States Meeting Transcript - 06/12/2006

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 6th DECEMBER 2006

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................6

1. Draft The Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.115/2006)...6

The Bailiff :....................................................................................6

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):..............................................6
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................6
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................6
4. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:....................................................6
5. Senator F.H. Walker :....................................................................7 The Bailiff :....................................................................................7

2. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 2) (Planning and Environment to Economic Development) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.125/2006)........................7

The Bailiff :....................................................................................7

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):..............................................7

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ........................................................8
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................8
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................8
4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................9
5. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ..........................................................9
6. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:................................................9
7. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................9
8. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................10

The Bailiff :...................................................................................10 Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel): ............................10

2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................10 The Bailiff :...................................................................................10

3. Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.129/2006)..............................................................................11

The Bailiff :...................................................................................11

1. Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):................................11 The Bailiff :...................................................................................11 Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel):..................................................................................11 The Bailiff :...................................................................................11
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................11 The Bailiff :...................................................................................12

4. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Amendment No. 11) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.136/2006) ..........................12

The Bailiff :...................................................................................12

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................12

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................12
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................12
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................12 The Bailiff :...................................................................................13 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........................13

2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................13

5. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.137/2006) ...........................13

The Bailiff :...................................................................................13

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................13 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........................13
2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................14 The Bailiff :...................................................................................14

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES ANDS PANELS........................14

6. Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel: election of member - notice......................14

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........................14 The Bailiff :...................................................................................14

7. Draft Amendment (No. 31) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues (P.138/2006)...14

The Bailiff :...................................................................................14 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................15

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development): 15
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................15
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................16
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................16
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................16
6. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................16 The Bailiff :...................................................................................17

8. Draft Harbours (Amendment No. 40) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.139/2006) ........17

The Bailiff :...................................................................................17

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):..............17

1. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................17
2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................17 The Bailiff :...................................................................................17

2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................18

9. Data Protection Commissioner: appointment (P.142/2006) ............................18

The Bailiff :...................................................................................18 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................18

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources):.............................................................................18
2. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................18
3. Deputy J.A.N Le Fondré:...............................................................19 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

10. Data Protection Tribunal: appointment (P.143/2006)..................................19 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

10.1 Deputy J.A.N Le Fondré:...............................................................19 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

11. Public Employees Contributor Retirement Scheme Committee of Management: membership (P.153/2006)................................................................19

The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................20
2. Deputy P.V.F Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................20
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................20 The Bailiff :...................................................................................20

12. Draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.155/2006)........................................................................21

The Bailiff :...................................................................................21

1. Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):..................................21
2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................21
3. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................21 The Bailiff :...................................................................................22

13. Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day) (No. 2) Act 200- (P.156/2006)..............................................................................22

The Bailiff :...................................................................................22

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................22
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................23
3. Senator J.L Perchard:...................................................................24
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................24
5. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................25
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................25
7. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................25
8. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................25 The Bailiff :...................................................................................26

14. Draft European Communities (Accessions) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.158/2006)..28

The Bailiff :...................................................................................28

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................28

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................29
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................29
3. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................29 The Bailiff :...................................................................................29 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........................29

2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................30 The Bailiff :...................................................................................30
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................32

1. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................32
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................32
3. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:.......................................................33
4. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................33 The Bailiff :...................................................................................34
5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:..........................................34
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................34

7. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................34
8. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................35 The Bailiff :...................................................................................35
9. Deputy I.J. Gorst ofSt.Clement:....................................................35
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................35
11. Senator F.H. Walker :..............................................................36 The Bailiff :...................................................................................36

REQUEST UNDER STANDING ORDER 26(7) - REDUCTION IN MINIMUM LODGING

PERIOD....................................................................................38

15. Draft Banking Business (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.159/2006) and Draft Insurance Business (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.160/2006) ............38

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................38 Deputy of St. John:...........................................................................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................39

1. Draft Banking Business (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.159/2006).........39

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................39 The Bailiff :...................................................................................39
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................39 The Bailiff :...................................................................................39

2. Draft Insurance Business (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.160/2006) .....40

The Bailiff :...................................................................................40 15.2.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................40 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................40

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................41

16. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....41

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................41
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................41
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................41
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41 The Bailiff :...................................................................................41

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS.........................42

17. Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel - election of member..............................42

The Bailiff :...................................................................................42 17.1 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................42 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:................................................................42

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS....................................................................42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................42

1. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................42
2. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................43

3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................44 The Bailiff :...................................................................................46

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................46

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Draft The Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.115/2006)

The Bailiff :

We now return to the Order Paper and the next item of public business is the Draft Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 (Appointed Day Act) and I ask the Greffier to read the long title.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft The Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200-. The States, in pursuance of Article 38 of the Law Society of Jersey Law 2005, have made the following Act.

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

The States approved the Law Society of Jersey Law last year, in 2005, and this Appointed Day Act will bring the Law into force on 1st January with the exception of those provisions requiring practicing advocates and solicitors of the Royal Court to be members of the Law Society of Jersey. It is intended that the Appointed Day Act in that respect - which is Article 3 of the Law - will come into effect on 1st April and the time delay is to allow practitioners who may not yet be members of the Law Society a sufficient opportunity to join it. So, Sir, I make the Act.

The Bailiff :

The Draft Act is proposed and seconded. [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the draft Act?

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

This is a red letter day, one I have - and I know members of the profession have - looked forward to for a long time. There are certain exceptions. I am not sure I totally agreed with those but that is the way of the world. The point I would like to make, Sir, and ask the Minister is, as he knows, part of the so-called investigation and disciplinary procedure is that there will be outsiders involved. That will, I thought, require the recruitment of these people so that there would be an outside view brought on to these panels. Can he assure us, Sir, that that recruitment is going to take place immediately? I thought that was why the delay was in place and I would like that assurance. I congratulate him on bringing this forward. This is indeed a major red letter day.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would just also like to welcome this. I think there is much work that, as a result of this new structure for the Law Society, is to be done with the Law Society and Economic Development is working with a group of senior lawyers. I think that it is a sub-committee of the Law Society in developing exactly policies for the legal services sector and, indeed, in that work last week I spent the morning at the legal aid clinic; something which not many people, perhaps not many States' Members and not many Islanders, know what happens. I saw just the scale of work that is carried out by lawyers in this Island in terms of delivering legal aid in the way that they do. I learned that some 1,500 to 2,000 certificates are issued in legal aid and I was extremely impressed with what I saw with the manner in which people have been handled, et cetera. There is an agenda, there is a job of work to be done in helping the Law Society in developing projects, in developing procedures and, dare I say, improving what we can do to help them in the way in which legal aid is delivered. There are efficiencies and opportunities and I look forward to working with the Law Society in this new structure that they now have to do that and I support the Bill absolutely.

4. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement :

I was the President of the Legislation Committee when this Law was brought forward to the States and I would just like to say that I welcome the time that has come, that the Appointed Day Act has arrived because I would just like to correct, very slightly, the Chief Minister's statement that it was 2005 that the Law was passed. It was on 2nd November 2004, so it is 2 years and 2 months to get it to the Appointed Day Act and I am glad that, at last, it has arrived.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

5. Senator F.H. Walker :

I share the support of those who have spoken and share their enthusiasm for this Appointed Day Act and for this important step forward. I do assure Deputy Le Hérissier that the recruitment process will be under way immediately and I am grateful to the Constable of St. Clement for correcting me and pointing out that it was November 2004 that we approved the Law. Of course the reason for the delay since then is there has been some discussion over whether or not it should cover lawyers, Law Officers and members of the Law Officer's Department and that discussion took quite some time. Now, happily, all is resolved and, Sir, I maintain the Act.

The Bailiff :

I put the Act. Those Members in favour of adopting it kindly show. Those against? The Draft Act is adopted.

2. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 2) (Planning and Environment to Economic Development) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.125/2006)

The Bailiff :

We turn now to the Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 2) (Planning and Environment to Economic Development) (Jersey) Regulations and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

The Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 2) (Planning and Environment to Economic Development) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance to Article 29 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, have made the following Regulations.

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

The fisheries functions of the States of Jersey currently reside with the Minister for Planning and Environment but after the benefit of 10 months operating experience it has become clear that the major aspect of political management of our fisheries function is more economic than environmental and therefore, Sir, it is proposed that the responsibility for the fisheries function should be transferred from the Minister of Planning and Environment to the Minister for Economic Development. I think it is a very straightforward proposition. It just makes sense and, of course, as I think Members are well aware, the major fisheries issue of the last so many months - indeed so many years - has been that of our agreement or lack of agreement with Guernsey which is very much more an economic issue than environment. Sir, this is a tidying-up; it is a slight evolution of what the House agreed to when we set up Ministerial government but it is one, which in my view and in the view of the Ministers concerned - indeed the Council of Ministers generally - makes sense. So, I would propose the transfer.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the draft?

1. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier :

Could the Minister please tell the House what are the net implications of manpower and cost involved? Are there savings to be made in the Environment Department? Are there net increases that will be required in the Economic Development Department? One of the original reasons was to do with efficiency and saving of manpower and money and that was virtually the only reason, I think, because there was a discussion that even a year or 2 years ago, I was involved in, where it was quite likely, even then, that it was really an economic function rather than an environmental one and some of the reasons for transferring it to the environment were to do with the saving of money. Does that mean that there are going to be increases somewhere?

2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

While I am not wishing to oppose this transfer of functions of the fishing elements of Planning and Environment to Economic Development, I would like to remind the Ministers - both Ministers involved and, indeed, the House - that there is an environmental damage to fishing. It is not just a case of resource over-exploitation which is happening in a lot of the international waters and, indeed, some of our waters as witnessed by the Regulations that we had in the south some months ago in terms of the beam trawlers and the use of stocks. I would urge the 2 relevant Ministers, that is, the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Economic Development Minister, to recognise that there is some still - even if the functions are transferred to Economic Development - there is overarching environmental interest between both of the Ministries and to bear that in mind in all their dealings. Fishing is very, very important not only economically but also in terms of making sure that we use our resources sensibly. The whole of the world's fishing product at the moment is over-exploited and characterised by greed and I think that is the point I would like to make sure is addressed between those 2 Ministries.

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is probably appropriate for me to say and respond to a couple of the points that have been raised as the receiving Minister on this. I would say for a start that Economic Development does not seek work but it has been clear - as the Chief Minister has indicated - that it would make better sense, certainly from a negotiating point of view, in dealing with both sensitive issues concerning the Guernsey matter which is dealt with by my opposite number, the Commerce and Employment Minister in Guernsey. Indeed, it was former Deputy Gerald Voisin and E.D. (Economic Development) who started the negotiations and Senator Len Norman, also, has been very much involved in it. It does make sense from a negotiating point of view as we attempt - and I do say we are going to try very hard - to find a solution to the Guernsey issue and as soon as these transfers have been made there are a number of Ministerial positions that have been prepared for me in order to send out the very clear message that we are trying and determined to solve the issue of the Guernsey issue. Deputy Duhamel is absolutely right when he reminds the Assembly of the importance of environmental considerations. I would liken this transfer of these particular responsibilities to those that we share with agriculture. As Members know, I am conflicted in some areas. There is the agriculture area and it is my Assistant Minister, with the Chief Minister, that deals with dairy matters. We do, in fact, share responsibilities for agriculture in the new joined-up world of Ministerial government. While there may be a primary duty of a Minister to be responsible for the law, effectively the officers are working as a joint team and, therefore, there will be no changes in terms of the structure of the departments. Rather there will be a reporting line for the respective pieces of legislation required and it will be very much the shared responsibility that we are looking at opening fisheries in the same way that we are working with agriculture, which I think is working extremely well. Deputy Duhamel is absolutely right that environmental considerations must be at the top of the agenda in terms of conserving our fish stocks and, indeed, looking after it but also recognising that there is an important economic driver there and there is some interesting economic exploitation of our precious sea resources around us. The only area that, perhaps, there is some opportunity for some efficiency savings - and we are not moving any money

