States Meeting Transcript - 06/06/2006

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 6th JUNE 2006

QUESTIONS......................................................................................7

1. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING STAFF EMPLOYED IN THE YOUTH SERVICE..............................................7
   2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD REGARDING THE FIXING OF SALARIES FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES EARNING IN EXCESS OF £100,000...............................................................7
   3. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY S. POWER OF ST. BRELADE REGARDING CAPACITY AT LA MOYE AND LES QUENNEVAIS SCHOOLS IN RELATION TO DEVELOPOMENT IN THE WEST OF THE ISLAND .................................8
   4. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING TRANSPORT STRATEGY .............................................................9
   5. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REWGARDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' PENSION SCHEMES.............................................................................10
   6. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE HEALTH PROMOTION UNIT........................................................13
   7. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY K.C. LEWIS OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING FERRY SERVICES TO FRANCE...............................................................................14
   8. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY K.C. LEWIS OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE INCIDENCE OF ILLNESS AFFECTING RESIDENTS IN THE HAVRE DES PAS AREA ..................................................................................14
   9. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF AN INSURANCE SCHEME FOIR SENIOR CITIZENS...................................15
   10. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY CONNÉTABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE MOVE ON CAFÉ' ..............................................................16
   11. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY

DEPUTY A. BRECKON OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING PROGRESS OF THE TOWN CYCLE NETWORK' AND FUNDING UNDER THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND..............................................................16

12. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY CONNÉTABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE GREENING' OF MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKS..............................17
13. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS AND BED NUMBERTS IN THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ....18
14. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING LONG TERM INCAPACITY ALLOWANCE (LTIA) CLAIMANTS.................................................20
15. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE TIMETABLING OF COMMUNICATIONS...........................................22
16. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN, COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE COST OF WELFARE IN RELATION TO THE IMPACT OF THE LONG TERM INCAPACITY ALLOWANCE (LTIA) SYSTEM......................................................22
17. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE POLICY ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS AS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LA FALAISE', ST. MARTIN ...........................................23

1.19 WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY A. BRECKON OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED FROM 2001 TO THE PRESENT TIME .............................................................26

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................27

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the inspection of food recently carried out on the visiting traders from France: .........................................................................................27 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.............................27

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................28
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................28

3. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................29
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................29
5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................29
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................30

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the anticipated remaining lifespan of La Collette 2 and plans for la Collette 3 or any other future reclamation project: ................................................30 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...30

1. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................30
2. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................31
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................31
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................31
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................31

3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the draft Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 200- (P.63/2006): .......................................32 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................32

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................32
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32
4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................33

5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................33
6. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34

4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Economic Development regarding pricing on the northbound and southbound ferry routes:........................................34 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................34

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................35
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................35
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................36
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................36
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................37
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................37
7. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................38

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the total cost of remuneration at Jersey Post:....................................................39 Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................39

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................39
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................39

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40

6. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the draft Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 200- (P.63/2006):...............................................40 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................40

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Housing ....................40

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................41
2. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................41
3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................41
4. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................42
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
6. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................42
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................42
8. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................43
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................43
10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................43
11. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................44
12. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................44
13. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................44 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................45

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Chief Minister...........................45

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................45 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................45
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................45

4. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................46
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................46
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47
8. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................47
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................47
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................47

11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................48
12. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................48
14. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................49
15. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................49
16. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................50

5. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:..........................................................50

5.1 Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................50

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................50

6. Jersey Post Incorporation: cost/benefit analysis, investigation and responsibilities of J.C.R.A. (P.61/2006).....................................................................51

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
   2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51
   3. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:..................................................51

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................58
2. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................62
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................63
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................65
5. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................65
6. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................67

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................68

7. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................68
8. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................72
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................73
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................73
11. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................77
12. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................78
13. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................78
14. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................79
15. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................79
16. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................81
17. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................82
18. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................82
19. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:....................................................84
20. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................84
21. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................84 The Bailiff :...................................................................................87

NOTIFICATION OF LODGED PROPOSITIONS............................................96

1. Fur products: petition (P.72/2006) ......................................................96

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................96
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................96
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................96 The Bailiff :...................................................................................97

2. Draft Sea Fisheries (Licensing of Fishing Boats) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.71/2006)..........................................................................97

The Bailiff :...................................................................................97

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued) .............................................................97

8. Draft Postal Services Transfer (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.9/2006) - debate resumed ...........................................................................................97

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................97
2. The Bailiff :.............................................................................98
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................98
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................99
5. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................99
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................99
7. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................99
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:................................................................100 The Bailiff :..................................................................................100

9. Exclusivity of postal services within Jersey: termination of Agreement (P.42/2006) 100

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................100
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):............................................................................100 The Bailiff :..................................................................................101

10. Draft Postal Services (Jersey) Law 2004 (Appointed Day) (No. 2) Act 200- (P.43/2006) ..........................................................................................101

The Bailiff :..................................................................................101 10.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):............................................................................101 The Bailiff :..................................................................................102 10.3 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................102

11. Island Plan 2002 Policy H2: Fields 848, 851, 853 and 854 (P.48/2006)................102 The Bailiff :..................................................................................102

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................102

12. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee):............................................................................103

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst : .....................................................................103
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:.............................................................103

12.2.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:...................................................103

3. Senator M.E. Vibert :..................................................................103
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:..........................................................104
5. Senator L. Norman: ...................................................................104

12.5.1 Senator F.E. Cohen: ................................................................104

6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: ................................................................104

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: ............................................................104
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................105

7. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:......................................................105

12.7.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):................105

8. Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................105

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................106

12.9.1 The Connétable of St. Clement:....................................................106

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................106 The Bailiff :..................................................................................106

The Roll was called and the Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING STAFF EMPLOYED IN THE YOUTH SERVICE

Question

Given that States' departments aim to achieve best practice' and value for money', would the Minister explain to members how the current ratio of a four-strong management team to 12 professional workers within the Youth Service achieves this?

Answer

I believe that I have answered this question in information I have supplied to members in response to previous questions by Deputy Pitman in the past. For the sake of clarity, however, I will reiterate that with the exception of the Principal Youth Officer, all the members of the senior management team of the Youth Service have an individual rôle to play in delivering front line services to young people as well as assisting the Principal Youth Officer in the management of the service.

It is wrong of Deputy Pitman to assume that the youth service comprises only twelve professional workers. The Provision made for young people in this Island comes through partnerships between the Youth Service and a wide range of other  organisations and projects,  parishes,  uniformed organisations, the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, the Prince's Trust, and some 200 volunteers and part-time staff to name but a few. Its strength lies in the diversity of provision, the close relationship forged between these organisations, and the efforts put into our young people by a wide range of part time and voluntary staff.

Projects have to be managed, full-time, part-time staff and voluntary staff have to be trained and supported, and effort has to be co-ordinated. A small team of experienced and professional staff fulfil this role. I believe they do an excellent job, assuring best practice' and value for money.

2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD REGARDING THE FIXING OF SALARIES FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES EARNING IN EXCESS OF £100,000

Question

Would the Chief Minister inform members of the arrangements that are in place for the fixing of salaries for public employees earning over £100,000 per annum and, in particular, would he state -

1. whether any public employees are involved directly or indirectly withthe fixing oftheir own pay?
2. whether individual performance is taken into account when fixing pay?

