States Meeting Transcript - 21/11/2006

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 21st NOVEMBER 2006

CONTENTS

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................9

1. The Bailiff :................................................................................9

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................9
2. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :............................................................9
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ....................................................9
4. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.......................................................9 The Bailiff :...................................................................................11

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................11 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:.........................................................11 The Bailiff :...................................................................................11 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................11 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:........................................................................11
2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................11
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................12
4. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................12
5. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. of St. Martin : .................................................12
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................12
7. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................13

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................15

1. Deputy S.C.Ferguson:..................................................................15
2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................16
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................16
4. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................16
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................17
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................17
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................18
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................18 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.............................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................19 The Bailiff :...................................................................................20

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................20
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................20
3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................20
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................21
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
6. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................21
7. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................21

8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................22
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................22
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................22
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................23
12. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................23 The Bailiff :...................................................................................23 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................23 The Bailiff :...................................................................................23 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................23 The Bailiff :...................................................................................24

2. Written Questions.......................................................................24

The Bailiff :...................................................................................24

1. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TEST BOREHOLES FOR GROUNDWATER:....................................................................24
2. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT Of THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND USE OF THE £20 MILLION SAVINGS: .............................................................34
3. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TELEPHONE MASTS:.........37
4. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE TERM "TITULAR HEAD" OF THE HONORARY POLICE:....39
5. CONNETABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER Of THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COVENANT ON THE BELLOZANNE SITE:............................................................40
6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING RESTRUCTURING OF JERSEY POST:.........41
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE POST OF RETAIL STRATEGY MANAGER:42
8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE J.C.R.A:.......................................42
9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT: .....................................43

3. Oral Questions: ..........................................................................44

3.1 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the progress and outcome of his discussions with the U.K. Government regarding Romanian and Bulgarian nationals working in Jersey:..................................................44

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................44
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................44
3. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................44
4. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................45
5. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................45
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................45
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
10. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter : .................................................46
11. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................46
12. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................47
13. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:....................................................47

14. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................48

4. APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS: Chairmanship of the Health and Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel - result of first ballot:48

The Bailiff :...................................................................................48

5. ORAL QUESTIONS (continued).......................................................48

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Housing regarding consultation with the Planning and Environment Department on the proximityof telephone masts and base units to States rental accommodation:........................48
   2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................48
   3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................48
   4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................49
   5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................49
   6. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................49

6. APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS: Chairmanship of the Health and Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel - result of second ballot:....................................................................................49

The Bailiff :...................................................................................49 Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:............................................................49

7. ORAL QUESTIONS (continued) ....................................................50

1. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Chief Minister regarding the effect on the housing market of a change in (j) Categorypolicy:........................................................50
   2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................50
   3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................50
   4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................50
   5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................51
   6. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................51
   7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................51
   8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51

9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding low income households in the 2004/5 Household Expenditure Survey:................................................52

7.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52

3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the introduction of third party planning appeals: ........................................53 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................53

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................53
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................53

4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding Ministerial review of the proposed development of Fields 848, 851, 853 and 854, St. Lawrence:......................................................................53 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................54

7.4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................54

5. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the use of figures by the current operator in the award of the Summer Leisure Bus contract: .........................................................................................54 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................54

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................54

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................55
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................55
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56

6. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the current available capacityat First Tower, Bel Royal and Les Quennevais schools:......56 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................56

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................56
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................57

7.7. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the establishment of a Police Consultative Group:........................................................57 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................57

7.7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................57

8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Chief Minister regarding biometric identity cards: .....58 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................58

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................58
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................58
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................59
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................59

9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding costs of consultants engaged on the Prison Improvement Plan: ..............................................60 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................60

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................60
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................60
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................60
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................60
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................61
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................61

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding :......62

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................62
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................62
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................62
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................62
5. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier:....................................................63
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................63
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................63

11. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the Tourism Development Fund grant to "Tennerfest":.....................................63 Senator P.C.F. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................64

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................64
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................64
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................64
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................65

12. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding amendment of "Island Plan 2002, Policy H2: Fields 848, 851, 853 and 854" (P.48/2006):............................................................................65 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................65

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................65
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................66
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................66
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................66

1. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Technical and Transport Services..................................................................................67

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................67
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................67
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................68
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................68
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................69
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................69

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69
9. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................69
10. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................70

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................70 The Bailiff :...................................................................................70

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................70

2. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Health and Social Services ...........................................................................................70

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................70 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.............................70
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................71
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................71
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................71

5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................72
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................72
7. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................72
8. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................72
9. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................73
10. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................73
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................73
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................74
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................74

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................75

9.1 The Chief Minister regarding the outcome of the complaint made by Senator B.E. Shenton against Senator P.F.C. Ozouf , Minister for Economic Development.........75

1. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................75
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................75
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................76
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................76

5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................76
6. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................77
7. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................77
8. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................78

9.2. The Minister for Economic Development regarding the Northern and Southern Ferry Routes:...................................................................................78

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................78
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................78

3. Deputy K.C Lewis :.....................................................................78
4. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................79
5. Deputy S Power:........................................................................79
6. Senator L Norman: .....................................................................79
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................80
8. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................80
9. Senator S Syvret:.......................................................................80
10. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................81

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................81

10. Ministerial Government: review of first 12 months (P.77/2006).......................81

The Bailiff :...................................................................................81

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................81 The Bailiff :...................................................................................82
2. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): 82

1. The Bailiff : ..........................................................................83
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier............................................................83 The Bailiff :...................................................................................84
3. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................84
4. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................85
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................86
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................86
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................86
8. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................87
9. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................88
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................89
11. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................89
12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.............................................................89 The Bailiff :...................................................................................89
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................89 The Bailiff :...................................................................................90 The Bailiff :...................................................................................91 The Bailiff :...................................................................................92 The Bailiff :...................................................................................93

3. The Bailiff :.............................................................................93

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................93
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................94
3. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................94
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................94
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................94
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................95
7. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................95
8. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................95
9. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................95 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................96
10. The Connétable of St. Clement:....................................................96 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................96 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................97

4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................97 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................97

11. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Workplaces) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.114/2006).98

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................98

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................99 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................100

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: ............................................................100
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................102
3. Deputy J.J. Huet:...................................................................102
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:..........................................................102
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ..............................................................102
6. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................103
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..........................................................104
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................104
9. Senator J.L. Perchard: ..............................................................104
10. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:.............................................105 Senator S. Syvret:...........................................................................106
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis :..............................................................106 Miss S.C. Nicolle, Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:............................................106
12. Senator S. Syvret:................................................................107 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................107 Deputy A. Breckon (Chairman, Health and Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel): ..108

2. Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................109

The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109

1. Senator S. Syvret:..................................................................109
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: ............................................................110
3. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................111
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.....................................................111 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................111 Senator S. Syvret:...........................................................................111 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................111
5. Senator S. Syvret:..................................................................111 H.M. Solicitor General: .....................................................................113 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................113 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................114 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................115 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................116

3. Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................116 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................116 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................................116

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):............................................................................117 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................117
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................117
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..........................................................117
4. The Connétable of St. Martin : ......................................................117 H.M. Solicitor General: .....................................................................118 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................118
5. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:............................................................118 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................119 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................120

4. Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................120 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................120 Senator S. Syvret:...........................................................................120 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................120 ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.............................................................120 Senator S. Syvret:...........................................................................121 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................121

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY......................121 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................121

12. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ..............................................................121

NOTIFICATION OF LODGED PROPOSITIONS...........................................121

13. The Deputy Bailiff :....................................................................121

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................121 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................121

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. The Bailiff :

We come to the appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels and I have to invite nominations for the Chairmanship of the Health and Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel.

