States Meeting Transcript - 14/02/2006

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 14th FEBRUARY 2006

QUESTIONS.......................................................................................5

1. Written Questions...........................................................................5

1. The Minister for Planning and Environment will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding interim policies to improve design, local relevance and space around new buildings ..............................5
2. The Chief Minister will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement long term suspension of employees from office..............6
3. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding the investigation of traffic accidents involving fatalities......................................................................6
4. The Chief Minister will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence regarding employee suspensions arising from disciplinary infractions..............................................................................7
5. The Minister for Economic Development will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding advertising by Jersey Tourism through the jersey.com website......................................................13
6. The Minister for Treasury and Resources will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding the taxation of new non-financial companies............................................................................14
7. The Minister for Social Security will table answers to questions asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding matters relating to Health Insurance Exemption (HIE) income allowances...................................................................15
8. The Minister for Treasury and Resources will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding the Town Park site....................17
9. The Minister for Social Security will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding Jersey's position on its Gross Replacement Rate (GRR)................................................................................17
10. The Chief Minister will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding matters relating to the production of certain statistics.........19
11. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier regarding the disbanded Police Motor Cycle Unit...................20

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

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the number, cost and arrangements for States Police and Customs Department dogs when handlers are sick or on leave:........................................................22
2. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding the sufficiency of IT systems for the Low Income Support Scheme: ..................24
3. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding selection

process procedures for directors of Jersey Post, commitment sought and remuneration:........................................................................25

4. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier of the Chief Minister regarding the non-commencement of the Law Society of Jersey Law:......................................................27
5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding applications by Cable and Wireless for mobile telephone masts:..........27
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding placements by agencies in 2004 and 2005 to assist those on benefits to obtain employment:.......29

7. Deputy A. Breckon of the Minister for Housing regarding evidence of lower rents and reduction in hardship cases:..........................................................30
8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding legal advice sought on ITIS (Income Tax Instalment System):.............................34
9. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding responsibility for allocating free nursery places at primary schools: .......................................................................................35
10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding canvassing of groups on plans for Conway Street:........................38
11. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding permit parking at Snow Hill for States Members:..........................39
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (point of order):................................................41
13. Deputy G.P. Southern (request for clarification):......................................42

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister of Transport and Technical Services42

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:......................................................42
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.....................................................43
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................43
4. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:...........................................44
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................44
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour : ................................................44
7. The Connétable of Helier:............................................................45
8. Senator J.L. Perchard:................................................................45
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:..............................................................45
10. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade:................................................46
11. Deputy A.D. Lewis :...................................................................46

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Chief Minister................................46

1. Senator L. Norman:..................................................................46
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................46
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:................................................................47
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................47
5. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................47
6. The Connétable of St. Helier : ........................................................47
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:..............................................................48
8. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ............................................................48
9. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:................................................................48
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................48
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................49
12. Deputy P.V.F Le Claire:..............................................................49
13. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:.......................................................49
14. Deputy A. Breckon: ..................................................................50
15. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................50
16. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:..............................................................50
17. Deputy J.A. Hilton:....................................................................50

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY................................51

5 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):......................................51

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................52
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................52
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................52
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................52

PUBLIC BUSINESS...............................................................................53

6. Draft Magistrates Court and Petty Debts Court (Location) (Jersey) Act 200- (P.7/2006)...53

1. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:..................................................53
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:................................................................54
3. Senator W.Kinnard:..................................................................54
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................54
5. The Connétable of St. Ouen:.........................................................54

7. Draft Administrative Decisions Review (Amendment 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.195/2005)..55

1. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee):..........................................................................55
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................56
3. Deputy A. Breckon: ..................................................................56
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................56
5. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................56
6. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................57
7. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................57
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................58
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................58
10. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................58
11. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:.............................................59
12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:..............................................................59
13. Miss S.C. Nicolle, Q.C., (H.M. Solicitor General):....................................59
14. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................59
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................59
16. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................60
17. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................61
18. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................61
19. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................61
20. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:............................................................62
21. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................62
22. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................62
23. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................62
24. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................62
25. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................63
26. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................63
27. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................63
28. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................64
29. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:............................................................64
30. Senator P.F. Ozouf :..................................................................64
31. Senator M.E. Vibert :..................................................................64
32. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................65
33. H.M. Solicitor General: ...............................................................65
34. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................65
35. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................65
36. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................66
37. The Connétable of St. Clement : ......................................................66
38. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................66

8. Private hospital development: Scrutiny Review (P.221/2005)..............................66

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:..............................................................66
2. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................67
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:..............................................................67

9. Draft Employment (Minimum Wage) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.282/2005) ............................................................................................68

1. Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):..............................68
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................70
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:............................................................71
4. Senator P.F. Routier:.................................................................71
5. Senator P.F. Routier:.................................................................73

10. Public Employees Contributory retirement Scheme Committee of management: membership (P.6/2006)....................................................................74

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.....................................................74
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ................................................74
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:...............................................................74
4. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ....................................................................75

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS...........................75

Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................75

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:..............................................................75 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................75
2. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement:................................................75 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................75
3. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................75 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................75
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (point of information):........................................75 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................76 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: ......................................................................76 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................76 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:......................................................................76
5. Senator L. Norman:..................................................................76
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ...............................................................76 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................76
7. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................76 Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..........................................................77

ADJOURNMENT..................................................................................78

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. The Minister for Planning and Environment will table an answer to a question asked by   Deputy G.C.L. Baudains  of St. Clement regarding interim policies to  improve design, local relevance and space around new buildings

Question

The Minister has recently announced interim policies to improve design, local relevance and space around new buildings; would he explain whether these new policies will be compromised by advice given by the Department or in principle' permissions granted by the former Committee and, if so how, and would he also explain what policies, if any, have been put in place so that the Planning Applications Panel is not bound by advice given to applicants by Departmental officers?

Answer

Since my appointment as Minister I have introduced interim policies with the following aims –

raising standards in the design of new buildings in Jersey;

encouraging high standard traditionally designed schemes, modern interpretations of traditional theme schemes and modern architectural schemes;

ensuring that new buildings in most cases are designed having regard to their context. They should be appropriate to their surroundings, from which they should draw reference in terms of building form, mass, height;

ensuring that most new buildings should reflect in their design their relevance to Jersey; ensuring that new residential developments are reasonably spacious;

requiring the provision of models for larger application.

