States Meeting Transcript - 11/09/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 11th SEPTEMBER 2007

1. ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR THE PRESENT MEETING .........7

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):.......................7 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................7
2. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:........................................................7 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................7 Deputy P.N. Troy : .............................................................................7 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................7
3. Senator L. Norman: ......................................................................7 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................8
4. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ......................8
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................8
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................8
7. Senator L. Norman: ......................................................................8 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................8
8. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):..............................................8
9. Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................9 The Deputy Bailiff :............................................................................9 Senator S. Syvret:..............................................................................9 Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:............................................................10 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................10
10. Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..................10
11. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................10
12. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................11
13. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................11 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................11
14. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................11 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................11 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................12
15. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................12 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................12
16. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................13
17. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................13
18. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................13 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................14 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................14

QUESTIONS.....................................................................................14

2. Written Questions.......................................................................14

1. THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY J.A MARTIN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE MIX OF HOUSING AT LE SQUEZ:.............................14

2. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING THE DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN:..............15
3. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE WASTE REVIEW:.....15
4. THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING PRIVATE CARE HOME COSTS:....16
5. THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING YOUTH PROVISION IN TOWN:....17
6. THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING BUS PHONE TEXTS: ......18
7. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF

ST. BRELADE REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN FIRE STATION.19

8. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY CONNÉTABLE

A.S CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER REGARDING FUNDS FOR THE MILLENNIUM TOWN PARK:.........................................................................19

9. THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE COSTS OF A NATIONAL GALLERY:..........................20
10. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF

ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE POLICING OF JERSEY LIVE:..................21

11. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY

G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE IMPACT OF G.S.T. ON STATES DEPARTMENTS:............................................................21

12. CHAIRMAN OF ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL BY DEPUTY

G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING FUTURE REVIEWS: ........22

13. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF

ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE POTENTIAL USE OF TASER GUNS BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:........................................................22

14. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF

ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE ISSUE OF FIREARMS CERTIFICATES BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:........................................................24

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................26

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the effective scrutiny of the Annual Business Plan:..................................................................26 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................26

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
3. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................27

2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the preservation of oak trees at Goose Green Marsh:.........................28 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................28

3.2.1 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................28

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding effective tax rates for the financial services industry:................................................28 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................28
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the signature of a Ministerial decision:.......................................29 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................29

3.4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................29

5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding G.C.S.E. exam results:.......................................................30 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................30

6. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding breast screening for women aged over 70:....................................30 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.............................30
7. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding share transfer legislation:.....................................................................30 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................30

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................31
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................31
3. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................31

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Housing regarding the impact of granting more (j) category licences:..............................................................31 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................32

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33

9. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding policing costs for Jersey Live: ............................................................................33 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................33

1. Deputy of St. Martin:...................................................................33
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................34
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................34
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................34
5. Deputy for St. Martin:..................................................................35

6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................35
7. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................36

10. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the future use of the Overdale site:......................................................36 Senator S. Syvret (The Minister for Health and Social Services)..............................36

3.10.1 Deputy S. Power:....................................................................36 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................36

11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the maintenance of the Rue des Prés Trading Estate:....................................37 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................37

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................37 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................37
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................37 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................37
3. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................38
4. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................38
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:............................................38

12. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the deployment of TASER guns: ..........................................................................39 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................39 The Deputy of St. John (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs):...............................39

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................39
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................40
3. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................40
4. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter : .................................................40
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................40
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ...........................................................41
7. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................41

8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................41

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Social Security.............42

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................42

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................42 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................42
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................43
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérrisier:..............................................................43
5. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................43
6. The Connétable of St Helier: ...........................................................44
7. The Connétable of St Helier: ...........................................................44
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................44
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................45
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................45

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

1. The Connétable of St Helier: ...........................................................46 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................46
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................46
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................46
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................46
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................47
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................47
7. The Connétable of St Helier: ...........................................................47
8. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................48
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
11. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................48
12. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................49 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................49

13. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................49
14. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................49 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................50

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................50

6. Minister for Health and Social Services: dismissal (P.115/2007) ......................50

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................50

1. Senator W. Kinnard....................................................................50
2. The Connétable of St Helier: ...........................................................50 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................50
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................50
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................51
5. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................51 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................58

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................58 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................60

Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................60 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................61

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................61

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................61 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................61 Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ....................................................................64 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................64 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................64 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................65 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................66 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................66 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................66 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................67 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................67 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................67

2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................68
3. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................69
4. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................70

Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................71 The Deputy of Grouville :.....................................................................71

5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................71
6. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................71
7. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................75
8. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................76

9. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................76
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................77
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................78
12. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................80
13. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................80
14. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................81
15. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................82
16. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................83
17. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................84
18. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................84
19. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................85
20. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................86
21. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................87
22. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................88 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................90 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................90 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................90
23. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................91
24. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................98 Senator S. Syvret:...........................................................................102 Senator F.H. Walker :........................................................................102 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................103 Senator S. Syvret:...........................................................................104 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................104 Senator F.H. Walker :........................................................................104

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................104 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................104

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

1. ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR THE PRESENT MEETING

The Deputy Bailiff :

Members will have seen that there are a number of matters which various Members have asked be debated at this sitting. If members agree the Greffier and I thought it might be convenient to deal with that at this stage under A so that everyone knows where they are and what matters are or are not to be debated. So if members agree, I suggest we take it at this stage. Now if members turn then to the relevant part of the Order Paper it can be seen that there are, in effect, four matters which are asked to be taken. The first is P.98/2007 - Deputies: extension of term of office to 4 years - lodged by Deputy Troy . The second is Goods and Services Tax: price marking legislation - P.99/2007 - lodged by Senator Norman. The third one is the Draft Financial Services (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- - P.100/2007 - lodged by the Minister for Economic Development and the final one is P.115/2007 - Minister for Health and Social Services: dismissal - lodged by the Chief Minister.

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

May I just amend that list? I am happy to withdraw the Financial Services one until a later sitting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, thank you. That is withdrawn. Now I suggest that we take each in turn; the first one P.98, Deputy Troy ?

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

I would just ask the Assembly, Sir, if they would be content to take this which came about as a result of our last debate when the Connétable s proposed a four-year term and this ties-in with that, Sir, on future reform.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you wish to explain to members why you wish to take it at this particular sitting?

Deputy P.N. Troy :

Yes, Sir, because of the timeframe really that if it is approved then P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) needs to move forward on the legal side to make all of the changes to tie in with the Connétable s' term, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anybody wish to comment? If not, I suggest we take these separately. Do Members then agree to take P.98? Yes? Very well, members agree to take P.98. Next one is Goods and Services Tax Price Marking Legislation - P.99 - by Senator Norman. Senator?

3. Senator L. Norman:

I am comfortable whether this is taken today or left for a couple of weeks. The only thing I would say, Sir, I do not want the Treasury Minister to use any delay to suggest that I am delaying the introduction of G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax). I think this is an important issue before we debate the Appointed Day Act and providing that the Minister for Economic Development feels that he has sufficient time to bring forward price marking legislation if my proposition is successful I do not mind it being delayed. If he has not got time then I would maintain the proposition to have it on today's sitting, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anybody wish to comment?

