised but this needs to be balanced against the need to keep women and staff safe from Covid. ","details":"It is widely recognised that women value the support from a partner, relative, friend or other person through pregnancy and childbirth as it facilitates emotional wellbeing and is a key component to safe and personalised maternity care. Jersey maternity services supports the position, however, this does need to be safely balanced in the context of preventing and controlling the spread of COVID 19 infection to keep women and staff safe. \r\n\r\nFulfilling our commitment to women throughout their pregnancy has continued in terms of support and having birth partners attending the birth and postnatally.\r\nThe challenge in the current COVID 19 context is that we are operating in a hospital environment which is widely recognised as outdated in terms of modern building standards and which therefore impedes infection control guidance.\r\nThe waiting area in the clinic is small with physical distancing measures in place reducing capacity to four chairs. The waiting area is the only area for women to wait whilst attending antenatal clinical, PAWS (Pregnancy and Wellbeing Study) and ultrasound appointments. Women and partners would have to wait outside or in carparks to reduce flow; this could be logistically challenging. \r\n\r\nWe stopped partners attending for antenatal scans on 14/12/2020.\r\n\r\nIn advance of the decision, Jersey maternity services undertook a risk assessment in the context of the following: \r\n1)\tCOVID activity in the island at the time was 800+ cases with evidence of a high rate of community transmission\r\n2)\t1 fulltime sonographer who can provide the full range of ultrasonography services \r\n3)\tThe physical layout in the antenatal clinic – it only has one way in and out and therefore we are unable to operate a one-way system, which makes it very challenging to ensure that physical distancing is adhered to \r\n4)\tAn average of 25 scans a day, plus women attending for clinic appointments  \r\n5)\tIt is not logistically easy to relocate the scanning facilities as the clinical equipment requires specific data ports and would require complete reconfiguration of the antenatal clinic reducing services in other areas \r\n6)\tThe scanning rooms are poorly ventilated \r\n7)\tAvailability of PCR testing at the time – only available to women and partners requiring an overnight admission. In line with hospital policy, partners and women would have to isolate prior to scan appointment and this could prove difficult for those not able to work from home. \r\n\r\nProvision was made for partners to attend birth and postnatally following their negative PCR test result and this remains in place.  \r\n\r\nA further review has been undertaken during January 2021 as part of HCS’s commitment to ensure the safe and effective processes are in place to support women and staff during the Covid-19 pandemic. This included a review of the same aspects as above, including the current context of COVID activity in the community, where the risk of transmission in our current environment remains high. \r\n\r\nWe only have one hospital and one maternity service on-island. If individuals were to breach isolation following the PCR test [the test being a condition of partners attending], there would be a risk of bringing COVID into the unit and into the hospital.\r\n\r\nThe decision remains that partners are not able to attend antenatal scans until further notice. The position will be regularly reviewed. \r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-08T09:21:29.781Z","updated_at":"2021-02-08T11:58:08.562Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200785,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200785.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce the Island-wide mandate for all States politicians by 2026","background":"Why should people in the town get to elect 4 Deputies, whilst some country parishes can only elect 3 ? If you want to support a political party, but they don’t put up any candidates in your district, do you not vote? If elected by a District your mandate is from a minority of Islanders.","additional_details":"What do you do if you want to represent the whole Island? Only one District will elect the Chief Minister. If a policy is great for the Island but detrimental to the Chief Minister’s district, where will loyalties lie – to the Island or to their electorate? Devolve more Parish responsibilities to the Parish under the Constable, extinguish all districts. Election Day is 22 June 2022. With this petition, let's see if the All-Island Mandate can get more votes than any other candidate. ","state":"closed","signature_count":1438,"created_at":"2022-02-19T20:45:53.920Z","updated_at":"2025-03-14T11:02:05.206Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-02-23T11:44:04.730Z","closed_at":"2022-08-23T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-02-19T21:35:38.207Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-03-31T05:11:33.105Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-04-14T06:56:18.955Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-04-13","summary":"This will be a matter for the next Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) and States Assembly to consider. ","details":"However, the current PPC put forward proposals to abolish the Island-wide electoral contest, leaving two categories of States Member as a direct response to the Election Observation Mission to Jersey undertaken by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 2018. The Mission found:\r\n\r\n•\tan electoral system which remains overly complicated and cumbersome\r\n•\tconstituency boundaries not drawn in line with international standards\r\n•\tareas of concern including the number of uncontested elections\r\n•\tdisparity in the equality of the vote across districts and parishes\r\n•\tlow voter turnout\r\n\r\nIn December 2020, the Assembly adopted P.139/2020 ‘Composition and Election of the States: proposed changes’ which established an Assembly of 49 Members, 37 elected from 9 new districts of comparable population size plus the 12 Parish Connétables. This effectively enacted Option ‘B’ from the 2013 referendum except with 9 constituencies not 6. \r\n\r\nThe legislation to enact these proposals was contained in P.17/2021 which brought into force the Elections (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 2021. The Law has amended the constitution of the States Assembly by removing Senators and increasing the number of Deputies, which will take effect on 22nd June 2022.\r\n\r\nThere would be ample time for the new PPC to consider the impact of the new system and decide how (if at all) to change the system for 2026 after the forthcoming election. As part of the new PPC’s deliberations, it will consider the outcome of the Election Observation Mission 2022 as well as a report by the Jersey Electoral Authority on the administration of the election. \r\n","created_at":"2022-04-14T06:56:18.949Z","updated_at":"2022-04-14T06:56:36.340Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200162,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200162.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide CGM devices and insulin pumps on prescription to all type 1 diabetics.","background":"CGM devices remove the need for finger tip blood sugar testing and pumps remove the need for injections. These are available in the UK on prescription and this should be the same in Jersey. Currently CGM devices are funded for children via a charity. Should be available at no cost for all ages.","additional_details":"My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 at 2 years old. She relies on the CGM device to enable her to do what she loves, swimming (she has represented Jersey in local competitions). Jersey has an opportunity to lead the way on how we support our residents in managing type 1 diabetes as best as technology can enable. Also I believe it is cheaper to provide the CGM devices than to provide testing strips. This will it be a huge step forward in the choice of treatments offered by the diabetes service.","state":"closed","signature_count":1411,"created_at":"2018-11-14T22:24:57.853Z","updated_at":"2019-11-16T00:00:19.342Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-11-15T12:32:49.985Z","closed_at":"2019-05-15T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-14T22:58:07.434Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-20T21:36:36.318Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-12-14T12:13:28.457Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-14","summary":"The actions requested by the petitioner will be considered as part of the work on the development of an Island-wide strategy for the diabetes service.","details":"The Health and Community Services (HCS) Department is currently developing an island-wide strategy for the diabetes service in Jersey. This strategy aims to set out a business case for investment in the service that improves the lives for all those with diabetes, including better access to relevant devices/consumables. At present, charities fund CGM devices for children and, where urgently required, for some adults. Insulin pumps are provided by HCS for a small number of adults who have a clinical need.  \r\n\r\nThere is currently a lot of interest in new technologies that monitor glucose levels in the blood without the need for frequent finger-prick testing. These include the ‘flash glucose testing‘ device called Freestyle Libre, which automatically measures glucose levels throughout the day, via a small sensor on the skin. For patients with type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes, such devices can be more convenient and less painful than using finger-prick testing strips but they are expensive. \r\n\r\nIf these new technologies are to be made available at public expense, it is important that criteria are developed so that funding can be directed at those for whom investment will have most clinical benefit. Guidelines suggest that for people who need to frequently test their blood glucose (\u003e8 times each day), using a device such as Freestyle Libre can be cost-neutral when compared to the cost of finger-prick testing strips. Using the device may be more practical for patients with poor dexterity and for others it may improve their ability to control their diabetes, and so avoid serious complications in later life. \r\n\r\nMany of the 450 people in Jersey with Type 1 diabetes have already bought their own Freestyle Libre device. Diabetes Jersey has also kindly funded this for some children. It is important that we ensure that those not able to afford it will also have access where use of the device is cost effective and will facilitate better diabetes control. \r\n\r\nIn November 2017, the NHS in England and Wales allowed for Freestyle Libre to be reimbursed on prescription but not all Clinical Commissioning Groups implemented the guidance issued at that time. This resulted in geographical variation in patients accessing the devices. However, a new directive from the Minister for Health in England means that from April 2019 all patients in England with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria will be able to receive the device free of charge. \r\n\r\nTo conclude, the availability of these devices will be considered as part of the work on the development of an Island-wide strategy for the diabetes service.","created_at":"2018-12-14T12:13:28.454Z","updated_at":"2018-12-14T12:13:28.454Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201052,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201052.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Clean Jersey’s water, build a treatment plant \u0026 improve PFAS related healthcare","background":"Jersey’s water is contaminated with many types of PFAS (particularly PFOS and PFHxS) and Nitrates, posing risks to health. ","additional_details":"The Government must invest in a treatment plant, adopt global best practices for regulations, and establish healthcare for PFAS testing and treatment. International models, like Australia’s $30M treatment plant in Katherine, provide effective solutions to mitigate contamination. This would safeguard public health, our food chain, and our environment.\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1372,"created_at":"2024-12-07T11:08:32.573Z","updated_at":"2025-12-18T00:00:19.147Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-12-17T12:08:26.251Z","closed_at":"2025-06-17T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-12-07T11:21:02.866Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-01-27T16:11:46.375Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-02-24T16:16:10.906Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-02-24","summary":"We support the outcomes the petition calls for, and as Ministers, we are committed to ensuring that any actions are grounded in research and backed by scientific evidence.","details":"Response from the Minister for the Environment\r\n\r\nThank you for your petition regarding the quality of Jersey's water, particularly PFAS (particularly PFOS and PFHxS) and nitrates, and the associated health risks. I appreciate your concern and the urgency of addressing this critical issue. I support the outcomes the petition calls for, and as a Minister, I am committed to ensuring that any actions are grounded in research and backed by scientific evidence. \r\n\r\nI am acutely aware of the challenges posed by PFAS contamination and the potential health risks it presents. Our government is committed to ensuring the safety and quality of our water supply and protecting public health.\r\n\r\nCurrent Measures and Compliance\r\n\r\nOur regulatory framework under the Water (Jersey) Law 1972 ensures that water quality is monitored.  Jersey Water's 2024 report has demonstrated 100% compliance with current UK and EU regulatory standards for PFAS, and we are working towards introducing a specific regulatory requirement for Jersey to meet even stricter standards. \r\n\r\nWater Quality and Safety Programme \r\n\r\nThe Water Quality and Safety (WQS) Programme is a comprehensive initiative to address public concerns about PFAS in the environment and their impact on our water. This programme consolidates various linked projects under a single governance structure, providing a coordinated and prioritised response to WQS, including the critical PFAS workstreams. In addition, the programme will review and monitor PFAS in the broader environment and food. The programme’s formation signifies a serious ministerial commitment to delivering significant progress on these matters during the current government term. \r\n\r\nInvestment in Treatment and Regulation \r\n\r\nI recognise the need for advanced treatment solutions to address PFAS contamination. This includes exploring treatment technologies and regulatory standards to reduce PFAS levels in our water supply. The Independent Scientific Advisory Panel commissioned by the Government are undertaking Report 4 - PFAS in the Environment in 2025. It will review global standards to allow me to recommend a regulatory standard for Jersey. I plan to introduce this standard in this government term with a phased implementation period. \r\n\r\nReviewing international regulatory standards and treatment technologies helps inform our approach and ensure it is appropriate for the water management systems operated in Jersey. The example of Australia's $30M treatment plant in Katherine is a valuable model, and we are considering similar solutions to mitigate contamination effectively.  I meet regularly with Jersey Water, who are committed to implementing treatment technology to reduce PFAS and nitrates in our water supply.  Jersey Water has undertaken significant work reviewing the options. I am confident that when I bring forward a Jersey Regulatory standard for PFAS later this year, Jersey Water will be in an advanced position to implement treatment in their two water plants. \r\n\r\nStakeholder Engagement and Transparency\r\n\r\nTo ensure transparency and public awareness, we maintain open communication with stakeholders, including residents, Jersey Water, and the media. The independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel provides evidence-based advice for our public health policy and environmental management. The Panel's work is conducted in public, and it seeks input from ‘experts by experience’ and ‘subject matter experts’ to ensure Jersey has access to world-leading research and scientific learnings that are developing at a rapid pace.  As Minister, I am committed to letting science lead actions and investments to ensure we can maximise every opportunity to remove PFAS from the environment. \r\n\r\nFuture Actions\r\n\r\nMoving forward, I will continue to prioritise the implementation of a robust regulatory standard for PFAS in Jersey and investments in treatment technology to allow these regulations to be met. I am committed to bringing this standard before the Assembly within this government term. Additionally, we will deliver Report Four by the independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel and advance our research and monitoring efforts to allow us to understand better the specific environmental impacts we face in Jersey.\r\n\r\nMy Natural Environment team will shortly publish an Independent Hydrogeological Survey Report to enhance our understanding of the impact of the historic use of PFAS-containing Fire-Fighting Foam at the airport. The study has widened previous monitoring areas and will give my officers vital information to help improve our understanding of the impact of PFAS on the environment around the airport. It will also help us develop interventions and treatments.  \r\n\r\nThe Water Quality and Safety programme will also widen its focus to understand PFAS in food, infrastructure and waste and will focus on PFAS levels and impacts Island-wide. \r\n\r\nYour petition highlights the importance of safeguarding public health, the food chain, and the environment. Rest assured, we are dedicated to addressing these concerns through coordinated efforts and international best practices.\r\n\r\nThank you for your engagement and advocacy on this critical issue.\r\n\r\nStatement from the Minister for Health and Social Services\r\n\r\nPublic Health commissioned the independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel in 2023, which has produced two of three planned reports on the impacts of PFAS on health.  I am committed to delivering the report's recommendations and report three, which focuses on interventions to lower PFAS levels, blood testing, and re-testing.\r\n\r\nAs the Minister for Health and Social Services, I want to assure you that we are taking significant steps to address the health impacts of PFAS contamination for all Islanders, especially in the island’s hotspot around the airport. We are establishing clinical review service for islanders impacted by historic contamination from the Airport. These reviews will provide comprehensive health assessments and potential interventions for those affected.  In 2025, training will also be provided for healthcare workers about PFAS.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Scientific Advisory Panel's third report will make further recommendations for health interventions to lower PFAS levels in the blood. This will guide our healthcare strategies and ensure we provide our affected community with the best care and support.  This report is expected in Spring 2025.","created_at":"2025-02-24T16:16:10.896Z","updated_at":"2025-02-25T08:23:36.618Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200352,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200352.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Say no to 5G","background":"Telecom companies worldwide, with the support of governments, are working to roll out the fifth-generation wireless network (5G).","additional_details":"Evidence shows that radio frequency (RF) radiation is harmful to human and animal life. More than 10,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published showing humans can get sick and injured, DNA can be damaged and cells and organ systems are at risk too. Research has also shown that cancer, heart disease, and diabetes and no person, animal, bird, insect or plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The levels of RF radiation will be tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today. This will provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and all of the Earth’s ecosystems.","state":"closed","signature_count":1361,"created_at":"2020-03-22T07:35:42.688Z","updated_at":"2021-03-31T23:00:17.818Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-30T07:00:04.555Z","closed_at":"2020-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-22T12:36:40.897Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-16T17:01:29.228Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-05-19T13:00:33.980Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-19","summary":"Since 2019 (https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200196) no new evidence has emerged on safety of 5G networks. There are still no substantiated health impacts from mobile phone services, including 5G.  ","details":"Health and environmental protection remains a priority for the Government of Jersey, which continues to be vigilant about any risks to the health of islanders. It is still the case that there are no substantiated health impacts from mobile phone services, including 5G.\r\n\r\nIntroduction to 5G \r\n\r\nFifth Generation (5G) mobile technology is expected to deliver faster and better broadband and enable revolutionary uses in various areas of life in future. It is already being deployed by mobile telecoms operators in the UK, Europe, US and Asia. \r\nAt first 5G will improve speed, capacity and coverage for mobile broadband services. In the longer term, it will allow new and revolutionary services to industrial and commercial sectors such as manufacturing, transport, healthcare and agriculture using the potential for the connection of millions of devices and instant response. 5G is also expected to support the evolution of urban spaces and the creation of smart cities, islands and smart factories. \r\n\r\n5G and radio waves\r\n\r\nMobile phone services including 5G, like digital terrestrial television services, WiFi and other communication systems, use radio waves to transmit voice and data. The cross-border nature of radio waves and the need to ensure that mobile services work in different jurisdictions means that mobile phone systems and the radio waves used are being standardised internationally. 5G technology represents a continuation in the development of telecoms networks. The first commercial 5G networks are now live in many jurisdictions including South Korea, major cities in the UK and USA and in cities across Europe. \r\n\r\nTesting and roll out of 5G in Jersey\r\n\r\nTo date the three existing Channel Island mobile telecoms operators have focussed on understanding the technical challenges of introducing 5G, planning for implementation and network testing with the view to launching commercial 5G services in 2020/21 at the earliest. There is no commercial operation yet and before this can happen, the Council of Ministers will have to agree the process and criteria for the allocation of radio waves and 5G licences.  \r\n\r\n5G and safety concerns \r\n\r\nConcerns about 3G, 4G and now 5G health and environmental impacts can often be traced to stories on the internet and social media. In some cases, a misunderstanding about the inability of science to prove that radio waves used by mobile phones are safe is seen as proof that they are dangerous. In other cases, research is misrepresented as proof or likelihood of harm. In July 2018, an article by a physicist and cancer research specialist, Dr David Robert Grimes, in the Guardian newspaper considered how research had been misrepresented or misunderstood by those seeking to link the use of mobile phones to cancer. Other publications, including Wired, have considered misinformation associated with 5G networks. Wired pointed out that one of the most commonly cited examples of harm arising from testing of 5G, the death of 300 birds in the Netherlands had been shown to be false – the 5G testing having taken place months before the bird deaths occurred. \r\n\r\nUK and International Standards for health protection\r\n\r\nWhile the technology that enables 5G services is in some respects revolutionary, the fundamental principles are not. All mobile phone services including 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G, use radio waves. There has been extensive research about exposure to the radio waves used by mobile phone networks and handsets. To date no harm has been substantiated, at the levels and thresholds set in international standards. \r\n\r\nAn independent organisation, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (the ‘International Commission’) provides advice and guidance on the health and environmental effects of non-ionising radiation. It develops and publishes guidelines, statements, and reviews used by regional, national, and international radiation protection bodies, such as the World Health Organisation. In July 2018, the International Commission published its revised draft guidelines for limiting exposure to the non-ionising radiation used by mobile phone services including 5G. The International Commission set out the research that it had reviewed and found that for a wide range of possible harms including cancer there was no substantiated evidence of harm. The International Commission observed that in some areas more research is needed about possible impacts of non-ionising radiation on particular areas of the body.