These policies will be further refined in the coming months and will be subject to consultation. Whilst the principles will be applied to new applications, it would be unreasonable to apply these too stringently to applications lodged before the introduction of the interim policies.

The department, wherever possible, will encourage current applications to comply with the new policies but there will inevitably be a transition phase during which compromises will be unavoidable. The department's ability to impose the new design policies will be compromised in cases where specific officer advice has been given based on the policies that previously existed before the introduction of the new guidelines. Furthermore, there will also be cases where previous Committees have given consents in principle or indications and it will be wholly unreasonable to impose the new design principles.

The department and I remain conscious that the panel's discretion should never be compromised by commitments or specific indications given by officers. Therefore, on 16th January 2006, the Director of Planning re-issued written instructions to officers reminding them that any advice given, whether orally or in writing, is without prejudice to any decision the Minister or the Panel might make on a subsequent application, after proper consideration of all the facts.

2. The Chief Minister will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement long term suspension of employees from office

Question

Would the Chief Minister –

1. advise whether he will be discussing the matter of long term suspension frompublic service and the effects this has on the individual and the employer with his fellow Ministers?
2. identify and explain the reasons why some suspensions are so lengthy? and,
3. put in place measures to ensure that lengthy suspensions areconfinedto complex financial or international investigations and do not happen for clearly less complicated cases?

Answer

1. Yes, the issue of long termsuspensions, including their effects, was discussed at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 9th February 2006.
2. There are a number of reasons why some suspensions are lengthy.

Individual cases may require police investigation, and this can take some time in the more complex cases. Depending on the outcome of an investigation, it may then be necessary to refer a case file to the Law Officers' Department for a decision on a possible prosecution.

Any decision by the employer to suspend a member of staff is subject to an agreed disciplinary framework. This framework has been developed over an extended period and is compliant with the ACAS Code of Practice. This means that disciplinary procedures are subject to a process of investigation and hearings, with provision being made for the right of representation and appeal. Whilst this process may take some time, it is important that such matters are dealt with properly and do not expose the employer to the risk of legal challenge and claims for compensation.

3. The Council of Ministers fully shares my deep concern about the number of long term suspensions, and wishes to ensure that all cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I have accordingly askedmyChief Executive to carry out an urgent investigation into the matter, and to report back to me with recommendations as to how the current situation can be improved.

3. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding the investigation of traffic accidents involving fatalities

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly whether she is satisfied that police investigations of traffic accidents involving fatalities are completed expeditiously, and would she give an indication of the time within which such an investigation should usually be completed?

Answer

The last fatal road traffic crash investigated by the States of Jersey Police occurred on 12th May 2005, and was a double fatality in St. Martin. As there was only one car involved, and the driver died, there was no file to H.M. Attorney General. The file was forwarded to the Deputy Viscount on 13th May 2005. Other technical evidence would have been available for the inquest.

Previous to that, the States of Jersey Police investigated a fatal crash which occurred outside the hospital on 12th February 2004. After investigation, the file was completed and finalised to H.M. Attorney General on 23rd June 2004, who ruled that there should be no prosecution.

The States of Jersey Police carry out their enquiries into fatal road crashes in accordance with the ACPO guidelines. They are carried out expeditiously and thoroughly. The length of time will vary with the types of evidence that has to be produced. Much of it is technical and expert, which means that it is often not available overnight, or indeed, on the Island.

Because of the vastly different investigation requirements of different crashes it is not possible to prescribe precise timetables but on the evidence available I am satisfied that all such enquiries conducted by the States of Jersey Police are carried out to an appropriate standard and timescale.

4. The Chief Minister will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence regarding employee suspensions arising from disciplinary infractions

Question

Would the Chief Minister inform members of the total number of staff, by Department, who have been suspended as a result of disciplinary infractions in each of the last three years (2002 to 2005) and in each case identify the employee group concerned, the nature of the alleged infraction, the period of suspension, and the means of disposal of the case?

Answer

The total number of staff suspended over the four-year period 2002 to 2005 was 64, an average of 16 a year, and details are listed below in alphabetical order of department.

Although this number does appear to be high, it should be noted that it represents a very small percentage of the total public sector workforce. 16 suspensions a year out of a total headcount of 6,485 (as at 30th June 2005) represents a percentage of approximately 0.25%.

Nevertheless, the figures in some departments do give cause for concern, especially in those cases where suspensions have lasted for an extended period. I have accordingly asked my Chief Executive to carry out an urgent investigation into the matter, and to report back with recommendations as to how the current situation can be improved.

The detailed figures are given below – Chief Minister's Department

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 2

Economic Development

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 2

Education, Sport and Culture

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 7

Health and Social Services

(Note: The information relating to Health and Social Services was originally provided by the Minister for Health and Social Services in a written answer on 17th January 2006).

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 21

Home Affairs

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 4

Housing

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: None Judicial Greffe

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: None Law Officers' Department

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: None Planning and Environment

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: None Police

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 15

Postal Department

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 10

Probation

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: None

Social Security

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 1

States Greffe

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005:  None

Transport and Technical Services

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 1

Treasury and Resources

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: 1

Viscount's Department

Total number of staff suspended 2002-2005: None

5. The Minister for Economic Development will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy  G.C.L. Baudains  of St.  Clement  regarding advertising  by  Jersey Tourism through the jersey.com website

Question

Would the Minister inform members whether Jersey Tourism is currently running an advertisement in national papers offering return fares to Jersey of £19.50 by sea and £51 by air and which refers readers to Jersey.com and, if so –

1. where on the jersey.com website details of the promotion can be found? and,
2. whether these prices are available to Jersey residents wishing totravelto the UK; if the answer is in the negative, would he explain the reasons why Jersey residents can not benefit from the promotion?

Answer

This particular advertisement appeared the weekend of 4th/5th February 2006. The fares quoted were confirmed by the two carriers, Condor Ferries by sea and Thomsonfly by air prior to the advertisement appearing. Further similar advertisements are scheduled to appear but subject to suitable prices and availability at the time of going to press.

1. jersey.com website offers consumers a variety of ways in which access can be gained totravel information. There is a complete travel section which offers links to the website of every carrier serving Jersey and an on line booking facility which enables consumers to book virtually every service to the Island.

