States Meeting Transcript - 16/05/2006

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 16th MAY 2006

1. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE FUNDING OF TOP-UP FEES......................................................................14
2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY CONNETABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING HEALTH MATTERS RELATED TO COMPOSTING OPERATIONS................14

3. WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE, AND THE PROVISION OF A NURSERY UNIT AT THE NEW ST. PETER'S SCHOOL.........................................17
4. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE ZERO/TEN DESIGN PROPOSALS (R.37/2005)..............19

5. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE ISLAND'S TAXATION COMMITMENTS....20
6. WRITTENQUESTIONTOTHEMINISTERFORSOCIALSECURITYBYDEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING PROVISIONS FOR PARENTS WHO HAVE DEAF CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE...................................22

7. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING AUTHORITATIVE BODIES USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER JERSEY'S BUSINESS AND CORPORATE TAX PROPOSALS MEET INTERNATIONAL AND EU REQUIREMENTS.................................................................22

8. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE LEVEL OF EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOB FAMILIES AGREEMENT ..................................................23
9. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING CONTROLS ON SPECULATIVE PURCHASING ........................................................................24

10. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY CONNETABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE MONITORING OF COMPOSTING OPERATIONS.............................25

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................29

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding whether any evaluation of risk for emergency planning purposes has taken place following the experiences learned from the recent Buncefield incident:...............................29

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................29

2. Senator L. Norman ofthe Minister for Planning and Environment regarding when the report required consequent upon the adoption by the States in January 2005 of Sites of Special Interest and Buildings of Local Interest: financial implications' (P.166/2004) will be published: ...........................................................................29

Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................29

1. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................30
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................30
   3. Deputy S. PowerofSt. Brelade ofthe Minister for Economic Development regarding comparative figures in 2006 for the total number of passengers arriving by sea fromthe United Kingdom and from France during the 3-month period February to April 2005:..30

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................30 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):....................30

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................31
2. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................31
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................31
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................31
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................32
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................32
7. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................32

4. Senator B.E. Shenton ofthe Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding a post- project review on Phase 1 of the Hautlieu School rebuilding project:...................33

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................33

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................33
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34

6. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................34

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34

5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the steps taken to investigate the benefits of tidal energy:....................34

Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................35

1. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................35
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................35
3. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................35

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding whether recent initiatives such as offering free bustravelto dogs fall within an approved Transport Strategy:.....................................................................36

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

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36
3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................37

7. Deputy J.A.MartinofSt.Helierof the Chief Minister regarding the implementation of a categorised register for the Island population and the provision of individual unique evidence of registration for the purpose of accessing public services, employment opportunities and accommodation:......................................................37

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................37

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
2. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................37

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier ofthe Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding programmes in place for the on-Island training of primary and secondary teachers:....38

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................38

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................39

9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding composting in close proximityto the fuel storage containers and facilities atLaCollette: .........................................................................................39

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................40

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................40
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................40
3. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................40

2.9.3 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................41

10. Senator B.E. Shenton ofthe Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the current fiscal strategy, and the "20 means 20" proposals in particular:..........................41

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................41

1. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................41
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:......................................................42
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................42

4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................42

11. Deputy G.P. Southern ofthe Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the new Zero/10' taxation proposals:...........................................................42

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister of Treasury and Resources):............................42

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................43
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................44

12. Deputy G.P. Southern to the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding why the Jersey Financial Services Commission will no longer need to know the beneficial owners of the proposed Jersey Incorporated Investment Companies under the new 0/10proposals:..............................................................................44

Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................44 2.12.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................45

13. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains ofthe Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the department's maintenance schedule for standby and emergency plant:..............45

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................45 Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Technical and Transport Services):....45

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................45
2. Deputy G.C.L Baudains: ............................................................46

3. Deputy G.C.L Baudains: ............................................................46

14. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding action taken to prepare legislation to give effect to proposals adopted under "Share Transfer Property: Stamp Duty" (P.211/2004):....................................................................46

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................46

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................46
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................47

15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains ofthe Minister for Planning regarding powers under Article 15(1)(a) of the Island Planning Law 1964 and their use in respect of site H4(15), Samares Nursery: ......................................................................47

Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................47 2.15.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................47

16. Deputy S. PowerofSt. Brelade of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the identification of sufficient alternative car parking space prior to redevelopment of the Esplanade car park site:..........................................48

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................48

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................48
2. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................48
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................48
4. Connétable K.A. Le Brun ofSt.Mary:..............................................49
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................49
6. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................49

17. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding whether law drafting instructions  have been submitted  for the proposal adopted under "Speeding fines: allocation of funds to parishes" (P.156/2005):....................................50

Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................50 2.17.1 The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................50

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture...................................................................................50

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................50 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................51
2. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................51

3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................51
4. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................51
5. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................51
6. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................52
7. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................52
8. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................52
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................53
10. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................53
11. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................53
12. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................54
13. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................54
14. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................54

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................55

4.1 Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................55 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................55

1. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................55

1. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................55
   2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................55
   3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................56
   4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................57
   5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................57
   6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................57
   7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................57
   8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................58
   9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................58
   10. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................58

PERSONAL STATEMENT.....................................................................59

5. Deputy S. Power:........................................................................59

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................59

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister) regarding the Strategic Plan: ............59

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................60
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................61
3. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................61
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................61
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................62

The Bailiff :.....................................................................................62

6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................62
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................62

8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................63

2. Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs) regarding abuse of position of trust' provisions:........................................................................63

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................63
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................64
3. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................64
4. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................65

DOCUMENTS PRESENTED OR LAID........................................................65

7. The Bailiff :...............................................................................65 PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................65

1. Draft Taxation (United States of America) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.264/2005) ..65

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................65
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................66 The Bailiff :...................................................................................66 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan, Chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel:....................66

4. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................66

The Bailiff :...................................................................................67

5. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................67

The Bailiff :...................................................................................67

2. Draft Employment Relations (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.5/2006)............67

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67
2. Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):................................68 The Bailiff :...................................................................................68

3. Draft Employment (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.270/2005) ..............68

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................69
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................71
3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................73
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................73
5. Deputy C. J. Scott Warr en: .............................................................74
6. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................74
7. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................74
8. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade:......................................................75 The Bailiff :...................................................................................77

LUNCHTIME ADJOURNMENT...............................................................77

9. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................77
10. Senator M. E. Vibert :................................................................77
11. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................77
12. Deputy G. P. Southern : ..............................................................78 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................78

4. Bailiff 's Consultative Panel (P20/2006).................................................79

1. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................80 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................80
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................80
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................81
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................81

5. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................81

6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................81
7. Senator P. Ozouf : ......................................................................81
8. Deputy C. J. Scott Warr en: .............................................................82
9. Deputy R. C. Duhamel:.................................................................82
10. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................82
11. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................83
12. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................83 The Bailiff :...................................................................................84
13. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................84 The Bailiff :...................................................................................84
14. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................84
15. Deputy S. C. Ferguson:..............................................................85
16. Deputy J. G. Reed of St. Ouen:......................................................85
17. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................85
18. Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary:..............................................85
19. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:............................................85
20. Deputy Lewis ........................................................................85
21. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................85
22. Deputy J.J. Huet:....................................................................85
23. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................85
24. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................85
25. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................85
26. Senator P. Ozouf :....................................................................85
27. Senator M. E. Vibert :................................................................86
28. Senator W. Kinnard..................................................................86 The Bailiff :...................................................................................86