\r\nPublic Health England advises the UK Government on standards for protection from radio waves. Public Health England has advised the UK Government to adopt the International Commission’s guidelines and that there is no convincing evidence that exposures below the International Commission’s guideline levels cause adverse health effects. Jersey’s Environmental Health Officers have regard to Public Health England’s guidelines as well as the advice of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Other UK studies have included an independent Advisory Group and at a European level the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks published in 2015. \r\n\r\nThe Government of Jersey will continue to be guided by relevant bodies including Jersey’s Environmental Health Officers, the International Commission and World Health Organisation as well as Public Health England. All of these bodies consider that there is no substantiated evidence of harm arising from mobile phone services.\r\n\r\nMonitoring and ensuring compliance \r\n\r\nEquipment manufacturers must ensure that their handsets and network equipment comply with international standards and Jersey’s telecoms operators ensure that network equipment they use conforms to international standards. The Government of Jersey expects that mobile handsets sold in Jersey comply with international standards. The Channel Islands telecoms regulator monitors emissions from existing 2G, 3G and 4G mobile network masts and publishes the results. This monitoring exercise will be extended to 5G services. The need for any operator of 5G services to comply with international standards for the emission of radio waves will be included in any 5G licence granted by the Channel Islands telecoms regulator.\r\n\r\nSenator Lyndon Farnham\r\nMinister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture\r\n","created_at":"2020-05-19T13:00:33.977Z","updated_at":"2020-05-19T13:00:33.977Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200064,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200064.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide compensation for Asbestos victims","background":"Asbestos kills around three people in the island each year from mesothelioma, an incurable deadly disease. Many governments have long accepted that these people have been failed by a previous lack of safety measures and have provided compensation. See https://www.gov.uk/diffuse-mesothelioma-payment","additional_details":"Jersey has no compensation scheme and access to justice is largely denied as many people exposed to asbestos cannot sue an employer who no longer exists. Others may have been exposed in the home or school.\r\nMesothelioma has no viable treatment and no cure. Life expectancy is 12- 18 months.\r\nBrian is a local man who is dying from the disease. If you need convincing that this is worth your signature, take a moment to look at his interview https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-jersey-44630201","state":"closed","signature_count":1354,"created_at":"2018-07-05T16:03:32.000Z","updated_at":"2019-07-09T23:00:24.016Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-07-09T15:28:57.000Z","closed_at":"2019-01-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-07-06T16:38:46.000Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-13T17:59:34.505Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-09-07T07:12:10.576Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-09-07","summary":"Employers must hold liability insurance. Sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma may be able to claim, dependent on individual circumstances. The Social Security review will consider the need for a scheme.","details":"Ministers acknowledge the devastating effect that diffuse mesothelioma has on sufferers and their families and the potential need for a compensation scheme in Jersey, which supports those with asbestos-related illnesses to get redress if their employer no longer exists. \r\n\r\nPrior to the creation of this petition, at the Council of Ministers meeting in July 2018, the Social Security Minister confirmed her existing commitment to including a review of the options for potential redress schemes for asbestos-related diseases within the larger social security review that is taking place. This issue was considered at the Council of Ministers meeting on 5 September 2018.\r\n\r\nJersey employment legislation does contain considerable protection for local employees, including the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1973 which requires all employers to take out and maintain employers’ liability insurance, against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by their employees during the course of their employment. The Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 is the overarching principal law that provides for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work (including controlling the risks of asbestos exposures). \r\n\r\nThe regulation and enforcement of all working activities which (may) carry risk of exposure to asbestos has developed greatly over the years, with the prevention of exposure to such risks being the highest priority for the Health and Safety Inspectorate. \r\n\r\nThere are three schemes in the UK offering compensation to those with asbestos-related illnesses. \r\n\r\nDetails of the UK schemes can be found here: \r\n\r\n•\tPneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 – The ‘Workers’ Compensation (1979) scheme:’ https://www.gov.uk/industrial-injuries-disablement-benefit/how-to-claim\r\n\r\n•\tDiffuse mesothelioma payment – the ‘2008 scheme:’ https://www.gov.uk/diffuse-mesothelioma-payment\r\n\r\n•\tDiffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS) – The ‘2014 DMPS scheme:’ https://www.gov.uk/diffuse-mesothelioma-payment\r\n\r\nWhilst currently no similar schemes exist in Jersey, sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma (or their relatives) who contracted the disease as a result of exposure to asbestos at work may be able to claim against their employer, dependent on the individual circumstances of each case. If any individual, or a member of their family, has an asbestos-related illness they should seek independent legal advice or, alternatively, advice can be sought from Citizens Advice. Citizens Advice Jersey offer free and impartial information and advice on personal injury, and this includes general advice on claims relating to asbestos.\r\n \r\nSeparately, the Social Security Department provides a range of benefits to support people with mesothelioma arising from asbestos fibre inhalation. Please see www.gov.je/benefits for more information.\r\n\r\nMinister for Social Security\r\n","created_at":"2018-09-07T07:12:10.572Z","updated_at":"2018-09-07T07:12:10.572Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200397,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200397.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Extend winter beach times to allow dogs to be walked offlead all day in lockdown","background":"Usually from 1st May dogs must be walked on beaches on leads between 10.30 am and 6pm every day. This is fine, unless there is a high tide, then dogs and owners crowd narrow beaches. During lockdown, people shouldn’t be sunbathing, so dogs can be off the lead all day.","additional_details":"Allowing people to walk dogs off lead on a beach during lockdown will give people their exercise time and give the dogs some freedom. The beaches are not like they used to be in the height of tourism and are therefore no longer that crowded with other beach goers in the month of May.","state":"closed","signature_count":1344,"created_at":"2020-04-12T16:04:04.402Z","updated_at":"2023-03-28T06:13:46.952Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-04-16T08:33:31.836Z","closed_at":"2020-10-16T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-15T17:49:16.475Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-18T14:16:01.969Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-05-21T15:22:38.478Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-21","summary":"Stay at Home restrictions have now been eased to allow islanders to be out for six hours resulting in beaches being used more normally. The Regulations, therefore, need to remain in place. ","details":"Under Regulation 2(1)(h) of the Policing of Beaches (Jersey) Regulations 1959 it is prohibited to walk dogs on beaches without a lead between the hours of 10.30am and 6.00pm between 01 May and 30 September. It is also prohibited to ride any horse or pony on a beach in Jersey.\r\n\r\nThe extension of the ‘winter hours’ was intended to give dog walkers greater flexibility to comply with physical distancing rules while beaches were quiet during the initial Stay At Home restrictions, which limited the time outside to two hours a day.\r\n\r\nHowever, in light of the changes to Stay at Home restrictions, ministers believe that a balance must be struck between achieving this flexibility and ensuring those currently accessing Jersey’s beaches for social activities are not unduly disturbed.\r\n\r\nThe Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, Senator Steve Pallett, was planning to lodge legislation to extend the period that dogs without a lead and horses could be on beaches until Stay at Home restrictions were lifted.\r\n\r\nThe draft legislation, due to be debated by the States Assembly on 12 May, would have amended the Policing of Beaches (Jersey) Regulations 1959. However, following the relaxing of Stay at Home restrictions, Senator Pallett, in agreement with the Council of Ministers, decided against extending the winter hours.\r\n\r\nWhile these stricter rules were in place and people could only walk or exercise on the beach, it seemed sensible to extend the winter rules on allowing dogs to be walked off the lead during this lockdown period as there was little opportunity for dogs to be a nuisance to beach goers. It also allowed dog owners better opportunities to adhere to the physical distancing rules if they had the whole day to walk their dog rather than just the period before 10.30am and after 6pm.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nHowever, since the relaxation of the Stay at Home restrictions, families and household groups are accessing the beach more readily and are increasingly likely to do so when the weather is good. This would have meant there was an increased risk that loose dogs would cause a nuisance to beach goers. The summer restrictions are specifically put in place to prevent this happening while people enjoy the beach, often with children.\r\n\r\nHowever, should the situation change and stricter Stay at Home measures implemented, the amendment to the law could be debated.\r\nSenator Steve Pallett\r\nAssistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture\r\n","created_at":"2020-05-21T15:22:38.472Z","updated_at":"2020-05-21T15:22:38.472Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200119,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200119.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Increase Island speed limit to 50mph","background":"40mph is too slow on some roads.","additional_details":"Vehicles are the safest they have ever been","state":"closed","signature_count":1342,"created_at":"2018-09-17T21:35:25.711Z","updated_at":"2019-09-26T23:00:24.929Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-26T11:27:33.356Z","closed_at":"2019-03-26T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-25T20:18:43.170Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-01T07:31:24.670Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-10-30T14:35:48.240Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-30","summary":"Increasing the speed limit to 50 mph would considerably adversely impact road safety, particularly for vulnerable road users.","details":"Vehicles may be getting safer, but driver error is still the biggest factor in road traffic collisions. While increasing vehicle speeds may shorten journey times for drivers by a minute or two, it would increase risks for other road users - a third of casualties in the last five years have been pedestrians and cyclists, with motorcyclists accounting for a quarter of casualties. \r\n\r\nInstead, we want people to feel more safe and comfortable as they enjoy our Island on foot or in the saddle. Parents already express concerns about letting their children travel unaccompanied, and if this means they will drive them instead, this will increase congestion and impact the health of our young people who have less opportunity for exercise.\r\n\r\nIndeed, increasing vehicle speed from 40mph to 50mph adds another 50% to the energy of any collision. At 50mph a pedestrian or cyclist has a 95% chance of being killed if hit by a car, at 40mph it’s 85% and at 30mph its 45%. A car travelling at 40mph may be able to slow enough before impact to give a pedestrian a 50:50 chance. When brakes are applied in a car travelling at 40mph it will reduce speed to 30mph, but the same car travelling at 50 mph will only be able to reduce speed to 45mph in the same amount of time. \r\n\r\nThe speed limit review programme is working with parishes to talk to communities about speed limits in their area. So far no community has advocated increasing speed limits and it is difficult to think which roads would be suited to 50mph. Even on roads such as Victoria Avenue or the five mile road, while they may appear suitable, pedestrians need to cross, or there are side roads, and most of the roads currently at 40mph are parish roads, which would not be safe at 50mph due to the width, alignment and frequent junctions or accesses.\r\n","created_at":"2018-10-30T14:35:48.238Z","updated_at":"2018-10-30T14:35:48.238Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200124,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200124.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the ‘de minimis’ threshold of £240 from being lowered on online purchases.","background":"There are plans to lower the 'de minimis' threshold from £240 on all online  purchases, which sees a 5% tax on all items above £240.  There are arguments that suggest it creates an unfair advantage for online retailers.  The move is being called for by high street retailers and Sandpiper.","additional_details":"The 'de minimus' threshold was discussed in the States on 25/09/2018 see 7.2, 7.10: https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=E4DA360C-49ED-435A-9FD2-77E3CA7128C4#_Toc526164159\r\nIt was also discussed in the States on 09/10/2018 at 3.14: https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=7AECB751-D608-44CA-AF12-5F960B168379#_Toc527533980","state":"closed","signature_count":1341,"created_at":"2018-09-25T18:13:43.740Z","updated_at":"2019-09-27T23:00:24.540Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-27T09:01:32.151Z","closed_at":"2019-03-27T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-25T18:29:38.639Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-02T22:07:42.107Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-10-26T10:35:21.233Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-26","summary":"The Minister for Treasury and Resources has decided not to adjust the de minimis level in Budget 2019.  ","details":"The Minister for Treasury and Resources has decided not to adjust the de minimis level in Budget 2019.  The Minister will keep that level under review, taking into account any changes in the costs of collecting the GST currently foregone.  It is expected that the de minimis level will be abolished shortly after the European Union implements changes (possibly as soon as 2021) requiring online retailers to account for tax in the jurisdictions to which they deliver taxable goods.   \r\n\r\nThe Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture opposes lowering the de minimis level at this time.  He anticipates that a lower de minimis level would have minimal impact on the prevailing on-Island environment for retail.  The Minister is devising a retail development strategy that aims to support the industry’s own efforts to deliver, amongst other things: a thriving St Helier Experience; focused market information; and, leading edge skills and talent.  He anticipates that this work should have a greater positive impact on retail trading conditions than a change in the de minimis level or GST.\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2018-10-26T10:35:21.230Z","updated_at":"2018-10-26T10:35:21.230Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201007,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201007.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make false allegations of rape a crime with the same punishment as the crime","background":"False allegations of rape are devastating to those who are victims of this gross form of hatred and reputational violence. Fail-safes need to be in place to prevent misuse of a rape allegation and to ensure the credibility of real cases.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1327,"created_at":"2024-07-13T22:14:46.184Z","updated_at":"2025-07-22T23:00:23.544Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-07-22T11:16:05.209Z","closed_at":"2025-01-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-07-14T17:02:35.202Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-11-10T15:26:29.235Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-12-09T08:31:27.977Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-12-09","summary":"The act of rape is an abhorrent crime that causes significant physical and psychological harm. It is criminalised under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018. ","details":"In cases where a false allegation of rape is made, this may have significant and detrimental impacts on both the wellbeing and the reputation of the individual who has been accused. \r\n\r\nIt is already a crime to falsely report a crime to the police in Jersey. In cases where there is evidence that a person has made a false allegation that a crime has been committed, they can be charged with the customary law offence of committing an act tending to effect public mischief, with the appropriate sentence decided by the court.\r\n\r\nIn addition, Article 30 of the States of Jersey Police Force Law 2012 provides for the offence of Wasting Police Time, with a maximum sentence of 6 months, if a person makes ‘a false report tending to show that an offence has been committed’. \r\n\r\nThere are no plans to create a specific offence for falsely reporting a rape or to increase the sentencing arrangements for existing offences that relate to false allegations. \r\n\r\nIt is important to acknowledge that there is a common misconception that false allegations of rape are commonplace, when in fact false allegations of rape are extremely rare. Data collected by the States of Jersey Police indicate that the false reporting rate for sexual offences during the period between 2018-2024 is 1.4%. Research from England and Wales also shows that the incidence of false rape allegations is extremely low as previous research from the Home Office has shown that up to approximately 3% of rape allegations could be false. \r\n\r\nDiscussions that focus on the issue of false rape allegations can divert attention away from the important conversations that need to be had around preventing sexual violence and supporting victim-survivors of sexual offences. \r\n\r\nVictim-survivors of sexual violence already face a series of barriers to reporting the abuse they have experienced to the police. Many feel shame around what has happened, whereas others do not believe their allegation will be taken seriously. Some of the barriers to making a report are compounded by the fact we live in a small jurisdiction, where concerns around anonymity and privacy are exacerbated. We want to be clear that all reports of rape and other forms of sexual violence are and will be taken extremely seriously and victim-survivors will be believed. \r\n\r\nIt should be noted that, in cases where a defendant has been accused of committing a rape, this crime is subject to the highest level of evidential burden. What this means is that the prosecution must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed this crime. \r\n\r\nThere are cases where a victim might report a rape, the police investigate the crime and are not able to gather enough evidence to charge a suspect. This does not mean that the person that reported the rape has falsely made a malicious claim against the alleged perpetrator. What it means is that there is simply not enough evidence in the case for there to be a reasonable chance of a conviction. \r\n","created_at":"2024-12-09T08:31:27.963Z","updated_at":"2024-12-09T08:31:27.963Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200613,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200613.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Teachers should be included in the first wave of the Covid-19 Vaccine Programme.","background":"With emerging evidence that links schools to high infection rates with the new strains of the virus, this is surely a sensible course of action and would give parents some degree of peace of mind.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1319,"created_at":"2021-01-04T19:43:30.123Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:22:29.631Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-05T09:23:42.340Z","closed_at":"2021-07-05T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-04T22:03:11.536Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-08T17:54:44.540Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-08T16:01:18.742Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-08","summary":"Teachers in an at-risk category will be captured in the 1st wave of the COVID vaccination delivery schedule. Further prioritisation by occupation has not been recommended by the UK’s JCVI at present.","details":"Vaccine delivery schedules require a prioritisation of recipients. \r\n\r\nDecisions on who receives the COVID-19 vaccine have been made based on the best available evidence and advice from the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI)*. The first priorities for the current COVID-19 vaccination programme should be the prevention of COVID-19 mortality and the protection of health and social care staff and systems (1).\r\n\r\nOn this basis, throughout December and January the COVID-19 vaccination programme commenced in Jersey with vaccinations being provided to:\r\n•\tresidents living in a registered care home \r\n•\tthose working as carers in a care home for older residents\r\n•\tfront-line Health and Community Services staff\r\n\r\nFollowing this the vaccine is now also being offered to the next priority group:\r\n•\tthose aged over 80 years \r\n\r\nThe vaccine will then be offered in the following order to:\r\n•\tother health and social workers\r\n•\tthose aged over 75 years\r\n•\tthose aged over 70 years\r\n•\thigh risk Islanders\r\n•\tthose aged over 65 years\r\n•\tadults under 65 years with long term conditions\r\n•\tthose aged 50 to 64 years \r\n•\tother population groups who are able to be safely vaccinated. \r\n\r\nThis is being continually reviewed by the JCVI, an independent expert group (2).\r\n\r\nOccupational vaccination (other than frontline health and social care workers):\r\n\r\nThe primary aim of the COVID-19 vaccination is to protect the person receiving it against severe illness. \r\n\r\nThe JCVI does not advise further prioritisation by occupation during the first phase of the vaccination programme. Under the priority groups listed above, those over 50 years of age, and all those 16 years of age and over in a risk group, would be eligible for vaccination in Jersey within the first phase of the programme. All teachers who are at high risk will therefore be eligible to be vaccinated in the first phase. This prioritisation captures almost all (estimated 99%) preventable deaths from COVID-19, including those associated with occupational exposure to infection (1).\r\n\r\nThe JCVI is currently of the view that the key focus for the second phase of vaccination could be on further preventing hospitalisation.\r\n\r\nVaccination of those at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their occupation may or may not be a priority in the next phase. This could include first responders, the military, those involved in the justice system, teachers, transport workers, and public servants essential to the pandemic response (1).\r\n\r\nVaccination Panel:\r\n\r\nThere may be a very small number of people who should be offered advanced vaccination due to their individual circumstances. The Minister for Health and Social Services has, therefore, established a panel of clinicians and community representatives who will determine if any Islanders should be offered advanced vaccination. \r\n\r\nThat Panel will, in the coming 2 weeks, formally consider if advanced vaccination should be provided for teachers or others employed by the Children, Young People, Education and Skills Department.  The Panel will, when determining this matter, adhere to the JCVI priorities unless there are compelling grounds to do otherwise.\r\n\r\nReassurance:\r\n\r\nThe objective of occupational immunisation of health and social care staff is to protect workers at high risk of exposure who provide care to vulnerable individuals (3). Evidence suggests that schools do not amplify SARS-CoV-2 transmission but rather reflect the background levels of community transmission (4). Educational staff and adults within the school setting are therefore generally at no higher risk of infection than other occupations. Educational roles that put one in contact with many older children and/or many adults may be associated with higher risk (4). This has been reported with ‘moderate confidence’ meaning that the research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate (4). Transmission in older children and adults may be reflective of increased social interactions within the community. \r\nParental reassurance can be given that it is very rare for COVID-19 to present a severe health risk to their children. Evidence also suggests that if a child is infected by an adult it is far more likely to be in the household setting than a school setting (5). Within educational settings it has mainly been identified as adult to adult transmission. There is minimal evidence – either locally or internationally – suggesting child-teacher transmission.  