2. prices ofair and sea fares to and from the Island are managed by individual carriers, usually employing computerised yield management systems. Availability can change very rapidly and usually cheaper fares are more likely to be available the earlier their enquiryis made. Most airlines operateon a sector fare basis for calculation of return air tickets and, therefore, the prices will be the same irrespective of whether the journey first commenced in the U.K. or in Jersey.

6. The Minister for Treasury and Resources will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding the taxation of new non-financial companies

Questions

1. In answer to my question No. 2715 on 31st January 2006, the Assistant Minister stated that the increase in any one benefit is unlikely to be the prime (or sole) cause'of loss of HIE and that he would welcome examples of difficulties caused by the loss of HIE through the differential rates by which benefits and thresholds were uprated. Would the Minister inform members whetherthe department has been made aware recently of at least one case where differential uprating is the sole cause of loss of HIE?
2. Would the Minister inform members whether any loss of HIE has occurred at a level of income of£9,000per year being a figure below the relative low-income threshold revealed in the 2002 Income Distribution Survey?
3. Can the Minister confirm that, according to his own figures, the relative slippage' of rates over the past 5 years has been 5.5% (28% rise in benefits and 22.5% rise in HIE threshold) and indicate whether this has produced significant numbers of persons who have been placed over HIE limits without change in circumstances?
4. In the final paragraph of part (c) of hisanswer,theAssistantMinisterstatedthattheRPIisthe appropriate Index for uprating since HIE is partoftheultimate safety net'; can the Minister confirm whether the differential figures above indicate that HIE should notbetreated solely as income support and whether medical needs should be incorporated into any new system?
5. Would the Minister provide members with anonymised data relating to HIE/non-HIE attendances by GPs referred to in his previous answer?
6. Notwithstanding the broad outline given in the Income Support system and already agreed to by the States, would the Minister provide members with details of any tapers' or other mechanisms which will ameliorate the all or nothing' effect of current income ceilings and income bars and the income levels over which it is intended such tapers will operate?

Answer

1. The Department has been made aware of only one claim where increased social insurance benefit income has been a factor. The claimant also had income from another source which had risen slightly.
2. To clarify, there is no single low income threshold. The 2002 Income Distribution Survey (September 2003 report) actually quotes 60 possible relative low income thresholds for different household types. To answer the question in full would require a disproportionate amount of staff timeto audit eachclaim manually as relevant computerised data is not stored, in particular income not included in the assessment (some of which is wholly disregarded). However, the Department  is not aware of loss  of HIE at income below £9,000 in recent months.

3. I would reiterate my answer to the last question that the uprating of a benefit designed to replace income, and income allowances in a means assessment, are not comparable and hence it is appropriate to use different indices. The whole point is to get people off means tested benefits and help them become self sufficient. It would require significant resource to audit and review all claim details toascertain individual reasons for exceeding the Income Criteria. The weaknesses oftheHIE system have been identified and the focus ofthe Department at this time is on developing and implementing the Income Support system that will supersede the HIE and other means tested schemes.
4. I would refer the Deputy toP.86/2005 as approvedbytheStates. Income Support will include four levels of a disability' component. People with illness or disability may have increased expenditure for a number of reasons, including additional medical care. People who have an identified need for additional medical care (whether through illness or disability) will be able to make a claim for a disability component. In addition, the aim is to modify the Health Insurance scheme over timeto give furtherhelpto people with chronic illnesses (irrespective of income) who require increased levels of medical care.
5. In 2005 a totalof 43,623 doctors visits were recorded by HIE recipients and 306,029 by the remainder of the population.
6. The very nature ofthe system outlined and agreed by the States removes the all or nothing situation of income bars as subsidy is gradually withdrawn as income rises. The Marginal Deduction Rate gives incentive to increase income as a percentage and will be retained. P.86/2005 gave an example using a marginal deduction rate of 90% and detailed calculations later this year will start from this basis. As the Deputy is aware, from his recent discussions with the Department, we are awaiting the outcome ofthe Household Expenditure Survey so that the most up-to-date information is used. The income level will be calculated according to composition of the household and combination of the components applicable. Component rates will be set towards the end of 2006 and will of course be subject to States approval.
   7. The Minister for Social Security will table answers to questions asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding matters relating to Health Insurance Exemption (HIE) income allowances

1. In answer to my question No. 2715 on 31st January 2006, the Assistant Minister stated that the increase in any one benefit is unlikely to be the prime (or sole) cause'of loss of HIE and that he would welcome examples of difficulties caused by the loss of HIE through the differential rates by which benefits and thresholds were uprated. Would the Minister inform members whetherthe department has been made aware recently of at least one case where differential uprating is the sole cause of loss of HIE?
2. Would the Minister inform members whether any loss of HIE has occurred at a level of income of£9,000per year being a figure below the relative low-income threshold revealed in the 2002 Income Distribution Survey?

3. Can the Minister confirm that, according to his own figures, the relative slippage' of rates over the past 5 years has been 5.5% (28% rise in benefits and 22.5% rise in HIE threshold) and indicate whether this has produced significant numbers of persons who have been placed over HIE limits without change in circumstances?
4. In the final paragraph of part (c) of his answer, the AssistantMinisterstatedthattheRPIisthe appropriate Index for uprating since HIE is partoftheultimate safety net'; can the Minister confirm whether the differential figures above indicate that HIE should notbetreated solely as income support and whether medical needs should be incorporated into any new system?
5. Would the Minister provide members with anonymised data relating to HIE/non-HIE attendances by GPs referred to in his previous answer?
6. Notwithstanding the broad outline given in the Income Support system and already agreed to by the States, would the Minister provide members with details of any tapers' or other mechanisms which will ameliorate the all or nothing' effect of current income ceilings and income bars and the income levels over which it is intended such tapers will operate?