between our departments in terms of cost savings and efficiencies - but one area where I do think that there can be some better co-operative working is in the area of the vessels that we have in the States of Jersey. The Harbours Department is blessed with a good and up-to-date couple of vessels in terms of sea patrol vessels which look after our outlying waters and reefs. I think there is and I have asked the Harbours Department to work more closely in future with the Fisheries Department that where we have people out on the high seas in our surrounding waters that are doing patrolling work - perhaps some joint training and some joint skilling that can be done. In the same way that the Minister for Home Affairs has joined her Immigration and Customs officials that they are now jointly trained, I think there is some scope in order at looking at our fisheries patrol people and looking at the way that we have harbours people out at sea in terms of patrolling our waters, et cetera. So, in that area, I think we can do better and I think, certainly, we can look better at the vessels and at the capital assets that we have in terms of making matters work better. I do not take responsibility lightly but it does seem that over the next few months that this area is better in Economic Development as a primary mover but it is a joint responsibility with my colleague in Planning and Environment and we will be, of course, listening and we have Dr. Simon Bossey who everybody knows is well regarded as being the top-notch environmental expert in this area.

4. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I would like some clarification from the Chief Minister, I presume, on the role of the Economic Development Department and its inter-reaction with the Environment Department. It is clear that political responsibility is being transferred from the Environment Department to Economic Development. Senator Ozouf has just indicated that he will be looking at physical resources within the Environment Department. Can I seek clarification as to what exactly "political responsibility" means and if the Environment Department has responsibility for the team at the Environment Division, I would have thought that that also includes the physical assets of the Environment Department. So, could I have clarification on that, please?

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

I think the Chief Minister and perhaps the Minister for Economic Development would agree that it has been somewhat of a bumpy ride with Guernsey over fisheries for many, many years. Can the Ministers - perhaps both of them - assure the House that now it is transferred to ED (Economic Development) that diplomacy skills of Economic Development will be that much greater and will achieve a little bit more. Bearing in mind that the Minister will be responsible for a number of issues that are in direct competition with Guernsey does this make his job a little bit more difficult when sorting out matters of fisheries because it has been, indeed, a bumpy ride up till now?

6. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

After many years of seeing continual overlap between Fisheries and Harbours down on the piers I fully support this move. There are 2 very good teams involved with, not only the Jersey Harbours side of things but also the Fisheries side of things, and we heard some months ago that the reason that the Norman Le Brocq did not go out as much as it was because of resource restrictions. I would like to think by this move that the Fisheries team would have access to the Jersey Harbours' resource to a certain extent so that we can satisfy Deputy Duhamel's comments earlier on and provide the adequate environment protection that we all seek. So I hope Members support this, as I will.

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

I just seek the assurance from the Chief Minister that the overlapping responsibilities that will now dovetail in between the environment and the economic side will also tie-in for the frontline operators of the department to have the overlapping in the appropriate training and co-ordination that they will have with other environment agencies and economic, if that is appropriate. It is just that when you split things up sometimes you miss out on appropriate courses or conferences that one needs to attend to and I would suggest to you that, in this particular area, it is very important for this Island and for the food chain around our Island.

The Bailiff :

I will call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

8. Senator F.H. Walker :

I think Deputy Ryan got the debate off to a fantastic start when he referred to the net result from the transfer. I thought that was an unusually witty speech from the Deputy . I can tell him, Sir, that there is a whole shoal of reasons why the Economic Development Department is the right place for Fisheries and, Sir, we will not be put off by red herrings. With apologies and my acknowledgement to the Social Security Minister for his I believe it was him who passed me those notes. Sorry, Sir. I sort of recognised the hand. It was more culture than social security, apparently. I think the question of savings has already been dealt with by Senator Ozouf as has the environmental dimension and, of course, I reiterate the environmental dimension will continue to get the most serious attention because Deputy Duhamel is quite right. There is a very big environmental dimension to the protection of our fisheries and that will certainly not be forgotten. Of course, the point from Deputy Power; yes, of course, the Economic Development Department and the Environment Department will be working very closely together and we will be making the most of our assets, and the team of that, in a more co-ordinated way than has been the case hitherto. The Deputy of St. John referred to the fishery issue with Guernsey and all I can tell him and, indeed, tell the House is I know that the Economic Development Minister has been pursuing the issue with great vigour with his counterpart in Guernsey but it does take 2 to tango and at the moment the signs of willing co-operation from Guernsey are not very strong and it seems that the prevailing view is that, basically, the matter will be seen out in court, which is not something that pleases the Economic Development Minister, me or, indeed, anyone. But unless there is an agreement to agree with our Guernsey counterparts then there is little, frankly - despite his best efforts - that the Economic Development Minister can achieve. I was pleased with the comments of the Constable of St. Brelade and I absolutely confirm that overlaps can be removed and that the new way forward will be more efficient and, similarly, Deputy Fox's point about training and co-ordination. Point

well made and point taken. So, Sir, I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

I put the principles. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? The principles are adopted. Now there are I think 2 Scrutiny Panels with an interest in the matter. Deputy Duhamel, does the Environmental Panel wish to scrutinise these Regulations?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel): Probably not, Sir, but we will keep a watching brief.

The Bailiff :

Very well, and Deputy Southern is absent, but the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, I think, also has an interest. Is there an Acting Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel who would like to indicate an interest or disinterest? Thank you, Deputy . We proceed to the debate on the Articles and I invite the Chief Minister to move the Articles en bloc, perhaps?

2. Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, please, Sir. I think after the debate on the principle the Articles are completely self- explanatory and I move them en bloc.

The Bailiff :

They are seconded. [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Articles of the Regulations? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Against? The Regulations are adopted in Second Reading and you move the Regulations in Third Reading?

Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded. [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Regulations in Third Reading? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Against? The Regulations are adopted in Third Reading.

3. Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.129/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come next to Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations in the name of the Minister for Social Security. I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of Articles 9 and 36 of the Health Insurance (Jersey) Law 1967, have made the following Regulations.

1. Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):

These Regulations simply increase the income criteria for H.I.E. (Health Insurance Exception). We have recently increased the benefit rate so it is important that these Regulations are supported so that existing H.I.E. beneficiaries will not be excluded just because the benefit rates have been increased. So, I make the proposition, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the Regulations? I put the principles. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? The principles are adopted and Deputy Breckon, is there an intention to scrutinise?

Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny

Panel):

No, Sir. In the report it does say that next June the H.I.E. scheme will be subsumed in the Income Support System and it says that beneficiaries are being contacted and there is already a sub-panel been set up to look at this under the chairmanship of Deputy Martin, Sir, and that instant service issue is already covered.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. The Assembly can now proceed to debate the articles and schedules and you move them en bloc, Minister?

2. Senator P.F. Routier: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

And they are seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Regulations or the schedules? I put the Regulations and Schedules. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? They are adopted and you move the Regulations in Third Reading?

Senator P.F. Routier: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? They are adopted in Third Reading.

4. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Amendment No. 11) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.136/2006)

The Bailiff :

Next, to the Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Amendment No. 11) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Amendment No. 11) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of Article 2 of the Public Employees Retirement (Jersey) Law 1967, have made the following Regulations.

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

Currently an employee who is a member of the P.E.C.R.S. (Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme) scheme receives a lump sum death benefit - or, rather, of course his or her family do - if he or she died in service. That does not apply if they happen to be on unpaid leave, which could be maternity leave, a career break or any other period of unpaid leave granted by the employer. What this proposition does is seek to correct that anomaly. It is clearly unjust if an employee is on fully authorised unpaid leave and has the misfortune to die at that time, clearly unjust that his or her relatives [Interruption] Sir, it may be unjust to the one who has died but it is unjust to his or her family or beneficiaries and all this does, for the New Members Scheme of P.E.C.R.S. - those members who qualify under the New Members Regulations - all this does is correct that unfair anomaly. I make the principle.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

Yes, I am glad to see that we are addressing an injustice. What brought this matter to the attention of the P.E.C.R.S. scheme? Had there been incidents of this and how have we dealt with them?

2. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just a question; a slight deviation, Sir. If a public employee was suspended at the unfortunate time that they should pass away, does that affect this or is their estate protected before the introduction of this proposed legislation?

The Bailiff :

I will call upon The Chief Minister to reply.

3. Senator F.H. Walker :

I am not aware of an incident that has led to this proposition. That is not to say there has not been one but I am not aware of it. This was discussed by the Committee of Management and put forward as a recommendation which I was only too happy to pick up. I do not believe, but I would need to check, that this applies to employees who are suspended. I understand that it applies only to employees who are on employer-approved unpaid leave and I read out earlier a number of instances where that can happen. That is something that I might well want to check on but I do not think it should, in any way, alter the validity of this proposition. I maintain the principles.

The Bailiff :

I will put the principles. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Against? The principles are adopted. The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel?

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel): No, Sir. We are fully supportive of the changes as they are currently drafted.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Chief Minister, you move the Regulations en bloc?

2. Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

They are seconded? [Seconded] Thank you. Does any Member wish to speak on the Regulations? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? They are adopted in Second Reading. Do you move the Regulations in Third Reading?

Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Regulations in Third Reading. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show. Those against? They are adopted in Third Reading.

5. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.137/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come to the Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of Article 2 of the Public Employees Retirement (Jersey) Law 1967, have made the following Regulations.

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

This is exactly the same proposition except that it applies to a different class of member of the P.E.C.R.S. scheme known as Existing Members. No need for any further comment, I do not think and I make the principle.

The Bailiff :

The principles are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the principles. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? They are adopted. Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel?

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Do you move the Regulations en bloc?

2. Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? They are adopted in Second Reading. Do you move the Regulations in Third Reading?

Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

[Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? The Regulations are adopted in Third Reading. We come to the Draft Amendment No. 31

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES ANDS PANELS

6. Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel: election of member - notice

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

May I just catch your attention for a swift moment, Sir? It is with your agreement and also the agreement of the States Assembly; the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has much ongoing work at the moment with G.S.T. reviews, with Zero/Ten' reviews still to complete and other work very soon to be on our agenda. For this reason, Sir, and without wishing to be in any particular haste or show any kind of disrespect to any immediately past members, the Panel would like to make a nomination before the adjournment today for a new member to replace the Deputy of St. Mary and I would ask you if that would be possible, Sir, and with the leave of yourself and the Assembly?

The Bailiff :

This is entirely a matter for the Assembly. If the Assembly feels that that gives Members sufficient time to contemplate whether other Members ought to be proposed for membership of the Scrutiny Panel it is entirely a matter for the Assembly to decide. The Chairman has given notice that he would like to do that later on and, no doubt, if Members have other thoughts they will let the Chairman know.

7. Draft Amendment (No. 31) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues (P.138/2006)

The Bailiff :

We carry on with the Draft Amendment (No. 31) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether there are of opinion, in accordance with Article 6 the Harbour and Light Dues (Jersey) Law 1947, to approve the Draft Amendment (No. 31) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues as set out in the appendix to the report of the Minister for Economic Development dated 24th October 2006.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):

Deputy Maclean, Assistant Minister in Economic Development is effectively the Minister for Harbours so could I ask him to be the rapporteur for these 2 following items?

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development): Members will note the intention to increase dues for arriving and departing passengers as well as vehicles by 2.5 per cent. This proposed increase is supported by Treasury and Resources as it follows their guidelines on States' charges and is consistent with the anti-inflation strategy. In applying any increase to harbour charges we also needed to consider the likely commercial and economic impact. However, it is recommended that due to the inflexible nature of the current charging mechanism that, regardless of economic or market conditions, we should apply the increase and then respond to market conditions as appropriate. This effectively means that we clearly recognise the challenges that are facing our sea routes. As such the Harbours Department will continue to work closely with the high-speed ferry operators - Jersey Tourism, the Economic Development Department - in order to develop and target incentives for application to key areas that will help to stabilise and grow the market. It is therefore intended that the 2.5 per cent proposed increase in harbour dues will be paid back to operators as part of a performance-related incentive package which is designed to encourage passenger growth. Members will see that under Part (b) we are seeking approval to also increase leisure moorings, visiting yachts and leisure spaces in line with the retail price index at 3.6 per cent. These leisure dues are recognised as not being directly related to the Island's inflation rate and with Treasury and Resources agreement it is felt prudent to continue the policy of maintaining these dues at current value by increasing them in line with the retail price index. In asking Members to support the increase in leisure dues we have also carefully considered the stated aim to grow the marine leisure industry. As such, we have noted the charges applied by our nearest competitors as well as the current level of local demand. The conclusions are clear in that the demand is comfortably outstripping supply and that our pricing is highly competitive. I would also bring Members' attention to the fact that freight charges have not been included here as previous legal advice indicates that charging freight under the Harbours and Light Dues Law, in its present structure, may not be compliant with European Law. However, in order to maintain the level of income necessary to operate the harbours the States have previously agreed that freight charges can be dealt with under Article 29 of the Harbours (Jersey) Regulations 1962, as amended. Freight charges have, therefore, been dealt with separately under this particular article. I would also like to mention that it is intended that a new Harbour Charges Law will finally be brought to this Assembly in 2007 once the current J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) review of the harbour is concluded. This proposed new Law will repeal and replace the 1947 Harbour and Light Dues Law under which the tariff of harbour charges is currently made. I would now ask Members to support this Draft Amendment (No. 31) to the Tariff