5. Bellozanne Waste Treatment Works: petition (P.34/2006) ............................87

1. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................87

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................88
3. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................88
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................89
5. Senator Vibert : .........................................................................89
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................89
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................89
8. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................90
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................90
10. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................91
11. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................91
12. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................93
13. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................93
14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................93
15. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................94
16. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................94
17. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................94
18. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................94
19. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................95 The Bailiff :...................................................................................96

6. Draft Social Security (Television Licence Benefit) (Jersey) Regulations 200-

(P.37/2006)...............................................................................98

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................98
2. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................99
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................99
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................99
5. Senator P.F. Routier (Minister for Social Security):....................................99 The Bailiff :..................................................................................100 Senator P.F. Routier:........................................................................102 The Bailiff :..................................................................................102 The Deputy of St. Martin (Chairman of the Scrutiny Social Affairs Panel): .................102

6. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:...................................................102
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................102
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ..................................................................102 The Bailiff :..................................................................................103
9. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ............................................................103
10. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................103 The Bailiff :..................................................................................103

7. Draft Social Security (Television Licence Benefit) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.36/2006)...103

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ..................................................................104
2. Senator M.E. Vibert :..................................................................104
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ..................................................................104 The Bailiff :..................................................................................104

8. Charing Cross: vacant site - petition (P.38/2006)......................................105

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:..........................................................106
2. Connétable R.E.N. Dupré of St. John:.................................................108
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................109
4. The Connétable of Grouville :..........................................................109
5. Senator T.J. Le Main: .................................................................109
6. Deputy J.J. Huet:......................................................................110
7. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:...............................................................110
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ............................................................111

10. Deputy J.B. Fox:...................................................................112
11. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................114
12. Senator M.E. Vibert :...............................................................114
13. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................115 The Bailiff :..................................................................................116

NOTIFICATION OF LODGED PROPOSITIONS...........................................117

9. The Bailiff :..............................................................................117

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued) ............................................................117

10. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.39/2006)..117

1. Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................117
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:...............................................................118
3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:...............................................................120
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ............................................................120
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................120
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..............................................................121
7. Senator L. Norman: ...................................................................121

8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................122
9. The Deputy of St. Ouen:..............................................................122
10. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................122 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):....................................................124
11. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................125
12. Senator M.E. Vibert :..................................................................126
13. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:..............................................................126
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................127
15. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:.............................................................128
16. Deputy S.Power:.....................................................................128
17. The Deputy of St. Martin:............................................................129
18. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................129 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):....................................................131

11. Draft Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (Appointed Day Act) Act 200- (P.46/2006)..............................................................................132

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:...................................................................132
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ............................................................133

CONSIDERATION OF ADJOURNMENT....................................................134

12. The Connétable of St. Helier : ..........................................................134 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):....................................................135

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued) ............................................................135

13. Jersey Community Relations Trust: replacement of Chairman (P.47/2006).........135

13.1 Senator F.H. Walker :..................................................................136 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):....................................................136

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................136

14. The Deputy of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):..136

1. Senator F.H. Walker :..................................................................136
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................137 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):....................................................137

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................137 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair) ....................................................137

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

1. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE FUNDING OF TOP-UP FEES

Question

Would the Minister inform members how it has been possible for £250,000 extra funding to be found from within the Department's existing revenue budget to cover the cost of top-up fees for the first term of the next academic year?

Answer

When the Council of Ministers made the recommendation that the £1,350 per annum top up' fees levied by U.K. universities should not be passed onto students, or their parents, from September 2006 no decision was taken as to how the shortfall in funding would be met. However, I have committed to bring forward a new higher education funding strategy for consideration by the Council of Ministers during 2006 which will include measures to reduce the overspend in 2006 and beyond, and the evaluation of the possible introduction of student loans from September 2007.

2. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY CONNETABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING HEALTH MATTERS RELATED TO COMPOSTING OPERATIONS

Question

1. In his written answers on 25th April 2006 on the subject ofthe relocation of composting from Crabbé inStMarytoLaColletteinStHelier in 2002, the Minister stated that "There are few remaining records of complaints to the Health and Social Services Department relating to issues at Crabbé". Would the Minister inform members whether this is because records have been lost or destroyed?
2. Would the Minister indicate the exact dates, and the nature, of the six complaints that relate to composting at Crabbé referred to in his written answers and inform members what action was taken in relation to them?
3. Did the Environmental Health Department engage in any consultation withthe Parish of St Mary in relation to the odour and health impacts ofthe composting operation while it was situated at Crabbé?
4. In his written answers the Minister stated that the Health Protection Unit stipulated to the Planning and Environment Committee that there should be a health impact assessment carried out in relation tothe move of the composting facilities toLa Collette in which "health effects are thoroughly investigated." Would the Minister explain why no such an assessment was carried out during the three and a half years of the operation of the site in St Helier, in spite of the fact that complaints including reports of breathing difficulties were being received?
5. As no Health Impact Assessment was carried out over a period of three and a half years, would the Minister explain on what basis he stated, during the debate on Composting facilities at La Collette II: approval by States Assembly (P.31/2006) on 4th April 2006, that "as long as the operation is adhering to best practice and all reasonable practical steps have been taken to minimise any smell or nuisance then it will comply with the standards required by the [Statutory Nuisances] Law".

6. Has the Environmental Health Department engaged in any consultation withthe Parish of St Helier in relation to the odour and health impacts ofthe composting operation while it has been situated at La Collette?
7. In his written answers the Minister stated that, of 21 recorded complaints, "there have been two occasions when odour from the compost site have (sic) been confirmed and four occasions when the source has been confirmed as seaweed." Would the Minister inform members of the outcome of the other complaints?
8. Why did the Minister not insist that the potential environmental health problems created by the composting site atLaCollettewerethoroughly investigated in a timely fashion in viewof the "precautionary principle" in best environmental practice?

The Minister further stated in his answers that his "own Health Protection staff are currently engaged in setting up a Health Impact Assessment for the proposed composting regime and this will include key stakeholders and residents themselves". In light of his statement on 4th April 2006 during the debate on Composting Facilities at La Collette II: approval by States Assembly (P.31/2006) that "The fact is La Collette, for good or ill, is there now and it is our major industrial

site, and that is where industrial operations should go" would he confirm that the Health Impact Assessment will be an impartial or objective study without any presumption that La Collette is the only possible location for the composting facilities?

