{"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=debated","first":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=debated","last":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=debated","next":null,"prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":200806,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200806.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce an immediate reduction in road fuel duty","background":"The international fuel situation has changed dramatically following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has led to a further rise of driven fuel prices. Some of the highest prices in decades. Consumers are faced with a cost of living crisis on many fronts, not limited to, but including fuel.","additional_details":"We believe that the government has the fiscal flexibility to support a reduction as, government will have had an unexpected revenue upside from the GST component of the escalating fuel prices. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, ATF fully supports the transition to renewable fuels.\r\n\r\nOn that basis we propose the following:\r\n•\tFuel duty cut of 2.5 ppl as a temporary measure, which we believe equates to the additional GST being received\r\n•\tAdditional cut for biofuels of 3 ppl to support transition to  renewable fuels","state":"closed","signature_count":5078,"created_at":"2022-04-21T12:53:34.545Z","updated_at":"2024-12-20T14:50:38.199Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-04-22T09:33:41.648Z","closed_at":"2022-10-22T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-04-21T13:07:01.268Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-04-26T19:26:21.339Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-05-10T12:26:33.130Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2022-07-25T19:46:34.166Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2022-10-04","debate_outcome_at":"2024-12-20T14:50:38.199Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-05-10","summary":"The Minister does not support fuel duty reductions and believes that more targeted interventions will be more effective in reducing the impact of rising costs on lower-income households.","details":"The Government has already taken action to put money directly into the pockets of lower-income families to help alleviate the rising cost of living. In March, the Social Security Minister announced the introduction of a direct monthly payment of £20 to every adult or child in a household claiming Income Support and every pensioner claiming a means tested benefit from April to December 2022. Ministers are not convinced that the range of fuel duty reductions proposed in this petition would deliver the outcomes sought. In any event, it would not be possible to lodge the necessary legislation before the General Election.  \r\n\r\nFuel duty reductions are a blunt way of delivering help to struggling households (who may be less dependent upon private transport than higher-income households) and their success would rely on the reduction being reflected in the pump price. Pump prices for unleaded petrol in Jersey already vary from 151.9p per litre at the cheapest pump to 190.0p at the most expensive (as at 26th April 2022). The situation for diesel is the same, with pump prices ranging from 155.9p to 190.0p per litre.   \r\n\r\nAverage mileage and fuel consumption in Jersey is significantly lower than in the UK and spending on motoring accounts for a relatively small percentage of typical household budgets, albeit subject to price inflation of 10.5% over the 12 months to March 2022. Indeed, analysis of consumer spending in Jersey suggests that spending on motor fuel does not fall evenly across the income distribution, with those on the highest incomes accounting for a disproportionate share of total spending. Assuming that the proposed duty reduction is reflected in the pump price, such a move would tend to benefit those households with higher incomes to a greater extent than those on lower incomes.\r\n\r\nAs has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions that have recently implemented emergency reductions in fuel duty, the saving is not always passed on to the consumer. This may be because of pricing decisions taken by fuel retailers, or it may be because subsequent rises in wholesale prices erode the saving generated by a fuel duty reduction. If that were to happen, the fuel duty reduction proposed in this petition may not even reach the consumer.\r\n\r\nFailure to pass on the cost saving to the consumer would also limit the extent to which the proposed additional reduction of 3p per litre for biofuels would stimulate demand. Ministers recognise the need to promote the uptake of more sustainable fuels and modes of transport as underpinned by the pledges of the Carbon Neutral Roadmap. However, at such a time of volatility in global markets and the recent experience in other jurisdictions, the case for duty relief targeted to biofuels is uncertain at best.\r\n\r\nFinally, leaving aside the previous points, the necessary legislative changes to give effect to the proposals cannot be brought into force in a timescale that is consistent with this rapidly evolving situation. As we have now entered the pre-election period, draft legislation can neither be lodged nor debated by the States Assembly prior to the formation of the new Government in July. \r\n\r\nMinisters will continue to monitor the cost of living; the impact of global fuel prices; and local pump prices in Jersey.