States Meeting Transcript - 10/10/2006

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 10th OCTOBER 2006

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

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

1. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS....7
   2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE MIGRATION POLICY ..........8
2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING POLLUTION FROM GREEN WASTE OR AGRICULTURAL WASTE...............8
   2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING ODOUR CONTROL AT LA COLLETTE COMPOSTING SITE.................................9
   3. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY THE DUMPING OF POTATOES AND GREEN WASTE................................................................................10
   4. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE COST OF REMOVING LEACHATE FROM GREEN WASTE AND POTATO WASTE ........11
   5. WTITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING THE COST OF NEWSLETTERS......................................11
   6. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING THE COST OF NEWSLETTERS..........................12
   7. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING CLINICAL WASTE DISPOSAL ......................................................13
   8. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING CLINICAL WASTE DISPOSAL ......................................................13
   9. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING

BARIATRIC (GASTRIC BAND) SURGERY .........................................14

12. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS FOR EMPLOYEES OF JERSEY TELECOM................15
13. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE DRAFT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (JERSEY) LAW 200-....................................................16
14. WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING TRUST LEGISLATION AND TAX AVOIDANCE............................................17

15. WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING NEW PENSIONS LEGISLATION........................................................................20
16. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE SETTING OF MINIMUM WAGE RATES........................................................................20

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................22

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding economic, social and strategic implications of the sale of Jersey Telecom:...22 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................22

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................23
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................23
3. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville : ..................................................23
4. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................23
5. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................23
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................24
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................24
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................24
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................24

2. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the rationale for the J.C.R.A. review of the sale of Jersey Telecom:..................................24 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................25

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................25
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................25
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................25
4. Deputy G. P. Southern :.................................................................26

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister of Transport and Technical Services regarding the handling of waste material in the period between the closure of the Crabbé composting site and the opening of the La Collette composting site:........26 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...26

2.3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................27

2.4. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the tax treatment of a Trust deed whereby the settler may become a beneficiary:...............27 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................27

2.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding a pedestrian crossing at Longeuville Road, St. Saviour:......................28 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................28 Deputy J.A.N Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ....................................................28

2.5.1 Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................28

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding progress on a new States-owned company to incorporate the Waterfront Enterprise Board:...........28 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):..............................................29
7. Deputy G.C.L Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the refurbishment of Le Squez Youth Club: ..................................29 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................29
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister of Transport and Technical Services regarding the maintenance of grassed areas: ......................................................29 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister of Transport and Technical Services):.................30

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................30
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................30

3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................30
4. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................31

9. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the Corporate Management Board: ..................................................................................31 Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):..............................................31

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................31
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................31

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
4. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................32
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................32

10. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the numbers of school leavers not entering further education:........32 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................32

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................33
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................33
3. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................33
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................34
5. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:..................................................34

11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the publication of an annual report on bus usage:.......................................34 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................34

2.11.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................34

12. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding recovery of subsidies from undergraduates withdrawing from courses:.................35 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................35

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.....................................................35

2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................35
3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................35
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................35
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................36

13. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the transportation of sewage sludge from Bellozanne to La Collette: 36

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................36 2.13.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................36

14. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding consultation over the installation of condom machines in secondary schools:...........37

2.14.1 The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................37

15. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding estimates by sector of the tax gap arising from Zero/Ten' proposals: ................................37 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................37
16. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding consultation with the Health Protection Department about the transportation of sewage sludge:..................................................................................37 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.............................38

3. Questions without notice - The Minister for Housing..................................38

1. Deputy J.A. Martin.....................................................................38 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................38
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................38
3. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................39

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................39
6. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................40
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................40
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................40
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................41

The Bailiff :...................................................................................41

4. Questions without notice - The Deputy Chief Minister ................................41

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................41
2. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................42
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................42
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................42
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................43
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................43 The Bailiff :...................................................................................43
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................43
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

4.8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................44
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................44
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................45

4.11.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................45

12. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45

4.12.1 The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................46 The Bailiff :...................................................................................46 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................46

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................46

5. Composting facilities at La Collette, St. Helier : cessation (P.76/2006) - deferment of debate....................................................................................46

The Bailiff :...................................................................................46

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................46
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................47
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................47
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................48
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................48
6. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................48
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
8. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................49 The Bailiff :...................................................................................49

6. Draft Income Support (Jersey) Law 200- (P.102/2006) ................................50

The Bailiff :...................................................................................50

1. Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):................................50 The Bailiff :...................................................................................52

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................52
2. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................53
3. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................53

4. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................53
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
6. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................55
7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................55
8. The Very Reverend R.J. Key B.A., The Dean of Jersey: ................................55
9. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................56
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................56
11. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................57
12. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................58
13. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................58
14. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................59
15. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................59
16. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................60
17. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................61
18. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................61
19. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................62

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................62 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................62 The Bailiff :...................................................................................62 Senator P.F. Routier:..........................................................................62 The Bailiff :...................................................................................62 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT.............................................................62

PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumed)...............................................................62 Draft Income Support (Jersey) Law 200- (P.102/2006) (continued)..........................62

20. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................63 The Bailiff :...................................................................................65

2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................66

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................67
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................68 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................68 The Bailiff :...................................................................................68

3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................70

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................70
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................70

The Bailiff :...................................................................................70

4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................70

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................71
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................71
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................71
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................71
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................72
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................72
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................73

5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................74

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................75

2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................75 The Bailiff :...................................................................................75

6. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................76 The Bailiff :...................................................................................76

7. Plémont headland, St. Ouen : preservation for public enjoyment (P.112/2006)........76

The Bailiff :...................................................................................76 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................77

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................77
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................79
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................80
4. Connétable R.E.N. Dupré of St. John:..................................................81
5. Deputy K.C Lewis :.....................................................................81
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................81
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................81
8. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................82
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................83 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................84 The Bailiff :...................................................................................84
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................85
11. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................85
12. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................86
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................87
14. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................87
15. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................88
16. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................90
17. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................90
18. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................90
19. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................91
20. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................92
21. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................92 The Bailiff :...................................................................................92
22. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................93
23. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................94
24. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................95
25. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................95
26. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................96 The Bailiff :...................................................................................97

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................98

8. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................98

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

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS

Question

Would the Minister inform members –

1. whether a system is in place intheSocialSecurityDepartmenttokeep a recordof the number of Social Security cards issued by nationality and, if so, what the statistics by nationality are?
2. whether these records can be interpreted to demonstrate the numbers of individuals currently in Jersey in orderto ascertain the demographics for immigration analysis and active card use or ownership?
3. whether any cross-records are kept with visits  to doctors and ITIS payments and, if not, whether it would be possible for such a records system to be implemented in orderto assist in identifying who is working where and how many people are paying their Social Security contributions?

Answer

1. The Social Security system collects information for Social Security purposes not for demographic or immigration purposes. Many individuals, whilst having a single Social Security number, will have had issued tothem more than one card. The Department has to issue replacements cards and people with two or three jobs need two or three cards which inevitably reduces the value and use ofthis statistic. However, the Department does register individuals who have found employment in the Island and records the nationality of that individual against a unique social security number. From this information the Department can analyse the nationalities of those individuals who are newly registered and those who have paid contributions.