and Harbour Light Dues. I make the proposition, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

There are some issues that appear to be slightly confusing and may be of interest to the group in the gallery who are the first year of the policy-making course on the Highlands Degree Course and who are about to leave us. [Laughter] The first thing, Sir, I wonder if the Assistant Minister could explain [Laughter] - that is the impact that I usually have. I wonder if the Assistant Minister could explain why leisure fees are not recognised as being directly related to the Island's inflation rate; and how he has managed to separate the 2 out? Secondly, Sir, I am having enormous difficulty with the last sentence of the first paragraph about the growth in ferry passenger numbers. Is it going up or is it going down? Is it 3 per cent? What happened to the 13 per cent by which Emeraude forced it down, et cetera? That seems a very confusing sentence.

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just a question of the Assistant Minister, just to keep him on his toes. Is the proposal to increase by 3.6 per cent the dues payable for marina visiting craft and other mooring spaces higher than the increase proposed for harbour dues for arriving passengers as a result of the Treasury's dropped proposals to increase - or to tax - marine fuel? Is there a relation? You did mention, or the Assistant Minister did mention, that the fees have been agreed by the Treasury. Are the 2 related?

4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :

I think Members, and I am sure the public in the Islands, have been impressed by the dynamic approach that the Assistant Minister has taken to matters up at the airport where new ideas are being put into place and there is, indeed, an approach up there to try and reduce landing charges. I am interested to see the Assistant Minister is taking a slightly different approach at the harbour in respect of duties and tariffs down there. I would be interested to hear from the Assistant Minister to see how long he would continue with that particular approach and also to hear whether he has similar ideas in mind for driving efficiencies within the Harbour Department itself.

5. Deputy S. Power:

Just a short question and clarification also on a question later to what Deputy Le Hérissier said. Could the Assistant Minister clarify the intent of the scheme that he is proposing? My understanding is that he is proposing to waive the 2.5 per cent increase for those ferry operators that increase traffic in and out of the harbour. My understanding is also related to what Deputy Le Hérissier said in that there has been no increase at all on any of the U.K. routes this year or on the St. Malo routes and the only increase has been on the Normandy routes. So, given if that is accurate for 2006, does that mean that if this were to carry through in 2007 that the incentive would only apply to the Normandy routes if there was increase on that route?

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Assistant Minister to reply.

6. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

In answer to Deputy Le Hérissier's questions the opinion of the inflation effect, the 3.6 per cent, was an economist's view - I believe it was generated from the Treasury and Resources Departments - and I am sure they would be better placed to give a further opinion on that. As far as the travel figures are concerned and the numbers of passengers; I too agree with the Deputy in terms of the terminology in the report, it is somewhat confusing. What it means is that it is predicted that the increase is 3 per cent for 2007 compared to 2006 but it is also indicating that compared to 2005 - prior, of course, to the demise of Emeraude - the figures will be 13 per cent down. I hope that clarifies the position. It takes a bit of looking at to get your head around the way it has been written. It has not been very clearly written and for that I apologise. With regard to Senator Perchard's question, there is no relation whatsoever, just to be absolutely clear on that. I thank Deputy de Faye for his kind words, certainly in relation to the airport. We do not have a different view with regard to the harbour, however, it is an entirely different market as I am sure the Deputy will appreciate. It has its own challenges that we need to consider very carefully. We are looking at ways in which we can provide effective incentives to drive additional growth and I think I have alluded to that in my brief comments today. Clearly this is about increasing the harbour charges. The overriding principle is that we want to drive increased traffic and we will use different types of incentives in order to do that. As far as efficiencies are concerned, to answer his question on that, yes, we have our eyes very clearly fixed on efficiencies of the harbour and we will be aiming to work extremely hard in order to ensure that the Harbours Department in operation is efficiently run. That leads on to Deputy Power's comments. I think I have partly touched on the

incentive aspects. He is absolutely right. If we benchmarked against a falling passenger numbers then, of course, we would be giving nothing away at all. There are areas, of course, that we can incentivise. One in particular, the ferry operators, high speed ferry operators themselves, are very keen on, is the DX or the day trip markets it is described. It is a market that has dropped-off, and certainly since the demise of Emeraude we believe, and the ferry operators themselves believe there is a lot of potential there. We will be putting together a package as indeed we did this year. We believe it will be an even better package for 2007 to incentivise growth in that particular market. We will not be benchmarking on figures that are falling. We intend to make sure that the incentives are achievable otherwise there is, frankly, no point in applying them at all. I think, Sir, that is all I have to answer in terms of questions so I would leave to move the proposition.

The Bailiff :

I put the proposition. Those Members in favour of adopting it kindly show. Those against? The proposition is adopted.

8. Draft Harbours (Amendment No. 40) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.139/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come next to the Draft Harbours (Amendment No. 40) (Jersey) Regulations in the name of the Minister for Economic Development and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Harbours (Amendment No. 40) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of Article 4 of the Harbours Administration (Jersey) Law 1961, has made the following Regulations.