\r\n","created_at":"2022-05-10T12:26:33.126Z","updated_at":"2022-05-10T12:28:16.141Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2022-10-04","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.je/publications/hansard/2022/official-report-4th-october-2022","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":""}}},{"type":"petition","id":200992,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200992.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make states old age pensions exempt from tax","background":"All employed persons are obliged by law to pay social security contributions. Contributions are not deducted from gross pay for taxation purposes.  At pensionable age such pensions received are again liable to tax. This amounts to double taxation and such pensions should be exempt from taxation.","additional_details":"The Gov.je website states that 'Any pension or annuity income that you receive is taxable when you're entitled to it.'\r\nI believe this amounts to double taxation. Contributions to pension schemes are quite different as they represent deferred taxation.\r\nThe UK Government is about to make pension income exempt from taxation as part of their manifesto.","state":"closed","signature_count":5305,"created_at":"2024-05-29T22:28:19.047Z","updated_at":"2025-06-06T05:19:02.446Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2024-05-31T07:38:19.698Z","closed_at":"2024-11-30T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2024-05-30T08:32:34.821Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2024-06-10T22:55:08.112Z","ministers_response_at":"2024-07-03T09:26:41.997Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2024-08-24T06:36:18.622Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2024-11-13","debate_outcome_at":"2024-12-20T14:47:45.863Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2024-07-03","summary":"Jersey has a world-leading tax threshold of £20,000 for single individuals. Anyone with income below that threshold does not pay a penny in income tax. \r\n","details":"The allowance is even higher for most married couples and civil partners at £32,000.\r\n\r\nThe generous tax allowances ensure that, even though the old age pension is taxable, pensioners on low incomes who receive only the old age pension do not pay any income tax. In fact, approximately 50% of pensioners do not pay any income tax. Making the States old age pension exempt from tax would not benefit those pensioners with the lowest incomes.\r\n\r\nIntroduction\r\nThe petition suggests that a person who pays social security contributions in Jersey, pays these contributions into a personal pot that funds their old age pension – in the same way that private pension provision works.  This is not the case for two main reasons:\r\n1.\tPaying social security contributions gives Islanders access to the old age pension and a range of other benefits.\r\n2.\tThose old age pensions and benefits are funded by multiple sources, not just Islanders’ own individual contributions.\r\n\r\nDifferences between the old age pension and a private pension\r\nSocial security contributions made into the Social Security Fund are very different from contributions into private pension schemes. Accordingly, they are treated differently for tax purposes. \r\n\r\nGovernments across the world incentivise their working age populations to make additional provision for their old age, to supplement the old age pension, by offering them income tax relief for paying into a private pension. Payments into a private pension are commonly relieved from tax when they are paid in (usually with some limits or caps) and taxed when the pension income is paid out on retirement.\r\n\r\nSocial security contributions paid by working people are not the same as private pension contributions. They are a sum of money paid into the Social Security Fund to provide a range of benefits for Islanders, including the old age pension, but also other benefits. These benefits include short- and long-term incapacity allowances, carer’s allowance, parental grants, and many other benefits.\r\n\r\nSocial security contributions can be thought of as a form of insurance, for financial support that Islanders might need at some point in their lives.\r\n\r\nHow old age pensions and benefits are funded\r\nAlthough these contributions pay for old age pensions and a wide basket of benefits, it is also important to note that employee social security contributions are not the only payments into the Social Security Fund.\r\n\r\nOld age pensions and benefits are funded from multiple sources: by Islanders’ own social security contributions, by contributions from employers, and from direct tax support through the States Grant.\r\n\r\nThe States Grant is an annual payment of general tax revenues into the Social Security Fund. It is sometimes called ‘supplementation’ because it subsidises the contributions for Islanders who earn less than the standard earnings limit (£65,400 in 2024) so that they can maintain their contributions record – for example during periods of illness. Three-quarters of Islanders receive this support from Government to ‘top up’ their contributions records – and nearly all Islanders will benefit from the States Grant at some point in their working lives. This support allows Islanders to build up their entitlement to the old age pension and other benefits.