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

I would accept a delay of a week or two, Sir, but I am anxious that there is a minimum of uncertainty as far as this issue is concerned. In the event that Senator Norman was successful with his proposition and that price marking legislation had to be brought, I wanted to ensure that that did not delay of introduction of G.S.T. as I suspect it might. So a delay of up to a couple of weeks would be acceptable, a prolonged delay, I feel, would not be acceptable.

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Senator asked me if it was going to delay bringing in price marking legislation, but the fact is that price marking legislation could be brought but I do not believe that that would give sufficient time for retailers to be given a clear steer as to whether or not there is going to be inclusive or exclusive pricing. So it is the issue of the certainty for retailers that is the most important. If the Assembly was to agree Senator Norman's proposition I still think one would be in a difficulty of giving retailers sufficient time. I am relaxed about it being two weeks if that is what the Assembly wishes. I think the other notable point is that the Scrutiny Panel was carrying out a review and their report is due to be out in two weeks' time and that may well sway members' view of whether or not they wish to take it at this sitting or in two weeks' time.

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

Certainly, Sir, it is nice to have an introduction from the Minister for Economic Development but that is the case, we are scheduled to publish our report on inclusive or exclusive price marking by 25th September, so a fortnight's time. It seems singularly inappropriate to debate this in advance, we have still got - I think it is going to be a very tight deadline schedule but nonetheless the report will be published by 25th September.

7. Senator L. Norman:

Well, firstly, can I say in response to the Minister for Economic Development, I think certainty for consumers is the most important issue, it is certainly much more important than certainty for the retailers. But in view of those comments, I am quite happy that the debate be moved to 25th September.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, so we withdraw it from today's agenda. Finally P.115, the proposition by the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, do you wish to make any comments?

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

Can I say first of all that I think it is a tragedy and an avoidable tragedy that we are here today at all. But the facts are that a significant amount of damage has been done to a considerable number of people by the behaviour and conduct of the Minister for Health in recent weeks. We have got to the stage where because of the number of people he has, I have to say, attacked, insulted and generally made it impossible to work alongside, he cannot possibly any longer function as the Minister for Health. Sir, we cannot be in a position any longer - this whole issue has already been going on now for nearly two months - we cannot be in a position any longer where we allow that to happen. We must have, it is essential for health services and children who need our protection in particular that we have a functioning Minister for Health and it is essential that we begin the rebuilding process from the damage that has been done as soon as possible. Sir, the information on the report and proposition, which is all about the Senator's conduct and behaviour, it is not about our child protection provision, that is a matter for the various reviews that have, or will be, established. All the information has been known to the Minister for Health and indeed much of it has been in the public domain and certainly known to members for some considerable time. There is absolutely no reason that we should delay this debate. If it was about child protection services that would be a different matter and of course I would expect the Senator to have every opportunity to put his case in full. But he will have that opportunity in relation to child protection at the reviews, indeed has already had the first opportunity. So this is not about child protection, this is entirely about the Senator's conduct. As I said, Sir, it gives me no pleasure, I am intensely sad that I have to bring this proposition but having got to this stage, having already been in the middle of this controversy, this crisis for eight weeks we cannot delay any longer. We really need, whatever the outcome may be, to grasp this nettle and take this debate today. So I would ask members to agree to that and in so doing, in common with well-established precedent on votes of no confidence which is normally that they are taken within two weeks and then taken as first item of business, Sir, I would ask that it is taken today and is also taken as first item of public business.

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

I would like to oppose the motion put forward by the Chief Minister, I think on two principal grounds which are easily understood. Firstly, there has been an absence of due process. This meeting that the Council of Ministers had at which they discussed and took the decision to seek my dismissal was an unscheduled meeting for which I had had five days' notice and indeed the case against me, as it were, all of the great bulk of material that they rely upon was, in fact, given to me less than 24 hours before that meeting took place. So even had I been able to attend this unscheduled meeting I would not have had sufficient time to deal with the supposed case against me. As would be clear to anybody with the faintest grasp of jurisprudence, that is not giving the person a fair hearing. I can point to a direct consequence of the failure of the Council of Ministers to give me sufficient time to wait until the scheduled meeting in that they have gone into print in their proposition with information that is demonstrably wrong, on which I have some very learned expert opinions which demonstrates the information that they have been supplied with to be grossly inaccurate in the most important of ways. So I believe that the debate should not go ahead today. I do not believe I have had sufficient time to prepare my defence. I do not believe that the Council of Ministers have had sufficient time to decide on the basis of the facts and the evidence, what the situation is. I would also, on my second ground for opposing the debate today, point out that the Bailiff has refused to allow my formal ministerial comments to be printed. He cites a Standing Order which says that people that should not be named in them, members of the public should not be named in such comment or debates unless it is unavoidable and necessary that they should be so named. In this case it clearly is unavoidable and necessary that people should be named and indeed this is a procedure that is used and recognised in the House of Commons. I have been reading my copy of Erskine May so I am aware of my rights and the rights to free speech within the legislature and I would certainly hope to be able to take up with the Bailiff why he has exhibited this bias in not allowing me to print, as formal comments, all of the relevant evidence in relation to the debate today. Indeed much of the material I wish to have printed as formal comments did, in fact, address directly some of the grounds cited by the Chief Minister in his report and proposition. So on those

grounds I would oppose the Chief Minister's proposal and ask that this matter not be debated today.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator, can I just say my understanding is that the Bailiff did, however, direct that all the material you wanted circulated in your report, which would only have been on members' desks this morning of course in any event, should be photocopied and has made it available, I think, for you to distribute? So, in other words, the position, as I understand it, is that members will have the very material which you wish to place before them at the same time as they would have had it been a report.

Senator S. Syvret:

No, Sir, I am afraid that things are not that simple. The decision of the Bailiff to refuse to allow my comments to be published as an official document deprives them of parliamentary privilege. Now this means then that the media outside the Jersey Evening Post, Channel Television, Radio Jersey and so forth will not be able to report the relevant material, much of which is very important, I think, both from a public interest point of view and from enabling members of this Assembly, and indeed the public at large, to understand the reason why my concerns have accumulated so much over the years and why finally my patience is exhausted. So the refusal of the Bailiff to allow my comments to be printed, his decision to not allow a level playing field, deprived those comments of parliamentary privilege which I consider to be quite a grave matter. Even if I am in a minority of one in these debates, still as an elected member one has rights to be treated fairly under the procedures of this Assembly and not to have such bias exhibited.

Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

I wonder if I may ask, through the Chair, of Senator Syvret, he did say that he would seek a deferment from today, could he give the House some indication of how long he would need to prepare the sort of information that he has touched on there, Sir, which I have not seen because it may be of relevance if Members are considering a deferment?

Senator S. Syvret:

I believe that the confidence proposition I have scheduled is down for October. That was the earliest date that it could be taken, 9th October, I think? Yes, 9th October.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak? Senator Vibert ?

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

I have no wish to prolong this. My concern with supporting that we debate this today is the future of our most vulnerable children and their security and the services we have for dealing with it. I, along with the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Wendy Kinnard and the Minister for Health and Social Services, Senator Syvret, have shared responsibility for the Children's Executive. The Children's Executive is responsible for severe emotional and behavioural difficulty services which includes Greenfields. Senator Syvret in recent weeks has been acting unilaterally in this area against the Ministerial Code of Conduct and not liaising and discussing with Senator Kinnard and myself on issues relating to these areas. In fact in an email message I got from Senator Syvret yesterday, he says the Children's Executive is not a functional body. I think it is vital that this is resolved. The Children's Executive exists, it needs a working corporate parent to ensure, to oversee it and the sooner this is resolved in the interests of the vulnerable young people of the Island and the services it is providing for them, the better.