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):

This Regulation allows effective policing of the busy and congested port area. It is vital to ensure that the harbour does not become clogged-up so that it can operate efficiently. The ability to use a fine as a deterrent to those who seek to leave goods on the harbour beyond the prescribed period works effectively. This amendment simply seeks to increase the fine available by the Jersey retail price index of 3.6 per cent. I should add the port users fully support this amendment and I would hope that Members could also support it. I make the proposition, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The proposition is seconded. [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the Regulations?

1. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Can the Deputy advise us what the prescribed period is? It does not say on the document.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Assistant Minister to reply.

2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

I do not know the answer to the question, Sir. I do not know the prescribed period but I will establish that and ensure that the Deputy is advised of what the prescribed period is.

The Bailiff :

I put the principles of the draft. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show. Those against? The principles are adopted. The Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel? Is there an Acting Chairman available to say whether this is ? No scrutiny? Assistant Minister, you move the article and schedule as one?

2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

They are seconded? [Seconded] Does any member wish to speak on the articles or schedule? I put the articles. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? They are adopted in Second Reading. Do you move the Regulations in Third Reading? Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show. Those against? The Regulations are adopted in Third Reading.

9. Data Protection Commissioner: appointment (P.142/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come next to Projet 142, Appointment of Data Protection Commissioner and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to appoint Mrs. Emma Martins as Data Protection Commissioner for Jersey in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1) of and Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 on the terms set out in the Appendix to the report of the Minister for Treasury and Resources dated 1st November 2006.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

Could I ask my Assistant Minister to be rapporteur for this and the following matter?

The Bailiff :

Yes, thank you, Assistant Minister.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources):

The purpose of this proposition is to regularise the position of the Data Protection Commissioner. This post was created when the States approved the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, I think it is, at the very end of last year. Article 6(1) of that Law states, broadly speaking, that the previous position of Data Protection Registrar shall become and be regarded as one with the position known as the Data Protection Commissioner. I do not think there is too much more to add on this point, Sir. I believe that Mrs. Martins has established her reputation as an able and competent authority in the area of Data Protection. I have no hesitation in commending this proposition to the House.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

2. Deputy A. Breckon:

Just to add to the comments of the Assistant Minister, to say on a number of times I have an occasion to have to consult with - who will hopefully be - the Commissioner, and must say there is a blame culture and when something happens it is Data Protection. In many instances this is not true. Under those circumstances, Sir, I think the current post holder does an excellent job in the department. They are very professional. They handle the blame culture very well. I think this is a step in the right direction with the proposition that is to follow.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Assistant Minister to reply.

3. Deputy J.A.N Le Fondré:

I think all I have to do, Sir, is thank Deputy Breckon for his comments.

The Bailiff :

I put the proposition. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show. Those against. The proposition is adopted.

10. Data Protection Tribunal: appointment (P.143/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come next to P.143/2006 Data Protection Tribunal: appointment. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to appoint, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1) of and Part 2 of schedule 5 to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 the following as members of the Data Protection Tribunal, for a period of 6 years: Advocate Peter Charles Harris , President; Mr. Francis Du Heaume Le Gresley; Mrs. Nora Alice Antonia Roberts; Mr. Maurice Adrian des Forges, Mrs. Marie-Louise Backhurst.

10.1 Deputy J.A.N Le Fondré:

In the event that someone wishes to appeal against the decision made by our newly appointed Data Protection Commissioner they can appeal to the Data Protection Tribunal. Again, Sir, this is something that was in place under the old Law, has continued under the new Law and it was constituted approximately 3 years ago. I would suggest as an indication of the quality of direction from the Data Protection Registrar, it is my understanding that the Tribunal has yet to sit. I do not intend to run through the eminent qualifications of the members of the Tribunal. They are namely as we have heard, Advocate Peter Harris , Mr. Francis Le Gresley, Mrs. Toni Roberts, Mr. Maurice des Forges and Mrs. Marie--Louise Backhurst. These are detailed in the report accompanying the proposition and I believe most, if not all, of the names will be known to Members. I would like to express the thanks of this house towards Dr. Challinor and Mr. Le Bail, who are standing down as members of the Tribunal, for their willingness to offer their services even though I do not believe they have ever been called upon. Without any further ado, Sir, I move the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? I put the proposition. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show. Those against? The proposition is adopted.

11. Public Employees Contributor Retirement Scheme Committee of Management: membership (P.153/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come to Projet 153 - Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme Committee of Management: membership. I do not know whether Members would invite the Greffier not to read out all the names, but just the introductory paragraph. I ask the Greffier to do that.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to approve, in accordance with Regulation 3(2) of the Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Jersey) Regulations 1989, the appointment of the Committee of Management for a period of 3 years commencing 1st January 2007.

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):

As I think Members know, the P.E.C.R.S. scheme is administered by a Committee of Management. The Committee of Management comprises 6 employer representatives and 6 Member representatives or such greater equal number as may be determined from time-to-time. Currently, there are 7 members on each side. The list of names proposed is in the proposition, starting with those proposed by myself who are Senator Ben Shenton, Deputy Ian Gorst , Mr. J.S. Clark, and Mr. Mick Pinel who is, of course, well known to everyone as the Deputy Chief Executive of the Chief Minister's Department. Sir, in proposing Senator Shenton and Deputy Gorst , I should pay tribute to 2 current Members of the States; that is Deputy Troy and Deputy Le Claire, who they are replacing. In so doing, I think I would like to make a bit of a personal apology to both Deputies for the way in which the notification that their membership would not be continued was conveyed to them. I think it could have been done in a more professional and a more empathetic way. I do apologise to them for the lack of courtesy, perhaps, that was extended to them in this respect. I am grateful to them for the time they have given to what is quite an onerous task. I am equally grateful to Senator Shenton and Deputy Gorst for agreeing to take up the membership. I should also pay tribute to former Senator Reg Jeune who has offered his resignation. He is effectively retired from this board. Sir, there are other employee representatives nominated by the Minister for Treasury and Resources and they are Mr. J. Rosser, Mr. S.M. Patidar and Mr. Ian Black, of course the Treasurer of the States. The names of the employee representatives are also shown in the proposition. Sir, if Members would like a little bit more background on those not known to them - Mr. Patidar, Mr. Rosser and Mr. Clark I think in particular - then I would be only too happy to provide it. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

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

I would just like to thank the Chief Minister for his kind words and also thank the Committee of Management and my fellow Deputy - Deputy Peter Troy - for what has been a very interesting if not laborious task at times with an enormous amount of paperwork. I have thoroughly enjoyed being involved with it and have found it extremely professional; one of the most professional Committees that I have been privileged to take part in. Quite interestingly from a social perspective, I was given the responsibility with other Members of signing-off people from the ill health side of the retirement process. Those issues sometimes were quite difficult and also quite sensitive, and also quite difficult in some circumstances, but always handled with empathy and professionalism to the best interests of the individuals as the Committee of Management has always operated in. I think that a word of thanks needs to go to the Committee of Management and the officers and the Chief Minister for his kind words this morning.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

3. Senator F.H. Walker :

I am grateful to the Deputy for his comments, not only about what I said but in particular about the work of the Committee of Management. I reiterate my gratitude to him and to Deputy Troy and, indeed, former Senator Reg Jeune for the work they have put in which is, as the Deputy said, an interesting, laborious Committee to sit on but conducting its affairs in a very professional way. I am grateful to them all. I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

I put the proposition. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show. Those against. The proposition is adopted.

12. Draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.155/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come to Projet 155 - Draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 (Appointed Day) Act 200-. The States, in pursuance of Article 59 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005, have made the following Act.

1. Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):

The purpose of the Appointed Day Act is to bring into force the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 which was, in fact, adopted by the States on 15th March 2005. This Law is one of those that is considered to be a pre-requisite to human rights legislation. Under the Convention of Human Rights, surveillance can only be permitted for the purposes which are specified by the Law and in accordance with Article 8, the right to respect the private and family life, home and correspondence. In addition, such surveillance must be necessary and proportionate otherwise it may be subject to challenge in the courts. It is therefore proposed, Sir, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law also comes into force on 10th December, the same day at the Human Rights (Jersey) Law comes into force. Sir, I propose the act.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

I have always supported the principle of the Law. In fact, I am also aware, Sir, it is the Appointed Day Act. However, it is a very complex piece of legislation and while we are going to give our support and it is going to go ahead, I have to remind the House again of the costs and I would draw Members' attention to page 7 of the report, particularly under the area of costs summary. It says: "There are clearly significant cost implications associated with the implementation of this particular Law which were highlighted but unquantifiable in 2005 when the initial funding was agreed." Could I ask the Minister; there is going to be a shortfall - where the shortfall will be met and from what funds that will be met? Also, in future how will the costs be monitored and who will be monitoring the costs? The third question is, will there be an annual report showing success or otherwise of this particular piece of legislation and, in particular, the costs of the implementation of that particular Law?

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister to reply.

3. Senator W. Kinnard:

At the time that I brought the very complex piece of legislation to the House, I did make it clear that we were giving, at that point, the best case in terms of estimate of costs. I did draw attention to Members of the fact that there were, at that stage, some unquantifiable costs due to the opening-up of the telecoms market and at that stage we had no idea, for instance, how many telecoms companies we would be dealing with. In fact, I have an extract from my speech here which says:

"Regarding the quantum of these costs, the report [that is the report to the original proposition] details the total manpower and quantifiable annual running costs amounting to £422,300 with start- up costs in the first year amounting to £195,000." I also went on to say that I also would draw Members' attention to the fact that there will be certain unquantifiable costs which cannot be estimated at this stage. Members will appreciate that this is due to the telecommunications market which is opening-up. What we have done, Sir, in the summary of costs is now to try and update Members with our best knowledge at this time as to what those, at that time, were unquantifiable costs and, indeed, these are detailed for Members in a summary chart. Members will see that in terms of the costs we have sufficient funding to a certain extent but there is a shortfall of £114,500. However, I am pleased to say, Sir, that the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund has recently had an injection of funds and it looks possible that an application could be made by Home Affairs to that Fund to cover that shortfall, so we are delighted that that now is a possibility. In terms of costs being monitored, of course as Minister I will be responsible for the costs that are under my department's umbrella and indeed, of course, there is always the opportunity for those to be scrutinised at any point. There will be an annual report about the operation of the Law and the way in which the Attorney General has issued his go ahead for surveillance to take place in certain circumstances and that annual report will be placed, Sir, before the States. It will be a report by the Commissioner and that will be placed before the States as indeed the report is already placed before the States under the old Law. I maintain the Act, Sir.

The Bailiff :

I put the Act. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show. Those against? The Act is adopted.

13. Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day) (No. 2) Act 200- (P.156/2006)

The Bailiff :

We come to the Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day) (No.2) Act and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day) (No.2) Act 200-. The States, in pursuance of Article 131(2) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, have made the following Act.

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:

It gives me great pleasure to be making this proposition today. Its effect will be to bring in the remaining provisions of the Planning and Building Law relating to third party appeals and dangerous structures and demolitions; an aim I am sure many States' Members support. The reason for selecting 31st March is to enable new planning staff to be in position to deal efficiently and effectively with the significant increase in appeals that I anticipate will occur when the new provisions are in force. I can assure the House that had it been possible to introduce third party appeals any sooner, I would have done so. It is necessary to appoint officers before the appeals start. Significantly, the 2004 Royal Court Rules require that third party appeals be dealt with within a very tight timescale. This means that from the date of the effective implementation the department has to have sufficient officers in place to deal with appeals. In summary, to implement earlier than 31st March could have resulted in chaos. I sincerely hope that Members will understand that we have done everything possible to implement third party appeals at the very earliest possible date. I propose the Act.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak?