\r\n\r\nAlthough there is no direct income tax deduction for employee social security contributions, Government support is being provided in an alternative way through the States Grant – funded by general taxation.  This allows a higher and more sustainable level of benefits to be paid out.\r\n\r\nIndividuals receive tax support, not via tax deductions, but by the support of the States Grant and supplementation. Without the tax support from the States Grant, all payments from the Social Security Fund, including pensions, would be either lower, or not sustainable.\r\n\r\nIncome tax and the old age pension\r\nThe petition correctly states that pension and annuity income is taxable when a person becomes entitled to it. However, I do not agree that this amounts to double taxation.\r\n\r\nIt is notable that Jersey’s personal income tax thresholds mean that around 50% of pensioners do not pay income tax on any of their income. Those who do pay tax are only taxed on the excess over the tax threshold (£20,000 for single individuals and £32,050 for married couples and civil partners in 2024). Any Jersey pensioner whose only income is the old age pension will not pay any income tax.\r\n\r\nThe UK position\r\nThe tax treatment of social security contributions and the old age pension is not unique to Jersey. The position in Jersey broadly mirrors that in the UK, the other Crown Dependencies and in many other jurisdictions.\r\n\r\nThe petition states that the UK “is about to make pension income exempt from taxation”. This is incorrect.\r\n\r\nThe Conservative Party has pledged to increase the tax-free personal allowance for pensioners each year in-line with the increase to the UK state pension, so that pensioners who receive only the UK state pension remain outside the tax net.  This is already the position in Jersey.  UK pensioners with other income, who therefore exceed the UK tax-free thresholds, will be subject to taxation on their total surplus income above the threshold – in the same way as they are in Jersey.\r\n\r\nThe UK state pension remains part of a person’s total taxable income – just like any other source of income for that person e.g. bank interest, private pension income, etc.\r\n\r\nAn equivalent policy to the Conservatives’ proposal is not necessary in Jersey because the tax thresholds far exceed the old age pension (the Jersey old age pension is higher than the UK state pension).\r\n\r\nExempting the old age pension would not benefit lower earners\r\nExempting the old age pension from income tax would only benefit pensioners who pay income tax. It would do nothing for the half of pensioners (the lower earners) who do not already pay tax.\r\n\r\nThe resulting loss in taxation would result in other groups, such as young families, having to pay more in tax or social security contributions, to maintain the Social Security Fund and allow the current pension and benefits to be maintained.\r\n","created_at":"2024-07-03T09:26:41.990Z","updated_at":"2024-07-03T09:37:22.952Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2024-11-13","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.je/publications/hansard/2024/official-report-13th-november-2024","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":""}}},{"type":"petition","id":200487,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200487.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Write off income tax liability for prior year if moved to current year basis.","background":"Around two-thirds of taxpayers currently pay their tax for the previous year in the current year. When this amendment was made in Guernsey  the prior year tax was written off. This petition requests both the move to current year basis and that the tax liability for the prior year be written off.","additional_details":"The Government is seeking to move to current year basis whilst still holding taxpayers liable for what they owe for the previous year – in effect doubling their tax liability. Those with a £21,000 tax bill would be charged an additional £350 per month for 5 years (£4,200). Their earnings needed to cover this payment would itself be taxed during the current year at 20% (so you would need to earn £5,250).With many people struggling under the current pandemic the Government proposal is unjust.","state":"closed","signature_count":5774,"created_at":"2020-07-31T14:09:48.434Z","updated_at":"2023-06-21T11:20:57.194Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-08-03T08:42:37.992Z","closed_at":"2021-02-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-07-31T15:22:45.252Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-03T18:34:33.524Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-08-26T14:22:01.630Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2020-08-09T11:59:35.701Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2020-10-27T08:57:36.453Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-08-26","summary":"The Minister for Treasury and Resources does not support this petition and has made it clear that the Government is not in a position to write off the tax liability for 2019. ","details":"Moving taxpayers who currently pay their tax a year in arrears – or Prior Year Basis (PYB) – onto the Current Year Basis (CYB) has been discussed for a number of years. The Government Plan 2020-2023 committed the Government to look at options for all taxpayers (apart from companies) to be moved to CYB for paying tax. This would mean all taxpayers would pay tax on their income in the year that they earned it.