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

The Chief Minister said in his opening remarks that it is a matter of precedent that votes of no confidence are taken as a first item of business. I would suggest it is also a matter of precedent that Members have in their possession a report or comments from the member or committee or Minister in whom the States are asked to have no confidence. Given that that is not the case, I would suggest that if the States do move to approve with this sitting, that it should be taken at the last item of business and not the first to give the Senator some extra time and to give members a chance to read whatever documents he makes available to us.

The Deputy Bailiff :

What I suggest, if I may, Connétable , is that I invite the Assembly to first of all decide whether to take this matter at this sitting and then if they do, then we will decide when.

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

I do take issue with the Connétable of St. Helier. This debate will be about the Minister's conduct and is entirely separate from the debate on any child protection issue. The clear situation is that because of the circumstances the entire Health and Social Services Department is in a destabilised situation. We must restore things to a state of stability as soon as possible and therefore it is a clear priority that we deal with this matter also as soon as possible.

13. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

I take no sides here, I am just speaking as a neutral, but I cannot help but pick up something that the Chief Minister did say, that this is all about child protection. Yet there is an assumption that

Senator F.H. Walker :

May I correct the Deputy ? He has precisely got it totally the wrong way round. I said this is not all about child protection, this is solely and entirely about the Minister's conduct.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I stand corrected. If I just correct again, I do accept what the Chief Minister said, however, if it is about the risk of young people, the Chief Minister has asked for, and I support his call for, a review by Mr. Williamson and I do think that it is very important that we get all the facts before us before we debate whether, in fact, there is a vote of confidence or whether we should go for the dismissal of Senator Syvret. I also found it quite strange some years ago I remember trying to lodge something and I was told that I could not lodge something because it was a negative of the proposition. Well, I understood here that we have a proposition by Senator Syvret himself and yet I would have thought what we have got here is a negative to the proposition and I am quite surprised, Sir - I accept the fact that it was you that made this decision - that the decision was made that we could have a dismissal before a proposition about the vote of confidence which I would have thought would have come first, in which case this is negating the very proposition that Senator Syvret had. I am very unhappy about the debate. I would rather we did not have it and I would rather have all the facts in front of me before we do debate it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

If I can just respond to the last point of course that was, Deputy , under the old Standing Orders which had a specific provision about that. Does any other Member wish to speak on whether the States will take the debate? Very well, do you wish to reply, Chief Minister?

14. Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, if I may, very briefly. Senator Syvret put forward two reasons for proposing the debate should not be taken today. I will not comment on the second because that was a matter for you or the Bailiff , but I do know that it was ruled that the procedure adopted by the Council of Ministers was in accord with the practice laid down. Sir, the facts are that Senator Syvret has known since 28th January the reasons for this proposition because it was on 28th January - I beg your pardon, July - 28th July, that Ministers wrote to me asking me to request his resignation which I immediately did. That was nearly now eight weeks ago. So the Senator has known for all of that time what the issues are and what the proposition will be about. There is nothing new in the report and proposition, nothing new to the Minister for Health at all and of course he did have the opportunity on 6th September at a scheduled Council of Ministers meeting to fully put his case, but decided, for reasons I can well understand, not to do so. But the fact is he has known of the content of the report and proposition for something like eight weeks. Now, Deputy Breckon has suggested that we should delay this debate until 9th October. Can I say -

Deputy A. Breckon:

I did not say that, I asked Senator Syvret to say.

Senator F.H. Walker :

I beg your pardon, Deputy , you are quite right. But there was general reference to not taking this debate until the House can debate the motion of confidence brought by the Minister for Health. So I have to tell you, delaying this debate until 9th October or even worse, until Mr. Williamson has conducted his inquiry as suggested by the Deputy of St. Martin, which is at least three months, is absolutely totally unacceptable. I cannot imagine what will happen to our child protection services if we delay this debate for anything approaching either of those periods. That just cannot be an option we can give serious consideration to. Of course the Deputy of St. Martin's point would be valid if the issue was indeed about child protection. But as I have said, it is not. Of course the vote of confidence  lodged  by  the Minister  for  Health was  lodged some time after  the vote of  no confidence which I lodged having consulted with the Council of Ministers, so -

Senator S. Syvret:

That is factually incorrect.

Senator F.H. Walker :

I beg your pardon, it was lodged before, but the report and proposition was well known before it was lodged. So, Sir, it is vital that we do get our order in this right. It is vital for the sake of the children and the people who provide the services they depend upon that we do not delay an issue which has gone on for far too long already. There is an issue here for the House to address at a later stage about how we can better manage circumstances such as this in the future. But it has dragged on for eight weeks. Any further delay, particularly until Mr. Williamson has completed his review or even until October, will put children at additional risk and that is not a position we, in the House, Members of this House, can possibly contemplate. So, Sir, I very strongly urge members to bring this matter to a conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be and to do so today in the interests of all concerned.

15. Senator S. Syvret:

Could I just say that it is quite untrue and incorrect to say, as indeed the literature would show, that the controversy has put children at risk or somehow damaged the child welfare protection. It is well established among the codes of conduct, the professionals working in this field, that it is always better to speak out against a failing system, no matter what deficiencies and what problems and controversies that may cause than it is to remain silent. The literature is quite clear on this and the great majority

The Deputy Bailiff :

I allowed you to start, but you do not have a further right on the matter like this.

Senator S. Syvret: It is how it is done.

POUR: 38

Senator L. Norman Senator F.H. Walker Senator T.A. Le Sueur Senator P.F. Routier Senator M.E. Vibert Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator T.J. Le Main Senator F.E. Cohen

CONTRE: 12 ABSTAIN: 1 Senator S. Syvret Senator W. Kinnard Senator B.E. Shenton

Connétable of St. Peter

Connétable of St. Helier

Connétable of St. John

Deputy A. Breckon (S)

Deputy of St. Martin

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

Senator J.L. Perchard Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Lawrence Connétable of Grouville Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy J.J. Huet (H)

Deputy P.N. Troy (B) Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.B. Fox (H)

Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L) Deputy of Trinity

Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy S. Pitman (H) Deputy A.J.D. Maclean (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy of St. John

Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)

Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H) Deputy of Grouville

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, now then the question is at what stage in these proceedings? Chief Minister, you have asked that it be taken as first item of business, is that right?

16. Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, Sir, and I maintain that request on the basis that this is an issue which is hanging over all of us and I do not believe it is going to be possible for us to have a sensible debate on other issues so long as it remains hanging over our heads. I also repeat the point I made just now that this information has been available to the Senator for something approaching eight weeks. So I see no reason why the paper that I understand that he is to distribute to members this morning could not have been distributed some time ago and that members could have had every opportunity to consider it and take a view on it. So I think it is a question of a missed opportunity here. This has gone on too long and I think we need to take this first opportunity as first item of business to resolve it one way or another.

17. Senator S. Syvret:

The Assembly, notwithstanding the request of the Connétable of St. Helier, I think personally that the Assembly having decided that it will go ahead with the debate at this meeting, it probably is better that it is taken as first item. I think it would be preferable to proceed in that way.