3. whether, and, if so, to what extent, pay is automatically increased on the basis of inflation?
4. whether any employee's pay has been reduced following a benchmarking process by a remuneration consultant in the last three years and, if so, on how many occasions has this occurred?

Answer

Most officers earning over £100,000 per annum have their salaries negotiated on a personal basis with the States Employment Board. The exception is Hospital Consultants whose pay is directly linked to the salaries fixed for comparable staff in the U.K. by the Doctors and Dentists Review Board.

1. Although the States Employment Board is advised in this respect by senior officers in the Chief Minister's Department, and senior employees are entitled to negotiate individually with the Board, it is the Board itself which has final responsibility for fixing pay;
2. in the main, individual performance is not taken into account, although the Board does have the ability to vary a pay award to reflect the performance of an individual officer. Hospital Consultants have increments which are awarded solely on the basis of merit, linked to specified performance criteria;
3. although the prevailing Retail Price Index is a factor which the Board takes into account, awards are not automatically increased on the basis of inflation. For instance, in 2004 and 2005, all awards were fixed at below the prevailing Retail Price Index.;
4. the circumstances suggested in the question have not arisen in the last three years.

3. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY S. POWER OF ST. BRELADE REGARDING CAPACITY AT LA MOYE AND LES QUENNEVAIS SCHOOLS IN RELATION TO DEVELOPOMENT IN THE WEST OF THE ISLAND

Question

At a public Parish meeting held on 22nd May 2006, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture indicated his concerns regarding the future capacity at La Moye and Les Quennevais schools.

Would the Minister inform members -

1. whether he will temporarily halt any planning consultations and planning applications in the La Moye and Les Quennevais areas in viewofthepossibleshortageofcapacity in the schools in these areas? and,
2. whether consideration will be given to any compounding of traffic congestion arising at Beaumont and Victoria Avenue should development continue in the La Moye and Les Quennevais areas arising fromschool children attendingschool in St. Helier because of insufficient school capacity in the west of the Island?

Answer

1. For land use planning purposes, the Island operates a plan-led system and the 2002 Island Plan lies at the heart of this approach. It contains a framework of strategic planning policies and proposals, including the spatial strategy governing the location of new development and sites zoned for Category A' housing purposes;

these policies and proposals were formulated and approved following extensive consultations with interested parties and a States' debate in July 2002. The Education and Public Services Departments were among those bodies consulted and their views were factored into the site selection process;

clearly, educational forecasting is not an exact science and situations are subject to change. Indeed, I am aware that the catchment areas of schools are adjusted from time to time to cope with fluctuating numbers of school age children  in each Parish. In some cases, temporary class accommodation is established to overcome short term population blips;

in the event that there are substantiated concerns about capacity at schools, I am sure that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture will formally report those to me. At that point an appropriate course of action can be determined. In addition, there will be a review at a strategic level when the Island Plan is reviewed in 2007.

The Planning Applications Panel will continue to consider applications for new homes on their individual merits, having regard to the provisions of the 2002 Island Plan and to any other material considerations. Any large-scale applications for new homes will normally be referred to the Education Department for comment and the availability of school places will be a significant factor in determining the applications. I feel it unreasonable therefore to operate a complete embargo on new housing development at La Moye/Les Quennevais.

2. See answer to (a) above.

4. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING TRANSPORT STRATEGY

Question

Would the Minister inform members when the Transport Strategy will be presented to the States? Answer

The Deputy will recall that on 31st January 2006, I made a statement to this Assembly withdrawing the Strategic Travel and Transport Plan (P.174/2005) which had been lodged by the former Environment and Public Services Committee in August last year. The Council of Ministers, in January 2006, approved that Plan as a high level framework document on which to develop some specific and detailed proposals for a number of key areas, namely buses, taxis and parking and I was charged to develop that Action Plan within the following 3 months. I regret that this timescale has been exceeded, but the Department has only a limited staff resource, which has been affected by staff illness.

However, work is progressing well and I hope that the Council of Ministers will consider the detailed plan by July at the latest. The plan will then be circulated for public consultation and also forwarded to Scrutiny for its review with the expectation that the final document, (as amended by the public and/or Scrutiny), will be lodged "au Greffe" in the last quarter of 2006.

5. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REWGARDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' PENSION SCHEMES

Question

Would the Minister inform members of the following information in relation to 2005 –

1. the total pension deficit or surplus, calculated under FRS17, for all public employees pension schemes including the Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme and the outstanding pre-1987 debt?
2. the amount of money transferred into pension schemes during the calendar year with a complete breakdown between schemes, regular employee contributions, and additional payments, (for example funds transferred from the former Education, Sport and Culture Committee's budget to cover pension shortfalls)?
3. a comparison of employer contribution rates against both the private sector average andU.K. local government pension schemes?
4. the current method of calculation for the pre-1987 debt, whetherthe liability for the debt lies  solely with the taxpayer,  and whetherthe actual debt quoted is an estimate and whether the actual amount payable by future generations will be significantly higher than the indicated figure?

Answer

1. The total pension deficits, calculated under FRS17 as at 31st December 2005, for the Jersey  Teachers'  Superannuation  Fund  (JTSF)  and  Jersey  Post Office  Pension  Fund (JPOPF) can be found on Page XXVI of the States 2005 Financial Report and Accounts. The  total deficit,  calculated  under  FRS17  as  at  31st  December  2005,  for  the  Public Employees' Contributory Retirement Scheme (PECRS) was £281,593,000. This sum is inclusive of the pre-1987 debt, valued at £123,152,000,  as calculated by the  method explained in answer (d) below.
2. The amount of money transferred into the pension schemes during 2005 was as follows-

3. Comparative Employer Contribution Rates are as follows: PECRS RATES

Employer Contribution rate 13.60%* (Employees Contribution - New Members Rate  5.00%) (Employees Contribution - Existing Members Rate 6.25%) (Employees Contribution - 1967 Members Rate  6.00%)

*  An  additional  payment  is  made  by  the  employer  in  respect  of  the  Pre-1987  debt repayment (approximately 2% at present), as detailed in the 2005 Financial Report and Accounts and answer (d) below.

JTSF RATES

Employer Contribution rate  9.95% (Employee Contribution rate  6.00%) JPOPF RATES

Employer Contribution rate 26.60% (Employee Contribution rate  1.50%) COMPARATIVE INFORMATION

2005 NAPF (National Association of Pension Funds) survey showed average employer contribution for open defined benefit pension schemes as 16% of pensionable pay. This will  no  doubt  include  an  element  relating  to  past  service  surplus  or,  more  likely, deficiency.

U.K. Local Government Pension Scheme; employer contribution is approximately 13.8% plus significant additional payments in respect of past service deficiency.

U.K. Principal Civil Service Scheme; the effective employer contribution calculated on like for like basis is approximately 18.3%.