Answer

1. The Health andSocialServices Department hasnot "lost" any records concerning complaints about the composter when it was located at Crabbé. It is the practice ofthe Department's Health Protection Unit to dispose of all service requests and complaints, those which have been fully responded to, that is, three years after a business or an operation has ceased to trade or ceased to operate. This policy was implemented with regardto the cessation of composting at Crabbé in St Mary.
2. The six complaints which relate to the composting at Crabbé in St Mary are as follow -:

Four complaints on 17th and 21st July, and 14th and 20th August 1997, were complaints about obnoxious odours created by the composting facility. The Environmental Health Department, (now called the Health Protection Unit), investigated these complaints and it was the judgement of the Environmental Health Department that the obnoxious odours were caused by the introduction of waste potatoes and green waste material into the process. These potatoes and this green waste had been stored on site since 1995 and when introduced into the composting stream, these obnoxious odours were released.

One complaint on 12th August 1999, was a similar complaint about obnoxious odours. It was the judgement of the former Environmental Health Department that the offensive smell was caused by the inclusion of potato waste into the composting process.

The above five complaints were referred directly to the then Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for action. This was because neither the Health and Social Services Department, nor specifically its Environmental Health Department, had statutory powers at that time to take action against such "nuisances". This was remedied on 31st December 1999, when the Statutory Nuisances Law came into effect.

The sixth complaint on 24th July 2002, was a complaint about the presence of rotting potatoes at the Crabbé site. It was the judgement of the former Environmental Health Department that the probable cause was the way in which composting material was being treated rather than the composting material itself. This technical matter was discussed with the Crabbé site staff to minimise the effect.

3. There are no records within the Health and Social Services Department to indicate that the former Environmental Health Department, nor any other team from within the Department, engaged in any formal consultation withthe Parish of St Mary in relation to the complaints of obnoxious odoursor concerns about the possible health impacts ofthe composting activities at Crabbé.
4. In response to the consultation process which ultimately would transfer the composting facility from Crabbé to La Collette, the Health and Social Services Department formally advised the Planning Department that it should undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as partof a more general Environmental Impact Assessment to inform decision making. It is an indication of the factthatthe Planning Department took little notice ofthe Health Protection unit at that time. A planning permit for the transfer of composting to La Collette was issued without a Health Impact Assessment having taken place.

Since that time the Health Protection Unit has worked closely with Technical and Transport Services (TTS) to ensure that complaints are fully investigated and that there is a positive working partnership between these parties. The Health Protection Unit has been actively involved with TTS in constantly examining means by which odours can be minimised through changes to working and processing practices.

5. Since the transfer of composting from Crabbé to La Collette, the composting process is subject to the same legal controls as any other commercial or other industrial operation in Jersey. This is because the Statutory Nuisances Law relates as much to States of Jersey operations as it does to private and commercial activities. This Law requires that the composting process should take place in such a way as to ensure the best practicable means of controlling a nuisance, but not entailing excessive cost. The Statutory Nuisances Law does not permit theStatesof Jersey to prevent a business or operation from operating provided that that business or operation complies with this requirement.
6. The Health and Social Services Department has not engaged in any formal consultation with the Parish of St Helier in relation to complaints of odours and environmental health considerations in connection with the composting operation while it has been located at La Collette.
7. Theother17 complaints alleged that there were odour nuisances. However, members of the Health Protection Unit failed to identify any such odour nuisances. The Health Protection Unit is very mindful ofthe fact that an odour nuisance can be lessened or increased by environmental and ambient factorssuchaswind direction and temperature. Thus,the practice of the HealthProtection Unit is not simply to present itself at La Collette and make a judgementat one moment in time. Rather, it is to revisit the site at different times to seek to take account of these factors.
8. The Environmental Health Department (now the Health Protection Unit), through the Health and Social Services Department, is not a statutory consultee under the Statesof Jersey's Planning Laws. The advice provided by the Health Protection Unit to the Planning and Environment Minister is informal. Once planning consent has been granted, the Health Protection Unit's powers exist only through its responsibilities for the implementation of the Statutory Nuisances Law.
9. The Health Impact Assessment will be impartial and objective. The workoftheHealth Protection Unit is carried out professionally and completely independently of my personal views. The early "scoping" exercise for the Health Impact Assessment has commenced. However, the States of Jersey has to make a decision astothe location ofthe Energy from Waste plant and the composting operation. Health Impact Assessmentscanonly proceed when sites have been formally identified. It is possible that the States might choose entirely different locations to those discussed so far. Onlywhenanunambiguousshort-list' of sites has been identified can they be subjecttoanEHI assessment. Needless to say, when the sites are formally identified the Health Impact Assessment process will involve taking serious counsel from key stakeholders and from residents who live proximate to the sites. It is clearly in everyone's interest for the States of Jersey to now be unequivocal and definitive and to make a decision as to the location of the Energy from Waste plant and composting operation. It is this decision which will enable us all to move forward and to reduce the concerns of residents through the construction of modern facilities which, using stateofthe art technologies, will process waste materials with the minimum of discomfort and irritation.

It must be reiterated that by far the most pressing environmental health issue in Jersey is the Bellozanne incinerator. Its emissions pose a health risk and it must be shut down without any further delay. I repeat it is crucial that the States finally ends several years of prevarication and makes the decision. Any further delay by the Assembly could not be viewed as anything other than a gross betrayal of the public interest.

3. WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST. HELIER REGARDING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE, AND THE PROVISION OF A NURSERY UNIT AT THE NEW ST. PETER'S SCHOOL

Question 1

Would the Minister inform members –

1. whether officers and members of the former Education, Sport and Culture Committee attended the meetings organised by the Parents Action Group in the Town Hall on 13th July and 22nd September 2004, at which concerns were raised about the States' policy on early years child care and, if so, how many members and officers, and which members?
   2. whether the Minister of Education, Sport and Culture, or the former Education,

Sport and Culture Committee, received representations by letter or email from members of the Parents Action Group or Jersey Early Years Association about the States' policy in early years child care, and/or suggestions as to how more equitable provision might be achieved and, if so, when were these received?

3. ofthe exact date when the decision was taken to build a nursery unit as partofthe

rebuilding of St. Peter 's Primary School?

Answer

1. Three members ofthe former Education, Sport and Culture Committee and three

officers attended the meeting at the Town Hall on 13th July 2004. Three members and four officers attended the meeting on the 22nd September 2004. The members who attended one or both of these meetings were, Senator Michael Vibert , Deputy Ben Fox, Deputy Judy Martin and former Deputy Julian Bernstein.

2. Representations in respect ofthe States' policy for early education and care were

received from both the Parents Action Group and the Jersey Early Years Association prior to 30th September 2005, the closing date for consultation.

3. The decision to continue building nursery classes at provided primary schools was

taken by the States on 18th February 1997, when the former Education Committee lodged its Proposition in respect of Child Care Provision. Whilst the former Committee had been considering the refurbishment of St. Peter's School for some time, it was formally submitted as a bid to the Capital Development Plan on 24th March 1999.

Question 2

Would the Minister supply a detailed breakdown of the capital and revenue costs provided on 25th April 2006, in relation to the nursery unit at the new St. Peter 's School?

Answer

The capital costs of £225,000 were determined by calculating the savings that would accrue to the project if the nursery class was not built. As the nursery unit is an integral part of the specification for  the building a detailed breakdown of costs  would need to  be undertaken  by the quantity surveyor. This would incur additional fees.