Answer

1. The Department has been made aware of only one claim where increased social insurance benefit income has been a factor. The claimant also had income from another source which had risen slightly.
2. To clarify, there is no single low income threshold. The 2002 Income Distribution Survey (September 2003 report) actually quotes 60 possible relative low income thresholds for different household types. To answer the question in full would require a disproportionate amount of staff timeto audit eachclaim manually as relevant computerised data is not stored, in particular income not included in the assessment (some of which is wholly disregarded). However, the Department is not aware of loss of HIE at income below £9,000 in recent months.
3. I would reiterate my answer to the last question that the uprating of a benefit designed to replace income, and income allowances in a means assessment, are not comparable and hence it is appropriate to use different indices. The whole point is to get people off means tested benefits and help them become self sufficient. It would require significant resource to audit and review all claim details toascertain individual reasons for exceeding the Income Criteria. The weaknesses oftheHIE system have been identified and the focus ofthe Department at this time is on developing and implementing the Income Support system that will supersede the HIE and other means tested schemes.
4. I would refer the Deputy toP.86/2005 as approvedbytheStates. Income Support will include four levels of a "disability" component. People with illness or disability may have increased expenditure for a number of reasons, including additional medical care. People who have an identified need for additional medical care (whether through illness or disability) will be able to make a claim for a disability component. In addition, the aim is to modify the Health Insurance scheme over timeto give furtherhelpto people with chronic illnesses (irrespective of income) who require increased levels of medical care.
5. In 2005 a totalof 43,623 doctors visits were recorded by HIE recipients and 306,029 by the remainder of the population.

6. The very nature ofthe system outlined and agreed by the States removes the all or nothing situation of income bars as subsidy is gradually withdrawn as income rises. The Marginal Deduction Rate gives incentive to increase income as a percentage and will be retained. P.86/2005 gave an example using a marginal deduction rate of 90% and detailed calculations later this year will start from this basis. As the Deputy is aware, from his recent discussions with the Department, we are awaiting the outcome ofthe Household Expenditure Survey so that the most up-to-date information is used. The income level will be calculated according to composition ofthe household and combination of the components applicable. Component rates will be set towards the end of 2006 and will of course be subject to States approval.

8. The Minister for Treasury and Resources will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding the Town Park site

Question

Would the Minister inform members when he expects to receive the report into the extent of contamination of the Town Park site and when he will bring to the States a costed and realistic plan to bring the town park proposals forward?

Answer

The report on the recently completed ground survey study of pollution levels at the Gas Place and Talman Site car parks in St Helier has been received from the consultants, Arup Rothwell. Their findings and recommendations are currently being assessed by officers from Property Holdings, Transport and Technical Services, Health and Social Services and the Planning and Environment Departments, and their observations, together with the report will be presented to the Council of Ministers at the earliest opportunity.

The Town Park project is under consideration by the St. Helier Urban Task Force and it is intended, before the end of this year, to bring to the States a realistic proposal for the delivery of the new park.

9. The Minister for Social Security will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding Jersey's position on itsGrossReplacementRate (GRR)

Question

With regard to the findings contained in the OECD Report entitled Pensions at a Glance. Public policies across OECD Countries', published in April 2005, which contained data regarding the Gross  Replacement  Rate (GRR) comparing the State  pension rate  with average earnings  and showed that the average OECD earner received on retirement 56.9% of the average wage in State pension compared with 40% in the U.K., would the Minister state how Jersey's position regarding its Gross Replacement Rate (GRR) currently compares with the data contained in the report and inform members whether he intends to review Jersey's position in this regard and, if not, the reasons why?

Answer

The Statistics Department has advised that it will need time to examine the report to make sure that accurate comparisons can be made.

The OECD report is the first in a series to be published every two years to assess the impact of pension reforms. From an initial examination, it would seem that the question has picked on one figure, the Gross Replacement Rate (GRR), which is defined as "individual pension entitlement as a percentage of individual pre-retirement gross earnings" rather than a more useful one of Net Replacement Rate (NRR) which is defined as "individual pension entitlement net of taxes and contributions as a percentage of individual pre-retirement earnings net of taxes and contributions". The report shows that on average the net replacement rate is 22% larger than gross replacement rates on average across the OECD. Care, therefore, needs to be taken on making comparisons.

The former Employment and Social Security Committee commissioned a report from Nottingham University, entitled Social Protection in Jersey': a Comparative Study, (Stella Hart with Professor Robert Walker ), which noted that comparisons were difficult because of the variation of prices between countries and the different purchasing power of different currencies (or the same currency as with the Euro). Using purchasing power parities (PPP) helps to eliminate this effect but is not done in this OECD report. Furthermore, the use of averages as a benchmark, although easier to obtain, is not as good as using median figures when considering earnings or income distributions. The reason is one of statistical bias, particularly in small populations like Jersey where a few very large income earners can skew the calculation of an average figure. I would direct the Deputy and States members to the report from Nottingham University for a better comparison of pensions and other social protection issues.

In addition, the Jersey Social Security pension is indexed by earnings and not prices and as the OECD report points out nearly all OECD countries link pensions to consumer prices. However, some still adjust pensions in line with earnings, which may cost more than 20% more than if pensions were indexed to prices'.

Further, there are two basic Social Security systems operating throughout Europe. The dominant Social Security system in mainland Europe is based on the Bismarkian system where contributions are higher to enable benefits and pensions to be paid on a wage related basis. The other system, which emanated from the U.K. and on which the Jersey system is based, is the Beveridge one. In this system, contribution levels are collected to provide a basic benefit and pension, a platform on which people can build supplementary provision. In other words, the role of the State is less prescriptive. Over the years, employer sick pay and maternity schemes, occupational pensions, private savings and pension schemes have emerged to enable people to supplement Social Security benefits and pensions.

It has been argued by some that the Beveridge systems are better placed to withstand the demographic changes than those based on the Bismarkian system. By providing a basic platform on which to build, Jersey has been able to take corrective action to raise contribution rates and is moving to a partially funded pension system to mitigate the impact of the demographics over the coming decades.

Therefore, there are no plans at present to change the Social Security Insurance system in Jersey which would, of course, entail increasing contributions even further and create higher future liabilities. However, if the policy is to allow people more choice and freedom to invest and save their money in different ways, I am concerned to ensure that people who can, do save enough on top of the basic States pension to achieve a reasonable and comfortable retirement. It was for this reason, that the former Employment and Social Security Committee published a Policy Review of the Social Insurance system in Jersey : Interim Report', (R.C. 49/2004), raising a number of key issues, including retirement income as a whole and not just the Social Security pension (Section 3 of that report).

My intention is to follow up on this report later in the year with wider public consultation on the broader pension issues.