Schools are encouraged to continue to actively promote the public health measures which they are taking to reduce the risk of transmission within the school setting e.g.’bubbles’, staggered start and break times, hygiene and safety measures (4). \r\n\r\nFurthermore, a programme is being rolled out offering every staff member in primary and secondary schools and colleges, plus students in Years 11 and above, a weekly Lateral Flow Test (LFT) on their school premises. LFT is a rapid self-administered test which can return results within 20 to 30 minutes of being taken. LFT provides an additional layer of preventative safety measures in schools by detecting asymptomatic cases.\r\n\r\nFurther considerations:\r\n\r\nThe implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine programme aims to achieve high vaccine coverage. Operational considerations include the supply of the vaccine and ensuring minimal wastage. \r\n\r\nSummary:\r\nTeachers falling into an at-risk category by nature of age or being high risk will be captured in the first wave of the COVID-19 Jersey vaccination programme as planned. Further prioritisation by occupation has not been recommended at present.\r\n\r\nThis response is by the Minister for Health and Social Services. \r\n\r\n  References:\r\n1)\tUK Government. Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: advice on priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination, 30 December 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-30-december-2020/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination-30-december-2020. Accessed 01/15, 2021.\r\n2)\tGovernment of Jersey. COVID-19 vaccine appointments. Available at: https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Vaccine/Pages/BookCOVID19Vaccine.aspx. Accessed 01/15, 2021. \r\n3)\tThe Green Book. Chapter 14a - COVID-19 - SARS-CoV-2. Published December 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948757/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v4.pdf. Accessed 01/18, 2021. \r\n4)\tEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. COVID-19 in children and the role of school settings in transmission – first update. Published 23 December 2020. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-in-children-and-the-role-of-school-settings-in-transmission-first-update_1.pdf. Accessed 01/18, 2021. \r\n5)\tTransmission of SARS-CoV-2 in children aged 0 to 19 years in childcare facilities and schools after their reopening in May 2020, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Ehrhardt, J and Ekinci, A and Krehl, H and Meincke, M and Finci, I and Klein, J and Geisel, B and Wagner-Wiening, C and Eichner, M and Brockmann, SO, Eurosurveillance, 25, 2001587 (2020), https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.36.2001587. Accessed 01/18, 2021. \r\n","created_at":"2021-02-08T16:01:18.739Z","updated_at":"2021-02-08T16:01:18.739Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200094,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200094.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ballot all hospital staff about the future use of the current site.","background":"The Hospital Project Team are pushing ahead with plans to build the new Hospital on the Gloucester Street Site. \r\nThe opinion of our highly valued Hospital staff, surely a major consideration in the decision making process, has been omitted thus far. This error can easily be rectified. (see below)","additional_details":"The Health Minister should ask the Hospital staff by secret ballot:\r\n\"Do you think that the new hospital should be built on the current site?”: ‘YES’ or ‘NO’. \r\nIf the answer by a significant majority is ‘NO’, then we ask the Health Minister to take a proposition to the States requesting them to use one of the alternative sites identified.\r\nLinks to: A patient’s personal story: http://axiomci.com/downloads/letterhospital.pdf\r\nInquiry Submission: \r\nhttp://axiomci.com/downloads/submission.pdf\r\n\r\nLink to States discussion 11/09/2018 see sections 3.20, 4.13 and 6.1:\r\nhttps://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=23B8728D-2D10-4B9C-ADE7-79486CC6C486","state":"closed","signature_count":1304,"created_at":"2018-08-20T10:57:39.014Z","updated_at":"2019-08-20T23:00:23.696Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-20T14:07:17.021Z","closed_at":"2019-02-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":null,"response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-02T00:49:13.127Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-10-16T13:10:35.219Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-05","summary":"The Hospital Policy Development Board has commissioned a survey to ask health staff for their views on the location of a new hospital, which is intended to promote engagement in line with the petition","details":"Reflecting the petitioner’s request, the survey includes the question: \r\n\r\n“Do you think the new hospital should be built:\r\n-\tOn the current site\r\n-\tOn a different site\r\n-\tNot sure/undecided\r\n-\tWe don’t need a new Hospital” \r\n\r\nIn light of this, the Minister does not propose to duplicate the work of the Board by arranging a further survey in specific response to the petition.\r\n\r\nThe survey, prepared by an independent survey company, has been sent to all staff currently working for Health and Community Services via e-mail to their work address. Paper copies will be available for staff who wish to complete a hard copy of the survey. Responses will be completely confidential and staff members will not be identifiable.\r\n\r\nIt is important that the views of staff are heard and the Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Social Services, and Health and Community Services management are encouraging everyone to participate so that their views are known.      \r\nThe results will be used by the Board in developing conclusions in its report to the Chief Minister at the end of October.\r\n\r\nThe survey is supported by the Minister for Health and Social Services, who is also on the Hospital Policy Development Board.\r\n\r\nThe Hospital Policy Development Board is conducting an assurance review of the evidence that supported the previous States Assembly’s decision to develop a new hospital on the existing site, Westaway Court and Kensington Place. \r\n\r\nThis response was received by the States Greffe on 5 October but was not published earlier due to administrative error.","created_at":"2018-10-16T13:10:35.217Z","updated_at":"2018-10-16T13:10:35.217Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200114,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200114.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Restore Fort Regent to its former glory","background":"Fort Regent has been in Jersey for as long as I can remember and is a great location for children and we are losing a lot at the moment for children to do in the island which is such a shame!","additional_details":"I've started this petition to get the States members to get it restored and better, like fixing the pool and bringing back the cable cars and maybe even do some things like it used to be in Tropical Gardens which could boost tourism for families.  I know a lot of islanders would hate to see this building go!\r\n\r\nPlease sign to save this building!\r\n\r\nFort Regent was discussed in the States on 11/09/2018. Item 5.2, 5.6 and 5.7:\r\nhttps://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=23B8728D-2D10-4B9C-ADE7-79486CC6C486\r\nIt was again discussed in the States at 3.12 on 09/10/2018: https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=7AECB751-D608-44CA-AF12-5F960B168379#_Toc527533980","state":"closed","signature_count":1302,"created_at":"2018-09-11T19:46:01.762Z","updated_at":"2019-09-12T23:00:20.910Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-12T08:40:32.342Z","closed_at":"2019-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-11T20:01:16.870Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-08T10:33:58.665Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-11-06T16:14:19.984Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-11-06","summary":"The Council of Ministers is committed to devising and executing a plan to make best use of the Fort Regent site over the next 50 years. ","details":"Fort Regent has served Jersey well for the last 50 years and it is clear that many Islanders have a deep affection for, and fond memories of, time spent within the Fort complex. \r\n\r\nAs time has gone on, maintenance has become more of an issue and there are areas in much need of refurbishment. There have been many ideas about the future of Fort Regent but for various reasons they have not been taken further. Until the future plans have been decided, it has been prudent to carry out only the necessary maintenance to keep it safe and operational. Work is in train to demolish the derelict cable car station and will commence in the new year on the former pool, both of which are well beyond the point of restoration\r\n\r\nWe acknowledge that this cannot go on indefinitely and we can’t let it continue to decline. We are currently putting together a team to analyse past work undertaken, the current state of the Fort and what it offers the public. The present Government has a strong will to explore the Fort’s potential and turn it into somewhere we can be proud of for the next 50 years.\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2018-11-06T16:14:19.982Z","updated_at":"2018-11-06T16:14:19.982Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201032,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201032.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Re-open Broad Street","background":"It has recently been announced that the Minister for Infrastructure Connétable Andy Jehan and his Assistant Minister Connétable Simon Crowcroft intend spending £2.5 million pounds of tax payers money paving over Broad Street and other streets in the vicinity.","additional_details":"I believe this is wrong on so many counts not least the £2.5 million pounds could be better spent on other much needed projects.  We have seen a mental health charity close recently due to lack of funds, charities struggling to provide services because their grants are insufficient to cover staff costs and the much loved Havre des Pas swimming pool left to deteriorate through lack of funding by the Infrastructure Minister’s own Department. I believe the time is right to lodge this petition, in order to give the public of Jersey an opportunity of registering their disapproval of this vanity project.  Please sign this petition requesting the Minister to re-open Broad Street to vehicular traffic, to reinstate disabled parking and to maintain all current bus routes through Broad Street.","state":"closed","signature_count":1298,"created_at":"2024-10-11T13:01:33.428Z","updated_at":"2025-10-15T23:00:21.848Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-10-15T08:55:31.742Z","closed_at":"2025-04-15T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-10-11T16:49:38.824Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-20T14:07:17.109Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-04-17T08:40:21.355Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-04-16","summary":"Changes to our public spaces can cause concern. Keeping Broad St as a pedestrian-priority area aligns with the States’ strategic objectives and delivers significant benefits for the wider community","details":"Thank you to the petitioner and all signatories for sharing your concerns. I fully appreciate that changes to our streets and public spaces can cause concern, particularly when they affect access, travel habits, or involve public investment. As Minister for Infrastructure, I want to provide a clear response outlining the reasons behind Broad Street’s closure to through-traffic, the proposed realm improvements, and how these changes support our Island’s agreed policies and long-term ambitions.\r\n\r\nThe petition to reopen Broad Street to vehicular traffic raises valid questions about the use of public funds and the potential impact on local services. However, keeping Broad Street as a pedestrian-priority area is fully aligned with the States’ strategic objectives and delivers significant benefits for the wider community. This ambition has been supported not only by the Assembly through its Common Strategic Policies, which recognise the need to revitalise town, the Island Plan and the Plan for Town, but also by broader economic strategies, including the Government’s recently published Visitor Economy Strategy and Retail Roadmap. \r\nThese strategies emphasise the importance of creating a vibrant, welcoming, and accessible town centre that supports both residents and visitors. Public realm improvements like those proposed for Broad Street are vital to delivering on these shared goals, which have also been supported by the last two successive governments and the Parish of St Helier, who we have worked in partnership with to develop the works.\r\n\r\nOne-off capital work programmes such as this do not divert ongoing annual revenue funding from charities, they are entirely separate budget streams. While the capital works are a one-off investment, it must be understood they will support vibrancy, economic vitality, and quality of our town centre long into the future - helping to sustain tourism, commerce and the quality of town life. There is strong evidence that realm improvements increase business confidence and unlocks further private investment, increasing the value of the initial government capital spend.\r\n\r\nAlignment with Strategic Objectives\r\nGovernment’s Common Strategic Policy recognises the need to revitalise St Helier. The Island Plan and the Plan for Town set out a vision to enhance the town’s public spaces, better connect important cultural and public amenities, and prioritise pedestrian accessibility and safety. The aim is to build upon St Helier’s existing strengths and character, to ensure that it is, and continues to be, a vibrant and attractive place to live, work, and visit—offering inviting public spaces, healthier streets, and improved walking and cycling options. \r\n\r\nThese improvements benefit residents, businesses, and visitors alike by creating a welcoming, and people-centred heart of town. The enhancements to Broad Street play a vital role in achieving this vision and are integral to promoting investment into St Helier - reducing vacancies, integrating retail with cultural animation and public realm improvements. Improving the customer and visitor experience, with a focus upon sustainability; place making is an important part of Jersey’s International brand and reputation.\r\n\r\nEconomic and Social Benefits\r\nPedestrianisation has been shown to boost local economies by increasing foot traffic, which benefits retail businesses and the hospitality sector. The proposed enhancements to Broad Street, including improved lighting, seating areas, and greenery, are designed to create a pleasant welcoming atmosphere that encourages people to spend more time in the area, thereby supporting local businesses. \r\n\r\nImprovements at Charing Cross are a recent example of how pedestrian priority and place making can stimulate activity, improve the built environment, enhance commerce and help to attract private investment.  Another, more recent example, is Halkett Street, which saw an immediate drop in vacancy rates following the Parish led improvement works - jointly funded by Government public realm money. The investment by these businesses increases the value of and draw of the town centre, multiplying the worth of the initial capital spend. \r\n\r\nDisability Access and Blue Badge Parking\r\nEnsuring accessibility for all users, including disabled persons, remains a key priority in the Broad Street improvements. As part of planned enhancements, an additional 20 Blue Badge parking spaces have been introduced in nearby locations, including three in Library Place to maintain convenient access to the town centre, in addition to those from Broad Street which were replaced by the same capacity provision in Dumaresq Street in 2020. In addition, the bottom of Dumaresq Street has been reversed to provide taxicab access for all visitors, including those with disabilities, to the Premier Inn. \r\n\r\nThese inclusive urban design measures ensure that people with mobility impairments can continue to access and support local businesses. The pedestrian-friendly environment, including flush paving to support mobility, and well-placed seating areas, further enhances accessibility for wheelchair users, people with limited mobility, and those with visual impairments. Bus stops and taxi ranks will continue to be made as accessible as possible, while balancing the need to ensure safe and effective pedestrian-priority movement.\r\n\r\nThe Department remains in ongoing dialogue with disability groups to ensure the design addresses their needs as far as possible. The approach reflects a balanced strategy – prioritising pedestrian safety and public space improvements while maintaining nearby vehicular access for Blue Badge users and mini-buses.\r\n\r\nEnvironmental and Health Advantages\r\nReducing vehicular traffic in urban centres contributes to improved air quality and lowers noise pollution, creating a healthier environment for residents and visitors. Promoting walking and cycling also aligns with sustainable transport goals and encourages more active lifestyles, improving public health, and reducing emissions. Buses and taxis will continue to serve the town centre users, with appropriately located accessible stops and ranks around the town core, providing a reliable and inclusive alternative to private car use.\r\n\r\nConsideration of Public Funds\r\nThe investment in Broad Street's pedestrianisation is part of a broader commitment to enhance public spaces in St Helier. The £2.5 million referenced in the petition is not a single spend on paving Broad Street. £2.5m is the approximate sum of the annual capital budget for a broader, phased Public Realm capital programme, as approved in the Government Plan 2024–2027, which includes projects such as the crossing to the market and works on New Cut and its junction with King Street and New Street. Where applicable this will be supported by Planning Obligation Agreement contributions from nearby developments. While concerns about public spending are valid, it's important to recognise that such investments are aimed at long-term community benefits, including economic revitalisation, providing opportunities for al fresco hospitality, enhancing the tourism experience, improved public health through active travel, and environmental sustainability. \r\n\r\nThe Havre de Pas Lido, referred to in the petition, already attracts significant public funding which is considered appropriate to maintain its safety and use for the public. Work is underway for a separate expression of interest process from external parties who have indicated they will increase private investment into this facility. It must be understood that Government capital funding must be spread across the community as a whole, and this investment in the Broad Street area is considered to provide value and create a public good for the wider island community, as this response sets out. \r\n\r\nConclusion\r\nMaintaining Broad Street as a pedestrian-priority area is consistent with government policy and the Parish’s strong ambition to improve St Helier's public realm and create a people-focused town centre. These changes will also directly contribute to supporting government’s economic strategies which seek to make Jersey an Island that is welcoming, vibrant, economically resilient, and environmentally sustainable. \r\n\r\nChange requires vision and leadership that looks beyond the immediate political cycle, focusing instead on delivering long-term improvements and the wider public good. While such decisions may not always enjoy universal support in the short term, they are often necessary to ensure a sustainable and vibrant future for our town. At the same time, government working in partnership with the Parish must remain open minded, actively listening to all public feedback, and avoid any sense of complacency or detachment in its approach. I hope this response helps explain the reasoning behind these proposals and how they support a broader vision for St Helier, working with the Parish and town’s wider community.\r\n\r\nThe planned works will celebrate Broad Street’s historic character, enhance its public spaces, support businesses, and encourage active travel and healthier streets. Reopening the street to through-traffic would undermine these ambitions and forgo the opportunity to shape a more vibrant and sustainable future for our capital.","created_at":"2025-04-17T08:40:21.347Z","updated_at":"2025-04-17T08:40:21.347Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200978,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200978.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Free parking in town on Saturdays in all States operated car parks.","background":"Shop local, help St Helier get its mojo back by offering free parking on Saturdays in all States operated car parks.  ","additional_details":"The internet is killing retail and St Helier is becoming a ghost town.  There is research suggesting that parking charges are a major factor in deterring shoppers and visitors to restaurants so let’s remove that barrier.","state":"closed","signature_count":1290,"created_at":"2024-04-21T19:43:47.008Z","updated_at":"2025-04-24T23:00:22.000Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-04-24T12:44:08.943Z","closed_at":"2024-10-24T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-04-23T21:23:31.846Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-08-07T08:25:21.838Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-09-05T15:50:22.053Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-09-05","summary":"The town centre continues to perform positively compared to the situation nationally. Free parking on Saturday’s would not benefit the overall economy and likely increase the cost of weekday parking.","details":"While there has been some increase in commercial vacancies and footfall is still recovering post-covid, Jersey’s town centre continues to have a positive performance compared to the situation nationally.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the Island’s working age population either live or work in St Helier, providing a reliable customer base for businesses that can adapt to the challenges posed by the internet. The Government of Jersey, working with retailers and the Parish of St Helier, will be publishing its Retail Strategy by the end of 2024. This strategy will address the root causes of decline and explore evidence-based approaches for business and government to tackle these issues.\r\n\r\nThe data from previous free parking trials and studies shows that offering free parking on Saturdays would merely shift spending from other out of town activities, reduce bus ridership, and harm the environment, to the detriment of the Island’s overall economy.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the resulting loss of income to the Car Park Trading Fund would mean less maintenance for the Island’s car parks and reduced investment in new, convenient shopper facilities like the Charles St Car Park, which is set to open later this summer. Additional funding would therefore be needed to implement this proposal, and this has not been identified at present. Without additional funds to cover this shortfall, weekday parking costs would likely need to rise to maintain Jersey’s ageing parking infrastructure. It’s worth noting that Jersey’s parking fees are low by national standards.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, while at present there is the capacity to meet typical shopper parking demand in the town centre, past trials have shown that all-day parkers, such as shop workers and town residents, benefit more from free parking than shoppers, leading to fewer available conveniently located spaces for customers. To truly support retail, investment is needed in conveniently located, modern parking facilities that accommodate all modes of transport, meet the needs of town residents, and avoid increasing town centre traffic. This is the focus of the \r\ngovernment’s developing parking estate strategy.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s preference and objective, as set out in the States of Jersey’s Carbon Neutral Road Map, is to encourage increased bus travel. Studies have shown that visitors to town travelling by bus generally intend to spend more money than motorists. Increasing the number of visits by bus therefore has the potential to be of more benefit to both the hospitality and retail sectors.","created_at":"2024-09-05T15:50:22.047Z","updated_at":"2024-09-05T15:50:22.047Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200384,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200384.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Key workers to be paid 30% extra during Covid-19","background":"Same as in UK (Petition)","additional_details":"https://www.change.org/p/uk-government-key-workers-to-be-paid-30-extra-during-covid-19 ","state":"closed","signature_count":1288,"created_at":"2020-04-01T20:10:34.862Z","updated_at":"2021-04-02T23:00:17.580Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-04-02T15:21:04.598Z","closed_at":"2020-10-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-01T21:12:33.814Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-14T10:01:55.936Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-05-14T08:35:18.893Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-05-14","summary":"The Government recognises the significant contribution of public service workers.  However, we are not in agreement that public service workers should receive a 30% uplift at this time.","details":"The Government planning and response to COVID-19 has been a considerable effort.  Many public servants, along with partners in the private sector and community organisations have contributed to putting the Island in a good place to respond to COVID-19. \r\n\r\nThese are unprecedented times. The potential severity of the public health emergency, and the economic implications of the Government’s response to protect the health of Islanders, is placing a considerable and significant burden on public finances.  Many Islanders face economic uncertainty, and businesses are under strain.