4. THE PRE-1987 LIABILITY

1. The current method of calculation for the pre-1987 liability is as follows –

To place a value on the future debt repayments due from the States over the period to 31st December 2083, the actuary has projected forward each year's repayment in line with assumed pay increases. In accordance with the Regulations the debt repayments due from the States will increase each year in line with the average pay increases of Scheme members. The annual debt repayment due from the States during 2005 was £3,004,321. To place a present value on the future repayments the actuary has discounted-back each repayment over the period from the date each repayment is due to be paid to the certification date in line with the assumed discount rate (or interest rate). The value placed on the outstanding debt is the sum of these discounted future debt repayments.

The financial assumptions used to calculate the outstanding pre-1987 debt due from the States as at 31st December 2005, were the assumptions used for the actuarial valuation of the Scheme as at 31st December 2004. The key assumptions used for this purpose are –

the average pay increases of Scheme members are assumed to be 1.25% per annum above U.K. inflation; and,

the discount rate is assumed to be 3.75% per annum above U.K. inflation.

2. The States liability -

The States in agreeing P.190/2005 on 27th September 2005, have confirmed responsibility for the past service liability and agreed to repay this debt over an 82- year period commencing 1st January 2002.

3. Total value of repayments to be made and estimation' clarification -

As explained above, the present value of the debt has been calculated as the expected present value of the future debt repayments. The debt repayments are dependent on future levels of pay, which cannot be known in advance. As such, assumptions have been used to place a value on these payments. To that extent, the quoted value of the payments can be described as an estimate.

The actual future debt payments will differ from those assumed in calculating the value of the payments to the extent that experience differs from the assumptions, for example if actual salary increases differ from those assumed in the calculations.

The debt works in a similar way to a mortgage. The debt repayments are made up of two elements, interest on the debt and capital payments to reduce the amount of debt outstanding. As with a mortgage, the balance of the repayments changes over time so that, in the later years of the repayment schedule, the capital payment becomes the major part of the repayment. However, unlike a mortgage, which tends to have level repayments, the repayments for this debt are projected to increase with pay increases over the repayment period. This means that repayments are projected to be higher in the later years of the repayment schedule. The capital repayments are, therefore, biased towards the later part of the repayment period. Each year, the value of the debt will increase with interest, and reduce by the amount of payments made. Again, as with a mortgage, the sum of total projected payments to be made will exceed the current present value of the debt because the projected payments will include the future interest on the debt. However, if the future payments are discounted back at the rate of interest charged on the debt, the discounted value will equal the capital amount of the debt.

To explain why this is the case, imagine a separate fund set aside of equal value to the debt, from which the debt repayments are made, and on which interest is earned at the same rate of interest as is charged on the debt. Over the debt repayment period, the fund will increase with the interest earned, and this will be just sufficient to make up the difference between the debt amount, and the sum of the projected repayments.

6. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE HEALTH PROMOTION UNIT

Question

What is the cost and the number of staff employed in the Health Promotion Unit and how is the effectiveness of the service measured?

Answer

The Health Promotion Unit is an integral part of the Public Health Department, which is based at Le Bas, has a budget of £370,930 (staff £330,120 and non-staff £40,810), and when fully staffed employs 6.86 full time equivalents.

The thrust of health promotion activities is directed at improving the health and wellbeing of the whole population of Jersey. However, it is recognised that health promotion activities, if they are to be successful, have to be implemented collaboratively working with other organisations drawn from the statutory, non-statutory and voluntary sectors.

The effectiveness of the Health Promotion Unit is measured in a number of ways –

1. targets are set for the Health Promotion Unit and these targets are expressed annually in the Business Plan for the Health and Social Services Department;
2. some health promotion interventions are evaluated using questionnaires and other such forms of feedback fromtargeted populations and client groups. An example of such an evaluation is that relating to the "Grab 5" initiative. This initiative seeks to provide five pieces of fruit or vegetables per day to primary schools as a means of improving knowledge and understanding ofthe benefits of healthy eating. Judged by the feedback, this initiative has proved to be hugely effective;
3. a number of longitudinal surveys and trend analysis are undertaken to plot behaviour changes over time. An example of this is the periodic health-related behaviour survey which is conducted in both primary and secondary schools; and,
4. the Health Promotion Unit is a contributing agency to the Building a Safer Society Strategy (BASS). All ofthe BASS initiatives, and there are health promotion initiatives, are evaluated for their effectiveness as a matter of course.

Currently, the Medical Officer of Health is leading on the drafting of a new Health Improvement Strategy which it is envisaged will have a huge impact on the health and well being of Islanders. It will be the subject of consultation towards the end of the current calendar year. The Health Promotion Unit is playing its part in developing this strategy and it anticipated that as a result of this strategy, the role of the Health Promotion Unit will be significantly strengthened.

7. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY K.C. LEWIS OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING FERRY SERVICES TO FRANCE

Question

As Condor Ferries has been actively promoting its U.K. to St. Malo route via the Channel Islands in the U.K. media with the effect of reducing capacity for local people to travel with Condor from Jersey to St. Malo, would the Minister undertake to secure adequate provision for the local travelling public on this route as part of any future service level agreement with the service provider?

Answer

I refer Deputy Lewis to the States debate held on 28th March 2006, on the subject matter of service level agreements. In that debate I gave an undertaking that service level agreements would deal with, schedules, type and capacity of vessels and appropriate reserve peak season capacity in the relevant markets. This undertaking clearly applies to all routes serving the Island. The Department is now in the process of negotiating service level agreements with Condor.

8. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY K.C. LEWIS OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE INCIDENCE OF ILLNESS AFFECTING RESIDENTS IN THE HAVRE DES PAS AREA

Question

The Minister has recently stated that there is no evidence of a connection between the La Collette composting site and the health of people living and working in the Havre des Pas area. Will the Minister undertake an investigation to ascertain whether there is any evidence of increased incidence of illness in the Havre des Pas area and, if so, the cause?

Answer

The Deputy is correct in that I have stated that there is no connection between the La Collette composting site and the health of the people living and working in the Havre des Pas area. My statement is based on the unequivocal advice of professional officers who include the Medical Officer of Health and the Head of the Health Protection Unit amongst others.

The Health Protection Unit has undertaken a comprehensive investigation in an attempt to seek evidence; showing an increase in illness in residents around composting sites; and an increase in illness and morbidity amongst the residents of Havre des Pas as a result of the relocation and continued operation of the composting facility at La Collette. The Health Protection Unit takes this matter very seriously and has investigated every complaint from residents that have been brought to its attention. However, the Health Protection Unit has failed to find any such causality. I fully appreciate the fact that this is not what local residents wish to hear. I accept fully that some residents fervently believe that there is such causality. But the plain fact is that there is no science, no evidence, to support those beliefs.

If there was to be any negative health effect, (any causality between illness of local residents and the composter), then this would likely to take the form of respiratory illness or disease. The Island's chest physician, an eminent and highly respected consultant, has confirmed that there is no evidence which would suggest increased levels of such disease amongst residents.

The problem that we have is that if there were such illness and disease, and I repeat again that there is no evidence of this, it would be impossible to differentiate the source of such illness and disease because of the wide and diverse emissions from "industrial activities" which take place in the La Collette area. These include of course the Fuel Farm, the Jersey Gas site, the Power Station (which includes the chimney, the stand-by power plant and the oil stores) and incinerator ash dumping. These activities together with the associated heavy traffic movement and the significant local car traffic combine to create low "background" levels of pollutants. Air quality testing in St. Helier undertaken by the Health Protection Unit has demonstrated grounding of the Power Station plume raising pollutant levels in certain climatic conditions.