In this context, the recent Turner Report on Pension Reform in the U.K. is interesting in that it suggests that the States Social Security Pension be increased to a basic level (Basic State Pension) and that it subsequently be uprated in line with average earnings instead of RPI, as Jersey has been doing for some time. The Pensions Commission also recommended a National Pensions Savings Scheme to provide for those who may not have other occupational or personal pension plans. Members will see that the question of encouraging or, possibly, requiring people to save more for their retirement, will be an important strategy consideration for the future and one that will no doubt generate much public debate as it is currently doing in the U.K.

For these reasons, I do not think that comparison of GRR only as defined in the OECD report is helpful. No doubt the Statistics Department will be able to advise in due course and if meaningful figures can be provided, they will be published.

10. The Chief Minister will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier regarding matters relating to the production of certain statistics

Question

Would the Chief Minister inform members –

1. whether he considers that indicators such as Gross National Income (GNI) is an appropriate indicator of economic trends in a small state and, if not, whether he intends to replace it with another type of indicator?
2. whether up until 1995/6 there was, in existence in the office ofthe Economic Advisor to the States, a separate"basketofgoods"designedtomeasure the impact of RPIon pensioners and, if so, can the Minister confirm whether this mechanism still exists, and if not, the reasons why? Does the Minister have under consideration any further methods to measure the effects of RPI on pensioners? and,
3. whether he intends to take similar steps under the ministerial system in Jersey to those taken by the U.K. government to further distance the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from ministerial control?

Answer

1. The key measure of the economic performance of the Island is Gross Value Added (GVA) which, since 2004, has been produced annually to international agreed standards by the States Statistics Unit. The benefit of GVA is that it is the only aggregate economic measure that allows us to understand the performance of each sector of the economy and the whole economy.

In addition, the Statistics Unit publishes a range of supporting measures including GNI, GVA per employee and GDP. All these measures are appropriate if they are used correctly.

2. I understand that a pensioners RPI was previously calculated but that this stopped in the mid 1990's. Information aboutthe impact of price rises on all households, including pensioners, is currently being collected by the Statistics Unit as partofthe household expenditure survey. This survey, which has achieved a higher participation ratethan previous roundsof the survey, will provide a wealth of information about the spending patterns and the impact of price rises for all households, including detailed information about the impacton pensioners, whotendto be atthe lower endof the income distribution. This information and analysis will be extremely valuable in the development of social policy and will ensure weare better informed aboutthe economic circumstances of the whole population than ever before.
3. Developments in the U.K. will, of course, continue to be monitored. However, it is important to acknowledge that the people of Jersey and its government are well-served by a Statistics Unit that is operationally independent and is providing a greater breadth of information than ever before.

In addition, the Statistics User Group has been established by the States to review and comment on official statistics, with a particular focus on the work of the Statistics Unit. The User Group is independent of both the States and its departments, and its members are drawn from a wide cross-section of organisations from the Island community, including organisations representing the consumers, the finance industry, the voluntary sector, and pensioners.

The position of the Statistics Unit will, however, be reviewed by the Council of Ministers in order to establish whether any changes are needed to the current arrangements.

11. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier regarding the disbanded Police Motor Cycle Unit

Question

Would the Minister inform members –

1. whether the Police Motor Cycle Unit wasdisbanded without prior knowledge orapprovalof the former Home Affairs Committee?
2. who authorized the sale of the Police motor cycles and, in particular, when did the Minister know of the intended sale and did the Minister agree to the sale?
3. whether any representations were made by Deputy J.B. Fox to the former Home Affairs Committee to retain the Police Motor Cycle Unit, andwhether,as a result, a reportwasto be produced regarding options for the way forward? If so, why was the sale authorised if such a report was still awaited?
4. whether an independent authority valued the sale price of the seven motorcycles in question and, if so, which authority?
5. whether the sale of the motor cycles was put out to tender either locally or nationally?
6. whether the public was consulted on the decision to disband the Police Motor Cycle Unit?
7. whether, prior to the disbandment, new radios were purchased specifically for the motor cycle unit?

8. whether any work has been undertaken to identify the effectiveness of a Police MotorCycle Unit in the prevention and detection ofcrimeandsafetyof the public,or otherwise, by the provision of a Police Motor Cycle Unit and, if so, what did this conclude?

Answer

1. A report was submitted tothe former Home Affairs Committee informing it ofthe operational decision taken to disband the Motor Cycle Unit in order to achieve compliance with an H.M.I.C. recommendation in respect of the formation of a pro-active policing unit. Unfortunately, it was leaked to the press before the report was received. The former Committee recognised that failure to act on the H.M.I.C. recommendation could have resulted in the Island being judged to be non-compliant with recognised good practice and also that this additional commitment had to be achieved without any overall increase in resources.
2. A report went to the former Home Affairs Committee on 19th September 2005, which asked for authorisation to sell the motor cycles. Verbal representations had been made by Deputy Fox, and as a result, the former Committee gave interested parties until thenext meeting to formally submit an alternative proposal which satisfactorily addressed the issues of performance and affordability. No alternative proposal was received, nor did the former Committee at any stage receive any written proposal which offered any alternative view. Two bids were made for the motor cycles, both were acceptable but one was withdrawn.
3. The answer tothe previous question partly answers the question. In addition, the police report outlined no loss in productivity around roads policing but an increase in detection of crime matters attributable to the Proactive Investigation Team' set up, in place ofthe motor cycles. The statistics speak for themselves. There was also an improvement in response times to incidents following the disbandment of the bikes.
4. The motor cycles were sold for the best price available having taken stockof Glass's Guide and the professional advice of Workshop Technicians.
5. The motor cycles were high powered machines which the Statesof Jersey Police Force does not consider to be appropriate for untrained use on the Island's roads, nor would the service wish to be seen as indirectly responsible for any mishap as a result of their use by other than trained specialist riders. For this reason they were offered to emergency servicesin the U.K., and were not put out to tender.
6. This was seenasan operational decision taken by professionals with a responsibilitytodeliver the best policing service possible in accordance with H.M.I.C. advice on best practice. The public are frequently consulted about the priorities oftheStatesof Jersey Police, and their views taken into account. They usually place dealing with speeding motorists atornearthetopof those priorities, and the job of the police is then to deliver on this and to decide the operational methods used to do so. The disbandment of the motor cycle unit has led to improved performance, not only inthatarea,butalso in othercrimerelatedareasas a result of the increased emphasis on intelligence-led policing which the disbandment allowed the Force to do.
7. No. The radios were in fact almost obsolete because the Force was moving to second generation encryption of the TETRA radio. Keeping the bikes would have involved spending £3,500 to equip them with new radios this cost being out of all proportion for their usefulness.

