{"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=with_response","first":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?state=with_response","last":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=2\u0026state=with_response","next":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions.json?page=2\u0026state=with_response","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":201163,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201163.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reconsider \u0026 reverse the decision to reduce funding for Jersey Employment Trust","background":"The States of Jersey have recently decided to cut the level of funding provided to the JET.  This decision places at risk vital services that support some of the Island’s most vulnerable members of the community.","additional_details":"JET supports people with learning difficulties, disabilities, and long-term health conditions to find and keep meaningful employment.  It also provides an essential social lifeline for individuals who may otherwise face isolation.\r\n \r\nCutting funding threatens independence, wellbeing, and inclusion for some of the Island’s most vulnerable people.  We call on the States of Jersey to recognise the value of JET and protect this vital service.","state":"open","signature_count":5332,"created_at":"2026-01-14T14:25:09.360Z","updated_at":"2026-05-12T10:39:51.524Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2026-01-15T14:27:54.539Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-14T16:10:03.866Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-15T21:01:52.261Z","ministers_response_at":"2026-02-06T14:31:52.286Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2026-01-19T09:32:11.454Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jamie cauvain","rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2026-02-06","summary":"Government will maintain its current level of support to JET throughout 2026, and will provide total funding of £2.74M, while discussions continue on a longer-term funding arrangement.","details":"On the 20th January 2026 it was announced that Government will maintain its current level of support to JET throughout 2026, and will provide total funding of £2.74M, while discussions continue on a sustainable, longer-term funding arrangement.\r\n\r\nThe base grant of £1.95M remained at existing levels for 2026 and had not been reduced. Following a meeting in December, JET had been due to receive £2.14M in taxpayer funding for 2026 to provide employment support services (this included a top-up for the first quarter of 2026).\r\n\r\nSound departmental financial management led to Departmental underspends that the Minister was able to redirect to JET via top-up funding, but it was made clear to the organisation that this was a temporary one-off amount to assist them and not part of the base budget. In December 2025, the Minister committed to do the same for Q1 2026.\r\n\r\nThe Government and community greatly value the services provided by JET and wants to ensure that, together, we continue to support vulnerable islanders. My team and I have been working with the Trust over the past year to clarify its ongoing role and to make sure the service can continue on a stable and sustainable footing. The old contract with JET expired at the end of 2025 and in many respects, it was out of date so needs to be revisited and updated to reflect current needs.\r\n\r\nI hope that the recent reassurances regarding 2026 funding will provide sufficient opportunity for Government to continue to work collaboratively with JET to develop a longer-term, fit for purpose funding arrangement. This will focus on:\r\n\r\n•  A revised contract for providing employment services to provide the support that best meets the needs of each individual client.\r\n•  An agreement on appropriate data sharing that enables us to move forward positively together. Government’s aim here is to work with JET to provide support that best meets the needs of each individual client. By sharing information on who is receiving employment services from JET, other services can be co-ordinated to fully support the overall needs of each person\r\n•  A JET Business Plan and subsequent evidence based Departmental Business Case: In January 2026, the commitment to retain JET funding at 2025 levels (£2.74m for 2026) was made. At this juncture, the departmental financial position required a reprioritisation of Departmental funding to make this commitment to JET, in the absence of forecast Departmental underspends providing any flexibility in 2026. Future funding prioritisation, therefore, must be subject to a JET Business Plan and subsequent evidence based Departmental Business Case to establish future sustainable funding for JET, in accordance with the Public Finances Manual. This is essential to ensure fiscally responsible decision-making and to evaluate proposed Government funding in a way that delivers the greatest benefit to Islanders across all services, within the constraints of limited departmental resources.\r\n\r\nThe focus from hereon needs to be on developing the above, so that JET can continue to do what they do best – providing employment support to Islanders with disabilities.","created_at":"2026-02-06T14:31:52.282Z","updated_at":"2026-02-06T14:31:52.282Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201124,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201124.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reintroduce mortgage allowance on personal tax","background":"Revenue Jersey has phased out the mortgage allowance on personal tax assessments. With the increase of Bank of England base rates, this allowance is needed now more than ever to give much needed financial relief for home owners paying high mortgages.","additional_details":"In 2017 the loan interest relief started being phased out. At the time the BoE base rate was between 0.25% and 0.50% and the economy was in a different place. \r\nFast forward to 2025, the reality is quite different. BoE is currently 4.25% and the loan interest tax relief should be reviewed to reflect the current economy.","state":"closed","signature_count":1911,"created_at":"2025-08-04T18:07:38.742Z","updated_at":"2026-02-07T00:00:00.766Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-08-06T09:31:00.178Z","closed_at":"2026-02-06T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-04T18:13:15.057Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-10-31T16:31:20.541Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-11-27T11:52:52.178Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-11-25","summary":"Mortgage Interest Tax Relief is likely to increase housing demand and – with no compensating increase in housing supply – is likely to be capitalised (at least partly) in higher house prices.","details":"Mortgage Interest Tax Relief (MITR) provides tax relief for homeowners paying interest on loans relating to the purchase or extension of their main residence. It is currently available to taxpayers entitled to marginal relief (around 90% of personal taxpayers), for 2025 only.\r\n\r\nThe MITR calculation has two restrictions. Firstly, it is restricted to a maximum capital balance of £300,000. The second restriction is a cap on the amount of interest relief available to an individual. In the year of assessment 2023, around 10,000 taxpayers made a claim for MITR, reducing government revenue by around £9m.\r\n\r\nInternational research has consistently shown that MITR:\r\n\r\n•\tsupports artificially high prices for housing that benefits current owners and creates unnecessarily high barriers to entry for new buyers; \r\n•\tencourages the use of debt, with potentially negative consequences for financial stability and household finances;\r\n•\tdrives a wedge between the costs of owner-occupation and the rental market that primarily disadvantages those on lower incomes and with less capital available to them;\r\n•\tprovides the largest benefits to those with the highest debt and the highest incomes; and\r\n•\tappears to be positively correlated to greater volatility in the housing market.\r\n\r\nBudget 2016 proposed a slow phasing out of the relief. It stated:\r\n“Research by the OECD and work by PWC for the Property Tax Review has pointed out that Mortgage Interest Tax Relief (MITR) is inefficient and counterproductive. There seems to be little supporting evidence for such subsidies, not least because they do not appear to impact on home ownership rates, and many advanced countries have consequentially removed such reliefs.\r\n\r\nMITR is likely to increase housing demand and – with no compensating increase in housing supply – is likely to be capitalised (at least partly) in higher house prices. It encourages higher mortgage debt and tends to be regressive in nature (although the distributional consequences are complex, particularly in Jersey where the relief is only available for marginal rate tax payers) and may be disadvantageous to first time buyers. In addition, such relief will distort households’ investment and consumption choices, working against economic efficiency.”\r\n\r\nBased on that research, the States Assembly agreed to phase out the relief starting from the year of assessment 2016. Initially, a cap of £15,000 on the relief was introduced. Since then, the cap has been reduced by £1,500 annually. \r\n\r\nIt is not clear at what level the petitioner envisions the allowance being reintroduced. In 2025, the last year the relief is available, the maximum available relief is £1,500. This equates to a reduction of around £390 in tax for the year.\r\nAs part of the Government’s response to cost-of-living pressures, Ministers have continually focused on helping all Islanders by increasing the personal tax thresholds, rather than providing a benefit only to homeowners with a mortgage at the expense of those who rent or own their home outright.\r\n\r\nMinisters remain committed to helping Islanders struggling with the cost of living and believe it is more prudent to focus their efforts on carefully targeted interventions, aimed at those who need most help. This will not be achieved by continuing a discriminatory relief that benefits those who are better off and may contribute to housing inflation.\r\n\r\nReintroducing mortgage interest relief would target relief disproportionately at those with the highest incomes at a cost to the taxpayer of a minimum of £9m each year.\r\n\r\nAlthough house prices are falling, and housing affordability is improving, any measure that could increase housing inflation and slow this progress, such as reintroducing MITR, would be to the detriment of the Island. MITR has been removed in the majority of OECD jurisdictions, including the UK, for these reasons.\r\n\r\nProperty in Jersey has consistently grown in value since records began. Those investing in property are therefore holding a significant asset, the capital value of which will continue to grow, upon which they are not taxed at the point of sale.\r\n \r\nFor these reasons, I do not propose to reintroduce MITR. ","created_at":"2025-11-27T11:52:52.169Z","updated_at":"2025-11-27T11:52:52.169Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201119,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201119.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Remove GST on food","background":"The cost to live is becoming very difficult for a lot of islanders so removing GST (Goods and Services Tax) would be a great help to everyone.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1693,"created_at":"2025-07-28T16:17:24.024Z","updated_at":"2026-02-01T00:00:22.713Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-07-31T11:25:17.812Z","closed_at":"2026-01-31T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-29T08:25:45.735Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-08-06T14:19:23.398Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-09-05T07:36:43.541Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-09-05","summary":"The States Assembly has debated this issue on at least eight occasions since 2005. In all cases, the Assembly has not supported the removal of GST on food. ","details":"The most recent debate was in 2022 (P.100/2022) when the proposition was defeated by 28 votes to 17. \r\n\r\nMaintaining a broad base of taxation with few exemptions is the key to preserving Jersey’s low rate of GST, one of the lowest in the world. It is also simpler to administer for businesses and Government.\r\n\r\nJersey’s low rate of GST on all goods and services, combined with generous personal income tax allowance and income-related benefits, keeps money in Islanders’ pockets and leaves spending choices to them. To balance the books and so maintain public services, lowering the GST rate on foodstuffs could mean raising the rate on other goods and services. Analysis undertaken by Treasury indicates that the GST rate on non-food goods and on services would need to be raised by roughly one percentage point (to 6%) to recover the revenue lost from removing GST on food. \r\n\r\nWhile some Ministers have expressed support for the removal of GST from food, the Minister for Treasury and Resources believes that a broad-based system remains the fairest and most sustainable approach. \r\n\r\nIf the States Assembly chose to reduce GST on food, this would indiscriminately remove tax for all Islanders. If retailers pass on the saving to consumers, a GST cut would benefit all households, including higher-income households, making it a poorly targeted tax cut. \r\n\r\nThe Minister for Treasury and Resources believes that the best way to help lower-income households manage the cost of living is through direct support. The Government does this through programmes such as Income Support; the Community Costs Bonus (which, at £516.50, is the equivalent of the annual GST on a weekly food shop of £198); the personal tax allowance – which is also higher than many comparable countries; and, where simple and right to do so, by providing items such as menstrual products for free.\r\n\r\nJersey’s standard GST rate of 5% is the same or lower than the reduced value-added tax (VAT) rate that many other countries apply to foodstuffs. For example, France’s reduced rate on food is 5.5%, with most EU Member States applying rates that are higher (the EU average VAT rate on basic foodstuffs is 10%).\r\n\r\nEvidence from targeted exemptions in other countries, most notably the UK, indicates that retailers do not always pass on reduced prices to the consumer. Given the wide variations in the prices of basic foodstuffs highlighted on the Jersey Consumer Council’s website, it is unlikely that removing GST from food in Jersey will lead to observable price reductions.\r\n\r\nGST exemptions will create administration costs for businesses, particularly smaller businesses, which makes price reductions less probable. The Government would also face a material increase in administrative costs from operating a multi-rate GST regime.\r\n\r\nFor all of these reasons, the Minister for Treasury and Resources does not propose bringing forward legislation to remove GST from food.\r\n","created_at":"2025-09-05T07:36:43.536Z","updated_at":"2025-09-05T07:36:43.536Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201109,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201109.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Restore \u0026 maintain the 128-year old Victoria Marine Lake (sea pool at West park)","background":"Victoria Marine Lake is a site of significant historical and cultural importance.  Dating from 1897, it is one of the largest in the British Isles and one of only two such pools in Jersey. The pool provides access to seawater swimming, especially during low tides when the sea can drop up to 1.5 km.","additional_details":"Despite some investment in the past, the pool has seen minimal maintenance over its 128-year history.  Since 2023, the sluice gates have remained open, effectively rendering the pool unusable.  In response, the newly formed “Save Our Pool Working Group” - comprising local stakeholders - is advocating for its restoration.\r\n\r\nVictoria Marine Lake predates the listed Havre des Pas pool by eight years, yet it remains unlisted and at risk.  Restoring the pool would preserve a vital piece of Jersey’s heritage while promoting health, leisure, and tourism.\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1523,"created_at":"2025-06-24T07:43:49.641Z","updated_at":"2025-12-28T00:00:00.688Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-06-27T12:17:29.336Z","closed_at":"2025-12-27T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-06-24T08:43:42.355Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-07-10T21:55:44.902Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-08-07T14:26:45.289Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-08-07","summary":"A project to bring the Marine Lake back into full operation in 2014 cost £315,000 and was unsuccessful. There was minimal public use of the pool, largely due to sea lettuce, which remains an issue. ","details":"The Victoria Marine Lake has not been fully operational for several decades, save for a few years from 2014. £315,000 was spent on repairs to the pool to bring it back into service in 2014 and more would be required now. \r\n\r\nRegrettably, the project to bring the pool back into full operation in 2014 was ultimately unsuccessful. There was minimal public use of the pool, and the Bosdet Foundation understandably withdrew from running the Marine Lake. It should be recognised that a major issue a decade ago was the existence of sea lettuce, and this is a factor that remains present in St Aubin’s Bay today. \r\n\r\nWith these points in mind, careful consideration needs to be given as to whether the restoration of the Victoria Marine Lake would be an effective and efficient use of public funds, given the risk and probable likelihood that the same issues that resulted in low use of the Marine Lake in 2014 would arise again. \r\nThe Government has made, and will continue to make, significant investments at the Havre des Pas Lido which is a short distance from West Park. There are also plans for a 50-metre outdoor pool on the Waterfront. The Marine Lake is a historic site, but it is questionable as to whether there is sufficient demand in 2025 that would justify the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money that would be needed to restore and maintain it on an ongoing basis. \r\n\r\nNevertheless, the Minister for Infrastructure remains open to discussions regarding the future of the Marine Lake. A commitment has been made to make the pool safe in the short-term, and enquiries have been made as to the potential to lower the wall in the areas where it is damaged. Initial discussions have indicated, however, that any such work would be of a similar cost to a full renovation. \r\nThe Minister and Assistant Minister would welcome any new interest from external parties who may wish to operate or provide co-investment in the Marine Lake. The Marine Lake would again be made available for lease in the appropriate circumstances. \r\n\r\nThe Minister for Infrastructure will attend a public meeting regarding the Victoria Marine Lake at the Old Magistrate’s Court in the Town Hall on 5th September. \r\n","created_at":"2025-08-07T14:26:45.282Z","updated_at":"2025-08-07T14:26:45.282Z"},"debate":null}},{"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":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":201071,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/201071.