States Meeting Transcript - 25/04/2006

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 25th APRIL 2006

QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 9

1. Written Questions.................................................................. 9

2. TheMinisterfor Home Affairs tabled an answer to a question asked by the Deputy of St. Ouen regarding the cost of Prison Officer overtime and other expenditure budgets for Home Affairs............................................ 9

3. The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture tabled an answer to a question asked by Senator J.L. Perchard regarding non-teaching staff numbers........ 10

4. The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding the provision of a nursery unit at St. Peter 's Primary School...................................................... 11

5. The Minister for Transport and Technical Services tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding private non-residential parking spaces in St. Helier ..................................................... 12

6. TheMinisterfor Health and Social Services tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding health matters relating to the composting site.................................................................. 12

7. The Minister for Transport and Technical Services tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding cycle rickshaws..... 13

8. TheMinisterfor Economic Development tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding the Service Level Agreement for the northern route ferry service.................................. 14

9. The Minister for Home Affairs tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding e-mail exchanges between the Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and the Jersey Evening Post relating to matters in connection with firearms............................................. 15

10. TheMinisterfor Health and Social Services tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding the Nurses Job Families Agreement............................................................. 17

11. TheMinisterfor Economic Development tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding Airport bollards. ......... 19

12. The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding training and development needs of the finance and allied industries........................ 19

13. The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding proposals for the composition of the States................................................ 20

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :.............................................. 20

2. Oral Questions.................................................................... 20

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the refitting of historic buildings:...................................... 21

Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):................ 21 2.1.1 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :.................................................... 21 2.1.2The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 21 2.1.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 21 2.1.4Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................... 22 2.1.5 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 22

2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains to the Minister for Economic Development regarding the Western Tanker Berth Gangway: ............................................... 22

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):.................... 22 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Harbours): .............. 22 2.2.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 23 2.2.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 23

3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Chief Ministerregarding the proposals that the Waterfront Enterprise Board had for the Waterfront area:...................... 23

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):............................................ 23 2.3.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 24 2.3.2 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 24 2.3.3 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :............................................. 24 2.3.4 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 24 2.3.5 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ................................................ 25

4. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-:...... 25

Senator S. Syvret (The Minister of Health and Social Services):..................... 25 2.4.1The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 25 2.4.2 Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : .......................................... 26 2.4.3 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:.......................................................... 26 2.4.4The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 26

2.4.5 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 26 2.4.6 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:........................................... 27

3. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services........................................................................... 27

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:........................................... 27

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical

Services):........................................................................ 27

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 27 3.2.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 28 3.2.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 28
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:.............................................................. 28
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.......................................................... 29
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:.............................................................. 29
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.......................................................... 30 3.6.1 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.......................................................... 30 3.6.2 Deputy G.P. Southern : .......................................................... 30
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 30

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The MinisterforHealthandSocialServices .................................................................................... 31

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 31 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................... 31
2. The Deputy of Trinity :........................................................... 31
3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :.................................................. 32
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:.............................................................. 32

5. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade : ................................................ 32
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.......................................................... 33
7. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:.......................................................... 33
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen :........................................................ 33
9. Deputy P.N. Troy :............................................................... 34
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 34

11. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade........................................ 35
12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 35

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................ 36

5. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement, Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee: ........................................................................ 36

5.1 The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 36 The Connétable of St. Clement :...................................................... 37 PUBLIC BUSINESS ...................................................................... 37

1. Political activities by States employees (P.17/2006).............................. 37 6.1.1Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................... 37 6.1.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 38 6.1.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 38 6.1.4 Deputy G.P. Southern : .......................................................... 38 6.1.5Senator M.E. Vibert :............................................................ 38 6.1.6The Deputy of St. Ouen :........................................................ 39 6.1.7Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 39 6.1.8The Connétable of St. Brelade : ................................................. 39 6.1.9Senator F.H. Walker :............................................................ 39 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 40

2. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Vending Machines) (Jersey) Regulations200- (P.21/2006)........................................................................ 41

6.2.1Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 41 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 41 6.2.2The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 41 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 41 6.2.3Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 41

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

3. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Public Transport) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.22/2006).................................................................. 42

6.3.1Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 42 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 42 6.3.2Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 42 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 42 6.3.3Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 42 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 42

4. DraftRestrictionon Smoking (SalesofCigarettestoChildren)(AmendmentNo.2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.23/2006)............................................ 42

6.4.1Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 43 6.4.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 43 6.4.3The Deputy of St. Ouen :........................................................ 43 6.4.4 Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:................................................... 43 6.4.5The Deputy of St. Martin :........................................................ 44 6.4.6 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:........................................................ 44 6.4.7 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :.................................................. 44 6.4.8Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 44 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 45 6.4.9Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 45 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 45 6.4.10 Senator S. Syvret:.......................................................... 45 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 45

5. Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 2006 (Appointed Day Act) 200- (P.28/2006).............................................................. 45

6.5.1Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 46 6.5.2 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 46 6.5.3The Deputy of St. John :......................................................... 46 6.5.4Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 46 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 46

6. Draft  Housing  (General  Provisions) (Amendment  No.  24) (Jersey)  Regulations

200- (P.25/2006).................................................................. 47 6.6.1Senator T.J. Le Main:........................................................... 47 6.6.2Senator P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 48 The Deputy of St. Martin :............................................................. 48 6.6.3 Deputy G.C.L Baudains:........................................................ 48

6.6.4 Deputy J.B. Fox:................................................................ 49 6.6.5The Deputy of St. Ouen :........................................................ 49 6.6.6 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :................................................ 50 6.6.7 Deputy J.A. Martin:.............................................................. 50 6.6.8Senator P.F. Routier:............................................................ 51 6.6.9Senator P.C.F. Ozouf :.......................................................... 51

10. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:...................................................... 51
11. Senator T.J. Le Main:....................................................... 51 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 52 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 53

7. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 1) (Home Affairs to Transport and

Technical Services) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.26/2006)...................... 53 6.7.1Senator F.H. Walker :............................................................ 54 6.7.2 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :............................................ 54 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 54 6.7.3Senator F.H. Walker :............................................................ 54 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 54 6.7.4Senator F.H. Walker :............................................................ 54

The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 54

8. Draft Amendment (No. 4) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey

(P.27/2006)........................................................................ 55 6.8.1 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement :.......................................... 55 6.8.2Senator M.E. Vibert :............................................................ 55 6.8.3 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:...................................... 55 6.8.4Senator S. Syvret: .............................................................. 56 6.8.5 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:........................................................ 56 6.8.6 Connétable D.F. Gray:.......................................................... 57 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 57

9. Draft Trusts (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.29/2006).................. 58 6.9.1Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................... 58 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 60 6.9.2Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................... 60 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 60 6.9.3Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................... 60

6.9.4 Deputy P.N. Troy :............................................................... 61 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :................................................................ 61 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 61 6.9.5Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................... 61 6.9.6 Deputy P.N. Troy :............................................................... 62

6.9.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:........................................................ 63 6.9.8Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................... 63 6.9.9 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :................................................. 64

10. Miss S.C. Nicolle, QC, H.M. Solicitor General:.............................. 64 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 64
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :...................................................... 64 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 65

12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :...................................................... 65
13. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .................................................... 66
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :...................................................... 66 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 66

10. Attendance Allowance Board: appointment (P.44/2006).......................... 66

6.10.1 Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................... 66 The Deputy Bailiff :.................................................................... 66 ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.................. 66

1. The Deputy Bailiff :................................................................ 66
2. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement : ............................................ 67

ADJOURNMENT.......................................................................... 67

8.1 The Deputy Bailiff :................................................................. 67

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. The Chief Minister tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier regarding data set comparisons with the U.K. for RPI/cost of living in respect of low income pensioner households

Question

Would the Minister provide the data set collected for RPI for cost of living comparisons for a low income pensioner household in Jersey compared with the U.K.?