8. Yes. Research submitted tothe former Home Affairs Committee showedthat performance had improved in a number of areas following the disbandment ofthe Motor Cycle Unit. Response times to Emergency calls improved in 2005 without the Unit. Serious Injury Road Traffic Crashes showed a decrease following disbandment. In the 18 months before disbandment the monthly average was 4.16. In the first seven months of 2005 this had fallen to2.In 2005, the number of detections for speeding increased to an average of 110 a month. Before the Unit was disbanded, the figure was 51. Additionally, with the formation ofthe Proactive Policing Team which replaced the Unit, detections for burglary and thefts of vehicles have increased substantially. Thereport submitted earlier concluded that not having a motorcycle unit did not result in any loss ofservicetothe public andthat with the addition of a Proactive Unit actually gave a better service to the public with a decrease in reported crime and an increase in detected crime.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the number, cost and arrangements for States Police and Customs Department dogs when handlers are sick or on leave:

How many dogs are used by the States Police and the Customs Department, what is the cost of caring for the dogs and what arrangements are in place to look after the dogs when their handlers are sick or on leave?

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

The States of Jersey Police currently have 3 general-purpose dogs and 2 sniffer dogs that are used to locate drugs and firearms. They are seeking to recruit a third sniffer dog following a retirement and the Customs Service has 2 drugs dogs. The States of Jersey Police and Customs dog handlers are responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of their animals and the dogs live at home with their handlers. In 2005, the Customs budget for running the dog unit totalled £4,150. This figure included the cost of vet bills, food, kennelling and servicing the vehicles used to transport the dogs. The States of Jersey Police Force pay the dog handlers an allowance of approximately £110 per month per dog which covers grooming bills, exercising the dog during rest days and off-duty time. Allowing for the 6 dogs, this equates to an annual total £7,920.00. Dog food is also provided at a cost of £1 per day per dog, giving an annual total for food of approximately £2,190. When dog handlers are unable to look after the dogs due to sickness or annual leave, the dogs are placed in appropriate kennelling facilities locally and if a handler is sick, in the short term, it may often be that the dog will remain at the handler's home and another handler will assist with exercising the dog.

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Will the Minister inform us where the dogs are housed or kennelled if they are not with the owner and possibly give us the reason why they are shipped off-Island?

Senator W. Kinnard:

The only reason that dogs are taken out of the Island is when they go on specialist training. In fact, Customs dogs undertake a one-week secondment to Gatwick Airport to discuss methods and experience and in fact improve the training and also exchanges do take place with Guernsey Customs but, certainly the information that I have, is that when they are kennelled, they are kennelled here within the Island. I am advised not to say where in fact they are kennelled because there are some security issues that may arise from that.

3. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I just do not accept the fact that where dogs are kennelled when they are away, or the handler is away on holidays, is confidential. Will the Minister confirm, in actual fact, that the dogs are not kept in Jersey, not even at the Jersey Animal Shelter, but they are shipped across to the Guernsey Animal Shelter where there must be additional costs; and I also mention the Customs dogs are also there.

Senator W. Kinnard:

That is not the information that I have before me and I query why the individual is asking this question. I believe he stood for a poster called the Jersey Animal Shelter and, if we are talking about costs, the last time that Home Affairs investigated this matter - when the Connétable s decided to move their custom, if you like, to the Jersey Animal Shelter - the costs were less in Guernsey than in Jersey. But, as I say, that is irrelevant, I think, from the point of view of the information I have before me. If the Deputy does not believe me then I am more than happy that he should come and speak to the officers concerned and I am sure that we can assure him.

4. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Could I just ask the Minister if she would make it known to all Members of this House where the dogs are actually housed during the course or when a handler is away, and also the added costs. I have asked her in my questions what arrangements are made; the answer has not been adequately given, and I would ask that it be given at some later time.

Senator W. Kinnard:

May I just say there is a security risk attached to giving details of where dogs may be housed and I am more than happy to provide that to the Deputy on a confidential basis, but I do not really think that kind of information is the sort of information that should be given out to this House.

Members: Oh!

2.1.3 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Could the Minister just elaborate exactly what she was pointing out in respect of this relationship with the Animal Shelter? I think it is important that Members understand that what she is saying there. The Deputy , we are aware, is a member of the Animal Shelter.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does this arise directly out of the question, which is where are the dogs kept? We do not want to get into a debate about the Animal Shelter.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would like to understand what the Minister is saying in respect of her comments about the Animal Shelter.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We do not. You can ask her at a meeting of the Council of Ministers. Are there any other questions? We come then to the second question which Deputy Le Hérissier will ask of the Minister of Social Security.

2. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding the sufficiency of IT systems for the Low Income Support Scheme:

Does the Social Security Department possess sufficient IT systems to enable it to handle the introduction of the Low Income Support Scheme?

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

Yes, the Income Support system will be integrated into the existing social security system. As with the introduction of any new benefit - as we are currently doing with the TV licences - it will require a software update. The inception phase is now underway, with the aim of completing this project in time for the introduction of income support in May of 2007.

1. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

Could the Minister tell us whether, in the last few years in the run up to low income support, that all IT budgets have indeed been on target? Could he identify where there have been problems or slippage and what are the exact additional costs?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The new social security system, which has been in place now and up and running for over a year, had a fixed price contract with that and that was at a cost of £7.2 million. It is quite a large system which has to have everybody's details and all their particulars recorded in an orderly manner and the additional cost, which will be put in for the implementing income support, will be in the region of £1.8 million.

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

In view of his answer, talking about a target date of getting the low income support in place by April next year, is the Minister aware of any problems of obtaining accurate figures relating to income distribution since the income distribution survey has not been repeated and that, in fact, income figures from this year's household expenditure survey are not likely to be available until June?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am not sure how that relates to this specific, particular subject but the income distribution is going to be updated this year and it is going to influence, obviously, the figures which are brought to this House for approval later on in the year. So, we will be able to have that information available to us to help form our judgment to ensure that the income support system that we bring forward is set at appropriate levels which are affordable.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Would the Minister give details of exactly how the income distribution data is to be updated since it is quite an extensive survey and took quite a few months in 2002 to do the original survey?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am advised that the income distribution survey updating will be available for us to help influence our decisions in time for the States to make the decisions it needs to at the end of this year.

4. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

How did the Minister assure himself that the £7.8 million was indeed value for money and what kind of checks were there in place to ensure that?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The £7.2 million, which was spent on the original system, was obviously audited and we had the assistance of the Computer Services Department and there were obviously value for money considerations with that. We are advised that what we paid as a fixed price contract was very good value for money. In fact, I will go further than that to say that the suppliers of the system put in it ended up costing them more money than they anticipated, and they obviously did not achieve, as a company, out of it what they were anticipating. We got very good value for money.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

May I return to the question of how he envisages the income distribution survey being updated? Will he supply the House with a written reply when he finds out how it will be updated?

Senator P.F. Routier: Yes.

3. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding selection process procedures for directors of Jersey Post, commitment sought and remuneration:

Would the Minister explain the procedures utilised in the selection process for directors of Jersey Post and inform Members of both the number of hours per week commitment that is anticipated for this position and details of the proposed remuneration?

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

In the appointment of a board of directors the post of chairman is a key position and that appointment will be subject to a rigorous and impartial process following an advert in the local press. Following receipt of applications, a short list of candidates was interviewed by a panel, which I chaired with the assistance of a professional firm of recruitment consultants. After due consideration of those candidates, an appointment was made. The original appointee subsequently withdrew his position and, following that, Mr. Liston was nominated for the post on the recommendation of the previous Finance and Economics Committee. He was one of the original candidates and has shown a wide track-record and performed very well in the original interview process. Ensuring standards of corporate governance requires a very effective board and, following that appointment of chairman, the chairman designate then recommended to me and the former Committee those people who he thought had the right qualities to put together to make a suitable board. Those Members' names are now included in the proposition before the House for debate later on in this year and I agreed to their nomination for that post. Fees for those directors on incorporation were agreed in conjunction with recruitment consultants, bearing in mind the charges applicable locally, and the market conditions. The chairman will receive fees of £35,000 a year, and the non-executives will receive £12,500 a year. The executive directors will receive no fees other than their ordinary annual salaries. The workload of the chairman is expected to be about 35 days a year and that of the other non-executive chairman, directors about 20 days a year. Those fees are regarded by the recruitment consultants as offering value for money.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Was the Appointments Commission involved in the selection process, given that the chairman of the Jersey Appointments Commission and the chairman of Jersey Post are now one and the same person?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The Appointments Commission did consider this at their meeting in October 2004 and I gave details of that in an answer to Deputy Baudains in a question to the States last year. But basically the agreement of the Appointments Commission would not normally extend to that of a public company.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Notwithstanding the excellent credentials in many respects of the person, would the Minister not acknowledge that it is a very dangerous precedent to set that an existing managing director, already very heavily involved in that and other positions, is now going to be directly involved in running another major service?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

On the contrary, the appointment was made with the full knowledge and consent of the board of directors of the Jersey Electricity Company who believe it is in the best interests of that company that the executive directors of JEC should have wider experience and should participate in other services to the community, Sir. Far from being a hindrance, it is regarded as a help.

3. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Does the Minister believe that the appointment opens the Assembly up to allegations of cronyism?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No. The appointment was made, as I say, by a rigorous process after a selection panel and clear evidence of suitability of a candidate for the post.

4. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

Can the Minister confirm that there was indeed an open advertisement process and how many people applied and were there, for example, people who applied who had tremendous breadth of experience, not necessarily on-Island.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I cannot say how many applied but there was certainly a short list of 5 for the post, which included people from off-Island. After consideration, although some of the off-Island candidates would have had qualities, I believe that this post requires someone who is on the Island for the majority of the year should any unforeseen circumstances require his presence.

4. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier of the Chief Minister regarding the non-commencement of the Law Society of Jersey Law:

Why has the Law Society of Jersey Law not yet been brought into force?

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

The Law Society of Jersey Law has not yet come into force because the Law Officers opposed a question about lawyers in the public service. The question is whether Jersey advocates and solicitors in public service should be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Law Society. This matter is under active consideration by the Law Officer's Department and is being dealt with as a matter of urgency. In addition, the Law Society must make by-laws under the law before it is brought into force. These by-laws relate to such matters as membership and the holding of meetings and they have already been drafted and approved by the current Committee of the Law Society. Once the question about public service lawyers has been resolved, it is intended that the Members of the Law Society will be asked to approve the by-laws and the new law will then be brought into force.

1. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

This issue was discussed previously and apparently resolved, would the Chief Minister outline whether this is a technical issue or whether this is a political issue and, if it is a political issue, why has the Council of Ministers not made a decision and driven the law forward?

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

I do not believe it is a political issue and that is why it has not been an issue that Council Ministers have driven forward.

2. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister confirm that this issue had arisen previously, it had been dealt with in the debates, it had apparently been put to bed and it has now arisen again?

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister): Yes, I do confirm that is correct.

5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding applications by Cable and Wireless for mobile telephone masts:

How many applications, if any, have been submitted by Cable and Wireless for mobile telephone masts? Were any of these received without the written consent of the owner of the property? Have any of these applications been considered or has any indication been given by the department to the applicant about their prospects and have any discussions taken place with other Ministers regarding these applications?

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

Cable and Wireless have submitted 35 applicants for new telecoms equipment. A further 10 applications are anticipated in the very near future. Three of these applications have subsequently been withdrawn. Of the currently submitted applications, 14 offer new pole-type masts and 3 offer lattice-style masts. All the other applications currently submitted are for equipment either on existing masts or on top of buildings that currently accommodate similar equipment. Cable and Wireless discussed their potential locations with my department but these discussions were without prejudice and involved highlighting likely constraints and concerns on any suggested location. No undertaking of unequivocal support has ever been given for any of the applications. The pre-application discussions also included Cable and Wireless seeking clarification over the status of obtaining landowners' endorsement on a planning application. Endorsement is not required in order to validate an application and its inclusion on applications forms has developed through custom and practice over the years. In the light of this, Cable and Wireless did not include the landowners' endorsement on any of the currently submitted applications. I was unaware of this situation and I have now issued instructions that, in the case of all future planning applications, owners' consent will be required. The current situation is that applications remain to be determined only when, apart from normal planning considerations, a health assessment impact is undertaken on the effects of installation and the fulfilment of an undertaking from Cable and Wireless that all landowners will endorse the applications on their land. I have only had contact with one Minister over the applications. I have exchanged emails with the Minister for Health and have assured him that consent will not be given until we have assessed the health risks. This will include consideration of the Stuart Report carried out in the UK and subsequent research reports.