The revenue costs at 2005 values would be:

1 x Nursery teacher  £43,952

2 x Teaching Assistants £42,040 1 x Lunchtime Supervision £ 2,000

Total: £87,992

It is likely that further costs of approximately £9,000 per annum would be borne by the school's budget in respect of supplies, services and premises.

Question 3

Would the Minister indicate whether he  intends to fulfil the pledge made in the consultation document, Investing in Our Future: a vision for early childhood education and care for children in Jersey (R.C. 54/2005), that following the consultation period which ended on 30th September 2005, all the responses received would be used to assist in the formation of more detailed options for the future which, it was stated in the report, were due to be published later in 2005 and, if so, when will he do this?

Answer

As I indicated previously in my answer to this question on 28th March 2006, the development of an Early Childhood Education and Care strategy is a complex piece of work partly because it involves predictions based on significant uncertainties including the availability of additional States funding but also because any resultant model needs to dovetail with the new Income Support System due to be introduced in 2007.

Discussions continue between the Departments for Education, Sport and Culture and Employment and Social Security to develop proposals which will be presented to the States in due course. However, I would remind members that the vision of the former Education, Sport and Culture Committee, set out in the document "Investing In Our Future", was an aspiration to take effect in 2008.

4. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE ZERO/TEN DESIGN PROPOSALS (R.37/2005)

Question

Following the publication of the Zero/Ten Design Proposal (R.37/2006) on 5th May 2006, would the Minister –

1. inform members whether the new proposals mean that the previous proposals on look- through have been abandoned?
2. give members a breakdownoftherevenuesthatarenowexpectedtobe gathered from each ofthe taxes or charges contained in the new zero/ten design proposal and, in particular, state how much will be generated from the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (RUDL) charge and whether the new proposals to replace look-through will produce the same amounts as the previous proposals?
3. state whether the proposed RUDL charge is, in effect, a tax on jobs and what impact, if any, it is anticipated to have on job creation and economic growth in the non-finance sector?
4. reassure members that, as the proposals have been designed by finance experts, they have not been designed solely to suit the finance sector?
5. indicate whether the mechanisms for Foreign Incorporated Investment Companies will meet the requirements of the EU code on Business Taxation?

Answer

(a) The previous proposals on look-through have not been abandoned but merely reduced in scope in aiming to strike the balance between the need for look-through' mechanisms which allow for anti-avoidance provisions pertaining to personal tax payers (Jersey based shareholders) and both the practicality of administering such mechanisms and the wish to permit a degree of re-investment by Island based businesses consistent with our economic growth objectives.

These are only proposals at the current time, so only a rough analysis of the tax yield from the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law 1973, (RUDL), charge has been undertaken. This suggests a yield in the range between £ 5 - 7 million. If the proposals are agreed, the exact detail will be determined and the yield calculation refined. For those who do not opt to trade through the Limited Trading Partnership (LTP) vehicle and who thereby become subject to the distribution provisions, I can confirm that eventually all the tax on their profits enjoyed by shareholders as personal income will be collected, albeit with a timing difference. As a consequence of continuing look-through' on investment holding companies, and the tax charged on those who now choose to trade through a Limited Trading Partnership rather than being subject to the distribution provisions for a zero rate trading corporate vehicle, it is estimated that overall income in these areas will ultimately be broadly the same as under previous outline proposals.

The proposed RUDL charge is not a tax on jobs but a charge reflecting a licence to operate in the Island. Where shareholder taxes are paid these can be used to reduce or eliminate the impact of the RUDL charge. This can occur either through look through' to the shareholders of companies with such employees, or by those businesses registering as Limited Trading Partnerships subject to normal Jersey Income Tax provisions. The primary intention behind the RUDL charge is to ensure that those wishing to set up businesses in Jersey, using the Island's scarce resources, but without Jersey connections, do make some contribution to the running costs of the Island. This they will do either by registering as an LTP, or by paying the RUDL charge; the choice is theirs.

The proposals have been designed by people who understand the complexities of taxations systems in Jersey and elsewhere. Like many other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Jersey has utilised the best expertise in both the public and private sectors to ensure that the 0/10 design proposals are the very best solution for Jersey as a community. To have done otherwise would have been a dereliction of duty and I am confident that the policy now presented for consultation gives a balanced solution to address both the competition issues facing us as well as ensuring voluntary compliance with Ecofin requirements. In particular, it endeavours to level the playing field between those who currently pay their taxes to help support the running costs of the Island and those who, because of their location, would not. Accordingly, I can confirm that these proposals were not designed solely to suit the finance sector.

Yes. These companies will be zero rate vehicles but will pay an annual corporate residence fee, not a tax, in a similar fashion to Jersey incorporated companies. As this is a mechanism concerned with incorporation fees rather than a tax it is actually outside the remit of the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation.

5. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE ISLAND'S TAXATION COMMITMENTS

Question

1. Following recentpublic statements, would theChief Minister clarify for members what has and has not been agreed concerning the island's taxation commitments, and by whom, by publishing the e-mails that he has referred to publicly as evidence of such agreement and, if not, will he inform members whether the agreement covers -

1. only the Island's stated intention to eliminate non-compliant business taxation; or
2. the replacement of such taxes with the zero/ten mechanism; or
3. the principles of "look-through" relating to zero/ten?

2. Would the Chief Minister inform members whether this agreement has been reached with -
   1. the Paymaster General, representing the UK government;
   2. the Paymaster General, as chair of the EU Code of Conduct group;
   3. the International Director of Tax at HM Treasury;
   4. the EU Code of Conduct group;
   5. ECOFIN?
3. Would the Chief Minister state whether the items listed in (a) above have been presented to, or discussed with, any of the authorities listed in (b) above?
4. Have the detailed proposals contained in the Zero/Ten Design Proposal (R.37/2006) published by the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 5th May 2006 been presented to, or discussed with, any of the authorities listed above yet and, if not, will they be presented for approval and, if so, by whom?

Answer

(a) It is not my practice to publish written inter-governmental communications without the express agreement of the other party. The extracts previously quoted were aimed at dealing with the substance of this question. The quoted extracts were:

The public statement made in the Ecofin conclusions of June 2003 was that the Council:-

"Notes that the descriptions in Annex 1 of 14812/02 FISC 299, as updated by the descriptions in Annex A of 7018/1/03 FISC 31 REV 1 (en), form an agreed basis for the evaluation of rollback.

· Notes that the Code Group has considered the proposed revised or replacement measures

of Member States and of dependent or associated territories for those listed in Annex C of SN 4901/99 against the established criteria of the Code of Conduct and, as set out in Annex B of 7018/1/03 FISC 31 REV 1 (en), has found that none of these are harmful within the meaning of the Code.

· Agrees that the proposed revised or replacement measures are adequate to achieve rollback of all the harmful features of the 66 measures listed in Annex C of SN 4901/99."

There are a few points which your Minister could usefully make –

1. Jersey's ongoing commitment to fair tax competition (including going back to Senator Le Sueur 's time) and the part zero/ten plays in that;
2. Jersey has made specific commitments to remove tax measures found harmful under the Code of Conduct;
3. those commitments, including the timetable and broad scope of the new regime, were agreed by ECOFIN;
4. Jersey is developing detailed proposals with the aim of complying with those commitments; and,
5. the U.K. reports annually to the Code of Conduct on Jersey'sprogresstowards meeting those commitments.'