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Support ADHD Jersey to continue and expand the non-prescription service provided","background":"ADHD Jersey has been providing valuable support to individuals with ADHD in Jersey for the past three years. It would be unwise financially for the government to decline the recommendation for a specific hub, especially considering the significant demand for such services..","additional_details":"We kindly request your signature on this petition advocating for Deputy Tom Binet to reconsider his rejection of the ADHD hub. \r\n\r\nADHD Jersey is dedicated to supporting individuals awaiting a diagnosis, as well as those who have already received one. \r\n\r\nWe are in the process of training more facilitators to implement programs that have been shown to positively impact lives. \r\n\r\nWe urge the Government to assist ADHD Jersey in providing essential support to those in our community who require it. \r\n\r\nThank you for your consideration.","state":"closed","signature_count":2080,"created_at":"2025-02-04T10:38:46.405Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T00:00:40.489Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2025-02-04T15:07:53.553Z","closed_at":"2025-08-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2025-02-04T12:46:57.582Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2025-03-07T12:38:43.923Z","ministers_response_at":"2025-04-03T15:09:11.928Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2025-04-03","summary":"I am committed to enhancing ADHD services in Jersey, and I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the charitable and voluntary sector for the support they provide to islanders with ADHD. ","details":"Petition Response - Support ADHD Jersey to continue and expand the non-prescription service provided \r\n\r\nThank you for your petition regarding support for ADHD Jersey to continue and expand non-prescription services.  \r\n\r\nIn response to your request, I would first like to confirm that I am committed to developing the services available to people with ADHD in Jersey to better meet their needs, and recognise the specific challenges associated with this, currently.   \r\n\r\nMuch work has been done, and continues to be done, within our health and social care services in relation to this, and our soon-to-be-published Neuroinclusive Strategy will further this work and set out priorities for the next few years.   \r\n\r\nI am very grateful for the work that is being done by our charitable and voluntary sector partners to support both islanders diagnosed with ADHD and those seeking a diagnosis. Indeed, I have met with ADHD Jersey and other individuals and groups supporting and promoting Neuroinclusivity, and I am very impressed by their generosity, passion and commitment. \r\n\r\nHowever, the development of an ADHD hub needs to be planned and considered in the context of a rapidly evolving health and care system and is an idea that is expanded upon in the Neuroinclusive Strategy which will be progressed as this is implemented.   \r\n\r\nIt is also necessary for funding to be identified to support and maintain any such development, and, much as I would sincerely wish it to be otherwise, at present there really are no spare funds available within the Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) budget. It will, of course, continue to be reviewed as the implementation of the strategy is progressed.   \r\n\r\nFinally, I must also point out that, should we look to develop a new service (a hub, for example) there is a process that HCJ are required to follow to identify potential partner(s) to deliver services on behalf of HCJ.  A fundamental part of this process would be to ensure that potential service providers have the appropriate qualifications and registrations to safely and effectively deliver such services. \r\n\r\nOnce again, please be assured that I am fully aware of the pressures and need to develop services to assist islanders living with ADHD and those islanders seeking a diagnosis, and that work is under way as described above to support this. ","created_at":"2025-04-03T15:09:11.911Z","updated_at":"2025-04-03T15:09:11.911Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":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":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":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":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":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":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":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":200921,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200921.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Government to subsidise the costs of childcare to enable women to return to work","background":"With the cost of childcare at nearly £2000 per month (for ‘full-time’ at a nursery), we are seeing an impact on our Island’s workforce as many women are forced to leave their jobs.\r\n\r\n","additional_details":"According to a 2023 report, ‘Careers After Babies’, 85% of women leave full-time work within 3 years of having children. If the Government significantly subsidised childcare for children from 6 months of age, this would improve women’s ability to work.  \r\n\r\nWe are seeing the lowest birth rate in decades as families simply can’t afford to have more children but by subsidising childcare people will be encouraged to increase the size of their families as they will be in an improved financial position. This, in turn, will reduce the issues of an aging population.\r\n\r\nWe need to have a varied and representative workforce in our island and childcare costs are a huge factor in this and needs to be addressed.\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1834,"created_at":"2023-09-27T08:42:52.098Z","updated_at":"2024-09-29T23:00:18.126Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-09-29T09:11:57.587Z","closed_at":"2024-03-29T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-09-27T11:14:12.911Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-10-02T20:52:28.225Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-10-30T16:12:02.729Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-10-30","summary":"Given the importance of early years in child development, a balanced approach is required to ensure that the best interests of the child are met in addition to the needs of parents and the economy.","details":"The Government is committed to ensuring all children in Jersey have the best start in life. This includes Government subsidies for childcare. Our income tax system lets working parents claim the cost of childcare on their tax return, increasing the amount of income they can earn before they start paying tax. This includes payments to registered childcare providers such as child carers, day nurseries, and accredited nannies.\r\n\r\nThe maximum claim for the 2023 year of assessment is £18,300 for pre-school children; Government Plan 2024-2027 proposes to increase this to £19,700. The latest available data shows that there were around 2,300 claimants for the relief, equating to a £3 million childcare tax break annually, meaning the Government subsidises the costs of childcare by an average of £1,300 per claimant each year.\r\n\r\nThere are also a range of additional payments, grants and allowances targeted at the parents of young children. \r\n\r\nSince 2020, new (working) parents in Jersey are entitled to 52 weeks of parental leave of which 6 weeks is paid by their employer – this is a “day one” employment right. Leave can be taken in up to 3 blocks, during a 2-year period and is available to both adoptive and surrogate parents. The law has also been updated to allow time off to attend antenatal and adoption related appointments.\r\n\r\nEntitlements have also been extended in relation to breastfeeding breaks and facilities.\r\n\r\nIn terms of benefits (under the Social Security (Jersey) law 1974), these were enhanced in 2021 to extend the previous allowance and grant to include all parents i.e. not just birth mothers. Parents are able to claim up to 32 weeks of parental allowance, which can be split between the parents, as well as a one-off parental grant to help with some of the costs associated with preparing for a new baby.  Plans are underway to better promote the availability of parental leave to both fathers and mothers, to encourage a more equitable use of this entitlement.\r\n\r\nJersey provides financial support for childcare through income support for low income working parents (and a limited number of full-time students). Support is available from 0-11 years inclusive. Hours cover working commitments. Current support is £8.84 per hour for under 3 years olds and £7.40 per hour for ages 3-11 inclusive (https://www.gov.je/Benefits/IncomeSupport/pages/components.aspx). \r\n\r\nMore details can be found on the following pages: Parental and family support (https://www.gov.je/benefits/maternityfamilysupport/Pages/index.aspx), Child care tax relief (https://www.gov.je/TaxesMoney/IncomeTax/Individuals/AllowancesReliefs/pages/childcaretaxrelief.aspx). \r\n\r\nThe recommendations of the Early Years Policy Development Board (https://www.gov.je/Government/PolicyDevelopmentBoards/pages/earlyyearspolicydevelopmentboard.aspx) have started to be implemented with an increase in the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) hours offered to children aged 3-4yrs from September 2021 (see Summary of childcare support offered by Jersey below).\r\n\r\nIn the short term, the Government has responded to the increasing cost of living by providing additional financial support measures for the early years sector. An annual increase to the NEF of 8% was agreed and brought forward from the autumn term to the summer term 2023. This equates to up to £627 additional funding per child in 2023 (https://www.gov.je/News/2023/Pages/AdditionalFundingForEarlyYearsProviders.aspx).\r\n\r\nThis increases the expenditure of the NEF to approximately £3.25m in 2023 or just under £8,500 per child.\r\n\r\nAdditional funding has also been provided to increase the targeted childcare offer for children aged between 2-3 years old. This provides Part-time (up to 12 hours a week) nursery placements for children aged between 2-3 years old with a developmental or financial need. By the end of 2023, 97 children were on the Best Start Plus Nursery Funding Programme.\r\n\r\nResponding to the need for more childcare spaces, the Government has identified the importance of childminders in providing families with flexibility and choice of childcare arrangements. Financial support has been made available to incentivise people to become registered childminders. Additional funding has been made available to registered childminders in Jersey, to enable them to manage the pressures of cost of living expenses associated with providing a high-quality service.\r\n\r\nEmployment and economy \r\n\r\nThe above measures signify how important the sector is, not just to families, but to the economy as whole. Parents rely on having access to early years provision so that they can continue to work; meanwhile, children who receive high-quality care and early education will see the benefits throughout their lives. A balanced approach is required to ensure that the best interests of the child are met in addition to the needs of parents and the economy.\r\n\r\nEconomic activity data collected by Statistics Jersey shows that 84% of 16-64 year olds are economically active (in work or looking for work).\r\n\r\nThis compares to the UK economic activity rate of 79.1%. There are just 700 people actively seeking work – some of whom are working but might be looking to increase their hours.\r\n\r\nThe economic activity data would suggest that childcare availability and costs in Jersey are not acting as a barrier to work to the same extent as in the U.K.  However, it may be that childcare availability and costs affect parents’ decisions on hours worked such that ideally, some would want to work more hours / in a different role.   \r\n\r\nThe gender pay gap impacts on a family’s decision to either seek child care or for one or more parents/ family members to forgo paid employment to provide care in the home.  Work is underway on tackling the gender pay gap and the message to larger companies is that they are expected to start voluntarily publishing their gender pay gap data along with an action plan of how they will eradicate any identified gap.  While women across the majority of professions are still paid less on average than men, many families will still therefore make a rational economic decision for the mother to give up all or part of her paid employment in order to provide care for a child/children. \r\n\r\nClosing the gender pay gap would deliver further gains in female earnings of 12% in Jersey (£187m) (https://www.pwc.com/jg/en/publications/women-in-work-index.html).\r\n\r\nPolicy development\r\n\r\nThe 2023/24 priorities of the Children and Education Ministerial Team include identifying and implementing a high-quality model of early years services that is child centred, equitable, efficient, and affordable, that can deliver very good outcomes for all children and families (https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government and administration/Ministerial Plans 2024 to 27.pdf).  \r\n\r\nThe complexity of this challenge is considerable. Any changes to the sector need to make the best use of public funds and be in the best interests of children and families. The first phase of this work included a review by the ISOS Partnership of key messages from UK and international evidence on what an optimal early childhood education and childcare (ECEC) offer looks like for children’s wellbeing and development (https://www.gov.je/government/pages/statesreports.aspx?reportid=5697).  \r\n\r\nThis review highlights the importance of thinking about ECEC reform in the context of a child’s home environment (the most important influence) and broader context. Any reforms need to be considered as part of a wider system of support for families.\r\n\r\nMinisters are acutely aware of the contribution from both the private and third sectors to the success of any policy changes. We will continue to work with early years providers to understand and address the challenges of workforce pressures. Preparation is underway for the next phase of this work, with roundtable events to be held with key stakeholders to constructively examine policy options. \r\n\r\nSubsequent phases of this policy work will involve a cross-government approach working towards an offer for families to be able to better access either parental leave or affordable high-quality childcare for children younger than 2 years of age.\r\n\r\nSummary of childcare support offered by Jersey (comparison to ‘Glossary 2 – terms related to childcare payments’ – https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/Resource%20Library/Childcare%20Survey%202023_Coram%20Family%20and%20Childcare.pdf)\r\n•\t2 year olds: Part-time (up to 12 hours a week) nursery placements for children aged between 2-3 years old with a developmental or financial need at two (https://jcct.org.je/programmes/nursery-funding-programme/). Funded by JCCT with additional support from Early Years COVID Recovery programme. \r\nSpecial Needs Inclusion Programme available from birth to school age, who have an additional need and are accessing a private nursery or preschool setting (https://jcct.org.je/programmes/inclusion-programme/)\r\n•\t3 to 4 year-olds: Free Government funded nursery education in the school year the child turns four years old. \r\nUp to 30 hours’ free nursery education each week, for 38 weeks, during school term-time only, from the beginning of the school year (September) (https://www.gov.je/education/preschool/pages/nurseryeducation.aspx). Universal offer irrespective of working status of parents.\r\n•\tChild care tax relief\r\n•\tIncome support ","created_at":"2023-10-30T16:12:02.722Z","updated_at":"2023-10-30T16:16:05.901Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200887,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200887.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reverse the decision to add GST to all Amazon orders","background":"We run a self-funded rescue animal charity and paying 5% more on Amazon and eBay orders will add to our costs and is wrong. There are people in this island who are struggling with their own food costs, rents etc. this will only cause more worry. ","additional_details":"Think about those who don’t own their own properties. We are in a private rental, so we pay high rent for everything - the house, fields, sheds and feed for our animals etc. Many more animals are being rehomed as people are being forced to give them up although having animals is good for a person’s mental health. Unfortunately, we will be unable to continue to keep feeding and looking after these animals. GST should not be charged on orders that cost less than £60.00.","state":"closed","signature_count":3296,"created_at":"2023-06-23T12:27:27.013Z","updated_at":"2024-07-03T23:00:27.681Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-07-03T09:16:22.523Z","closed_at":"2024-01-03T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-28T11:06:52.307Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-07-08T11:43:05.132Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-08-04T07:13:16.146Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-08-03","summary":"The GST Law already allows registered charities to reclaim all GST paid to any suppliers, incurred in the course and furtherance of their charitable aims.  \r\n\r\n","details":"The GST Law already allows registered charities to reclaim all GST paid to any suppliers, incurred in the course and furtherance of their charitable aims.  \r\n\r\nIt would not be appropriate to provide a GST exemption solely for goods sourced from one named retailer as that would be discriminatory and susceptible to legal challenge by all other retailers. \r\n\r\nThe recent change to oblige larger offshore retailers to register for GST (and so charge GST at the point of purchase) fulfils a long-standing commitment of Governments since GST was introduced in 2007 to help “level the playing field” between domestic and offshore retailers.  Affected retailers were given a year’s notice (later extended by a further six months) to make systems changes – that is since before the Ukraine war started and precipitated the current cost-of-living crisis.  Ministers will continue to consider the best ways to support islanders in these difficult times.\r\n\r\nThe previous position (where offshore retailers did not have to register for GST) was only tenable while they did not have the capabilities to charge Jersey GST.  