The Connétable of Grouville :

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that he is going to reform the process. This is just what I was after and I would like to thank him for his answer.

1. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

Can the Minister confirm whether the issue of the Jersey Telecom set of masts has been considered in relation to Cable and Wireless? Why do we need a duplicate set?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

We are concerned that this batch of installations does not prejudice the possibility of mast-sharing with other networks that may wish to establish themselves on the Island at any future date. This could lead to a situation where multiple installations in a small area cause harm to visual amenity. The issue is actively being investigated and will form part of the consideration of these applications.

2. Deputy R. G. Le Hérissier:

Has his department inquired whether indeed the Jersey Telecom's set of masts, some of which I understand are installed on telephone boxes, for example, are usable by another operator and whether there is any objection, legal or otherwise, to this happening?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

As far as I understand, approximately 18 of the current applications relate to existing masts that are operated by Jersey Telecom. Also, as far as I understand it, you cannot simply put additional masts on top of telephone boxes. So, I presume that the other applications relate to other areas.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding placements by agencies in 2004 and 2005 to assist those on benefits to obtain employment:

In answer to questions on the 17th January 2006 regarding the minimum wage, the Minister listed several agencies or mechanisms to assist those on benefits to obtain employment. Will the Minister inform Members how many persons were placed by these agencies in 2004 and in 2005?

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

The list of agencies to which the Deputy refers is part of the Code of Practice on Therapeutic Work and the Employment Law, which was appended to the response to the previous question. The Code of Practice provides this list to show the different types of support available to employers and employees with issues around work, disability and illness. The list includes JEND (Jersey Employment Network on Disability) which is specifically a network of employers sharing best practice and does not place people into work itself. The other organisations work both individually and together to support the most vulnerable in our society, many with profound disabilities, and may at any time offer training and voluntary therapeutic or work placements. Clients may go through several types of training or work experiences and some find their own work after a short period of support. However, many people are able to help themselves and find work without further support. With regard to collating the statistics held by the individual organisations and also eliminating the potential overlap that there is, because clients can use various services, it would be - I have to say - a significant task to undertake. However, what I can do is to give some indication of the numbers in 2005 which WorkWise' placed. They placed 62 people in 2005 and 49 people in 2004. There are also 400 people in 2005 and 332 in 2004 who were registered through the department's Therapeutic Work Scheme who are obviously being supported by the department.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Has there been any increase in the resources allocated to help those get back to work in 2005 over 2004?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes, a significant increase. In fact this morning I signed a decision to enable the JET (Jersey Employment Trust) organisation to increase their facilities on the site that they have at Oakfield Industries. We are investing over £600,000 on the developments so that it will enable people to use their services and increase the numbers of people that are able to avail themselves of those services besides other things which I should mention also. At Acorn as well, there are certainly more people using those services and we are encouraging people to come in and avail themselves of that service.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Will he supply those in document form to me later on in the week?

Senator P.F. Routier:

It is the second time I have been asked for a written response to an oral question. I am not sure which is the best way to go about this. Perhaps the written question would have been better in the first place.

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

A point of information, will these question times not be available on Hansard in a couple of weeks' time?

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think they will be, yes.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The point is that the Minister mentions one particular area where resources have been increased. He does not talk about the wide range of resources going into this area and this is going to become increasingly important as we approach low-income support. Further, can he say how many additional staff will be required when we come into the Income Support Scheme to enable as many people as is possible to return to, or take up, work in the workplace, rather than be dependant on benefit - the hand-up rather than the hand-out?

Senator P.F. Routier:

It appears that the Deputy seems to be mixing up 2 things, income support and also incapacity benefits. The reason people need support for getting back into work is if they are on incapacity benefits they obviously do need support to go back into work and if they want to get back into work. I have to say that we are recognising that some people do not want to get back into work and that is an issue which we are facing at the present time. There are people who we are asking to come to the department for an interview to take on work and they are not interested in doing that, so we are identifying that currently. That is an issue which we need to address. With regard to income support, that is a totally different piece of work - a support system for people who are on low incomes. It is obviously related to the income they receive from their work. Depending on the amount of wages they receive, they will possibly need additional support from the income support system but what we are concentrating on now is ensuring that people who do need support to get work we are trying to give as much support as we possibly can. We recognise, as much as the Deputy does, that we would have to put more resources into that and that is what we are concentrating on.

7. Deputy A. Breckon of the Minister for Housing regarding evidence of lower rents and reduction in hardship cases:

Would the Minister provide Members with the evidence that supports his recent announcement that rents have been lowered and numbers of  hardship cases reduced as a result of the action of developers?

Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):

There are a number of circumstances that caused me to be of the view that because of the large supply of accommodation, both controlled and uncontrolled, that rents are being lowered and this is mostly, at the present time, in uncontrolled accommodation. The number of hardship cases

approaching me and the department are becoming less. In fact, the appeals for hardship in 2002 was 37, in 2003 and 2004 was around 24-25, and in 2005 only 9. My department and I have both had a number of approaches from landlords of local controlled accommodation seeking relaxation to house non-qualified people because they were unable to find tenants. In every case advice has been - from myself and from the officers in the department - that you are asking too much; your premises are not up to scratch; or, if you reduce the rents and provide decent, good accommodation, there are plenty of tenants around. The department and myself will vigorously oppose the relaxation of (a) to (h) accommodation by persons who are asking too much money - too many rents, too high rent, so that they can let them out to the unqualified. The department's lodging house inspector, currently in the course of annual inspections, reports that generally landlords are not increasing their lodging charges as they have done in the past and in some cases are even decreasing these costs to ensure they maintain full occupancy. You have only got to look at the Evening Post pages, and I went through the Evening Post to remind myself in the library this week, it was from 1996 to 2000 and there was just nothing; (a) to (j), one two-bed partly furnished, one bed furnished, large lists, urgent requirements. There was nothing in those years - you're lucky to find half a dozen adverts for any kind of accommodation. Now, everybody will know, it is huge - there are pages and pages of accommodation to let, and it is my view that the developers and all those who have or are in the marketplace to provide new accommodation and, in many cases, as I say, the