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

I would like to nominate Deputy Breckon, thank you Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded]

2. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I have great pleasure in proposing Deputy Le Hérissier as Chairman of the fifth Panel.

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any further nominations for?

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

Yes Sir. I would like to nominate the Deputy of St. Ouen .

The Bailiff :

Is that nomination seconded?  [Seconded] Are there any further nominations? Very well, as Members will know, Standing Order 120 provides that if more than one person is nominated as Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, I have to invite each candidate to speak for up to 10 minutes and after each candidate has spoken up to 20 minutes may be allowed for Members to question him or her. So, Deputy Breckon having been the first Member to be nominated, may I invite Deputy Le Herissier and the Deputy of St. Ouen please to withdraw to the Le Capelain Room where officers of the Scrutiny Panels will be there to shepherd you until the time comes to invite you back to the Chamber. Deputy Breckon, I could perhaps advise you before asking you to address the Assembly that the Greffier will sound a bell after 9 minutes and then a final bell after 10 minutes. Would you like to address the Assembly?

4. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

Thank you Sir. As I look at the back of Deputy Fox's head I am reminded of a former life. It seems many years ago, Sir, but I have done spells on the Health and Social Services Committee with former St. Saviour Connétable Jack Roche. Recently, I was on the Social Security Committee that

has just expired, as it were. I have done a spell on the Housing Committee; and I do have some general knowledge of these issues, although I would not claim to be an expert in any of those areas. As well as having a knowledge, Sir, I believe I also have an understanding of some of the issues and where they, perhaps, cross-over. I should say that I did enjoy the involvement in that former life with the Committees and perhaps I would enjoy looking at it in a little bit of a different way. maybe I would even suggest that I would know where to look - to use a Council of Minister's term - to find some quick wins. I come to this, Sir, with no fixed agenda; with no baggage; and I believe it should be policies and not personalities. That is my belief in doing this. There are a number of sub-panel reviews underway, including G.P. out of hours which is nearing completion; the Overdale is again nearing completion; and there is some cross-over and generally these things are working well, but they also put a bit of a strain on the system. The Health area, Sir, does have the biggest budget, with income of £15.6 million and expenditure £143.1 million. It is a critical area for the community and there are some very emotional areas sometimes which attract media attention. I do not believe that we should play politics, Sir, or a game of political football. But when the need arises then we need to look dispassionately at subjects but be aware of the emotions and the passions involved. And be aware also, Sir, that it is a people's service: they have a reliance on this service and I think we should be respectful of that because sometimes, in Health, it is when people are at their lowest ebb and it is the duty of us all to have a duty of care and concern in that area. There should be no sides here, at all. What we should do, Sir, is to aim to achieve that all receive the greatest benefit from the service and I believe that Scrutiny has a role to play in that. The areas covered by Health and Social Services are wide and far-ranging, and they have some strategic aims and objectives. But I would, Sir, respectfully suggest that they are tempered with the fact that we are dealing with people here, and while benchmarking is a useful thing to have, you need to be aware of people's expectations. The major thing is that the strategic aims proposed by Health between 2001 and 2005 in regard to improving health and social care are now drifting away as it were, and the main driver is the plan that has been produced - the new strategy - called "New Directions." That would incorporate some of the objectives contained within the business plan. What Health is doing, Sir, is creating both demand and need, and in 2003 the University of Birmingham Health and Services Management Centre recommended that the service required between 3 per cent and 5 per cent real growth in the next 5 years. Now, some of this has happened but not all of it. But I would suggest, Sir, that as well as wise spending there needs to be proper accountability within agreed protocols. So it is not just a case of ongoing growth: it is a case of how that is achieved. Of course it does touch on people because they have a level of expectation of the delivery of these services. Also, Sir, the staff is vital as over 2,200 staff in many areas provide many services 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. So as well as accountability and benchmarking, it is important to realise, I believe, the sensitivity of these areas and any reviews should bear this in mind. I believe that most of what I am saying, Sir, is about us working together for the common good - no spoiling agendas - and I believe Scrutiny can play a part in the development of Health

and Social Services and I believe, Sir, it dovetails into Employment and Social Security. In a former life, Sir, I was a member of that Committee for very nearly 2 years and also Industrial Disputes Officer since 1995 - a position I thought that had expired until yesterday I got a telephone call saying there were some problems at the Airport and what could I do about it. The major change for Social Security will be next year with the income support. Again, a sub-panel is reviewing this and there would be no intention, Sir - if I am involved - to change any of that. They would continue and they have already made an interim report. I would respectfully suggest that this is an area where Members all need to give attention because it is a very important area because we are moving from something we know to something we do not quite know yet. There has been talk of losers and winners. There is £20 million set aside for phasing; we have the G.S.T. factor; and there is a range of benefits and allowances in and out of work, and the word integration has been used, Sir, and that is very important - that needs to happen. Employment numbers: again, to the population that is an issue and it links with housing, and it probably deserves some scrutiny. Also, there are a number of measures within Employment and Social Security for performance and success criteria based on the Strategic Plan and I am sure, Sir, that they are worth a look. But again, there are no personalities issues: it is about policy and the progress of it hopefully. In regard to Housing, Sir, there are a number of policy areas under development - the Housing Law and the Population Office; the Shared Equity Law; there is a Property Improvement Plan; and there is the debate that we have not had on the management of public property and whether we have an agency. In general terms, Sir, in these areas I think that it is important for a Scrutiny Panel to cover this area, which is over £260 million and involves over 2,400 people, and these are whole-population issues and people have a reliance and an expectancy of the services. The only thing I would say, Sir, I give the House the assurance that if elected I will treat the position with respect. As I said earlier it is about policy and principles, not personalities; and I have no personal agenda

whatsoever. Thank you, Sir.

Thank you, Deputy . Do any Members wish to question? Deputy Ferguson.

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Obviously there will have to be consideration given to risk areas and the question of priorities. Which areas broadly would you consider scrutinising in order of priority?

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

Could I just raise a point of order? It might also be helpful because I was talking to Deputy Breckon whilst the Deputy was giving her question. I could not help but notice there may have been a problem with the timing of the bell. As I was sitting next to Deputy Breckon, I did notice that in response to that he did flip over a page of notes that he was going to make in his speech. Obviously we have not had the benefit of that particular page. Could I just clarify whether there was an error or not, and if there was might the Deputy be allowed to give us the information that he would have done under different circumstances?

The Bailiff :

If the Deputy would like another 2 minutes to address the Assembly he certainly may have them.

Deputy A. Breckon:

I should say I had not timed this to the minute, Sir, but I did just have a number of bullet points if it is okay to do that. This followed on from the possible Housing policies and matters coming forward. It was just general points about health, social security and housing; about them being important areas of everyday life, something for us all to be aware of and we all should share the commitment and values that the people need. The Ministers have much to do and Scrutiny, I believe, should inform this process, not frustrate it. The thing I did miss - which is probably important - if elected I would view membership as being open with anyone who expressed an interest being considered. Thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Now, Deputy Ferguson, would you mind repeating the question you put through the chair, please?

Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

I talked about the risk areas and questions of priority. Which areas broadly would the Deputy consider scrutinising first in order of priority?

Deputy A. Breckon:

The Deputy mentioned risk and priority but, as I did say in those few words, there are some matters that are already being worked on; Overdale being one and G.P. Out-of-Hours being another. Also, there is the Income Support; a group has been set up. Regarding risk, the Income Support has to be a big risk area because it is a major change from where we are at the moment. As regarding priorities, that would be something for a panel when appointed to sit down and discuss. It would not be necessarily for the Chairman of it to give all the agenda, but perhaps to guide it.

2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

Would the Deputy advise the House how he imagines he would be able to build an effective working relationship with the Ministers involved in the panel?

Deputy A. Breckon:

I think over the years I have worked with many people inside and outside the House. I do not have a problem working with people, and if we are talking about the business of government, then we

should get on and do it and, as I said, we should set aside the personalities. Senator Le Main is not here; Senator Syvret is, as is Senator Routier. I have worked with them all before and I do not see the Ministers being a problem. Some people in the department might have different ideas about Scrutiny but I think if we can set the agenda at the senior level we can work together. I do not think working with people is a problem if you have the same goals, and I think that is what we must do.

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

The Deputy has already experience of heading up the Dairy Scrutiny Panel. Can he say what lessons he has learned from that experience in working together with Ministerial colleagues?

Deputy A. Breckon:

The Dairy Panel was a joint review with the Chief Minister and the Dairy Scrutiny Panel, which I chair, and I think it has been effective but, of course, the final result will not be known until we have the debate and how that information informs the States and the community and the dairy and everybody else about the way forward. I think it has been a learning curve. The terms of reference were agreed between the Panel and the Chief Minister and I think it is effective use of public resource. I do not think there is anything to be gained by Ministers doing review and Scrutiny doing review which overlaps, and I think this is one area where hopefully the outcome will prove this to be effective. I would like to think from that, Sir, that more policy and development is shared with Scrutiny and the Ministers rather than presenting a paper and saying: "What do you think about this?" So I think there is some benefit in joint reviews in all sorts of policy development areas.

4. The Deputy of Trinity :

Could the Deputy comment if he feels that the Overdale Inquiry proved to be a good example of Scrutiny?

Deputy A. Breckon:

It will be a good example if the findings are good enough to stand public scrutiny and Ministerial scrutiny because the outcome may differ from what has happened. But it would be a good review if it had influence on what happens in the future because, again, it is a delicate area. We are talking about the care of the elderly; and not just the care of the elderly, but the family have concerns and when people find themselves in these situations they do not necessarily want a review. They want somebody to do something, so any scrutiny process must try and influence what happens in the future. If it does, then it is good. If it does not, then it is useless.

5. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. of St. Martin :

The Deputy has been very successfully involved with the Consumer Council for a number of years. Would the Deputy be stepping-down from the Consumer Council if elected Chairman of the 5th Panel and, if not, which of the 2 would take priority of his work?

Deputy A. Breckon:

I think it would be presumptuous, Sir, to say that I will be doing anything until this election is over, and then if I do not get elected it is not a factor and if I do I will have to consider the other things that I am doing, including Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel. So, everything is on the agenda, as it were.

6. Senator J.L. Perchard:

If the Deputy is successful he will by right take a seat on the Chairmen's Committee. Is the Deputy satisfied with the way the Chairmen's Committee is conducting itself at the present and could he suggest to the House any improvements he may try and impose upon them?

Deputy A. Breckon:

I was told that I would receive copy by email of the Chairmen's Committee deliberations. That has not happened, but I did get some yesterday. Although they are posted and I do look at the agendas to see what is there for discussion, it could be a difficult area because we are still on a learning curve. If elected, one of the things that goes with it is a seat on the Chairmen's Panel, so I think it possibly would be better to try and influence outcomes from inside rather than criticise from outside. It is, as I said, a difficult area and there has been some tension at times between Scrutiny itself and between the Council of Ministers on things like terms of reference and Standing Orders and the law and the interpretation of that, so I think the Chairmen's Panel has a long way to go. I

think it has a profile problem: it needs to come out a bit, but I think some of these issues are being worked on. I think rather than be too critical from the outside, if elected it would be something to do from the inside.

7. Senator B.E. Shenton:

The Deputy mentioned the word accountability.' Is that something he believes in or just a sound bite used at election time? Because certainly I have not come across any accountability since I have been in the Chamber.

Deputy A. Breckon:

It is accountability to whom, Sir? I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee so in that sense there is the accounting accountability. There is also the fact that we have to answer to the public in how we do that, and hopefully that is happening because that is what the changes in Ministerial government were supposed to be about: about being more accountable for the actions that we take. People were nominated in different areas to do that and if it is not happening we now have a Business Plan with a set of aims and I think the Chief Minister has said these are more than performance targets; these are things that have to be met and somebody will be accountable for that. I think that is where Scrutiny can get involved in whichever department it is; look at things that have arisen from that Business Plan and make other people accountable, but do it in a constructive way.

The Bailiff :

If there are no other questions for Deputy Breckon, I will ask the Greffier or the Chief Usher to arrange for the next candidate, Deputy Le Hérissier, to return. Deputy Breckon, would you be kind enough to withdraw to the Le Cappelain Room? Deputy Le Hérissier, may I please advise you that the Greffier will sound a bell after 9 minutes and then a final bell after 10 minutes. May I call upon you to address the Assembly?

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

Why should I do a job that has very little fame and glory? I have always been interested in social policy. I have a background in social policy. I do have a background; I do not talk about it too much. Having left Jersey and having left university, I went into the Prison Service. I trained as an Assistant Governor in the Prison Service. I worked in the Youth Offenders side of the service. I then moved to academia. I moved to the University of Ulster, where I taught social policy. I came out of the university and I went to the Canadian service, where I went back into correctional services. I worked in staff training and management development and basically organisational change. Then I did something I would never have been allowed to do in Britain: I moved into Probation Services. I worked in the north of the city managing a probation office. Having finished and having really decided, I suppose, that my interests lay more in academia, I went back to academia. I went to work in Africa where I taught public policy in central Africa. After another break in the service, I went to Hong Kong, where I was principal lecturer in public and social policy at the City University, which was a new place which was very much part of their expansion in higher education. Again, it was fascinating to work in another environment which obviously had a very different approach to social policy. It was capitalism rampant in Hong Kong but there was a lot of work to do. It was a very open place but yet a very traditional Civil Service in many respects. Overall I found it very fascinating and probably because it was such a place that was so much against my basic values in many respects. To that extent I found it a very exciting place to work in. I then came back here. I worked in Highlands. I taught - I worked in their business department - but I eventually left and moved into what I thought was semi-retirement (some people would have said: "Well, that is what you have been all the time"). I ended up teaching on the degree where they do a very well, they did. Until this year they did a very high emphasis upon social policy and I remain very interested. So I have always had that background; I have always been interested. I have always thought about the issues and I think in those particular environments, having worked for a long time both in the practical environment and in the academic environment, it gave me a very good overview of the issues and it also gave me a very good intro to the kind of skills that are involved. As regards Scrutiny here, I think I have been very associated with it. I see it very much as the absolute complementary side - as I will argue in a later debate this morning - of the government. I am not of the view that it has been misinterpreted. I think it has been misinterpreted because people on many sides of the fence are trying to cope with it, and that is as much Ministers as the people on Scrutiny. It is the easiest thing in the world to say: "They are a bunch who cannot focus, they are struggling, they are doing this" but that in my mind is only at best half of the picture. I am on 3 Scrutiny Panels. I am on the Environment Panel, which has been highly educative. We have some very strong arguments, which cannot be wrong in my view. To me it has been a new field and I have really enjoyed it - although occasionally, it has to be said, we have strayed - but I have thoroughly enjoyed a new field and testing out the issues. I am on the Dairy Panel, which is a so- called fast inquiry, fast being the unoperative' word because it is an experiment also in working with the Executive. I think there are some real issues there. I think it is good that we have got ourselves involved, but I have real questions about how you work with the Executive, how you keep yourself separate from the issues so that, so to speak, when the day of judgment arrives you have not got over-involved. I think there are real issues there particularly with an issue that almost is unravelling itself in the nicest sense as we go. I think it can work but we have to think very carefully about it. The third one is Overdale. It has been called by one or 2 people useless. I think quite the opposite. It is a fast Scrutiny and it was one of those very much in line with the kind of Scrutiny models we studied in the U.K. It was one of those which was drawn up in response to public concerns. That does not mean by its nature it is a populist kind of study; quite the opposite. It means there are deep concerns, some of which are not fully articulated and a Panel gives them the chance to do that, as well as to look at the immediate issues, which was the nature of the move.