That situation changed in 2021 following UK and EU moves to require large retailers to charge VAT at the rate in force in the countries of destination of goods and to pay that tax over to the relevant national treasuries.  Having accommodated changes in the UK and EU, the marginal cost of doing the same for Jersey made economic sense.\r\n\r\nCollection of GST by offshore retailers means the goods will proceed through customs smoothly, as there is no longer a requirement for tax to be collected at the border and checked through ‘CAESAR.’\r\n \r\nThe GST De Minimis level of £60 (from 1 July) remains to assist Customs Officers in clearing lower-value consignments through Customs expeditiously, from offshore retailers not required to register (those with less than £300K turnover in Jersey). \r\n\r\nWhere islanders buy goods from offshore retailer who are not GST-registered, they are liable to pay GST on goods valued at £60 or higher in the normal way.  ","created_at":"2023-08-04T07:13:16.142Z","updated_at":"2023-08-04T07:13:16.142Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200885,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200885.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop lowering speed limits","background":"Speed limits are set to be reduced again on up to 50 roads across 5 parishes (Trinity, St. John, St. Mary, St Peter, and St. Lawrence), this is further to 59 roads in St. Helier and 68 roads in St. Saviour in September and November 2021. \r\n\r\n","additional_details":"This repeated change to speed limits is causing disruption and confusion and needs to stop.","state":"closed","signature_count":1830,"created_at":"2023-06-13T19:08:12.590Z","updated_at":"2024-06-20T23:00:15.900Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-06-20T06:01:26.363Z","closed_at":"2023-12-20T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-13T19:27:14.906Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-30T19:00:56.844Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-07-31T13:08:04.861Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-07-31","summary":"Historically, Jersey’s speed limits have evolved on a reactive basis and have not always been applied coherently and consistently to roads of similar character. ","details":"Historically, Jersey’s speed limits have evolved on a reactive basis and have not always been applied coherently and consistently to roads of similar character, reducing the legibility of the road network to drivers. \r\n\r\nRecognising this, in 2016 the Minister for Infrastructure along with the Comité des Connétables, the Parish and States Police agreed a framework for speed limits across Jersey, which as lodged with the States Assembly (R.132/2016). The Framework can be found at https://www.gov.je/Travel/Roads/Pages/FrameworkSpeedLimit.aspx, this generally follows national best practice.\r\n\r\nEffective speed management is a key part of creating a road environment in which all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, etc. feel welcome and safe. Such measures support active travel in line with States’ policy, and just as importantly will provide a greater perception of safety and a more comfortable living environment for communities. \r\n\r\nAs well as being a legal limit, speed limits are a key source of information to guide road users as to the nature of the road environment they are moving within and what risks are posed to themselves and to all other road users. This is particularly pertinent for visiting motorists.\r\n\r\nThe Infrastructure and Environment Department has been working systematically with each of the Parishes in turn to review their speed limits and lower them where appropriate, in line with the Framework. The aim being to achieve a uniform approach and methodology to setting reasoned speed limits across the Island that the public understand and are generally willing to support. The current public consultation is part of that programme.\r\n\r\nIt is worth bearing in mind that a majority of proposed speed reductions occur within Village settings (or where there is an established road safety issue). Therefore one aspect of the review is to minimise the need for signing, for example matching the speed of residential side roads to that of the main road where the main road speed limit is being reduced, to avoid sign clutter at the junction. This accounts for many of the roads listed in the current proposals.\r\n\r\nUsing Speed Limits to address Road Safety\r\n\r\nIn Jersey, vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrian, cyclists, motorcycle and moped riders, etc.) form 64.2% of all road traffic accident casualties, and 81.8% of all those Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI). These proportions are significantly higher than those in Great Britain where vulnerable road users comprise 36.0% of overall casualties, with powered two-wheelers and pedal cycles combined comprising about a fifth of all KSI casualties. This discrepancy between Jersey and Great Britain highlights the need to focus on ways of reducing casualty rates among vulnerable road users and the severity of outcomes, the selective lowering speed limits is part of this.  \r\n\r\nStudies have shown that if hit at an impact speed of 50km/h (31.1mph), a pedestrian has a 29% risk of fatality, this reduces to 13% at an impact speed of 40km/h (24.9mph) and further to 5% at 30km/h (18.6mph). Speed reductions have also been shown to reduce cycling injury risk, with a study finding that 20mph roads have a 21% reduced chance of injury when compared with 30mph roads. \r\nBy comparing collision rates in St Helier (within the ring road) before and after the current 20mph speed limit was introduced in 2019 (excluding the period where Covid restrictions were in place), there has been a 35% reduction in the number of collisions in which people were injured. This compares to around 26% across the rest of the Island in a similar period.\r\n","created_at":"2023-07-31T13:08:04.859Z","updated_at":"2023-07-31T13:08:04.859Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200877,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200877.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Preserve Jersey's Mail Plane: Sign Petition to Safeguard Our Future and Economy.","background":"The potential cancellation of the daily mail plane service to Jersey threatens to disrupt our way of life, isolate businesses, and dismantle critical air freight infrastructure. \r\n","additional_details":"This service underpins commerce and air freight and, without it, the Island would lag behind in logistics and face the risk of reduced competitiveness and diminished resilience. The discontinuation of this service would threaten Jersey's economic vigour and connectivity and would be felt by all - from individuals to businesses.\r\n \r\nWe need a unified voice. Sign the petition to defend Jersey's future. The Government of Jersey must take action to protect Islanders’ interests and to ensure this vital service is maintained.","state":"closed","signature_count":1665,"created_at":"2023-05-23T16:00:32.102Z","updated_at":"2024-05-24T23:00:13.539Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-05-24T12:26:54.115Z","closed_at":"2023-11-24T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-05-24T07:24:25.206Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-06-18T20:15:20.186Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-06-30T14:51:37.289Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-06-30","summary":"The withdrawal of Royal Mail’s mail plane would have almost no impact on inbound deliveries to the Island because, with the exception of special delivery items, these are already delivered by sea. ","details":"The withdrawal of Royal Mail’s mail plane would have almost no impact on inbound deliveries to the Island because, with the exception of special delivery items, these are already delivered by sea. \r\n\r\nThis includes Amazon, HelloFresh, and Mindful Chef deliveries. Indeed Jersey Post is recognised as an exemplary service partner by Amazon, with 99% of deliveries delivered within or before the due date via the sea route.\r\nThis notwithstanding, I fully appreciate the difficult position many local online retailers and fulfilment companies will face if Royal Mail withdraws its daily mail plane service. \r\n\r\nI have been meeting Jersey Post and local online retailers and fulfilment companies to understand the potential effects that any withdrawal of the mail plane service might have, and I have written to Royal Mail to convey the concerns of local businesses as part of its consultation process.\r\n\r\nI am encouraged that Jersey Post understands the likely impact these decisions could have on the local economy and that the company has been actively working with the sector and other affected stakeholders, such as Durrell, to find alternative solutions and minimise any disruption to its customers and ensure Jersey remains an attractive jurisdiction for online retail businesses.","created_at":"2023-06-30T14:51:37.286Z","updated_at":"2023-06-30T14:51:37.286Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200859,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200859.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce 20 hours free childcare for children from 9 months old.","background":"Being around other children is a key aspect in their development, with their early years being the most important. Many parents remain at home for long periods of time, unable to work or introduce their young children to other babies on a daily basis.","additional_details":"Many parents give up work until their child is 3 as they are unable to afford to go back to work due to childcare costs. There are many people who would return to work and their tax contributions would cover the child care costs. \r\n\r\nBeing around other children will allow them to develop social skills and assist their development from an early age.","state":"closed","signature_count":1822,"created_at":"2023-03-16T18:40:02.929Z","updated_at":"2024-03-21T00:00:19.315Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-03-20T14:06:20.432Z","closed_at":"2023-09-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-16T18:58:29.991Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-22T17:47:29.833Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-04-19T08:49:00.757Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-04-19","summary":"It is a Ministerial priority to ensure families have access to high quality early years education and childcare, to deliver the best outcomes for children in this critical time for child development.","details":"One of the Minister for Children and Education’s priorities includes identifying and implementing a model of early years services that is high quality, equitable and affordable that can deliver good outcomes for all children and families.  Ultimately, the aim is to provide an equitable offer, ensuring that all children in Jersey have access to quality early childhood education and childcare (ECEC).\r\n\r\nThe Minister has ensured a continued focus and prioritisation of Early Years by formally delegating the political responsibility to her Assistant Minister Deputy Louise Doublet.\r\n\r\nIn 2023 the Minister will continue to actively consider provider architecture, sustainable funding models and workforce implications for Early Years. \r\nThis includes financial implications for the Government Plan 2024-27 and assessing how early years funding is spent and how well this supports the outcomes for children. \r\n\r\nThe petition for the introduction of 20 hours free childcare from 9 months old would require a considerable programme of work. It is important to ensure any future model of early years is right for Jersey. This includes engagement with local early years providers to understand and address the current challenges of workforce pressures. We know that the sector is currently under strain due to the increased cost of living and difficulties in recruitment. In recent years, three local early years settings have closed, seeing a loss of approximately 75 children’s spaces. Currently most, if not all, private settings are full, many with waiting lists until September 2024. Working parents tend to choose private settings due to the extended hours provided all year round. School nursery settings offer reduced opening hours during term time only. Regulations for staffing arrangements also differ across settings, with school nursery settings required to have at least one member of staff who has qualified teacher status. \r\n\r\nTo ensure any additional programme’s success and sustainability a phased approach to implementation will be required. This could include consolidating a targeted offer for 2–3-year-olds as a first step. A targeted offer is already in place for this cohort, funded by the Jersey Child Care Trust with additional time limited funding from Early Years COVID Recovery programme (part-time - up to 12 hours a week - nursery placements for children aged between 2-3 years old with a developmental or financial need at two).  \r\n\r\nThe Special Needs Inclusion Programme is available from birth to school age, for children who have an additional need and are accessing a private nursery or preschool setting.  Providing sustainable Government funding would provide funding stability for the voluntary sector in the targeted offer available for 2-3 year olds. \r\n\r\nEarly childhood education and childcare (ECEC)\r\n\r\nThere is a balance between childcare and early education. There is a case for increased early education for 3-4 years olds – this taking place in a school setting with qualified teaching staff. \r\n\r\nThere is also an identified gap within education settings in their ability to offer affordable wraparound (childcare) to enable working parents to easily access early education within this setting. Increasing the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) from 20 to 30 hours saw a number of parents choosing to stay in private settings due to increased hours and all year-round availability of care. Flexibility is a key factor in enabling parents to return to work. Childminders may be able to provide some of the flexibility required. \r\n\r\nEvidence-based programmes for early years\r\n\r\nDuring 2023 the Minister has committed to an increased focus on delivering evidence-based programmes for early years, including Government of Jersey supporting targeted childcare for 2–3year-olds, and an integrated development review for 3 years olds.  Ensuring families get the right help at the right time and that information is easily available and accessible is important. A new webpage and social media page for children and families, including a list of registered childcare, holiday clubs and activities, parenting programmes and support details in one place have been published.  Everyone in Jersey can download the ‘50 things to do before you’re five’ app for free. The app includes 50 fun, low cost or free activities that help to promote positive health and wellbeing habits with your child.  Recognising the importance of communication and language in the early years continues to be prioritised. Programmes are in place with Jersey Library and Every Child Our Future (ECOF) to increase literacy levels and enjoyment through all ages of our population. There are weekly events taking place at the Jersey Library to encourage early social and literacy skills for babies, toddlers and their parents or carers.  \r\n\r\nIn addition, the Learning at Home website has been designed to support parents and carers with their child’s learning and includes specific guidance and resources for 3- to 5-year-olds. \r\n\r\nVoice of the young child\r\n\r\nFurther action to be taken by the Minister includes establishing ways to meaningfully involve and engage children and young people in delivering improvements to services by developing participation standards across Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) and introducing accountability and governance structures. The Participation standards will be developed for and with the early childhood sector to ensure that the voices of all children, including those who are pre-verbal or non-verbal are listened to by adults who care for them, enabling them to respond appropriately to how babies and young children are feeling. A toolkit to support the early years sector has been developed and is currently being reviewed by the Best Start Partnership prior to implementation.\r\n\r\nVoice of parents and carers \r\n\r\nA balanced approach is required to ensure that the best interests of the child are met in addition to the needs of parents and the economy. This petition demonstrates local interest in extending the hours of free childcare provided. We will continue to consult with parents and carers as this policy work develops. \r\n\r\nSummary\r\n\r\nThe early years are a critical time in child development. Providing quality affordable early childhood education and childcare, which delivers the best possible outcomes for children in Jersey, is one of the Minister’s priorities. Consolidation of the existing targeted offer for 2–3-year-olds is the first step. Ongoing engagement across all key stakeholders will ensure any future model of early years is right for Jersey. An agreed approach to funding by both private and the public sector would need support by the Council of Ministers and the States Assembly as part of a future Government Plan.\r\n","created_at":"2023-04-19T08:49:00.754Z","updated_at":"2023-04-19T08:49:00.754Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200856,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200856.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the removal of sports facilities from Fort Regent","background":"New campaign group, Friends of Fort Regent, would like the States of Jersey to pause the removal of sports facilities from Fort Regent and review the decision to remove sports facilities from the Fort.","additional_details":"We believe that these facilities are an essential part of the local community and that they play a critical role in promoting health, wellness, and physical fitness among people of all ages and abilities. \r\n\r\nPlease support our petition to keep Fort Regent as a sports and community centre for the people of Jersey.","state":"closed","signature_count":2615,"created_at":"2023-03-05T13:58:42.322Z","updated_at":"2024-03-07T00:00:46.017Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2023-03-06T12:25:08.373Z","closed_at":"2023-09-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-05T16:26:35.087Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2023-03-10T13:46:37.285Z","ministers_response_at":"2023-03-31T10:47:28.338Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2023-03-31","summary":"Sports are being relocated to more modern, more accessible, fit-for-purpose facilities in the community to modernise provision and enable Fort Regent to be redeveloped.","details":"Sports are being relocated to more modern, more accessible, fit-for-purpose facilities in the community to modernise provision and enable Fort Regent to be redeveloped.