In this context, no purpose could possibly be served by "an investigation". Many investigations have taken place and to the highest standards and the results are clear. If the evidence, the science, is not believed then there is very little more to be said. I am sorry that I have to put this in such clear terms.

The problem for the local residents concerns unpleasant odours. No one has denied that there are odours emanating from the general area of La Collette. Some studies have determined that these are caused by the composting process, although the number of such incidents have reduced by the use of better composting techniques; other odours relate to the presence of decomposing seaweed at the sea shore.

I have great sympathy for the feelings and beliefs of local residents. The way to resolve their concerns once and for all is to implement the Waste Strategy of which I am a great supporter. We should all get on with this task in the interests of both Havre des Pas and Bellozanne residents.

As a footnote, I might add that, in January 2006, the Head of the Health Protection Team met with local residents and with Deputy Paul le Claire of St. Helier in order that they might discuss the latter's concerns. At that meeting, a number of polluting incidents were reported which the Team had been hitherto unaware of. The Team is still waiting for information on these polluting incidents in order that they can be investigated.

9. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF AN INSURANCE SCHEME FOIR SENIOR CITIZENS

Question

Which Minister has responsibility for developing policy in regard to the financing and possible introduction of an insurance scheme for senior citizens requiring residential/nursing care and will a report, with all costed options detailed, be presented to the States and, if so, when?

Answer

The responsibility for developing policy in this area would rest with the Minister for Social Security. In developing any such policy, he would need to work closely with other Ministers and organisations, and in particular with the Minister for Health and Social Services, given the latter's responsibilities for overall health and social care strategy.

However, it needs to be borne in mind that the introduction of an insurance scheme is only one of a number of options that exist in respect of the funding of elderly healthcare. Health and social care for the Island's more elderly population will form an important part of the strategic report currently being developed by Health and Social Services, and this will identify a high-level plan for the re- design of health and social care in the Island. Funding options for the healthcare strategy will be tailored to the overall strategic direction of the Island.

This particular issue is one of many facing the Island as a result of demographic and health care pressures. These issues, together with options to address them, have already been identified and discussed in the "Policy Review of the Social Insurance System in Jersey - Interim Report", (R.C. 49/2004), presented to the States in 2004 by the former Employment and Social Security Committee.

The draft Strategic Plan 2006-2011 commits the Minister for Social Security to the future development of the Social Insurance System, as reported in R.C. 49/2004, through undertaking public consultation and developing further strategies for the States to consider by 2007 (paragraph 3.6.1 of the Strategic Plan). This review will address the range of available options, including their relative costs.

10. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY CONNÉTABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE MOVE ON CAFÉ'

Question

Would the Minister provide an update on the position of the Move on Café' on the Island Site, and indicate what alternative facilities, if any, will be available for young people when this drop-in centre closes?

Answer

I understand that the Move On Café' is secure until the end of August 2006. The Youth Service is currently working with a number of other organisations, the Parish of St Helier, Waterfront Enterprise Board, and the Harbours Department to secure alternative facilities in close vicinity to the Move On Café' for young people living in or coming to the area.

A number of options have been considered. The most favoured, and the option being actively pursued, is the development of facilities for young people on a converted historic vessel to be moored against the wall in the harbour by the Maritime Museum.

11. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY A. BRECKON OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING PROGRESS OF THE TOWN CYCLE NETWORK' AND FUNDING UNDER THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND

Question

Would the Minister inform members on the current progress of the £200,000 grant made in 2003 from the Tourism Development Fund to the Parish of St. Helier in respect of a Town Cycle Network' and state how the funding is being managed, how it has been spent to date and how the remaining funds will be spent?

Answer

The funds for the project were approved in September 2002 and the project is being managed by the Parish of St. Helier . However due to States arrangements for Road Orders some elements of the scheme have to be approved by the Transport and Technical Services Department.

Between September 2004 and March 2005 the Tourism Development Fund (TDF) has paid out £39,142 to the Parish of St. Helier Cycle Network Scheme for development work on Phase One of the project which included signage, bicycle stands, traffic islands and reflective bollards. With work presently being carried out on the upgrading of the signals and widening of the pedestrian crossing on Route de la Liberation to assist cyclists crossing from the waterfront and harbour area expenditure on Phase One is expected to reach £57,000.

Phase Two of the Town Cycle Network (east bound, town to Havre des Pas) was designed, drawn up, risk assessed and sent to the former Environment and Public Services Committee in February 2005. The Committee rejected the scheme in October 2005.

Earlier this year the New Minister for Transport and Technical Services was invited to attend upon the St. Helier Roads Committee to discuss concerns. The Minister expressed his concern about the methodology of marking and signing the proposed route and requested the scheme be re-visited to look at alternative methods. The project is, therefore, currently being revised and will be submitted to the St. Helier Roads Committee and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services when ready.

12. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY CONNÉTABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE GREENING' OF MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKS

Question

Would the Minister inform members –

1. whether he is considering the potential for the greening' ofthe multi-storey car parks at Sand Street, Minden Place, Green Street and Fort Regent and, if so, what action, if any, he intends taking; and,
2. whether he would be prepared to allow the growing of appropriate species of plants on some or all of these facilities to provide a form of attractive visual screening ofthecar parks at the same time as contributing to biodiversity?

Answer

1. The matter of greening' the multi-storey car parks has, at various times in the past, been considered mostly for aesthetic reasons. It has, so far, not been progressed for a variety of reasons:

1. the costs involved, both at the outset and for ongoing maintenance;
2. concern over whetherthe roots or climbers/clingers would damage the structure ofthe buildings;
3. some health and safety concerns over the possibility of reduced ventilation and light inside the car parks; and,
4. the issue of accessibility to the structural elements for maintenance.

However, every case should be, and will be, considered on its own merits and I certainly would not dismiss this idea, especially at a time when the St. Helier Regeneration Project, which will be examining ways of enhancing the town in all senses of the word, is just beginning.

2. As intimated in my answer to (a) above, I would be prepared to consider this formof screening as and where it is appropriate taking into accountthe issues already mentioned. I will take advice fromthe departmental officers both in respect ofthe kind of species of plants which may be appropriate and as to which structure, or part of a structure, would most lend itself to this formof screening.

13. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS AND BED NUMBERTS IN THE GENERAL HOSPITAL

Would the Minister inform members –

1. whether he is investigating communications procedures across various departments within the General Hospital to determine whether any disconnection exists and, if not, would he undertake to do so; and
2. of available bed numbers within the General Hospital and at longer stay wards such as at Overdale Hospital and also give details of projected numbers for the next five years?

Answer

1. A district General Hospital is an extremely busy and highly complex organisation. Even a cursory examination ofthe Jersey General Hospital's internal telephone directory would give one an appreciation ofthis complexity and high division of labour that exists between the various clinical and non-clinical departments, functions, and activities. Communicating effectively and meaningfully to a highly diverse workforce, which includes consultants, nurses and midwives, manual workers, technicians and administrative staff, is a challenge which is characteristic of such organisations and is a task that is never completed as it is always possible to work harder and to improve further.