In terms of this specific question I would reply as follows –

i) and ii) I can confirm that agreement has been reached with all parties referenced under b - i) to v) on the reasonable assumption that there is no practical distinction to be drawn between the EU Code of Conduct Group and its Chair. In addition the position of both is covered by the statement (quoted above) made by the ECOFIN Council on 3rd June 2003, following receipt of recommendations received from the EU Code Group.

That statement demonstrates that the proposed revised or replacement measures of Jersey regarding the commitment to rollback and the zero/ten plans were presented to and evaluated by the Code Group/ECOFIN

On this basis, noting in particular the ECOFIN conclusions referenced above, the Island has no reason to believe that the ECOFIN statement of 3rd June 2003, on the proposed system for Jersey will not continue to apply.

The remit of the Group limits it to matters of business taxation. Provisions such as look-through' that are concerned to address personal tax anti-avoidance issues do not fall within the remit of the Group and our discussions with U.K. officials would suggest that they agree.

Look-through provisions are not a pre-condition for the implementation of a zero-ten tax system but in some form are desirable for the management and limitation of tax avoidance possibilities within Jersey's personal tax base. The agreement to 0/10 detailed above is sufficient in itself for Jersey's fiscal plans to proceed.

2. Please see response to part (a) above.
3. Please see response to part (a) above.
4. These detailed proposals were made public on 5th May 2005, and were made available toH.M. Treasury at the same time as to States Members. As stated in part (a) this will enable the U.K. to provide input on behalf of the Island to the Code of Conduct Group and ECOFIN on the continuing monitoring of the rollback' process.

It is important to be clear that we will not be presenting these proposals for approval, because to do so would undermine Jersey's constitutional rights. Jersey has domestic competence in fiscal affairs and the suggestion that an EU body has to approve our proposals is to undermine that competence. It should be noted that the Code of Conduct Group is not a body with the power to enforce, even amongst the EU member states themselves, and this is a process in which Jersey is participating voluntarily because the Island is not in the EU's fiscal territory. Nevertheless, regard will be had for any views expressed by the Code of Conduct Group in line with our position as a good neighbour' to the EU.

6. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING PROVISIONS FOR PARENTS WHO HAVE DEAF CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE

Question

What improvements, in terms of financial support, if any, is the Minister contemplating for parents who have deaf children in their care?

Answer

A full review of Disability Benefits was undertaken in 2003, resulting in a report to the States the following year on "Disability Benefit System : Reform". The States approved the way forward and more detailed proposals were subsequently approved by the States as part of the new "Income Support System" proposals (P.86/2005). In summary, existing benefits will be replaced by a disability component for those in receipt of Income Support.

The amount of the component will depend on the degree of disability. Work is progressing on this at present but I can say that it is not the intention of the new system to single out one particular group of disabilities.

7. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING AUTHORITATIVE BODIES USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER JERSEY'S BUSINESS AND CORPORATE TAX PROPOSALSMEET INTERNATIONAL AND EU REQUIREMENTS

Question

Would the Minister name the authoritative bodies who will determine whether Jersey's business and corporate tax proposals meet international and EU requirements?

Answer

Jersey has undertaken to comply with rollback' and standstill' in respect of corporate taxation. It will be for the United Kingdom authorities to confirm to Ecofin through the EU Code of Conduct Group that Jersey is indeed taking suitable steps, and the U.K. Treasury review our progress at regular intervals. They have been notified of our current zero/ten' proposals and will no doubt advise as they see fit. In my view the current zero/ten' proposals are consistent with our aforementioned undertakings.

It is important to be clear that we will not be presenting these proposals for approval, because to do so would undermine Jersey's constitutional rights. Jersey has domestic competence in fiscal affairs and the suggestion that an EU body has to approve our proposals is to undermine that competence. It should be noted that the Code of Conduct Group is not a body with the power to enforce, even amongst the EU member states themselves; this is a process in which Jersey is participating voluntarily because the Island is not in the E.U.'s fiscal territory. Nevertheless, regard will be had for any views expressed by the Code of Conduct Group in line with our position as a good neighbour' to the EU.

8. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE LEVEL OF EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOB FAMILIES AGREEMENT

Question

Would the Minister identify the estimated sums of expenditure which will be needed to complete implementation of the Job Families agreement?

Answer

On Wednesday 8th March 2006, the Staff Side of the Nurses and Midwives Joint Consultative Committee and I reached an agreement which resolved the grievances which the Staff Side had concerning the implementation of the Job Families Agreement. The grievances focused upon the appeal mechanisms included in the Job Families Agreement should Nurses and Midwives be dissatisfied at the point of their assimilation (that is, their assimilation from the old nursing and midwifery grades to the new ones) and various other forms of appeal.

The resolution of the grievance was based upon a mutual appreciation of the fact that the original review mechanisms contained in the Job Families Agreement did not meet best modern practice. Since that agreement was struck, both Management and Staff Sides have been working together to implement the Job Families Agreement in general and these new appeal mechanisms in particular. This work culminated last week when both sides met with a national expert from the English NHS who had accrued many years of experience of implementing a new pay and grade structure which is very much akin to the Job Families Agreement.

Of crucial  importance is the recent establishment of a joint Working Party. The remit of the Working Party is to now proceed apace with full assimilation and appointment of nurses and midwives to all of the appropriate grades within the new structure, and to train "a pool" of Staff Side, Management Side and other practitioners in order that they can participate in the appeals process. The national expert was able to give useful advice to the joint Working Party as to how it should conduct its business.

It is in this context that my answer to the Deputy 's question must be considered. Given that the new appeals process is now jointly agreed to be equitable, transparent and open, there can  be no artificial constraint or political or managerial "steerage" to fit the cost of the appeals process within the reserved sum. It would not be in the public interest to reveal the reserved sum as there is a danger that it may be seen as some form of pay award' of which the entirety was earmarked for staff as-of-right. Thus, there are three scenarios –

1. the reserve meets exactly the full cost of the appeal mechanisms;
2. the reserve has been over estimated (and this will mean that any surplus monies will be returned to the Treasury); and,
3. the reserve is insufficient and this will mean that the Health and Social Services Department will have to manage this as a cost pressure balancing the need for the full implementation of the Job Families Agreement against other competing priorities.

The Department is fully aware of the financial risk that is being run (with regard to the third scenario) but has informed the Staff Side that this will not influence the "purity" of the appeal mechanisms, now mutually agreed.

9. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING CONTROLS ON SPECULATIVE PURCHASING

Question

What controls, if any, are in place, or contemplated by the Minister, to prevent the purchase of apartments for speculative purposes and does the Minister have data on the prevalence of such purchases?

Answer

There are no controls contemplated to prevent the purchase of apartments or other accommodation for speculative purposes, whether by qualified residents, or in the case of share transfer properties, by unqualified residents or persons outside the Island. While anyone can purchase share transfer properties, strict occupancy controls are placed upon all such properties, preventing their occupation by individuals without residential qualifications.