\r\n\r\nDetailed response\r\n\r\nThe relocation of sports facilities to keep islanders active has been underway for some three years. The delivery of new, modern, fit-for-the-future sports venues is the aim of the Inspiring Active Places strategy. This plan has been widely shared with current Fort Regent tenants and discussed and negotiated over an extended period. It was also informed by consultation with sports clubs and associations and islanders more generally. \r\n \r\nThe strategy recognises that Fort Regent as it currently stands is now beyond the end of its useful life from a sport perspective. The building is outdated and uneconomic to run. It is also acknowledged that, from a health and fitness perspective, Fort Regent’s location at which to improve the level of health and fitness activities of people living and working in St Helier or the wider island is a challenge. In addition, none of the spaces are designed specifically for fitness or health activities.\r\n \r\nA range of sports and activities is accommodated at Fort Regent and the Government has been working to ensure the continuity of provision. Clubs and activities are being relocated to new, often specially-designed facilities elsewhere in the Government sport estate or in better locations in the community. This has been carefully timed so that moves only occur when new developments are open or via temporary facilities.\r\n \r\nFor example, when further new facilities come online,the mixed martial arts clubs will have access to state-of-the-art dojos at Oakfield sports centre and a new permanent gymnastics provision will also be available at this venue. The timescales for these sports leaving Fort Regent is directly linked to the completion of the construction of expanded facilities elsewhere, and they will continue to be able to use Fort Regent until new facilities are available.\r\n \r\nFor many years, sports that decided to move to Fort Regent were retro fitted into locations and spaces which today would not meet modern standards required, specifically building standards and the requirements of national governing bodies in terms the levels of activity or intensity being undertaken.  \r\n \r\nIt is therefore right to be moving sport out of the Fort for the time being and to be making long overdue investment in sport to make improvements and provide new, fit-for-purpose facilities to meet the current and future demands of sporting islanders. The Government recognises that modern, accessible sports facilities are a vital component in improving the health and wellbeing of islanders. There may still be a place for sport at the Fort in the future in order to deliver on that. \r\n \r\nTo maximise the potential of the historic fort structure major refurbishment works are required. This is best achieved once the building has been vacated. It will then be a blank canvas for redevelopment. Ministers remain committed to agreeing a way forward for Fort Regent which makes use of the landmark building in future in a way that is realistic, affordable and sustainable.\r\n\r\nDeputy Lucy Stephenson\r\nAssistant Minister with responsibility for Sports Facilities","created_at":"2023-03-31T10:47:28.332Z","updated_at":"2023-03-31T10:47:28.332Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200835,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200835.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make fireworks with a ‘bang’ illegal in Jersey to prevent the stress of animals.","background":"It is possible to enjoy the beauty of fireworks without the ‘bang’ which causes unnecessary stress and pain to innocent animals across the island. \r\nWe can still enjoy the spectacular visuals of fireworks without the big noise which torments lovely animals.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2639,"created_at":"2022-11-06T00:32:09.166Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T11:36:36.378Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-11-08T10:43:05.527Z","closed_at":"2023-05-08T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-11-06T19:43:21.489Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-11-10T18:53:53.306Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-12-09T15:02:09.267Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-12-09","summary":"The Minister would like to see greater controls on the availability of fireworks and will bring proposals to that effect in the form of revised regulations during her term of office.","details":"The current situation \r\n\r\nPyrotechnic devices (fireworks) are divided into four categories of increasing size, from ‘F1’, including indoor fireworks and sparklers etc, to large display fireworks in category ‘F4’. This classification is based on the hazard that each type of firework poses to the public. That hazard assessment does not rely upon the volume of noise generated as there is no maximum volume for each category. The single point of limitation is that the maximum permitted volume for any firework available to the public is 120 decibels (dB).\r\n\r\nCurrently, members of the public can purchase fireworks in a wide range of sizes and types from category F1 to F3 for several weeks per year in the run-up to bonfire night. \r\n\r\nJersey imports fireworks almost exclusively from the UK, which does not distinguish between fireworks by decibel level (although all items meet the 120dB max criteria). Although it is reasonable to assume that F3 fireworks will be louder than F1, there is no rule that this must be the case. In addition, where fireworks are packaged together (such as in a selection box), they are likely to be a mix of loud, quiet and silent types designed to offer a range of experience. There is no standardised labelling or categorisation to distinguish between loud, quieter and silent fireworks.\r\n\r\nEffect of ban \r\n\r\nIt is therefore unlikely that any ban on fireworks over a specific level of noise could be enforced without banning most publicly available types. There may also be limitations on what ‘spectacular visuals’ can be achieved without generating an audible explosion to distribute pyrotechnic material . \r\n\r\nSome retailers do offer a restricted range of ‘low noise’ fireworks. However, ‘quiet’, ‘low noise’ and ‘silent’ are not recognised terms in the relevant legislation in the UK or Jersey, so although ‘silent fireworks’ typically have a lower noise level of 70dB to 90dB, in reality these terms offer no certainty about the noise generated.\r\n\r\nFuture plans\r\n\r\nBefore the pandemic the Government of Jersey published a consultation on proposed Regulations to be made under the Explosives (Jersey) Law 2014. The Minister has committed to bring those Regulations forward in her Ministerial Plan. These Regulations would modernise arrangements relating to the importation, manufacture, storage, possession, supply, retail, use, transport and export of fireworks and other pyrotechnic articles. \r\n\r\nThe proposed Regulations would strengthen controls on the supply, possession and use of fireworks, but as drafted they do not make specific distinction between quiet and loud fireworks for the reasons above.  \r\n\r\nTherefore, while the Minister shares the concerns of the petitioners in relation to the inconvenience and distress that noisy fireworks can cause to vulnerable people and animals, she cannot support this petition, as there is no clear mechanism to allow ‘loud’ fireworks to be banned. \r\n\r\nHowever, although she considers that a balance must be found between the right of people and animals to peaceful enjoyment and the right of individuals to celebrate events, there is certainly a strong argument that current regulatory arrangements are insufficient, and she does not support the current permissive arrangements for the direct sale of fireworks to the public.\r\n\r\nShe would like to see greater controls on the availability of fireworks, especially the larger and (most likely) louder types and will bring proposals to that effect in the form of revised Regulations during her term of office. \r\n\r\nNotes\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F1 fireworks are intended for use in a closed space, including fireworks intended for use outside residential buildings\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F2 fireworks are intended for use outside residential buildings in a closed space\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F3 fireworks are intended for use outside residential buildings in a large open space\r\n\r\n•\tCategory F4 fireworks are exclusively intended for persons with specialised knowledge, often called \"fireworks for professional usage\".\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2022-12-09T15:02:09.260Z","updated_at":"2022-12-09T15:56:41.812Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":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":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":200775,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200775.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Independent inspection of all health facilities, including community care","background":"Commission an immediate full inspection, by the Care Quality Commission, of Jersey General Hospital, Overdale and Orchard House and all other services provided by Health and Community Services and should include buildings, services, policies, the Jersey Care Model and staff qualifications. ","additional_details":"The inspection should extend to care in the community.\r\n\r\nThe Jersey General Hospital may be operating in an unsafe environment and has not been fully independently inspected for very many years. \r\n\r\nThis is contrary to anything which would be allowed in the UK or most places in the world. \r\n\r\nThe people of Jersey deserve to know that they are getting the best services available. \r\n\r\nPartial inspections of a few departments is not good enough.\r\n\r\nInspection should include governance and policies relating to follow on patient care after discharge.","state":"closed","signature_count":1864,"created_at":"2022-01-24T20:25:49.112Z","updated_at":"2023-08-08T08:46:44.966Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2022-01-28T14:23:28.835Z","closed_at":"2022-07-28T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2022-01-25T10:54:18.170Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2022-02-06T10:32:16.033Z","ministers_response_at":"2022-03-07T08:34:37.430Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2022-03-07","summary":"The Minister for Health and Social Services supports regulation and independent inspection of hospital services.","details":"The Minister for Health and Social Services supports regulation and independent inspection of hospital services and work is being brought forward to bring the full inspection of hospital and associated services within the remit of the independent Jersey Care Commission.     \r\n\r\nIndependent inspection of services is vital to providing assurance about the quality, safety and effectiveness of health and social care. The Minister and the Health and Community Services Department (HCS) welcome such scrutiny. They recognise the role that inspection plays in helping ensure that Islanders receive the best quality care and are protected from potential harm. \r\nFurthermore, they recognise that inspection by an independent body is central to maintaining public confidence in services. \r\nThe Regulation of Care (Jersey) Law 2014 (“the 2014 Law”), which established the Jersey Care Commission (“Care Commission”) as Jersey’s own independent care regulator, came into force in 2019. From the outset, the States Assembly agreed that hospital services would fall under the remit of the Care Commission but that a phased approach would be taken with hospital services regulation being provided for at a later date. As set out at the time, it was provisionally intended that hospital services would be regulated after care homes, home care services and adult day care services – which have been regulated since late 2019 – plus children and adult social work services. \r\nThe Minister for Health and Social Services recognises, however, that there are legitimate calls for an earlier inspection of hospital services as demonstrated by the level of public support for this petition. The Minister supports regulation and independent inspection and since the launch of the petition he has consulted both the Council of Ministers and the Care Commission and agreed with them that work should commence in the coming weeks on extending the provisions of the 2014 Law to hospital and associated services. \r\nThis will place providers of those services under a legal requirement to register with the Care Commission in order that the Care Commission may undertake independent inspections.\r\nIf the proposal to extend the provisions of the 2014 Law is adopted by the States Assembly, it will be the responsibility of the Care Commission to determine how hospital inspections are delivered. This may include contracting with UK-based inspectors, such as the Care Quality Commission, to undertake the work. Contracting with UK inspectors is an established model of working; the Care Commission has previously contracted Ofsted – the UK’s independent inspector of schools and children’s services – to undertake inspections on its behalf.\r\nProviding for inspections that are planned, managed and overseen by the Care Commission under a legal framework has distinct advantages over the Government of Jersey directly contracting with a UK inspector such as the Care Quality Commission as proposed in the petition. These advantages include:\r\n•\tassurance of independence: the Care Commission, and not the Government of Jersey, will control the inspection process, will set the inspection brief and will determine which services should be inspected in what order. Islanders will know that their services are independently inspected against standards established in law, as opposed to inspected by external inspectors who would not have statutory powers, such as rights of entry onto premises and to require disclosure of information;\r\n•\tpowers to direct improvements required:  as inspections will happen under a legislative framework, the Care Commission will be able to issue improvement notices thereby setting out what must be done within a given timeframe. Failure to comply with improvement notices will be an offence. In the event that the Government of Jersey was to directly commission UK inspectors, those inspectors could do no more than make recommendations;\r\n•\tremit to inspect and impose requirements on services beyond those directly provided by Government: the Care Commission will have the remit to register and inspect services other than just government-provided services. This will provide greater assurance and protection for Islanders.\r\n  \r\nThe Jersey Care Commission is independent of Government. This independence is enshrined in Article 36 of the 2014 Law which prohibits Ministers or, by extension, Government officers from directing the activities of the Commission or interfering in any inspection process. \r\nIt is anticipated that the necessary legislative provisions will be lodged for debate by the States Assembly in 2023 allowing for the Care Commission to independently register and inspect hospital and associated services from 2024.  \r\nThere will be opportunities for full public consultation as the legislative provisions are developed. \r\nIn the intervening period, the Care Commission will be preparing to undertake an independent survey to better understand patients’ experience of HCS’s services. The information and learning that arises from that survey will help inform future inspections. \r\nHCS is committed to openness and transparency and, whilst work is underway to bring forward a regime of statutory inspection, the Department will continue to publish its quarterly Quality and Performance Report setting out how its services are meeting quality and performance standards; will remain subject to specific service inspections, such as those related to pathology and radiology services; and will continue to engage in assurance processes such as the Jersey Nursing Assessment and Accreditation System.\r\nhttps://www.gov.je/government/pages/statesreports.aspx?reportid=5475\r\nFurthermore, the Care Commission will continue to inspect the HCS services that are currently regulated under the 2014 Law such as its care homes and day care centres https://carecommission.je/inspection-reports/","created_at":"2022-03-07T08:34:37.427Z","updated_at":"2022-03-07T08:34:37.427Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200754,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200754.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Have a radiotherapy unit in the new hospital","background":"It is hard dealing with cancer without the added physical and emotional distress of travelling to the UK for treatment.  I had 7 and 8 year old boys. I flew home every weekend to see them. It was so tough. 17 years later I was there again. I got very ill and was scared. I needed my loved ones.","additional_details":"Jersey desperately needs a radiotherapy unit. It can service the whole Channel Islands. Patients who travel for treatment are put up in an apartment. This can be very lonely if one is feeling unwell and unable to get out and about. Not everyone is able to have someone with them. You also have to cook your own meals. Again not everyone is well enough to do this.","state":"closed","signature_count":3449,"created_at":"2021-10-29T07:58:18.900Z","updated_at":"2023-08-08T08:26:41.619Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-11-02T11:56:03.199Z","closed_at":"2022-05-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-29T15:13:52.622Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-11-04T20:23:42.221Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-12-10T09:43:37.720Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-12-09","summary":"“I have requested a full business case to consider the possibility of providing Radiotherapy on-island because I wish to bring this to Jersey if it is safe for patients and we can afford to do so.”","details":"I am aware of the negative impact of off-island travel for patients and their loved ones when they are already coping with an illness. Sometimes, there can also be waiting times for off-island treatment which can add extra stress at an already worrying time.\r\n\r\nThe possibility of offering radiotherapy on-island is something which I am keen to investigate and, for this reason, scoping work to be developed into a full business case is being carried out over the next few months. \r\n\r\nThe provision of radiotherapy is an area of medicine which requires great clinical expertise and islanders currently undergo treatment in the UK at a specialist centre to ensure their treatment is carried out at the highest level. We need to ensure that clinical safety and patient outcomes are always at the forefront of further considerations.\r\n\r\nCurrently, approximately 150 patients from Jersey a year receive radiotherapy in the UK and we know that some patients choose not to undergo that treatment because of the difficulties of travel and separation from their families. It is therefore likely that the potential demand for on-island therapy is higher than the current off-island activity.