In this context, a number of important exercises have just been completed –

1. the management structure has been subject of widespread consultation both within the Jersey General Hospital and within other departments of Health and Social Services. The way in which this exercise has been conducted has drawn compliments from a number of staff. An important outcome from this reviewhas been an affirmation ofthe Chief Officer's practice of holding three "roadshows" each year, in three different locations, (nine events altogether), in order that he can be accountable to his staff and can answer their searching questions;

2. Executive Directors communicate organisation wide messages using the intranet facility. This has proved increasingly affective as more and more departments, and more and more staff within those departments, have access to the latest technologies. Importantly, following a recent meeting ofthe Manual Workers Joint Consultative Committee, internet access will be "rolled out"to manual workers as far as it is practical;
3. the Health and SocialServices Department is committed toensuringthat it's staffare made aware of any changes to their working practices proactively via the intranet rather than having to read about them in the local media. As the Department seeksto become a better employer, this professional courtesy represents best practice;
4. senior managers and senior clinicians meet regularly with various work groups through the Health and Social Services Departments' consultative machinery. Specific consultative machinery exists for medical staff, nursing and midwifery staff, and manual workers. A latter development has been the establishment of a joint Working Party comprising of nurse managers and nursing and midwifery staff side representatives to implement the Job Families Agreement which is a highly complex and all embracing agreement which has the effect of radically transforming the remuneration and career paths for the nursing and midwifery professions.

Health and Social Services encourages all staff to communicate widely and responsibly. Communication should never be simply "top down" from the Chief Officer. Communication should flow "up and down and across" the Department if the organisation is to be healthy, continue to be relevant, and able to operate in a timely and professionally manner.

Given this level of communication, albeit not perfect, it suggests to me that there is no "disconnection" within the Jersey General Hospital. If the Deputy is aware of any specific matter that might suggest such a disconnection' then perhaps he would contact me.

2. The number of available beds within the Jersey General Hospital is 294 (this number includes the Critical Care Unit, Special Care Baby Unit and Maternity beds). The number of beds in the longer stay wards at the Overdale hospital is 141 (this number does not include respite beds). Further long stay facilities exist atSt. Saviours' Hospital for older people with mental health problems. The number of these beds is 95 (this number does not include respite beds).

Beds represent a very high cost  in the provision of health and social care thus  it is important that numbers are always kept under review. Some of the factors which influence the number of beds in any health care system include –

1. where patients prefer to be treated elsewhere, for example, receiving appropriate treatment in care in their own homes as opposed to being in an institution ofsome kind;
2. where care is more effectively given elsewhere. The bestand most effective formof surgery for many patientstakesplaceon a "day surgery" basis.Toaddto its current

day surgery facilities, a £6.9 million development is taking place at the Jersey General Hospital which will allow patients to arrive, receive surgery, and return to their own homes without the need for them to be accommodated in a bed on a ward;

3. when technology has changed the type of treatment a patient needs. The States of Jersey is to invest significantly in the ICT infrastructure oftheHealth & Social Services Department. The affect of this new technology, amongst other things, will be to expedite care as a result, medical records, and x-rays (and other relevant items of information) can be transmitted electronically andsavetheneedfor some surgical patients to languish in beds;
4. when chronic disease management improves. I will be bringing forward proposals for restructuring of health and social care in the latter months of this year. One of these proposals will include the development of more effective andefficientwaysof providing care and treatment to those patients with longer term conditions. Currently, these patients are often re-admitted to the Jersey General Hospitalwhenthey experience an acute episode simply because GP-led primary andcommunity services are insufficient for these patients to be treated in their own homes;
5. when waiting times reduce further. While this is a complex matter, it can be said that when a general hospital has long waiting lists, then healthcare professionals often spend an inordinate amount of time prioritising and re-prioritising patients who are on that long waiting list but whose conditions deteriorate as a consequence. Short waiting times means that healthcare professionals can manage their patients before their conditions worsen. In this way, healthcare professionals can manage their patients' rather than manage the waiting lists'.

An exercise currently underway is to measure the impact of these variables, an indeed others, on bed numbers. The number of beds which the Health and Social Services Department thinks it will need in the future, provided that other non-hospital options are available, will be presented to the States later this year.

14. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING LONG TERM INCAPACITY ALLOWANCE (LTIA) CLAIMANTS

Question

Will the Minister inform members –

1. ofthetotal number of LTIA claimants in receiptof benefit along with percentages of incapacity awarded and the total sum paid out for the year 2005?
   2. ofthe number of claimants, and the total paid for Disablement and Invalidity Benefits separately for the year 2003, the last full year of operation under the old system;?
      100. how many LTIA claimants have been successful in finding work, and the reasons for any who have been unsuccessful?
      101. how much additional cost, if any, has been transferred from the Social Security system to Parish Welfare departments and togeneraltax revenues for native and non-native welfarepaymentsas a result of the changeto a systemof percentage awards of LTIA, and if none the reasons why?

Answer

As the Deputy is aware, having contributed to it, a review of the Incapacity Benefit system is underway with a report due later this year which will cover the wider issues within these questions and therefore I have not attempted to anticipate the outcome of that review.

1. The  total expenditure  on  Long-Term  Incapacity  Allowance  (LTIA)  in 2005  was: £1,421,000. In addition expenditure on legacy claims for Disablement Benefit (DB) and Invalidity Benefit (INV) were £3,703,000 and £18,131,000 respectively;

the total number of people in receipt of LTIA as at 31st December 2005, was 516. In addition, there were 854 people still receiving DB and 1,962 receiving INV. The initial percentage awards for the LTIA recipients are illustrated below –

The percentages illustrate the long-term award; however, additional payments may be made over  the  short-term  where,  for  example,  someone  is  having  an  operation.  The  total expenditure of £23,255,000 for all three benefits was in 2005 and there were 3,332 long term benefit recipients at the 31st December 2005;

2. asat31stDecember2003,thenumberof people inreceiptof Disablement Benefit was828 and total expenditure for the year was £3,432,000. The number of people in receipt of Invalidity Benefit was1,954and the total expenditure for the year was £16,260,000, giving a total expenditure of£19,692,000 in 2003and2,782 long term benefit recipientsattheendofthe year;
3. 157 people (30%)of the 516 LTIA recipients as at December 2005 are showing as having paid  Class  I  Social  Security  contributions  while  receiving  LTIA.  Some  recipients  of Invalidity Benefit have moved voluntarily to LTIA and into open employment after a period of Therapeutic Work. However, it is not possible to list the many reasons why an LTIA recipient is not working: some may be undertaking training to find new roles while others may decide not to work. This aspect will be covered by the review;
4. it is impossible toestimate whether there has been a transferofcostas a direct result ofan LTIA award. As has been explained in answersto previous questions, the eligibility criteria for the present benefits differs from the previous benefits such that some people now receive benefit who would not have under the old system. Furthermore, the new system allows recipients to work where possible andtherebyachieve a degree of financial independence. Therefore, in some cases, the financial costtothe Welfare system may be reduced. To give any estimate would require an individual review of each case and the Department is not privy to that information.

15. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE TIMETABLING OF COMMUNICATIONS

Question

Will the Minister inform members of the current timescale in which he deals with and replies to incoming communications and also give an indication of how this may change in the future?

Answer

It is the normal practice of the Transport and Technical Services Department to acknowledge incoming communications within two working days and to provide a response within two weeks. In the generality, communications addressed to the Minister would fall into this procedural pattern. However, the Minister does not consider himself bound by the existing departmental protocol and the Minister does not simply use the measurement of time to deal with incoming communications. In practice, the Minister applies a further series of protocols that are kept under regular review.

Incoming communications will be dealt with differently, for example, according to whether they are addressed to the Minister of Transport and Technical Services or to Deputy Guy de Faye, which may imply constituency matters as opposed to Transport and Technical Services business. Similarly, hand written, typed or printed letters are usually accorded a higher level of priority than e-mails and, in the case of e-mails, whether as Minister or Deputy , there may be no response made at all, if the e-mail is merely copying information sent to a different primary recipient. On rare occasions, it is possible that an incoming communication might be deemed to be malicious or vexatious and consequently not warrant a reply.

It should be stressed that the preceding examples should be regarded as indicators of how responses to communications may be handled. There are numerous factors that can impact upon any given exchange of correspondence, such as complexity of research or absence of particular key personnel, which will then affect the priority and timing attached to an individual communication and its subsequent response.

The Minister does not anticipate any substantial change to this overall approach in the immediate future.

16. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN, COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE COST OF WELFARE IN RELATION TO THE IMPACT OF THE LONG TERM INCAPACITY ALLOWANCE (LTIA) SYSTEM

Question

Would the Chairman inform members what total additional sums, if any, have been paid by the Parishes to welfare claimants to top –up' percentage awards made by the LTIA system over the financial year 2005/06?

Answer

The information requested can only be extracted manually by reference to individual files for welfare claimants. It is not possible in the limited time available to give the figure for the full financial year 2005/06. I am advised that in April 2006 a total of £29,954.04 was paid to persons receiving LTIA across all Parishes.

I will endeavour to provide the information for the full financial year in due course, if it is still required, but at present all resources are concentrated on finalising the annual accounts so that the Island-wide rate for 2006 may be set.

17. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE POLICY ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS AS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LA FALAISE', ST. MARTIN

Question

Would the Minister inform members how his policy on historic buildings reconciles with the recent decision taken regarding the property La Falaise' as not being a building with any historic relevance?

Answer

As I have made clear on a number of occasions my intention is to raise the status of our important historic buildings. To help achieve greater protection for our historic built environment I have recently formed the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group. This group comprises the members of the old Historic Advisory Panel and brings in many new members with specialist heritage knowledge. These are respected people who have spent a lifetime involved with various aspects of our history and it is entirely appropriate that they should be formally involved in my endeavours to provide the best possible pool of heritage knowledge from which I can draw to take decisions relating to the listing and registration of S.S.I.s and B.L.I.s.

However much we may wish to we cannot preserve all our old buildings but we must retain buildings of significant historic, cultural or architectural merit. Over the years we have seen the destruction of buildings that would have been preserved in many other jurisdictions; the most notable being Colomberie House.

Owning a BLI or SSI carries certain additional costs over an ordinary building. Repair works can be more costly and can be scrutinised by the Department. Presently only a small sum is available as heritage grants. I will be carrying out a review of the cost implications of owning S.S.I.'s and B.L.I.'s and will report back to the States once the work is concluded. This report will include a review of the current grant system.

La Falaise presented a very interesting situation. Initially it had been assumed that the building was constructed at the time of the breakwater (1847-1856) and that it may have had a military association'. When further research was carried out it transpired that plans existed in the Archive for this house. The plans were dated 1911 and clearly the house must postdate these plans. The plans include a foundation section indicating that whilst this may have been a reconstruction using some materials recovered from an earlier building it was effectively a new build. As there was no particular architectural merit in the building and as it had no know cultural or historical significance I felt that listing or registration was not warranted. However, I have stated that I would only consider allowing as a replacement a traditionally designed Jersey house of granite. It would need to be very carefully detailed included well proportioned windows and other traditional details.

1.18WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ZERO/TEN DESIGN PROPOSAL.'

Question

Would the Minister inform members, in relation to the document entitled Zero/Ten Design Proposal' –

1. whether the decision tointroduce look through' only for investment holding companies but not for trading companies owned by Island residents will reduce estimated tax yield and, if so, by how much? If not, can the Minister explain why the mechanism was originally chosen?
2. whether the removal of the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership for Jersey companies contained in Section 6 has any effect on the Island being well regulated over money-laundering?
3. whythe decision wastakennottointroduce limited or schedular' look-through contained in paragraph 10.3.2?
4. why the decision was taken not to apply anti-avoidance measures in section 12 and whether this will result in any impact on fiscal revenue and, if so, to what extent?
5. ofthe impact, if any, of the proposals made in paragraphs 17.2.2 to 17.3.1 and what estimates have been made, if any, of the tax revenues contained in paragraph 17.6?
6. of the de minimisrental level under consideration inparagraph17.6.3,andwhat impact, if any, this has on tax revenues?
7. what estimates, if any, have been made ofthe impact ofthe exemption on shareholdings below 1% contained in 19.3.2 on revenues? and,
8. what additional resources will be required, if any, in orderto make the changesto Article 134A of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961 effective in tackling avoidance?

Answer

1. There will be no loss of the estimatedtax yield arising at the personal or dividend levelas all distributions and deemed distributions will eventually be collected by assessment on the individual shareholder. However, there will be a loss of interest that may have accrued on these tax revenues as there is a timing difference between the receipt oftax revenues underthe original look through' proposals, (whentaxrevenues would have been received on total profits more or less as currently), compared to the revised partial distribution'' proposals which will only tax all undistributed profits for the first year in the fourth year with tax collection in the fifth year and so on. However, part ofthe proposals includes a deferred distribution charge which equates toan annual interest charge of 4% so that will compensate to some degree for the loss of interest which may have accrued on these tax revenues. Ifthe Limited Trading Partnership route is chosen, however, there will be no loss oftaxor loss of interest on persona/dividend tax revenues in such instances as such assessments will be made on a partnership basis' ofall profits arising. The original look through' proposals werechosen with partofthe rationale beingto maximise taxyieldon a current year basis;

2. whereas there is a proposalto remove the requirement for upfront disclosure of beneficial ownership for Jersey companies to the Financial Services Commission, (where a company is administered by a licensed Jersey trust and company service provider), there is no weakening of the legal requirement for the licensed Jersey service provider to know and to keep that information and for it to be subject to investigation by the Commission either through the on-site inspection process or through it being specifically requested by the Commission as circumstances dictate. Indeed, the requirements in this respect are due to be further enhanced shortly through the introduction of a revised Money Laundering Order and related regulatory guidance, which reflect the latest international standards on anti- money laundering. An inability either to demonstrate compliance duringan on-site visitorto respond to a specific request for beneficial ownership information would amount to a significant breach of the anti-money laundering requirements and could thus have an impact on the service provider's continuing fit and properness' to hold an ongoing licence under relevant legislation, or lead to the use of a regulatory sanction by the Commission, as well as leaving the firm concerned and its directors open to possible criminal prosecution (as happened in a recent case) The change now being proposed on up-front disclosure is not,therefore,seentorepresent a risk totheIsland'swell founded reputation for being well regulated in terms of anti-money-laundering.