2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I would like to make a couple of comments on the Act, Sir. First, I would like to state I am delighted to see finally an Appointed Day Act for third party appeals, and I do commend the Minister for bringing this within the promised timescale. It has been a long time coming. However, Sir, while I understand his comments I do wish to express my disappointment about it not coming in any earlier. The reason I express that, and I will go into it a little bit further on, is because during the debate on the Business Plan a commitment was given and I would like to quote it which was: "The Council of Ministers will undertake from 1st January 2007 to fund third party appeals thereafter." Indeed, Sir, the Minister himself quoted in  Hansard: "That work can commence immediately on implementing third party appeals." On that basis, Sir, the original amendment by Deputy Power at the time was withdrawn. Certainly, in my mind, I was under the clear understanding that third party appeals were finally to be implemented from 1st January. Indeed, at the time I asked if a further Appointed Day Act would be necessary before Christmas and I think it was the Deputy Bailiff who at that time confirmed that one would be necessary, and this is where we are today. So there is no ambiguity in my mind and a commitment had been given. That is where I find it difficult, Sir, that with such a categoric commitment we are now down to 31st March. The excuse that has been given is that that is the earliest practical date due to the necessity of advertising for the post and appointing staff. I think the question in my mind is what has been going on in the 2 to 3 months since this commitment was given on 13th September of this year. While I do believe the Minister in saying he has been pushing for this to be brought forward as quickly as possible, I do think he is being let down by his officers in this regard. I do fully support the Minister and I hope he understands where I am coming from in this. I do have the fullest confidence in him, but I am afraid I am still somewhat less than impressed with the actions of his department. I think the reason I am saying this, Sir, is because it leads me on to my next point of public engagement and public trust again. I am still aware as a new Member that I feel there is still a gulf between the States of Jersey as a governmental machine and the public we represent. It comes down to this - if a commitment is given it needs to be implemented in line with that commitment and in the past that has not always been the case. A commitment may have been given and has been, sort of, wriggled away from and I think the point I want to make for the future is that that is not, in my view, acceptable. We still have a way to go to regain the public trust and one way of achieving that is to stick to commitments that have been given no matter how difficult that may be. Once something has been approved by the States it should be implemented, not in a grudgingly ungenerous way but in a can-do fashion. There are times when we do have to stand up and ask people to trust us in order for them to have confidence in us. In other words, to believe us when we ask them to; and we must stick to those obligations which we undertake to perform. Trust me or trust us is not going to be a winning argument that often if we do not do this. Sir, the key thing for me is the commitment that was given during the September debate, particularly as it resulted in the proposition of a fellow Member being withdrawn. But, Sir, I do understand the comments from the Minister in respect of all this and where he is coming from. Now, I know some people think that one of the reasons I am supporting this is because of a particular application coming back again in St. Lawrence, but I think I have stated that my most important concern to me is public trust. Yes, I am concerned about that application, but certainly myself and my Parish colleagues have a variety of contentious applications coming in, so it is not just that issue; it is not just a St. Lawrence issue, it is one of public trust. I do have to say is; how do I go to my parishioners, particularly those directly affected by those contentious developments and say: "Sorry, folks. If the States had stuck to its word you could have had a final appeal against the decision, but as it is you are out of luck because the application was approved on 25th February." I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to defend to them anyone who thinks this is a legitimate way for this House to conduct its business. We need to be straight with the public and

we really need to get back to re-engaging with them. So having said that, Sir, and basically got it off my chest, I am supporting this Appointed Day Act. I did consider abstaining to register my discomfort with the process by which we had got to this point, but on calmer reflection that is counter-productive. We have got where we. I have stated my dismay with the process by which we have got here today. I trust the Minister or any other Member of this House will not take it personally and my comments are certainly not directed at them. That is all I am going to say on that particular matter. Looking ahead, I do commend the Minister once again for bringing this Appointed Day Act. I do think, Sir, it is appropriate that we should not let this moment pass without noting the sheer determination of Deputy Scott Warr en, who unfortunately is not here to witness this event because I believe she had to leave on States' business, and also Deputy Power and others, but particularly Deputy Scott Warr en without whom, it is my understanding, we would not be having third party appeals at all.

3. Senator J.L Perchard:

May I just ask a question of the Minister? How did the Minister arrive at the figure of £250,000 as an annual cost to implement this Appointed Day Act? In the very likely event that that figure will become inadequate, what procedures will he put in place to fund it if that were the case? Secondly, while I am on my feet, how did the Minister manage to persuade the Council of Ministers that this strategic initiative should take priority over any others?

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Deputy Le Fondré has been in this Assembly now for, I think, about 12 months. I think up until the first year we can call them new Members. Some Member spoke yesterday and said about a new Member. We are all now Members of this Assembly and Deputy Le Fondré cannot be described as a new Member. He is a Member who is an Assistant Minister in one of the departments that has more work going on and policy initiatives than virtually any other department. He will, therefore, be able to speak with some authority on the consequences of putting obligations on departments and officials in time scales which are unreasonable and unachievable. The Minister has made it quite clear - and some of us have had misgivings about third party appeals and continue to do so but respect the views of the Assembly on the matter - it is going to happen. The financial issues have been dealt with because it is such an important issue and he is standing in this Assembly and scolding officers for effectively being honest with their Ministers and honest with the Assembly in saying that we cannot do it on that date. It is a completely unacceptable state of affairs to ask a department to put in place a matter which they are saying they cannot deal with in terms of their responsibilities and personnel. There is no justification in talking, with respect to the Deputy , about public trust. Public trust means doing things right, getting them right and done first time. To ask the Planning Minister to put forward an important provision, a massive departure from where we were before in terms of third party appeals, to do so without the officers and the resources in place to do so is, frankly, asking our officials to do things that we should not do. That is the reason for it. So he can speak about trust but we have an obligation to make decisions and bring things into force when we know that they can be done, and that can be done on the date that the Minister is asking us to do so. He, if anybody in this Assembly, should know the pressure that is on officials. It is not a comfortable position that I find myself in here, in hearing an Assistant Minister praising a Minister but criticising a department for not delivering. Anyway, I think it is important because I worked with Planning for 2 and a half years and I know the strain and pressure that that department is under and it is quite wrong, if I may say, to criticise them in that way. They have brought this in place as soon as possible. So we should approve the proposition brought forward by the Minister and we should do so in good heart and knowing that when it will be brought into place there will be all of the resources and the personnel to deal with things properly. The worst situation would be to bring something in with no staff in order to do so. The final thing I would say is that just because there is not the legal right of a third party appeal to the court does not mean to say that the views of his constituents and those that are concerned in the application - which he really is talking about which