\r\n\r\nWherever possible, businesses that may otherwise fail are being financially supported so that people have jobs to go back to as the public health situation improves. Individuals who are not able to work are being supported financially through the furlough scheme and through social security and other benefits. At the same time, Government revenues have declined.\r\n\r\nNo employee of the States Employment Board (SEB) or the Government of Jersey has been furloughed or made redundant. The Government is doing all it can to protect essential services for Islanders and is working hard to maintain employment levels in the face of fast-moving events.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, we recognise that key workers come from all sectors, in support of the Government response.  It would be unequal to treat public service employees different to those from other sectors, particularly when so many in the private sector face an uncertain future. \r\n\r\nIn these circumstances it is neither sensible nor sustainable to place further burden on taxpayers’ money by agreeing arbitrary pay rises for employees. \r\nWe know that our employees are proud to work for the public services, and we are proud of them. \r\n\r\nSEB and the wider Government, alongside officials, warmly appreciate the work being done by a whole range of employees who are going the extra mile to support our island through this emergency, whether in front-line roles or supporting others to carry out critical work. \r\n\r\nResponse by the Chief Minister\r\n","created_at":"2020-05-14T08:35:18.890Z","updated_at":"2020-05-14T08:38:18.954Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200344,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200344.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide support for on going childcare payments during closures due to Covid-19 ","background":"Childcare providers following the government guidance to close because of concerns around Covid-19 are still charging parents full monthly fees. For working parents this is putting an enormous financial burden on them while they look to provide full time childcare whilst maintaining full time jobs.","additional_details":"Consider self employed parents who will be unable to work and maintain full time childcare. Nurseries should have adequate cash reserves or insurance to cover these periods rather than put the financial burden on parents or risk losing their child’s nursery place. Can the States offer backing to parents to elevate some of this pressure during an already stressful time?","state":"closed","signature_count":1261,"created_at":"2020-03-18T17:37:17.696Z","updated_at":"2021-03-20T00:00:17.317Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-03-19T08:09:58.110Z","closed_at":"2020-09-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-18T17:48:19.818Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-03-21T07:05:06.236Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-04-24T07:19:38.337Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-04-20","summary":"The Minister for Education recognises parent and carer concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on childcare provision. Childcare providers can apply for a range of Government support measures.","details":"The Minister for Education recognises that many parents and carers are deeply concerned about a wide range of issues relating to the impact COVID-19 is having on the provision of childcare, including the different approaches among the private nurseries to payment of fees.\r\n\r\nThe childcare industry makes an essential contribution to delivering positive early childhood outcomes, as well as to the community and economy in Jersey more widely. It provides a much-needed service for families and children and the Government is committed to doing all it can to ensure that parents and carers will be able to access the services it provides, once COVID 19 restrictions have been lifted.  \r\n\r\nPrivate childcare providers have their own contractual relationships with parents which are independent of the Minister for Education.\r\n\r\nThe Minister is responsible for regulation, inspection and standards under the Daycare of Children (Jersey) Law 2002. \r\n\r\nThe Government provided Nursery Education Fund (NEF) enables all children in the school year that they turn four years old, to receive funding for up to 20 hours each week for 38 weeks, during school term time. NEF payments are made to providers who care for and educate eligible children, termly in advance. The scheduled summer term payments have been made to all eligible providers.\r\nThe daycare of all younger children and any daycare provided during school holidays is through private contractual relationships between parents and providers.\r\n\r\nAs well as acting in good faith and making the summer term NEF payments, the Government has announced a suite of additional business support measures to help preserve as many Islanders’ jobs as possible and maintain key economic infrastructure during the COVID-19 epidemic.\r\n\r\nThe aim is to make sure the Island can navigate the health emergency and be in a strong position to recover quickly once it is over.\r\n\r\nThere is a range of support measures that childcare providers are eligible to apply for:\r\n\r\n•\tBusiness loans;\r\n•\tSupport from Jersey Business;\r\n•\tCo- payroll funding (phase 2); and\r\n•\tDeferral of Social Security contributions. \r\n\r\nFor providers who rent premises from the Government, deferred rental payments are also possible, by negotiation.\r\n\r\nThe Minister’s officials have maintained a regular dialogue with the Jersey Early Years Association (JEYA) which represents all private nurseries. This will continue.\r\n\r\nThe Minister believes the best way to support parents, their children and the Childcare sector is through the Summer Term payment of the Nursery Education Fund, combined with access to Government-backed business support measures detailed above.","created_at":"2020-04-24T07:19:38.335Z","updated_at":"2020-04-24T07:19:38.335Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200215,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200215.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the strikes and support our teachers","background":"Jersey’s schools are in a state of crisis because they will only be open for seven days during May as a result of the strikes. There is an ongoing dispute between The States Employment Board and the National Education Union. The SEB need to recognise how important the role of the teacher is.","additional_details":"The National Education Union is leading the strikes. The Island’s teachers have been locked in a long-running pay dispute with the States Employment Board for months because they are unhappy at receiving below-inflation pay awards for 2018 and 2019.\r\n\r\nAnother teaching union, the NASUWT, is engaged in a programme of industrial action, with members refusing to cover classes for absent colleagues.\r\n\r\nA total of 20 schools (10 primary schools and 10 secondary schools) are currently affected by the strikes.\r\n\r\nThe education minister has said that parents will not be reimbursed school fees or compensated for loss of earnings or child care costs because of the Island’s teachers going on strike this month. More importantly, Jersey's children are missing out on their education.","state":"closed","signature_count":1250,"created_at":"2019-05-07T16:11:14.631Z","updated_at":"2020-05-09T23:00:20.208Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-09T19:45:56.798Z","closed_at":"2019-11-09T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-08T13:19:03.364Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-16T10:10:34.617Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-06-14T14:39:07.318Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-14","summary":"Throughout the negotiations, all reasonable steps were taken to resolve matters. There was never any reason to call strikes whilst talks were still happening, in the view of the SEB.","details":"The States Employment Board, as the Employer for all teachers, has been in active negotiations with both teaching unions throughout much of 2018 and 2019 to date. The Board is always fully aware of the commitment to children but also recognises the need to be fiscally responsible. \r\n\r\nThe negotiating team including the Group Director of Education, met the teaching unions on twelve occasions since 20 February 2019: twice with NEU, three times with NASUWT and seven times with both NEU and NASUWT. Nine of these meetings have been held under the auspices of the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service (JACS), utilising the experience of JACS as an independent third-party to achieve progress through mediation.\r\n \r\nThroughout the negotiations, all reasonable steps were taken to resolve matters. There was never any reason to call strikes whilst negotiations were still happening, in the view of the Board.\r\n\r\nTowards the end of 2018, it became clear that unions would not accept the offer on the table for 2018 and 2019, which would have seen pay increase by 2.0% in each of the two years, with a further 1.1% of unconsolidated one-off money paid in respect of 2018 and another lump sum of 1.0% paid in respect of 2019.\r\n\r\nSEB subsequently authorised further negotiations involving the offer of a consolidated increase of pay based on the September 2019 Retail Prices (All-Items) Index, payable from 1 January 2020. Negotiators presented offers to the teaching unions of RPI plus 0.6%, subsequently increased to RPI plus 1.0%, and then to RPI plus 1.3%. This would give teachers – more than 80% of whom earn £50,000 a year or more – a consolidated increase from 1 January 2020 of 4.4%, based on the current RPI forecast of 3.1%. The Final offer committed a further guaranteed consolidated increase to salaries of 0.8% with effect from 1 January 2020 in acknowledgement of the unions’ full engagement and involvement with an Education Reform Programme.\r\n\r\nThe Board are of the view that the final offer is a fair resolution to the protracted negotiations and one Union has already accepted and a clarifying exchange of letters is occurring with the other union.\r\n\r\nThe Board has discharged its responsibilities responsibly, with a full recognition of the competing and the sometimes difficult to reconcile needs of being a fiscally accountable employer and supporting children`s education.\r\n\r\nThe Board acknowledges it has been a difficult time for the Island`s parents and carers and apologises for the impact of the disputes in education.\r\n\r\nHowever the Board reiterates that in, its view, there was no need to resort to strike action given that negotiations were ongoing.   \r\n\r\n","created_at":"2019-06-14T14:39:07.316Z","updated_at":"2019-06-14T14:39:07.316Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200470,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200470.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Revoke the Bay of Granville Fishing Agreement","background":"The current Treaty with France favours the latter. The Treaty allows French authorities to license their own boats to fish in Jersey's territorial waters based on arbitrary, historical 'rights'. Jersey fishers need a modern agreement based on zonal attachment that focuses on sustainability.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1231,"created_at":"2020-06-30T18:27:06.073Z","updated_at":"2021-07-02T23:00:24.679Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-07-02T15:55:52.773Z","closed_at":"2021-01-02T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-30T20:02:37.659Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-17T15:47:21.426Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-08-05T15:46:44.787Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-08-05","summary":"The Bay of Granville Agreement establishes the fisheries management regime in the Normano-Breton Gulf. Ministers have agreed that some aspects need reviewing and that process is currently ongoing.","details":"The Bay of Granville Agreement (BoGA) establishes the fisheries management regime for Jersey and French waters in the Normano-Breton Gulf. Ministers have agreed that some aspects of the Agreement need reviewing and that process is currently ongoing. Until this is complete and there is further clarity as to the nature and detail of the UK/EU relationship and how it may impact on fisheries and their management in Jersey’s Waters, all options for current and future agreements with neighbouring jurisdictions must remain on the table.\r\nThe BoGA is a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and France that was signed in 2000 and which came into force on 1 January 2004. The BoGA established a joint fisheries management framework within the Normano-Breton Gulf covering a defined portion of the territorial seas of France (specifically lower Normandy and north Brittany) and Jersey. Within this area the BoGA has a number of objectives:\r\n1.\tthe establishment of a shared regional fishery via restricted access to the BoGA area;\r\n2.\tthe joint management of the shared fishery;\r\n3.\tto foster good regional relations between fishing representatives, and;\r\n4.\tcontribute to the prosperity of the local communities.\r\nThe Agreement allowed for the establishment of Jersey’s Territorial Waters out to the 12 mile limit or the median line, the capping of fishing effort in BoG Waters, and providing fishermen with a key role in the management of the stocks through a Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) composed of fishermen from  Jersey and France.. This JAC aspect was particularly forward thinking at the time. The BoGA also acknowledges that marine management is complex and is constantly changing; therefore, an Article was included which obliges the parties to periodically review and update the Agreement. This review process is currently ongoing. \r\nMinisters have set out the principles for the review of the Agreement based on the BoGA key objectives: -\r\n1.\tWe seek to strengthen relations of friendship and neighbourliness.\r\nJersey has long had a policy and political commitment to continuing and developing our close and valued links with France. We are particularly committed to having a constructive and positive relationship on fishing and marine matters. The Government of Jersey and the island’s fishing community have always been clear that local relations, communication and agreements are key to ensuring the responsible and sustainable management of our shared marine resources.\r\n\r\n2.\tWe want to ensure sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystems. \r\nIt is paramount that Jersey continues to develop a marine resources regime that ensures the sustainable management of fish and shellfish stocks.  This is based on the best available evidence and the precautionary approach, together with measures to protect and conserve the wider marine environment and fulfil our International obligations. Measures adopted need to apply to all fishing vessels accessing Jersey Waters. \r\n\r\n3.\tWe will contribute to the prosperity of the local community which depend on the fishery resource. \r\nLocal and regional fishery and marine resources must be conserved and managed for the benefit of local fishermen and communities based in the Bay of Granville who are economically dependent on accessing Jersey Waters and have a history of access to the waters. This shared prosperity must include equal, fair and unfettered access to the same market opportunities for all vessels wishing to access the area for fishing.            \r\nMinisters acknowledge that the review has not proceeded as quickly as has been hoped and still wish to complete this process as soon as possible. It has been further complicated by the UK’s decision to exit the European Union. Negotiations between the UK and EU are ongoing, and fisheries are an important, perhaps critical, part of that. Until there is further clarity as to the nature and detail of this relationship and of how it may impact on fisheries and their management in Jersey’s Waters, all options for current and future Agreements with neighbouring jurisdictions must remain on the table.\r\nI wrote recently to the French Minister for Agriculture to outline our position Government to Government. Jersey remains committed to the Agreement as the hallmark of our good regional relations with France, and as an international agreement that governs access to waters. However, we are clear also that the Agreement requires reform in order to properly uphold the key principles it seeks to protect. Discussions are ongoing at both official and Ministerial level on this topic. \r\nJersey is surrounded by a rich and diverse marine ecosystem with clean and productive seas that support fishing, aquaculture and a range of tourist and other industries. It is our connection to the sea, together with the Island’s long social and cultural history, that make the Island of Jersey what it is today. Ministers will always strive to ensure we have the best systems in place to manage this important, fragile and valuable marine resource for the benefit of current and future generations.    \r\n","created_at":"2020-08-05T15:46:44.783Z","updated_at":"2020-08-05T15:46:44.783Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200453,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200453.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep Patriotic Street car park free for health workers after Lockdown","background":"Having free and available parking in Patriotic Street Car park has significantly reduced the stress and anxiety of all of those working in health. It facilitates working varying shift patterns and reduces the financial burden of significant charges. Also aids safety of those working late shifts.","additional_details":"Health care workers already working long shifts have to leave early and return later than needed if using public transport. It creates a better work life balance. To aid safety of the public and themselves they don’t not wish to use public transport at this time. Staff working late or on call have to leave work at all times if the day or night,  parking close to the hospital aids safety of staff as they can be accompanied by a colleague within a close proximity of the hospital. Other facilities provide free or subsidies to their employees for parking and the cost of around £2,000 a year for parking alone is a significant amount of the annual salary.","state":"closed","signature_count":1224,"created_at":"2020-06-10T12:23:47.205Z","updated_at":"2021-06-12T23:00:18.875Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-06-12T10:08:41.941Z","closed_at":"2020-12-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-10T21:41:09.419Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-06-16T07:07:13.060Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-07-16T10:45:23.468Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-07-16","summary":"Patriotic Street is needed as a public income generating carpark. The free use for health workers was only ever meant to be a temporary measure while the hospital was under pressure from Covid 19.","details":"At the beginning of the pandemic, prior to the construction of the Nightingale Hospital, taking a precautionary approach, Patriotic St Car Park was closed to the public and dedicated solely to the use of Health workers, supporting access to the hospital and reducing the potential for common touch points. \r\nDuring the early levels of the Safe Exit Strategy, there was no other pressing public need for Patriotic St.\r\nThe Car Park has 610 spaces and on request by the Hospital, 500 parking permits were issued to Health workers, in addition to parking bays already reserved for hospital use. \r\nRecent occupancy of the car park by health permit holders has typically been between 300 – 400 vehicles per day, using 50% - 66% of the total capacity of the car park. If continued the cost of this is likely to be in the order of £0.75m per year.\r\nAs Jersey descends through the levels of its Safe Exit Strategy, car parks and the town are becoming increasingly busy and it is important for parking to be returned to the public, so that supply can meet demand. Parking charges are being reintroduced so that time limits can be enforced and to ensure a turn-over of spaces. This is important to support the re-opening of the town centre.\r\nDespite being continually approached by special cases of one sort or another, Jersey Car Parks do not provide ‘free’ parking spaces in public car parks, as the remit of the Car Parks Trading account is to provide and maintain adequate parking for the ‘public’ on a ‘first come, first serve’ basis. The revenue generated is needed to fund the maintenance of the Island’s parking infrastructure, concessionary bus fares for persons with disability and sustainable transport and accessibility projects.\r\nStaff benefits are within the remit of the States Employment Board, not Jersey Car Parks.\r\nShould there be a resurgence of CV19 in the Island the situation would be reviewed in the light of Public Health advice, it is likely that Lay-By 7 would be rededicated to Health use at the Nightingale Hospital.\r\n","created_at":"2020-07-16T10:45:23.464Z","updated_at":"2020-07-16T10:45:23.464Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200288,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200288.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban all new plastic carrier bags from being given out or sold in Jersey","background":"Plastic carrier bags are harmful to the environment and unnecessary in today’s world. Jersey has plans to reduce its carbon footprint. Banning the selling and distribution of all new plastic carrier bags in Jersey will help both aims. An island should do this particularly for marine life safety.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1213,"created_at":"2020-01-05T17:45:26.555Z","updated_at":"2021-01-07T00:00:19.910Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-01-06T12:27:08.160Z","closed_at":"2020-07-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-01-05T18:54:17.591Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-02-08T08:27:47.345Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-03-11T09:47:07.933Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-03-11","summary":"Whilst fully supportive of the principle to reduce the use of avoidable single use plastic, further investigation is required to assess if a plastic ban is the best way forward.","details":"It is recognised that there is a drive to protect marine life, reduce litter and reduce dependence on plastic products globally and that Jersey should play its part in this. \r\n\r\nPlastic bags that are captured through the waste stream locally are treated in the Island’s Energy from Waste plant and so unlikely to cause hazards to marine life. Nevertheless, there will still be some carbon released from their incineration which contributes to Jersey’s carbon footprint and plastic bags that end up as litter do cause hazards for biodiversity on-island or at sea. \r\n\r\nThis matter has already been raised in the States Assembly in February and is the subject of a Proposition \r\n\r\nThere has been momentum already in the Island to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags for some time with the major retailers charging for single-use bags and instead promoting the more robust reusable bags. This voluntary charging regime has driven behaviour change towards the use of reusable bags and raised significant amounts of money for charity from the charge for the single use bags whose overall use has declined over time.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, many countries have now implemented bans of plastic carrier bags and Deputy Gardiner lodged a Proposition on the 12th February to bring forward similar legislation in Jersey (P.11/2020). This was initially to be debated in the States Sitting of March 2020.\r\n\r\nDespite appearing to be a straightforward subject, there are some complexities that require the alignment of policy, legislation, enforcement and public engagement. In particular, the products intended to be covered by any potential ban need to be carefully defined and the full implications of the policy need to be understood and discussed with stakeholders to ensure the success of any new regime.\r\n\r\nDeputy Gardiner has met with officers to discuss these points and has agreed to defer the debate in the Assembly on P.11/2020 until April. During this period officers will research the opportunities and challenges that arise across a number of relevant Ministerial Departments to ensure we work together to bring forward a solution that best achieves positive change across the Island.\r\n\r\nThe Minister for Infrastructure\r\n","created_at":"2020-03-11T09:47:07.930Z","updated_at":"2020-03-11T09:47:07.930Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200214,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200214.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce plant based plastic islandwide to reduce usage of single use plastic","background":"50 percent of plastics wasted are 'single use plastics.' This means we consume the plastic product once, then dispose of it. We do this daily without realising. Examples of this would be the use of coffee cup lids, plastic bags, plastic pens \u0026 even food packaging.","additional_details":"'Vegware' plastics are completely natural and made from plants / oils. This means the veg plastic can be decomposed and made back into soil. Plastics at the moment get thrown away and incinerated which causes air pollution. Some plastics take years to break down so end up left in the ocean. A new invention 'Garbage Guzzlers' digests food waste \u0026 outputs soil. If people started using 'Vegware' plastic, this machine would be able to decompose the 'Vegware' back into its original, natural form.","state":"closed","signature_count":1211,"created_at":"2019-05-07T10:50:57.031Z","updated_at":"2020-05-07T23:00:22.763Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-07T15:58:35.637Z","closed_at":"2019-11-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-07T11:10:28.109Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-26T11:03:12.587Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-06-21T13:11:10.497Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-21","summary":"Plant based plastics are readily available in Jersey from commercial suppliers and many establishments use these products. These plastics are single use items, thus reusable options are preferred.","details":"Bioplastic products (plastic items made from plant or other biological material instead of petroleum) are readily available in Jersey. A number of wholesalers offer items as described in the petition with many establishments including cafes and restaurants transitioning to providing plant based single use bioplastics instead of traditional petroleum based items.  \r\n\r\nThe Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel published a review “Reducing use of plastics in Jersey” on 8 March 2019. The report states ‘Plastic pollution is a global issue which causes harm to the environment in the form of air, water and land pollution and has negative effects on plant life, wildlife and the human population.’\r\n\r\nThere are two main types of bioplastics:\r\n•\tPolylactic acids (PLAs) are made by extracting sugar from plants like sugar cane. PLA plastic is the most common type of bioplastic as it is the cheapest to produce. It is used in food packaging, plastic bottles, textiles and the other items described in the petition. Plant based plastics are derived from natural plants and oils but require significant processing to make the bio-plastic. \r\n\r\n•\tPolyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are engineered from microorganisms and are mainly used in medical devices like sutures and cardiovascular patches.\r\n\r\nDisposal of bioplastics requires industrial composting. It is necessary to heat the bioplastic to a high enough temperature in order for microbes to break it down. Without these high temperatures bioplastics do not degrade on their own. Bioplastic behaves similarly to petroleum-based plastics if they end up in the marine environment so continue to present a danger to marine life. Jersey does not have industrial scale composting but there are individual establishments and small scale industrial composting solutions on the island. \r\n\r\nIt is important to note that composting bioplastics along with food waste containing animal by-products including waste food containing meat, in any composter (including an industrial composter) is highly regulated by European directives with common requirements across Europe. This is because outbreaks of livestock diseases and zoonoses have resulted from transmission via this route with colossal economic impact (foot and mouth disease, African swine fever, mad cow disease – and importantly export trade barriers for not properly controlling animal by-products). Jersey’s waste food and animal by-products controls are in-line with EU requirements; the activity and transport of the compost must be carried out in compliance with the Animal Health (Animal By-Products) (Jersey) Order 2018 and the Animal Health (Waste Food) (Jersey) Order 2018.\r\n\r\nWaste generated in Jersey, that is not separated for recycling, is sent for energy recovery and not landfill. Therefore the end of life for bioplastics is the same for petroleum plastics with the exception of plastic bottles, and agricultural and supermarket film which is currently recycled. Littering is the primary reason for plastic waste entering Jersey’s natural and marine environments.  \r\n\r\nThe combined response from the Ministers for Environment and Infrastructure to the review by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel outlined that an up-to-date Waste Strategy for the Island is needed. The development of this tool will explore the opportunities available through waste management technologies, customer engagement, regulation and fiscal levers. While the Government of Jersey (GoJ) department of Growth, Housing and Environment (GHE) acknowledges the urgency for solutions to reduce the Island's single use plastics, it is essential that this work is complementary to the development of the Island's future Waste Strategy. This does not mean that no steps will be taken to reduce the use of single use plastic until the Waste Strategy is complete.  \r\n\r\nArticle 4 of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) sets out five steps for dealing with waste, ranked according to environmental impact - the ‘waste hierarchy’. Jersey’s waste management is in-line with this framework directive. The waste hierarchy sees prevention of waste at the top of the hierarchy resulting in the least negative environmental impact. The scrutiny review identified that we are already working with the local community to provide support and advice and examples of waste prevention. This includes meeting with suppliers and potential customers to encourage the use of products that provide a more sustainable alternative to single use plastics, either petroleum based plastics or bioplastics. The GoJ programme, Eco Active has been working in partnership with the Surfers Against Sewage organisation on the ‘Plastic Free Jersey’ campaign which is centred on raising public awareness to reduce plastic usage favouring prevention and reuse above recycling or other recovery methods for waste.  Currently there are no other regulatory or economic policy levers being implemented by GoJ to complement awareness campaigns.\r\n\r\nGHE Officers monitor the national, European and global marketplace. In May 2019 the UK confirmed plans to introduce new controls on single use plastic items in 2020. The European parliament has also recently placed a ban on specific single use plastic items. These controls will undoubtedly have an impact on the local Jersey supply chain and, as a result, the availability and use of these items locally will reduce.\r\n\r\nEco active encourages local businesses to reduce their environmental impact by considering the waste generated by their activities and the options available to them such as employing a sustainable approach to procurement and investigating waste management options and technologies.  This does not require GoJ involvement unless regulatory approval is required to ensure compliance with the relevant legislation.\r\n\r\nThe Island’s Energy Recovery Facility is under the regulatory control of the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005, and it operates to EU emission standards with regards to atmospheric emissions. The facility is constantly monitored to ensure it operates in accordance with the licence and EU air quality standards.\r\n\r\nIn summary, there is an opportunity to reduce single use plastics and we welcome actions taken by the public and local industry to achieve this. We have been providing support and encouragement across the community in this regard for some time. The work that will result in the development of the Island’s future Waste Strategy will explore opportunities for the Island to work together to reduce single use plastics in more detail. Our current waste disposal mechanism for plastic waste (excluding plastic bottles, agricultural and supermarket film) is incineration for energy recovery, and therefore all other end of use plastics are disposed of in this way and do not escape into the natural environment. Plant based plastics are single use items that behave the same as petroleum based plastics when they are littered in the natural, including marine, environment. Therefore we would not consider a replacement of petroleum based plastics with bioplastics to be a solution to the global issue of plastic pollution causing harm to the environment in the form of air, water and land pollution, or resolving its negative effects on plant life, wildlife and the human population. Our preference remains to prevent waste being generated through awareness and demand for reusable options. Plant based plastics are already available in Jersey from a number of commercial suppliers.\r\n\r\nMinister for the Environment and Minister for Infrastructure","created_at":"2019-06-21T13:11:10.494Z","updated_at":"2019-06-21T13:11:10.494Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200226,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200226.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make Monday 11 May, 2020, a public holiday to fully celebrate Liberation 75.","background":"Liberation 75 will be a milestone celebration for our Island. May Day is being moved to Friday 8 May, 2020, to celebrate VE Day 75, and as Liberation Day will fall on a Saturday, I propose that Monday 11 May, 2020, be an official public holiday so that all islanders can enjoy an extended weekend.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1179,"created_at":"2019-06-10T18:42:56.938Z","updated_at":"2020-06-12T06:25:31.099Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-06-11T14:13:28.019Z","closed_at":"2019-12-11T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-10T18:53:14.416Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-25T22:37:16.510Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-07-24T10:07:03.517Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-24","summary":"The Council of Ministers recognises the importance of Liberation 75 and is proposing the 8th May as a bank holiday in addition to the 9th. As such, a bank holiday on the 11th May is unnecessary.","details":"Whilst the Council of Ministers welcomes the rationale behind the petition’s proposal to make the 11th May a bank holiday, it is felt that given that the Council of Ministers is already proposing to make the 8th May a bank holiday (in addition to the 9th, a Saturday), no additional holiday is required to enable the 75th anniversary of the Island's liberation to be suitably marked. The Council of Ministers also notes that the Assembly will be able to decide whether to amend their proposition, when it comes before the Assembly. \r\n\r\nThe 11th as well as the 8th May were considered by the Council of Ministers as possible public holidays. It was determined, that given the 8th is Victory in Europe (VE) Day and this sits alongside Liberation Day, the 8th was a better day to choose for the bank holiday. This also aligns Jersey with the United Kingdom’s decision to move their bank holiday from the 4th May to the 8th May, which will allow remembrance and celebrations to be more closely aligned.  \r\n\r\nIn addition to celebrating and remembering on May 8th and 9th, the Council of Ministers are determined to have a year-long commemoration and promotion of Jersey, which leaves a lasting legacy for the Island. \r\n\r\nLiberation Day is the focal point of our celebration of freedom from occupation and the 75th Anniversary of our liberation from occupation is in itself a significant event. \r\n\r\nThe Council of Ministers also hopes that Liberation 75 will be a launch pad for a wider promotion and celebration of the best aspects of our Island. This could be about our heritage, culture or economy, as well as what we contribute overseas through aid and expertise. In other words, what makes up the Jersey “identity”. ","created_at":"2019-07-24T10:07:03.515Z","updated_at":"2019-07-24T10:07:03.515Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200984,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200984.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Create dedicated dog-friendly beaches throughout the summer months","background":"Have dedicated dog friendly beaches where dogs can run freely all year round and close the popular beaches to dogs 24/7 during summer months.","additional_details":"As per Guernsey's dog restrictions on beaches during summer months.","state":"closed","signature_count":1178,"created_at":"2024-05-01T11:51:08.518Z","updated_at":"2025-05-02T23:00:19.201Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-05-02T14:02:35.574Z","closed_at":"2024-11-02T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-05-01T17:40:33.050Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-08-08T05:26:25.849Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-09-10T10:43:29.216Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-09-10","summary":"Ministers are mindful of the need to balance the interests of all beach users.","details":"When considering changes to the Regulations that govern dogs on beaches, it is important to balance the interests of all beach users and to provide an opportunity for people to express their views or concerns, especially if they are not dog owners.\r\n\r\nI have written to the Comité des Connétables to ask their views and seek suggestions for beaches that might be appropriate for dogs to be walked off the lead at any time. I will also raise the issue at the Council of Ministers.\r\n\r\nI have also asked officers to explore additional options, including:\r\n•\tChanging the start time.\r\n•\tReviewing the arrangements for May.\r\n•\tMaintaining the current regime.\r\n\r\nThe solution must be proportionate and ensure that due consideration is given to all points of view. Islanders and visitors must be able to use Jersey’s beaches without being unduly affected by other people’s pets.","created_at":"2024-09-10T10:43:29.210Z","updated_at":"2024-09-10T10:43:29.210Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200550,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200550.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make St Brelade's Bay Jersey National Park with protected Tourist sites","background":"Ensure bridging/next Island Plan stops planning policies continuing to earmark the Bay for large scale development principally for wealthy immigrants at the expense of its scenic charm, visitor amenity area, local tourist industry, squirrel and songbird habitats and the public’s general enjoyment.","additional_details":"Please help halt increasing density of development in the Bay.\r\nCurrent government planning policy proposals are failing to recognise a desire expressed in recent public consultations.\r\nPlease refer to website (stbrelade.com) or Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/stbrelade/) of the St Brelade’s Bay Association for further petition detail including proposed scope of the additional National Park area; planning policy changes sought; and government’s resistance of Jersey’s democratic process.","state":"closed","signature_count":1175,"created_at":"2020-11-17T11:35:07.233Z","updated_at":"2021-11-20T00:00:16.241Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-19T13:12:04.833Z","closed_at":"2021-05-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-17T16:58:57.265Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-17T11:45:21.766Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-16T11:28:00.062Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-11","summary":"The current Island Plan Review affords an opportunity to improve the planning policy regime that will shape the future of St Brelade’s Bay and its role in the island’s tourism industry.","details":"The Revised 2011 Island Plan provides the planning policy framework that is used to determine planning applications throughout the island, including St Brelade’s Bay. This plan is currently the subject of review and is due to be published, for public consultation and States Member amendment, in March 2021.\r\n\r\nThe review of the plan provides an opportunity to look at whether existing policies need to be changed or new ones introduced. This allows consideration of matters such as the performance of policies in the current plan; along with other issues such as the island’s continued need for homes; and how best to respond to trends and the impact of the pandemic upon different aspects of the island’s economy, such as tourism.\r\n\r\nTo ensure that the new plan is well-founded work is being undertaken to develop an evidence base to help inform the review process. This work provides information to help ensure that the new Island Plan can best respond to the challenges that the island faces and help to deliver the community’s objectives. The evidence base is wide-ranging but there are some aspects of it which are of direct relevance to planning for St Brelade’s Bay, and which will enable consideration of some of the issues raised in the petition.\r\n\r\nThe first of these is a review of the Coastal National Park boundaries that are currently defined in the 2011 Island Plan. The current park boundaries include those sensitive and largely undeveloped parts of the island’s coastline that are most sensitive to development, where change would have the potential to undermine its landscape quality. Parts of St Brelade’s Bay are already included in the park, and the review will consider whether more of the bay itself, other parts of the island, should be embraced by it.\r\n\r\nSecondly, work is being undertaken to look at how best the new Island Plan might support the island’s economy recover from the impact of the pandemic and other trends. Of particular significance to St Brelade’s Bay is how the plan might help ensure that existing hotels and other tourist-related businesses remain viable and can make the necessary investment in their product to ensure that they can best meet the expectations of visitors to the island.\r\n\r\nFinally, a specific study is being undertaken to better understand what makes St Brelade’s Bay special to local residents, businesses and others who use, visit and enjoy the bay, to inform a new planning policy framework that serves to better manage the nature, scale and form of development and change here. The commissioning of this specific piece of work is a direct response to the need to revise the range of planning policies that specifically apply to the bay, and not just those related to the Coastal National Park and tourism.\r\n\r\nThe process of reviewing the Island Plan is a very open and inclusive one, where the draft plan, together with all of the evidence that is used to support it, is published and where all islanders can comment upon its draft policies and proposals. This provides an opportunity for those with an interest in the future of the bay to set out whether they consider the draft Island Plan meets their expectations and can help deliver the community’s aspirations for it. All issues that emerge from this consultation are considered by an independent planning inspector who will make recommendations to the Minister for the Environment about whether changes should be made to the draft plan in light of public comment.\r\n\r\nThe final shape and form of the Island Plan will only be agreed once the States Assembly consider and debate all of the issues raised by both the public and the planning inspector, which is scheduled to take place at the beginning 0f 2022.\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-16T11:28:00.059Z","updated_at":"2021-02-16T11:28:00.059Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200525,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200525.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Review the Law surrounding the Child Personal Care Benefit.","background":"This benefit is to support families whose child needs a high level of personal care. The current format for assessment focuses on the child's physical ability, meaning that a child with complex medical needs who requires a lot of care and support is not  currently eligible. ","additional_details":"The way that Child Personal Care Benefit is assessed and awarded is discriminatory, and the rules need to be reviewed and rewritten. For example, the assessment form includes questions such as \"Can your child spoon feed themselves?\" This doesn’t take into consideration the different ways a child with complex medical needs feeds when they’re not able to eat to obtain sufficient nutrition to survive and thrive. \r\n\r\nFurthermore in Jersey, when a child turns 6 years old, parents or carers are required to pay for the child's medical feeding equipment (prescribed milk, giving sets, the containers the milk is put into to, any additional supplements) - all of which are required because of the child's medical requirements.","state":"closed","signature_count":1168,"created_at":"2020-10-01T20:24:16.022Z","updated_at":"2021-10-07T23:00:17.899Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-10-07T07:43:44.899Z","closed_at":"2021-04-07T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-01T21:09:06.889Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-12T06:57:55.710Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-11-23T12:26:26.953Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-11-23","summary":"Ministers will review support for children with serious medical conditions requiring feeding equipment. The CPC benefit provides fair assessment of personal care needs; there are no plans to review it","details":"The Council of Ministers has pledged to put children first and will review the support available to children with serious medical conditions who require medical feeding equipment, to ensure that the needs of the parent and child are fully considered.\r\nMinisters recognise that responsibility for supporting children with complex medical needs is shared between the Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) and Health and Community Services (HCS) Departments. A review of the policy for feeding equipment and other subsidised products is underway and the outcomes will be considered by Ministers in terms of both the policy in general and how it is applied at specific age ranges.\r\n\r\nDepending on the outcome of this review a business case for additional support may be put forward for inclusion in the 2022 Government Plan.\r\n\r\nThe Child Personal Care benefit (CPC) is available to the parent(s) or guardian(s) of a child below school leaving age who has very high personal care needs compared to other children of the same age. It represents a payment of some of the components of Income Support but unlike other parts of that benefit is available regardless of the parents’ income. This decision was taken so the benefit could be available to support all children with high extra personal care needs.  \r\nMinisters consider that the current benefit, introduced as part of Income Support in 2008 and reviewed as Child Personal Care in 2014, provides a fair assessment of personal care needs for all children and will not be initiating a review of the benefit at this time.\r\nThe benefit is assessed using a set of 20 questions which consider all aspects of “personal care” needs.  The meaning of personal care needs is different from the state of having an illness or disability – a personal care assessment is designed not to rely on a specific diagnosis but to look at a person’s extra personal care needs when compared to another person of the same age without an illness or disability. \r\nFor children the term “personal care needs” relates to the help or supervision that a child needs to allow them to carry out normal everyday activities.  All children need a certain level of care and supervision so the tests are applied at different age ranges.  \r\nThe questions cover – \r\n•\tthe ability of the child to make physical movements\r\n•\tthe ability of the child to communicate\r\n•\tthe thinking, learning and other cognitive abilities of the child\r\n•\tthe additional care needs of the child in respect of receiving medical treatment or achieving developmental goals\r\nThis format of questions ensures that all children, whatever their medical background, have their personal care needs assessed in the same way. It should be noted that some children will have a serious illness or long-term condition that does not give rise to significant extra personal care needs, although the child does require specialist healthcare.\r\nAs stated, Child Personal Care was introduced in 2014. The number of children being supported by the benefit has risen from 173 at the end of 2017 to 209 at the end of 2019, increasing in cost from £1.2 million to £1.5 million.\r\nThe Child Personal Care benefit is targeted to parents who have a child that has significant extra personal care needs, but there are a range of other ways in which the government supports children with medical conditions and disabilities. In particular, children with healthcare needs receive specialist medical treatment and coordination for their care needs. This includes support provided from a dedicated Child Development and Therapy Centre, specialist children’s social work where needed, additional direct support with personal and/or nursing care, and within a range of educational settings designed around children with health or disability needs.\r\nChildren with care needs are supported across government departments to meet those needs. This range of support can include the cost of prescribed items and feeding products – these are either free, or free up to a certain age and then subsidised as the child gets older. As noted above, this provision is under review. \r\n","created_at":"2020-11-23T12:26:26.947Z","updated_at":"2020-11-23T12:26:26.947Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200425,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200425.