Back to the 3 areas: Health, well, there is a major new policy paper appearing, the New Directions paper. There are a whole range of papers have appeared over the years, and in my view in terms of priorities although I do not think it is up to a Chair to say: "This is what I want to do." They can bring certain skills; they can bring, as I have just indicated, certain experiences, but ultimately I do not think it is up to them. Certainly what I would see was care of the aged, I think this is a major, major issue. We are seeing the tip of this in the Overdale study. We have seen it with the Parish move out of that particular aspect of welfare. It is a major issue and I think even now we are probably under-estimating its many manifestations. I think social services are a very important issue. We came late to the party and there is some good work being done in developing social services. But in a service that has a major emphasis on community and I have worked in a service where we had community services and institutional services, and you could always be accused of what was called the concrete edifice complex, which was a rather complex way of saying: "All the money goes into buildings." That is always an issue where you have got those kind of services working apparently together with each other. But social services I think is a very interesting issue. I think another interesting area is health promotion because I think that is an area, either from a P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) point of view or a Scrutiny one, where some fundamental questions have to be asked. It is a fast-changing field. We rely on it a lot, as we will no doubt when smoking comes up later. We continually talk about education, public persuasion which

often means public propaganda, and we have to ask some very fundamental questions about what is a very expensive unit. Social Security, in a way, is settled although I am sure the Minister would not say that. The Low Income Support System is obviously coming in. There are still certain areas to be discussed about the extent of administrative decentralisation, for example, but I would also like to look at broader insurance with the Health Minister and department. I am very keen on the whole notion of a continuum of insurance and we have heard some absolutely frightening tales from people about paying for their residential and nursing care, for example, and we have really got to stand back and say: "What are the financial implications?" Partly bound up with the tax issue is our reluctance to have high taxes, but that is a major, major issue and I want to look at the whole issue of insurance. We have a model that works but maybe it is overdue for reform. Another area that interests me - I know there is some very good work done on employment services but again I think we have to look at that in more detail - is how they relate to agencies, how they measure their effectiveness and how the specialised side of it, like the Employment Trust, works. I know they do very good work but again they are very costly and we have to keep looking at that. I am very impressed with a lot of the work that goes on in Social Security. I am one of the fans, although I do agree that much of the devil will lie in the detail of Income Support. On Housing, I would not pretend to be an expert on Housing although I have worked on housing degree. What I would say, Sir, obviously much is going to hinge on the new paper, which we eagerly await and which is apparently in the works, because that is obviously going to change the nature of housing provision. I think the relationship between the States and Housing Trusts, while some people see that as a buried issue, I think it is manifesting itself in different ways in terms of the setting-up a whole series of management centres, for example, and the costs that are implied. Then I think there are probably issues that are more P.A.C. orientated or Comptroller and Auditor General orientated: issues like maintenance and vexatious issues which strike me have yet to be fully resolved. I know

people are now working on them with a new energy. Rent arrears, for example. So, in terms of my overall approach, Sir, my view of Scrutiny - and it is very trite to say this - is an evidence-based process which tries to reach its conclusions on the basis of evidence and where (which is very, very difficult for politicians) we park our biases and prejudices. It has been easy to criticise Scrutiny because it is characterised unfairly as the second division team, but remember, it is a long-term process, Sir. It is one that by its very nature is always in tension with Ministers and with the Council. They make the cultural transition. They have a strong desire to control and a strong desire - and this is only politics, there is nothing to be terribly critical about - to be seen in a favourable light. We are the people not who bring the bad news but who bring the rather solid, sometimes dull and boring news. I think this situation will calm down as we get involved in formulating policy and contributing to debates. Thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . Now I invite questions. Deputy Ferguson.

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

If we look at the risk areas and the question of priorities, which areas broadly would you consider in order of priority for Scrutiny?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

As I said earlier, I am not one of those who believes in giving a prescriptive view, but as far as I am concerned the broad priority has to be in each case the business plan of each department and then the major policy document that underpins the business plan: New Directions in the case of Health, and the new Housing document. With Social Security it is less clear because they have pushed through an enormous amount of reform and doubtless there is a period of consolidation. I would very much say, with the major policy document, New Directions, in Health, that I would follow that with care of the aged. I would follow that with social services and, to a lesser extent, health promotion. Thank you, Sir.

2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

Would the Deputy advise the House whether he believes that the relationship with the Ministers involved with this new Panel would need to be for him perhaps different to the relationship he has with them as a private Member?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I do not think it need be that different because as a private Member - and this is what undoubtedly makes me unpopular in certain quarters - I am by training, as I have tried to suggest in background and certainly if you operate in a service like Corrections you have to be fairly forceful otherwise you are going to end up very much as the junior partner. I think it is the job, if I may say to the Deputy , Sir, to be questioning but to be questioning in a professional way. I do not

think the relationship need change. Clearly you cannot be over-familiar with people and clearly I am aware, for example, in one case I am accused of having some kind of personal vendetta against a person. My view is in those circumstances your priority is always to behave with utter professionalism, to ask questions in a professional way, to be able to prove that the conclusions reached came from the evidence and, if they did not, to admit that, and to act generally in that kind of manner. Thank you.

3. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Scrutiny, like the Executive, has been very much a learning curve and there have been some successes and there have been some failures. Would the Deputy assess Scrutiny to date and what improvements, if any, would he be looking to make?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Well, it is a very exciting process, I have to say, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. We have had our moments and clearly there has to be reform. I would say one of the first reforms probably has to be much more dialogue, but dialogue in a structured sense with the Council of Ministers. At the moment we get on the grapevine negative comments of one kind or another. But much more dialogue, I would say, with the Council of Ministers because I think they will see where we are coming from and we, hopefully, will see where they are coming from. I would say issues like the confidentiality of information have to be looked at in much more detail. I think we are fairly good at that, but clearly there are people who still do not for various reasons trust us. I think we probably have to have tighter codes in that regard. I think, Sir, we have to be more organised as to how we look at the Business Plan and the Strategic Plan. Obviously this was a learning year but there were mistakes made, we were not up to speed in some respects, and I think we have to have a much more systematic approach as a group of panels. So, that is another area. I think also - and this came out at Scrutiny's recent away day - the communication to Scrutiny members; we have some incredibly committed people, people who have real drive and enthusiasm for the process and they have to feel part of it. They have to feel that the Chairmen's Committee is not some group of people determining policy, which it is not. Its mandate does not allow it to do that, but that is the perception. They have to feel that they are part of that process, and that has to be worked on very, very strongly. I think those are enough reforms for the moment.

4. Senator F.H. Walker :

The Deputy said that he believed in more dialogue between Scrutiny and Ministers, and I think we would all concur with that. He also went on to express concerns about the current Dairy Review, which is one of those areas where there has been a tremendous amount of dialogue between the Scrutiny Panel involved and me as the Minister responsible. Could he clarify his position on that?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I have had several discussions with the Chairman of the Dairy Review in this regard. I have no problem, Sir, with a review looking at a current policy, but I think what we have to be very careful about It is a learning process, quite frankly, because I do not think we have ever gone into a review where there is a review actually looking at a policy which is unfolding in front of our eyes and where the main stakeholder - as the Chief Minister well knows - the producers, for example, last Friday afternoon, have very strong views: views that are not necessarily compatible. What I am saying is we have to build-in some breathing spaces. I think that is what I would have learnt from that. I have no problem with the principle of working together. We have to build-in breathing spaces. We have to ensure that our hearings are separate from consultations that the Chief Minister may wish to have with the groups and that they are properly transcribed. All that is going to mean is probably going to be a more delayed process because I know there are people, because of the state of morale in the industry, who want some very quick answers, but I am afraid, Sir, it is probably going to be a lengthier process than we thought. So, to come down to the Chief Minister's point, Sir, it is not that I object in principle to what we are doing, but I think we have to be very careful indeed, much more careful about how we handle it.

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have heard the Deputy being highly critical of the former Health and Social Services Committee and, indeed, on occasions, the current Minister. Could he summarise his criticisms of current health policy and how would that criticism inform his choice of reviews if he was successful?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I would like to think, Sir, that the criticism - and this is another issue I mentioned earlier - is about policy; and it should be about policy. I would like to think that there would be vibrant, robust and, quite frankly at times, very, very difficult debates because I do not like what I am seeing with Ministerial but I am sure it is a growing pain, where people are getting away with quite superficial examination of policies. There needs to be a much tougher thing. But as regards my criticism, I would prefer not to put it in that way but I will because the Minister insists. I would like to see money accountability much tighter, although that is essentially for P.A.C. and the

Comptroller and Auditor General to look at, but I would like to see that. I would like to see management structures looked at. I have had several meetings - very useful meetings - with the Chief Executive who has called me in and explained various positions when I have questioned the proliferation of positions. We have had some very interesting debates, but I would like to see that looked at. I would like to see real energy and, of course, I am partly to blame and I will be blamed because I was on the Health Committee, as you know, for a time. I would like to see real energy put into issues like care of the aged where I think we really have to face the fact that massive problems are building-up. I do not underestimate the problems Health are facing. Public expectations are increasing all the time. The cost of healthcare is increasing all the time. The public are much more vocal about what they want from Health, so I certainly accept that particular view. There is always going to be an immensely difficult balance to achieve. I also want to look at other units that have been the Cinderellas, perhaps, of the service because they cannot get as I said earlier, like social services and like, to a lesser extent, health promotion.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Would the Deputy just clarify for the House where he sees the involvement of Scrutiny starting? I am a bit confused. Is it always after the development of policy or does he see a place for sometimes Scrutiny being involved in the process and development of new policies?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I would only see the development of new policy as falling out from the review of old policy because I think our task - and I might be taking the slightly traditional view - is to examine policy and formation. I would say the ideal point; I do not see any problem and I know some Panels have done a very good job of this, sitting down with the Ministers and saying: "What ideas are going around in your Ministry? What are you thinking about?" and that is excellent because it gives you an idea of what is happening. My view is the major intervention should be at the so-called Green Paper stage when the options are being put on the table by a department and Minister and Scrutiny can talk to the options. So, in other words, it has not firmed-up but there is quite a bit of research been done; quite a bit of the work has been done, but no way has it firmed-up at that point. That is when, in a sense, the process should be stopped and Scrutiny should get, so to speak, on board the moving train and get involved.

7. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Deputy is starting to sound a little to my ears like an alternative Minister. How will he avoid falling into the trap of being pulled into creating alternative policy?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

It strikes me if you are looking at a policy and you start coming to the conclusion that the policy by its very nature is a defective policy, you have to draw this to people's attention. I think you will see more of that because part of the problem with Scrutiny in the last year - or part of the fog that has been created around it - is that it has had to jump on moving trains. It has had to deal with policies which have been settled a long time and, as we used to find even in the old States let alone the new one, it is very difficult to stop that train and say as an example that affects Deputy Southern , Sir: J.T. (Jersey Telecom) privatisation. It is very hard to say: "Well, look, I am sorry, at some point in the dim and distant past this was not thoroughly evaluated and we have ended up with the wrong option", for example. So, yes, I think there will be times when you will say in a report, having analysed current proposals: "Well, look, I think we got this wrong. I think you really need to go back to fundamentals because you have started off from the wrong point."

8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Deputy has been in this Assembly for 7 years and held a number of quite senior positions, and he has a reputation for somebody who speaks well. Could he tell me what are his top 3 things that he has delivered over the last 7 years as evidence of his ability to deliver something as opposed to speak?

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, I would like to thank the Senator for that. I think we got the States of Jersey Law through. That was a Law that embraced about 120 amendments. It embraced a vast number of sub-issues like conflict of interest and so forth; the Scrutiny system. It involved the whole reform of the Assembly, so in terms of 3 items I think there were 120 items in that. I think even though I have been criticised from here to kingdom come, we had the courage - misguided, naïve, simple - in the face of some pretty bizarre opposition and some pretty bizarre alliances. We had the courage to push the States of Jersey reform and I at least had the guts to stand up there and push it, even if I was totally misguided and wrong, instead of the namby-pamby, shilly-shallying, dodging, that I found with other people. We at least had the guts to put it forward, even if it did not work out. Thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

If there are no other questions for the candidate, I will ask the Greffier to ask the final candidate to come into the Chamber.

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

In this interregnum, can I just point out, in case anyone is wondering, I am not asking any questions of any of the candidates because whoever the successful candidate is, I will obviously have to be working with them or at least trying to.

Deputy , while you catch your breath may I just advise that the Greffier will sound a bell after 9 minutes as a warning that your time is about to expire, and then finally after 10 minutes. Then, of course, there will be 20 minutes of questioning to follow that. So, if you are ready, may I call upon you to address the Assembly?