\r\n\r\nIn September 2021 a working group was established. The group discussed the possibility of radiotherapy treatment on-island and potential considerations to undertake. The group requested that information across a number of areas was brought together to inform the decision to move to a full business case. A pre-feasibility study was therefore conducted. \r\n\r\nThe pre-feasibility study highlighted the rationale for investigating the option of on-island provision and highlighted four key areas to consider in further detail in a full business case. \r\n\r\nThese are: 1) personal needs and outcomes; 2) clinical safety (including workforce availability, resilience of the unit and backups, safe application of a range of treatment on island, assurance on quality of the unit and clinical use); 3) finance (including detailed demand and capacity data, capital and on-going revenue costs) and 4) location and set-up of the unit (including co-location /separate location options, power supply and infrastructure).\r\n\r\nThe group made the decision to move to a full business case to give greater clarity and information on these four key areas and to provide options for a future decision on this topic. \r\n\r\nI have asked that the business case be presented to me by the end of March 2022.\r\n\r\nIt is important to note that should a radiotherapy service be offered in the future in Jersey, some patients would still need to be referred for treatment in the UK, including patients being treated for head and neck cancers. This is because the treatment of those cancers is very specialist and therefore must be provided in a specialist centre.\r\n\r\nWe want patients to get their treatment on-island where possible, but we need to make sure that treatment is safe and resilient, it is high quality and the outcome for patients is as good as anywhere else. \r\n","created_at":"2021-12-10T09:43:37.717Z","updated_at":"2021-12-10T09:43:37.717Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200727,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200727.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reinstate Samares Ward to its full complement of 28 beds and previous services.","background":"The rehabilitation ward has been reduced from 28 beds to just 12 beds and the services offered greatly reduced. This is not in line with the National Clinical Guidelines for stroke rehabilitation. Ensure that the new hospital reinstates the full services within it which we previously had in place.","additional_details":"According to the data from the National Clinical Guidelines for stroke rehabilitation, Jersey can expect a minimum of 250 people presenting with stroke symptoms each year, this is without taking into account the patients who have head trauma, prosthetic limbs or any other type of trauma which requires extended care. Our HCS management have reduced our bed numbers and the care package given by way of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dieticians etc to an unacceptable level.","state":"closed","signature_count":1561,"created_at":"2021-08-20T15:32:22.254Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:22:19.763Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-08-23T14:49:29.153Z","closed_at":"2022-02-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-20T19:06:07.748Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-09-03T12:37:37.727Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-12-06T12:10:12.348Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-12-06","summary":"Health and Community Services continues to provide a flexible and comprehensive stroke rehabilitation approach – one that is responsive to individual clinical need and good practice guidance.","details":"Rehabilitation services have not been reduced but are being delivered in different settings and in a number of different ways in line with National Clinical Guidelines for rehabilitation. \r\nIn relation to stroke rehabilitation, we continue to maintain sufficient inpatient services. It should be recognised that not all stroke patients require inpatient rehabilitation. The emphasis in most modern well-resourced healthcare systems is to provide inpatient care during the acute phase of rehabilitation which follows as soon as possible after a stroke has occurred. After the acute phase, ongoing rehabilitation and continuing support is usually delivered in the patient’s home or a community setting. This model of treatment delivers better outcomes and patient experience. \r\nHowever, some patients will still require rehabilitation and support in an inpatient setting after completing the acute phase of treatment. This was previously delivered in Samares Ward and is now being delivered in Plemont Ward. HCS is arranging to extend the inpatient rehab therapy service to the community. This will support timely discharges for islanders from Plemont Ward with support from the therapy team who work there. It will support the continuation of rehabilitation within a patient’s own environment at the earliest opportunity and provide a more seamless handover to the community team. By putting this service in place, HCS aims to enhance a patient’s discharge support, recognising it can be unsettling when transitioning through services. \r\nSamares Ward was close to many people’s hearts in the care and treatment that was provided. However, HCS would like to reassure islanders that the same professional team transitioned with the move to Plemont Ward. There are 14 beds dedicated to rehabilitation with four of those being in cubicles. These beds are flexed according to the number of neurological and stroke patients that are on the unit at any one time. However, rehabilitation is not just confined to Plemont Ward; if a patient on another ward requires rehabilitation, it can be provided within that setting. \r\nHCS recognises that this has made some people anxious about the changes that are currently occurring. It acknowledges that Samares Ward was a spacious, calm, healing environment where patients each had their own room. However, HCS is committed to improving Plemont Ward’s environment to ensure a better experience for patients.\r\nHCS is committed to providing the best care it can give to patients and retaining their confidence. To that end, HCS will be commissioning a report from an expert in rehabilitation services to review existing provision and advise upon the future direction and resource requirements of services locally. \r\nHCS will continue to listen to patients’ views and consult with local charities working with stroke patients and other patients using rehabilitation services. It is currently looking to recruit a consultant in stroke medicine and a consultant in frailty which will enhance the rehabilitation provision further.\r\nIn Jersey, the number of persons diagnosed with a stroke is between 100 and 140 people annually. Jersey reports into the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) and collects data on key multi-disciplinary indicators relating to stroke service provision. The SSNAP is a major national healthcare quality improvement programme based in the School of Population Health and Environmental Studies at King’s College London.  SSNAP measures the quality and organisation of stroke care in the NHS and is the single source of stroke data in England.\r\nIn accordance with the national stroke guidelines, the offer of rehabilitation is initially at least 45 minutes of each relevant stroke rehabilitation therapy for a minimum of five days per week to people who can participate, and where functional goals can be achieved. If more rehabilitation is needed at a later stage, the intensity of the rehabilitation is tailored to the person’s needs at that time. The therapy provision for stroke rehabilitation in Jersey is delivered by physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and dietetics. There has been no reduction in the staffing numbers for any of these therapy provisions when comparing Samares Ward with the current provision, and no reduction in the package of care offered. \r\nHCS will continue to monitor outcomes following the change in location of the rehabilitation service. This can be captured in a range of metrics including rehabilitation success and ongoing care needs such as the number of patients admitted to care home beds or requiring increased care at home. However, 2020 and 2021 have been challenging times to draw direct comparisons as, like all health and care providers, unscheduled and scheduled care activity has been significantly impacted by the pandemic with a reduction in emergency presentations, and fewer patients requiring inpatient emergency hospital care.  \r\nThe number of beds required for acute inpatient rehabilitation is accommodated within the bed base of the proposed new hospital at Overdale, and, importantly, these services may be required to function on more than one ward where patients in different specialist areas also require inpatient rehabilitation. This will mean inpatient rehabilitation will be wrapped around the patient rather than the patient being moved to one single ward to access rehabilitation services.  Support services such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists will provide support to all inpatient areas of the new hospital where there is a designated need.","created_at":"2021-12-06T12:10:12.345Z","updated_at":"2021-12-06T12:10:12.345Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200747,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200747.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the Social Security (Overlapping of Benefits) (Jersey) Order 1975","background":"This antiquated law prevents people of pensionable age being allowed to receive a Home Carers Allowance or any other benefit as well as their Old Age Pension which is rightly theirs following years of contribution. HCA should be paid as well as OAP as carers save the States millions of £’s each year","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":1699,"created_at":"2021-10-11T12:40:09.446Z","updated_at":"2022-10-14T06:25:26.284Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-10-13T10:35:13.693Z","closed_at":"2022-04-13T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-11T13:34:02.852Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-10-30T09:28:07.348Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-11-26T16:57:24.076Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-11-26","summary":"The Minister acknowledges the vital role of carers and is planning extra support. The Order is key to the rules of Social Security scheme. The Minister is not prepared to consider its repeal.","details":"The work done by family carers is extremely valuable to Jersey, and Government support is already available through a range of schemes.\r\n\r\nThe Long-Term Care scheme acknowledges the role of family carers within the overall care package for an individual and provides financial support towards respite breaks. The Income Support benefit provides additional support of £51.38 a week to a family carer of any age living in an Income Support household, on top of their normal Income Support entitlement. The Employment Law gives all workers the right to request flexible working, to help them arrange that caring responsibilities around paid work outside the home.\r\n\r\nThe Jersey Care Model was approved by the States Assembly last year and is currently being developed. It acknowledges the importance of providing support in the community, including that provided by family carers. Its 3 central principles are:\r\n\r\n- Ensure care is person-centred with a focus on prevention and self-care, for both physical and mental health \r\n\r\n- Reduce dependency on secondary care services by expanding primary and community services, working closely with all partners, in order to deliver more care in the community and at home \r\n\r\n- Redesign health and community services so that they are structured to meet the current and future needs of Islanders\r\n\r\nIn addition, through Local Services there are a number of clusters which see Government and Civil Society working to support islanders in specific areas such as Learning Disability, Older Persons, Cancer, Children and Young People, Homelessness and Mental Health as well as Government’s work to deliver the Disability Strategy.\r\n\r\nThe Minister has previously announced plans to provide extra financial support for family carers in the Government Plan. This project was originally planned for 2020 but has been delayed due to Covid.  The project will look at the extra household expenses incurred when a family is providing care to a family member at home.  The project has recently restarted and will continue into 2022.  The intention is that a new tax-funded payment will be created, and budget has been set aside for this purpose.\r\n\r\nThe Home Carer’s Allowance is a contributory benefit provided through the Social Security scheme. It is available to a working aged adult who gives up full time work in order to care for someone who has high care needs. This benefit is paid at the standard rate of £232.47 a week and requires the carer to satisfy contribution conditions. In November 2021 the States Assembly agreed a change to the Allowance. This will allow carers to undertake paid work for up to 15 hours a week and still claim the full HCA weekly amount. Previously, carers were restricted in the amount of wages that could be earned from an outside job. The change to hours was made following requests from carers to provide more flexibility in this area. When a carer is receiving HCA, they also receive a full pension record for that period.   \r\n\r\nAt pension age, if a carer is already receiving HCA, the Law allows them to choose between continuing to receive HCA or moving to their old age pension. In this way, the carer can choose the benefit which is most advantageous to them. It is not possible to make an application for HCA if the carer is a pensioner when they first make a claim.   \r\n\r\nThe Overlapping Benefits Order is an important part of the structure of the Social Security scheme. It sets out rules as to benefit entitlement when an individual qualifies for more than one benefit at the same time.  A fundamental principle of the overall scheme is that individuals who qualify for weekly benefits will only receive one benefit for each week. For example, if an individual is ill during a period when they are claiming a Parental Allowance, it is not possible to claim Short Term Incapacity Allowance and Parental Allowance for the same week.  \r\n\r\nIn most cases, the benefits paid from the scheme relate to the individual being unable to work during that week and the scheme then provides a payment for that week in which wages are not being received.  \r\n\r\nIf the Overlapping Benefits Order is repealed, these rules will no longer apply, and individuals will be able to make multiple benefit claims for the same period and receive multiple payments in respect of the same week.\r\n\r\nThis would be a significant change to the way in which the Social Security scheme currently works and would need major changes to IT and administrative systems to implement. It would also significantly increase the cost of running the scheme.\r\n\r\nThe main benefit paid out of the Social Security Fund is the old age pension. The number of people reaching pension age is increasing and will continue to increase as a result of the overall ageing demographic. The cost of providing pensions in the future will grow rapidly and some of the reserves that are being built up in the fund will need to be drawn up on to meet these increased costs. There may also need to be changes to contribution rates or other changes to the scheme in the future to support these pension payments.\r\n\r\nThe Minister does not support the repeal of the Overlapping Benefits Order. It would lead to increased costs as a time when the Fund is under increasing pressure from the growing number of pensioners supported through the fund and it is unclear why individuals should be able to claim multiple benefits for the same week.\r\n","created_at":"2021-11-26T16:57:24.072Z","updated_at":"2021-11-26T16:57:24.072Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200728,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200728.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Save the parking spaces in front of Le Marquand Brothers Ltd (Pets Paradise)","background":"Following the decision to build the new hospital on the Overdale site, plans have been suggested for a new road system at West Park.\r\nThe plans show all the customer parking areas directly outside our premises and also the extra unloading bays to be removed completely.\r\nThis will ruin our business.","additional_details":"This means that customers arriving by car to our pet shop will have nowhere to park. \r\nThese parking spaces are invaluable for loading heavier goods.\r\nWe have not been consulted, at any time, by the Our Hospital Team.\r\nWe are a family run Company established in 1900, who continued to trade even during the German Occupation we are not about to be steam rolled out of existence.\r\nPlease help by signing this petition.","state":"closed","signature_count":2109,"created_at":"2021-08-23T10:45:29.069Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:21:34.338Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-08-23T12:43:18.047Z","closed_at":"2022-02-23T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-23T11:08:00.354Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-08-26T14:48:40.055Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-09-28T11:51:30.871Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-09-28","summary":"Consultation is underway, including with Pets Paradise, and the team are working to find a solution for the business and its customers that maintains good access to the shop. ","details":"The project is looking to provide better access to the whole area, including Cheapside and the surrounding roads, which will benefit from increased footfall once the new hospital is open. \r\n\r\nThe changes to the traffic system at West Park are intended to improve vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access to the park and the new hospital, including for patients, visitors and ambulances. They will also provide better access for residents and businesses in the area.\r\n\r\nThe draft plans described in this petition are not final and will be updated following  feedback from stakeholders.\r\n\r\nThe Our Hospital team are in the process of engaging with those who are affected, and meetings have taken place with nearby residents and businesses, including Pets Paradise. The consultation is ongoing and the Our Hospital team will do everything in their power to find an acceptable and safe solution that meets the requirements of Islanders who currently use the area.\r\n","created_at":"2021-09-28T11:51:30.864Z","updated_at":"2021-09-28T11:51:30.864Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":200701,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200701.