Currently, with a market with  many apartments  for sale, I do not believe that the impact of speculative purchases on the market is significant, nor that there are an abundance of speculators wanting to purchase residential accommodation. Furthermore, it should be noted that some fringe element of speculative purchase is required to maintain a healthy market for rental properties.

Checks are conducted to make sure that properties are not being unlawfully occupied, especially in the case of any recently built share transfer apartments where there are no recent housing transactions. There are, currently, several under investigation for possible unlawful occupation, which are taken extremely seriously, and these will be dealt with by prosecution in the courts.

10. WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY CONNETABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE MONITORING OF COMPOSTING OPERATIONS

Question

1. In written answers tabled on 25th April 2006, in relation to the effects of fungal spores produced by open windrow composting the Minister for Health and Social Services stated that monitoring had been undertaken by the former Public Services Department around both the Crabbé and La Collette composting sites. Would the Minister inform members ofthe number ofoccasions during the three and a half years' operation ofthe composting site at La Collette when such monitoring was carried out, and supply the dates when this took place?
2. The written answer further stated that "The results were found to be in line with those investigations into open windrow composting undertaken on behalf ofthe UK Government by the Environment Agency, whereby levels of these materials canbe found in decreasing levels from the site with background levels being reached within a distance of 250 metres from the site". Would the Minister give members precise details of the above results?
3. Is the Minister satisfied that all of the research carried out by the Environment Agency on behalf ofthe UK Government is robust enough to be applied to Jersey, and has he requested his officers to have such advice peer reviewed?
4. In the written answers it is further stated that air monitoring in the case of Crabbé' involved comparison with a control site. Would he indicate whether a control site has been used in respect of the air quality monitoring carried out in respect of La Collette and if not, why not?

Answer

1. The department tests for Aspergillus Fumigatus, Thermophillic actinomycetes and total bacteria.

The test dates for the la Collette operation are as follows:

In 2003 the department tested on five occasions –

06/03/03, 13/08/03, 20/08/03, 03/09/03, 11/09/03.

In 2004 the department tested on nine occasions –

31/03/04, 13/04/04, 26/04/04, 11/05/04, 08/06/04, 22/06/04, 01/09/04, 14/09/04, 20/10/04. In 2005 the department tested on five occasions –

09/03/05, 30/03/05, 12/04/05, 09/08/05, 11/10/05.

In 2006 the department has tested on 1 occasion to date –

19/04/06.

For each test 18 agar plates are placed at three sampling locations with 6 plates at each location. In addition, the Environment Department conduct testing every three months as a control.

2. The sampling techniques adopted are based on the Composting Association guidelines: "Standardised  Protocol for  the  Sampling  and  Enumeration  of Air-borne  Micro-organisms  at Composting Facilities".

The protocol defines certain criteria including varying the sampling and control points; these include sampling at sensitive receptors and at positions where complaints have occurred. The department has a substantial amount of data on a range of site locations and weather variances.

Attached are the test results from the on site weighbridge and results from a property whose owner is a regular complainant.

3. Regarding  peer reviewof research  carried  out  for  the  U.K.  Environment  Agency  on bio-aerosols  from composting  facilities;  this  research1 was  carried  out on  three  composting facilities (two windrow facilities processing greenwaste, and one in vessel facility processing mixed green and kitchen waste).

Two years later, a critical review of published information on the potential health impacts of bio-aerosols from composting operations by the U.K. Composting Association and the Health and Safety Laboratory was carried out on behalf of the U.K. Health and Safety Executive. This review covered papers where there was evidence of scientific peer review and also presented original material  rather  than  reviewed  data.  The  review report2 made  the  following  comments  and recommendations –

The distance of 250m provides an additional "safety factor" over the 200m suggested by Gilbert & Ward (1999) which in turn is greater than the distances suggested by Millner et al (1994).

"While most published studies indicate that bio-aerosols are reduced to background levels within the 250m distance currently prescribed by the Environment Agency for risk assessment purposes, some experimental studies and dispersion modelling exercises suggest that bio-aerosols sometimes may exceed concentrations chosen as background levels at distances greater than 250m".

"There is no published evidence that exposure to bio-aerosols disseminated from compost facilities cause respiratory ill health in residents or workers at nearby locations, or that slightly greater than background bio-aerosol levels represent a significant excess risk. However, because there is no agreed safe' value and range for background concentrations, and exposure measurement data and health-related dose-response data is limited, it is recommended that no change should be made to the 250m limit' until  further research  is completed which can  supplement  knowledge where published evidence is absent.

From the above it is clear that the original research for the Environment Agency has been peer reviewed and that a peer review was conducted on behalf of the HSE. On this basis, I am satisfied  that  the  information  has  been  thoroughly  reviewed  and  I  have  not  requested the department  to  undertake  further  peer  review.  In  addition,  the  Health  Protection  Department responsible to the Minister for Health and Social Services undertake their own reviews and have access to data from the medical profession as well. Both departments work closely in monitoring the site and Havre des Pas neighbourhood.

"Health Effects of Composting – A Study of Three Composting Sites and Review of Past Data, Environment Agency, 2001.

2 "Occupational and Environmental Exposure to Bio-aerosols from Composts and Potential Health Effects - A Critical Review of Published Data", HSE, 2003

The nearest residence to the open windrow site is approximately 750 metres, and from the green waste reception area, approximately 350 metres.

4. The protocoladopted by the department defines the control site' within the test regime. In addition the tests include an upwind sample to confirm background levels on the operational site.

In 1998 CAMR ( Centre for Applied Microbiology & Research) carried out "Microbial Air Sampling at Composting Facilities in Jersey" for the Agriculture & Fisheries Committee.

The CAMR scientist carried out sampling both at the Airport composting site and at Crabbé. He also took background samples at the roadside in St Peter's Valley, and at the roadside on Mont Gavey.

The results from this background sampling are very similar to results from samples the department took in 2005 in St Peter's Valley and most of the off-site locations sampled in the past few years.

In the discussion of the results, the scientist remarks "There is a great deal of debate on safe levels for airborne micro-organisms in Germany and Scandinavian countries suggesting levels of 10,000 micro-organisms per cubic metre as an occupational exposure limit. However, these are eight-hour weighted averages for personal samplers and the concentrations measured by the personal filter sampler in this survey were well below these levels. Most experts feel that levels of between 1,000,000 and 100,000,000 micro-organisms/m³ are required to cause allergenic respiratory effects. These levels were not detected during the surveys".

These levels have not been detected in any of the samples taken since. The department continues to use remote sites for comparative purposes.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding whether any evaluation of risk for emergency planning purposes has taken place following the experiences learned from the recent Buncefield incident:

May I ask the Chief Minister what evaluation of risk for emergency planning purposes, if any, has taken place following the experiences learned from the recent Buncefield incident, in particular relating to the siting of a number of industrial processes at La Collette in close proximity to the existing fuel storage facilities?