This also fits in with the wider international picture. The OECD in its report on the misuse of corporate vehicles and the FATF in its methodology for assessing compliance with the 40 recommendations on money laundering refer to three options for ensuring that information on beneficial ownership is available - up-front disclosure; regulation of trust and company service providers; and investigatory powers. Up-front disclosure may be attractive when focusing on the formation stage but nowadays the emphasis is much more on the importance of on-going monitoring and in this respect, with Jersey now having a well established track record in the regulation of trust and company service providers, the Island has a very positive story to tell which the proposed change in no way impairs;

3. this would cause an unnecessary administrative and operational burden at both professional offices and the Income Tax Office through the preparation and examination of such schedular' look through computations for non-trading income and would notbe a wise use of scarce resources;
4. such anti-avoidance measures would be complex and resource intensive to administer. In any case, the most simple avoidance measure of all for specified financial services companies would be to transfer theassets in question to another competitive jurisdiction andthatisnot something that I would liketosee,as it is much more preferable to keep the capital hereinJersey.So it is not simply a matter of tax but as importantly maintaining the capital base here in Jersey ratherthan losing it;
5. there are no statistics available to make an estimate of the tax yield that would arise from such an extension of the tax base and that, as well asthe complex legislation that would be needed to administer the legislation in question, is why this proposal has not been pursued. Thevery broad andtentativeestimateofthetaxrevenuesthat may arise from the proposal at paragraph 17.6 is some £5 million, although it is by no means certain that the proposal

in question will come to fruition as I am still awaiting feedback on that proposal as I am with all the others;

6. once again, this is a matter that is out for consultation as I donot want to impose an unnecessary administrativeredtape'burdenontenantsor letting agents. It is for this very reason that the United Kingdom has its own de minimisrental level of £100 per week;
7. to subject shareholders with a less than 1% shareholding in public companies to the deemed distribution charge and the deferred distribution charge would be both administratively onerous as well as being practically and legally indefensible. These shareholders will still be liable, as now, atthe standard rateof 20% on the dividends they receive fromthesecompanies.It is not thought that there will be any impact,as compared to the present situation, on revenues;
8. there will be no additional resources to police the revised Article 134A as all assessing and accounts inspection staff at the Income Tax Office already undertake a crucial role in investigating all cases oftax avoidance. There is also a specialist Division which tackles tax evasion and fraud and those officers will also be involved in policing the new Article 134A provisions. The new tick the box' regime will also make checking of individual taxpayer Income Tax Returns must easier and transparent that at present and will assist the Comptroller and his staff in ensuring complete and correct Income Tax Returns are being made.

1.19 WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY A. BRECKON OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED FROM 2001 TO THE PRESENT TIME

Question

Would the Minister inform members how much the States have received from the Jersey Electricity Company Limited in dividends, including special dividends, in each of the years 2001 to 2005, and in the first four months of 2006?

Answer

Since the beginning of 2001 the States of Jersey has received over £9.9 million in dividends, this includes a special dividend paid in March of this year. The one off payment of the special dividend in 2006 reflects the distribution of £6.8m proceeds from the sale of an investment property in Broad Street during the last quarter of 2005.

The details of all dividends are shown below -

SOJ JEC Dividends Received 2001 to April 2006

Stock: JEC Ordinary Shares of £1.00 each

Holding Year Period Payable Net Tax  Gross

950,000.00 2001 950,000.00 2002 950,000.00 2003 950,000.00 2004 950,000.00 2005

Interim 20/09/2001 266,000.00 Final 13/03/2002 304,000.00

Interim 06/09/2002 281,200.00 Final 04/04/2003 345,800.00

Interim 04/09/2003 311,600.00 Final 02/04/2004 380,000.00

Interim 30/09/2004 342,000.00 Final 02/04/2005 532,000.00

Interim 01/09/2005 380,000.00 Final 28/03/2006 589,000.00

66,500.00 332,500.00 76,000.00 380,000.00

712,500.00 70,300.00 351,500.00 86,450.00 432,250.00

783,750.00 77,900.00 389,500.00 95,000.00 475,000.00

864,500.00 85,500.00 427,500.00 133,000.00 665,000.00

1,092,500.00 95,000.00 475,000.00 147,250.00 736,250.00

1,211,250.00

Special

950,000.00 2006 Dividend 28/03/2006 4,218,000.00 1,054,500.00 5,272,500.00 5,272,500.00

total  9,937,000.00

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding  the  inspection  of  food  recently  carried  out  on  the  visiting  traders  from France:

Would the Minister inform Members whether he  is investigating or intends to investigate the circumstances regarding the inspection of food recently carried out on the visiting traders from France?

Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

The inspection of food labelling and hygiene standards relating to traders who sold their produce at the Foire de Jersey was undertaken by the Health Protection Unit. The Food Safety Labelling (Jersey) Order 2005 enables Jersey to have the very same labelling laws as those which exist in the European Union. Under this Order it is an offence for vendors to display information in a language not readily understood by the intended consumer. Clearly, in the Jersey context, the majority of intended consumers would expect labelling to be in the English language. Regulation and inspection are important means by which [Interruption] Islanders can be protected from a wide range of risks, threats and contingencies. Jersey is subject to regulation and inspection in many areas of life. For regulation and inspection to be effective it cannot be subject to the whims of political or managerial control, otherwise it falls into an ineffective and disreputable state. Thus, I am always very mindful not to involve myself in the day-to-day substance of inspection and regulatory activities undertaken by Health and Social Services. The reports concerning the inspection at the Foire de Jersey, which appeared in the media last week, did not portray the level of dialogue which took place prior to the fair between the Maison de Normandy and the fair organisers to ensure that prospective vendors were made aware of the need for the latter to abide by local Jersey-based legislation. Notwithstanding this, I have asked the Medical Officer of Health and the Chief Officer of Health and Social Services Department to meet with the Health Protection Team to review the rules of engagement by which the Health Protection Team engage with any individual premises or businesses should an inspection be in the offing. I would be perfectly happy to share the results of this review with the States Assembly in due course.

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Unfortunately I did not comprehend all of that because I believe the Minister was trying to read very quickly through the printed answer that he had. It does seem to me from the correspondence we have seen and media statements that there seems to be - what concerns me - some discrimination here because it has been alleged that local traders do not all comply with this matter either but do not seem to be so vigorously pursued. Would the Minister confirm that that is the case and would he also comment on the fact that this is, in fact, a bilingual Island where English and French are both our language. I was going to ask the question in French but unfortunately, although I speak a little French, I have forgotten most of my French over the last 20 years, an unhappy situation. What I am seeking to find out is why is it not satisfactory that the labelling, as this is a bilingual Island, apparently was in French but was required to be English? Surely the fact of French labelling would be entirely satisfactory?