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Adopt a strategy of COVID-19 elimination in Jersey with border controls/testing.","background":"Due to the timely Island lockdown we have successfully ‘flattened the curve’ giving us a window of opportunity to eliminate COVID-19. This would enable the local economy to resume, protect the most vulnerable and improve the mental health of Islanders whilst avoiding hundreds of unnecessary deaths.","additional_details":"New Zealand and Guernsey have embarked upon this strategy. We are geographically similar and have invested in measures for contact-tracing with potential for digitally-based solutions on the horizon. Border controls and testing would be necessary to maintain elimination and could enable free movement within the Channel Islands if we succeed. Tourism will remain limited due to COVID-19 activity elsewhere but Islanders are more likely to be welcomed abroad if we have eliminated COVID-19.","state":"closed","signature_count":1166,"created_at":"2020-05-14T13:09:01.832Z","updated_at":"2021-05-15T23:00:17.100Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-05-15T14:10:14.063Z","closed_at":"2020-11-15T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-05-14T15:51:42.540Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-05-19T10:11:40.351Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-07-31T08:25:46.325Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-07-31","summary":"Since this petition commenced, the States Assembly has adopted three propositions which set out the detail of the Government's Covid-19 strategy and border policy.","details":"Since this petition commenced, the States Assembly has adopted P.61/2020, lodged by Deputy Perchard and as amended by the Chief Minister, Deputy Morel and Deputy Pamplin. The proposition, amendments and votes can be viewed here: http://ow.ly/9Luy50AN7ni\r\n\r\nThe updated Covid-19 strategy, required by P.61, was presented to the States by the Council of Ministers on 3rd June 2020 as R.55/2020 - http://ow.ly/mVzp50AN7oA\r\n\r\nThe States Assembly has also adopted P.84/2020, lodged by the Council of Ministers and as amended by Deputy Ward and the Scrutiny Liaison Committee. This authorised the commencement of a safer travel period from 3rd July 2020. The proposition, amendments and votes can be viewed here: http://ow.ly/vyil50AN7qM\r\n\r\nFurther to this, the States Assembly has adopted P.89/2020, lodged by Deputy Young and as amended by the Chief Minister. This proposition sets out further requirements for the operation of the safer travel period. The proposition, amendment and votes can be viewed here: http://ow.ly/tFJP50AN7rB\r\n\r\nThe Government’s Covid-19 strategy and border policy is clearly set out within these documents.\r\n","created_at":"2020-07-31T08:25:46.323Z","updated_at":"2020-07-31T09:00:15.955Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200693,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200693.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change the sex offenders register to start the day of release from prison.","background":"If a person convicted of a sexual offence against a child receives a 3 year sentence it’s standard for them to be on the register for a minimum of 5 years, but that means just 2 years on the register once released at which point they can apply to come off the register.","additional_details":"The register allows the courts to make orders restricting activities of people who are sexual predators or who may sexually exploit children and vulnerable people.\r\nIt also requires the Chief of police and certain Ministers to enter into an agreement setting out general arrangements that need to be put into effect to assess and manage persons who pose a risk of sexual harm.\r\nStarting the register whilst inside seems futile. They are no danger to society whilst inside and do not require monitoring.","state":"closed","signature_count":1162,"created_at":"2021-05-24T18:05:34.692Z","updated_at":"2024-09-18T11:34:17.148Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-06-02T10:26:49.788Z","closed_at":"2021-12-02T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-24T18:21:46.212Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-23T10:57:13.849Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-07-26T08:37:32.736Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-07-23","summary":"The Minister supports the principle of this petition, however the necessary legislative amendments require consultation with relevant parties and are unlikely to be achievable within this term.\r\n\r\n","details":"The Minister considers the proposal in this petition to be sensible and would be supportive of such a change. He is also cognisant of the strength of public feeling with regard to these matters.\r\n\r\nCurrent Arrangements \r\nAs the petitioner correctly asserts, offenders who have committed certain sexual offences or sexually aggravated offences (a relevant offence), become subject to notification requirements upon conviction under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 (the Law),  in order to protect the public from the potential harms that they may pose were they to reoffend.\r\n\r\nIn the case of a person convicted of a relevant offence, the Law provides that the required notification must be given on the day of the conviction, and on the anniversary of that date. \r\n\r\nIt is therefore a requirement of the Law that an offender becomes subject to the notification requirements upon conviction, and any change to this would require an amendment to primary legislation. \r\n\r\nDuring their time subject to such notification they must provide certain information about their circumstances to an authorised officer, are subject to a level supervision by the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) and may be subject to other conditions as deemed necessary by the Court. \r\n\r\nArticle 5(4) of the Law provides that unless the court is satisfied that there is a reason why a shorter period would be appropriate, the notification period given should be at least 5 years. The 5 years referenced by the petitioner is therefore the default minimum period that someone is likely to be subject to these notification requirements. The court has the discretion to order that someone is subject notification requirements for as long as they see fit. \r\n\r\nIn determining the time an offender should be subject to notification requirements, the Court will do so in full regard that the notification period begins at the point of conviction. The Court is therefore well placed to determine whether sufficient time subject to notification will be served in the community and can make a notification order accordingly.\r\n\r\nWhen the period of notification imposed by the Court expires, this allows an application to be made to the Court to request that someone no longer be subject to the notification requirements. A person is not automatically relieved of the notification requirements when the period expires. \r\n\r\nIn fact, the Law requires that the Court must not make an order for someone to no longer be subject to the notification requirements unless it is satisfied that the risk of sexual harm posed to the public by the person subject to the notification requirements does not justify the person’s being subject to those requirements. If the Court is not satisfied of this it must, under the law, refuse to make the order releasing the person from notification requirements, and set a further period before which such an application is made. \r\n\r\nThis provides an important level of oversight which assists with safeguarding our community, providing for a much more rigorous and thorough assessment of risk, unlike many other jurisdictions where the period of registration simply finishes without any statutory assessment.\r\n\r\nOther Considerations \r\nIn order to make the amendment requested in this petition it would be necessary to make an amendment to primary legislation.\r\n\r\nThis would necessitate the allocation of both policy and law drafting officers at a time when both of these areas are under pressure to deliver other important projects, which were themselves delayed as result of the Covid pandemic. \r\n\r\nThe Minister considers that, given the current arrangements provide a sufficient safeguard against potential harm that sex offenders pose, it would not be proportionate to delay other important pieces of work such as the Domestic Abuse Law, for which there are arguably not adequate protections for vulnerable victims in place.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, it would not be appropriate for the office of the Minister to seek to make such a legislative amendment without first consulting with other relevant parties, and in particular the Courts and Judiciary. \r\n\r\nConclusion\r\nWhilst the Minister recognises the merit in this proposal and would be supportive of such an amendment, for the reasons set out above it is not deemed likely that this will be achievable in this term of office. \r\n\r\nThe Minister is satisfied that the current arrangements provide a sufficient level of protection, for the reasons mentioned above, and would wish to reassure Islanders that there are safeguards in place to ensure that those who pose a risk to our community are monitored appropriately. \r\n","created_at":"2021-07-26T08:37:32.730Z","updated_at":"2021-07-26T08:37:32.730Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201083,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201083.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Revoke trans guidance in schools until parents have been fully consulted","background":"I believe the CYPES Trans Inclusion Guidance 2025 isn't fit for purpose and may negatively impact our children. The Guidance applies to under 18s including primary age children, which I believe risks schools giving credibility to gender assertions by children ignorant of their meaning.","additional_details":"The Guidance states that “being LGBTQ+ or exploring their gender identity does not in itself constitute a safeguarding concern, nor is it something the child’s parents or carers must be informed of.” I believe parents should be involved in any discussions on the issue of their child’s gender identity.\r\n\r\nGender Dysphoria affects less than 0.01% of the population (Wikipedia). Exposing children, especially very young children, to these issues could affect their mental health and, I believe, is contrary to the promises made by this Government on putting children first. This guidance also allows books, that parents may consider unsuitable, to be placed in our school libraries and the children's section of the public library. Parents should be fully consulted on these matters.","state":"closed","signature_count":1158,"created_at":"2025-03-25T13:23:54.538Z","updated_at":"2026-04-08T23:00:14.370Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-04-08T12:21:03.435Z","closed_at":"2025-10-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-25T14:08:28.976Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-05-19T17:46:56.947Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-06-16T12:03:02.238Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-06-16","summary":"The guidance will not be revoked as it is an important resource for schools. It remains subject to future review, with the wellbeing and welfare of children and young people at the forefront.","details":"The guidance applies to staff in schools, both teaching and non-teaching, and is for their use only. It is a guidance tool for schools to use at the point at which a child discloses to them their thoughts around their gender. This will be a very small proportion of the school population, and most children and families will not be affected by the guidance or need to use this guidance. It is not accurate to say 'The Guidance applies to under 18s including primary age children, which I believe risks schools giving credibility to gender assertions by children ignorant of their meaning.'\r\n\r\nThe point made in the petition around not informing parents has been taken in isolation and out of the wider context of the document. The guidance continually foregrounds the vital role of partnership working with parents, for instance:\r\n'It is hoped that schools and education settings will have positive relationships with all groups of parents and carers and will be using a range of methods to break down any barriers to enable open and transparent conversations about equality practice.'\r\n\r\nAnd\r\n'As a key principle, educational settings will want to work in close partnership with parents and carers. Parents and carers will often be the ones to approach the setting about the needs of their child.'\r\n\r\nThe guidance makes it clear that open dialogue with parents is our goal:\r\n \r\n'Settings will encourage pupils to talk with their parents and carers about their trans* status, including offering to talk with the parent or carer on the child’s behalf.'\r\n\r\nThe guidance is also clear that withholding / masking information about a child's gender identity would only happen in exceptional circumstances:\r\n \r\n'When contacting a child’s family, therefore, respecting a child’s confidentiality, may very occasionally require staff to use their legal name and the pronoun corresponding to their sex registered at birth.'\r\n\r\nPerhaps most importantly, the fact that a child 'exploring their gender identity' does not automatically need to be shared with parents only applies if the student is not asking the school to facilitate any kind of social transition. As soon as the school is being asked to acknowledge and actively accommodate a trans* or non-binary identity, this moves into the territory of Appendix 1 'Flowchart guidance for schools when a pupil approaches school of intention to socially transition'. This flowchart repeatedly signposts attempts to engage parents, and the need to escalate to the Children and Families Hub or CYPES safeguarding, where safeguarding considerations make this impossible. Schools cannot simply choose to not include parents.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the key issues that seem to be highlighted here is that (as with a gay student) we won't be 'outing' them to anyone on the sole basis of their identity. Parents have a right to know what actions schools are taking in support of their child, and the guidance fully supports this.  \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the guidance puts parental partnership at its heart and subordinates this consideration only in exceptional circumstances related to safeguarding (as we always must).\r\n\r\nThe Petition goes on to state:\r\n‘this guidance also allows books, that parents may consider unsuitable, to be placed in our school libraries and the children's section of the public library.’\r\n\r\nThere are only three books recommended as part of this guidance for schools. These books are explicitly professional education resources to support positive inclusion in a school. They are not recommended reading for students; there is no recommended reading for students contained within the guidance. This statement is therefore inaccurate.\r\n\r\nPetition Response from - Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.","created_at":"2025-06-16T12:03:02.225Z","updated_at":"2025-06-16T12:03:02.225Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201160,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201160.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Install PFAS-removal water and air filters in schools and public buildings","background":"Independent European research has found PFAS in school environments. Some private schools have already installed PFAS filtration. All children deserve equal protection, whoever they are and wherever they are, especially where they drink water.","additional_details":"Recent European studies on waste incinerators show children are exposed to PFAS through air, not just water. Jersey Water does not routinely test water at school taps. In 2022, the Chief Minister confirmed Ports of Jersey should fund water protection where PFAS pollution arose. This petition calls for point-of-use PFAS filtration, regular monitoring, published results, and proper maintenance, with costs met by Ports of Jersey where possible or by the States.","state":"closed","signature_count":1146,"created_at":"2025-12-16T12:15:20.485Z","updated_at":"2026-07-29T13:00:35.799Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-12-19T13:46:18.947Z","closed_at":"2026-06-19T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-12-16T14:33:46.741Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-05-17T21:06:51.015Z","ministers_response_at":"2026-07-24T10:52:53.967Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2026-07-24","summary":"Jersey’s mains water is safe, with PFAS levels below UK/EU guidelines. As schools and public buildings use the same monitored supply, PFAS air or water filtration is not considered necessary.","details":"Jersey Water undertakes routine sampling and testing across the public water supply network to ensure the continued safety of the Island’s drinking water supply. The levels of PFAS recorded in mains water do not necessitate additional treatment in schools or public buildings. Any further treatment should be considered only where there is clear evidence of need, likely benefit and a proportionate use of public resources, none of which are currently demonstrated.\r\n\r\nThere would also be practical, environmental and financial implications from installing treatment systems across the school estate and wider public buildings. Reverse osmosis treatment can remove trace levels of PFAS, but it can also reject a significant proportion of water to drain as part of the process, which would represent a substantial waste of a valuable resource on a water-stressed island. Additional issues, including remineralisation of treated water, waste streams, capital costs and increased power requirements, would also need to be considered.\r\n\r\nThe petition also refers to air filtration. While PFAS can be present in indoor dust and air there is currently no recommendation or recognised standard that would support a requirement for such systems in schools and public buildings.\r\n\r\nAny filtration system, whether for water or air, would require appropriate installation, ongoing monitoring, maintenance and periodic replacement to ensure continued performance. Responsibility for operating and maintaining such systems would rest with individual premises, including schools and public buildings, creating additional compliance and assurance requirements. The cost-benefit case for a blanket installation programme has not been demonstrated.\r\n\r\nThe Government will continue to maintain comprehensive monitoring of the public water supply, consider further measures where evidence demonstrates they may be necessary, effective and proportionate, and, if necessary, bring forward proposals that strengthen and build on the robust drinking water standards Jersey already adheres to.","created_at":"2026-07-24T10:52:53.962Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T10:52:53.962Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200211,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200211.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Scrap the idea to close the roads around liberation square permanently.","background":"Stop making it harder for people to come in to town","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1139,"created_at":"2019-04-23T17:20:29.736Z","updated_at":"2020-05-07T23:00:20.317Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-07T08:05:20.604Z","closed_at":"2019-11-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-04-23T17:44:14.363Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-18T11:16:31.982Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-06-15T10:01:45.634Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-06-15","summary":"As already announced, the amended improvements to the Square will ensure that the road will not be permanently closed and traffic flow, particularly at peak times, is not impeded.","details":"Next year will be an iconic year to mark our 75th anniversary of Liberation. We strongly believe that we should commemorate and celebrate this significant milestone and that this it is an exciting opportunity to leave a lasting legacy that creates a distinctive memory of our liberation that is grounded in local context, and builds on Jersey’s unique identity and rich heritage long into the future.\r\nAs Islanders are aware, plans for the joining of Liberation Square and Weighbridge Place were previously proposed.\r\n\r\nLiberation square was built to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of our Liberation.\r\nThe design followed three themes – Liberation, Freedom, and Peace. The latter being symbolised by a compass rose in a mini amphitheatre which unfortunately is now buried under a couple of feet of gravel, due to its poor condition.\r\n\r\nIt’s well known that well-designed public realm and open spaces play a vital role in creating places that enrich local communities.\r\n\r\nThe Chief Minister and Deputy Kevin Lewis, the Minister for Infrastructure, have been listening to the Public’s feedback about the original proposed scheme, and in particular about the concerns of both the cost and the traffic impact of the proposals, which is why they both have decided to revisit the scheme to specifically address the public’s concerns.\r\n\r\nThey would like to give the public confidence that any future improvements to Liberation Square are being developed in the context of the wider vision for improving the quality and connectivity in St Helier.  \r\n\r\nTherefore, improvements to the Square, will ensure that the road is not permanently closed and traffic flow, particularly at peak times, is not impeded, while keeping costs significantly lower.\r\n\r\nWe are committed to create a space that can be better used for significant events, or during particular times in holiday periods, which will have a very real and long term benefit to this busy urban area.\r\n","created_at":"2019-06-15T10:01:45.632Z","updated_at":"2019-06-15T10:01:45.632Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200602,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200602.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Christmas Eve gatherings for communities that celebrate this holiday","background":"With new Covid-19 restrictions announced on 18/12/2020, only on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, two gatherings of up to 10 people will be permitted by stricter Government guidance which disallows communities that celebrate Christmas Eve (eg Polish community). This petition is to allow this to happen.","additional_details":"Many communities in Jersey celebrate Christmas Eve as the main Christmas event (eg. Polish, Latvian etc). The new restrictions do NOT allow for members of those communities to celebrate together, this petition is to allow for the same restrictions that apply to Christmas Day and Boxing Day to apply to Christmas Eve.","state":"closed","signature_count":1130,"created_at":"2020-12-19T09:54:42.959Z","updated_at":"2021-12-22T00:00:19.076Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-21T09:52:08.723Z","closed_at":"2021-06-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-19T10:06:21.531Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-22T18:22:59.602Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-01-04T10:33:42.197Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-29","summary":"While an individual household can celebrate Christmas Eve, based on medical advice, and although difficult for many of us, different households should not gather. This will keep us all safer.","details":"The Chief Minister has written to the Portuguese, Polish, and Romanian Honorary Consuls, the Chair of Caritas Jersey, and Canon Dominic Golding of St Thomas’ Church, explaining the decision on Christmas Eve restrictions. \r\nThis letter has been sent following detailed and extensive consideration of the question of gatherings over the festive period, including advice from STAC, and explains the approach of the Government of Jersey to this challenging issue.  \r\nThe Letter in full:\r\n\r\nDear all,\r\n2020 has been a difficult year for all our Island communities. Many of us have faced uncertainty, separation from loved ones, or financial difficulty. All of us have had to adjust to new ways of working and living with COVID-19.\r\nMany of us were looking forward to Christmas as an opportunity to spend time with family and loved ones. To help Islanders do this safely, we issued revised Christmas gatherings guidance. This guidance allows for two gatherings of up to 10 people on Christmas Day and Boxing Day.\r\nThis guidance means that, for all of us, Christmas will look different this year: we’ll meet with fewer people; we’ll spend less time with our loved ones; we won’t be able to attend large church services  However - by doing so - each of us will be doing our part to minimise the spread of COVID-19, and keep our families, loved ones, and the Island safe.\r\nFor our Portuguese, Polish, Romanian and other communities, this guidance will mean that the traditional Christmas Eve celebrations cannot safely take place as normally envisaged.  Whilst a household can still celebrate Christmas Eve, we have, on the basis of STAC advice, not been able to extend the gatherings guidance to encompass Christmas Eve. I understand that this will be a disappointment because of how important Christmas Eve is to Catholic communities. I ask these communities to join us in following the new guidance and finding new ways to celebrate the festive season.\r\nCOVID-19 means that Christmas will look different this year, for everyone. And I’d urge Islanders from all faiths and backgrounds to continue to show the resilience and flexibility that they have shown throughout the year, and find, new safer ways to celebrate Christmas this year.\r\nI’d like to thank you for following the guidance we’ve issued so far: for changing your behaviour, for adopting new habits, and for supporting us to combat the spread of COVID-19. All of us have made sacrifices, and I'm acutely aware that by restricting Christmas Eve, I’m now asking you to make one more.\r\nI know our Island community will cope with this adversity. I, like you, look forward to celebrating Christmas in 2021.\r\nYours sincerely,\r\n\r\n\r\nSenator John Le Fondré\r\nChief Minister\r\n\r\nExtract from STAC advice to Emergencies Council, 22nd December, 2020:\r\nThere will be 2 days of relaxation of household measures at the end of this week which will almost inevitably result in increased transmission of the virus. \r\nAt the end of this week there is a plan to relax household advice for 2 days. This will almost inevitably lead to an increase in transmission. It would seem unwise to then provide an environment outside of the home, in what is traditionally a busy time of the year for retail with sales, for the virus to be transmitted. This is especially the case if as described above we are now dealing with a more infectious virus. STAC were further of the view that the fewer days of relaxation of household rules the better and therefore would not support any further days especially considering Christmas Eve and New Years Eve. We are mindful of the differences between ethnic groups as to when they traditionally celebrate however whilst respecting these differences we feel that while we are advising measures that will have a significant impact on people’s livelihoods that it would be contradictory to then suggest relaxations for the purposes of socialising.