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

The incident which occurred at Buncefield in December 2005 is the subject of an investigation by the UK authorities and this investigation is being overseen by an independent board. To date, the board has published 3 progress reports, the third of which was released on 9th May. I am advised that this latest report is presently being reviewed by the Health and Safety Inspectorate of the Social Security Department. The fuel farm at La Collette is designed to current safety standards and I can assure the Deputy that the outcome of the Buncefield investigation will be thoroughly reviewed by the Emergency Planning Officer. The Emergency Planning Officer will be working with relevant States' Departments to assess whether there are any lessons to be learnt from the incident which can be applied to La Collette.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I thank the Chief Minister for his response.

2. Senator L. Norman of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding when the report required consequent upon the adoption by the States in January 2005 of Sites of Special Interest and Buildings of Local Interest: financial implications' (P.166/2004) will be published:

Sites of Special Interest and Buildings of Local Interest: financial implications, (P.166/2004), which was adopted by the States in January 2005, requested the former Planning and Environment Committee, in consultation with the former Finance and Economics Committee, to research and report to the States within 6 months on the additional financial burden placed upon the owners of S.S.I.s and B.L.I.s. Will the Minister state when that report will be published?

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

Sir, the Committee of the day accepted the proposition because it recognised the desirability of undertaking such a review. However, the work was not undertaken because the department did not have the resources to undertake it. In July 2005, the department lost the senior member of staff in the Historic Building Section, leaving only one officer. The period has coincided with a heavy workload in historic buildings applications, principally related to the restoration work at Mont Orgueil. Accordingly, the department concentrated on its statutory obligations at the expense of other matters. However, we are presently advertising to fill the senior post and I am endeavouring to appoint consultants within a few weeks to assist with the current workload. To facilitate the production of a meaningful report on the financial implications of historic listing, as required by Projet 166, I propose to seek input from Jersey Heritage Trust and possibly English Heritage. This, in addition to the consultation with the Treasury producing a thorough document, will have significant time-resource implications and it could take some months before I am able to report back.

1. Senator L. Norman:

I wonder if the Minister could indicate how many months he means by "some months" and also whether the report of the investigation would look at the equity situation, bearing in mind that the States have spent some £750,000 on their own S.S.I.s for use as tourism accommodation on ports and towers, whereas private owners of hospitality accommodation concurrently are restricted to a £10,000 grant.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I expect to report back, certainly within the next 6 months and hopefully sooner. But this is a matter of which I was unaware until very recently and I consider the appropriate way to deal with this is not just in consultation with Treasury but with the relevant experts, being Jersey Heritage Trust and possibly English Heritage. As far as grants are concerned generally, we are very severely constrained. The grants available have fallen from £75,000 in 2004 to £60,000 in 2006.

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

The Minister stated, with regard to the former senior officer in Building Conservation, that the officer was lost. Could he enlarge upon that and explain exactly what he means, particularly in the light of the fact that he has pledged to replace the post?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The senior officer left voluntarily. I have advertised recently. We have had responses and, as I have said, I am making sure that the post is effectively temporarily filled by going out and getting professionals to assist with this on a consultancy basis.

3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Economic Development regarding comparative figures in 2006 for the total number of passengers arrivingbyseafromthe United Kingdom and from France during the 3-month period February to April 2005:

Would the Minister inform Members how the total number of passengers arriving by sea from the United Kingdom and from France during the last 3 months compares to the same period in 2005, and would he inform Members what steps, if any, he is taking to stop the decline in Jersey's sea routes?

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

Deputy Maclean has responsibility for harbours and airport and I would ask that he be rapporteur. The Bailiff :

Very well. Assistant Minister.

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

For the period from January to April 2006, sea arrivals from the U.K. were down 17 per cent, while arrivals from France were down by approximately 8 per cent, compared to 2005. But, as a matter of further interest, if we compare 2006 figures to the same period in 2004, this shows that U.K. routes, although down 16 per cent, France was up by 2 per cent, despite the regrettable loss of the Emeraude service last December. Members will be aware that statistics covering short periods of time can be misleading and are of strictly limited commercial relevance. In order to secure and develop Jersey sea routes, my department continues to work with all operators. This includes marketing and advertising support and the introduction of incentives such as reduced harbour dues for new routes. All operators will shortly be able to benefit from a new incentive to encourage a daytrip market, which is especially valuable to the economy. Further details of the extensive activities which have been undertaken in France in support of ferry operations were given in my response to Constable Crowcroft 's oral question on 14th March. Thank you.

1. Deputy S. Power:

For the sake of clarification, Sir, could I ask the Assistant Minister if he sees a correlation on the decline between passengers not using some of those routes and a boycott? Can I also seek clarification from the Minister that, on month-on-month statistics between 2006 and 2005 - particularly March - it shows a decline of 43.1 per cent on the U.K. route and 32.5 per cent on the continental route?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

I am afraid I see no instance of boycott at all in the statistics. As I have said, it is quite interesting to see that in fact, based on 2004 figures, the French market was 2 per cent up. The U.K. market statistics are fairly level over the period 2004 and 2005. As far as looking at individual months, during any year you will see fluctuations depending on demand, season, occasions like Easter and so on. So identifying one particular month, as I have said a moment ago, is of no particular relevance. Thank you.

2. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

Sir, the question you asked about the total number of passengers: I have heard a lot of percentages but I have not heard any other figures. I wondered if the Assistant Minister could tell the House if the figures are easily available and, if so, where from and, if not, why not.

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, the figures are very easily available. They are on the Jersey Tourism website at the present time. In terms of actual numbers, if the Deputy would be interested, in 2006 for the period January to April 40,779 arrivals and, from the U.K., 14,987.

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

Is it the Assistant Minister's considered view that the rationale for allowing open seas to France for the operator on the U.K. route has ended up with a strengthening of the U.K. portion of the route?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

I do not think the U.K. portion of the route has strengthened particularly. The figures seem to indicate that, in fact, the numbers are fairly similar to what they were previously.

4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

Does the Assistant Minister agree that proper and understandable timetables are a virtue when it comes to encouraging casual travellers? Would he ensure that they do in fact exist? Would he also agree that there is a disincentive for local people to travel, given the disparity between the charges from here to the U.K. compared with from the U.K. to here?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I thoroughly agree with the Deputy in connection with timetables. In fact, fairly recently comprehensive timetables were published in a document which was inserted in the Jersey Evening Post. We have received also assurances from Condor that they will be keeping regular updates on their website of timetables and issuing written and printed timetables, which in fact are available for both the northern and southern routes as I speak. With regard to disincentivising members of the Jersey public from travelling, although there are some differentials, they are obviously market- led. The U.K. is a very large catchment area. It is very competitive with a number of different routes and obviously we have got to be very careful - or certainly the operators have got to be very careful - in how they market. So you will find in certain instances different price differentials, which are purely market-driven. Jersey is still, in my opinion, reasonably competitive, as far as sea travel is concerned from a cost perspective and that is proven by the figures, which are fairly stable.