\r\n\r\nThe Minister for Treasury and Resources asked for this work to be accelerated so that the Government might be able to provide some extra financial relief to many Islanders when it is needed most. The proposed change is part of the Fiscal Stimulus package that was announced in early July and could leave around £18 million in the pockets of PYB taxpayers. \r\n\r\nThis PYB reform proposal would affect around 45,000 people who currently pay their tax in arrears.\r\n\r\nThe proposal, to be debated in the States Assembly in this autumn, would move all PYB taxpayers onto a CYB for paying tax. Their tax payments in 2020, which have been going towards their 2019 tax bill, would be moved at the end of this year to pay their 2020 tax liability. It is proposed that the payment of their 2019 tax bill would be frozen until January 2023. \r\n\r\nPYB taxpayers would not be expected to pay their 2019 tax bill in full in 2023, unless they choose to do so. Options to pay the 2019 tax liability over a period of time, such as five or 10 years, are being developed. This could also include payments being made in monthly or quarterly instalments. An affordability test to support people who might need to pay their bill over a longer term is also being considered.\r\n\r\nThe Minister would like to be clear that it would not be fair to islanders or financially responsible for the Government to write off the Prior Year Basis tax liability for 2019 of £320 million. Such a move would effectively allow two thirds of taxpayers to not pay tax on a year of their income, whilst those former Prior Year Basis taxpayers who have already paid off their Prior Year Basis liability and Current Year Basis taxpayers would not be given the same treatment. Particularly in light of the additional COVID-19 related costs the Government has had to meet over the last few months, such a proposal is not deemed responsible\r\n\r\nIslanders can provide their feedback on the PYB reform proposal and the payment options for the frozen 2019 tax bill in a survey at gov.je/TaxReform. \r\n\r\nAs it has now passed 5,000 signatures, the petition will be considered for debate in the States Assembly, although the reform proposal is due to be debated this autumn.\r\n\r\nMinister for Treasury and Resources \r\n","created_at":"2020-08-26T14:22:01.627Z","updated_at":"2020-08-26T14:22:01.627Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2020-10-21","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=13222B6B-E242-40A0-8C25-DDFCA7537731","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"This e-petition was debated \"in committee\" on the morning of 21st October 2020. There was no vote just a general debate."}}},{"type":"petition","id":200169,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200169.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Higher sentences for paedophiles.","background":"The people of Jersey are sick and tired of seeing paedophiles either found guilty of abusing, or attempting to abuse, our children being handed lenient prison sentences (if any prison sentence) by the Jersey courts.","additional_details":"We therefore demand the States of Jersey implement mandatory minimum prison terms for such offences, starting from a minimum of 3 years and change the signing of the Sex Offenders Register to life.\r\n\r\nThis is the only way we can deter paedophiles from harming our children and partaking in the vile downloading of indecent images and videos of children online.","state":"closed","signature_count":5100,"created_at":"2018-12-28T22:16:46.058Z","updated_at":"2024-09-18T11:27:24.555Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-01-04T15:32:59.253Z","closed_at":"2019-07-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-12-28T22:38:56.959Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2019-01-06T11:04:09.403Z","ministers_response_at":"2019-02-01T14:37:40.844Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-06-25T08:26:56.062Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-07-17","debate_outcome_at":"2019-07-29T08:35:02.174Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2019-02-01","summary":"It is not common practice in Jersey to use legislation to set minimum prison terms. Further research is needed to establish if resources should be diverted to monitoring offenders for their whole life","details":"It should be made absolutely and abundantly clear that all Ministers completely deplore the actions of paedophiles and the consequential harm that is caused by them to our children. \r\n\r\nThe Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018, which came into force on 23rd November 2018 and consolidated most sexual offences into a single enactment, was prepared in order to meet the needs and expectations of the police, prosecutors, modern Jersey society and international standards. \r\n\r\nThe 2018 Law covers offences by adults against children aged 12 or younger (Articles 9 and 10 of the Law), offences by adults against children aged 13 to 15 (Articles 11 and 12), other offences against children aged 15 or younger (Articles 13. 14, 15, and 16).  