NEW REGISTRANTS 2004 2005

British (includes Jersey) Polish

Portuguese

French

Irish

German

Overall Total

5053 1248

457

313 213

75 8610

5190 1721

516

292 199

187 8946

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SCHEDULE RETURNS (This is not individuals, but the number of contributions)

A 2004 B 2004 C 2004 D 2004 A 2005 B 2005 C 2005 D 2005 A 2006 Polish 1577 2532 2962 2761 2564 3598 3889 3762 3413 Portuguese 6720 7286 7150 6869 6469 7050 6923 7152 6492 British 37152 37460 38399 36786 36141 37475 38582 37755 36623 Total 52841 54880 56254 53920 52321 55696 56928 56121 53396

2. The simple answer is no, for a number of reasons. The information is accurate for Social Security purposes but not for demographic purposes. For example it will include people who have recently left Jersey and not include those who do not have to register with the Social Security Department, such as detached workers and those not liable to pay Social Security contributions. Currently the computer holds about 400,000 individual records of which about a quarter are active. The Department is currently co-operating with the Population Office and the Statistics Unit to develop the information necessary to monitor the labour market and the population from a number of sources.
3. There is no link to ITIS payments, doctors visits and where people are working and paying contributions. Not all people visiting the doctor or indeed pay contributions actually pay tax. The Social Security system knows who is paying contributions and where they are working or have worked. The Department does not know who might not be contributing illegally, but evidence suggests that compliance is good across both employed and self-employed sectors and no evidence exists to suggest extensive evasion of contribution payments.

1.2 WRITTEN  QUESTION  TO  THE  CHIEF  MINISTER  BY  DEPUTY  R.G.  LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE MIGRATION POLICY

Question

When will the key mechanisms of the new Migration Policy as approved by the States be in place? Answer

A Registration Law' will be lodged in the second quarter of 2007 and a Migration Law' will be lodged later in the same year. This will provide the legislative framework for the key mechanisms of the new Migration Policies, being the requirement of residents to register; a mechanism to manage and control employment licences, particularly in relation to essential employees and non- locals'; and provisions governing access to residential accommodation. Full implementation of these mechanisms is expected in the second quarter of 2008.

1.3. WRITTEN  QUESTION  TO  THE  MINISTER  FOR  PLANNING  AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING POLLUTION FROM GREEN WASTE OR AGRICULTURAL WASTE

Question

1. Has there been any contamination of reservoirs from leachate caused by green waste or agricultural wastesince1995and, if so, what has been the remediation of these incidents and what has it cost?
2. How many sites, if any, has the Planning and Environment Department monitored and, how many, if any, does it continueto monitor, inrelationto leachate contamination in Jersey from green waste and agricultural waste; how much, if anything, has this management and monitoring cost the Department since 1995 and how many man hours have been involved?

Answer

1. No incidents ofdirect pollution of storage reservoirs causedby green waste or agricultural waste have been reported to Environmental Protection at the Planning and Environment Department since 1995. However, since 1995, a totalof 73 pollution incidents involving organic leachate or slurry have been reported to, and investigated by, Environmental Protection. In 46 of these incidents, there was indication of run-off of organic leachate into surface streams or groundwater that may subsequently have contaminated storage reservoirs with nutrients and other pollutants. In many cases, the investigations led to enforcement action being taken under the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law2000andremedial action, such as moving the waste or improving the storage on site, was undertaken by the landowner or occupier under the polluter pays' principle. It is difficult toquantifythe monetary or officer time involved as this work is an integral part ofthe work of Environmental Protection, but each incident involved at least several hours of officer time.
2. In addition to the above investigations and monitoring, 2 sites continue to be monitored on a long-term regular basis.

Since the burial of more than 4,000 tonnes of potatoes at Beauport in 1992, 271 leachate samples have been taken on site for analysis. Currently the Beauport leachate is sampled on a monthly basis, each sample takes about 45 minutes to collect, as the work is done as part of a larger sampling round. This equates to about 9 hours each year. Total monitoring and site visit time is estimated to be 400 hours since 1992.

The Crabbé composting site in St Mary continues to be monitored for groundwater contamination caused by the composting process. The monitoring and sampling is carried out on a quarterly basis. Currently, the total time for the Department is 12 man hours each quarter or 48 man hours each year.

It is expected that the monitoring programmes at Beauport and Crabbé will need to be continued for the foreseeable future.

4. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING ODOUR CONTROL AT LA COLLETTE COMPOSTING SITE

Question

In relation to the La Collette composting site, would the Minister give details regarding the use at present of any odour controls and, in particular, whether any applications and chemicals are used? If so, what are the guidelines for the use of these chemicals and has the Department sought advice on any known health risks associated with these applications?

Answer

When it is possible to do so, compost is processed and turned when the wind is blowing off shore. This is done to reduce the effect of compost odours on the neighbours of the La Collette site. Composting is a natural biological process and it is not always possible to wait for the wind to be in an appropriate direction before the compost is turned or processed. When necessary, an odour countervailant is aerosolised through nozzles which are placed around the perimeter of the processing and reception areas.

The countervailant used is called DI-OX 2000 and is applied in line with the manufacturers' recommendations. The health risks to individuals coming into direct contact with the product have been assessed, as required by the Health & Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, with particular reference to the guidance contained in the UK HSE Approved Code of Practice, the "Control of Substances Hazardous to Health "This assessment is made by the Department's independent occupational hygienists and takes into account the product data published in the manufacturers "Material Safety Data Sheet" as well as the likely levels and routes of exposure. The assessment indicates that the product is safe for use in this application.

5. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY THE DUMPING OF POTATOES AND GREEN WASTE

Question

1. In which locations in Jersey has contamination been causeddueto the dumping of potatoes and/or green waste since 1995?
2. How many of these sites, if any, have required, and continue to require, leachate removal; how has this been done in the past and, if on-going, how is it being done at present?
3. Have any private contractors been used for this work and, if so, how much has this cost to date?
4. How much longer, if at all, will these sites continue to require treatment and/or leachate removal?
5. How many man hours hasthisworkcosttodate,what is the current requirement andwhat is the estimate for the future?
6. What long-term plans, if any, exist to address problems in any areas where problems persist? Answer

1. The Beauport site was contaminated due to the dumping of potato waste. The Crabbé site was contaminated due to the inclusion of treated construction and demolition timber being included in the composting mix.
2. The Beauport site has an ongoing regime of leachate collection and removal. The leachate is collected at the Beauport pumping station and is then pumped up to a tight tank in the Beauport car park. When the tight tank is at a predefined level a tanker is sent to collect the contents and transport them to be treated in the Bellozanne sewage treatment works. At the Crabbé site the leachate removal was stopped once the site had been cleared of compost and composted products and the site has since been remediated.
3. Private contractors have been used for leachate haulage however we are unable to provide the full financial details at the moment. This is due to the fact that the Beauport issue has been administered by different Committees and Ministries and further research will be required in order to get the actual figures.