18. The Connétable of St. Helier :

Can I just ask that the Minister circulates his comments to give us as much time to read them as possible before the debate begins?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, all those in favour of taking the matter as first item of public business, kindly show. Those against? That is adopted.

Senator S. Syvret:

Could my non comments be distributed? But that should not be taken as any indication that I remotely accept the Bailiff 's ruling and I will be taking this up in coming days.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, the Greffier will arrange for distribution.

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY DEPUTY J.A MARTIN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE MIX OF HOUSING AT LE SQUEZ:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly of the type and number of dwellings at Le Squez after the total refurbishment of the estate (e.g. flats or houses and number of bedrooms); how many of the houses will be for rental, and the projected overall cost of this project?

Answer

The original master plan for Le Squez provided for the redevelopment of a total of 248 homes, 109 retained for rental and 139 sold to States tenants -

18 one-bedroom flats - all for rental

41 two-bedroom houses - 21 for rental and 20 for sale 10 two-bedroom bungalows - 19 for rental and 1 for sale 145 three-bedroom houses - 47 for rental and 98 for sale 34 four-bedroom houses - 14 for rental and 20 for sale.

That master plan is being redrawn. The intention is to create a real community development. The new plan is still in the very early stages of design. However, it is expected that at conclusion the development could yield approximately 275 homes. A key feature of this new master plan will be an increase in the number of one-bedroom flats to meet the growing need for life long homes. This would provide for a site with a much more appropriate density given the area at approximately 81 habitable rooms per acre.

The development will cost approximately £40m (£13m expended to date) to completion at 2007 prices.

In the weeks to come, further detail will become available as the architects refine their master plan in consultation with both the Housing and Planning and Environment Departments. This will clarify the numbers and allow far greater certainty about the outcome, both in respect of yield and cost. Naturally there will be full consultation with the residents of Le Squez, as well as the Connétable of St. Clement, Deputies Gerard Baudains and Ian Gorst , Parochial officers and of course residents living in surrounding areas.

2. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON REGARDING THE DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN:

Question

In the Draft Annual Business Plan 2007 under Summary Table C the Expenditure Allocation for 2008 in respect of Treasury and Resources was stated as being £54,708,000. In the Draft Annual Business Plan 2008 under Summary Table C the Expenditure Allocation for 2008 in respect of Treasury and Resources was stated as being £61,586,000 – an increase of 12.57%.

Can the Minister please explain, in layman's terms, the reasons for the differential and also set out the exact meaning of Repayments and Interest on Capital Debt' (Page 120 of the Annex) and what this figure encapsulates?

Answer

The 2008 figure as published in the 2007 Business Plan does not include inter-departmental transfers and was calculated based on inflation assumptions prevailing at that time.

Detailed comparison of the Department's 2007 and 2008 budgets can be found on pages 123-125 of the Annex to the States Business Plan. These pages detail the various movements in the Treasury and Resources budget from 2007 to 2008 excluding the Repayments and Interest on Capital Debt'. The most significant component of the £6.8 million increase to the budget is £4m transfers relating to property maintenance budgets held in other States departments. There is also a book transfer' of some £2.5 million in respect of interest and capital debt repayments. When transfers are excluded the overall budget shows a reduction of £80,000, largely as a net result of efficiency savings.

Repayments and Interest on Capital Debt is a legacy term that related to the requirements of the previous Public Finances (Jersey) Law and comprises three elements. The majority of the cost shown against this line represents a proxy for depreciation of the States fixed assets; also included is interest received into the consolidated fund from trading funds in respect of their capital expenditure financed from the consolidated fund; the final element relates to the depreciation of capital grant funding of below ground works' at the airport, funded from the consolidated fund, but capitalised in the Airport's Trading Fund. This last item accounts for the majority of the increase between the two estimates.

The planned implementation of GAAP based accounting within the States means that processes and procedures around accounting for capital expenditure and depreciation are currently being reviewed and will change as new accounting standards are implemented.

3. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE WASTE REVIEW: Question

With regard to the Panel's review of waste, would the Chairman advise members –

1. why the presentation toStates members andothersof alternatives to mass incineration of Jersey's waste, as agreed by the Panel in January and proposedto be held in March, has not yet been held?
2. with reference toSR13/2007(Waste Recycling' presented to the States on 3rd July 2007) and especially page 89 thereof, would the Chairman advise whether his Panel carried out economic comparisons between recycling and incineration as part of the review and, in particular whether the Panel investigated –

1. the assumed composition and quantity of recyclables were the Island to achieve 60% recycling,
2. the probable value ofthose materials, less thecostofshipping and any treatment necessary,
3. the cost of incinerating the above materials, including ash disposal and amortisation of plant costs.

If the Panel did research these issues, would the Chairman set out the results of the Panel's research, with particular emphasis on comparing the economics of recycling versus incineration?

Answer

1. The terms ofreferenceof the WasteRecyclingreport did not include a comparisonofresidual waste treatment facilities. However the Panel has an active interest in the alternatives to mass incineration and will organise a presentation to States members and others well in advance of the States debate to determine the technology for future residual waste disposal in Jersey.
2. This has been answered in part (a). However, the Panel has requested information from the Transport and Technical Services department (in July 2007) on the costof incineration and is still awaiting a response on which to make a meaningful economic comparison between recycling and incineration.

1. The composition of recyclables, were the Island toachieve a 60% recycling rate, depends on the materials targeted within thewaste stream. For example just recycling allpaperand all kitchen waste would achieve a rate between 55and 60%. It is more likely that a wider range of materials would be considered and that the mix will vary over time as consumer habits change.
2. The Waste Recycling report provides indicative prices based on May 2007 for the most common recyclable materials (P.89). The total value of recyclable materials depends on the relative quantities available.Shippingcostsweregivenbytwoseparate local operators and are shown on page 88 ofthe report. The cost of treatment depends on the method of collection and requirement for sorting. During the course of its research, the Panel investigated various types of treatment plant and relative costs.
3. As set out above, the Panel is awaiting this information from the Transport and Technical Services Department.

When the Panel receives the detailed analysis of existing and projected incineration costs a

comparison of the economics of incineration versus recycling will be undertaken.

4. THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING PRIVATE CARE HOME COSTS: Question

What have been the costs to date, if any, in 2007 of accommodation for residents who have been transferred from Overdale to private care homes? What is the cost per week for residents occupying places in private care homes and when will the wards at Overdale, currently accommodating residents due for transfer, be closed down?

Answer

The Deputy will be mindful of the planned closure of Leoville and McKinstry Ward s at Overdale and the transfer of patients to private sector nursing homes in 2006. The transfer of the first cohort of twenty five continuing care clients has been the subject of numerous statements from myself and of course, the issues were fully explored by the Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel – an exploration which is fully described in the resultant report entitled Overdale; the closure of Leoville and McKinstry Ward s (S.R.1/2007)'. The Deputy will also be mindful of my comprehensive and forensic response to that Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel Report. In that response of mine I drew attention to the plain and demonstrable fact that the transfer of clients to the Silver Springs Care Home was a result of detailed planning, a comprehensive assessment of the various competing options, was guided by senior health care professionals and was informed by the wishes and needs of the clients themselves and their families.