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give us BACK our FREEDOMS. It is time to live with Covid-19 - time to MOVE ON !","background":"Stop the Covid-19 positive test numbers being the metric! How many people are in hospital? How many people actually showing any symptoms?\r\nDouble vaccinated but still have to isolate – why?\r\nThis approach has no END - we have to LIVE with this as we do many viruses! NO MORE RESTRICTIONS!","additional_details":"No more executive powers! No more LAWS! We have done all that has been asked. We were told that we would protect the vulnerable - this has been done. We were told to get vaccinated - this has been done. The borders are open but our freedoms are still not returned. Time to STOP this time to live with it - MOVE on - this cannot continue!! We must make sure that NOW and this winter and next year this is not repeated!!","state":"closed","signature_count":1699,"created_at":"2021-06-18T19:53:48.784Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:21:48.456Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-06-22T10:41:00.672Z","closed_at":"2021-12-22T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-19T06:39:00.439Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-06-26T19:47:33.092Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-07-27T09:10:08.299Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-07-27","summary":"The Government of Jersey does not rely on only a single metric (such as case numbers) when making population level decisions on COVID-19.","details":"The Government of Jersey does not rely on only a single metric (such as case numbers) when making population level decisions on COVID-19. Instead a wide range of factors are considered including, but not restricted to, rates of hospitalisations and impact on critical businesses / industry with regard to levels of symptomatic cases amongst workforce, alongside expert guidance from local and international sources.\r\n\r\nAt the time of writing (26 July) there are:\r\n•\t15 people are in hospital positive with COVID-19\r\n•\t3,170 known active cases \r\n  o\tOf which 2,359 are symptomatic and 811 asymptomatic \r\n•\t 12,337 known direct contacts of active cases. \r\n\r\nUp to date data can be found on OpenData.gov (https://opendata.gov.je/dataset/coronavirus-covid-19-number-of-cases-in-jersey?_gl=1*198q6jp*_ga*MTE2NTU2Mjk1NS4xNjI2NzY5NDQx*_ga_07GM08Q17P*MTYyNjc2OTQ0MS4xLjEuMTYyNjc2OTQ1OC4w) \r\n\r\nWhile being double vaccinated reduces the risks of both being infected and passing the transmission onwards it does not eliminate these risks entirely. Due to individual health differences and other factors some of those who are double vaccinated will not have the same protection as others. \r\n\r\nThe Government of Jersey actively seeks to minimise all public health controls. They will only be imposed where it is deemed necessary to do so to reduce the impact of COVID-19 transmission. This includes, for example, the recent decision to remove isolation requirements for Direct Contacts from law.\r\n\r\nAt present few measures remain in place and much of the previous legislation has been relaxed into guidance. \r\n\r\nThe limited, remaining controls, apply to some of the highest risk activities, such as resumption of stand-up drinking and the full reopening of nightclubs. These activities, if resumed too quickly and prior to completion of vaccine roll-out could result in more harm to Islanders and businesses. Globally the COVID-19 pandemic continues to progress, and it is not yet at a stage (locally or globally) where it can be considered endemic. Vaccination and preventing transmission remain the key to reducing harm and returning to a true pre-COVID-19 normality when it is safe to do so. \r\n","created_at":"2021-07-27T09:10:08.296Z","updated_at":"2021-07-27T09:10:08.296Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":200687,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200687.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Protect the 18 Green Field sites identified in the Island Plan from development.","background":"As part of the draft proposals to create more accommodation in the Island during the interim period 2022 - 2025 the Government of Jersey has identified 18 fields of prime agricultural land for the development of Affordable Housing. They are all listed in Appendix 1 of the Bridging Island Plan.","additional_details":"An overheated housing market, unfettered access to it by overseas investors, housing shortages and a complete lack of control over immigration is entirely the fault of this and previous Governments to deal effectively with the inexorable population growth. Their solution, apparently while they consider more long-term structural changes, is to build their way out of the crisis using fields in the green zone that have been feeding the local population for generations. No, no, no.","state":"closed","signature_count":372,"created_at":"2021-05-15T16:21:21.957Z","updated_at":"2022-05-18T23:00:12.112Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-05-18T08:07:30.416Z","closed_at":"2021-11-18T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-16T15:30:26.232Z","response_threshold_reached_at":null,"ministers_response_at":"2021-06-22T07:27:44.887Z","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 sites that are proposed to be rezoned have been assessed, relative to a range of criteria as set out in the Housing land availability and assessment of sites report  which has included consideration of their current use and their value to agriculture, as set out in appendix 1 of the draft bridging Island Plan. Not all of the sites are in current agricultural use and those that are are not all of prime agricultural value.\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":"2021-06-22T07:27:44.885Z","updated_at":"2021-06-22T07:27:44.885Z"},"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":200681,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200681.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Stop the double taxation of the Jersey pension","background":"The Jersey pension is included in the assessment for yearly income taxation even though a person during their working life paid tax on their GROSS income including their Social Security payments an element of which goes towards their pension.","additional_details":"Income tax during working life is based on GROSS earnings including Social Security payments and tax is paid on the GROSS amount.\r\n\r\nWhy therefore is it taxed again if a pensioner is above the tax threshold?","state":"closed","signature_count":2743,"created_at":"2021-04-28T16:04:33.608Z","updated_at":"2024-11-06T09:13:06.628Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-04-29T10:14:56.957Z","closed_at":"2021-10-29T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-28T20:41:59.548Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-05-11T16:39:47.919Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-06-04T07:24:40.108Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-06-03","summary":"Personal tax allowances exceed the maximum amount someone will receive for a Social Security pension. Making old age pensions tax exempt would not benefit the 50% of pensioners that do not pay tax.","details":"It is notable that the tax allowances in Jersey ensure that, even though the States old age pension is taxable, pensioners on low incomes who receive only the States old age pension do not pay any income tax. \r\nIn fact, approximately 50% of pensioners do not pay any income tax. \r\nMaking the States old age pension exempt from tax would therefore not benefit those pensioners with the lowest incomes.   \r\nThe tax treatment of social security contributions and the old age pension is not unique to Jersey; in particular the position in Jersey broadly mirrors that applied in the UK. It is routine practice to subject pensions to income tax. \r\nContributions to private/occupational pension schemes are routinely relieved from tax but social security contributions provide wider social-insurance benefits and the rates of contribution take account of the overall need to provide adequate levels of support.\r\nFor that reason, the Minister for Treasury and Resources cannot at this time support measures which would reduce the funds available to deliver public services to the people of Jersey.\r\n\r\nTax treatment of contributions\r\n\r\nSocial security contributions fund a social-insurance scheme which provides a range of benefits, including the States old age pension. If a tax deduction was available for these contributions, it would materially reduce States income and this reduction in tax revenues would have to be recouped through other taxation measures in order to maintain public services.\r\nFor employed people, social-security contributions are paid both by the employee and the employer.  The employer’s contribution – some 6.5% up to the Standard Earnings Limit (SEL) and a further 2.5% between the SEL and the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL) - is not subject to income tax and is a deductible expense of doing business. \r\n\r\nTax treatment of States old age pension\r\n\r\nThe vast majority of private and state-provided pensions are taxable but a significant proportion (estimated to be 50%) of Jersey pensioners pay no income tax. This is because Jersey enjoys relatively high tax exemption thresholds before which income is taxed.\r\n\r\nIn particular if a Jersey-resident pensioner’s only source of income is the States old age pension, he or she will not pay income tax: a single pensioner in receipt of a full States old age pension would receive around £11,750 in 2021 but would not pay income tax until their income exceeded £16,000.  A married pensioner in receipt of a full States pension would receive around £19,500 but would not pay income tax until their income exceeded £26,100 (note this threshold assumes the married pensioner was born before 1952).\r\n\r\nMaking the old age pension exempt from tax would materially reduce States income without providing any benefit whatsoever to the poorest pensioners. The reduction in tax revenues would have to be recouped through other measures in order to maintain public services.\r\n\r\nMinister for Treasury and Resources ","created_at":"2021-06-04T07:24:40.106Z","updated_at":"2021-06-04T07:28:51.121Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200670,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200670.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Do not roll out Covid-19 vaccine passports in Jersey","background":"We want the Government to commit to not rolling out any e-vaccination status/immunity passport, certification or whatever name they wish to use to the public. Such passports could be used to restrict the rights of people who have refused a Covid-19 vaccine which would be unacceptable.","additional_details":"This is discriminatory, unethical and wrong on so many levels and must not be allowed to happen.","state":"closed","signature_count":2524,"created_at":"2021-04-13T05:04:20.360Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:21:21.986Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-04-14T09:28:56.917Z","closed_at":"2021-10-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-13T07:34:59.168Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-04-15T17:49:54.004Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-04-30T15:19:22.267Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-04-30","summary":"The Government is exploring a number of potential policy options for COVID Status Certification. Full consideration is being given to the ethical and legal implications as part of this process.","details":"Background\r\nThe Government of Jersey is exploring the potential introduction of a COVID Status Certification scheme. As part of that process, it is recognised that consideration must be given to the following:\r\na)\tall associated ethical and legal implications, including the potential for inequality discrimination should vaccination status become a condition of travel and / or access to certain spaces or facilities such as gyms, concert venues and restaurants (1)\r\n\r\nb)\tthe fact that Jersey is ahead of many countries in the world with its vaccination programme. Further division between the vaccinated and unvaccinated has the potential to raise political and ethical questions. Supporting initiatives such as COVAX is important to ensure global equitable access to a vaccine, particularly protecting health care workers and those most-at-risk. This is the only way to mitigate the public health and economic impact of the pandemic (2)\r\n\r\nc)\tthe COVID-19 vaccination is not mandatory. Limiting access to services based on vaccination status risks the implication that the vaccine is mandatory. Any framework that comes into place will need to be harmonized, when it comes to standards and use cases, by a normative body – such as the World Health Organization (WHO) – to ensure that its use is ethical and fair (3).\r\n\r\nOverview of issues\r\nEthical\r\nThere are many ethical theories and concepts that can be applied to a complex issue such as CSC. As the COVID-19 vaccination is a health care intervention it is not unreasonable to apply a principle-based ethical approach to CSC that operates in health care – autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (4).\r\nThe extent to which these principles will apply will vary depending on whether a CSC provides proof of vaccination status and / or proof of immunity or evidence of negative COVID-19 PCR test.\r\n\r\nEthical Considerations\r\n\r\nAutonomy\r\nPeople should be self-governing and allowed to make decisions for themselves.\r\nThe vaccination is not mandatory, and people are able to determine whether or not to be vaccinated. However, one can also consider the rights of an individual to travel. The introduction of CSC could afford greater freedoms for this to take place but is not without risk. The rights and freedoms afforded to individuals does not provide them with the freedom to potentially harm others (5). \r\n\t\r\nNon-maleficence\t\r\nThe avoidance of doing harm\t\r\nTravel, importing new cases of COVID-19, and the risk of new variants could certainly be harmful to the island. A third wave and increased public health restrictions would impact many islanders. A fully informed risk analysis of the risk presented is required. \r\n\t\r\nBeneficence\t\r\nActive altruism\t\r\nCSC places the onus on the individual. A more altruistic approach could be striving for herd immunity, looking to benefit the whole population as opposed to individuals.\r\n\t\r\nJustice\t\r\nSuggests that the COVID-19 vaccine is available and fairly distributed\t\r\nGiven the limited supply and need to prioritize the vaccine roll-out this principle does not apply. Inevitably, any benefits introduced before all of those eligible have been offered a vaccine could be considered unjust. The COVID-19 vaccine is not yet licensed for children and represents an injustice to any person who cannot be vaccinated on health grounds.\r\n\r\nThe Ada Lovelace Institute convened a group of multidisciplinary experts to explore the evidence, risks and benefits of the potential roll-out of digital vaccine passports (6).\r\n\r\nThey identified the following immediate and future risks:\r\n\r\nImmediate Risks:\r\n\r\n1.\tUndermining public health by treating a collective problem as an individual one \r\nUltimately it will be national and international herd immunity that provides protection. CSC may offer a false sense of security and increase risky behaviours before this is achieved.\r\n\r\n2.\tThe opportunity cost of focusing on vaccine passports \r\nIn reality, the gap between having confidence in the scientific evidence on transmission and achieving population level herd immunity may indeed be relatively short. The UK remains on course to meet the target to offer a vaccine to all those in the phase 1 priority groups by mid-April, and all adults by the end of July (7). Jersey estimates that 80% of eligible islanders could have received 2 doses by the end of August (subject to vaccine supply). \r\n\r\n3.\tExacerbating distrust by marginalised groups and increasing vaccine hesitancy\r\nLinking vaccination to travel has been suggested as a way to encourage vaccine take up and address vaccine hesitancy. It must be acknowledged that the opposite may also be true. People may feel strongly that their liberties have been impacted by nature of being unable or unwilling to be vaccinated. It may also implicitly suggest that vaccination is mandatory if it affords additional benefits or imposes restrictions on those not vaccinated.\r\n\r\nIn Jersey vaccine uptake has been very good. 87% of the population 80 years and over have now been fully vaccinated. A 4insight survey, commissioned by the Government of Jersey, revealed that 83% of respondents positively supported getting the vaccine. It is therefore not clear if further incentivisation is required. A more balanced approach could include communications supporting vaccination towards achieving the collective benefit of the community as opposed to a benefit linked purely to an individual.\r\n\r\n4.\tExacerbating inequalities within societies\r\n‘The Data Divide’ explores how the accelerated adoption of data driven technologies and systems during the pandemic may have affected inequalities (8). People from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, and people on an income of less than £20,000 a year, indicated higher levels of concern that they would be unfairly discriminated against than White respondents and higher-income respondents.\r\n\r\nThis survey revealed that two thirds (64%) of the public were not concerned that vaccine passports will be discriminatory against them as individuals. Slightly more than half (55%) thought that they are likely to lead to discrimination against marginalised groups, such as young people, people who are shielding, members of the LGBTQI+ community, people from a minority ethnic background or those who are in precarious work (e.g. on zero-hours contracts or gig workers).\r\n\r\n5.\tIncreasing inequalities between nations\r\nJersey is in a privileged position and ahead of many countries in the world with its vaccination programme. While this may afford on-island benefits and achieving herd immunity may be possible sooner than elsewhere, this will be compromised if new variants are brought on to the island and allowed the circulate. The risk of a third wave must not be overlooked, and the impact of a further lockdown would have implications for all. Jersey cannot be considered independent of the global inequalities and access to vaccinations.\r\n\r\nFuture Risks:\r\n\r\n6.\tNormalising health status surveillance by creating long-term infrastructure in response to a time-bounded crisis. \r\nConsideration must be given to the longevity of CSC in the context of so much uncertainty and the future of SARS-CoV-2. The potential to revoke or impose time limits on any status should be incorporated from the outset. \r\n\r\n7.\tScope creep and information flows \r\nConcerns have been raised regarding data protection and the expansion of CSC beyond its initial remit. \r\n\r\nThe Royal Society identified core ethical principles in their report ‘Twelve criteria for the development and use of COVID-19 vaccine passports’ (5).