6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

The first thing that I would hope to assure Members is that I do not think they are even going to hear the bell. Sir, I have been a Member of the States for the last 4 years and in that time have endeavoured to take full advantage of all opportunities to further my understanding of the way our government operates. I fully support the new system of government and want to play an active part in developing the Scrutiny function. I believe Scrutiny is an essential part of government designed to enhance the decision-taking process whilst at the same time providing the community with a greater degree of understanding and trust in the way the Island is run. It is all about engaging with the public, addressing their concerns and ensuring that any new or existing policies developed by departments are fit for purpose. Scrutiny's main aim must be not only to hold the Executive to account, but to help improve the quality and effectiveness of public services. To underpin this aim, I would plan to have 3 key objectives which in time can be clearly monitored and measured. My first objective would be to create an effective Scrutiny body. To do this, one needs to be able to scrutinise constructively the Executive policies, administration and expenditure. This, in many instances, is only possible if there is a good working relationship between the Panel and the relevant departments and Ministers. My aim would be to develop that relationship, which should be one of mutual trust and recognition of each other's roles and responsibilities. To be successful, the Panel has to work as a team, and I would seek to select Members who share that view. I believe my role as Chairman, if elected, would be to ensure that Members are at all times accurately and effectively briefed and encouraged to play a full part in the Scrutiny process. Part of the success of any team obviously includes the support staff, and I would aim to ensure that clear guidance is provided to those officers, maximising the potential of the resources available. My second objective would be to investigate issues of local importance. This is clearly at the centre of any Scrutiny function and one which I believe to be extremely important. To achieve this, members of the public will need to be engaged in a meaningful way. I would propose to develop a dialogue with interested parties and organisations, creating a platform on which issues can be debated. I will do this by developing a greater understanding of the role of Scrutiny and also how it can improve the decision-making process. To achieve this goal, it would be my intention that the Panel - as I have said before - work closely with the relevant departments and Ministers to develop a provisional programme of work to cover the next 12 months. My aim would be to arrange meetings with Health, Social Security and Housing to discuss the departments' individual business plans. In turn, these plans would be used to determine the Panel's work programme in part for 2007. I am aware that there are a number of extremely important issues to be considered by the individual departments next year, such as the implementation of the Income Support Scheme, the redesign of the Island's Health and Social Care System, and the introduction of a Shared Equity Scheme, to name but a few. It is, therefore, extremely important that a balanced and prioritised work programme is created. Prior to finalising the Panel's work for 2007, it would be my intention to seek the public's view, thereby ensuring that the greatest benefit can be gained from the proposed topics to be reviewed. The programme would also need to be able to respond flexibly to events and issues that come up during the year, and I would intend to ensure that sufficient time is allocated within the work programme to allow for this. It is my view that in certain circumstances the use of sub-panels can be both appropriate and beneficial and I would propose to take advantage of this option if it was deemed appropriate by the Panel. The final objective would be to raise the profile and reputation of Scrutiny. I will work closely with members of the Chairmen's Committee to develop a greater public understanding of Scrutiny and the part it can play in the government of this Island. I will aim to work with the Council of Ministers to improve communications between the

Ministers and Scrutiny, thereby maximising the benefits Scrutiny can offer. For my part, I will endeavour to ensure that all sectors of the community are included in this process and engaged in a meaningful way. Consultation must, in my view, be a 2-way process. One simply cannot ask a question without being prepared to listen to the answer. My aim in carrying out any review would be to present reports that are focused, authoritative and evidence-based, as I firmly believe that this will ultimately lead to improving the public's trust in government. I do not stand in front of you with any preconceived ideas or political agenda other than to see our government become more accountable to the people of this Island. I am passionate about our Island and have a genuine desire to see Scrutiny establish itself as a useful and effective element of government which benefits the whole community. In conclusion, I want to ensure that the public services are responsive to the needs of our Island residents and delivered in an efficient and cost-effective manner. I want to develop a greater public understanding of the services provided and promote best practice within all departments, especially in the areas of delivery. Basically, I want Scrutiny to add value and be recognised as an essential part of the Island's government. If elected, I will work hard to ensure that these objectives are met and ask that you give me this opportunity. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Are there any questions for the Deputy ? Deputy Ferguson.

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

If we consider the risk areas and the question of priorities, which areas broadly would you consider in order of priority for Scrutiny?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think, as I have said before, I am going to use 2 methods: one to identify what the proposed business plan is and what is proposed by the departments in each area, and secondly, I will look to the public to deal with and address their concerns.

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

The Deputy in his speech says he wishes to raise the profile of Scrutiny. Could I ask the Deputy how will he achieve that objective?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think it is first of all to speak plain English: get the clear message across, encourage all members of Scrutiny to do the same. We are able to engage with the public. This is a small Island. We have relatively small constituencies that allow us to speak directly to many groups of people. I believe by speaking to interested parties, groups, organisations, we are well able to raise the profile, to get the message out exactly what Scrutiny is able to do and the benefits that can be gained from it.

3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

Would the Deputy advise the House what Scrutiny review produced this year he believes to be the most effective and the reasons for that?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

It is my view that every Scrutiny review is effective in many different ways, and I would not want to select a particular review out and hold it up as an example. I think there are many different reviews that require different attitudes, different attention, different procedures to address the issues concerned. I believe that, if I was Chairman of a Panel, I would certainly use a whole range of different methods and mechanisms simply dependent on the particular topic that was being considered. Thank you.

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

May I ask the candidate if he was successful whether or not he will continue to be the Vice- Chairman on the Public Accounts Committee and whether or not he considers this position one that requires the full attention of its Chairman? Also, whether or not he would retain a position on the Scrutiny Public Accounts Committee if he was successful as currently is undertaken by Deputy Breckon? So what I am basically asking, does he agree with my sentiments that this job is too important to share his time and responsibilities with others?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Obviously I considered long and hard before putting my name forward for the position as Chairman of the new Scrutiny Panel. I have very much enjoyed - if that is the right term - the time spent on Public Accounts, but I equally recognise that as Chairman of a Panel, especially this particular Panel, that there is a great deal of work and area that will need to be covered. As such, I do believe that if I was elected I would concentrate all my efforts in this area. Thank you.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Deputy has earned a reputation as being a very hard working and committed Member with passionately held beliefs. Does the Deputy believe that he can develop the required academic distance from passionate ideas to ensure effective academic scrutiny?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I believe passion is a good thing, not bad. Equally, I hope - and it will obviously be for Members to judge - that although I have been passionate I do focus all my attention at all times on the evidence. I firmly believe that certainly with the examples that have been set by various Chairmen that I have served under, I do feel able to, as I say, provide the not all of the tools necessary to do the job, but all to the best of my ability certainly, Sir. Thank you.

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

The Deputy states that he believes that Scrutiny is an important part of political process and aims to develop a good working relationship with the Council of Ministers. Could I ask him how does he aim to do this and ensure that a good and healthy relationship is maintained into the future?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think in part it is, as I said earlier in my speech, an understanding and recognition of the different roles that individuals are responsible for. Equally, I think that the Council of Ministers themselves at the recent communications away day recognised that there was work to be done in creating and developing a greater  dialogue between the Chairmen and Scrutiny as a whole than what has happened in the last 12 months. Therefore, regular meetings; a greater understanding by all of Scrutiny's role; equally, as I say, respect, which I hope I have been able to command in this House, are all part of the overall picture to develop that relationship. Thank you.