During the Scrutiny Panel's deliberations my officers and I placed before the Panel members a full analysis of the costs and benefits of the transfer of clients (the first cohort) to the Silver Springs Care Home. This included information of a commercially sensitive nature – information which the Panel rightly considered in closed session. I remain convinced that the transfer of clients to the Silver Springs Care Home achieved the maximum benefits for the clients themselves and demonstrated best possible value for money for the taxpayer. To date the costs incurred by the States of Jersey in 2007 for these clients remains within the limits as specified in the business case which the Scrutiny Panel had sight of during its deliberations.

More to the point, it is right that the Deputy asks for a progress report on the transfer of the remaining clients (of both residents and users of the respite service) which remain at Leoville and McKinstry Ward s.

As to respite facilities, I am very pleased to advise the Deputy that four nursing respite beds are now provided from the Little Grove Nursing Home an arrangement which came into effect in January 2007. The response from clients is that this respite service is now delivered to a far higher standard and there is a high level of satisfaction with it from clients and their carers. In addition to this, two residential respite beds are provided from the Pinewood Residential Home an arrangement which came into effect in April 2007. Again, these services are highly valued by clients and their carers. Additionally a seventh respite bed is purchased on a spot purchase basis dependent on whether the need is for a residential or nursing bed. We will analyse the use of this bed over the first nine months of operation to determine whether when we seek a contract for this bed it should be to a nursing or residential facility. The cost of these respite services is commercially sensitive but I am very willing to disclose these to the Deputy on a confidential basis to demonstrate good governance and value for money. If he would like a detailed brief on this matter than might I suggest he contact my Chief Officer so that the arrangements can be made.

5. THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT ANDCULTUREBYDEPUTYR.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING YOUTH PROVISION IN TOWN: Question

What progress, if any, has been achieved with the proposals to have a floating' youth club and a town skateboard park and when are they likely to materialise?

Answer

The importance of maintaining youth provision in the Waterfront/Weighbridge area was recognised in the States Strategic Plan 2006 -11. One option that was considered was a proposal to develop youth provision on a lightship in Jersey harbour. This was in response to the potential closure of the Move on Café in the old Harbour Offices on the Waterfront and a recognition that it would be difficult to secure appropriate alternative premises for the continuation of youth work in that area of St. Helier .

As planning was underway for the lightship development, the Department for Education, Sport and Culture received information from the Parish of St. Helier that the development company with responsibility for the Island Site' had indicated that it might be prepared to offer the Parish a medium term lease on the premises and that, if the lease could be secured, the Parish would be prepared, as part of its agreed youth partnership with the Comité des Connétable s, to enter into a partnership with the Department for Education, Sport and Culture to retain the building for youth provision.

In view of this, officers of the Parish of St. Helier, Department for Education, Sport and Culture, and Planning and Environment have been working on a proposal which would be acceptable to all parties to secure continued youth work from those premises.

Several sites had been considered for the provision of a skateboard park. The agreed option is now to develop a facility on the Waterfront on top of the Waterfront car park adjacent to the green grassed area. Meetings have been held between the Chief Minister, Department for Education, Sport and Culture, Planning and Environment, WEB and Hopkins Architects to identify a suitable design in keeping with the overall concept of the Waterfront development. Architects are currently drawing up outline plans to determine and identify a design to fit the purpose. This will include other long-term youth facilities. The outcomes of this process will be completed before the end of 2007.

6. THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING BUS PHONE TEXTS: Question

What have been the itemised costs to date of introducing a mobile phone texting service for bus arrival times?

Answer

The SMS text messaging system, which is due to be launched at the beginning of next month, is an added benefit from the installation of the Real Time Passenger Information system in the new Liberation Station bus station. It will provide real time information via the text messaging service on mobile phones for bus passengers anywhere on the Island.

The one-off costs associated with installing this system are -

The annual running costs are -

Expressions of interest have already been invited from clients who may be interested in taking advantage of spare space on the text messages to advertise their products. The intention is that this advertising revenue will cover the revenue costs and contribute towards the one-off set up costs.

7. THE  MINISTER  FOR  HOME  AFFAIRS  BY DEPUTY  S.S.P.A.  POWER  OF ST. BRELADE REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN FIRE STATION Question

On Page 179 in the Annex to the Business Plan, there is a reference to the Western Fire Station, La Route des Quennevais, St. Brelade suggesting its possible closure. In view of the fact that the Western Parishes have had a number of serious fires in the past 12 months, including a very serious headland fire incident close to HMP La Moye, at La Moye Point, that lasted many days and there are approximately 1,200 new units of accommodation due for completion in the five Western Parishes in the next 12 months, would the Minister state whether any decision has been made to close the Western Fire Station, and, if so, explain the reasons for this?

Answer

There are currently no plans to close the Western Fire Station. Until recently, discussions between senior managers from the Fire and Rescue Service and the Airport had been in progress with regard to the sharing of fire station facilities for both Services as part of a broader project of development at the Airport. A successful conclusion to these discussions would have resulted in the current Western Fire Station site becoming available however, a number of factors associated with the proposed new facilities at the Airport and the Fire and Rescue Service's Risk Profile' of the whole area have led to a joint decision not to pursue the initiative further. Indeed, a programme of refurbishment  for the  Western  Fire  Station  is currently  being considered  by  Fire and Rescue Service managers.

8. THE  MINISTER  FOR  TREASURY AND  RESOURCES  BY CONNÉTABLE A.S CROWCROFT  OF  ST.  HELIER  REGARDING  FUNDS  FOR  THE MILLENNIUM TOWN PARK:

Question

Would the Minister give a detailed breakdown of how funds allocated for the construction of the Millennium Town Park have been managed since the inception of the project, including interest accrued on these funds? Would he also state whether the sum of £500,000 from these funds has recently  been  allocated  by  the  Council  of  Ministers to  the  Transport  and  Technical  Services Department for landscaping works on Victoria Avenue, to be repaid at a later date, and, if so, would he give a full explanation?

Answer

I attach below a breakdown of the Town Park funds to date. I can also confirm that agreement has been reached with the Ministers for Transport and Technical Services and Housing to facilitate a £500,000 scheme for improvements and landscaping on Victoria Avenue in 2007, which will then be repaid in 2011. I can advise that the temporary transfer of funds from the Town Park project was only considered after it was confirmed that this would have no effect on the timescale for delivery of the scheme.

9. THE  CHIEF  MINISTER  BY DEPUTY  G.C.L.  BAUDAINS  OF  ST.  CLEMENT REGARDING THE COSTS OF A NATIONAL GALLERY:

Question

Would the Minister advise, in relation to the proposed National Gallery' –

1. whether a business plan has been completed;
2. the likely capital cost;
3. the estimated annual maintenance costs;
4. the estimated annual running costs;
5. whether the public will be consulted as to whether they want such a facility?

Answer

Education,  Sport  and  Culture  is  the  States  department  charged  in  the  Cultural  Strategy  with responsibility for championing the arts and our Island heritage. Following publication of drawings showing what a gallery might look like at the Weighbridge, I can confirm that work is currently being  undertaken  by  the  department.  Its  purpose  is  to  set  out  sufficient  detail  to  enable  the production of a business plan.

Because that plan has not yet been produced, it is too early to comment on the specific issues raised in the question but I confirm that consideration of those issues will, as one would expect, form an important part of the plan. As importantly, the plan will address not only the costs involved but also methods of providing for those costs, in particular through the involvement of the private sector. Before I took forward any such proposals, I would wish to be satisfied that the data provided was robust, and that resources were available to provide for the on-going costs of operation, as well as for the capital cost.