Answer

The States of Jersey Statistics Unit collects data on a quarterly basis for the compilation of the Jersey Retail Price s Index (RPI). In order to ensure the robustness and impartiality of this index, following international best practice the Statistics Unit does not release the price data collected. However, the Unit does publish a comparison of price indices between Jersey and the U.K. on an annual basis.

Of more relevance to the question, the Statistics Unit conducted the Jersey Household Expenditure Survey over the 12-month period to October 2005. Following the outstanding response and participation of the Jersey public to this survey, the Unit is currently analysing the wealth of information collected.

This survey will provide detailed information about the spending patterns and the impact of price changes for all categories of household in Jersey, including pensioners. Comparisons with the U.K. will be possible for both the level of expenditure and the percentage of household income spent, for example, on food and housing. This information will be extremely useful in the development of evidence-based social policy, including policies designed to meet the needs of pensioners in the Island.

2. The Minister for Home Affairs tabled an answer to a question asked by the Deputy of St. Ouen regarding the cost of Prison Officer overtime and other expenditure budgets for Home Affairs.

Question

Would the Minister –

1. inform Members of the cost of Prison Officer overtime for each of the financial years 2001 to 2005 and explain what efforts, if any, have been made to reduce this cost over that period?
2. provide financial statements ofall budgets under her control for the period 2000 to 2006 in the same format astheone provided for H.M. Prison, La Moye inanswerto written questions on 28th March 2006?

Answer

1. The cost of Prison Officer overtime for each of the financial years 2001 to 2005 was as follows:

2001 £466,241 2002 £397,329 2003 £604,795 2004 £883,235 2005 £690,495

The levels of overtime increased in 2003 and 2004 from the levels in 2001. The main reasons for the increase in levels of overtime were the significant increase in the number of prisoners held in the prison which led to a need to increase the level of supervision for those prisoners. The prison also experienced high levels of sickness among prison officers. In the summer of 2004 there was also a one-off period of a prisoner held at St. Saviour's hospital which necessitated 2 officers for 24-hour cover for a period exceeding 4 months at a cost of approximately £43,000 per month (not all overtime).

The reasons for the significant decrease in 2005 (over £200,000) are due to the recruitment of Prison Officers to rectify the previous shortfall and a very robust management approach to the use of overtime. The use of overtime is scrutinised by the Senior Management Team and only overtime that is essential for the operation of the prison is used. Alternative means of achieving the objective are always considered. The downward trend is continuing in 2006 but it should be recognised that unforeseen occurrences such as that in 2004 can lead to dramatic and unavoidable increases in the level of overtime.

2. [see attached sheets]

3. The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture tabled an answer to a question asked by Senator J.L. Perchard regarding non-teaching staff numbers.

Question

Would the Minister inform Members whether there has been any increase in the number of administrative or non-teaching staff employed by the department compared with the number employed 25 years ago and, if so, explain the reasons for this and whether there are any correlations with pupil numbers over this 25 year period?

Answer

Information on the number of staff employed 25 years ago is not readily available and given the changes in the structure and responsibilities of the Department over the 25 year period any comparisons would prove meaningless. Changes that have occurred include:

the transfer of School Sports Development and Sports facilities to the newly formed Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee and their subsequent transfer back following the merger of the former Education and Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committees;

the transfer of the responsibility for the Jersey Heritage Trust and the Jersey Arts Trust from the Finance and Economics Committee;

the transfer of the Children's Service to the Health and Social Services Committee;

the transfer of services relating to the Children's Executive to the Health and Social Services Department;

the transfer of Corporate Support Services to the Treasury and Resources and Chief Minister's Departments as part of the States Change Programme;

the delivery of a varied capital programme;

changes in corporate reporting requirements;

changes in statutory requirements including recent employment legislation.

The structure of the Department' has been reviewed as required to reflect the changes above as well as changes in the Jersey Curriculum and accepted working practices. In order to properly allocate and control staffing within the Service as a whole, in May 1998 a formula was agreed in principle with the then Establishment Committee as follows:

the allocation of manpower for schools in the Education Service would be calculated annually by means of a formula based on pupil numbers;

that the Education Committee would be responsible for managing its manpower within the overall figure, having the flexibility to change the balance of employment between pay groups; and

that manpower returns would show actual numbers of staff employed in permanent and contract posts, by pay groups.

All subsequent annual manpower requirements of the former Education and Education, Sport and Culture Committees have been based on that formula and agreed by the former Establishment, Human Resources and Finance and Economics Committees.

4. TheMinisterforEducation,SportandCulturetabledananswerto a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding the provision of a nursery unit at St. Peter's Primary School.

Question

Would the Minister inform Members –

of the date when the decision was taken to build a nursery unit as part of the rebuilding of St Peter's Primary School?,

supply the capital and revenue costs for the nursery unit?

whether discussions were held with the Parish over the feasibility of using existing premises in the area to avoid the expense of new build?

whether he took into account the impact of the new free States nursery on private sector nurseries in the West of the Island?

Answer

The decision to build a nursery class as part of St. Peter's Primary School was taken by the former Education Committee in 1999 when it made an unsuccessful bid for its inclusion in the States Capital Programme. A further bid was agreed by the Committee in December 2002 and, early in 2003 this scheme was included in the States Capital programme.

In October 2005, the Committee agreed a feasibility study for the scheme and in February 2006 the Minister approved the submission to a detailed planning application.

The cost of the nursery class will be £225,000. The annual revenue cost will be £90,000.

Discussions have not taken place with the Parish over the feasibility of using existing premises in the area because the intention is to provide a nursery class for educational reasons; to prepare 3 and 4 year olds for starting school. The policy to continue building nursery classes to provide young children with an educational experience was approved by the States in 1996. These classes offer a term-time only experience during school hours. It is anticipated that many working parents will continue to need the year-round, all-day child care provision offered by the private sector.

5. The Minister for Transport and Technical Services tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding private non-residential parking spaces in St. Helier .

Question

Would the Minister inform Members –

1. whether he is investigating, as part of his ongoing review of transport strategy, the impact that thenumberofPNR(Private Non-Residential) parking spaces within theRingRoadhas on the community in terms of adding to congestion and reducing the incentive for commuters to switch to other modes of transport?
2. whether he will undertake to discuss withthe Minister for Treasury and Resources the feasibility of a taxon PNR parking with a view to ring-fencing the proceeds to enhance public transport services?

Answer

1. I canconfirmthattheuseofPNR(Private Non-Residential) parking spaces within the Ring Road is being investigated as part of the ongoing review of the transport strategy.

Private Non-Residential spaces appear to be used predominantly by commuters and it is this sector of the motoring public that impacts on congestion early in the morning and in the evening. It is estimated that there are approximately 7,000 PNR spaces within the Ring Road which form a significant element of the 11,000 vehicle trips made into St Helier between 0800 – 0900 hours daily.