4. There is no further anticipated leachate removal required from the Crabbé site and the leachate removal from the Beauport site will continue for the foreseeable future.
5. The leachate removal is undertaken by a contractor who charges on a per load removed basis. It is not possible to ascertain how many man hours this work has costto date. A budget of £20,000 per year is held by TTS for leachate removal purposes however it should be noted that the actual cost will fluctuate on an annual basis due to the variance in annual rainfall.
6. Contamination issues will be addressed on an individual case by case basis and will be dealt by the best practicable environmental method.

6. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE COST OF REMOVING LEACHATE FROM GREEN WASTE AND POTATO WASTE

Question

As different Committees were responsible in the past for the management of the Island's green waste and composting, is the Minister able to determine from the States' accounting records the total amount that has been spent by the States on removing leachate from green waste/potato waste for each of the years since 1995 to date?

Answer

Questions such as this require significant resources to produce the requested information. I regret that it has not been possible to produce a full answer in the time available. However, my Department believes it will be able to provide a full response to States Members at the next sitting.

7. WTITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING THE COST OF NEWSLETTERS

Question

Would the Chief Minister inform members how much it costs to produce the Changing States' newsletter, and any other newsletters produced by the Chief Minister's Department, including –

1. the number of employees involved?
2. total hours required?
3. editorial costs?
4. printing costs? (including the cost of all materials)
5. distribution costs?

Answer

One member of the Communications Unit staff writes Changing States and an external sub-editor works on the layout. The member of staff spends between 8 and 16 hours on each issue, and her time is spent in researching, working with contributors and writing the stories. The external sub editor spends between 10 and 14 hours, taking the required photographs and laying out the newsletter.

The total editorial cost for each issue is between £750 and £900.

The cost of printing each issue is £460 and the cost of distribution is £94.

The total cost of this newsletter is about £1,300 for each issue. It is published ten times a year.

Changing States is the only newsletter produced by the Chief Minister's Department. It is designed to keep the staff in our diverse organisation informed of news and of States policy, so they can fully play their part in delivering services to the public.

8. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING THE COST OF NEWSLETTERS

Question

Would the Minister disclose how much it costs to produce the Community News - The Newsletter from States of Jersey Housing' newsletter, and any other newsletters produced by his Department, including –

1. the number of employees involved?
2. total hours required?
3. editorial costs?
4. printing costs? (including the cost of all materials)
5. distribution costs?

Answer

1. Community News is produced three times a year. It is one of the many duties undertaken by the Tenant Participation Team. The Team, consisting of two staff, was formed within existing resources. No additional manpower has been recruited to produce the newsletter. Articles are provided by tenants and staff, with the long term aim that Community News is produced entirely by Residents Associations.

The Department has experimented with a number of different formats in order to ascertain the most acceptable, both to tenants in terms of layout and the Department, in terms of cost. Community News is well received by residents especially the elderly. It is seen by the Department as an effective means of communicating and is an important part of their engagement strategy.

2. The Tenant Participation Team spend approximately 16 hours producing each issue. This equates to a cost of approximately £345.
3. Editorial costs are kept to a minimum as these are undertaken by senior staff outside ofoffice hours.
4. The Department has negotiated a set price with a firm of printers which includes typesetting, printing, enveloping and delivery. This service to some 4,600 States Tenants costs £2,569.

The Housing Department produces a number of informative newsletters throughout the year targeting particular estates in terms of maintenance or tenancy issues. These are produced in- house' and as numbers are relatively low, are delivered manually by staff of the department, as part of their everyday duties.

9. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING CLINICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Question

1. Would the Minister inform members what plans, if any, there are in respect ofthe clinical waste facilities currently located at Bellozanne and, in particular, whether there are plans to move the facility to La Collette or to place a new incinerator there?
2. What is the current condition of the clinical waste incinerator and what is its projected useable life at present?
3. How much does it costtooperatethe incinerator and how much, if anything, is recharged to the Health and Social Services Department for the disposal ofwaste?
4. Does the agricultural industry use the incinerator for the incineration of animal parts and, if so, what charge, if any, is made for this service?

Answer

1. The clinical waste incinerator will continue operating at the Bellozanne site. There are no plans to relocate the incinerator at La Collette or to build a new clinical waste incinerator at La Collette.
2. The clinical waste incinerator is in good condition. The incinerator was commissioned in 1998 with a design life of 25 years. The plant is maintained to a high standard and the incinerator is expected to operate until the year 2023.
3. In 2005 the clinical waste incinerator cost £183,084 to operate. The clinical waste incineration charge for 2005 was £0.69 per kilogram. The Health and Social Services Department is by far the biggest customer for the clinical waste incineration service and was charged £ 171,571 in 2005.
4. The agricultural industry does not use the clinical waste incinerator facility.

10. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING CLINICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly what issues, if any, exist for the Health and Social Services Department's in relation to the disposal of clinical waste both now and in the future and would he also give details of the costs of this service to the Department?

Answer

Clinical waste is defined as human or animal tissue or other bodily fluids, dressings or swabs. Also disposed of in clinical waste are all rubber gloves, masks, plastic aprons and incontinence wipes and pads.

Clinical waste from all Health and Social Services hospitals, residential nursing homes, day centres and other clinical areas are sealed in clearly labelled yellow bags which are then stored in purpose made yellow bins.

These bins are then collected and delivered by Health and Social Services staff to the purpose built clinical waste incinerator which is sited at Bellozanne and was first commissioned in September 1998.

The present cost of incineration is 69 pence per kilogram (kg).

In 2005 a total of 250,395 kg cost £171,571 to incinerate.

The first 6 months of 2006 saw a total of 106,074 kg cost £69,648 to incinerate.

An energy manager is to be recruited by Property Holdings and it has been agreed that part of the manager's role will be to monitor and reduce clinical waste along with other sources of energy. It is proposed the energy manager will be seconded to Health and Social Services for the first period of his/her employment.

11. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING BARIATRIC (GASTRIC BAND) SURGERY

Question

Further to his answers to questions on bariatric (gastric band) surgery given on 26th September 2006, would the Minister inform members –

1. what timescale is envisaged for the establishment of a partnership arrangement with one such centre' referred to in part (a) of his answer?
2. when the Waiting List Project Board, referred to in part b), is expected to have completed and considered its findings?
3. what proportion ofthe possible £400,000 funding that is required to complete the procedure for all those on the waiting list he is seeking to find and agree in the 2007 budget for the most extreme cases'?
4. how many of the 40 patients can expect to have surgery in the coming year?
5. whether funding for the appropriate intermediate treatment clinics for those who remain on the waiting list will be maintained?