As I have indicated, the proposals, such as currently exist, are at an early stage of development. A number of stakeholders have contributed views thus far, and I am also grateful to the Minister for Economic Development for the support of his department in agreeing to assess the economic potential of such a facility to the Island. When more information is available on the gallery as a whole, it will be important that the detail is available publicly so that views can be expressed and taken account of.

10. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE POLICING OF JERSEY LIVE:

Question

With regard to the policing of Jersey Live' would the Minister advise –

1. the number of local States of Jersey Police officers present,
2. the number of officers brought to Jersey especially for the event,
3. the total cost of the exercise,
4. the cost of the officers brought in.

Answer

1. The States of Jersey Police are not releasing thetotal number of local police officers who were present at Jersey Live as releasing this information would compromise the operationally sensitive aspects of policing the event.
2. The total number of mutual aid officers was 33.
3. The totalcostofthe exercise is unknown at this stage as all costs incurred have not been received.
4. The costofthe mutual aid officers is unknown at this time as not all the associated charges (invoices) for policing the event have been received.

11. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE IMPACT OFG.S.T.ON STATES DEPARTMENTS:

Question

Further to my written question of 16th July 2007, in particular part (c), would the Minister inform members whether many of the goods and services bought in by States departments will rise in cost once G.S.T. is introduced and, if so, would he estimate the value of those goods and services liable to G.S.T. at 2007 prices?

Answer

G.S.T. registered businesses must treat all supplies of goods and/or services to the States in the normal way (the States does not enjoy any special relief or preferential treatment).

The G.S.T. Law requires the States to be registered for G.S.T. and classifies the States as a single entity, including any Minister, Department or administration of the States.

As a G.S.T. registered entity the States will be able to reclaim any G.S.T. it incurs on any goods and services (including imports) that relate to making taxable supplies. In addition, it will be able to reclaim the G.S.T. incurred in performance of any States statutory requirements.

As a consequence, the States like any other G.S.T. registered entity, will not face any increased costs directly as a result of being charged G.S.T.

This means that the cost to the States of providing both statutory services, and goods and services supplied in the course of, or furtherance, of business will not be affected by G.S.T.

12. CHAIRMAN OF ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING FUTURE REVIEWS:

Question

Would the Chairman give an update of the Reviews his Panel is currently conducting, how long they have been on-going and when they are due for completion?

Answer

The Panel has just completed its Design of Homes review and the Report is with members today. A further review  into Design of Homes relating to waterfront developments has been agreed  in principle and the terms of reference are being refined.

The Panel is developing its work programme and having approved its Air Quality Review terms of reference is due to appoint an advisor before the end of September. The Panel is awaiting the release of the Integrated Transport Strategy consultation document and the Energy Policy consultation document following which a decision will be taken as to the level of scrutiny required for these two proposals.

In addition the Panel is undertaking follow up work to its Waste Recycling Review and a number of public meetings have been arranged to advise of its findings and conclusion.

13. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE POTENTIAL USE OF TASER GUNS BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

Question

With the stated aim of the States of Jersey Police to obtain TASER stun guns (Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle), will the Minister –

1. give the reasons behind the desire to have such devices in Jersey, and advise whether she is aware ofthedoubt over their effectiveness, the potential for abuse and the alleged number of deaths attributed to such devices?
2. explain what, if any, consideration has been given to the effect that the deployment of such guns may have on police relations with the public?

Answer

1. Jersey strivesto comply with obligations under Article 2 ofthe Convention onHumanRights: the right to respect for life. This additional tool provides for another less lethal option which can be deployed when encountering people who are a physical dangertothemselves, officers or members of the general public, without having to deploy full lethal force.

The technology was first used in the mid seventies in the USA, and Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) were given project status by the U.K. Home Office in 2003, and then used on the streets in the U.K. from 2004. They are now in widespread use in the U.K., although only to be used by trained firearms officers in Jersey.

At present the States of Jersey Police have a full firearms capability. They have at their disposal a number of conventional firearms including semi-automatic pistols, MP5 carbines, Accuracy International rifles  both 7.62 and .243 calibre and Remington 870 pump action shotguns used for the delivery of specialist munitions and animal destruction.

The police use a Conflict Management Model (CMM). Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) have to take in to consideration a range of less lethal options before resorting to lethal force. (That is to say they must have been tried and  failed or  in the circumstances unlikely to succeed.)

The less lethal options are -

Officer's Presence.

Communication Skills Talking to subject

Primary Control Skills Physical restraint i.e. handcuffs

Secondary Control Skills C.S Spray

Defensive and Offensive Skills Open handed techniques; Asp Baton strikes; dog;

Launcher (Baton Gun)

Deadly Force.  Firearms

Within these options an ECD (of which the TASER is a brand name of one particular model) would be introduced as a secondary Control skill level. The effects of ECD are confined purely to the delivery of the voltage. There are no post traumatic injuries associated with ECD, unlike CS spray, ASP baton and Launcher baton gun strikes.

In addition ECDs provide for better officer safety as they can be discharged at up to a distance of 21 feet. The CS spray has an operational effectiveness of approximately 12 feet and with the ASP  baton  the  officer  needs  to  be  within  arms  reach.  The  Launcher  baton  gun  has  a documented operational effectiveness of 20 meters however in instances where it has been discharged and the subject has been wearing heavy clothing or under the influence of drink or drugs or indeed both it has provided no more than a distraction.

At present if the subject is in a building then the Launcher baton gun cannot be deployed because of the ricochet dangers and so the available less lethal options are reduced. In addition the target area of the body at which the Launcher baton gun can be aimed is restricted to the belt buckle, should the subject be seated behind a desk or intentionally or otherwise obscure their abdomen then the launcher baton gun cannot be used. There are no such restrictions with ECDs.

The ECD relies on the fact that it induces Electro-Muscular Disruption which causes loss of some voluntary muscle control resulting in the subject falling to the ground or freezing' on the spot, incapacitating the subject for as long as the ECD (electrical charge) is being activated. It is not intended, nor is it likely to render the subject into a state of unconsciousness and the effects are likely to be instantaneous.

The States of Jersey Police have adopted the Home Office Codes of Practice on the Police use of Firearms as Good Practice' and all of the training and operational deployments of firearms are conducted in accordance with the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms and the National Firearms Curriculum. There is no room for abuse in any of the tactics that described in any of these documents. The proposal locally is that only trained and recognised AFOs are deployed with ECDs being amongst a number of options, in line with the standard firearms authority (authorised at ACPO level) – officers on routine patrol will not be carrying ECD equipment.

In a press release on 31st August 2007 Amnesty International are quoted as saying –

Amnesty International believes that TASERs (ECDs) can only be used if:

• TASERs (ECDs) are only used as an alternative to lethal force where situation presents an immediate threat of death or serious injury to officers or others
• Officers carrying TASERs (ECDs) are trained to firearms standards on an ongoing basis
• Roll-out is highly restricted and then only to specially trained officers
• The Home Office has demonstrated how the use of TASER will be consistent with its obligations under international human rights guidelines and what policies and procedures are in place to prevent misuse of electro-shock weapons.

Deployment in Jersey will be in compliance with all these points.

There are no known deaths that can be attributed directly to the use of ECD. There may however be some deaths which have occurred as a result of poor after care i.e. positional asphyxia. SoJP officers are trained in First Aid and AFOs will be trained in the specialist aftercare required, as will Custody Staff. During the development of a firearms incident it is a standard option to deploy paramedics to the scene, this would include the use of ECD.