2. The Minister for Treasury and Resources is looking at a number of Environmental Tax measures as partofthe Fiscal Strategy. The use of Private Non-Residential spaces will be considered as partofan overall package designed to provide incentives to the commuter to consider the environmental and economic benefits of using alternative modes of transport. The proposals for Environmental Taxes will be completed by October 2006 and presented to the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

6. The Minister for Health and Social Services tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding health matters relating to the composting site.

Question

Would the Minister inform Members:

1. whether an assessment was carried outonthe potential impact of composting on the health of nearby residents prior to moving the compost site fromStMarytoStHelierand, if not, the reasons why?
2. the number and type of complaints received by the Environmental Health Department concerning nuisance odours both while composting was carried out at St. Mary and since the operation was moved to St. Helier , and what steps, if any, have been taken in response to those complaints?
3. whether there has been any evidence of fungal spores producedfromthe composting site which could be injurious to human health?
4. whether equipment has recently been purchased designed to monitor odour levels and, if so, whether such equipment will be used in respect of the temporary composting site at Havre des Pas?

Answer

1. The Health Protection Team were consulted by the Planning and Environment Committee on the application to move the timber and greenwaste reception and recycling centre to La Collette on the 12 November 2002. Planning Application Number P/2002/2597.

The response which was sent stated "The whole aspect of timber and green waste reception/recycling, as well as composting, on the island needs to be reviewed to ascertain whether the current systems of operation are the best practical environmental option in the light of the volume of waste derived. This department recommends a complete review of the issues surrounding these aspects. This should include a health impact assessment in (which - typographical omission error) health effects are thoroughly investigated".

As far as the Department is aware that did not take place at the time of the application to Planning although members will be aware that the work to implement the Island's Waste Strategy is ongoing. Officers of the Transport and Technical Services Department and my own Health Protection staff are currently engaged in setting up a Health Impact Assessment for the proposed composting regime and this will include key stakeholders and residents representatives.

2. Crabbé, St Mary: There are few remaining records of complaints to the Health and Social Services Department relating to issues at Crabbé but it is clear that there were continual references from 1994 onwards which are documented in letters between the Environmental Health Department and the Agricultural and Fisheries Committee particularly after the introduction of potato waste dumping at Crabbé.

We can however, confirm 4 written complaints in 1997, one written complaint in 1999 and one written complaint in 2002.

La Collette: Complaints to the Health Protection Department first occurred in August 2004 and since  that time through  to the end of March 2006 there have been a total of 21

complaints received from nine different complainants including 2 from representatives of the Parish of St Helier. One resident completed an odour nuisance diary over the period of August/September 2004.

All of the complaints relate to alleged odour from the composting site, but investigations of those complaints including visits by officers to the complainants premises, Havre des Pas area and the composting site have revealed that there have been 2 occasions when odour from the compost site have been confirmed and 4 occasions when the source has been confirmed as seaweed.

3. The former Public Services Department has undertaken monitoring around both the Crabbé site atSt Mary and the La Collette site. These investigations have involved Bio-aerosol monitoring looking for Fungi, Thermophilic acinomycetesand bacteria downwind ofthe sites and in the case ofCrabbé comparing with a control site. The results were found to be in line with those investigations into openwindrow composting undertaken on behalf of the U.K. Government by the Environment Agency, whereby levels of these materials can be found in decreasing levels fromthe site with background levels being reached within a distance of 250 metres from the site.
4. The Health Protection Team has purchased equipment to enable the monitoring of bio- aerosols which will be used for amongst other things the monitoring of emissions around La Collette composting site. There is not currently commercially available suitable equipment for the monitoring ofodoursandreliancewillcontinuetobeplacedontheolfactorysensesof officers and the evidence base of meteorological data from the Airport.

7. The Minister for Transport and Technical Services tabled an answer to a question asked by the Connétable of St. Helier regarding cycle rickshaws.

Question

The Minister has previously expressed his support for the concept of cycle rickshaws. Would the Minister explain what, if any, progress has been made towards the introduction of this form of transport?

Answer

I'm pleased to say that 2 entrepreneurs have contacted me expressing interest in developing and operating rickshaw services. Both are in ongoing discussions with the Department.

There are several sorts of rickshaws available. Some can carry goods and others carry passengers. Some are motorised, others are pedal powered and others are electrically assisted pedal powered vehicles. I am confident that, where necessary, minor amendments to legislation can make these vehicles "street-legal".

To operate rickshaws as a passenger-carrying service on public roads is likely to require other changes to legislation which will require consultation with other departments and bodies.

Changes to legislation to meet the above requirements will be considered with any others resulting from the soon to be published Transport Strategy.

8. The Minister for Economic Development tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding the Service Level Agreement for the northern route ferry service.

Question

With reference to the northern route ferry service, would the Minister inform Members –

1. whether a printed timetable is required to be produced by the operator in accordance with the terms ofthe Service Level Agreement (SLA) andwhethersuch timetables have been available locally up to 6th April this year?; and,
2. whether the SLA requires fare structures to be reciprocal and, if so, will this requirement be monitored toensurethatadvertised price promotions areavailabletoJersey and U.K. residents alike?

Answer

With regard to the first part of question (a) Members may recall my written answer to question 2754 tabled on Tuesday, 28th February 2006 in which I state:

"The service level agreement for the northern route requires the publication of brochures containing details of the daily schedules, and information on the fares and charges payable. This information is published on the company's website and the operator has confirmed that a printed brochure is available for the northern route as required by the service level agreement."

I had in mind when I made this statement that the Company had complied with the requirement in the service level agreement by publishing this information on its website and in printed form. However, I would like to clarify the point in that the Service Level Agreement requirement could be construed as being met merely through publication of a brochure through a website.

That said, Condor advised my Department in February that a printed brochure for the northern route was available from the local office.

I would refer Members to my answers to the oral and supplementary questions in the States on 28 February in response to a question from Deputy Lewis .

9. The Minister for Home Affairs tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding e-mail exchanges between the Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and the Jersey Evening Post relating to matters in connection with firearms.

Question 1

With reference to the recent e-mail exchanges between the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) and States of Jersey Police regarding firearms, would the Minister answer the following questions relating to the points made by the Deputy Chief Officer, as they appear in those e-mails –

1. ".every week there are hundreds of movements of firearms and ammunition between these ranges mostly in private vehicles". Whydidthe Deputy Chief Officer offer this information when it had not been asked for, and what purpose did its dissemination serve?
2. "but it includes high velocity and high calibre weapons which are illegal in the U.K.". Will the Minister identify those weapons?"
3. "one weapon for which certificates have been granted can kill at a range of several miles". Would the Minister inform members whether any other licensed full-boreriflesarecapableof killing at several miles'?
4. "there are no suitable ranges in Jersey". Assuming this refers tothe single shot .5cal rifle, would the Minister confirm whether an assessment ofthe suitability of the rifle rangeat Crabbé, St. Mary has been carried out and, if so, whether it was found to be favourable?
5. "some of the weapons are so powerful that the police would need military support to challenge any criminal use." Would the Minister state how many weapons fall into this category and, given their weight and cumbersomeness, explain why they should present more of a problem thanany other full-bore rifle?
6. "four parishes are not complying with the Law andare withholding all documentation on firearms certification". Would the Minister confirm that this relates to all firearms documentation?
7. ".50 single shot armour piercing Browning machine gun." Would the Minister explain what is meant by a single-shot machine gun and whether it is the type of ammunition that can be used in such a firearm which is armour piercing rather than the gun?

Answer

1. I have been unable to speak with the Deputy Chief Officer, who has been on leave, in respect of this particular question soam unable to answer on his behalf. I can say, however, that the initial media request was introduced as a general request for information on the issue of gun control in the Island in light ofthetenthanniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, with supplementary questions on specific issues. The reply would appeartobe provision of general information surrounding the issue of gun control, together with replies to the specific questions asked. In any event the information given is true and of clear relevance tothepublicdebateon this important issue. The Deputy ChiefOfficerhasbeenopen in his dialogue with the press and I draw attention to paragraph 1.2.2(a) of the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information - a Code approved by this Assembly - which states that there shall be a presumption ofopennessinthe application ofthisCode. Itdoesappear to me that the Deputy Chief Officer has responded fully within the "presumption of openness" principle.
2. Full bore handguns are illegal in the UK (with the exception of muzzle loading weapons and vets' destruction hand guns) but not in Jersey. Therearenumerous licences in existence in

the Island for such guns, including .357 and .44 Magnums, as well as self-loading rifles and shotguns - all of which are illegal in the U.K. There has also been an authority granted for a .50 calibre handgun.

3. I am told that any full bore rifle has an extreme rangeof approximately 3 miles, although the ability to deliver an accurate and lethal shot at such range varies significantly between rifles. The .50 calibre rifle is, however, far more accurate over such distances than other full bore rifles.
4. This issue was initially referred to the Education, Sportand Culture Department onthe25thJanuary2006,and I would refer further questions on this specific issuetotheMinister with responsibility for that Department.
5. Any full bore weapon would causethe police problems if the userknew how to handle the weapon, was a good shot, and had secured an advantageous tactical position. The.50 calibre weapon would cause significant further problems due to its extensive effective range and because the police donot have any ballistic protection against such a powerful round, the weaponbeingknownas a material destruction weapon. It is the preferred sniper rifle of the military Special Forces because of such properties. Although it is a large rifle, it is by no means cumbersome, and weighing between 19-26 lbs, it can be easily carried by one man. When a similar weapon was used by the IRA it was reportedly responsible for several deaths of military and police personnel before it was captured in a Special Forces operation. If the Deputy does not think that the presence of such weapons in Jersey is a matter of public concern then I suggest that he is in the minority.
6. Until recently, 6 Parishes retained all the paperwork relating to the grant, renewal or variation of licences, including old certificates and correspondence between Parish and applicant on firearms issues. The documentation since2000inrespectofalltheseParishes has now been forwarded to the Central Firearms Index. The historic (pre-2000) documentation from a couple ofthese Parishes is still awaited, but is in hand.
7. The actual weapon referred to is a "single shot" bolt-action Steyr rifle, capable of firing armour piercing .50 calibre Browning Machine Gun ammunition. It is the ammunition itself which is armour-piercing but its destructive potential is vastly enhanced by the delivery capacity of the rifle referred to.

Question 2

In light of the exchange between the States of Jersey Police Deputy Chief Officer and the JEP, what steps, if any, has the Minister taken to ensure that in future, she is involved in any press communications relating to potentially controversial issues and, if so, what procedures are there to validate information given? In addition, what steps has the Minister taken to verify the accuracy of the information provided to the JEP by the Deputy Chief Officer?

Answer

Again I would like to refer the Assembly to the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information. The Deputy Chief Officer, as a senior representative of an "authority" under the Code, is obliged to supply information unless an exemption applies. There is no provision within the Code for an authority to consult with the relevant Minister before releasing information. Indeed, if I were routinely involved in such consultation I would be potentially compromising my position in any subsequent appeals procedure and I draw attention here to Part IV of the Code which clearly envisages a role for Ministers, which is separate from the requirement for officers to respond to a valid request.

It would also not be practicable for me to be involved in all communications between the JEP and the Force relating to potentially controversial issues – the police deal predominantly with controversial issues - that is the nature of their work. I do recognise, however, that prior consultation in advance of those matters which are known to be of interest to Members and which are relevant to Ministerial policy would be advantageous and given the developing political interest in this issue I have agreed arrangements which will alert Ministers to relevant freedom of information requests, without compromise to their role as an Appeal Authority under Part IV of the Code.

While it is accepted as important that where possible we clarify matters of detail this should not be allowed to distract political attention from the main issue which is whether the Island's firearms laws are operating in a way which strikes an appropriate balance between legitimate sporting interests and public safety. On the evidence so far available I have some concerns that procedures and compliance are in need of improvement. I am currently working with interested parties, firstly to improve procedures and compliance with the current law and secondly, to determine whether it is appropriate for me to recommend to the States some legislative changes in order to address existing concerns.

10. The Minister for Health and Social Services tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding the Nurses Job Families Agreement.

Question

Would the Minister inform Members:

1. of the costs to date of implementing the Nurses Job Families Agreement?
2. what has been achieved through this Agreement?
3. what remains to be achieved through this Agreement, at what cost and within what deadlines?

Answer

1. The costs to date of implementing the Nurses and Midwives New Grade/salary structure known as the Job Families Agreement are approximately £840,000.

This sum relates to a significant part of the costs attached to the assimilation of staff from the old grade/salary structure to the new grade/salary structure.

It should be noted that additional costs will be incurred in the following 2 main areas:-

Appointments to the new grades of grade 2 (equivalent to senior Nurse Auxiliary) and grade 5 (equivalent to Senior Staff Nurse);

Progression through the increments. Progression through the increments will be determined on an individual basis subject to meeting the entry criteria of their grade and meeting agreed outcome based performance criteria.

2. The Job Families Agreement had been developed by Health and Social Services and employee representatives ofthe Nurses and Midwives Joint Executive to achieve a number of objectives. The main objectives are given below:-

Resolution of long term disagreements over pay, terms and conditions of service attached to the whole job of a nurse in comparison to jobs in other public sector pay groups;

To address the concerns of nurses and in particular nursing auxiliaries, that they were underpaid for the job they were required to perform.

The development of a coherent career structure for all nurses within the new grade/salary structure.

The addition of additional grades of nurse (e.g. grade 2 (equivalent to senior Nurse Auxiliary) and grade 5 (equivalent to Senior Staff Nurse)) to meet the needs of the organisation and views of nursing employee representatives;

To introduce clear "entry criteria" for each grade and resolve long-standing concerns by nursing employee representatives attached to the entry criteria used to differentiate between a Sister II and Sister I post in the old grade/salary structure;

The need to improve performance and reward, in a tangible way, high performing nurses, within a fair and equitable grade/salary structure and performance for all nurses.

The main objectives, intent and quality of the Job Families Agreement was recognised by the Independent Arbitration Panel led by a Chairman from the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service (ACAS) in their report dated 10th December 2003) as part of the settlement of the 2002/2003 Nurses and Midwives' pay dispute.

At present the Department in collaboration with employee representatives of the Nurses and Midwives' Joint Executive and Family Nursing and Home Care Service is in the process of implementing the Job Family Agreement and creating the managerial and staff side capacity to manage the appeals process.

Following this, a training programme for all nurses (and nurse assessors) will be set up to enable them to understand and prepare for the subsequent performance assessment for pay purposes process.

Until such time as the Job Family Agreement is implemented it is too soon to determine any achievements that might result from its introduction. Notwithstanding this, once the Job Family Agreement is fully implemented the Health and Social Services Department is confident of meeting the original objectives mentioned above.

I think it is also important to state that recent operational issues should not detract from the importance and appropriateness of the Job Families Agreement or the endeavour of both the Health and Social Services Department and employee representatives of the Nurses and Midwives Joint Executive to progress this important project through to completion.

3. The following main provisions of the Job Families Agreement still need to be implemented:-

Full assimilation and appointment to all grades within the new grade/salary structure;

Complete the appeals process against assimilation from the old grade/salary structure to the new grade/salary structure;

Develop and implement a training programme for all nurses (and nurse assessors) to enable them to understand and prepare for the subsequent performance assessment for pay purposes process;

Implement the formal assessment for pay purposes process;

Complete the individual appeals process against assessment for pay purposes process.

Although, the planning process for the above is under way, it is only possible to provide approximate indicative timescales at this stage. For example full assimilation and appointment to the grade/salary structure followed by the appeals process should be completed within 6 months and assessment for pay purposes within another 6 months.

The placement of a nurse within the increment structure is dependant on their individual performance against a transparent and comprehensive set of agreed performance criteria. As a consequence, until that process has been completed it is impossible to predict with any accuracy likely outcomes and therefore additional costs to those already incurred with this project.

Notwithstanding this fact, it is important to state that costs attached to incremental progression in accordance with the performance criteria and the rest of the Job families Agreement will be met by the Health and Social Services Department.

11. The Minister for Economic Development tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding Airport bollards.

Question

Would the Minister inform Members whether he intends to reduce the number of bollards at the Airport?

Answer

As States Members will be aware, a new Airport Director has recently been appointed. The new Director is undertaking a full review of all the airport operations. This review, expected to be completed by 30th June 2006, includes roadways in the airport precinct, ground transport facilities (including taxis), car-parking and amenities. It would therefore be premature to consider removing any bollards until the review has been completed. It is important that the elements of the review are allowed to be considered in the context of the total operational environment.

The bollards in question were installed to address safety concerns associated with drivers of vehicles performing U-turns in front of the terminal and so endangering pedestrians and other vehicles. The bollards mitigated these accident risks but it is acknowledged that they have been the subject of some criticism.

Further to the operational review, consideration must be given to costs associated with the removal of any bollards and their subsequent re-use. States Members would rightly be concerned with any unnecessary wastage associated with the removal of some or all of the bollards if indeed this action is deemed necessary.

12. The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding training and development needs of the finance and allied industries.

Question

Would the Minister inform Members how he is apprised of the training and development needs of the finance and allied industries, and what mechanisms exist, if any, to ensure that, where appropriate, action is taken in respect of current and emerging needs?

Answer

On Tuesday 28th February 2006, I responded to an oral question from Deputy Le Hérissier when he asked "Would the Minister outline what formal channels, if any, exist at a policy level so that the Minister and his department are apprised of the education and training needs of the finance industry?

My reply was as follows:

"The governing body of Highlands College, which is the main provider of further education and training in the Island, provides the formal link between the finance industry, the Minister and the Department for Education, Sport and Culture. One of the functions of the governing body is to advise on policy development and the nature of provision made by the College. A number of leading members of the finance industry are governors. The Chairman is the senior partner of Moore Stephens and a board member of Jersey Finance Limited. The Vice-Chairman is Deputy Director-General of the Financial Services Commission. Other members of the governing body who hold key positions in the finance industry are the Chief Executive of Jersey Finance Limited, the Manager of Banking Regulation with the Financial Services Commission, the Managing Director of UBS Jersey and former Chairman of the Jersey Bankers Association and the Managing Director of Citibank who is a member of the Jersey Bankers Association. In addition, the governing body has a sub-committee, the Jersey Business School Executive, chaired by the Chairman of Governors, which considers finance industry training needs and reports to the main board. The Department for Education, Sport and Culture and Highlands College were also members of the steering group of the Economic Development Department's research project into training needs of the finance industry carried out in 2004 and we look forward to working closely with the Education and Training Committee to be established by Jersey Finance Limited, which will provide a further forum for discussing future training policy and training requirements. The finance industry has also been represented on policy reviews undertaken by Education, Sport and Culture. Thus, for example, the Chief Executive of Jersey Finance Limited was a member of the working group which reviewed the 14-19 curriculum and was also one of the members of the finance industry community consulted during the preparation of the Higher Education Review."

13. The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee tabled an answer to a question asked by Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour regarding proposals for the composition of the States.

Question

Would the Chairman inform Members -

1. Whether the proposals the Committee is bringing forward onthe Composition ofthe States will address the issue of the size of the membership of the States?
2. What preliminary conclusions, if any, have been reached in this regard to date? Answer

The Privileges and Procedures Committee has begun its consideration of the composition and election of the States. The Committee is initially concentrating on the issue of low voter turn out at elections and is investigating the possibility of engaging a professional company to conduct a questionnaire to establish the reasons behind the problem and to determine the public's view on such matters as the size and composition of the States and whether it was felt that having a general election day would encourage more people to vote. The Committee is also considering the possibility of fixing a limit on election campaign expenditure and will shortly be conducting a questionnaire to establish how much members spent on their last campaign.

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

May I just very briefly make a comment that might be to the benefit of business in this House. It does seem to me that some of the answers given to the written questions are neither full, nor complete, and it merely means that Members have to keep coming back again with oral questions, or further written questions. If the Ministers could in fact give more complete and correct answers, in my view, it would save a lot of the time of this House.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the refitting of historic buildings:

Would the Minister inform Members, how many historic buildings are being refitted by the Jersey Heritage Trust for letting purposes and whether any have proved unsuitable for this purpose?

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

A total of 10 historic buildings will have been refitted by the Jersey Heritage Trust for letting purposes when phase 2 of the project is completed at the end of 2007. I understand from the Heritage Trust that these were selected from a total of 30 properties listed as potentially suitable. All are considered suitable for letting, although with regard to the more isolated offshore towers special safety arrangements will need to be put in place.

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

One of those places I understand is Fort Leicester down at Bouley Bay and Islanders have donated benches which have been placed around there, thus enabling people to enjoy, at their leisure, this historic fort and obviously its beautiful coastal scenery. Will the Minister inform the House if the public will still have access to this area during the summer months?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

I will have to discover the detail of the benches around the fort. I was not informed that was going to be a question and I am afraid I have not got that detail at the moment. Of course the Jersey Heritage Trust, if Members would care to contact them direct, will have that detail but if they prefer me to find out I am quite willing to do so, Sir.

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I was going to ask something in similar vein. All the properties which are owned by the public will now be let out, from what I can understand of the motive behind. It is obviously good that these properties are utilised and we are getting some revenue. However, the downside is they are then lost to the public. I would ask the Minister, will this apply to all those buildings which are going to be refitted? Will that mean that the public will no longer have access to them?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

The public did not have access to a number of the buildings anyway because they were closed off. In fact they were in poor need of repair. The whole purpose of this initiative, as the Deputy referred to, is to bring them back into public use, albeit for letting; and also to ensure that their fabric is maintained. Again, if the Deputy can contact the Jersey Heritage Trust, they have the details on this. In fact, they are working very closely with Economic Development on this and Transport and Technical Services. My Ministry is responsible for the Jersey Heritage Trust but in this case the Jersey Heritage Trust is working with other Ministries on this project.

3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Could the Minister assure me that a cost benefit analysis has been carried out on this exercise? I am particularly concerned about some of the further forts, such as the L'Etacquerel Fort - the one at Bouley Bay. I cannot imagine they are on main drains. Presumably, they have to be in order for them to be let out. The expense of that, presumably, has been accounted for. Could the Minister also suggest whether any extra expenditure will arise from letting out places like Seymour Tower and La Rocco Tower and will rubbish disposal facilities have to be provided? What is the situation?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

Yes, Sir, there have been a cost benefit analysis and all those issues have been taken into account.

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Would the Minister agree that this is in fact a fantastic project that ensures that all the revenue that is going to be coming from these properties goes back into the restoration of them? Is he also aware that, as far as Fort Leicester is concerned - the first property - it is completely booked out for the rest of the year and more than that we are looking forward to a Times journalist having spent the weekend over Easter. Does he agree? [Laughter]

Senator M.E. Vibert :

I thank my fellow Minister. I did say in a previous answer that Jersey Heritage Trust were working very closely with Economic Development on this issue and you have just heard how closely they are working. I confirm everything the Minister has said.

5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I wonder if the Minister can assure us he is not getting special dispensations from planning departments and other areas because it seems to me that the general public, if they wanted to bring one of these properties into letting the usage, it would take them several years and an awful lot of money?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

No, Sir, and in fact very stringent guidelines are being adhered to. Planning is to set up an Historic Fortifications Review Group. Very close context is being paid to ensure that the historic fabric of the building is not damaged and that everything is done in complete adherence to the planning laws that apply. In fact, if anything, we are facing more stringent planning guidelines than if it was done in any other way. So, I can reassure the Deputy on that point and every one of the buildings is being looked at by the Historic Fortifications Review Group set up under Planning.

2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains to the Minister for Economic Development regarding the Western Tanker Berth Gangway:

Would the Minister inform Members whether the Western Tanker Berth Gangway has malfunctioned since its installation and, if so, on how many occasions; what has been the cost of remedying any faults, and what has been the cost of supplying alternative cover while it has been unserviceable?

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

Deputy Maclean has specific responsibility as Assistant Minister for Harbours and I would like him to be able to answer the question.

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Harbours):

Thank you, Sir. The gangway concerned is a complex piece of equipment designed to automatically adjust itself to follow the rise and fall of the tide. It also incorporates a further manual adjustment. As is the case with complex mechanical systems they are prone to the odd fault. Since the new gangway was installed in 2002, there have been 10 recorded malfunctions; one of these was caused by a ship. There have been some other very minor faults but these have been rectified during the normal course of the working day. The maximum cost of repair to a fault has been £143. A further £150 has been payable for the provision of a lifeboat to be tied up beside the moored ship in order to meet Health and Safety Regulations. These state that there must be an alternative form of pedestrian access or egress. Since the new gangway was installed there has been no loss of service due to malfunction and 238 tankers have successfully used the facility.

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Thank you, Sir. I wonder if I could just clarify a couple of matters with the Assistant Minister. I find the figure of - I did a quick calculation - £15 a time for provision of a lifeboat extremely reasonable. I do not know if that figure is correct. He did refer to the piece of equipment - the gangway - being a complex piece of equipment. Could he advise us as to why the department does not resort to the original type of equipment, which was extremely simple and gave no trouble for many, many years until it wore out eventually, and to be replaced by something which seems to be permanently going wrong? It last went wrong just about a week or so ago, Sir.

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, the use of the lifeboat: up until January 2005 it was £150 for each time it was used. Since then a contract has been put in place, which includes a number of other facilities and services of which the lifeboat is included within that and is believed to be far more cost effective. As far as the complexity of this piece of equipment: at the time that it was selected by a previous Committee, the competitive tender process was entered into. Five or 6 contractors were involved in this tender process. Consulting engineers, the users, operational staff and the Port Engineer all had a say in this particular piece of equipment and were responsible for it being installed. I think we have to be satisfied with their professional advice on that subject.

2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Picking up on the last matter, Sir, with the professional advice and the excellence of this new piece of equipment - or so we are led to believe - could the Assistant Minister confirm that the previous piece of equipment, commissioned by the Harbour, was never used because the owners would not use it and it was dismantled as a waste of taxpayers' money? The previous first piece of equipment was, in fact, extremely reliable and could have been repaired for £2,000 but the department did not wish to follow that and instead commissioned something which has been extremely expensive and continues to malfunction.

Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:

I am led to believe that the previous piece of equipment had worn out as the Deputy rightly points out. The advice, as I said a moment ago, was from the consulting engineers and the users. I am also led to believe that the crews from the tankers that were docking did not find the mechanical process in place particularly efficient and they, themselves, were against using it. A number of individual organisations, and people, were consulted with regard to this piece of equipment and, as I said, it was decided by the previous Committee that it was the most appropriate option to take up at that particular time.

3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Chief Minister regarding the proposals that the Waterfront Enterprise Board had for the Waterfront area:

Will the Minister agree to make available to all Members the most up-to-date proposals that the Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) has for the Waterfront area?

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

The general proposals for the Waterfront are already in the public domain and States Members and the public have received a number of presentations on them in recent months. Nothing has changed except that under the new supplementary planning guidance, published by the Planning Minister last week, developers can be under no illusions, whatsoever, that if it is to be approved any scheme will have to be only of the highest quality.

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

This question is basically a follow-on from the previous time I questioned the Chief Minister on this matter. As I raised the matter then, Sir, it does seem to me there has been an awful lot of changes since the public were told exactly what was going on, on that site. Notwithstanding the presentations that have been made, would the Minister update us on the comment he made in respect of the previous answer that he would discuss with his Council of Ministers the possibility of bringing forwards a plan so that everybody knows exactly what is in WEB's mind and what we might expect to arise on the site, seeing that the residential and commercial mix is in flux.

Senator F.H. Walker :

As I have said, all such matters have been in the public domain for some considerable time. All that remains now is for the Planning Minister to ensure that any development is according to the plans, which have been unveiled on many occasions now and are of the highest quality.

2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I hate to press the point, but I do believe the Chief Minister is missing the point and that is I agree that the public have seen many plans over recent months but just recently in the paper there seems to be confusion about what is going on. Clarity is required, Sir. Would the Chief Minister carry out what he suggested he might do in the previous question time and bring forward some plans so that everybody knows exactly what it is WEB has in mind?

Senator F.H. Walker :

The Council of Ministers do not consider any purpose would be served in following that proposal at all. All plans, as submitted, will be subject to the full planning process, as always. I think the Planning Minister has made it abundantly clear how rigidly that planning process is going to be adhered to. The Deputy referred to confusion on the Waterfront. That, I would suggest, is a headline created by the Jersey Evening Post. The only possible confusion - and I do not believe "confusion" is the right word - is that developers at this stage do not yet know whether their planning applications will be approved by the Planning Minister, or not, and that is exactly as it should be under the planning guidance and under the normal planning procedures.

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

Would the Chief Minister outline to Members what criteria he and his Planning Minister intend to use to judge the quality of any proposal?

Senator F.H. Walker :

This has nothing to do with me, whatsoever. This is the Planning Minister's brief and I think he has made it very clear, under the strategic planning guidance, that he is going to be looking to employ the services of what has been called "an architectural supremo" who will be a world class architect who will judge all planning applications against acknowledged world class architecture. I do not think the Island could ask for much more than that.

4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

With respect, we seem to be going round in circles here. I think what the public would like to see is not what has happened in the past: a plan submitted to planning when it is all too late. They would rather be involved at an earlier stage. Could I remind the Minister of the previous question when I asked him: "Does the Chief Minister not believe a debate in this House over a new plan would be beneficial?" And, his reply was: "I will agree to discuss this with the Council of Ministers and, in particular, the Planning Minister". Has he done so, Sir?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, Sir, and I have already answered that question.

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

At the recent presentation on the Waterfront when I asked the question: who would appoint this supremo, i.e. expert architect to oversee this, I was told by the Planning Minister that he alone would be the one to choose. Does the Chief Minister really think such a newly elected Planning Minister is the right person to appoint such a very important supremo, so called?

Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, Sir.

4. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the Draft Restriction on Smoking (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-:

On 20th July 2005, the States adopted P.111/2005 and P.126/2005 relating to the restriction of smoking, both of which stated that enforcement would be carried out from within existing health protection resources. Why is the appointment of the Tobacco Control Officer and the need for £50,000 for new funding for out-of-hours support for existing staff, as stated in P.39/2006, now required for enforcement purposes?

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

The original report and proposition, P.111/2005 and P.126/2005, related to an interim measure in which smoking, within public eating places, would be prohibited; the enforcement of this measure would have been undertaken by Environmental Health Officers who routinely visit food premises as part of their existing duties. In February 2006, I made a statement to the House concerning my intention to move directly to banning smoking in all enclosed work places, thus avoiding the interim measure. So, to make this clear, this legislation extends to all enclosed work places and not merely public eating places. The recent report, and proposition P.39/2006, identifies the need of funding to enforce this much wider legislation, which will involve visits to a significant number of premises not currently within the remit of the department. This new legislation is very important in protecting and improving the health of Islanders. Drawing upon the experience of other jurisdictions, our legislation will be enforced by authorised officers within the Health Protection Department who will need to visit premises - particularly licensed premises - outside normal office hours. Thus, in order to appropriately and effectively enforce new legislation, while fulfilling local employment law and health and safety requirements, a new post of Tobacco Control Officer will be considered for the Health Protection Department. A business case for this post and monies will be considered alongside other health priorities and, only if successful, will be funded from existing monies within the Health and Social Services Department's budget.

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Can I ask the Minister, does he really think that one officer is going to make a huge amount of difference to this piece of legislation? One officer is really only a token gesture and that £50,000 could be better used within the Health Service.

Senator S. Syvret:

No, I do not think it is a token gesture. I agree with some of the views expressed by the Deputy that in all probability, and hopefully, the Law will end up being largely self-enforcing and self- policing. It may be necessary to ensure that the right approach is adopted when the Law is in fact introduced: that enforcement is seen to be done. We would not want a situation to arise, as that which prevails in France, where, in theory, smoking in such premises is banned and yet it is widely and largely ignored the length and breadth of the country. So, it is important that we do, at least initially, make sure that the right approach to smoking is prevailing.

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

The Minister is somewhat evangelical about anti-smoking legislation and no smoking. From my experience, all other non-smokers are equally evangelical. Does the Minister really think that this policy will need policing when there are several thousand unofficial policemen who will enforce it?

Senator S. Syvret:

As I have already indicated, perhaps the point made by the Deputy is correct. Hopefully, the legislation will be self-policing and self-enforcing. The point is, I have to stress, that if we are to proceed with the creation of this post, it will be met from within existing resources and it will only come into existence if it meets and competes with the other demands upon the Health and Social Services budget. It will be a component of the internal decision conferencing, as it were, to decide where we allocate Health and Social Services resources. If there are other greater priorities then the monies will not be put towards this post.

3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Sir, the Minister has just said that it will be met from existing Health and Social Services resources and yet in the P.39 he talks about new funding.

Senator S. Syvret:

If that is the impression given by the wording in that proposition, then I apologise because it has obviously caused some confusion. If the monies are to be allocated to this post it will be from within existing resources of the Health and Social Services Department, not additional resources from central funding.

4. The Deputy of St. Martin :

If it would help the Minister I have P.39 in front of me and it says: "There are financial manpower implications that arise from this implication arising from this legislation. Enforcement will require the appointment of a Tobacco Control Officer to be located within the Health Protection Department, plus out-of-hours support for existing staff. This will require new funding of circa £50,000". Will the Minister agree then that this will no longer be a fact and this statement from within P.39 will be withdrawn?

Senator S. Syvret:

As I have already indicated, if that is the impression that is given by that wording then I apologise for it. It perhaps was not clear. It was simply put in to make it clear to Members that if in fact this post was to be created it would need funding but that funding will, as I have said on several occasions now, come from within existing resources of the Health and Social Services Department.

5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

I am slightly confused by the argument. If this £50,000 is going to come from existing resources, presumably the Department has not been wasting £50,000 every year of taxpayers' money. So, obviously, some other service is going to have to be cut in order to provide that. Could the Minister tell us which service that will be?

Senator S. Syvret:

The demands upon the Health and Social Services budget are, indeed, large. It is pretty much a continuous process that the standing of the department is re-evaluated and re-prioritised. Just off the top of my head, a recent example would be the decision to make the drug, Herceptin, available to patients in Jersey. This is a new additional expenditure, which we are having to reprioritise within our existing budget. Thus it is that the budget of Health and Social Services is, in certain important respects, constantly being re-evaluated and reapportioned to different areas. As I have said, this particular post will be competing with other demands for Health and Social Services and if it does not receive a high enough priority it will not get the funding.

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

Would the Minister, on the back of that last sentence, not agree with me that as the Island's number one killer - 200 a year - morbidity from smoking is a significant impact upon our resources and, therefore, it is only correct to allocate a small resource of £50,000 a year to help prevent what is a catastrophic cost to this Island on an ongoing annual basis?

Senator S. Syvret:

The Deputy is certainly correct. In view of the professional clinical people who advised me in these matters, smoking is public enemy number one. It creates a significant number of premature deaths in Jersey but, in addition to death, it creates a very substantial amount of chronic and serious health problems for individuals which, as the Deputy alluded to, do have a significant on-cost to the rest of the Island, that is why it is, indeed, money well spent to invest in this kind of programme - smoking cessation - because it is prevention rather than cure.

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

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, that concludes questions on notice, so we come now to questions to Ministers without notice and the first period involves questions to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. Does any Member have any question?

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

In relation to the recently lodged P.45 proposition Solid Waste Strategy: locations for proposed facilities', does the Minister intend to supply Members in good time before the debate with the findings of the suggested environmental impact assessment?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): Yes, Sir.

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

In relation to the composting site, in the written answers that have been provided today to the Constable of St. Helier, I commend the Minister's answers. They are quite comprehensive. They do allude to the fact that a health impact assessment was asked to be done by the Health Protection Team. It has been brought out in the answers that this was not done before the composting site was moved, although the Minister's Department is intending to do this in the next few months. Would the Minister now accept that, while it is acknowledged in the report that the U.K. Environmental Agency requires a background level at 250 metres for residences, DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) also requires that equivalent background level for workplaces. Why has this not been taken into account?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

As far as I am aware, regulations that fall under DEFRA do not apply in this Island as we are a separate jurisdiction. However, I can assure the Deputy that we closely monitor the health of our employees and none of those who work at the composting facility have shown any ill effects whatsoever.

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

I was referring to other people that work in the area that are involved in working down at that industrial site. There are many different work places that are not under States control. I wonder if the Minister would not undertake to examine whether, or not, it is wise and prudent to monitor the areas to the same levels as the U.K. Standards for Residences and Workplaces?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Where there is no perceived problem - and I have to remind the Deputy it is Transport and Technical Services workers and employees who effectively work in the front line here, within the composting windrows themselves - I find it slightly alarmist to want to insist that where no problem exists we should somehow, by force of monitoring actions, imply that there is a problem. There is no health problem. The Department of Transport and Technical Services is in constant and ongoing discussions with our colleagues in Health. We await any serious input from local general practitioners; evidence from any health organisation that a problem exists. To all intents and purposes there is no problem relating to health. I think it would be alarmist to start monitoring a situation on the basis that there is a problem when there is not one.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I will give way to Deputy Le Claire if, indeed, it is a supplementary.

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

It is a supplementary. On visiting with businesses down there only this week I have been informed that their windows are closed and remain closed on the occasions that the composting affects their workers. Those businesses were surprised to find out that the U.K. do monitor within 250 metres. I would argue it is not alarmist to monitor. That is the question I have been putting to the Minister. Would the Minister not agree to undertake to monitor workplaces, the same as he is monitoring residences? If he suggests it is alarmist to monitor businesses, is it not also alarmist to acknowledge that you are monitoring residences?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I am not aware that my Department is monitoring residences, as the Deputy puts it. But, I have to say that I think an enormous amount of alarm has been created for the bulk of the residents at Havre des Pas by a very small group of people who, quite frankly, are making a mountain out of a molehill. There is an odour. The Department accepts there is a smell. The Department intends to address the problem of the smell by enclosing the composting facility. It is not a smell that causes illness. That is simply the situation. At this stage, until I am presented with serious and confirmed evidence from our colleagues who work in health protection, I have no intention of installing monitoring facilities.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I do not think the Minister fully answered Deputy Duhamel's question. Mine leads on from who is carrying out the full independent environmental impact assessment and traffic flows? When will the report be produced to this House? How much will it cost? Will it be fully costed to include the example given by the Chief Officer of Transport and Technical Services, that if all the waste goes down to La Collette we will probably have to compulsorily purchase the whole of the Norman's site and along by the harbour there? Will this be included in time for the debate for the 2 sites in the Waste Strategy?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I am not currently aware of any plans, certainly, on behalf of Transport and Technical Services to compulsorily  purchase  the whole of the Norman's  site.   I wait,  with  interest, to  hear where information on those plans may emanate from but it certainly does not come within my remit as things currently stand. I regret to inform the Deputy , that I am not in a position to give her a detailed account of who precisely the personnel will be conducting the environmental impact assessment. I can assure her they will be relevant experts in the relevant fields and, in due course, I shall attempt to supply the Deputy with a breakdown, should she wish to cast her eye over the talents available when we know who the assessment team will be. Consequently, I am also not currently in a position to give her a detailed breakdown on how much it will cost but no expense will be spared in order to ensure that a proper full evaluation is carried out. I can assure Members on that score.

4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

In the light of the previous answers to the last question, can the Minister assure this House that any environment impact assessment undertaken in relation to the location of waste facilities with respect to La Collette, or other areas, will indeed be a full strategic environment assessment in its wider sense?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

If I knew what the Deputy was talking about I might be able to give a more helpful response. I do not exactly know what a full strategic environmental assessment may be but I am sure that if there are implications that they will be covered.

5. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Going back to my previous question. It is a shame the Minister has a very selective memory because there were about 12 to 15 of us Deputies, and other people, who went down to La Collette and we had a meeting with himself and his Chief Officer prior to visiting the composting site. Even if he cannot remember, I would ask him then to have a second conversation with his Chief Officer and find out if this is a possibility that we will need to compulsorily purchase many buildings and, secondly, the much looked forward to Weighbridge area that will lose the buses, will become a gyratory system for heavy traffic around that area; this was told to many Deputies by the Chief Officer of Transport and Technical Services. It is a shame the Minister does not remember this. It is also a shame when the Minister absolutely refuses to take officer advice because he is not siting the green waste where his Department has decided it would be the first choice, which is Warwick Farm. [Aside] [Laughter] So, my question is: will he please check and speak to his own Chief Officer and find out exactly what the impact and the cost to this House will be to site all the waste at La Collette.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I am very grateful for the Deputy 's wide-ranging question. I think I can firstly assure both the Deputy , and the House, that I am in regular discussions with my Chief Officer whose advice I value very highly. I am aware of all of it. My earlier response to the previous question of the Deputy , I said I had no idea of any plans to compulsorily purchase the Norman buildings. Of course I do have some idea about the long-term traffic implications that pertain to the La Collette 1 and 2 industrial sites. I am aware,  because I think it happens to be not a bad idea, that there are suggestions that the La Collette industrial site may be extended to La Collette 3, a new and additional reclamation site for the Island, which currently, as it happens, would not be allowed under the Island Plan which may account for a forthcoming review of the Island Plan but Members would have to direct questioning on that score to my fellow Minister, Senator Cohen, the Minister for Environment and Planning. However, what I can say on the subject is that, quite clearly, if usage of the La Collette reclamation site was to be expanded, then we would have to have another look at the road system that runs between La Collette and the rest of the Island and the town. It may well be that new forms of traffic works would have to be looked at which may include a form of gyratory system at one end of the Fort Regent tunnel or the other. I am simply not in a position to give much further detail at this stage.

6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Members will have read, no doubt, the comments attached to P.258/2005 from the Minister of Health and Social Services. In those comments there was reference to a health study written by Herr et al, dated 2003. The question is: has the Minister of Transport and Technical Services read that report?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: No, I have not.

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

In that case, could I suggest that perhaps it would be a sensible thing for the Minister to read that report because it does state within the body of the comments that this health study was actually done and it says: "A study of health in the general public around composting sites, Herr et al - 2003, has found a connection between colony forming units of bio-aerosols and respiratory problems" that have been denied during an earlier question made by Deputy Le Claire. There are health issues that should be looked at. Does the Minister not think that he should really be up to scratch on this issue?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I may not have read that particular report but I certainly am up to scratch on this particular issue. The fact that various bio forms, or aerial borne fungi may float around a composting facility is no different to what may float around a cowshed; what may float around a Jersey farm; what may float around a Jersey field. It is part of life. It is organic matter. We live with it every day. It gets up our noses, we breath it into our lungs and it does not really do us any harm. It is just part of the world we live in. It is not a health risk.

[Aside]

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Minister answer the question? Will he read the appropriate report relating to health dangers around such facilities?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Yes, I will.

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

In his written answers this morning, which I wonder if the Minister has read, he indicates that the ongoing health effects, which have been identified by the Health Ministry, need to be thoroughly investigated. He also concurs that his Department and his own health protection staff are currently engaged in setting up a health impact assessment for the proposed composting regime and it will include key stakeholders and residents representatives. I go back to my earlier question: those key stakeholders should include those people that are working in that area. Will the Minister, having acknowledged in his written answers - that he may not recall or may not have read this morning - that there are issues in relation to health and the need to thoroughly investigate those matters, that they should also include the key stakeholders of the businesses surrounding that facility?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I have to admit to being slightly amused by the Deputy claiming that it was a written question that I may not have read because it is a written question that was not written by me, it was written by the Minister for Health and Social Services. [Laughter] So, I am rather surprised that the Deputy is directing his questioning to me. However, I do want to make one comment on the opening sentence the Deputy made: there is no ongoing health problem. There is no health problem. It would really make people, I think, generally an awful lot happier if we moved away from this atmosphere of alarm and concern about what the risks are. There are none. As far as we know, we have been unable to determine any risk to health, whatsoever, from the composting facility.