7. The Deputy of Trinity :

Could the Deputy comment if he feels that the Overdale Review proved to be a good example of Scrutiny?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Sadly, I was basically given a choice recently to consider maybe going on the sub-panel of Overdale or Telecoms, and I decided that I would end up being a panel member for the Telecoms Panel. Why I say that is that I currently am unaware of the findings of that particular review, albeit that I look forward very much to see the results from that review. Obviously, if successful, that is one area that the new Panel will cover and, as such, any issues that are raised from that review will obviously be considered, I would suggest, by the new Panel. Thank you.

8. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Scrutiny, like the Executive, has been very much a learning curve and there have been some successes and some failures. Would the Deputy assess Scrutiny to date and inform the House what steps he would take or any recommendations he would like to make to improve the system of Scrutiny?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

The message that I would give to the Deputy of St. Martin is that I have spoken to a number of individuals that have been responsible in Scrutiny - not just here but elsewhere in the world - and they are still defining Scrutiny. I think that there have been some successes. I think we have been a little bit caught off guard because although we did have a shadow Scrutiny process which enabled us to train and get experience in Scrutiny, it did not prepare us for Ministerial government and the way that the departments have developed over the last 12 months. So, I would just say that it is and will be, I am sure, an on-going project, one that has already started, one that is already developing, and one that I would assist to grow. Thank you.

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

In view of the Deputy 's demonstrated and commendable passion for various subjects, would he confirm that given the Chairmanship of a Panel that he would be prepared to relinquish some of this passion in the face of contrary views from Panel members?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

As I said before, to be a successful Panel - and, I suggest, to be a successful Chairman - you need to develop a team. Yes, various team members will have different characteristics, different views, which is all part and the purpose, I would suggest, of having a team. You do not have a football team of all forwards. So I believe that rather than detract, perhaps - as some might suggest - from the role of Chairman, I do believe I can. I recognise that the role has a responsibility that goes with it and I would at all times seek consensus and an informed decision and Panel view rather than a separate or antagonistic approach. However, and this is the proviso, I do believe that individuals who feel passionately about something, even though it may be contrary to the Panel's own review, should have a right to forward that and promote that view within the right context. I would not be one to confine or control the Panel.

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

I just wondered if I might ask a second question because the Deputy is giving me some thoughts as to which way I am going to vote and I am teetering at the moment. I would just like to ask what area does he consider requires the most attention - the most urgent attention - of this new Scrutiny Panel?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

It is very difficult. As I said, I think I listed 3 areas - one for each department - that are massive areas. We have a major issue that we have accepted the introduction of G.S.T. based on a defined Income Support Scheme. Obviously that is a concern not only to the States Members in this House but others. Equally, we have the issue of an ageing population and how we are going to provide residential care for the elderly. Equally, we have the changes within the Housing Department and the possibility of forming a Housing Trading Association and how we continue to provide social housing. So there are many needs and, as I said, I think that for me the logical approach would be select the team, meet the departments, identify their plans, then seek the public view. From there, then your work programme develops. I do believe that where possible, if successful, I will try and arrange at least one review per department per year. Thank you.

11. The Deputy of St. John :

Does the Deputy not think that it is important to present a collective and mutual view and that a disputing opinion - a difference of opinion from Panel members - would weaken the credibility of a Panel in the same way that disunity sometimes weakens governments?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I would like to clarify what I said before; maybe reinforce it. It is not a case of encouraging independent views. It is acknowledging that at times there will be moments where individuals will have very strong views on a particular subject. Obviously, as such, the role of Chairman and, in fact, any other member of the Panel team, would be to try and address those concerns and reflect that in a report, review or whatever. However, I do believe that there will be and could be times where individuals feel passionate about something but they feel unable to support a particular view. I think that you need that flexibility to be allowed within - if you like - the team ethics, to allow that flexibility for that individual to speak out because in many ways I believe that that could enhance and increase that team view. Thank you.

12. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I would just like the Deputy to clarify his last few answers. I understand about different views. I understand about passion because I think I have been accused of being quite a passionate Member myself. [Laughter] Well, it has been rumoured. What I do not understand is we are talking about a Scrutiny evidence-based process and when it comes to writing a review does the Deputy not agree whatever opinions, whatever passions are felt, the review must always and only be based and be backed-up by the evidence collected by the on-going review? Can he just clarify that this is his understanding of Scrutiny and being the Chair of Scrutiny?

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Absolutely. I said it in my speech; I should not have to repeat myself, I do not think, but I will say it. Evidence-based is the whole remit and role of Scrutiny, but the Deputy , like others, will have their own views. Now, I will not suggest that the report should reflect views that are not evidence- based. However, individuals must, I feel, have the ability in any debate to speak about a subject that they particularly feel strongly about. Obviously I would encourage them to look at the evidence. However, I do not feel able and I would not presume to control the Panel members in that particular fashion. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

If there are no other questions for the candidate, I will declare the question period closed and ask the Greffier to request the other 2 candidates to return to the Assembly.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I would be most grateful if in the intervening period before ballot papers arrive you would be in a position perhaps to explain to the House how we will vote.

The Bailiff :

There are no printed ballot papers, Deputy , for obvious reasons, but the ballot papers when they are distributed will enable Members to vote for one candidate. When the votes have been counted, if any of those candidates has more than 50 per cent of the votes, he will be declared as Chairman of the Panel. If none of the candidates has achieved on a first ballot more than 50 per cent of the votes, then the candidate receiving the lowest number of votes will drop out and we shall proceed to a second ballot and that will achieve the result.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I am grateful for that clarification. Thank you, Sir.

We now proceed to a ballot for the Chairmanship of the new Scrutiny Panel. I will ask the Chief Usher and Deputy Viscount to circulate the papers. I remind Members they can vote for one candidate: Deputy Breckon, Deputy Le Hérissier or the Deputy of St. Ouen . If all Members are now ready to cast their votes, I shall ask the Deputy Viscount and Chief Usher to collect them. If all Members have now had the opportunity to put their ballot papers in one of the 2 urns, I ask the Attorney General whether he would be kind enough with the Deputy Viscount to act as scrutineer.

2. Written Questions

The Bailiff :

While the votes are being counted I think we can start question time and if I return to the Order Paper, there are no matters under G or H. Under I - the written questions - the Minister for Planning and Environment will table an answer to

Senator M.E. Vibert :

Can I propose we take as read the written questions?

The Bailiff :

Are Members content to take the written questions as read?

1. DEPUTY  G.C.L.  BAUDAINS  OF  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR PLANNING  AND  ENVIRONMENT  REGARDING  TEST  BOREHOLES  FOR GROUNDWATER:

Question

With  reference  to  the  document  entitled  Test  boreholes  completed  successfully'  would  the Minister inform members –

1. whether the choice of sites for the boreholes was limited to the east coast and where landowners wanted new boreholes?
2. what type oflinerwasusedin the La Rocque borehole and whether the liner was damaged during drilling through the plug'? If so, did this compromise the test?
3. whether the plug' was made of plain cement and drilled before it had a chance to harden?

Answer

1. Beforeanswering specific questions, it is useful to explain that the current investigation is being undertaken by the Deep Groundwater Advisory Group (D.G.A.G.). Members ofthis group are as follows:

Dr. Ralph Nichols (chair)  geologist

Dr. John Renouf geologist

Mr. Lewis de la Haye well driller

Mr. Neville George well driller

Mr. George Langlois water diviner

Mr Howard Snowden Managing Director of Jersey Water

Mr Chris Newton  Director of the Environment

Deputy Sarah Ferguson  States Member

Deputy Rob Duhamel  States Member.