The electronic charge of the ECD is well within the safety limits to have any effect on the heart. It has been deemed as totally safe, for example, with persons who have an electronic pacemaker fitted.

"The risk of life threatening or serious injuries from the M26 advanced TASER appears to be very low." DOMILL report August 2004.

"The risk of a life-threatening event arising from the direct interaction of the currents of the X26 TASER with the heart, is less than the already low risk of such an event from the M26 Advanced TASER." PSDB report March 2005. (X26 TASER is the second Model currently in use in the U.K., M26 Advanced was actually the first).

2. Fatal shootings involving police officers attract a huge amount of public and media attention. They are expensive in terms of human loss and injury, trauma, public enquiries, independent investigations. The impact on a small community such as Jersey would be significant. Deployment of ECD equipment is designed to reduce the possibility offatal police shootings and preserve officer safetyaswellas maximise the protection afforded to the general public. It should be re-assuring to the general public that the Police have access to such equipment.

The general public will also be re-assured that Jersey's compliance with the Convention on Human Rights will be enhanced as a result.

14. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE ISSUE OF FIREARMS CERTIFICATES BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

Question

With regard to the processing of firearm certificates by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP), will the Minister –

1. (a) advise how many renewals/variations have been processed in each of the last three years.

2. the average time taken to process each one,
3. the average time taken to process the slowest quintile.

2. Inform members whetherthe SOJP have stated that anyone without a valid certificate, notwithstanding the fact its expiry is due to processing by the SOJP, will be prosecuted, and, if so, state what action, if any, she intends to take regarding this matter?

Answer

1. (a) From 1/7/04 – 1/7/05 = 257 From 1/7/05 – 1/7/06 = 348 From 1/7/06 – 1/9/07 = 854.

The 2000 Firearms Law allowed for five year licences and included firearms not previously licensed such as shotguns and air rifles. This is why there has been a disproportionate number of renewals to process within the last 12 months. It should be noted that a reminder is generated by the Central Firearms Index (CFI) three months before any certificate expires and this is sent to the Connétable of the relevant Parish. Previously reminders were sent two months before expiry but this has been amended to give certificate holders maximum notice. Between November 2007 and March 2008 there are 360 certificates scheduled to expire and this will cause additional demands on workloads in CFI.

(b) and (c)

To go through the three years of records manually to analyse this information would create approximately two weeks of work in the Central Firearms Index and would prevent any applications, renewals and variations being processed for that time, so causing avoidable delay to the administration procedures. However, we have analysed the most recent batch of 34 certificates currently awaiting issue –

• It was found that the average time taken for completed applications to reach the Central Firearms Index from the applicant was 12.3 days. The slowest 20% took an average of six weeks to arrive at Police Headquarters from the date the form was completed by the applicant.
• On average, Police National Computer (PNC) checks had been completed on these applicants just eight days after the form was received by the Central Firearms Index. The slowest 20 per cent took an average of 17 days before PNC checks were completed.
• On average, processed applications are returned to the relevant Parish Hall in about 18 days following the completion of the PNC checks. This gives a complete turnaround time within the Central Firearms Index for Firearms certificate applications of about 26 days (including weekends).
• The processed application is returned to the appropriate Parish Hall who then complete the process of issuing a firearms certificate. States of Jersey Police do not have details of the average time taken by each Parish to issue a firearms certificate following receipt of the necessary documentation from the Central Firearms Index. It is not therefore possible to answer the question as to how long it takes to process an application. What can be stated, however, is that the Central Firearms Index at Police Headquarters is currently performing its part of the process from start to finish in about four weeks.

2. The matterof prosecution is not a matter for the Home Affairs MinisterortheStatesof Jersey Police, this is for the 12 individual Parishes and Her Majesty's Attorney-General. The Police have been asked by the firearms community about their legal position should there be a time gap between certificates expiring and being renewed. There areno transitional arrangements in the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 to deal with this anomaly. Technically firearms certificate holders would commit offences of possession of firearms and/or ammunition without valid certification and would be liabletobereportedto their respective Parishes for consideration of prosecution.

This has been discussed at a recent Firearms Law Liaison Group Meeting where the minute extract is as follows –

(iii) In response to a question about delays in receiving FA certificates, DCI Minty explained that –

• There were large volumes of applications, renewals and variations being processed through CFI and they were being prioritised in order of expiry date so as to try and ensure seamless renewal. This would have been why the enquirer's FAC was not dealt with when first submitted but processed closer to the expiry time.
• The CFI have been instructed not to backdate any FAC s .The FJL provides for no transitional arrangements between the expiry and renewal date if there is a gap.
• Technically persons in possession of firearms or ammunition without a valid certificate are in unlawful possession of firearms. FAC holders are duty-bound as responsible citizens to ensure that all their certification is valid to cover their activity, thus anyone who has not received their FAC renewal on time, should arrange for their firearms and ammunition to be lodged with the SOJP, otherwise they could be prosecuted.
• It was considered there was an individual responsibility to address concerns with the Connétable in the first instance. Prolonged delays could be taken up with AL, who will follow these up.
• Consideration to be given to a fast-track process. Police to consider implications to CFI for emergency requirements.

Secretary's note: Since the meeting DCI Minty has been asked to clarify the position regarding prosecution of FAC holders under these circumstances. DCI Minty has advised that each case which comes to attention will need to be dealt with on merit and the police duty to report offender/s remains, whilst the disposal of these cases relies on the Honorary Police (Duty Centenier) in each Parish who will be asked to consider the facts.

3. Oral Questions

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the effective scrutiny of the Annual Business Plan:

Will the Chief Minister explain to members why the figures given in his presentation of the Annual Business Plan 2008 in March 2007 in order that Scrutiny Panels had sufficient time to properly scrutinise departmental plans, were not the final figures therefore rendering effective scrutiny, such as in the case of the Economic Development, impossible?

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

The presentation to States' members on 23rd March 2007 represented the provisional cash limits for departments for the draft Annual Business Plan 2008. At the presentation it was made abundantly clear that these proposals were complete except for pay and price variations which might arise from the release of the March 2007 R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) on 18th April 2007. Members should also be aware that the substantive changes to the Council's proposals in March to those lodged on 17th July are in respect of pay and prices, the only exception being in Social Security which was primarily to reflect the changing profile of the Income Support Transitional Relief.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I find it hard to believe that answer. What I have in front of me are figures for 2008 which showed in March a £750,000 transfer out of rural economy funding and a £750,000 transfer out of tourism and marketing into other sectors which now no longer exist. I am informed that these figures are not to be relied on in any way whatsoever and that the actual figures have changed completely from March. Can the Minister account for why that big difference should be there?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I would ask the Deputy to furnish that information. I assume that he has already taken it up with the Economic Development Department or the Economic Development Minister and if he has not, I do not know why he has not. It is also possible that the Deputy is unaware of the very constructive meeting that I and other Ministers held with the Chairmen's Committee Working Group, this is a joint Working Group to consider scrutiny of the Business Plan in which we made a great deal of constructive progress, agreed that the process needs to be improved and agreed a number of ways in which it will be improved. That, of course, is the way forward.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may? Of course and indeed I have taken this up with the Minister for Economic Development and I am now confident that these figures which were presented in March were absolutely not to be relied on and bore no connection with what thinking in the Economic Development Department was. The question is why were these absolutely misleading figures presented as if they were close to the final figures when in fact nothing could be further from the truth?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Well, Sir, that is the Deputy 's opinion and of course the important issue here is that the figures presented in the Business Plan are fully accurate and up to date. I have yet, as I have said, to see any information from the Deputy so I cannot comment on his comments, but as I say, I hope that he has taken them up with the relevant Minister and his department. But I would ask the Deputy now to focus on improving the scrutiny process as his own Chairmen's Committee representatives wish to do and working with Ministers to ensure that we do improve it and we get it right, and better than we have done in future years.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Can I press the Minister to ensure that in the coming year figures presented six months before the Business Plan are more accurate and more accurately reflect what is planned than the figures which were presented in March of this year?