\r\nVaccine passports that are exclusively digital could exacerbate the digital divide for the elderly or those without digital devices.\r\n\r\nBehavioural science\r\n\r\nA rapid review of behavioural responses to COVID-19 health certification was recently published (9). Literature suggests certificates to enable international travel is generally supported. Outside of the context of international travel, health certification in relation to COVID-19 has the potential for harm as well as benefit. \r\n\r\nLegal \r\n\r\nAdvice will be sought on all legal matters related to the potential introduction of CSCs in Jersey, including any potential requirement for new or amended legislation.\r\n\r\nIn the event that GoJ were to contract with a third-party provider of an ‘off-the-shelf” CSC / COVID passport app, GoJ would need to give particular consideration to the risks arising from such schemes including:\r\n•\tcreation of related digital infrastructure\r\n•\tthe ‘rules’ for where these systems should be implemented\r\n•\tlocal standards, enforcement and regulation (4).\r\n\r\nOperational\r\n\r\nThe vaccination programme was developed as part of the public health response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Linking vaccination to travel could exert pressure on the vaccination programme. \r\n\r\nThe vaccine programme must continue to be delivered at pace, in an equitable, efficient manner. While high coverage remains key, the vaccine programme should not be compromised by those wishing to avail of the perceived travel benefits of vaccination. \r\n\r\nSummary\r\n\r\nThis is a highly complex issue requiring consideration of many ethical and legal issues. As evidence regarding the impact of vaccines on transmission emerges from real world data the Government of Jersey needs to be in a position to address the public policy issues that arise, creating clear and specific guidelines and law around any appropriate uses, mechanisms for enforcement and methods of legal redress. \r\n\r\nIt is unlikely that CSC would become mandatory, but residents must be afforded the ability to provide digital proof of vaccination as this may become a requirement by external carriers in the future.\r\n\r\nThis response is by the Minister for Health and Social Services.\r\n","created_at":"2021-04-30T15:19:22.265Z","updated_at":"2021-05-04T08:54:48.878Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200660,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200660.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Open the pubs before Easter weekend","background":"There is no reason for the pubs to not be open. People are allowed to go to the gym and play indoor sports which, with all the heavy breathing and sweating, is more of an infection spreader than sitting in the pub having a pint!!","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":2800,"created_at":"2021-03-23T07:00:24.619Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:20:53.734Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-03-25T14:20:35.590Z","closed_at":"2021-09-25T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-24T12:39:57.399Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-03-26T14:45:36.302Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-04-09T13:50:00.273Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-04-09","summary":"From Good Friday 2 April, alcoholic drinks table service resumed, without the need for an accompanying meal. ","details":"This petition was submitted before the announcement by Ministers of the intention to accelerate the reconnection roadmap from Friday 2 April. This meant that pubs and nightclubs offering seated drinks service were able to open from Good Friday if they retained 2 metre distancing, limited table numbers to ten people and collected customer details for contact tracing.  The 10pm earlier closing time was also removed, although the requirement to wear a mask if moving around inside the pub was retained.  \r\nThis move, some ten days earlier than originally anticipated, followed advice from the Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell (STAC) which, following a review of the latest figures on active cases, the high level of testing and contract tracing,  and the number of Islanders vaccinated, believed it safe to bring forward the relaxation of restrictions and permit further reconnection. \r\nThis reopening fits with the phased approach being adopted by Ministers. This is intended to safeguard the community and our successful vaccination programme, while also relaxing restrictions and allowing Islanders to resume more of their regular activities. \r\nSo long as the number of Covid cases continues to be controlled, the intention is to resume standing alcoholic drink services on Monday 10 May, while nightclubs will be able to fully reopen from Monday 14 June.  However, a need for vigilance remains and Islanders need to play their part by adhering to the rules and upholding public health measures. None of us wishes to experience a resurgence in Covid activity, which threatens our return to normality. \r\n","created_at":"2021-04-09T13:50:00.267Z","updated_at":"2021-04-09T13:50:00.267Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":200630,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200630.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Support a proposal to improve the unused recreational sporting area at FB Fields","background":"The area of land was gifted to the public for recreational sporting use. We should all be disappointed that a recreational area which was gifted for the public’s (i.e. all of our) enjoyment is neither being used nor in a position to be used in its current state.  ","additional_details":"Jersey Property Holdings and/or the relevant States department should do everything within their powers to ensure the land can be used by the public for the purpose intended.\r\n\r\nIn 2015 the Government spent a considerable amount of money improving the area (re-surfacing and installing new floodlights). However, even after that expenditure the area has not been used and is currently left dormant and in a sorry state.\r\n\r\nPlease consider showing your support to an individual that has the time, energy and inclination to make it a thriving sporting facility for all the public to use once again, whilst improving physical and mental well-being.","state":"closed","signature_count":3473,"created_at":"2021-01-15T12:59:26.465Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:20:27.661Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-20T09:33:09.626Z","closed_at":"2021-07-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-15T14:05:05.202Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-20T20:09:33.744Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-18T09:10:35.484Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-17","summary":"The proposed lease of the site to a third-party business venture and the creation of five-a-side football pitches is considered a breach of conditions created when the land was gifted to the Public.","details":"A request has been received from a private organisation, JS Fives, to convert an area of FB Fields to five-a-side football venue. A planning application has also been submitted. Regrettably, it will be difficult to achieve this new facility because of a covenant on the land and because it has not been possible to get agreement from the beneficiaries of the covenant.\r\n\r\nThe area in question was previously used primarily for netball and it remains in a functional state. The Government is aware that this small space needs to be brought back to use and will continue to look at alternative recreational and sporting options for this area. \r\n\r\nIn line with the ‘Inspiring an Active Jersey’, Ministers support sporting ventures that will provide more opportunities for islanders to follow healthy lifestyles. The Government will further support the applicant to explore possible alternative sites that might be suited to accommodate this five-a-side football business proposal.\r\n\r\nThe piece of land in question was gifted to the Public in 1961 by the owners of a neighbouring property known as “Peverell” (now known as “Villa d’Azette”) situated to the west of the site and various conditions were created in the contract.  Since that time, the site of “Peverell” has been sub-divided and there are now seven owners who are entitled to claim the benefit of the restrictive clauses.\r\n\r\nThe specific conditions that would affect the JS Fives proposal at FB Fields are as follows:\r\n\r\n\"2. That the said piece of land is also hereby gifted, ceded and transferred for public use and shall be used by the Committee of the States known as the “Education Committee” (or by such other States Committee duly authorised in this respect by the States Assembly) as that Committee shall think fit in order to encourage sport and the spirit of sporting competition, and furthermore, the said piece of land shall become a sporting recreation ground joined to and incorporated in the neighbouring property known as “F.B. Playing Fields” belonging to the Public.\r\n\r\n4. That there shall only be erected or constructed on the said piece of land hereby gifted, ceded and transferred one sole building or pavilion with changing rooms and appurtenances for use of the players.\"\r\n\r\nThe submitted proposal, which includes the installation of cycle stands, new fencing, playing surface and caged netting around the existing netball courts, would be considered a breach of the condition 4 above. \r\n\r\nAny future use of this part of FB Fields will be considered in line with the covenant. The close proximity of residential homes, and potential noise and disturbance, will need to be carefully considered.\r\n\r\nObjections to the planning application have already been submitted by the majority of the beneficiaries of the covenant, it would suggest that the Public would be challenged to obtain approval from all of the property owners in respect of amending the restrictions.\r\n\r\nDeputy Kevin Lewis\r\nMinister for Infrastructure\r\n\r\nDeputy Hugh Raymond\r\nAssistant Minister with Responsibility for Sport\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-18T09:10:35.481Z","updated_at":"2021-02-18T09:10:35.481Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200626,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200626.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Change the law to protect all vulnerable road users - Introduce Freddie’s Law","background":"Our 14yr old son Freddie was left for dead following an horrific hit and run cycle collision. The driver drove on and later used a little known loophole in the law to evade justice. ","additional_details":"This is just one example of a long history of road traffic collisions where, under the current Jersey law, the vulnerable road user has had little to no protection which often allows perpetrators to avoid any accountability and continue to drive carefree on our island roads. This loophole also undermines the abilities of the Police to conduct proper investigations. The States Assembly should urgently commission a review of the Laws governing the rights and protections of all vulnerable road users with a view to making it safer to cycle, walk and horse ride on Jersey’s roads.","state":"closed","signature_count":3737,"created_at":"2021-01-14T07:58:50.369Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:20:10.059Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-14T15:02:38.666Z","closed_at":"2021-07-14T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-14T08:41:54.397Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-15T13:50:42.091Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-16T14:15:00.236Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-10","summary":"The built environment, legislation, education and publicity all contribute to improving road safety. The STP will include consideration for how new liability laws could encourage change .","details":"It is always traumatic when someone is injured on our roads, and my thoughts are with Freddie and his family. \r\n\r\nThe purpose of the petition is to seek to initiate a review of the Jersey’s laws “governing the rights and protections of all vulnerable road users with a view to making it safer to cycle, walk and horse ride on Jersey’s roads”. \r\n\r\nThere is already work underway to try to make the roads safer for all users, including \r\n•\troad improvements to create space for cyclists\r\n•\tthe ensure consistency in speed limits\r\n•\tthe promotion of consideration for other road users and the prioritisation of road users who are not in cars\r\n•\twork to encourage people to use active travel instead of cars  . \r\n\r\nI have set out this below, yet this work will hopefully make it safer for cyclists, walkers and horse riders, and it may reduce the number and severity of collisions, but it will not stop them. \r\n\r\nThe law serves a number of functions in helping to make road use safer for everyone, and the applicable laws in this case fall into two categories: criminal and civil. The purpose of these two categories are distinct and it is important to be clear on the differences before discussing what I interpret as the loophole mentioned in the petition.\r\n\r\nCriminal law and civil law:\r\nCriminal law deals with crime and criminal offences. It aims to deter and punish conduct which is perceived as threatening, harmful or endangering to the public, its property or moral welfare.  \r\n\r\nJersey’s Attorney-General is the prosecuting authority for criminal cases. The criminal justice system acts with dual focus:\r\n-\tcriminal laws are used to control society’s actions\r\n-\tthey are in place to help citizens understand the effects of their actions by way of the punishment, deterrent and rehabilitation of offenders.  \r\n\r\nIn criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the outcome of a completed criminal trial process will be a guilty or not guilty verdict. \r\n\r\nCivil law deals with disputes between individuals or organisations, and are therefore brought by private parties. \r\n\r\nWhere a claim is brought by one person against another, the principle that applies is ‘he who asserts must prove’.  For example, where one person brings a claim in negligence, that person must prove (1) that a duty of care is owed by the other party (2) that there has been a breach of the duty owed by that other party, and (3) that the damage suffered by that person was as a result of the breach of the duty of care.\r\n\r\nCivil courts assess claims against the balance of probability standard, meaning that the court determines whether it is satisfied, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. It is therefore a much lower bar than the beyond reasonable doubt of criminal law.\r\n\r\nThe results of the civil court process is a finding of liability or a finding of no liability. The remedy in most successful civil claims will be financial damages.  \r\n\r\nThe situation under criminal law – Road Traffic Law (Jersey) 1956:\r\nWhile not explicit in the petition, there have been statements made surrounding the petition in local media that one route to achieve this would be through the adoption of presumed liability legislation. \r\n\r\nThis Ministerial response considers these matters in the round and sets out the work that the Government of Jersey is undertaking in this area.\r\n\r\nThe Road Traffic Law (Jersey) 1956, sets out criminal offences, including what is commonly referred to as failing to stop. \r\n\r\nIn response to a question in the States Chamber on the 19 January 2020, the Solicitor General said that to incorporate presumed liability into criminal law would run contrary to the fundamental principle of criminal justice that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This centuries-old principle is enshrined and confirmed in the European Convention on Human Rights, which is given effect in Jersey by virtue of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.\r\n\r\nWhile the UK and Jersey road traffic laws are worded differently, they place the same duties on drivers and in effect, provide for the same offences and defences.\r\n \r\nGiven the requirement to adhere to the ECHR, there is no reason to believe that Jersey’s current legislation is deficient. However, when the law is next revised I will ask for consideration to be given to amending the wording to more closely reflect the UK’s. This would not alter the principles of the offences or defences.\r\n\r\nThe situation under civil law:\r\nIn some jurisdictions (but not Jersey), presumed liability means that, where a more vulnerable road user suffers injury or loss of life in a road accident, the less vulnerable road user is presumed to be to blame, unless they can prove otherwise.\r\n\r\nThe concept of presumed liability is not used in criminal cases.\r\n\r\nPresumed liability for road traffic collisions is not part of Jersey or UK law, and any injured party seeking damages would have to prove that the other party was to blame.\r\n\r\nWhat we want to do to make roads safer:\r\n\r\nThe Sustainable Transport Policy (STP) seeks to promote walking and cycling in order to reduce the Island’s carbon footprint and to support public health by encouraging active lifestyles. \r\n\r\nThe STP uses a wide range of initiatives, including changing the built environment and legislation, as well as education and publicity, to encourage people to change their modes of transport. Among the barriers that people have to change are the concerns that people have for their and their family’s safety when cycling on roads.\r\n\r\nThe success of the policy will depend on addressing this and other concerns. It means that we are committed to reviewing the law, and consulting the public, in order to make the strategic choices needed encourage changes in behaviour. \r\n\r\nThe STP will include consideration for how new liability laws could encourage change. That will be as part of a balanced package of measures to ensure that increasing active travel is matched by improved safety and protection for vulnerable roads users, such as cyclists.\r\n\r\nIt should be remembered that cycling is relatively safe. There is inherent risk with all transport, including cycling, but it also has undisputed health benefits. I hope that Freddie makes a full recovery and that the package of measures I have set out make road use safer for everyone.\r\n (lhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757756/Cycling_and_walking_for_individual_and_population_health_benefits.pdf ).\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-16T14:15:00.233Z","updated_at":"2021-02-16T14:15:00.233Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":200619,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200619.