The 2018 Law also maintains the offences in relation to abuse of trust where an adult engages in sexual conduct with a person aged 16 or 17 (Articles 18, 19 and 20). The positions of trust have also been extended by the 2018 Law to include people involved in coaching children in sports or other activities.\r\n\r\nIn particular, it should also be noted that Article 15(4) of the 2018 Law created an additional offence in relation to the sexual grooming of a child. The previous offence in Article 15(1) addressed the situation where an adult communicates with a child and then travels to meet the child with the intention of committing an offence.  The additional offence in Article 15(4) applies where an adult intentionally communicates (by any means, including online) with a child who is 15 or younger and the communication is sexual or intended to encourage a sexual communication in response. There is a defence where the person communicated with is 13 or older and the defendant reasonably believed the person was 16 years of age or older. This offence provides more comprehensive protection to children as it is now not necessary for the adult to have travelled to meet the child for the offence to be committed.  \r\n\r\nIt is not common practice in Jersey to use legislation to set mandatory minimum prison terms for offences. Legislation usually refers to the maximum sentence that can be imposed for an offence. This is the case for the 2018 Sexual Offences Law and maximum sentences are set out throughout Articles 9 to 20. The maximum prison sentences have been set having regard to the nature of the behaviour giving rise to the offence and the penalties and range from liability to imprisonment for life to imprisonment for 5 years. \r\n\r\nWith these maximum sentences set, it is for the Courts, having considered a case and the associated evidence in full, to then make a decision as to the appropriate sentence to be applied. In doing so, the Court will take into account recommendations from the Attorney General or a Crown Advocate acting on the Attorney General’s behalf.\r\n\r\nMinisters also note the further comments recently made by the Attorney General in response to this e petition, with regard to sentencing policy in Jersey, especially in relation to offences involving possession of and distribution of indecent images of children.\r\n\r\nOnce convicted, offenders are placed on the sex offenders register, allowing the relevant authorities to keep track of their whereabouts and providing greater powers to enter and search their premises. In contrast to the position in England and Wales, offenders are not automatically removed from the register at the end of the period, but must make a public application to be removed which is then determined by the Court. \r\n\r\nThe Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) have been in operation for 8 years since 2011 following the introduction of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. Partnership agencies work together through this mechanism in order to work with and support both sex and violent offenders, thereby protecting local communities. These arrangements have proved highly effective since introduction with year on year very low reoffending annually – almost exclusively for lower level unrelated offending. On average annually during the last 8 years, just 6 offenders being managed through these arrangements have re-offended out of an annual average of 56 offenders (out of a current total of 140 registered sex offenders). The Minister publishes and tables an annual report in the States on these arrangements. \r\n\r\nIn terms of the benefits of lifelong registration, further research would be needed to establish if resources should be diverted to monitoring offenders for their whole life, keeping in mind that there will likely be circumstances where an individual has not reoffended in decades and may no longer pose a threat to the public.\r\n","created_at":"2019-02-01T14:37:40.841Z","updated_at":"2019-02-01T14:37:40.841Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-07-17","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=1E821FBF-4817-4339-82FC-5496B20DEF30#_Toc14451076","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"This e-petition was debated 'in committee' on the morning of 17 July (section 6 of the transcript). There was no vote, just a general debate, led by the Home Affairs Minister."}}},{"type":"petition","id":200218,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200218.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make Green Street a one way road","background":"Is anyone else fed up of the 'give ways' on green street? Anyone else find them dangerous, especially if you drive down Green Street as you can't always see on coming traffic? Then let's make a change. Green Street is currently one way and it works","additional_details":"Since the road works Green Street has been open one way to traffic. The road is quieter with less traffic and less congestion. As a resident on Green Street every day I witness near crashes at the two 'give ways' but this hasn't been a problem recently. People are driving slower, with more care. Its become a much nicer and safer street to live on. Please sign this petition to keep it like this.","state":"closed","signature_count":11,"created_at":"2019-05-09T08:15:31.291Z","updated_at":"2021-11-01T14:13:08.309Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-10T15:41:19.446Z","closed_at":"2019-11-10T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2019-05-10T07:10:10.385Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":null,"debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-12T11:14:06.336Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_reponse":null,"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-04","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=21C08862-1AA8-4A63-9A6F-F8E032F4B92B#_Toc11066430","video_url":"https://statesassembly.