1. In my answer to the Deputy 's question on Tuesday 26th September 2006, I made reference to the fact that the Health and Social Services Department is currently considering the best means by which it can enter into a partnership agreement with a tertiary centre in the U.K. to provide for this form of surgery. It is anticipated that for this agreement to be fully negotiated, implemented and evaluated it will take some three to six months from now.
2. Members of the Waiting List Project Board will consider the business case for bariatric surgery within the next two weeks. It is anticipated that the Waiting List Project Board will advise my Senior Management Team of its views at the beginning of November of this year. The prioritisation for next year's funding is not yet complete. The Deputy must not be under the illusion that bariatric surgery is the number one priority for my Department. The fundamental challenge for my Department is to prioritise a wide range of competing health and social care developments – all of which have somehow to be reconciled within strict budgetary limitations laid down by the States of Jersey and underpinned by the current Finance Law. My department is currently considering what priority it intends to give to such matters as bariatric surgery, new drugs for cancer treatments, funds for nursing home places to reflect the needs of an ageing population – and a wide range of other such compelling matters.
3. Since my answer to the Deputy 's question on Tuesday 26th September, my officers have advised me that it may be possible to reduce the cost from approximately £400,000 down to £300,000 if the entire surgical list is provided to the eventual partnering tertiary centre referred to in (a) above. Beyond that, it is not possible for me to determine which cases will be operated on next year. This decision making is complex and is a balance between the appropriacy of the surgery (an issue fully explored in my answer of 26th September), the logistics of transferring the patients by an appropriate means (given the chronic morbidity of the patients), and the clinical priority (vis-à-vis other pressing clinical priorities for the Department). These matters are the responsibility of my officers and the relevant clinicians.
4. My response to this question is addressed in (c) above.
5. The Deputy is correct in identifying through this question the importance of intermediate forms of intervention which, if successful, mean that patients do not require such radical surgery. There are a range of services provided by the Department which fall into this intermediate' category. These include a Weight Management Clinic which is held every Thursday at Overdale Hospital. Also a bariatric clinic is provided approximately every six weeks from the Diabetes Centre in Kensington Place. Beyond that, there is, of course, a range of health promotion activities which focus upon keeping fit and active – the much publicised health promotion vigorous walks around the countryside and coastal areas, and supervised weight training and exercise classes are two cases in point.

12. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS FOR EMPLOYEES OF JERSEY TELECOM

Question

Would the Minister –

1. detail in clear terms what issues are involved in the protection ofpensionrights for past, current and future employees of Jersey Telecom should the Company be sold wholly or partly into private ownership?
2. inform members what measures he is developing with others to address these issues and what progress he has made to date?

Answer

1. There are a number of issues that must be and will be fully addressed for each of the scenarios. The principal matters for consideration are legislative, tax, contractual, administrative and funding based.

Past and current employees are, at present, members of a ring fenced' pension scheme within the Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme (P.E.C.R.S.).

The two principal issues to be addressed relate to legislation (see below) and preserving the tax status of P.E.C.R.S. should members of the scheme be employed by non-public sector organisations.

Future employees will have the right to choose for themselves on what terms they accept employment, including pension matters.

2. Considerable work is in progress toproducethe information needed for the Statesto make a decision on whether to sell JerseyTelecomGroup Limited early in 2007. This includes good progress on resolving pension issues.

In particular, I would draw Members attention to P.118 of the Chief Minister, to be debated on 7th November, which seeks the States approval to amend the Public Employees (Retirement) (Jersey) Law 1967.

This amendment is required to give effect to a Regulation and an Admission Document that will provide the legal framework upon which the employees of Jersey Telecom could remain within the PECRS as an admitted body following a full or partial sale of Jersey Telecom Group Limited.

13. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE DRAFT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (JERSEY) LAW 200-

Question

1. Would the Minister inform members whetherthe draft Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200-, approved by theStates on 17th May 2005, has yet been sanctioned by Her Majesty in Council and, if not, is the Minister aware of the reasons for the delay?
2. What communications or discussions, if any, have taken place in the last 16 month period with the United Kingdom authorities over this issue and will he release the content ofany such communications to members?

1. The Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 200- which was approved by the States on 17th May 2005 has not yet been sanctioned by Her Majesty in Council. In the intervening period, further consultation and discussion has taken place amongst interested parties, including union representatives and their advisers. An amendment to the Employment Relations Law has also been debated and adopted. I understand that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is awaiting the results of inter departmental consultation in the United Kingdom and I am hopeful that the Law will be put before the Privy Council for approval at its meeting in November.
2. There have been some discussions with the United Kingdom authorities over the last 16 months concerning this draft Law. While I would normally seek to accommodate any request for information and indeed accept there is a public interest in making information available, the wider public interest here lies in not disclosing the detail of those discussions at the present time. This wider public interest is that we must be able to have an honest and uninhibited exchange of views with the U.K. authorities in connection with the obtaining of Royal assent to all legislation, democratically adopted by this Assembly.

Such correspondence between States Departments and their U.K. counterparts are regarded by both parties as strictly confidential. The States of Jersey Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information', adopted by the States on 20th July 1999, provides that information shall be exempt from disclosure if such a disclosure would, or might be liable to harm the conduct of national or international affairs or the Island's relations with other jurisdictions.' The U.K. authorities adopt a similar view and indeed have refused an application for information on the same issue under the Freedom of Information Act.

14. WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING TRUST LEGISLATION AND TAX AVOIDANCE

Question 1

Further to his written and oral answers on 26th September 2006, would the Minister inform members whether –

1. the practice outlined in part (a) of his written answer not to declare such interests and sources of foreign income' (such as foreign trusts) on a Jersey Income Tax Return constitutes tax evasion and would render a Jersey resident liable to prosecution?
2. the additional clause concerning Settlor Reserved Powers in the Trust Law, even if it creates no new motives' for avoidance or evasion in the Minister's view, gives greater certainty to both the settlor and the trustee that such reservations are acceptable practice in Jersey in terms of tax avoidance?
3. the introduction of reserved settlor powers is designed so that Jersey can better compete for the ultra high net worth end of the market for international tax avoidance through trusts?
4. Jersey Trust Law can now be used by Jersey residents to avoid tax by setting up trusts with reserved powers using, say, Guernsey trustees?

1. It would constitute tax evasion in the case of a life interest or a bare trust but not in the caseof a discretionary trustas in the latter the beneficiary would have no automatic entitlement to income whereas in the former the beneficiary would be entitled to both income and capital unhindered. The Comptroller of Income Tax has prepared prosecution files in 8 tax evasion cases in the last 13 years inrespectof fraud, allofwhich were successfully prosecuted in the Royal Court by Her Majesty's Attorney General. The facts and circumstances of each case are carefully considered before a decision is made to prepare a prosecution in any particular case. However, in tax avoidance cases the Comptroller does not need to prepare a prosecution file as he invariably settles such cases under Article 134A.
2. The Deputy fails to appreciate that the Trusts Law is not a law relating to taxation. The Trusts Lawsimplyprovidesthat if a settlor reservescertainpowersthatwill not invalidate the trust. It brings greater certainty of legal outcome in disputestothe settlor and trustee in relation to the Trusts Law, but makes no reference totaxation legislation and has no bearing on such legislation. The Comptroller will consider the facts and motives in all cases where he is suspicious that a transaction – including the creation of a trust - may be primarily motivated by the desireto avoid tax, in the same manner as he does for all the other cases he currently counteracts under Article 134A, the general anti-avoidance provision in the Income Tax Law.
3. The introduction of settlor reserved powers has nothing to do with tax avoidance – international or otherwise. Indeed, if a settlor does reserve certain powers – such as the power torevoke a trust ortoaddhimselfas a beneficiary – this could give rise to a tax liability for the settlor. So tax avoidance in this context not the relevant issue.