\r\n\r\nAs Health and Social Services Minister, I am in full agreement with the Chief Minister in this matter. We must limit the spread of the virus, for the benefit of us all. I regret, this may require some islanders to change the way they celebrate Christmas this year.\r\n\r\nResponse from Deputy Richard Renouf, Minister for Health and Social Services\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-01-04T10:33:42.195Z","updated_at":"2021-01-04T10:33:42.195Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200196,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200196.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Demand for a full investigation into the safety of a 5G network in Jersey.","background":"Plans are in place to roll out a 5G wireless network across Jersey. There have been numerous reports of health issues relating to such a high frequency network.\r\nI would like the citizens of Jersey to have a say as to whether this project should go ahead.","additional_details":"Links to reports\r\nhttps://www.captain-planet.net/hundreds-of-birds-dead-during-5g-experiment-in-netherlands/\r\n\r\nhttp://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wireless-industry-confesses-no-studies-show-5g-safe?\r\n\r\nhttps://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/","state":"closed","signature_count":1116,"created_at":"2019-03-16T17:38:09.764Z","updated_at":"2020-03-22T00:00:20.927Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-03-21T10:06:29.302Z","closed_at":"2019-09-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-17T22:15:39.961Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-18T06:34:50.409Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-07-17T14:55:24.141Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-07-17","summary":"Health and environmental protection is a priority for Government. There are no substantiated health impacts from mobile phone services including 5G. 5G services are being implemented around the world.","details":"Introduction to 5G \r\n\r\nFifth Generation (5G) mobile technology is expected to deliver faster and better broadband and enable future revolutionary uses. It is already being deployed by mobile telecoms operators in the UK, Europe, US and Asia. \r\n\r\nAt first 5G will improve speed, capacity and coverage for mobile broadband services. In the longer term, it will allow new and revolutionary services to industrial and commercial sectors such as manufacturing, transport, healthcare and agriculture using the potential for the connection of millions of devices and instant response. 5G is also expected to support the evolution of urban spaces and the creation of smart cities, islands and smart factories. \r\n\r\n5G and radio waves\r\n\r\nMobile phone services including 5G, like digital terrestrial television services, WiFi and other communication systems use radio waves to transmit voice and data. The cross-border nature of radio waves and the need to ensure that mobile services work in different jurisdictions means that mobile phone systems and the radio waves used are being standardised internationally.\r\n\r\n5G compared to previous generations of mobile technology \r\n\r\n5G technology represents a continuation in the development of telecoms networks. The first commercial 5G networks are now live in many jurisdictions including South Korea, major cities in the UK and USA and in cities across Europe. \r\n\r\nTesting and roll out of 5G in Jersey\r\n\r\nTo date the three existing Channel Island mobile telecoms operators have focussed on understanding 5G’s technical challenges, planning for implementation and network testing with the view to launching commercial 5G services in 2020/21 at the earliest. \r\n\r\nThere is no commercial operation yet and before this can happen, the Council of Ministers will have to agree the process and criteria for the allocation of radio waves and 5G licences. \r\n\r\n5G and Safety concerns \r\n\r\nConcerns about 3G \u0026 4G and now 5G’s health and environmental impacts can often be traced to stories on the internet and social media. In some cases, a misunderstanding about the inability of science to prove that radio waves used by mobile phones are safe is seen as proof that they are dangerous. In other cases, research is misrepresented as proof or likelihood of harm. In July 2018, an article by a physicist and cancer research specialist, Dr David Robert Grimes, in the Guardian newspaper, considered how research has been misrepresented or misunderstood by those seeking to link the use of mobile phones to cancer. \r\n \r\nOther publications, including Wired, have considered misinformation associated with 5G networks. Wired pointed out that one of the most commonly cited examples of harm arising from testing of 5G, the death of 300 birds in the Netherlands had been shown to be false – the 5G testing having taken place months before the bird deaths occurred. \r\n \r\nUK and International Standards for health protection\r\n\r\nWhile the technology that enables 5G services is in some respects revolutionary, the fundamental principles are not. All mobile phone services including 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G services use radio waves.\r\n\r\nThere has been extensive research about exposure to the radio waves used by mobile phone networks and handsets. To date no harm has been substantiated, at the levels and thresholds set in international standards.  \r\n\r\nAn independent organisation, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (the ‘International Commission’) provides advice and guidance on the health and environmental effects of non-ionising radiation. It develops and publishes Guidelines, Statements, and Reviews used by regional, national, and international radiation protection bodies, such as the World Health Organisation. \r\n\r\nIn July 2018, the International Commission published its revised draft guidelines for limiting exposure to the non-ionising radiation used by mobile phone services including 5G. The International Commission set out the research that it had reviewed and found that for a wide range of possible harms including cancer there was no substantiated evidence of harm. The International Commission observed that in some areas more research is needed about possible impacts of non-ionising radiation on particular areas of the body.\r\n\r\nPublic Health England advises the UK Government on Standards for protection from radio waves. Public Health England has advised the UK Government to adopt the International Commission’s guidelines and that there is no convincing evidence that exposures below the International Commission’s guideline levels cause adverse health effects. Jersey’s Environmental Health Officers have regard to Public Health England’s guidelines as well as the advice of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.\r\n\r\nOther UK studies have included an independent Advisory Group  and at a European level the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks published in 2015.  \r\n\r\nThe Government of Jersey will continue to be guided by relevant bodies including Jersey’s Environmental Health Officers, the International Commission and World Health Organisation as well as Public Health England. All of these bodies consider that there is no substantiated evidence of harm arising from mobile phone services.\r\n\r\nMonitoring and ensuring compliance \r\n\r\nIt is for equipment manufacturers to ensure that their handsets and network equipment comply with international standards and for Jersey’s telecoms operators to assure themselves that network equipment they use conforms to international standards. The Government of Jersey expects that mobile handsets sold in Jersey comply with international standards. \r\n\r\nThe Channel Islands telecoms regulator monitors emissions from existing 2G, 3G and 4G mobile network masts and publishes the results.  This monitoring exercise will be extended to 5G services.\r\n\r\nThe need for any operator of 5G services to comply with international standards for the emission of radio waves will be included in any 5G licence granted by the Channel Islands telecoms regulator.\r\n\r\nSenator Lyndon Farnham.\r\nMinister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture","created_at":"2019-07-17T14:55:24.135Z","updated_at":"2019-07-17T14:55:24.135Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200662,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200662.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop work and spending at Overdale hospital until Planning consent received","background":"It seems that the States have been able to carry out contentious investigative work, purchase private properties at considerable expense and sign significant contracts before they are required to submit plans for public sight or obtain Planning Department consent to build.\r\n\r\nThis is unacceptable.","additional_details":"Preliminary work has been undertaken, considerable amounts of public money have been spent on staffing, investigative works, purchase of private properties, etc, despite the fact that there is considerable public opposition to the development by groups such as Friends of our Hospital and Guardians of Westmount.\r\n\r\nSenator Farnham has been notified by the residents group that they are wholly opposed to the proposed changes to Westmount road.","state":"closed","signature_count":1097,"created_at":"2021-03-28T17:00:32.539Z","updated_at":"2022-04-25T11:33:25.687Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-03-30T11:58:20.877Z","closed_at":"2021-09-30T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-28T17:47:28.710Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-05T14:24:40.693Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-09-01T10:58:01.042Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-09-01","summary":"Detailed documentation is required so that a planning application can be submitted. Stopping work on the project would mean the necessary information could not be collected or provided to Planning. ","details":"The Overdale site provides an opportunity to deliver a modern, fit-for-purpose hospital to support positive health outcomes for generations of Islanders. The States Assembly approved Overdale as the preferred site for Jersey’s new hospital in November 2020. The next phase of work following this decision is to prepare a planning application. \r\n\r\nIn order to do this, the Our Hospital project team has had to gather detailed information about the land, which is necessary to develop the designs required as part of a planning application. The Planning decision is dependent on the submission of detailed documentation that includes evidence and analysis. It is not possible to submit a planning application without detailed supporting information in a range of areas including environmental impact, topography and geology.\r\n\r\nThe Planning process is a statutory process where detailed designs are assessed against Island policies. Designs are appraised for their suitability, predominantly to safeguard against environmental and community harm.  Further detail on the planning legislation and process can be found here: https://www.gov.je/PlanningBuilding/Pages/default.aspx\r\n\r\nThe target date for delivering a new hospital for the island is 2026. This is when costs to maintain Jersey’s deteriorating General Hospital and health estate are predicted to rise sharply. This is an ambitious timeline for a construction project of this size and complexity and, in order to meet the deadlines, work is require by the Design and Delivery Partner to prepare the design and planning application.\r\n\r\nAs is standard practice, the Our Hospital project team has also acquired properties to assemble the land required for a hospital at Overdale. This will enable construction to begin without delay if Planning consent is granted.  \r\n\r\nThe project team welcomes feedback from Islanders and consults with a wide range of stakeholders, including but not limited to, residents’ groups at Overdale, community and patient groups, clinicians and health professionals, blue light services and statutory consultees to the planning process such as, Infrastructure, Housing, Environment Regulation, Operations and Transport, and the Parish of St Helier.  This covers all aspects of the design, including the access road.\r\n\r\nSenator Lyndon Farnham\r\nDeputy Chief Minister and Chair of Our Hospital Political Oversight Group\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-09-01T10:58:01.039Z","updated_at":"2021-09-01T10:58:01.039Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200890,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200890.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Throw out plans to make lower St. John's road one-way northbound","background":"The current plans to widen the pavement and send traffic northbound one way will force those heading southbound down St. John's road onto Parade Road where the signal controlled junction lets out five cars at the best of times onto the already heavily congested road Elizabeth Place.","additional_details":"Should the plan go ahead it will increase traffic flow around Helvetia House primary school with more exhaust fumes and raised potential for an accident. Furthermore in the plans for the top end of the road there is a give way chicane presenting more problems on an already dangerous corner where vehicles often cross the white centre line.\r\n\r\nGiven the plans to go green with electric vehicles and achieve carbon neutral by 2050, it heightens the risk of these almost silent vehicles hitting someone should the area be made more pedestrianised.","state":"closed","signature_count":1079,"created_at":"2023-06-27T09:00:53.784Z","updated_at":"2024-06-28T23:00:11.427Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-06-28T09:39:21.657Z","closed_at":"2023-12-28T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-27T09:08:54.420Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-11T21:33:28.731Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-11-15T12:47:26.707Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-11-15","summary":"This is only a three-month trial and is necessary to collect factual data on which decisions about future road safety improvements will be based.","details":"The Minister for Infrastructure, the Connétable of St Helier and the Parish Roads Committee decided that a one-way system (northbound), between the junctions with Parade Road and Cheapside, should be trialled as it is believed that this would provide an opportunity to improve and widen footpaths and reduce some local traffic. The aim is to provide a safer and more liveable urban environment.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the trial is to gather data on how the experimental road layout affects the movement of people through the area using all modes of transport. It will also monitor changes to air quality and  record the views of residents in the area through a programme of active community engagement to understand how this road layout is received. The first community survey was carried out ahead of the trial, running from 9th October to 29th October 2023. Both supportive and critical views were expressed about the proposed road layout. \r\n\r\nThe Department has carefully considered how the experimental scheme can be safely implemented. The trial will enable the collection of factual data that will provide for an evidence-based conclusion to be reached about whether the benefits of the scheme outweigh the drawbacks and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent. \r\n\r\nFurther details can be found online at Gov.je.\r\n\r\nA number of specific queries have been raised:\r\n\r\n1.\tTraffic Flows: These will be closely monitored for all modes of transport and the data collated as part of the review. Traffic lights at the end of Parade Road at the junction with Elizabeth Place limit capacity, typically allowing four cars per signal cycle. Experience shows that motorists follow a route to achieve the shortest journey time; with the constraint of the traffic lights at the end of Parade Road, routing via Queens Road or Westmount is expected to be the shortest journey times into town from La Grande Route de St John and other approaches to this sector of town. The scheme is a trial to see if the speculated change of traffic below occurs.\r\n\r\n2.\tSafety around Helvetia School: Air quality and traffic movements will be monitored, and the data collated as part of the review.\r\n\r\n3.\tQuiet Electric vehicles and pedestrian safety: The manufacturers of vehicles are required to include sound generators to produce a specified level of noise when running or reversing below 12mph. At higher speeds tyre noise is considered to be sufficient. This is national and island wide issue for the road networks and is not specific to St John’s Road.\r\n\r\nThe results of the trial will be reviewed, and a decision will be taken as to whether the scheme should be made permanent.","created_at":"2023-11-15T12:47:26.699Z","updated_at":"2023-11-15T12:47:26.699Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200179,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200179.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Lower the age for a smear test from 25 to 18 to prevent cervical cancer.","background":"Currently the age for smear tests are set at 25. I believe that the age of screening should be lowered to age 18 to enable all woman to detect cell changes and prevent cancer.","additional_details":"By reducing the age of smear tests and cervical screening today we can save lives, we can tackle cell changes early and prevent cervical cancer.\r\nA cancer that is 100% curable and preventable if caught early enough.","state":"closed","signature_count":1075,"created_at":"2019-02-04T14:01:41.504Z","updated_at":"2020-04-23T08:59:12.668Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-02-06T16:53:13.459Z","closed_at":"2019-08-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-04T14:10:58.747Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-07T15:09:01.043Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-03-12T11:30:17.625Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-03-12","summary":"Strong evidence shows cervical screening in women under 25 does more harm than good","details":"Cervical screening is not suitable for women under 25 because it’s common for younger women to have abnormal changes in the cells of the cervix, caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which change back to normal and don’t increase the risk of cancer.\r\n\r\nHaving treatment in the colposcopy clinic under the age of 25, for cell changes that would disappear on their own, could result in a slightly increased risk of early (premature) birth in a future pregnancy plus cause unnecessary anxiety and distress for young women. \r\n\r\nMost HPV infections are sexually transmitted and at some point during our lives, 4 out of 5 (80%) of us will get at least one type of HPV.   \r\n\r\nIn most cases, especially in under 25s, the immune system gets rid of the HPV and the cell changes go back to normal.  In this situation there is no increased risk of cervical cancer developing.  \r\n\r\nBecause the risk of causing harm by screening early, rather than doing good, is greater in younger women, it’s very important NOT to have cervical screening under age 25.   \r\n\r\nThis is discussed on the webpage https://www.gov.je/Health/Cancer/Cervical/Pages/YourAppointment.aspx#anchor-6 \r\n\r\nIt’s also explained by the national charity Jo’s Trust which campaigns to prevent cervical cancer https://www.jostrust.org.uk/about-cervical-cancer/cervical-screening/cervical-screening-under25\r\n\r\nAny women who have symptoms, whether pain, bleeding or discharge – at any age – should not delay seeing their GP for assessment and possible referral to the Gynaecology Clinic at the hospital. Screening tests have no place in the investigation of symptoms.\r\n\r\nThe UK expert National Screening Committee doesn’t recommend cervical screening under the age of 25 because evidence shows, in a population overall, that it can do younger women more harm than good. ","created_at":"2019-03-12T11:30:17.621Z","updated_at":"2019-03-12T11:32:36.247Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200068,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200068.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove cannabis from Schedule One \u0026 not just the States/MDAC approved products.","background":"This petition is dedicated to getting the States of Jersey to legalise cannabis, at the very least it should be legalised for medical purposes so as not to punish those in need.\r\n\r\nIf we legalise cannabis the move would have numerous benefits outside of the obvious medicinal ones.","additional_details":"This would increase tourism, decrease crime rates, curb the opioid/prescription drug epidemic, add numerous (new) taxable revenue streams/fees with added GST, decrease unemployment and take money away from criminal organisations.\r\n\r\nCannabis is a wellness medication with curative \u0026 palliative qualities, the APPG Barnes report confirmed this, yet cannabis remains in Schedule One meaning the States consider it to have no therapeutic value, no medicinal properties. #ReeferMadness\r\n\r\nRegulate \u0026 Educate\r\n\r\nThe States discussed this at 3.18 on 11/09/2018:\r\nhttps://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=23B8728D-2D10-4B9C-ADE7-79486CC6C486\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1056,"created_at":"2018-08-06T18:57:54.469Z","updated_at":"2019-08-07T23:00:45.385Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-07T09:46:19.401Z","closed_at":"2019-02-07T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-06T20:53:07.337Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-11-01T23:07:19.021Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-12-02T12:14:48.556Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-12-02","summary":"The States recently agreed to bring forward legislation to allow cannabis-derived medicinal products to be prescribed. However Cannabis remains a controlled drug.","details":"Cannabis is a controlled drug in Class B of  the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 and a Schedule 1 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) Jersey Order 2009. \r\nThe States recently adopted a Proposition asking the Health Minister to bring forward legislation such that all medical professionals should have the right to legally prescribe quality-assured (ie manufactured or produced to good manufacturing practice standards) cannabis-derived medicinal products. These products are unlicensed medicinal products and not what are termed ‘authorised’ or ‘licensed’ medicines. \r\nThe intention is to reclassify cannabis-based medicinal products to Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) (Jersey) 0rder 2009 so that they can be lawfully prescribed.\r\nFollowing this amendment to legislation, possession and personal importation (not by post) of the products which have been rescheduled by individuals who have sought treatment from doctors outside of Jersey would be lawful. \r\nReclassification of these products will create a legal framework to provide for the prescription of the cannabis-based  products deemed suitable for medicinal use – in the same way that morphine, diamorphine (heroin) and fentanyl (which are also controlled drugs with established medicinal uses) are currently legally prescribable by medical practitioners and other authorised, qualified prescribers. \r\nIt has to be recognised that there are limitations and risks of using unlicensed products. The decision on whether or not it is clinically appropriate to use a cannabis-based product must rest with medical professionals. Medical practitioners are in the best position to employ strategies to minimise any potential risks and to balance these against patient need.   No such safeguards are in place for cannabis generally.  \r\nThere is no intention of descheduling or rescheduling cannabis per se. Cannabis remains a controlled drug. Reclassifying certain cannabis-related medicinal products will not make herbal cannabis legal. No changes to the law regarding cultivation are planned.  Cannabis and cannabis resin will remain class B controlled drugs and cannabinol and its derivatives would remain Class A controlled drugs even when contained in a medicinal product. Unauthorised production, manufacture, importation, possession and supply would remain offences with the same penalties as currently. \r\nThis means it will still be illegal for individuals to use cannabis for recreational purposes, to grow cannabis, or to import cannabis (not contained in a medicinal product which has been prescribed by a doctor) themselves, or to self-medicate. Any use which had not been authorised/prescribed by a medical practitioner and supplied by a pharmacy would still be unlawful. \r\nThe NHS warns that cannabis use carries a number of risks, such as impairing the ability to drive, as well as causing harm to lungs if smoked and harm to mental health, fertility and to unborn babies.   www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cannabis-the-facts/ \r\nThe changes relating to cannabis-based medicinal products do not herald the liberalisation of the Island’s drug laws. There is currently no intention to reclassify cannabis that is not contained in a cannabis-derived medicinal product or to legalise cannabis for any other purpose.  Recent moves are not intended as a first step to the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use – including smoked cannabis or any form of ‘street’ cannabis.   \r\nAny general reclassification of cannabis would be a matter of public interest and would require wide consultation and ultimately a States debate.  ","created_at":"2018-12-02T12:14:48.554Z","updated_at":"2018-12-02T12:14:48.554Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200807,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200807.