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/425811","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Assembly agreed on 4 June that Green Street should be one-way"}}},{"type":"petition","id":200108,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200108.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it law to stop ‘Hit and Run’ for Cats","background":"Certain animals involved in RTAs require the driver to inform the police;this doesn’t include cats. Cats are free agents and are more likely to be victims to RTAs. We wish to see the law changed to reduce their suffering, by getting them to a vet quickly.\r\nPlease help by signing to protect our cats.","additional_details":"Our suggestion would be to make a RTA with a cat ‘reportable’ just like other animals; the driver must inform the (Honorary) Police only if other notifiable parties can’t be reached; the owner and/or the JSPCA. The offence would be failing to report the RTA. We don't expect drivers to be blamed, just that they stop to report.\r\nWe appreciate that it costs to change a law; perhaps the licensing of household cats would help generate the funds needed.\r\nSandra Jasmins, Jo Abraham, Chris Jackson \u0026 team.","state":"closed","signature_count":5385,"created_at":"2018-08-31T21:54:29.501Z","updated_at":"2025-01-08T11:35:21.114Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-09-05T08:16:41.741Z","closed_at":"2019-03-05T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-01T06:50:08.481Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-09-07T09:31:27.591Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-10-11T16:49:45.980Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-03-05T17:59:48.396Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2019-06-05T10:10:36.199Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-10-11","summary":"Cats are already well provided for in the Jersey Highway Code and the Animal Welfare Law.","details":"Since the 2015 petition and the discussions in the States that followed, the Jersey Highway Code (which can be referred to in Court) has been updated to reduce the suffering of cats who are the victims of Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs), by requiring drivers to contact a veterinary service. The code now stipulates that, if there is an incident or accident involving a cat, the JSPCA should be contacted as soon as possible and that they will dispatch a pet ambulance to the scene. The JSPCA provides a 24hr ambulance service and responds to every call, and the recommended procedure and JSPCA’s contact details have been promoted. \r\n\r\nOther options for addressing the issues raised in the petition were considered. It was concluded that amending the Road Traffic Law might be a heavy-handed approach which would place an extra burden on the Police. It is already an offence, carrying heavy penalties (up to 12 month imprisonment and or a fine up to £10,000) under the Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004, to do or omit to do any act so as to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic animal (including cats). \r\n\r\nWhat is really required are preventative measures to try and reduce the likelihood of cats being harmed by traffic.  While not definitive, there are studies that show that a cat’s age and sex are amongst most important factors in determining whether they would be involved in a RTA, along with the time of day.  Young cats between the ages of 7 months to 2 years are most likely to be in a RTA and cats 6 years or older were less likely.  Overall, the likelihood of being in a RTA decreased by 16% for every year increase in the cat’s age.  This may be due to changes in the behaviour of cats as they get older such as spending more time indoors, staying closer to home, and being more cautious.  Unneutered male cats were more than twice as likely to be involved in a RTA as female cats, as they will roam further and be more likely to come into contact with a road. The majority of accidents occur at night, and often very close to the cat’s home.\r\n\r\nWhile, if a cat has outdoor access, it is not possible to completely remove the risk of an RTA ‘Cat Care International’ provide advice on how cats can be kept safe https://icatcare.org/advice/keeping-cats-safe-campaign/road-traffic-accidents. We propose to work with the States Vet and the JSPCA with a view to more widely publicising this information”. \r\n\r\nMinister for Infrastructure\r\n","created_at":"2018-10-11T16:49:45.977Z","updated_at":"2018-10-11T16:49:45.977Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-06-03","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=21C08862-1AA8-4A63-9A6F-F8E032F4B92B#_Toc11066410","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Propositions.aspx?ref=P.30/2019\u0026refurl=%2fPages%2fPropositions.aspx%3fdocumentref%3dp.30%2f2019","overview":"The Assembly unanimously agreed the following proposition (brought by Deputy Jeremy Macon):\r\n\r\nto request the Ministers for Infrastructure and the Environment to consult on how cats could be given additional legal protection in the event of death or injury in a road traffic accident involving a motor vehicle, with the consultation to include consideration of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, the Animal Welfare (Jersey) Law 2004 and other legislation as appropriate.