Senator S. Syvret:

The Regulations in Jersey, which mirror those across the European Union, require that the labelling on food products be in the language that the majority of people speak rather than the official languages of a country. Clearly, the great majority of people in Jersey do use English as their first language so that is the reason for that requirement. As I say, these are Regulations that mirror those to be found across the European Union. As far as the enforcement of these requirements on local traders is concerned, the same standards are applied. It has to be remembered that none of the traders at the Foire de Jersey were stopped from trading, although there were some discussions with them and the inspectors. The same applies with a number of supermarkets and other smaller outlets in Jersey which have not been compliant with the Regulations and have been not selling goods that are properly labelled. The Health Protection Unit has been engaged in a process I suppose I could describe as negotiation and co-operation with these various outlets in an effort to try and get them into a position whereby they are complying with the Regulations. That is, I think, a more constructive approach than simply marching in and slapping some form of enforcement notice on them.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

Would the Minister inform the House whether or not it is his intention to also label or to seek the labelling of food served in restaurants? Secondly, would he answer the allegation made on Radio Jersey that a person delivered a homemade cake to the hospital and was told that the patient in question could not eat it as it was not correctly labelled?

Senator S. Syvret:

As I have already indicated in answering the initial question, I have asked the Medical Officer of Health and the Chief Executive of Health and Social Services in co-operation with the department to review the whole procedures adopted by the Health Protection Unit and, indeed, to see whether any of the Regulations perhaps need amending. As far as the issue about the cake is concerned, I heard something about this but I think it applied to a nursing home somewhere in the United Kingdom as opposed to any event that occurred in Jersey.

3. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :

I just wanted to bring the Senator's attention to an enraged parishioner who telephoned me on my mobile whilst I was holiday about the incident at the States Farm. She was very concerned as to the manner in which the inspector dealt with the situation. Could the Senator assure us that in the future training will be given to such officials so that they handle these situations in a slightly more sensitive manner?

Senator S. Syvret:

Yes, that will be part of the review of the terms of engagement as to how health inspectors engage with the various people who are being regulated. Yes, there will be a review of these procedures. It has to be said there was one incident where a confrontation took place between one inspector and, I think, the head of Maison de Jersey, which he has written to her and apologised. I have made it absolutely plain that that kind of behaviour will not be acceptable, raising voices to people is not acceptable behaviour from any Health and Social Services employee, and it will not occur again.

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

Because I am confused on the issue and obviously he is going to review it anyway, I would like to ask the Minister what sort of criteria exists for the provision of inspecting or providing English language on foods in specialty shops where, for example, one can purchase foods, for example, baby food from a Portuguese shop which was in Portuguese. There was no English on it. Is there an inspection factor there and is that going to be part of the review?

Senator S. Syvret:

Yes, I think I have alluded to that. The fact is there are some shops - speciality shops - that are selling goods that are not correctly labelled and are, therefore, not compliant with the existing Regulations. As I have already explained, the Health Protection Unit has been attempting to address that issue through a process of persuasion and negotiation rather than blunt enforcement, which is something that they could do under their existing legal powers.

5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Could the Minister assure us that during his review of these Regulations that he will look at the labelling of French wines coming into Jersey because mostly they are labelled completely in French without an English translation. [Laughter]

Senator S. Syvret:

I am certainly happy to check the Regulations' applicability to alcohol products.

6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I wonder if, in this new spirit of co-operation across government, perhaps the Minister would consider teamwork with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture where perhaps at these fairs a dictionary could be issued and this would assist greatly in people understanding a variety of languages.

Senator S. Syvret:

I am sure the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture is very, very interested in ensuring that the Island has a very good standard of inter-language learning.

The Bailiff :

That concludes the questioning of the Minister of Health and Social Services and we return to the beginning of the list of oral questions. The next question is by Deputy Power of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the anticipated remaining lifespan of La Collette 2 and plans for la Collette 3 or any other future reclamation project:

Would the Minister inform Members what the latest estimate is for the anticipated remaining lifespan of La Collette 2 and how far advanced plans are for La Collette 3 or any other suggested reclamation project?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

The anticipated lifespan of the La Collette 2 site is estimated to be between 9 and 11 years. This estimate is based on the current and historic infill rate and if the infill rate reduces the lifespan would increase and vice versa. The waste strategy identifies the need for a future inert waste disposal site when La Collette 2 is full. The options consist of a further marine reclamation site or a land-based site, probably in one of the existing quarries when they have been fully worked in terms of mineral extraction. The department is already working with the planning department to assess the timeframe for a land-based solution. However, as yet there are no fixed dates for a site to become available. The option of a further marine-based site will have to be fully evaluated as to extend to the southeast of the existing La Collette site will require careful consideration of the current RAMSAR designation for that area. I am aware of proposals for smaller marine-based sites in other locations, but these will require full environmental and economic evaluation. The department will be commencing work on identifying options for future inert waste disposal sites early next year. A request for capital funding to enable a full technical evaluation has been included in the 2011 capital programme.

1. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether one of the previous plans by a previous Harbourmaster was to look seriously at providing our long-term future shipping requirements by way of an arm leading out beyond the Dog's Nest, the Demie de Pas, et cetera, to a new island out there, which would allow us to have regular-size shipping able to stop - cruise liners, et cetera? I wanted to ask if this is in their proposed thinking.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I have heard of such a plan being drawn up and I assume currently stored somewhere. I have to inform the Deputy I have not looked at it personally and as far as I know that particular plan is not currently at the forefront of the department's thinking. But as the Deputy has alerted me to it, I am sure we can have another look at it.

2. Senator L. Norman:

On at least 2 occasions the States have approved in principle a land reclamation scheme at St. Aubin. Could the Minister tell us what progress has been made on that project, please?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I understand that plans for a reclamation site at St. Aubin have been in the course of discussion for something like 40 years or maybe even longer. I can inform the Senator that, in effect, discussions are continuing and I recently attended a meeting with the Connétable of St. Brelade in company with the Treasury Minister and a number of other key personnel to discuss a St. Aubin reclamation site. But it is a potentially expensive project and, as I said, it is also a quite sensitive area. My understanding is that there are split views on how things should go forward within the Parish and I would certainly advise the Senator to talk to the local Deputies on that particular issue. But we are looking at it.

3. Senator F.H. Walker :

Would the Minister confirm that, in fact, the Council of Ministers has now agreed to add an additional proposal in the Strategic Plan to undertake an environmental impact assessment on the infill at St. Aubin?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Yes, I can confirm that both St. Aubin and, indeed, Gorey have been included in the Strategic Plan with a view to making assessments as to their viability for possible reclamation sites.

4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

Returning to La Collette 2 and 3, would the Minister update us on the progress of the transport studies that are currently being carried out into the traffic impacts of activities at La Collette and would he give a guarantee that the Parish of St. Helier will be fully consulted as he develops his plans for that area of the Parish?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I am sure that in the Constable's role as Chairman of the St. Helier Regeneration Group he is going to be fully consulted and is probably in a better state of information than possibly the Minister. Yes, as I understand it, as discussions progress thoughts are being turned to the potential road solutions, but they are many and varied and at very much an early stage.