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give power to the JSPCA to be able to protect/remove abused animals.","background":"I strongly feel the JSPCA should be given the powers to remove any animal at risk of harm in an unstable or toxic environment. All animal shelters in the UK have the rights to remove any animal abused/starved etc from it's home so should the JSPCA","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1049,"created_at":"2022-04-26T15:18:13.331Z","updated_at":"2023-08-08T08:45:08.351Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-04-28T07:08:01.501Z","closed_at":"2022-10-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-04-27T09:19:58.246Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-06-30T17:27:22.066Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-07-29T13:58:42.623Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-07-29","summary":"The JSPCA does not wish to have the powers suggested by the petitioner; such powers can already be exercised by the States Vet accompanied by police officers ","details":"Officers from Natural Environment have discussed this petition with the JSPCA and it is clear, as noted in a media article in which it is quoted (see below), that the JSPCA does not wish to have such powers, preferring that the States Vet or the Police take responsibility for such action.\r\nThe Jersey Evening Post of 28 June 2022 reported a statement from the JSPCA which said: ‘The JSPCA is a small, self-funding charity without any government financial support and does not have the resources or funding for a team of investigators and inspectors to carry out this work. We believe this responsibility should sit with the States vet and States police.’\r\nIt added: ‘The JSPCA responds to welfare concerns regarding domestic animals and escalates these to the States vet or States police as required. We would welcome dialogue with the incoming States vet and States police to assist with pursuing cases of concern going forward.’\r\nCurrent arrangements in Jersey are set out in the Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004 Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004 (jerseylaw.je). If there is deemed to be sufficient evidence that an offence has been or is being committed, a police officer and the States Veterinary Officer or an Inspector can together enter a premises or dwelling to which a licence (or application for a licence) relates, for example, dog kennel outbuildings if they belong to a licenced boarding kennel business, a field of dairy cows, or dog grooming business licenced to be set up in a person’s lounge. They would still need a warrant to seize a suffering animal in licenced premises. Even if they are invited into a private dwelling, a warrant is still required to seize an animal. However, in some cases, the person may willingly consent to hand the animal over without a warrant needing to be served. \r\nIn England, RSPCA inspectors or police officers may take steps to alleviate suffering if they reasonably believe that a protected animal is suffering. They may enter premises for the purpose of searching for a protected animal (for example, dog kennel outbuildings, open field or the garden) and seize an animal if they think it’s suffering, but they are unable to enter a private dwelling without a warrant. If they are invited into a private dwelling, they do not need a warrant to seize a suffering animal. The same applies for an SSPCA inspector in Scotland. \r\nHistoric evidence from the States Vet attending animal welfare reports show many have not been founded, with no evidence of crimes being committed.  Officers also receive reports from many anonymous callers making investigations difficult and, in some cases, officers are required to seek legal advice. \r\nAs alluded to in the newspaper article, Natural Environment is seeking to supplement the veterinary section and I would gladly discuss with our officers how they and colleagues in our Regulation section at Infrastructure, Housing and Environment might work together in future to further ensure that appropriate protection is given to animals at risk of harm.","created_at":"2022-07-29T13:58:42.620Z","updated_at":"2022-07-29T13:58:42.620Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200493,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200493.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove People's Park, St. Andrew's Park \u0026 Millbrook site from hospital shortlist","background":"Our Hospital project team has given a shortlist of 5 potential sites for our new hospital. The site selection process was flawed and incorrect or misleading measurements were applied and not challenged. This is unacceptable. We need a site that will deliver the hospital on one site as promised.","additional_details":"Our Chief Minister promised us a hospital with everything on one site and with plenty of room for future growth. The inclusion of People's Park, St. Andrew's Park and Millbrook Playing Fields on the shortlist is unacceptable as none of them would be capable of delivering this.\r\n\r\nThe hospital must be on a site large enough for all services without any compromises and with plenty of room for onsite parking and staff accommodation. We should not be entertaining remote locations again.","state":"closed","signature_count":1023,"created_at":"2020-08-07T13:01:34.811Z","updated_at":"2021-10-05T11:11:28.079Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-08-11T07:42:23.092Z","closed_at":"2021-02-11T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-07T14:31:49.935Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-28T15:25:58.953Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-10-26T08:53:15.772Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-10-23","summary":"To remove People’s Park, St. Andrew’s Park and Millbrook sites from the Hospital Shortlist. The petition received 1,006 signatures which requires a Ministerial response.","details":"The hospital sites shortlist announced on 13 July included five options:\r\n\r\n•\tFields to the north of Five Oaks\r\n•\tMillbrook Playing Fields and fields to the north\r\n•\tOverdale and nearby fields \r\n•\tPeople’s Park and additional nearby site\r\n•\tSt Andrew’s Park, First Tower\r\n\r\nDetailed technical assessments were then carried out on the five shortlisted sites, which resulted in a decision to continue assessments on only Overdale and People’s Park. Therefore, the People’s Park, St. Andrew’s Park and Millbrook sites have been removed from the shortlist and are no longer being considered.\r\n\r\nIn the States Assembly on 6 October 2020, the Deputy Chief Minister Senator Lyndon Farnham, in his capacity as Chair of the Our Hospital Political Oversight Group, announced that the preferred site was Overdale. The full statement can be read here. This proposal is due to be considered by the States Assembly on Tuesday 17 November and is set out in P.123/2020, which also contains the full site selection report.\r\n\r\nIf approved, a hospital at Overdale will be set in an elevated, peaceful location and natural environment, close to town, with incredible sea views, offering individual recovery rooms alongside state-of-the-art and flexible, modern medical facilities and technology. The patient experience will be paramount, and the new facilities will assist in retaining our dedicated and professional workforce as well as continuing to attract the very best healthcare professionals.\r\n","created_at":"2020-10-26T08:53:15.770Z","updated_at":"2020-10-26T08:53:15.770Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200943,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200943.json"},"attributes":{"action":"States Assembly to request a cease fire in Gaza","background":"On 7th October 2023, Hamas gunmen launched an assault on Israel from Gaza, killing more than 1,200 people and taking more than 200 hostages. Since the ensuing war was declared by the Israeli Government, its armed forces have reportedly killed over 11,000 people in the Gaza Strip.\r\n\r\n","additional_details":"“The victims include 4,506 children, 3,027 women, and 678 elderly people, with 27,490 people injured,”  Hamas run Health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra \r\n\r\nThe States Assembly should recognise the actions being taken by Israel are disproportionate and request a cease fire to His Majesty’s Government.","state":"closed","signature_count":1006,"created_at":"2023-11-08T22:13:32.944Z","updated_at":"2024-11-14T00:00:36.050Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-11-13T16:24:04.888Z","closed_at":"2024-05-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-11-09T09:17:07.868Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-05-12T19:56:23.694Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-05-31T09:36:52.404Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-05-31","summary":"On 27th February 2024 the States Assembly held a debate on a report and proposition entitled Ceasefire in Gaza (P.7/2024). The outcome was a vote 45-0 in favour of the proposition as amended.","details":"The effect of this debate was to take the action requested by the petition. The States was specifically asked to\r\n\r\n•\t‘To express their profound sadness and dismay at the extent of the loss of civilian lives in Gaza and Israel and to condemn the taking of hostages and all acts of aggression which violate international law and result in death and harm to civilians, especially women and children.\r\n\r\n•\t‘That an immediate suspension of hostilities should be established to enable the unconditional release of hostages and those held under unlawful detention, the urgent provision of humanitarian assistance, and a permanent ceasefire.’\r\n\r\nAs a direct result of the States decision, the Minister for External Relations has written to the UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Mike Freer MP, to convey the Assembly’s view on the matter to the UK Government.  A copy of the letter is available at the following webpage - https://www.gov.je/News/2024/Pages/MinisterForExternalRelationsLetter.aspx\r\n\r\nThis debate provided an opportunity for the States Assembly to express their views and that of their constituents. It was a considered and courteous discussion that reflected the complexity and sensitivity of the issues.\r\n\r\nJersey’s Government remains very concerned by the rising number of civilian casualties, the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and the access constraints that are impeding the delivery of life-saving assistance.  It is sincerely hoped that a resolution to the conflict is sought as quickly as possible to allow for the flow of urgently needed services and relief items into Gaza and for the safe return of all hostages.\r\n","created_at":"2024-05-31T09:36:52.399Z","updated_at":"2024-05-31T09:36:52.399Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200686,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200686.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop urban sprawl - Save St Helier fields from the Island Plan","background":"Save the St Helier’s fields that have been earmarked for housing in the Island Plan. They are deemed strategically highly important for dairy farming. Jersey cows that Jersey is famous for are losing yet another space. Buzzards roost in the oak trees. Other wildlife and biodiversity will be lost.","additional_details":"There is enough traffic in the Mont a L’Abbe area already. These proposed houses, new hospital at Overdale plus 51 new flats at Westhill Hotel will make Queens Road even more congested. It is gridlock at times already.  Route du Mont a L’Abbe is single lane, used by walkers and could become dangerous with constant car-flow.\r\nWhy build on organic, green fields when there are other sites available? Environment and mental health will be affected. \r\nOnce these green spaces have gone they can never be returned and the sprawl will continue to grow.","state":"closed","signature_count":1004,"created_at":"2021-05-09T15:16:35.650Z","updated_at":"2022-05-10T23:00:13.667Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-05-10T09:10:15.011Z","closed_at":"2021-11-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-09T20:08:07.435Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-11-06T14:38:36.680Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-06-22T07:25:59.069Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-06-22","summary":"To help shape the Island Plan, islanders are encouraged to make representations about the draft bridging Island Plan, in writing, before 12 July 2021 at https://haveyoursay.gov.je/consult/islandplan/.","details":"The draft bridging Island Plan seeks to meet the island’s housing needs over a five-year planning period (from 2021 to the end of 2025). The draft plan seeks to meet the housing needs of the existing local population resulting from changes in the way people live, such as living longer and in smaller households; it seeks to help meet some of the shortfall in housing supply that arose over the period of the last plan, where higher levels of in-migration were greater than originally planned for; and also to meet the housing needs that will arise from the projected increases in population over the coming plan period. It seeks to make provision for approximately 4,150 homes of which approximately 1,500 will be developed as affordable homes.\r\nThe spatial strategy of the draft bridging Island Plan seeks to ensure that most of the island’s need for homes is met from within the island’s existing built-up area. A strategic analysis of the supply of land and housing, as well as the capacity of these sources to meet the demand for homes, has been undertaken in the development of the draft Island Plan. This identifies and sets out a range of sources of housing supply, as follows:\r\n•\thomes under construction\r\n•\tsites with outstanding planning permission\r\n•\tcapacity of the town\r\n•\tGovernment of Jersey and arms-length bodies-owned sites\r\n•\t‘windfall’ development, outside of town\r\n•\textensions to the built-up area (rezoning)\r\nThe proposal to rezone land to help meet the need for homes would, as currently proposed, provide approximately 450 homes or about 11% of overall provision. All of the homes proposed to be developed on these sites would be affordable homes.\r\nThe draft Island Plan sets out to rezone land for the provision of affordable homes in the parishes of St Helier, St Saviour, Grouville, St Martin, St John, St Peter and St Ouen.\r\nThe sites that are proposed to be rezoned – including Field H1186A, Field H1189 and Field H1198 in St Helier - have been assessed, relative to a range of criteria as set out in the Housing land availability and assessment of sites report , and appendix 1 of the draft bridging Island Plan identifies the key issues for the development of each site. \r\nThe process for preparing and approving a new Island Plan is set out in law. This includes and makes provision for islanders to be consulted on the policies and proposals of the draft island Plan, and for any comments made to be reviewed by an independent planning inspector, before the draft island Plan is considered, amended, debated and approved by the States Assembly.\r\nThe draft bridging Island Plan is presently the subject of consultation and islanders are invited to make their comments, in writing, on the policies and proposals of the draft plan before the consultation phase closes on 12 July 2021. Advice on how to do this is set out online at https://haveyoursay.gov.je/consult/islandplan/consultation/.\r\nMaking comments directly as part of the consultation phase of the draft plan preparation ensures that islanders’ views will be considered by the Minister for the Environment and independent planning inspectors before the States Assembly debate the draft Island Plan in March 2022.\r\n","created_at":"2021-06-22T07:25:59.066Z","updated_at":"2021-06-22T07:25:59.066Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200614,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200614.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Close schools as they are a breeding ground for covid.","background":"If you shut non-essential shops, you should shut schools. Teenagers carry covid too and shouldn’t need to weigh going to school and staying healthy.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1004,"created_at":"2021-01-06T14:03:30.989Z","updated_at":"2022-04-25T11:34:36.894Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-08T10:06:26.468Z","closed_at":"2021-07-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-06T14:21:19.440Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-02-08T12:52:22.001Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-22T09:04:38.835Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-22","summary":"Covid related school closure by the Minister for Education must be necessary and proportionate, agreed by the Minister for Health and Social Services and supported by medical advice.","details":"This petition was launched on 6th January 2021 when the start of term, originally planned for 4th January had been delayed a week, by the Minister for Education, until the 11th of January. The start of term was delayed so that a voluntary PCR screening programme for all Government and private nursery, school and college staff and students in Years 11, 12 and 13 could be stood up.\r\n\r\nThe screening programme will be repeated half termly and, in between times, a weekly testing programme is being put in place (using Lateral Flow Devices). This is available to all school and college staff and students in years 11 to 13.\r\n1,510 students aged 15 to 18 years old were tested between 1 January and 10 January 2021 (this excludes inbound travel, seeking healthcare and contact tracing) with just four students testing positive for Covid-19. During the same period 1,912 staff were also tested with just four positive results recorded.\r\n \r\nThe Minister does not agree with the petition author’s assertion that “schools are a breeding ground for covid”. This assertion is not supported by evidence and the minutes of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell (STAC) from 17/12/2020 state “Whilst some students might have tested positive for COVID-19, there was scant evidence of transmission within the school setting.”\r\n\r\nThe balance of risks and overall harm are considered by STAC and Ministers when making decisions on how to respond to the pandemic situation, at any point in time. Closure of non-essential shops is a totally different scenario to the closure of schools and the risks and overall harms for the two are not the same.\r\nSchools have implemented a wide range of practical measures to reduce the risk of any covid transmission and these were further enhanced in early January. All schools have risk assessments and safety plans which are site specific and these are updated regularly to ensure the continued minimisation of any virus transmission risk. \r\n\r\nSTAC wrote to the Minister for Education on 30/12/2020  and repeated their previous advice that:\r\n\r\n“It remains the view of STAC that the safest place for children, for all the reasons outlined in previous discussions and correspondence, is at school and the longer children are out of school and the more time they are off from school the more detrimental it is to their physical and mental well-being, educational outcome and as a consequence to their life chances.”\r\n\r\nThe Minister for Education will continue to receive and act upon the medical advice and will only close schools when it is deemed necessary and proportionate and with the agreement of the Minister for Health and Community Services following consultation with the Medical Officer for Health.\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-22T09:04:38.833Z","updated_at":"2021-02-22T09:15:02.260Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200145,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200145.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop reducing speed limits to 20mph as the only solution to improve road safety!","background":"The Road Safety Action Plan 2017-2019 put together a comprehensive report to improve road safety, however it seems the Dept of Infrastructure and Ministers keep opting to reduce speed limits only. Based on recent news, I am concerned this is having little impact/targeting the wrong groups.","additional_details":"From my past working experience of Euro NCAP, Road Safety and with the feedback from many Islanders (thank you for your time!), I have put together a report for the States of Jersey offering alternative solutions to improve road safety on the Island and to compliment the other targets of the Road Safety Action Plan (Combat drink driving, introduce a penalty points system on driver licences and promote education to road users).\r\nDocument link - https://docdro.id/dkifj8y","state":"closed","signature_count":987,"created_at":"2018-10-23T18:13:40.418Z","updated_at":"2019-10-26T23:00:15.511Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-10-26T07:26:32.813Z","closed_at":"2019-04-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-10-24T08:53:20.915Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200385,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200385.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Include Vet practices on list to receive Gov. financial support during Pandemic","background":"Currently all Veterinary Practices in the island are excluded from obtaining financial assistance by the Government as a result of Covid-19.  They provide a vital front line service for all pets/livestock and can now only see emergency cases.","additional_details":"Vets are the life savers in the animal world and very much deserve some financial assistance at this very difficult time,","state":"closed","signature_count":893,"created_at":"2020-04-02T16:05:33.732Z","updated_at":"2021-04-06T23:00:16.076Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-04-06T14:50:12.794Z","closed_at":"2020-10-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-04-03T09:35:24.640Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200494,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200494.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Put St Saviour’s Hospital and Warwick Farm on the new hospital shortlist.","background":"These two sites are by far the best for our new hospital and should be on the shortlist. The shortlist would then be: St Saviour’s Hospital, Warwick Farm, Overdale and fields to the north of Five Oaks in St Saviour.  ","additional_details":"There is already a live petition in relation to the removal of the three other sites from the shortlist which can be found at https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200493 ","state":"closed","signature_count":879,"created_at":"2020-08-12T23:06:08.490Z","updated_at":"2021-08-14T23:00:14.044Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-08-14T09:21:29.079Z","closed_at":"2021-02-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-13T00:54:19.630Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200936,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200936.json"},"attributes":{"action":"End the disruption caused by the Teacher strikes by improving the pay deal","background":"The teacher strikes have been extremely disruptive to islanders with children and many parents have had to take time off work, and will need to take further time if the next strike goes ahead. ","additional_details":"The Government has done too little to prevent this and should proceed with meaningful negotiations to improve pay.\r\n\r\nOur teachers work incredibly hard and don't deserve a real terms pay cut.","state":"closed","signature_count":862,"created_at":"2023-10-16T16:25:50.448Z","updated_at":"2024-10-18T23:00:15.734Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-10-18T12:54:57.195Z","closed_at":"2024-04-18T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-16T16:36:17.178Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201122,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201122.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ensure Brain Tumour Patients in Jersey Receive Proper Care in Line with NICE","background":"Brain tumour patients in Jersey face serious gaps in care—no specialists, delayed scans, and no dedicated support. This fails to meet NICE standards. We call for urgent action to ensure equal cancer care for all, including access to scans, specialists, and support services.","additional_details":"Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of under-40s, yet they receive minimal funding and care. In Jersey, the lack of neuro-oncology expertise, timely scans, and support services puts lives at risk. We call for a named consultant, a CNS keyworker, access to scans, full support services, and regular audits. All cancer patients in Jersey deserve equal care, this disparity must be addressed now. Please support if you have been affected.","state":"closed","signature_count":833,"created_at":"2025-07-30T07:35:48.044Z","updated_at":"2026-08-06T23:00:16.910Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-06T09:31:15.204Z","closed_at":"2026-02-06T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-30T08:24:16.810Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200512,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200512.json"},"attributes":{"action":"To ensure the Island is not left without a Movie Theatre / Cinema !","background":"This will leave the entire island without a premises to enjoy movies that are made to be seen and experienced in a cinema.This will be a great loss to our island, one of the most complete art forms and sharing experiences could disappear for good.","additional_details":"There are many rumours going around that Cineworld is never to re-open. On top of this of course the plans for the Waterfront development ultimately confirm its omission in future plans. The States should deal with this by including a cinema in the forthcoming Island Plan and the Economic Development Minister should work with cinema providers to ensure Jersey retains a cinema.","state":"closed","signature_count":812,"created_at":"2020-09-02T10:36:07.179Z","updated_at":"2021-09-21T23:00:12.412Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-09-21T11:29:47.440Z","closed_at":"2021-03-21T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-09-02T10:46:58.899Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":null}}]}