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Offer one-off grants for the worst affected industries due to forced closures.","background":"Behind every business is a human and their family, we want to secure a government grant system to enable businesses to survive closures and loss of revenue due to the Covid-19 pandemic. ","additional_details":"The Co-funded payroll provides much needed contribution towards the wage bill incurred by businesses - however some are having to use what they receive to top up staff wages leaving them with nothing. Payroll is only one of many business expenses and the Co-funded Payroll scheme on its own is not sufficient to ensure the survival of businesses. A government grant scheme based on the level of detriment incurred by businesses would provide further support towards rent, supplier, insurance, utilities, employer contributions liabilities and other business costs, act as a safeguard against future unemployment and provide more economic stability during the reconnection of the economy. \r\n\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":1608,"created_at":"2021-01-06T22:04:01.319Z","updated_at":"2022-09-15T15:22:07.392Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2021-01-11T14:01:12.419Z","closed_at":"2021-07-11T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-06T22:17:41.680Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2021-01-12T13:36:31.204Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-02-16T09:01:44.259Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-02-15","summary":"A new financial support scheme was launched on 9th February to provide extra financial support for the worst affected businesses though a monthly lump sum payment or grant.\r\n\r\n","details":"Ministers recognise that this has been an exceptionally difficult winter for our Island’s businesses. Ministers launched the Fixed Costs Support Scheme (FCSS) on 9th February 2021 to provide additional financial support for businesses.\r\n\r\nThe FCSS will add £9.5 million to the support already available to businesses through the Co-funded Payroll Scheme, Business Disruption Loan Guarantee Scheme, Visitor Accommodation Support Scheme, and Visitor Attractions and Events Scheme.\r\n\r\nMinisters are committed to continue protecting businesses, lives and livelihoods in Jersey throughout the whole duration of the pandemic. This additional funding provides the necessary support to enable those businesses most impacted by public health measures to weather the winter period and to move ahead with more confidence into 2021. \r\n\r\nIsland businesses can apply to the scheme if they have been impacted by recent Government measures which have forced them to close as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scheme is backdated to 01 January 2021 and will run until 30 April 2021. \r\n\r\nApplicants need to show they have suffered a 20% fall in turnover when compared with a comparable month in 2019.\r\n\r\nThe maximum amount of monthly support a business can claim is set at four levels, determined by the business rates they paid on their business premises in 2020. Businesses and self-employed individuals that do not pay business rates are also eligible.\r\n\r\nSome businesses that have been able to open can also receive some assistance from this new scheme if they were affected by restrictions such as two-metre physical distancing or restricted trading hours.\r\n\r\nFull guidance on the details of the scheme and how to apply are available via the Government of Jersey website: https://www9.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/BusinessAndEmployment/Pages/GovernmentSupportForBusinesses.aspx#FCSS \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-02-16T09:01:44.257Z","updated_at":"2021-02-19T10:57:47.769Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":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":200562,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200562.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Keep gyms open and enforce masks and 2-metre distancing for extra protection.","background":"Please consider keeping the gyms open and enforcing masks and 2-metre social distancing to further prevent the spread of COVID, instead of closing gyms and causing mental health issues to rise in the Island.","additional_details":"Only 2% of transmissions locally have come from gyms and indoor sports facilities. There's only been one gym with an outbreak due to a member coming in unwell, not due to the safety measures that gym has in place. Other sectors with a higher transmission rate are allowed to remain open.\r\n\r\nThe gym isn't just a place people come to exercise, for most it's their 'safe place' and a place where they feel a sense of belonging. During the last lockdown there was a 200% increase in calls to mental health services. If gyms remained open it would certainly help prevent this detrimental damage to happen again.\r\n\r\n","state":"closed","signature_count":4433,"created_at":"2020-12-02T20:21:57.476Z","updated_at":"2021-12-04T00:00:41.375Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-03T15:23:15.603Z","closed_at":"2021-06-03T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-02T20:29:37.275Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-03T20:17:05.714Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-01-19T15:22:18.745Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-19","summary":"Decisions about when to apply measures are based on the specific infection patterns observed. This targeted approach led to the difficult decision to temporarily close indoor sport and exercise venues","details":"It is recognised that indoor sports and recreation facilities, which include gyms, play a vital role in ensuring the ongoing health and wellbeing of Islanders. That is why, throughout 2020, we followed a managed return to activity, whilst ensuring that public health measures were maintained. This balanced approach ensured the mental and physical wellbeing of Islanders. However, the safety of customers, staff, volunteers and their families always remains the absolute priority. \r\nThe exponential rises in COVID-19 activity across early warning indicators over November and December pointed to a meaningful and consistent increase in positive cases where community transmission was established. The case evidence of the time showed that Jersey was moving rapidly through the escalation framework ‘Early Warning’ Phase and toward the ‘Epidemic Response’ phase. Robust additional action to target the virus alongside stronger universal measures was needed to slow the spread of infection. The COVID-19 Winter Strategy states that Government will attempt to counter threats on a targeted basis, before putting in place significant island-wide, or universal restrictions. Decisions about when to apply targeted or more universal measures are based on the specific infection patterns observed. This targeted approach led to the difficult decision to temporarily close indoor sport and exercise venues, while outdoor sport and exercise and exercising at home remain open and available.\r\nTwo metre physical distancing is currently a universal public health measure and the guidelines do not recommend the wearing of masks during exercise or strenuous activity. This is due to potential health harms and difficulty breathing if worn during physical activity. \r\nEvidence shows that gyms and other providers of indoor exercise are lower risk when compared to hospitality. However, they are not risk-free. Accordingly, when gyms were open there were restrictions in place regarding the intensity levels, with the stipulation that only low or moderate intensity activity was permissible. This is because the virus is spread through droplet transmission in the air as well as via the many touch points and surfaces where the virus can land. Heavy breathing, as a result of high intensity activity, raises this risk considerably and there is reasonable biological plausibility of respiratory droplets and aerosol spread as well as through touch points etc.\r\nThe Government is committed to protect Islanders through the targeted de-escalation of measures based on evidence as well on local data and intelligence. We have had at least one indoor exercise business linked to significant spread of COVID-19; several other providers have also seen cases amongst clients. A review of our cases associated with indoor exercise provision show one large cluster of 22 cases from one setting – these cases included personal trainers. The direct contacts from this cluster had a median range of 9 with a maximum of 32. \r\nAt least a further 20 cases (again including personal trainers/instructors) have been identified across six other indoor exercise settings during a likely infectious period. \r\nAt the time when case numbers were rising, it was increasingly likely that positive cases would use services. Additionally, we know that the 20- to 40-year age group is both a strong demographic in this sector and linked with community spread. \r\nRisk had been established in the local context and therefore a cautious approach was taken in order to protect Islanders from further spread in the context of increasing case numbers. This is consistent with other measures taken to minimise the potential for people gathering. As the Government policy and guidance makes clear, everyone should limit the number of people with whom they have social contact to help restrict the spread of COVID-19. Furthermore, Islanders have been advised to socialise outside, wherever possible, as the risk of the spread of the virus is higher inside.\r\nWe will continually monitor the situation with a view to relaxing this measure as soon as it is safe to do so.\r\n","created_at":"2021-01-19T15:22:18.742Z","updated_at":"2021-01-19T15:22:18.742Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200527,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200527.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reconsider the childcare memorial.","background":"The very act of ignoring the voices of abuse survivors is being symbolically repeated, with the proposed erection of a memorial that has the potential to re-ignite feelings in many of those who have been unheard at the lowest point of their lives and now oppose this statue and what it stands for.","additional_details":"In recent times it's been proven that statues hold more emotional weight than ever before. But yet the Government want to erect a Statue for Child Abuse Victims.\r\nAbuse survivors and the general public are once again asking their Government to listen and not to go forward with the erection of this memorial.","state":"closed","signature_count":1832,"created_at":"2020-10-08T15:26:23.373Z","updated_at":"2021-10-12T23:00:20.066Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-10-12T15:15:13.010Z","closed_at":"2021-04-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-08T16:39:15.903Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-10-14T14:43:40.920Z","ministers_response_at":"2021-01-06T08:08:30.652Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2021-01-05","summary":"Following my appointment as the new Minister for Children and Housing on 17 October 2020, I have committed to re-examine the proposed Jersey Care Memorial.\r\n\r\n","details":"Following my appointment as the new Minister for Children and Housing on 17 October 2020, I have committed to re-examine the proposed Jersey Care Memorial.\r\n\r\nI recognise and respect the full range of views about how Jersey should formally acknowledge and remember the failings addressed by the Care Inquiry. Last month, the Council of Ministers committed to ensure that survivors who have raised concerns about the memorial will be listened to. This important process is already underway and will support us to identify an appropriate and sensitive way for Jersey to remember.\r\n\r\nDeputy Jeremy Maçon, Minister for Children and Housing\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2021-01-06T08:08:30.650Z","updated_at":"2021-01-06T08:08:30.650Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":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":200565,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200565.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Break up from school a week earlier","background":"Breaking up a week earlier from school would give us a 2-week time frame to isolate so we can make sure we keep our families from catching COVID-19 on Christmas Day. It would make sense for us to be able to do online lessons if this would affect school time.","additional_details":"This would give us the normal Christmas all of us are wanting, by also keeping our families, especially those that are vulnerable to the virus - such as the elderly - safe.","state":"closed","signature_count":4259,"created_at":"2020-12-03T14:11:35.105Z","updated_at":"2022-04-14T10:12:36.482Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-12-04T08:35:54.907Z","closed_at":"2021-06-04T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-03T14:24:29.246Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-12-04T19:28:45.030Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-12-24T08:28:13.335Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-24","summary":"Many families are naturally concerned about Christmas, but the legal powers to close schools depend on the risk of spreading the virus and medical advice has not supported closure on these grounds. ","details":"The Minister recognises that many families are concerned that contact tracing, isolation or catching Covid-19 may have an impact on their plans for Christmas Day. \r\n\r\nA States Assembly debate on school closures was held on 10 December 2020 following the lodging of Deputy Ward’s proposition P163.2020. After several hours of debate on the main proposition and two amendments, the States Assembly voted not to close schools a week early.\r\n\r\nNotwithstanding this, any decision to close schools for Covid-19 reasons is governed by the COVID-19 (SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE OF CHILDREN) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2020. The Regulations require that in order to publish a notice closing schools the Minister for Education must first:\r\n\r\n(a)   consult the Council of Ministers;\r\n(b)   obtain the consent of the Minister for Health and Social Services; and\r\n(c)   be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate, having regard to the foreseeable risk of the spread of Covid‑19 in Jersey, to publish the notice.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the Minister for Health and Social Services must consult the Medical Officer of Health before giving any consent to the Minister for Education. \r\n\r\nThe medical advice received by the Minister for Education, the Council of Ministers and States Members, ahead of the debate, was that schools should remain open until the end of term, including noting the limited effectiveness on the spread of the virus by closing schools.\r\n\r\nAs such, having examined the issues, and based on the above steps, and further to the States Assembly having debated the matter thoroughly, it was concluded the schools should remain open. \r\n\r\nIn concluding this, practical realities have been considered, including measures within schools to promote teacher and pupil safety; and schools have also been able to make individual decisions on how they approach attendance in the run up to Christmas. \r\n\r\nNotwithstanding all the above, the Minister for Education appreciates the concerns of parents, and teachers, and the very real challenges of trying to maintain schools physically open during the pandemic, and has asked for more work to be done in advance of the start of the Spring term.\r\n\r\nSenator Tracey Vallois, Minister for Education","created_at":"2020-12-24T08:28:13.331Z","updated_at":"2020-12-24T08:28:13.331Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200554,"links":{"self":"https://petitions.gov.je/petitions/200554.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Follow Scotland and make period products free for all.","background":"Jersey needs to follow Scotland and make period products free for all and make them accessible for everyone who needs them.\r\n\r\nNow more then ever women are experiencing poverty due to the coronavirus pandemic but they’re still having to pay for products; this has crippled many families financially.","additional_details":"As part of a project for my Queens Guide award I have been researching period poverty and it shocked me how many women and girls need period products but cannot afford them.\r\n\r\nI’m campaigning to make a real difference in people’s lives and standing up for those who don’t have the power or strength to fight for a fundamental human female monthly necessity.","state":"closed","signature_count":2231,"created_at":"2020-11-25T20:49:01.965Z","updated_at":"2021-11-27T00:00:29.526Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2020-11-26T14:09:34.142Z","closed_at":"2021-05-26T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-25T20:55:39.650Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2020-11-30T21:10:11.912Z","ministers_response_at":"2020-12-21T09:14:06.625Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"ministers_response":{"responded_on":"2020-12-21","summary":"The Minister welcomes this petition and recognises that everybody should be able to access menstrual products, but cannot commit to following the approach taken in Scotland.","details":"The Minister believes that everybody should be able to access safe and hygienic menstrual products and recognises the dignity that this affords. The Minister welcomes this petition but cannot commit to following the approach taken in Scotland without a better understanding of the situation in Jersey, including in relation to the needs of individuals, the cost implications and options for free provision.  \r\nFree period products are currently provided in 28 schools in Jersey by the Red Box Project and have been since 2019. It will be important to work with those schools and the Red Box Project to understand uptake amongst school pupils and to consider likely uptake in other settings and amongst other groups before any decision can be made by the States Assembly to endorse free provision of period products.   \r\nConsideration would also need to be given to the range of products that could be made available, to distribution logistics and to other issues that act as barriers to access or wellbeing. Research undertaken by Plan International indicates that, in the UK, there are a range of associated issues including knowledge gaps, attitudes, stigma and pain management which may, in turn, be influenced by factors such as education, religious and cultural practices and social media messaging.   \r\nWhilst there is some anecdotal evidence which suggests there may be barriers to access and wellbeing in Jersey, we need to know more if we are to properly understand the issue and meet needs. We must also consider the potential provision of period products alongside existing arrangements for other essential items. \r\nThe Minister has, therefore, asked officers to undertake further research on this issue with a view to reporting findings to the States Assembly within the term of this Government.  \r\n \r\nDeputy Judy Martin \r\nMinister, Social Security ","created_at":"2020-12-21T09:14:06.623Z","updated_at":"2020-12-21T09:14:06.623Z"},"debate":null}}]}