The investigation has been designed to categorically determine, once and for all, whether flowing groundwater streams enter Jersey.

The scientific advisors to this investigation, agreed by all members of D.G.A.G., are the British Geological Survey (B.G.S.) and E.N.T.E.C. (E.N.T.E.C. were the consultants chosen to advise the Scrutiny Panel in its review of the Draft Water Resources Law) These two professional

bodies have worked closely together and have provided a detailed experimental methodology that will provide an evidence-based answer to the question of groundwater streams entering Jersey from Europe.

B.G.S. and E.N.T.E.C. will provide a report containing all documentation and data in December 2006. The report will contain the definitive and unquestionable proof as to whether or not flowing groundwater streams enter Jersey from Europe.

All members of D.G.A.G., including the water diviners and well drillers, have signed up to the investigation and agreed to abide to the findings.

Turning now to the question of how the location of the boreholes was chosen. As detailed in the experimental methodology, the water diviners and well drillers agreed to identify the two most optimal locations and corresponding depths at which they believed streams from Mainland Europe entered the Island. No conditions were attached and the well drillers and water diviners were given an absolute free-hand to select any location on Jersey they wished. The water diviners and well drillers spent some considerable time tracing streams and identifying the two sites that they considered represented the optimal locations for the further detailed and rigorous scientific testing.

The two locations they chose were at La Rocque and St Catherine. The landowners agreed to allow access for the drilling and pump testing on their land and we gratefully acknowledge their co-operation.

The landowners at these sites did not request a borehole. The La Rocque landowner already has a recently drilled borehole on his property. The borehole at St Catherine is within a wooded area where it has no use to neighbouring properties. Both boreholes are therefore likely to remain unused once the investigation has been concluded.

2. As detailed in the answer to question 2(c) the purpose of lining the upper section of the borehole is toprevent the ingress of water and so be able to obtain a water sample from depth that has not been mixed with water from shallower strata. No boreholes on the island had previously been constructed in this way – hence the need for the new test sites.

The sealing of the borehole was accomplished by cement grout which was directed into place by injecting the cement into and around the sides of a P.V.C. pipe tube that had been inserted into the borehole section. An effective seal was achieved by liquid cement grout flowing under pressure into the fractures and fissures and by a 25mm thickness of hardened cement around the outer circumference of the borehole.

The plastic liner having done its job was then dispensable. The fact that several sections of the inner plastic liner were shredded when re-drilling took place has no relevance to the seal that had already been achieved by the hardened cement.

After grouting and re-drilling through the hardened grout the borehole was completely dry. This provides conclusive and unquestionable proof that an effective seal was achieved. The attached report from B.G.S. provides further details.

3. The grout mix used was a mix of cement and water. The grout mix had to have a high degree of fluidity to ensure maximum penetration of the grout into the fissures, fractures and joints penetrated.

At La Rocque, the grout was left for more than 40 hours to harden before the start of re- drilling. By the time the lower section of the borehole had been drilled the grout had cured for 68 hours.

Geological samples of the drilling were sampled every half metre. The presence of hard cement chips documented just below the grouted section demonstrates, without doubt, that the grout had set hard. (again see the B.G.S. report on this matter).

Question 2

Would the Minister advise –

1. what experience the drillers and the B.G.S. personnel selected to undertake this workhadof this type of operation?
2. whether there were problems withthe La Rocque borehole and, if so, why he has stated The experimental drilling went according to plan .' Effective seals against shallower groundwater was achieved at both sites' andIamdelightedthatboth boreholes have now been completed successfully'?
3. why boreholes already in existence (where water was first struck below 90 metres) were not used instead of drilling new ones?
4. why isotopic testing was chosen and whetherthis method is capable of distinguishing between Jersey underground water and underground water on the adjacent French coast?
5. ofthe isotopic signature of the St. Catherine bore and state whether he has received data to compare this with the signature from water of the Granville area of France?
6. whether he will be investigating the provenance of the water under the Ecréhous?
7. whether he will be pursuing and evaluating whether any groundwater connection exists betweenthe Royal Bayof Grouville and the Pointe D'Agon on the French coast following recent water-divining on this route?

Answer

1. De La Haye Well Drilling Ltd. were initially requested to undertake the drilling. Dueto ill- health of staff they later advised D.G.A.G. that they were unable to do so.

Amplus Limited were therefore asked. Amplus are very experienced at drilling boreholes in Jersey have demonstrated a high level of expertise and competence.

A senior hydrogeologist with extensive experience of borehole construction gained around the world supervised the drilling and ensured that Amplus completed the borehole to the detailed specifications. In addition it was useful to have Mr. George Langlois on site during the drilling operations to take note of the operation and to agree when the depth believed to have contained the stream had been surpassed.

During drilling a detailed site diary was maintained. Comprehensive records of the geology and drill penetration rates were maintained as well as air flush water yield, water temperature, conductivity and pH. Groundwater samples for chemical and isotopic analysis were taken for each variation in penetration or water strike.

I therefore have absolute confidence that the two boreholes constructed by Amplus and documented by the B.G.S. conformed to the requirements of the investigation.

2. Apart from the issue of shredding ofthe plastic pipe at La Rocque which I have already explained made no difference to the integrity of the seal achieved there no problems were encountered. I can confirm that both boreholes conformed to the requirements of the investigation. (see the B.G.S. report for further details).
3. The D.G.A.G. explored this option as their first choice because of the much lower costs involved. The existence of deep boreholes iswell documented and has been included in B.G.S. reports to the States of Jersey since the early 1990's.

Unfortunately the well drillers and diviners were not able to identify to D.G.A.G. any existing boreholes where they were confident of a connection to French or mainland Europe connections.

In addition, because standard borehole construction techniques do not seal off the water entering the boreholes from shallower strata it was impossible to obtain a discrete sample of just the water coming into the deeper sections of the borehole.

The air flush water yields of the two test boreholes clearly demonstrated that the majority of the water yield derived from water bearing aquifers at shallow depths. As drilling progressed the total water yield increased as new water strikes added to the cumulative total.

Boreholes in Jersey generally make use of this cumulative yield, being the sum of all water strikes as one drills deeper, as such they are mainly uncased and not grouted.

Existing boreholes are therefore compromised by surface water ingress into the deeper layers. This is the reason why the two test boreholes had to be specially constructed.

The test boreholes were grouted and sealed to the depth just above the divined depth of the depth of the streams so that if a stream was encountered its water could be sampled without cross-contamination from above.

4. The agreement underpinning the D.G.A.G. investigation, signed by all members, relates tothe significance of differences in isotopic signatures between surface water and groundwater sampled at the depth. I reproduce this agreement here.

The agreement

Water samples will be obtained from two specially constructed boreholes to be drilled at two

locations chosen and divined by the well drillers and diviners as being the most likely to yield water that had its origins in mainland Europe. Exact construction details of the two boreholes will be agreed with technical advisors of BGS and ENTEC, but in essence boreholes will be drilled to whatever depth the drillers and diviners believe is necessary, up to a maximum depth of 750 feet, and fully lined and grouted throughout the depth to avoid cross-contamination with locally sourced water.