The aim of the powers is to bring certainty – in statute - to the practice of reserving powers in the same way that many other jurisdictions have already done. In particular, the powers are aimed at settlors who may have earned significant wealth in specialised areas – for example hedge fund management – and who wish to continue managing the assets that are placed in the trust, rather than pay trustees or another specialist investment manager for a service they wish to carry out themselves. That selection will also give protection to the Trustees in the event of any later claims by beneficiaries for non-performance in the relevant field (in this example investment management) as the Trustees would not have had responsibility for this activity in relation to the trust assets from the outset of the relationship.

4. Itis not as simple a matterasthe Deputy outlines.In some casesthetax avoidance achieved through using a trust structure is quite legitimate, in the same way that tax avoidance is legitimate when one takes out a mortgage that qualifies for tax relief, or when one joins an approved occupational pension scheme and the contributions into that scheme qualify for tax relief. So if the settlor is a Jersey resident and forms a trust for the benefit of his grandchildren out of natural concern for their well-being, then that may very well be a legitimate means of avoiding tax, despite the fact that the invested assets, which were previously in his own name, have now been settled on trust for the benefit of his grandchildren, whetheror not the trust is one set up in Jersey, Guernsey or any other jurisdiction.

Question 2

Will the Minister inform members whether under the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, as amended –

1. a Jersey trust is now revocable even when the trust deed states that it is not?

2. a Jersey trust deed can be amended by the settlor, to the extent that the settlor may become the beneficiary by a residency clause or similar?
3. a trustee can now be dismissed by the settlor thus removing protection from the beneficiary? Answer

1. No. If a trust deed says it is irrevocable it is irrevocable.
2. If the settlor of a Jersey trust retains an unlimited power to add or remove beneficiaries, he may add or remove himself as a beneficiary. This is the existing position and is possible under the existing trust law. The Trust law amendment only changes this to the extent that it is recognised by statute rather than a matter of practice. This in turn makes court adjudication in the event of beneficiary claims more straightforward.
3. If a settlor reserves the power to change trustees he may exercise that power. It is not clear how such a power removes protection from the beneficiary: it should be remembered that before a settlor creates a trustthe beneficiary has no rights tothe assets that are being placed in a trust at all. The power to change Trustees is also possible under the existing trust law.

These three questions could have been answered by a simple cursory reading of the Law, and I am surprised that they are being raised some six months after the Law was overwhelmingly approved by the States.

Question 3

In an e-mail dated 14th September 2006 the Director - International Finance wrote that if the discretion of the trustee is fettered (at present) there is a risk that the trust could subsequently [be] attacked as a sham. For an international client, these are reasons not to use a Jersey trust'. Would the Minister state whether he concurs with this statement and, if not, why not? Will he estimate for members the scale, if any, of such risk?

Answer

The questioner fails to appreciate that international clients want certainty. They do not want to place their assets into a vehicle in the knowledge that those assets may be spent fighting legal battles. For example, a wealthy settlor wishes to put most of his assets in trust for two of his three children. For whatever reason, he does not want the third child to be a beneficiary. When the settlor dies, the third child will, in general, take every action he can to attack the trust. The reason for this is not because there is something wrong with the trust, but because the spurned child has nothing to lose. He will use every argument to attack the trust and one of those arguments will often be that the trust is a sham, because the discretion of the trustees has in some way been fettered. In fact, because settlor reserved powers clarify the relative responsibilities and duties more clearly from the outset, the grounds on which the trust can be attacked as a sham are diminished rather than augmented.

The general view is that, under existing Jersey Law, a settlor can already retain certain powers without a trust being a sham. To re-emphasise the point, the purpose of the amendment is simply to bring greater certainty to this area by recognising it in statute rather than relying on the court to adjudicate it as a matter of practice, case law etc.

So, to directly address the question, there is always a risk that a Jersey trust will be attacked by a disgruntled person, and one of the traditional grounds for attack is that it is a sham. It was this situation that was recognised by the e-mail referred to dated 14th September 2006. If the trust has been prudently drafted and correctly operated, these attacks will very rarely be successful. However, even unsuccessful attacks must be defended, and settlors prefer not to establish structures if there is a risk that the assets placed in those structures will be spent on lawyers fees defending the structures from attack. The fact that the defence is likely to be successful is little comfort.

Accordingly, investors prefer to go to one of the many jurisdictions – both onshore and offshore - that have given statutory certainty to settlor reserved powers. Jersey is thus following the increasingly common international practice in this area rather than, as the question seems to seek to imply, breaking new ground on its own. A key purpose of the amendment is to discourage speculative and groundless attacks on Jersey trusts and thus increase confidence that settled assets will not be spent defending nuisance litigation.

15. WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING NEW PENSIONS LEGISLATION

Question

Would the Minister inform members whether he intends to take any steps to bring forward legislation relating to pension schemes similar to the 1997 and 2004 U.K. Pension Acts to address, in particular –

1. the statutory right for trusteesof company pension schemestoawardcostof living increases; and
2. the right of beneficiaries to elect representatives to the boards of trustees of pension schemes? If so, when does the Minister expect to bring forward this new legislation?

Answer

As advised in the answer to a written question to the Minister for Treasury and Resources by Deputy Southern at the last States sitting (26th September), the Social Security Department will, in accordance with the States Strategic Plan, item 2.1.2. prepare and start to introduce a co- ordinated plan, including a review of pension provision, to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by an ageing population by 2010'.

As part of that process the Department will review the need for pension regulation in the Island.

16. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE SETTING OF MINIMUM WAGE RATES

Question

1. Has the Minister been consulted over the inclusion of question 25 in the Employment Forum's consultation paper on the minimum wage rate, namely Do you think that there should be a youth rate as well as a trainee rate?' and would the Minister inform members whetherhe considers that it is appropriate for this issue to be reconsidered when a clear decision not to include a youth rate was made by the States on 22nd July 2004?

2. Would the Minister outline for members the proposed timetable for the production ofthe Employment Forum's reportand for the consultation and lodging of his recommendations on the minimum wage, and would he assure members that adequate time will be allowed for a full debate prior to the setting of rates in the industries most affected?
3. Would the Minister inform members whether he will take account ofthe figures relating to the appropriateness ofthe current level ofthe minimum wage as setout in my letter dated 24th February 2006 (circulated to all members on 28th February 2006) when he brings forward recommendations for 2007 minimum wage rates?

Answer

1. The Employment Forum is an independent, non-political consultative body, established under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, to make recommendations in respect of employment legislation and in particular the minimum wage. It is made up of three employer, three employee and three independent members.

I have faith in the Forum to prepare a consultation paper that will appropriately collect the views and concerns of the public. I have not been consulted on the inclusion of question 25 of the review and, as an independent body, I think it is quite right that the Employment Forum does not consult me on the questions that it intends to ask in its consultation papers, provided they are within the bounds of the consultation topic. This avoids political influence.

When the first minimum wage Order was presented to the States in 2004, the proposal for a youth rate was opposed and accordingly removed from the Order before being made by the former Committee. However, I do not see that as justification for objecting to a reference to a youth rate in the review. It was recognised at that time that there might be a need for such a rate in future if young people increasingly experience difficulty entering the labour market. If the Forum wishes to reconsider the issue in view of current economic circumstances and prepare a recommendation on the matter then I do not see that as inappropriate.

The Employment Law requires me to refer four specific minimum wage issues to the Forum for their consideration before any Order is made and before the States makes Regulations. One of those issues is the minimum wage rates to be prescribed under Article 16(3) of the Law. The Employment (Minimum Wage) (Jersey) Regulations 2004, provide that an Order may be made for the purposes of that Article, prescribing minimum wages for employees who may be treated as qualifying for the minimum wage at different hourly rates than other employees; specifically, trainees and employees who have not reached the age of 18.

I therefore regard question 25, and all of the other questions within the consultation document, as appropriate to the Forum's review of the minimum wage.

2. The very purpose ofthe independent Forum is toensureadequate consultation regarding the minimum wage involving all sectors of society and industry.

I encourage all interested parties to engage with and contribute to the consultation, which continues until 10th November. Following a full consideration of the consultation responses, the Forum intends to present its recommendations to me before the end of this year.

I will consider those recommendations and make my proposals to the States as soon as possible after that. Time is of the essence in order to allow businesses a fair amount of notice of any new rates that are to apply in 2007, especially if we are to meet the April target date.

3. At theStates sitting of 28th February 2006, Deputy Southern asked me to use the powers under Articles 19 and 20 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003to require the Employment Forum to take into consideration the matters contained in his letter when making its recommendation for the 2007 minimum wage rate.

I explained at the time that I considered that to be excessive and unnecessary as the Employment Forum has always considered all representations and submissions made to it. I pointed out that anyone can write to the Forum on matters under discussion, including politicians, and I encouraged the Deputy to do so when the rate is next discussed.

I also suggested to the Forum that the Deputy might be contacted and invited to submit his views for consideration during the next minimum wage review. I am advised that the Forum did so and received a copy of Deputy Southern 's letter.

I can assure the Deputy that his letter has been circulated to all current Forum members and will be considered along with all other responses and economic advice received during the consultation period.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding economic, social and strategic implications of the sale of Jersey Telecom:

How did the Minister and the Council of Ministers assess the economic, social and strategic implications of selling off Jersey Telecom?

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

Until 5th January 2003 the States was the regulator, operator and owner of the only telecommunications provider in Jersey. The Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002 completely changed this by splitting the roles of regulator, operator and owner. That Law also ended telecommunications monopoly in the local market by empowering the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority) to issue licenses to new operators where this is in the interests of users. This being the case, the sole remaining reason for the States continuing to own Jersey Telecom is as an investment. Having considering the ownership of the company in this context, it was apparent to me that there were good investment reasons for disposal and this view was endorsed by the Council of Ministers. In view of the social and economic implications of this possible sale I decided, having apprised the Council of Ministers of my intention, to issue a consultation paper to explore the wider issues. Moreover, the Council of Ministers and I agreed that detailed professional advice should be sought in respect of the implications of the proposal prior to bringing the proposition to the States. I have undertaken to procure the best possible advice and having pulled that proposal I will bring that proposal back to the States for discussion. Ultimately the decision on whether to sell Jersey Telecom or not will be made by States' Members as a whole. And the States, I am sure, will only be convinced about the wider implications, for which I am not directly responsible, if they can be properly addressed.

The Bailiff :

Senator Le Sueur , I am sorry, you are time expired now.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I am not looking for justification. It is the process. I wonder, Sir, if the Deputy Chief Minister could identify that when this issue came up at the Council of Ministers a proper and thorough analysis was done of all reports that were required, steps were set in motion to deal with these reports so that the appearance was not given of some kind of ad hoc process flowing from the initial decision. Could he confirm that a proper and full analysis was done of all work required and that all those decisions were taken at that time?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

This was not a question to the Council Ministers. This is a responsibility of myself, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources. And as Minister for Treasury and Resources I have satisfied myself, through internal documents and reading the economic arguments for and against retaining this investment, that it is in the financial interests of the Island, in my view, that this investment should be disposed of.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

If the Minister denies responsibility for these wider implications - the economic and social implications of the sell-off of Jersey Telecoms - who, then, is responsible for the wider implications, apart from this strictly financial, which he is responsible for?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I would not like to give the impression, Sir, that I was totally irresponsible in this respect. My primary duty is as the investment holder to look after the investment interests. It is the duty of the States as a whole to decide the overall balance of whether or not to sell this investment. And they will make that judgment based on the advice they receive from myself, from the economic advice they will receive and from that of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. On that basis of that full information, Sir, States' Members as a whole will decide on the overall benefit or otherwise to the Island.

3. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Supplementary, Sir, if I may? Is the Minister denying that any Minister has responsibility for the wider implications, economic and social, of such a sale?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The Minister for Economic Development has certain duties under the Telecom Law and those duties are clearly set out and I am sure he will be following those in the proper way.

4. The Connétable of Grouville :

Is it the intention of the Council of Ministers, through the Deputy Minister, to encourage opposition to Telecom to the detriment of that company?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I have no reason to suppose, Sir, that the acquisition by a third party of Jersey Telecom would result in a detrimental effect on the company.

5. The Connétable of Grouville :

Sorry, that is not the answer I wanted, Sir. [Laughter] What I wanted to know was: in the interim period that Telecom has been advertised for sale, is it the intention of the Council of Ministers to encourage the opposition to Telecom, to the detriment of Telecom?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Jersey Telecom has not yet been advertised for sale, although, it is clearly in the public domain. In the meantime, the Board of Jersey Telecom will continue to operate the company in the same way that it is being currently operated, for the benefit of the shareholders, for the benefit of the consumers of the Island, and nothing in that respect has changed.

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Is the Minister, and indeed the Council of Ministers, not absolutely making a fool of itself in the sense that when the decision was taken, clearly strategic economic and social implications have to be considered? We now have a separate report commissioned - allegedly of course it is the legal duty to do so - from the J.C.R.A. There are words that an auxiliary report is going to be produced and we have the Scrutiny Panel at work. What kind of decision was taken when the Council of Ministers said: "Let us go forth and seek to sell this organisation"?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think, Sir, perhaps the Deputy did not listen to part of my original answer when I said that in view of the social and economic implications of the possible sale I decided, having consulted with the Council of Ministers, and they agreed that we should issue a consultation paper and that consultation paper, setting out the wider issues, has been issued and responses have been received.

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

I wonder if the Minister could confirm that, if sold, Jersey Telecom would be offered to larger players in the telecommunications industry that will create economies of scale that would benefit all Islanders, rather than to venture capitalists and other such investment vehicles.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I cannot at this stage, Sir, indicate who might or might not be a potential buyer. Certainly, from my point of view, my aim is to ensure that this disposal is made of in the best possible advice.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can the Minister point Members to the parts of the consultation paper which deal with the wider social and economic considerations? His consultation paper deals solely with the financial aspects.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Without the paper in front of me, Sir, I believe that the paper also addresses matters such as the pension rights and the rights of employment of the workforce, maybe not in the detail that the Deputy would have preferred, but certainly they were raised and certainly highlighted for people who were interested to respond accordingly.

9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

With the benefit of hindsight, would the Minister not now acknowledge that serious mistakes were made and that there is every evidence that certain political agendas are being pursued in what is becoming an increasingly irritating and lengthy process?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur : No, Sir.

2. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the rationale for the J.C.R.A. review of the sale of Jersey Telecom:

Would the Minister explain the rationale for spending £18,000 of taxpayers' money on a J.C.R.A. review of the sale of Telecom when the review has already been carried out by the Telecoms Scrutiny sub-panel?

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

The sale of Jersey Telecom presented the Island with a once in a lifetime opportunity to get the structure of the telecoms market right; that means the network, competition, and the appropriate regulatory environment. The Treasury, and the Treasury Minister, is rightly looking at this issue from a shareholder point of view. On the other side, I have a primary duty under the Law to consider other matters. And I have circulated to Members an extract from the Law, lest there be any doubt of the obligations that I have under the Telecoms Law. I need to ensure that the economic and structural issues are also part of the sale process considerations by the Council of Ministers and eventually the States. I consulted the Treasury Minister and it is for those reasons that the J.C.R.A. - who is after all the expert authority in telecoms regulatory matters and will need to, in any event, clear any acquisition by any party of Jersey Telecom - will be involved. My own view is that the end result will be a stronger understanding of the market from the different perspectives that we must come at this from and an informed and improved States decision-making process. I have discussed this with the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel and I hope that they share my view that this review will also be helpful to them in their own important review.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

As usual, Senator Ozouf 's reply is all bluster and no substance. Given that it is the Treasury Minister's job to maximise shareholder value, it could be interpreted that the J.C.R.A.'s job is to minimise shareholder value; and I question whether this is £18,000 wasted. If the Minister takes the subject so seriously, why has he not replied to a letter from Jersey Telecom sent to him 6 months ago explaining serious concerns about the regulator?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Senator Shenton speaks of me as if he is speaking about himself: all bluster and no substance. I refer Senator Shenton to the memorandum that I have circulated to States' Members setting out the duties and setting out the email that I sent to States' Members giving the background to the reason why I gave careful consideration to spending £18,000 of taxpayers' money. We are dealing, Sir, with a company worth up to £200 million, a regulatory cost of £750,000. If we can improve the shareholding value of that to this Assembly, if we can get a better deal for consumers and we can cut the regulatory costs, then that is £18,000 well spent. I very much hope that the Scrutiny Panel uses this report carefully because it should help their own conclusions and help this assembly.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Was the Minister consulted in any way by the Treasury and Resources Minister before the issuing of the consultation paper and if not can he explain why not?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I enjoy excellent relations with the Treasury Minister and those good relations mean that we are joined-up on the Council of Ministers. But we also come from these responsibilities from a different perspective. The Treasury Minister is looking after the issue from a shareholder point of view. My job is to deal with the issues from an economic and structural point of view to the extent that I can do with an independent authority. Yes, I was aware of it. I have consulted with him about the J.C.R.A. and I think that he agrees that this additional piece of information, together with the Scrutiny Panel's report, will benefit the Council of Ministers and this Assembly's position ultimately.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

First, could the Minister answer Senator Shenton's question about the non-answering of letters? Secondly, Sir, could he say whether these points were raised in a minuted sense at the Council of Ministers? And thirdly, Sir, could he say whether or not he is now seeking also to commission O.X.E.R.A. (Oxford Economic Research Associates) to do a report?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not know where the comments about O.X.E.R.A. are concerned. Maybe the J.C.R.A. are going to use O.X.E.R.A. with their economic interest. As for Senator Shenton's comment about the J.C.R.A. and 6 months' letter, that sounds like a question from Deputy Baudains. I engage with the J.T. (Jersey Telecom) Board regularly. I was invited to a lunch with them I think 3 weeks ago; I have been in email correspondence with the Chairman of Jersey Telecom with my responsibilities and, frankly, I do not know where Senator Shenton gets the impression that there are not good relations between the Economic Development Department and myself. With the Chairman of J.T., obviously there are going to be tensions here. We are dealing with an important business with important different perspectives needed to come from. Not everybody will agree and J.T. might themselves not agree with any proposals that the J.C.R.A. may come about. Frankly, that is probably a healthy situation. That is what regulators do.

4. Deputy G. P. Southern :

Will the Minister answer the question concerning non-answering of the letter sent to him in March and will he also state why, if he was consulted before the issuing of the Treasury and Resources paper, he was not prepared to issue a similar consultation paper on the wider issues in good time and why a month into my investigation is he running to catch up?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

People in glass houses should not throw stones. I am enjoying a good relationship, I believe, with J.T. As I explained, there may be a letter, but certainly a letter has been superseded by personal communication between myself and the Chairman and a visit at J.T. May I turn the tables on Deputy Southern and ask him why 3 times I have offered his Panel to give evidence to this important review and 3 times he appears to have refused. I only learnt the fact that I may be called as a witness in a press release. I informed States' Members by email of important decisions as I did so, as Members have on their desks. I informed them of the decision of the J.C.R.A. on Monday 2nd October at 12.17 p.m. and I learn his communication through the media and by the press release which Members have also had. I have offered to give him evidence. I am happy to do so from my perspective and I would have thought that he would have welcomed the opportunity of getting additional information for his important review.

3. Deputy  P.V.F.  Le Claire of  St. Helier of  the  Minister of  Transport  and  Technical Services regarding the handling of waste material in the period between the closure of the Crabbé composting site and the opening of the La Collette composting site:

Before I ask the question, Sir, I would just like to let Members know that the documentation that has just been circulated is the report, Sir, that I promised on the 10th, and, as promised, it has just been circulated, Sir, for Members. Sir, may I ask the Minister of Transport and Technical Services this question please? During the period between the closure of the Crabbé compost site and the opening of La Collette site, what was done with all the different materials including green waste, wooden material from the construction industry and agricultural waste that had been going to Crabbé and how long was this period?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): There is a distinct difference between the Crabbé site and the La Collette site. The Crabbé site used to compost agricultural waste and shredded green waste. The green waste was received and shredded at the airport site and then transported to Crabbé for composting. The La Collette site has never processed agricultural waste. The Crabbé site was ended during 2003, the soil improver was transported to the La Collette site where it was blended with low grade soil and used to form

landscaped banks over the ash pits. The contaminated wood mulch from Crabbé was baled and wrapped in plastic. This was done so the material could be stored and fed into the energy from the waste plant as and when there was spare incineration capacity. The bales are stored at the La Collette site and up to now approximately two-thirds of the contaminated wood mulch has been incinerated. Sir, I have a large number of details on the dates but I feel that it might be more preferable if I pass the information directly to Deputy Le Claire rather than read it all out. In summary, the La Collette green waste site was opened before the Crabbé site closed and the States at no time stopped dealing with green waste. The agricultural waste issue was resolved by the agricultural industry and the contaminated wood was diverted to the Bellozanne incinerator.