\r\n\r\nThe links give you more information about the issues and the views of the minister and the constables' committee.\r\n\r\n"}}},{"type":"petition","id":200077,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200077.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Rental price caps law to limit rental prices to reasonable rents","background":"A law to limit rental prices is required in Jersey in my opinion.\r\n\r\nRents are far too high. Rents should be around 30% of people's salaries. The present rents are causing rent distress in individuals and businesses to close.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":5298,"created_at":"2018-08-13T11:37:52.016Z","updated_at":"2023-06-21T11:20:06.900Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-08-14T08:59:59.538Z","closed_at":"2019-02-14T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-13T22:41:42.331Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-08-15T18:01:56.991Z","ministers_response_at":"2018-09-19T10:54:41.518Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2019-02-09T21:57:06.771Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2019-03-12","debate_outcome_at":"2019-03-13T12:31:55.104Z","creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2018-09-19","summary":"The Minister for Housing will pursue policies that improve the standard of living for islanders, including improving the quality and affordability of housing.","details":"The Minister for Housing recognises that the cost of housing is a challenge for many households in Jersey. 73% of lower-income household living in qualified private rented accommodation could be considered in ‘rental stress’, with some families paying over half of their income in housing costs. \r\n\r\nThe Income Distribution Survey 2014/15 showed that the cost of housing was the single biggest contributory factor for relative low income. \r\n\r\nThe Minister is determined that this government must pursue policies that will improve the standard of living for islanders, including making housing more affordable across all sectors – owner-occupied, social rented and private rented housing.\r\n\r\nLegislating to cap rents at a particular level is just one option, however it has shown limited success when it has been used previously in Jersey and in other jurisdictions. There are many other options to improve the affordability and quality of housing that must be considered too.\r\n\r\nThe Chief Minister intends to establish a Policy Development Board to look at the affordability of housing. The Minister for Housing intends to work with this board to explore in detail the options for improving housing affordability, including the formula for calculating rents in the social housing sector.\r\n\r\nOngoing work to improve housing affordability will include:\r\n\r\n-\tThe introduction of the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Law 2018, which will provide a mechanism to ensure that properties in the rental market meet minimum standards, so that no tenant is having to pay rent to live in a substandard property.\r\n\r\n-\tMeasures to improve transparency in relation to the fees and charges tenants are required to pay when letting a property. The Tenant Fees Bill in the UK will, if adopted, prevent landlords and letting agents from requiring tenants to pay certain charges. The Minister is actively considering the introduction of similar measures here.\r\n\r\n-\tExpanding the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 to protect against discrimination in the rented sector for tenants with children.\r\n\r\n-\tConsideration of ‘rent stabilisation’ measures that require landlords to provide longer leases with no above-inflation rent increases permitted.\r\n\r\n-\tImproving the supply of housing, with more than 1,000 affordable homes being built between now and 2020.\r\n\r\n-\tExamining ways to bring long-term vacant properties back into use as homes and measures to tackle under-occupation.\r\n\r\n-\tExploring additional schemes to support assisted home ownership.\r\n\r\n-\tExploring the introduction of a moratorium on buy-to-let properties by unqualified persons on new developments.\r\n\r\nIn relation to commercial rents, the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, while recognising the challenges faced by many businesses in Jersey, believes that rents are a function of the market and is not minded to introduce rent controls that might negatively impact on the supply and quality of commercial premises.","created_at":"2018-09-19T10:54:41.515Z","updated_at":"2018-09-19T10:54:41.515Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2019-03-12","transcript_url":"https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=C0080BA2-2796-4C64-8A46-568C1A3C5F58#_Toc3558587","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"https://www.jerseypolicyforum.org/static/files/JPF%20E-Petition%20Briefing%20Pack.pdf","overview":"General debate on the subject of rent controls and affordable housing in Jersey"}}}]}