5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Will the Assistant Minister not agree that if it costs, for argument's sake, £300 to travel from the United Kingdom to Jersey and back again with a car and a couple of adults, but twice the amount to go the other way round, then in fact the travelling public of Jersey are subsidising the travelling public from the U.K.?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

No, I would not necessarily agree with that. As I said a moment ago, as far as I am concerned, it is market-driven. There is a very large catchment area in the U.K. and there is not from the Channel Islands and specifically from Jersey. Clearly, we are concerned with having sustainable sea routes. We are concerned with an operator that is going to be financially viable. We are also very concerned that the fares charged are fair and reasonable in present market conditions and we are working towards ensuring that that is the case. If necessary, as has previously been mentioned, the likes of the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA) will in fact be brought to bear on the issue of pricing.

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

Perhaps I could ask the Assistant Minister when the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority will be examining the pricing structures and when we would expect to have a result of their deliberations?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

The JCRA at the moment is in the early stages of being contacted with regard to this issue. It is a complex issue relating to sea routes in total with regard to service level agreements, which are in the draft stage. It would be later on this year before we believe that it would be appropriate for them to look more closely at the pricing issue.

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

Could the Minister define for me what the "early stages of being contacted" means? Have they been contacted or not?

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, we have spoken to them in principle about looking at pricing structures for sea routes.

4. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding a post-project review on Phase 1 of the Hautlieu School rebuilding project:

Would the Minister confirm whether a post-project review has been undertaken on Phase 1 of the Hautlieu School rebuilding project and is the Minister satisfied with the management of this capital project to date?

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

A post-project review has not been undertaken on Phase 1 of Hautlieu School as Phase 1 is not yet contractually complete. The project has been managed within the framework of Treasury Code of Direction No. 8 and Phase 1 has been subject to 3-stage internal audits, which has established the department has maintained satisfactory control of the project.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister outline what the problems have been? For example, is he happy with the computer-controlled heating conditioning system within the school?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

There have been a number of snags in Phase 1. It was a £26 million project. I regret that there were any snags at all but unfortunately in projects of that size it would be unusual, if not absolutely exceptional, for there to be no snags when it is finished. Why Phase 1 has not been contractually complete is that we are withholding retention monies and ensuring that all these snags are ironed- out. Yes, we have had snags with the heating; we have addressed the acoustics issues; we have replaced flooring in the canteen and done a number of other issues. I regret, as I say, there have been any problems with it. But what I am pleased to say is we have an excellent school delivering excellent education in excellent facilities and I hope everyone is supportive of that.

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Would the Minister confirm that he will let me have a copy of the full post-project report when it is finalised, and also could he confirm that he will advise the number and cost of the consultants employed on the project?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

No problem at all, if a post-project review is done and the Treasury are reviewing their Code of Direction on that. I would be pleased for Senator Shenton to see it and also, when the project is complete, he can look at all the fees, et cetera, to his heart's content.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister confirm whether or not the major faults found, e.g. the canteen floor and the heating system, were faults in design or faults in construction and installation?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

Each snag is looked at individually and then it is tried to work out why it has occurred and they are resolved, either through the contractor taking liability, through insurance, through contingency, whatever is appropriate for the time, whether it is a design fault or contractual fault.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

On that very theme, can the Minister account for the design fault that means that the entire school cannot be addressed together in the hall? Why was the hall built too small for these rather large size 14 to 18 children?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

The size of the hall, which has been raised before, was designed in conjunction with the school to accommodate the whole school.

5. The Connétable of St. Helier :

The Minister stated that he is satisfied with the building, at least to date. Could he confirm whether the teaching staff and the head teacher are fully satisfied with the building that they have got?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

When I visited the school, Sir, not only the head teacher and the teachers but all the children enjoy their new premises. Of course, they would like all the snags that there have been ironed-out, which we are working on, but it is an excellent school delivering excellent facilities and an excellent education. When I have been up there, the people seem to be enjoying very much the superb facilities they now have.

6. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

Sir, could the Minister confirm that one of the snags reported was a fire in the air conditioning system?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

It was not a snag; that was a fire. There was a fire in the air conditioning system and ventilation equipment. That has been investigated by insurers. Replacement kit has been ordered and will be fitted from June.

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can the Minister confirm that while the hall was designed to fit the entire school in it, it simply has failed to meet its design and cannot?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

There have been discussions about whether it can accommodate the whole school or not and that is to do with the position of the stage and so on. As I say, the hall was designed in conjunction with the school and was fitted out as the school applied for it to be fitted out. On reflection, perhaps it could have been a bit bigger, but we designed it in conjunction with the school and it is a superb facility for those who have attended anything in the hall. I would hope that, when required, the whole school on the occasion it is required for the whole school to be in the hall, they will be accommodated in the hall. Of course, the bigger the hall, the bigger the cost.

5. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the steps taken to investigate the benefits of tidal energy:

What steps, if any, is the Minister taking to investigate the benefits of tidal energy and has any contact been made with the Alderney group who are already investigating this matter?

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

The Connétable of Grouville will be aware that the Council of Ministers has recently charged my department with producing an energy policy for Jersey. This policy will take a very broad overview of all aspects of energy policy, including economic, security of supply, resilience, international obligations and environmental impacts. The project has cross-departmental significance and a political steering group, consisting of Senator Ozouf and Senator Syvret and myself, will guide the process. Our first meeting will be on 30th May. I can confirm that the energy policy will include consideration of the various options that exist for us to make use of locally derived energy sources such as tidal energy. I expect to be able to report back on this work towards the end of 2006. My department has recently been in contact with Alderney Renewable Energy. This is a private company that has been granted a 5-year concession by the States of Alderney to use areas of Alderney's coastal water for the purpose of attracting developers of tidal energy technology to carry out their experimental trials. Tidal energy systems are estimated to be around 15 years away from market readiness. Currently, the delivered cost of tidal stream energy would be at least twice as expensive as the conventional generation and the operational costs of maintaining the kit are still untested. However, these issues will be overcome and the cost of tidal power will become more attractive as production costs are reduced by better design and increased scale, particularly if the global price of conventional generation of energy rises.

1. The Connétable of Grouville :

Is the Minister aware that in fact the first mass-producing tidal energy turbine is finishing construction off Lynmouth in Devon and is going on-stream into the national grid at the end of August? It has taken I think about 2 years to build, so I would question and would he please confirm that when he said 15 years that it was not serious? Thank you.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am no expert on tidal energy but I have had a trawl round the internet recently and read a few articles about the subject. It is very clear that the current cost of producing tidal energy is around twice conventional generation and that the projects that are being put in place around the world are effectively experimental, although they are generating energy which is being put into a number of grids around the world.

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Would the Minister undertake in his investigations with the Health Minister to investigate the procedures in relation to the agreement with the J.E.C. (Jersey Electricity Company Limited) and the French net. At the moment, I am led to believe that there is an agreement whereby if the French grid needs electricity, the Jersey Electricity Company can sell them back electricity and the practice of burning oil in the past few months has occurred in order for them to do so. Would he undertake, with his group, to look into the environmental impacts that that is having?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, yes, I will.

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

Could the Minister confirm, as part of the energy strategy that he will be looking into, that he will be prepared to look at the liberalisation of the Jersey grid?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, yes, I am.

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding whether recent initiatives such as offering free bus travel to dogs fall within an approved Transport Strategy: