States Meeting Transcript - 05/12/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 5th DECEMBER 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4

1. Draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200- (P.165/2007)...........................................4

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ......................4
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................4
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................5

2. Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law (P.166/2007)......................5

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................5

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................5
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................6

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................6

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ....................................................6
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................7
   3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................7
   4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................7
   5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................7
   6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................8
   7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................8

3. Draft Public Finances (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law (P.167/2007)..................9

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................9

1. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................9
   2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................9

4. Flu Pandemic Funding (P.176/2007) ....................................................10

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................10
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................10

4. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:...................................................11
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................11
6. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................11
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................12
8. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................12
9. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................13
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................13
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................13
12. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................14
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................14

5. Draft Places of Refreshment (Jersey) Regulations (P.148/2007).......................16

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................17

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................17

2. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................18
3. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M., of St. Martin : ................................................18
4. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................18
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................18
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................18
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................18
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................19
9. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................19
10. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................19
11. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................19
12. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................20
13. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:.......................................................20
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................20

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................23
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................23

6. Draft Harbours (Administration) (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.160/2007) ...........................................................................................23

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur)..24

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................25
2. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................28
3. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................29
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................30
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................31
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................32
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................32
8. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................33
9. Senator F. H. Walker :..................................................................34
10. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................34

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37
3. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................37

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................38
2. Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:......................................38
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38
5. The Attorney General:..................................................................39
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................39
7. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................39

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................40

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................42
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
4. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................42
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................42
6. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................42
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................43
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................43

7. Draft Amendment (No. 8) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.162/2007) ...........................................................................................44

7.1 Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................44

8. Draft Amendment (No. 32) to the Tariff of Harbour and Light Dues (P.163/2007)...44

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (rapporteur):...................................................44
2. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................45
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................45
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46
6. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................46
7. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................46

9. Draft Community Provisions (Wire Transfers) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.172/2007)........................................................................48

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst (rapporteur):..........................................................49
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................50

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................50

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................50
2. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:..................................................50
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
5. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................51
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................52
7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................52

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS....................................................................52

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................52
2. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................53
3. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................53
4. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................54
5. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................54
6. The Bailiff :.............................................................................55

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................55

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200- (P.165/2007)

The Bailiff :

Well, we continue now to give effect to the Budget which the Assembly has approved, the Budget proposition has been approved, and we come to the Draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200- and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200-. A Law to set the standard rate of income tax for 2008, to amend further the Stamp Duties and Fees (Jersey) Law 1998 and to amend further the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

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

I was planning to catch your eye earlier just to ask the House's indulgence, if I could, to take P.176/2007, the pandemic flu funding debate, at the end of the other finance matters here so that we do all the budget and funding issues at the same time. Can I interrupt, before I start the Finance Law, to ask Members if they are prepared to do that? Projet 176 was lower down the Order Paper.

The Bailiff :

Did you want to deal with that straight away?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur : No, after P.167.

The Bailiff :

After P.167. Yes. Are Members prepared to deal with pandemic flu immediately after Projet 167? Very well, we will put it there.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The draft Finance (Jersey) Law 200- brings into effect the proposals that we agreed in the budget yesterday. There are 4 Articles. The first one sets the standard rate of income tax for next year at the same rate of 20 per cent. The second one amends the Stamp Duties Law to allow for first-time buyers to have an additional discount, which will rise from £250,000 to £300,000. The third paragraph deals with the duty increases on alcohol, tobacco and petrol fuels, and the fourth paragraph deals with the citation of commencement. I propose the principles of the law as a whole.

The Bailiff :

The principles are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the draft? Well, I put the principles. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show? Those against? The principles are adopted. I invite the Minister to propose the Articles of the law.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, I have explained the nature of the 4 Articles and I propose the 4 Articles.

The Bailiff :

Very well. You are proposing all the Articles together? They are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Articles of the Bill? I put the Articles. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in the Second Reading. You move the Bill in Third Reading? Seconded? [Seconded] Does any

Member wish to speak on the Bill in Third Reading? I put the Bill. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in Third Reading. We come next to the Acte Operatoire to give effect immediately to the Finance Law which the Assembly has just passed and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Act declaring that the Finance (Jersey) Law 200- shall have immediate effect. The States, in pursuance of Article 19 in the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005, have made the following Act.

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

This is a convention allowed for in the Public Finances Law which will mean that the Finance Law can come into immediate effect, notwithstanding it has not yet received Royal Assent or been registered. Although the law has immediate effect, Article 4 of the law gives a commencement date as 1st January 2008. I propose the Act.

The Bailiff :

The Act is proposed. Is it seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Acte Operatoire? I put the Act. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show? Those against? The Acte Operatoire is adopted.

2. Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law (P.166/2007)

The Bailiff :

We come next to the Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Income Tax (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200-, a law to amend further the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

This is a slightly more varied law and within the context of this law it provides for additional pension arrangements through retirement annuity plus schemes. It amends the income tax exemption thresholds. It increases the child allowances and it then deals with the citation clause. When we come to the individual Articles, Sir, I will be proposing the amended Articles to reflect the increase in tax thresholds which we agreed yesterday. Meanwhile, I propose the principles of the law.

The Bailiff :

The principles are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

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

Like a lot of Members, I suppose, I would declare an interest. Would the Minister, Sir, like to comment whether this would in any way be a substitute for the hopefully temporary withdrawal from business of large insurance companies from the Island and is it phrased or formulated in such a way - I found it very difficult to sort of work through it - that people will be able essentially to transfer savings into annuities without necessarily having embarked on a very long lifetime laborious process of putting away - as they did with the man from the Pru (Prudential) - a few pence every week? Is there some mechanism whereby people can move money into, I suppose, what are essentially retirement plan tax shelters? Is this what this is trying to achieve or has it got a much narrower intention?

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister to reply.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not think this was intended as a substitute for those national pension schemes. This was included as additional. I hope that some pension providers will still provide their own annuity services and so on to individuals to give us greater freedom of choice, but recognising that there was at the time limited choice, we felt it was only appropriate to give a different opportunity and hence this scheme was provided. The essence of this scheme, just like any other pension scheme, is to allow for regular annual contributions which can be tax deductible as a pension payment in order to provide a pot of money which, at the end of the year, can then be invested in a retirement annuity trust rather than simply have to be invested as a lump sum. It is not intended as a one-off vehicle but rather as an ongoing year by year contribution arrangement. These schemes are principally concerned with what one does at the end of that period in terms of using up that pot of money in a more effective and simpler way. The details, I think, are probably better provided by the insurance providers who will have individual schemes tailored to their own individual circumstances and to the circumstances of the contributor.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if I can ask for clarification. If somebody comes along with a scheme which, prior to this law, they have been contributing to and they wish to transfer it into an annuity, who will make the decision as to whether that scheme is acceptable for transfer?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, one can transfer into the scheme from an existing pension fund or pension contributions so long as the scheme is approved by the Comptroller of Income Tax and the relevant scheme's administrators just to notify the Comptroller of any additional person in that scheme. The administration will be done largely by the approved pension providers themselves, who will have a blanket arrangement which has been cleared with the Jersey Financial Services Commission as being acceptable under the insurance rules under that law. So I think that should clear up that point as well.

The Bailiff :

Well, I put the principles of the Bill. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show? Those against? The principles are adopted. Do you propose Article 1 to 7, perhaps, Minister?

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I propose Articles 1 to 7, Parts 1 and 2. Part 1 is a straightforward interpretation. Part 2 deals with those retirement annuity trust schemes that we were discussing a moment ago in rather more detail and I am happy to propose Articles 1 to 7 and try to answer any questions.

The Bailiff :

Articles 1 to 7 are proposed and seconded? [Seconded]

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

I wonder if the Minister would confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that if a person becomes a pensioner and receives an annuity equivalent, unlike the existing annuity schemes, under this scheme, when the pensioner dies, then the pot of money out of which the annuity is being paid will not vanish into the moor of the insurance company but will be part of their estate and be payable to the beneficiaries of that estate.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister to reply.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I am pleased to confirm that, subject to the terms of the particular retirement annuity trust scheme, there is a facility, should the person so require, for the balance to be paid to the estate on the death of the principal beneficiary but it will depend on the wording of each scheme. Clients may prefer to have the scheme tailored to their own needs excluding that other subsequent benefit from the estate. There is that flexibility within the law. I maintain Articles 1 to 7.

The Bailiff :

I put Articles 1 to 7. Those Members in favour in adopting them, kindly show? Those against? Those Articles are adopted and I do not know, Minister, whether you wish to have all the amendments read out or I think Members have them on their desks, I hope, the amendments to reflect the decisions made yesterday.

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I am content that they are taken as read, Sir. They are just mathematical extensions of what was there before.

The Bailiff :

Well, may I ask you to propose Articles 8 to 9 as amended.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Articles 8 and 9 translate to 6½ per cent increase in tax thresholds into individual figures depending on the particular circumstances in question. Hence, we have a whole range of figures, all of which hopefully are calculated as 6 percentage increase rounded up to the nearest £10. I propose Articles 8 and 9.

The Bailiff :

Very well, Article 8 is proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Article 8? I put Article 8. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show? Those against? Article 8 is adopted.

4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Part 4 deals with child allowance increases and is, I think, very straightforward. For a child in normal education, it goes up from £2,500 to £3,000. For a child in higher education, it goes up from £5,000 to £6,000 per child for 2008 and subsequent years. I propose Articles 9 and 10 Part 4.

The Bailiff :

Articles 9 and 10 are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on either of those Articles? [Aside]

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

To Article 9 which has not been read out either.

The Bailiff :

Well, this is again a numerical calculation increasing £2,500 to £3,000. So you propose Article 9 as amended? Articles 9 and 10 are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on either of those Articles? Well, I put the Articles. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show? Those against? They are adopted.

5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Part 5. In Article 11, the amendment to Article 10 deals with the Commissioners of Appeal and as indicated in the budget speech, I am proposing that the number of Commissioners of Appeal be raised from 8 to 12 on the basis that their scope of work has now broadened and although I am not

necessarily expecting more appeals, we need to be prepared for that just in case that should arise. So this will give an increase in the number of Commissioners of Appeal from 8 to 12 and Article 12 is just a citation clause. I propose Part 5.

The Bailiff :

Part 5 is proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on either of those Articles? Well, I put Articles 11 and 12. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show? Those against? They are adopted, and you move the Bill in Third Reading, Minister? Proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Bill in Third Reading. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in Third Reading. We come next to the Acte Operatoire authorising immediate effect to be given to the Bill which the Assembly has just passed, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Act declaring that the Income Tax (Amendment No. 30) (Jersey) Law 2005 shall have immediate effect. The States, in pursuance of Article 19 of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005, have made the following Act.

6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, Sir, the same argument applies to this Act as the previous one we just agreed and, again, this law comes into effect for the years assessment 2008 and subsequently it provides for the law to come into immediate effect, so I propose the Act.

The Bailiff :

The Act is proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the draft Act? I put the Act. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show? Those against? The Act is adopted. Article 18 of the Public Finances Law requires that the Assembly be provided with a summary of all the authorised movements in the consolidated fund and I understand from the Greffier that this is already on Members' desks. Minister, do you wish to speak to that?

7. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Just to comment that this page will replace the previous back page of the budget book which should be in Members' hands although it is not in mine at the moment. The only change to the previous one is that in the second column, the 2008 forecast column, the penultimate figure we proposed to translate to the Stabilisation Fund has been changed  from £25 million to £38 million and as reflected in the detailed movements table further up where the £25 million is again amended to £38 million. It only affects the 2008 forecast, Sir, but for the sake of completeness, that is Table D in the Members' Budget Statement should be replaced by this final version on their desks today and I present that consolidated fund statement for Members' information.

2.7.1 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:

Could I ask the Minister, if we are moving a further £13 million into the Stabilisation Fund, would there not be an adjustment to the other income by way of the interest that will not be accumulating? In other words, somewhere between £500,000 and £650,000. Only a small point but I think, for the sake of completeness, I would ask the Minister that.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think the Deputy has a technically correct point. At the moment, I do not have a calculation of amended interest. It will depend on when that money can be transferred into the Stabilisation Fund. It will not necessarily occur on 1st January so until that is known it would be an estimate anyway, but I take his point and it may well be that in future years we will try to get more accurate forecasts.

The Bailiff :

Well, now, that completes the debate upon the budget although there is a related matter to which the Assembly now turns, the Draft Public Finances (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the Draft.

3. Draft Public Finances (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law (P.167/2007)

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Public Finances (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-, a law to amend further the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following law.

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

When I proposed a transfer to the Stabilisation Fund, I assumed it was a straightforward matter which was encompassed within the Public  Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 that we passed in an amended form in 2005 and I was slightly taken aback to find that I did not have the power to transfer that £25 million or £38 million, whatever the figure was, into the Stabilisation Fund. There were powers within the law to transfer to a strategic reserve or to a named fund, but at the time there was no Stabilisation Fund named or established within the Public Finances Law. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the Public Finances Law in order to cater for a Stabilisation Fund so that this transfer can legitimately be made. While I am on my feet, Sir, and although it has nothing to do with the law itself, I would just like to point out that it was mentioned, I gather, on the media yesterday that the £38 million was being transferred to the strategic reserve and I would like to correct any erroneous suggestion that was the case. What I was proposing, what this House agreed, was to transfer the £38 million to the stabilisation fund, which is a different animal. Meanwhile, Sir, I propose the principles of this Law.

The Bailiff :

The principles are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the Bill?

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

Just to say that I congratulate the Minister for making these amendments to the Public Finances Law. I too realise that we had not dealt with this subject when we established the new stabilisation fund and I am pleased to see that now everything is in order. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister to reply.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I thank the Deputy for his observance. Maybe if we had worked it out a couple of months ago, it would have been even better.  [Laughter] Anyway, thank you for that and I maintain the principles.

The Bailiff :

Very well, I put the principles. Those Members in favour of the document, kindly show? Those against? The principles are adopted. Do you wish to take the Articles en bloc?

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think I will take the Articles en bloc, Sir, I am happy to propose them en bloc and answer any questions there may be.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Articles 1 to 8 of the Bill are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Articles of the Bill? I put the Articles. Those Members in favour of adopting them, kindly show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in Second Reading. Move to the Bill in Third Reading. Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Bill. Those Members in favour of adopting it, kindly show? Those against? The Bill is adopted in Third Reading.

4. Flu Pandemic Funding (P.176/2007)

The Bailiff :

We come next, as Members have just agreed, to take the Flu Pandemic Funding, Projet 176, and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion, in accordance with Article 11(8) of the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005, to amend the expenditure approval for 2007 approved by the States on 13th September 2006 in respect of the Health and Social Services Department head of expenditure, to permit the withdrawal of an additional £517,000 from the consolidated fund for its net revenue expenditure in order to fund expenditure already incurred on preparations for pandemic flu.

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Members may recall that there was a similar proposition lodged earlier in this year to transfer an additional amount to the Health and Social Services Department in a higher sum by way of provision in case the money was required. That proposition was withdrawn but we now have a clearer indication of what money will be required for the year 2007 and it is a significantly lower sum. Although I was previously proposing a sum of up to £2.2 million, we have now identified that for 2007 what will be required will be £517,000. This money is needed in order to fund expenditure already incurred by the Health and Social Services Department in preparation for a potential outbreak of flu, but I will leave it to the Minister for Health and Social Services to elaborate on the need for this money. Meanwhile, Sir, I am happy to propose that we permit the withdrawal of an additional £517,000 from the consolidated fund for that specific purpose. I propose that amount.

The Bailiff :

The proposition is proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Firstly, I would like to apologise to the States Assembly. I do not think it is right that the Department should come asking for money after the money has been spent. The original proposition was for £2.2 million additional funding. I have recently taken office as Minister for Health and Social Services and there were a number of issues regarding the pandemic flu policy that I was not completely happy with. I felt all along that the decision on the funding of pandemic flu should have been brought to the States Assembly in the very first place because it is not just funding for the initial drugs and other items that we need if a pandemic breaks out, but there are also ongoing expenses that will have to be met with regard to replacement drugs and replacement equipment. Furthermore, there is an element of liability with regard to the pandemic-specific vaccine. Normally with drugs, the drug companies take on the liability if there are side effects, but with a pandemic-specific vaccine, because it is developed in such a short space of time, the liability would, in effect, lie with the Health Department itself and, therefore, with the States of Jersey. I felt it only fair to Members to bring a comprehensive report and proposition to the States with regard to the whole pandemic flu policy. I think this is very much an insurance policy. It is very much if a pandemic should break out, not when a pandemic will break out, and I think we need to

get that across to the public. Also I think there is a lot of confusion regarding the pandemic flu issue. I think 95 per cent of the emails I received after the announcement was made that I was reviewing the matter related to normal winter flu jabs and nothing to do with pandemic at all. So certainly at Health, we need to get the message across to the public as to what a pandemic is and what action will be taken. I have been speaking to the Medical Officer of Health on this subject and we do plan to carry out a comprehensive campaign to make sure that people understand what a pandemic is and what they should do. I announced in my notes that early in the New Year we will be bringing a comprehensive report to the States to detail exactly what is happening. This funding of £500,000 relates to the purchase of Tamiflu. The Tamiflu was purchased after the initial Council of Ministers/Medical Officer's announcement that we would be putting a certain provision in place. When I put everything on hold, the money had already been spent on the Tamiflu so we already do have stocks of Tamiflu. This is just to cover what has already been spent. All I can really say is on behalf of the department, I do apologise for the fact that money was spent when it was not already there. We will be coming back with a very comprehensive pandemic plan. It will go to the States Assembly. It will be up to the States Assembly to approve it. It is not really satisfactory because not only is there the fact that this is not my proposition, which means I cannot speak again, but, as I say, I will make sure it does not happen again.

3. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Perhaps the Minister could give way while he is still on his feet. I was expecting him maybe to talk a little bit about where his department was on budget spent to date. I do not know if he has got those figures with him.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

With this funding in place, we will come out in line on budget. We were looking, at one point, at perhaps a small overspend and we have had to pull back in a couple of areas to make sure that we do come in in line. Obviously with the largest budget, £500,000 is a lot of money, but with regard to the total budget, it is less than half a percent of the actual budget. We cannot afford to take this within our own budget, certainly not at this late stage. The amount of cutback we would have to have on basic health care would affect the people of Jersey to try and sort of draw back £500,000 in 3 weeks. I think the other thing to bear in mind is this is very much an insurance policy; the pandemic is very much an insurance policy. If a pandemic event is not a rainy day event that falls within this sort of fund, then I am not quite sure what is. So I think that the funding for the pandemic should perhaps not come out of normal health budget going forward anyway simply because it is an insurance policy for the future.

4. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier :

While the Minister is on his feet, is it possible to ask him one more question, please? I would just be interested to know if the Minister could inform us of the expiry date on the Tamiflu order that has come in. What sort of life span has it got?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Tamiflu has a general life span of 5 years.

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

I wonder if the Minister for Treasury and Resources could tell us - it probably again is more a question that should be directed to the Minister for Health and Social Services - whether the Minister knows whether the Medical Officer of Health still has the access to the previously agreed supply for any event of a pandemic flu for a specific pandemic flu vaccine for all Islanders?

6. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I just wanted to make clear because I was a bit concerned about the comments that the Health and Social Services Minister issued to this proposition that might have given the impression that the Council of Ministers entered into this commitment in a cavalier fashion. In fact, of course, the Council of Ministers did not enter into this commitment. It was a previous Health and Social Services Minister that entered into this commitment. What the Minister did was come to the Council of Ministers to have his proposals endorsed and we were given a very, very comprehensive presentation by the Minister and the Medical Officer of Health and others and they were very seriously questioned about the need for this extra funding and why all that funding was needed in the pandemic flu. The urgency of making that decision straight away was stressed and, as Deputy Scott Warr en just alluded to, it was stressed that it needed to be made straight away so that we would not lose our place in the queue for possible vaccines in the future and so on. Now, with the change of Health Minister, the new Health Minister came on and unilaterally, if I can put it like that, without coming back to the Council of Ministers, decided to put the proposal on hold, which was his right to do as the legal corporation sole as the Minister for Health. We ended up in a situation where the Council of Ministers were going to come forward for all the money because we believed it was very, very important on the presentation we heard that we should not take any chances at all with the health of people in the Island and pandemic flu and that we should take action as soon as possible on the best professional advice we were given at the time. I sincerely hope that the delay caused by this review does not in any way increase that risk by allowing us less access to the medication that was so strongly and urgently pressed upon the Council of Ministers to support this because of the urgency involved. I still have grave concerns that we have not gone ahead with the original plan because I questioned it very  strongly but was convinced by the Medical Officer of Health and the then Minister and others that it was something we should do for the Island. We have not done it, we have done part of it, and I look forward to the Minister bringing back comprehensive plans because unless the advice has changed markedly, it is still something I would support and I would expect all States Members to support because there is no

way we should take chances with the health of Islanders.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Can I just point out that one of the reasons I did put it on hold was because we did not have guaranteed supplies.

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

The Education Minister ironically has answered some of my concerns. There was alarm and despondency spread when the Health Minister stated that he had fundamental objections in, for example, why were people like Guernsey not doing it? Should we not look at that? I am sure in his report that that will be answered. I do know people were very concerned. Secondly, Sir, somewhat churlishly, I wonder if I could ask the Treasury Minister whether procedures have been tightened so that £500,000 cannot be arbitrarily spent unless a proper procedure, albeit an urgent procedure, is put in place to do so.

8. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

I hope that when the Minister for Health and Social Services embarks on this information programme with the Medical Officer of Health, he will put the whole issue in a better context. It seems to me that the very fact of calling it a pandemic is extremely frightening to the general public. I would note, by the way, that in response to Deputy Scott Warr en's comments, the World Health Organisation, which has a very good website talking about this, has been working for some time to ensure that adequate supplies of vaccine for H5N1 will be available. I am also glad to see that the number of cases forecast by Health and Social Services now correlates more closely with the World Health Organisation estimate. It has been mentioned that W.H.O. (World Health Organisation) has a yellow alert for H5N1 flu. W.H.O. has 2 classes of yellow alert and, in fact, it is a low yellow alert. There is more on the W.H.O. website on the Ebola Fever outbreak in Western Uganda, which might be of concern to the Overseas Aid President. I note that guidance has been taken from the 1918 report of the Spanish flu, that this caused 50 million deaths worldwide compared to the 7.4 million which is forecast by the World Health Organisation for an H5N1 epidemic. I know I am not an expert but I am quoting what the experts say. I think it is important also to note that an investigation of the 50 million deaths in 1918 has concluded that many of those deaths were caused to those in the community with incipient or early stages of tuberculosis. Members will recall that T.B. (tuberculosis) was endemic in Jersey at that time. As a result, I am a little at a loss to understand the reliance on the 1918 report by the Medical Officer of Health and I would ask her perhaps to consider this factor. On the same source, the World Health Organisation makes comparisons with the 1968 pandemic. Now, I was interested to know that this was called a pandemic because they never called it that in 1968 when I had flu and this is what .. I feel that we have this .. and I am dying again [Laughter]. Something comes along, we give it a brand new name and it frightens everybody to death, so to speak [Laughter]. If you will excuse me, Sir. The record of these last 2 pandemics perhaps should also be consulted as well as one which occurred 100 years ago. Let us get this in context, 1918 was, well, 90 years ago. I understand the eagerness of the Health and Social Services Department to make provision for a particularly nasty version of the flu but we do need a proper risk assessment. I was very pleased to see that the newly anointed Minister withdrew the previous spending request, which did seem somewhat extreme. I do think we have got a problem in these days of instant communication with the pressure on the media - if our current well-loved media representatives in the gallery will forgive me - to provide good stories, good headlines, selling papers, and a good scare story will make excellent headlines and will run on and on. I hope that the Minister will take these into account In my lifetime, we have had global cooling, nuclear winter, possibility of being struck by an asteroid, global warming which is now climate change, and a flu pandemic - yes, you can remember that, can you, Sir - not to mention rising sea levels. The evidence is such that the sea levels in the South Pacific, which were forecast to rise and drown the atolls, have fallen by about a foot. I really hope that the Minister on his publicity campaign will put this thing into context and stop absolutely paralysing the population with fright. Cautious, yes, but not frightened. The comments about making proper procedures to make sure this does not happen again by the Vice Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the

Deputy of St. Ouen , I thoroughly support and agree with and hope we will see progress on that.

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

The Minister for Health and Social Services, in answer to a question from Deputy Maclean, told us that the expiry of these anti-viral drugs was around about 5 years. Would the Minister like to be a little bit more specific with his answer to the House and tell us the number of doses in each particular batch purchased and the lengths to expiry date of each particular batch?

10. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I think the one point that I would like to make is regarding a point of principle and that is that the Public Finances Law is extremely clear how departments are expected to manage their monies and their funds allocated by this Assembly. It seems, certainly on the face of it, that the department has overspent on the monies allocated to it. It is also quite clear, the Public Finances Law, that there are absolute rules that should ensure that this is not the case and I would like a clear explanation from the Minister why this has happened and why we can be assured that this will not happen again because it is a serious principle that if the States, as a whole, as I say, allocate monies to departments, there is an expectation that those departments will stay within those funds. Furthermore, I would like to understand further. I appreciate the Minister is planning to use a particular Article to come to the States for this expenditure but I struggle to understand why there was a need to come to this Assembly after the money has been spent rather than prior to that money being spent. Also we heard recently that there are surplus funds in the Health Insurance Fund. I would like to understand and have it explained to me certainly why, when we have a community or an Island health issue, the Health Insurance Fund is not able to cover this particular cost.

11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will not answer the detailed questions about the way in which we have arrived at the situation where money has been spent when it was not previously authorised or has not been agreed, though I am sure the Treasury Minister will answer that. What I will just say very briefly to the Assembly is that I am not alone in being quite uncomfortable with the situation; uncomfortable because I would prefer to vote on a proposition that dealt with the whole of the flu insurance policy. I have had and have been quite struck with some very strong representations I have received from some of our leading financial services industry players that are looking to Jersey and previously were sending messages to their head offices to the effect that Jersey was ahead of the game, was, in fact, prepared for dealing with all types of flu, pandemic or avian flu or any of the variants of it and it was a mark of strength for Jersey to have done that. I am sorry that we now appear to have sent out a mixed message that we still do not know what we are doing and we have not put the insurance in place. I think that is a matter of regret because certainly I would say again that I have been very struck by the support from the financial services industry about supporting the States putting in place measures to protect the Island community and to protect our vital economy. So I would have preferred to see this as £2.2 million, not £500,000.

12. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

I must agree with the Health Minister that this is an extraordinary matter, an extraordinary item, which is outside of his usual budget. Unless we were to permanently allocate an emergency health fighting fund within the health budget over and above its usual budget so that we would add perhaps £500,000 a year so that it could build up a reserve to fight such things as this, then I think we must treat it as a matter every time that the Minister can go to Treasury and ask for funds on an extraordinary item basis because we really have no provision otherwise. We have no such allocation within the health budget. It is purely given on the basis that the whole health service is managed as in every year previously and we do not have any health fighting fund as such. Unless Members were going to decide to create additional emergency funding for the Health Department, then I think this is the only way in which to deal with it. As other members have said, I think that the Treasury Minister and particularly the Health Minister, he has taken a strong decision in pulling back from a £2 million commitment so there has been a .. I am not going to say it is a saving but we have reduced possible expenditure through this action and I think that the Medical Officer of Health would possibly agree that if the flu pandemic were going to reach Jersey, it would probably come across the Continent first or across from the U.K. (United Kingdom) before it got to us and we would have some advance warning as to its progress towards us. Then I think that we could react and we could even negotiate with the U.K. on obtaining some of their vaccine because obviously they will have reserves as well. So I am sure that it could be dealt with in an effective manner but I will be supporting this today as I think it is an extraordinary item outside of the health budget.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister to reply.

13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not claim to be an expert on health matters so I cannot comment on how many doses there were in each batch of flu produced for Deputy Duhamel or what each individual expiry date is. Whether this flu is going to be a certainty or a likelihood or a possibility, that is a matter which we will need to discuss and undertake in the future. I am here merely as Treasury Minister talking about a procedural matter under the Public Finances Law where additional monies are being sought in order to fund an unexpected item of expenditure. Now, the issue has been raised by Deputy Le Hérissier and by the Deputy of St. Ouen about the mechanisms of the Public Finances Law and the authority of departments to spend money in excess of their budget. The fact is that there is no authority for any department to spend in excess of its budget and that if this proposition is rejected, the Health Department will have to live within their existing budget and they will have to make

some uncomfortable cuts in the next 3 weeks in order to do so. However, when the proposition was lodged back in August this year, the previous Health Minister was also aware of that; indeed, as was the Minister for Social Security in respect of the supplemental vote. It was because at that time there were 4 or 5 months left in the year, departments could rearrange their affairs more easily at that time and, if needs be, had to make alternative arrangements because the Public Finances Law is quite clear: no department can exceed its budget. Where they do, there have to be adjustments elsewhere. Hence we have this ability for the Treasury Minister specifically to come to the States to ask for particular exceptions to this policy. Now, it is a question, perhaps, of whether this is an unexpected or unforeseen item. Deputy Troy seems to suggest that it is. I think it is a danger going down this path too far. Maybe the failure of the Energy from Waste plant at Bellozanne was an unexpected item and maybe the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) Minister would like to come to the States for that. This is not the sort of thing which was expected. Departments are expected to run their operations and plan for normal routine unexpected items - that is a contradiction in terms - as a matter of course. So I think we are in a somewhat unfortunate position here in trying to deal with half the issue. Nonetheless, the choice confronting Members is very simple. Unless we approve this proposition, the health service in the next 3 weeks is going to have to make some unfortunate cuts. We have a policy in respect of the provision of Tamiflu which was agreed in principle by the then Health Minister, supported by the advice of the Medical Officer of Health, on the basis of which the Council of Ministers approved the lodging of a proposition earlier this year to spend up to £2.2 million. If that policy needs to be addressed by the States, then, yes, we ought to certainly do that. However, at this stage, we have a stark choice before us. The Deputy of St. Ouen also asked if the Health Insurance Fund could be used. My interpretation of the Health Insurance Fund is that it is very narrow in its scope and it is not there to fund the general expenditure of the Health and Social Services Department, so the short answer to that one is no. There is an expectation that departments will stay within budget and this is simply a plea from the Health Minister to say that, having agreed to a course of action in respect of pandemic flu, we have to follow it through. That sort of thing probably deals with most questions that I am able to deal with. As far as whether we have access to the specific pandemic flu vaccines that Deputy Scott Warr en asks, my understanding is that we do not but that the market has now broadened and there is a possibility that what we were going to be almost held to ransom for 6 months ago may now be more freely available at a lower price, but I cannot guarantee that, Sir, and certainly if a pandemic did occur, that situation could change overnight. Going through the other comments, Sir, I do not think that there is much more that I can add at this stage other than to say that this is a very narrow proposition dealing with spending on a particular item. It does not address the wider issue of

debating the policy of providing for pandemic flu. That will come back early next year, I gather. This is a narrow proposition for a much smaller amount of money and I think, Sir, I have probably dealt with all the matters that I can deal with and I maintain the proposition.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Please, Sir, as a point of clarification, is the Minister saying that the expenditure of £500,000 plus was agreed by the Minister for Health in August, knowing that it would take him over the allocated budget?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

That it was understood by the previous Minister for Health and Social Services that should the States' approval not be forthcoming, the Health and Social Services Department would have to make alternative arrangements within their budget in order to fund whatever expenditure they chose to fund at that time but the choice was up to them.

The Bailiff :

I ask any Member in the precinct who wishes to vote to return to his or her seat and I ask the Greffier to open the voting which is for or against the proposition of the Treasury Minister. If all Members who wish to vote have done so, I will ask the Greffier to close the voting and I can announce that the proposition has been carried, 43 votes were cast in favour, 3 votes against.

5. Draft Places of Refreshment (Jersey) Regulations (P.148/2007)

The Bailiff :

We come back to the Order Paper, Projet 148, the Draft Places of Refreshment (Jersey) Regulations and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Places of Refreshment (Jersey) Regulations 200-, the States in pursuance of Article 13(12) of the Places of Refreshment (Jersey) Law 1967, have made the following Regulations.

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

Members will recall that a number of years ago, the permitted latest opening times for clubs was extended to 2.00 a.m. in the morning from 1.00 a.m. On the other hand, places of refreshment, any establishment or eatery that sells food but not alcohol, was not extended and remains, to this day, with a latest permitted closing time of 1.00 a.m. Various representations have been made over the years to extend the permitted opening hours of places of refreshment and nothing has been done. Earlier this year Senator Shenton wrote to me and asked that I research the issue again. In parallel to that, there has been some excellent work carried out by the Safer St. Helier Group, including the Connétable of St. Helier and Home Affairs. There has also been a suggestion from that group to allow the permitted opening times of places of refreshment to be later, but that is something that is regarded as being of assistance in clearing the streets and of assistance in people getting home, et cetera, after a night out. I have a letter from the Licensing Unit saying that, in the view of the Licensing Unit, allowing premises to open until 2.30 a.m. may assist with staggering the number of people wanting to leave town in the earlier hours of the morning. There are 2 ways in which places of refreshment and their permitted closing times are regulated. The first is a planning consent. There could be a condition on a planning permit for a certain place of refreshment to have a closing time which is earlier than that that is in the places of refreshment and nothing in these Regulations changes that. The main time for a place of refreshment latest closing hours is in the Places of Refreshment Law and I have to say to Members that it is a law that probably could do with, if I am honest, a complete rewrite. However, the Places of Refreshment Law, I am afraid, is not going to be one of those laws for which I am going to be able to secure a law-drafting slot. So, realistically, I have to work with the existing law and to find a way of achieving the objective and there have been a number of discussions with my department officials and the Connétable s, particularly the Connétable of St. Helier because he is affected by this more than anybody, in order to achieve the objective of allowing premises to open, in certain circumstances, until 2.30 a.m. I will not go into great detail to Members of the difficulties that we have with the law, but one of the issues is that I cannot apply a blanket condition other than at the time of an application of 1st May and we do want to make this change as soon as possible. What I can do under the provisions of the law is to consult with a Connétable on an individual place of refreshment and if, after consultation, it is agreed that the particular establishment would have problems causing a nuisance in the immediate vicinity, then I can effectively put in place an earlier opening hour than 2.30 a.m. So, effectively, what we have done is I have agreed particularly with the Constable of St. Helier (and I have to say that Deputy Fox has also been extremely helpful in trying to find a solution here) that a place of refreshment that is in the vicinity of a club opening until 2.00 a.m. and also that has an immediate ability for patrons to get public transportation, in other words a taxi rank .. if it does not have that it was likely to cause a nuisance. So, in fact, what the proposition seeks to do is to extend the maximum latest permitted opening hours until 2.30 a.m. but then, on an individual basis, I will make a determination on individual places of refreshment based upon the issue, in consultation with the Constable, of whether or  not  it is a  nuisance. The end result  of this will  be that those establishments which we seek to have a permitted opening hours of 2.30 a.m. we will be able to do so. I am grateful  for the help of Deputy Fox and also the Connétable s, but particularly the

Constable of St. Helier , and Home Affairs in achieving this. So I hope I have explained something. This is relatively complex in straightforward ways and I move the preamble to the Regulations.

The Bailiff :

The principles to the draft are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any member wish to speak on the principles?

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

The only comment I wanted to make really, particularly for the residents of St. Helier, is confirmation that premises will not have their opening hours extended without the express approval of the Constable by way of through a parish assembly.

2. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

It was just to ask the Minister if he will have the powers to revoke these changes of times for individuals should they be found to be abusing the extension that they are allowed.

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

I welcome this piece of legislation and I hope that the Minister will get support from the rest of the Members. It was in 1995 that I brought the piece of legislation initially to the States to extend the opening hours for nightclubs to 2.00 a.m. and we would like to have brought forward the opportunity of allowing the opening hours for a place of refreshments to go to a later hour but there was strong opposition at the time from the former Connétable and some town Deputies. It was felt that it was probably better not going forward but it would, no doubt, come at a later date and, albeit 15 or 14 years later or 13 years later, it is coming to fruition. I think it is good and it should be there. I might have gone a bit more ambitious. I did tell the Minister that I thought possibly, in view of the new Licensing Law being drafted, it may be an opportunity to have allowed the

parishes themselves to decide what time they would see fit. If they thought fit to leave it until 3.00 a.m. then so be it. But I think the important thing is that the safeguards are there. It is there for the Connétable s, in liaison with the Minister, to decide what time is the best time to close. Also I think it is very important because one of the recommendations that came from the licensing review which was carried out was that opening hours should depend on the location of the premises. That is very important. I think it is wrong to have blanket opening hours because there are certain locations where I think it is much more convenient for a place to close earlier because of residential areas. But I think this is a piece of, I would say, forward-thinking legislation and I hope Members will give it support.

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

I just wanted to clarify that my main concern is the fact that this law that is being proposed is not able to be amended without rewriting the whole law. Therefore, I am grateful that the Minister is taking these restrictions and safeguards into account. The main reason being that the poor suffering resident is having to endure enough at this time without having the safeguard that, if there are cases of abuse, there are procedures that can be brought into hand to provide, as I say, safeguards for the residents.  Recognising also that there is an appeal process to the Royal Court but I would hope that the Deputies of the area, certainly when they get representations, will recognise that there could be a problem and that they could always consult with a Constable with a view to having a parish assembly to enable the residents to be able to come and express their opinions, which then can be passed on to the Royal Court as and when, if appropriate.

5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

I welcome this proposition provided there is adequate public consultation via parish assemblies and also provided there is the power to revoke a later closing time of premises if problems arise.

6. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

I would echo that, Sir. Basically, as it says in the proposition here "to avoid unnecessary disturbance". I am worried about not just St. Helier but all sorts of urban parishes, that people could be coming home at sort of 3.00 a.m. or 3.30 a.m., fish supper in hand, and causing disturbances. But as long as it is strictly controlled I will be in favour of it.

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

I, too, fully support this proposition. It is extremely desirable to try and encourage people to perhaps eat more rather than drink. The Minister and myself have been talking extensively recently about the revision of the Licensing Law, which is another matter entirely, and also working on the Safer St. Helier Group to try and improve the lot of residents of St. Helier, and visitors alike of course. One of those aims, of course, is to try and reduce alcohol consumption and this is just one small component of trying to change the culture of drinking and socialising in St. Helier of an evening. I do hope that this will be the start of many other initiatives which we are working on at the moment which will improve both the lot of the residents and, indeed, tourists and visitors to our Island as well. So, I fully support the initiative.

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I have wrestled with this one because on libertarian grounds I suppose you could argue that people should be allowed to drink themselves silly as much as they want to, albeit as long as there are no external consequences. But we all know, Sir, that the problem, unfortunately, is much deeper than that and I do not think this addresses the issue, certainly of staggering perhaps but not of staggered closing times. I do not think it addresses that issue. It has not in England. We were all hopeful and I was, although I think it was always Utopian to feel that by varying closing hours, certainly on the British mainland, we were going to create a continental café culture. Quite clearly that has not emerged, except in a rather perverse way. I do not think that is going to occur. Of course, what it is not accompanied by - and I am sure the Minister for Transport would have wanted this - is a viable alternative public transport system and we still have this massive congregation at the Weighbridge which poses enormous policing problems. I am, Sir, very concerned that people like Deputy Lewis , although no doubt he has taken professional advice in this regard, presumably he is speaking with full police support that this is some kind of solution. I, quite frankly, do not see how it is. [Interruption] The Deputy of St. John; one of the Deputies of St. John of which there are many.

The Deputy of St. John :

Could I correct the Deputy there that this is in full consultation with the police? The police have been consulted and do approve of this proposal, Sir.

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

I wonder  if the Minister will advise the House how this will  impact upon those commercial premises that are deemed to be in an unsuitable location.

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

The Minister alluded to the rather messy change of these Regulations and I would just ask him, if and when the time comes to completely rewrite these, that the presumption be put towards the 1.00 a.m. with an extension to 2.30 a.m. rather than the other way round, which is the proposal of this proposition. I feel that the inference is that it could be overridden and, certainly in the country parishes, there would be little support for premises opening to 2.30 a.m. The implications on the police and so on, the infrastructure of the parishes, would be completely unsatisfactory and I would just like in my own mind to be absolutely certain that consultation with the Connétable s will take place and that the parishioners' views will be taken into account.

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

I think Deputy Le Hérissier was a little unfair on the Deputy of St. John in his remarks and, as the Deputy of St. John said, this particular change to the law is but a component attempting to tackle a much wider problem. It is not the whole solution and the whole solution, as the proposer said, is being tackled by a number of different agencies, including stakeholder groups, involving residents, licensees, transport operators and so on. It is but one piece in the jigsaw and what it will allow people to do is to get something to eat while they are waiting to get a taxi. At the moment we have the ridiculous situation where people can get something to drink but not something to eat. I have lost count of the number of times that particular traders in the area of particularly the Weighbridge who would like to provide food for those waiting for taxis have asked me why can we not change

the law to allow this to take place. There is, of course, an enormous problem at the Weighbridge and I think I have made no secret of the fact that I believe the new Liberation Station ought to be part of the solution and not be closing its doors at 6.00 p.m. but I know the Minister for Transport does not agree with me. Clearly, for me, a happy solution to the problem would be to have one such premises providing late food within doors so that those waiting for transport would not be disturbing the occupants of fairly expensive and very important hotels that are grouped round the Weighbridge. So I repeat, Sir, I believe this is an important small step towards providing a late night experience, a late night economy and, indeed, a late night quietness for residents of St. Helier . I think this will be a small step in getting us towards that stage, but it is only the beginning.

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

Briefly then, it does seem to me that I am agreeing with the Constable that this is part of a larger jigsaw, but it seems to me this is a bit piecemeal and that this element in the jigsaw is not the first bit to put in. It should be towards the end when more of the jigsaw is complete and we can see where it is going. It looks like a piece of blue sky to me and it could fit anywhere. What I am worried about is that what we do is cause greater disturbance for residents in St. Helier, in particular throughout the night, and I do not think it is the right move to make at this time; in particular because the Safer St. Helier initiative is currently in negotiation with nightclub owners to arrange that nightclub goers can stay on premises beyond 1.30 a.m. Yes, that is part of it. [Interruption] Right. This enables them to do that. Okay. In that case, I was going to vote against it; I will reconsider my vote and think about it. Whether this .. [Interruption] I am hearing argument about it. Right. It is not clear. It is not clear. I am tempted to vote against it because there is a risk of greater disturbance. I think I will maintain that position and vote against this proposition.