2.3.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

A very comprehensive answer and I would like to thank the Minister for that answer, Sir. I am not going to ask another supplementary, Sir, I am just rising in relation to his offer of circulating the information. If I may ask that I have a copy but also that it be circulated to the Environment Scrutiny Panel.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I shall pass this copy to the Deputy and he may circulate it to whoever he wishes.

2.4. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the tax treatment of a Trust deed whereby the settler may become a beneficiary:

Would the Minister inform Members how the Comptroller of Income Tax will regard, for tax purposes, a Trust drawn up under the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 as recently amended, such that the Trust deed can be amended to the extent that the settlor may become a beneficiary, and will such a Trust be regarded as a bare trust?

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

This is the latest in a number of questions raised by the Deputy in relation to the recent amendments to the Trusts Law. It might have been better if the Deputy had raised these questions before the amendment in question had been passed. It may also be advisable that in future he considers a more informal approach to these matters, since I think that asking questions such as this is not a productive use of States' time. I say that, Sir, for one simple reason; the question can be answered by facts which are already in the public domain. Nothing in the amendments of the Trusts Law changes the ability of a settlor to amend a trust so that he becomes a beneficiary. That has always been possible under Jersey law. As such, the Comptroller will treat such Trusts in future in exactly the same way as he has done to date, which is explained in paragraph 2 of the Concession of Practice booklet published by the Comptroller. In summary, the position is that a Jersey Trust created by a Jersey settlor will only be exempt from Jersey tax if certain conditions are met. These include that the settlement is irrevocable, that the settlor and his spouse are irrevocably excluded from benefiting and that the avoidance of Jersey tax was not the main purpose of creating the settlement. The full concession is set out on page 2 of the Concessions booklet.

2.4.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is it not the case that Jersey Trusts Law is now so divergent from U.K. Trust Law that it is seriously endangered as being seen as a mechanism to create a bare trust by the U.K. tax authorities?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur : No, Sir.

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding a pedestrian crossing at Longeuville Road, St. Saviour :

Following a decision taken in December 2002 by the then Public Services Committee to allocate £20,000 for a Longueville Road crossing and extensive subsequent work to ensure the safest pedestrian solution, including preliminary negotiations with a third party to acquire land, what action, if any, is the Minister taking, or has in fact taken, to overcome the current financial impasse which is now placing this project in jeopardy?

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

Could I ask the Assistant Minister dealing with property to answer this question, please?

Deputy J.A.N Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

Firstly, I should state that I do support the provision of a pedestrian crossing outside Miladi Parade in Longueville. This was first brought to me in the middle of May and I did feel a responsibility at the time to query the justification for buying land for a refuge crossing costing some £35,000 as opposed to significantly cheaper options that did not require such land, and it has taken some time for the relevant information to be provided to me. There has also been a question of the resourcing of compensation as it appears that the land owner is not really a willing seller. The last piece of information, which admittedly was only recently requested, was received last Thursday. While pedestrian safety has to be paramount, the public expect us to use their money wisely, especially at times when money is tighter than it used to be, and I make no apologies for researching this matter. Expert advice has been received from both the Road Safety Officer and the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) Department as to the most suitable type of crossing. But being rather aware that matters were getting bogged down, I took the view it was more important to move this project forward. There is a certain amount of subjectivity over the decision but putting my personal views aside, I signed the decision on behalf of property holdings to purchase the land last Friday. Therefore, from my view, the potential impasse has been avoided now that all the information has been received.

2.5.1 Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

While I am extremely pleased that this project has now finally been signed off, does the Assistant Minister accept that there in future needs to be a more joined-up approach when deciding from which department funds will be allocated for long-agreed projects?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I could not agree more with the Deputy . I was discussing with the officers in my department as to a number of issues that are coming to fruition. They have all come to my attention recently and we will be likely to be issuing a general guideline, essentially to try and avoid this type of issue happening, i.e. when the works of the project might be approved but it is not clear where the actual source of any other monies might be attributed to it.

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

I thank the Assistant Minister for his answer.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding progress on a new States-owned company to incorporate the Waterfront Enterprise Board:

Following his statement in the Assembly on 19th July 2006 that the Council of Ministers would be bringing forward proposals for a new States-owned property company to incorporate the Waterfront Enterprise Board in September, following which the position of chairman of the new company will be publicly advertised, would the Chief Minister or the Deputy Chief Minister update Members on the progress on this issue?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur ( Deputy Chief Minister):

I can advise Members that the detailed proposals for a States-owned property development company are currently being developed in consultation with the Waterfront Enterprise Board and the Law Officers Department, and the draft report and proposition will be presented to the Council of Ministers on 2nd November. This has taken rather longer than anticipated and it is, in fact, rather more complex than was first anticipated, and of course the Chief Minister has had other matters to consider. Indeed, there are a number of issues that still need to be resolved but I hope we will be in a position to bring the matter to the States shortly thereafter.

7. Deputy G.C.L Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the refurbishment of Le Squez Youth Club:

Would the Minister advise Ministers whether the refurbishment of Le Squez Youth Club went over budget and if so by how much and for what reasons? And would he also state whether the club's management committee was informed before the work started.

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):

The latest stage of the refurbishment of Le Squez Youth Club was recently completed, the exact cost of which is yet to be finalised. This refurbishment was originally costed at just over £71,000, which was considered to be too expensive, so changes were made to the specification to produce a revised cost estimate of just over £48,500. Four tenders were received for the work, the lowest of which was just over £52,000. Some invoices are still being awaited but the final cost is estimated to be in the region of £54,000, to take into account some changes made to the original specification and additional work found to be needed. The other additional cost to be finalised is the professional fees, which are expected to be in the region of £4,000. I am informed the Chairman of Le Squez Youth Club Management Committee was informed by email on 19th May of the proposed timetable for the work, with construction scheduled to start on 26th June, so that the work could be finished by September 2006. Otherwise it would have had to be delayed until spring 2007. The youth officer attended the Le Squez Management Committee Meeting on Monday 10th July to inform the management committee about the work and to ask if they would contribute £5,000 to the cost, which the management committee agreed to.

2.7.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Does the Minister not consider it unusual that the provisional costings were done by a professional organisation and yet the lowest tender came in at approximately 20 per cent above that and the highest tender something like 100 per cent over that. Would he comment on that and would he also explain why his department only required tenders for the plumbers and electricians from 2 separate firms. Why were there only 2 firms?