Senator F.H. Walker :

That will depend on the timing of course, and I would repeat that the emphasis at the presentation made it very clear that these were provisional figures. Now if members want, if the Deputy wants information as early as possible which I wholeheartedly support - then unfortunately if we are working months before the final figures are concluded, there will be a provisional aspect to them and some of them may well change. So I cannot give that guarantee. What I can guarantee is that any figures that are provisional will be clearly stated as provisional.

3. Deputy A. Breckon:

I wonder if the Chief Minister would like to comment on the Business Plan in general. The policy and headings, would he agree that in fact most of that is movable, not just within a department, but across departments and Ministers? The policy and headings within departments and across departments, the resource, the money and the manpower is in fact movable. Would he agree with that?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Is it movable within departments? Yes, Sir.

2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the preservation of oak trees at Goose Green Marsh:

Will the Minister explain how the Tree Preservation Order on two roadside oak trees at the Goose Green development will guarantee their protection?

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

I should firstly clarify that the term "Tree Preservation Order" is a remnant of the former 1964 Island Planning (Jersey) Law. The new 2002 Planning and Building (Jersey) Law provides for a list of protected trees. Thus under this law the 2 roadside trees at Bel Royal are included on this list and are therefore deemed to be protected trees. Under the provisions of the new law, the Minister's permission is required to cut down, lop or otherwise alter, harm or interfere with trees which are included on the list of protected trees. To do so without consent represents an offence. In other words the protection of the two protected oak trees at Bel Royal is guaranteed  insofar as an application needs to be made to undertake any work to them or to fell them. Any application will be dealt with by me personally.

3.2.1 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

If I may? I understand that there was no environmental impact assessment carried out on the environment at Goose Green before the development permission was given. Had one been carried out I am sure it is likely that the row of oak trees would have been retained. Nevertheless, in retaining two of them, they will impact upon the road changes that have been approved for the development to go ahead and I would like to ask the Minister who will make the ultimate decision as to which will prevail here? Will it be Environment, by retention of the trees, or will it be a decision made by the engineers at Transport and Technical Services that they should be removed, after which the Minister will then make his final decision?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I think I can simply answer the question by saying that the Deputy has my absolute guarantee that those trees will remain in place.

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

May I thank the Minister for that, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff :

We come to a question which Deputy Southern will ask of the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding effective tax rates for the financial services industry:

Following his response to a question on 16th July 2007, will the Minister reveal to Members the amounts and effective rates of tax charged to profits for the five subsectors of the financial services sector, along with their comparative figures for all 11 sectors of the economy for the latest year for which he has data, and estimate what impact the advent of Zero 10 will have on these figures?

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

As I indicated to the Deputy in an email over the weekend, this question will take significant research and cannot be answered at present. I should hate to give him an incomplete or inaccurate answer, but I have instructed the Comptroller of Income Tax to undertake the research and will give the Deputy an answer at the earliest opportunity.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thank the Minister for his answer and look forward to his detailed answer.

4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the signature of a Ministerial decision:

Given the assertion to this Assembly during the debate on 2nd May of P.49/2007 - and I have abridged that, Sir - which is the Committee of Inquiry debating Goose Green, that the decision to grant planning permission had already been made, could the Minister confirm what date he physically signed ministerial decision number MDPE 2007(065) which bears the date 21st March 2007?

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

I physically signed the relevant ministerial decision on the morning of 4th May 2007. I appreciate that there has been a level of debate over when a planning decision takes place, however, I have taken advice from the Law Officers and am satisfied that this decision was made on the day I instructed the planning officers to write up the consent, and that was on 21st March 2007. On 21st March I instructed the planning officer to write up the consent for 102 homes, together with various associated works, subject to finalisation of conditions and to a requirement that the applicant should enter into a planning obligation agreement. I appreciate that the ministerial decision supplementary guidelines state that a ministerial decision will only be made when the decision is signed, however, I am assured that this is not the determining factor in the case of planning decisions. Under the Planning and Building Law, the word "decision" takes on the common English usage, and, accordingly, my decision was made when I reached my conclusion and/or made up my mind to grant planning permission. The fact that I signed the ministerial decision on 4th May 2007 does not, and cannot, undo my original decision made on 21st March. The ministerial decision signed on 4th May is only a document recording a decision I had taken on 21st March. The period of time between 21st March and 4th May was essential in order to enable the preparation of my detailed report on the application and to finalise the wording of its contents. I would point out to the House that at all times I have kept the Parish Connétable and Deputies fully informed. I have provided them with notification of my decision of 21st March and I have provided them with draft conditions during the preparation of my report. Furthermore, I continue to provide them with the notes of the weekly site visits that I have instructed my officers to undertake to ensure compliance with the planning conditions. The matter is now the subject of a public inquiry at the suggestion of the Connétable of St. Lawrence , and I hope that the House will feel that it is now appropriate to confine further examination to that Inquiry.

3.4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I would add the point that I am not having a go for political reasons. It is purely for an objective measure, to ensure that due process has been followed. I do not really want to get into a major legal argument as to when a decision had been made, although it is my understanding that a decision that is conditional upon something is not a decision in law. However, I do have a problem with the statement the Minister made towards the end, because it seems to completely ignore R.C.80/2005, which does require decisions to be dated on the date they are signed, and notes that decisions to be recorded will include the following: "a decision to grant consent or permission under statutory provision." So therefore, on my reading of the process, the ministerial decision should have been dated 4th May and not 21st March. Can the Minister clarify, please, Sir?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I think I have already clarified the matter in my previous answer.

5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding G.C.S.E. exam results:

Would the Minister inform the Assembly how many Jersey students left school without any examination passes at the age of 16 or before that age? And, if this figure is added to the very good pass rate of our G.C.S.E. (General Certificate of Secondary Education) level students, how does Jersey then compare with other jurisdictions in educating the overall population?

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

I would like to thank Deputy Martin for her question, because it is always nice to be able to say how well our young people are doing. In 2005, only six children, 0.6 per cent, left school with no examination passes. In 2006, 7 children, 0.7 per cent, left school with no examination passes. The 2007 data is not yet available. Compare that with the U.K. (United Kingdom). Across the U.K., 2.6 per cent of all children left with no examination success in 2005, and 2.2 per cent in 2006, compared with Jersey's 0.6 and 0.7 per cent. Deputy Martin asked about our G.C.S.E. results, and one of the key performance indicators for measuring G.C.S.E. success is the proportion of students achieving five or more A to C passes. For 2006, 67.8 per cent of Jersey students achieved this standard, compared to 59.2 per cent in the U.K.