States Meeting Transcript - 01/04/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 1st APRIL 2008

QUESTIONS......................................................................................6

1. Written Questions........................................................................6

1. QUESTION FROM DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COMPOSTING ISSUES:................................................................6
2. QUESTION FROM DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING HOUSEHOLD MEDICAL ACCOUNTS:...7
3. QUESTION FROM DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE LINKING OF THE 2009 STATES EMPLOYEES PAY AWARDS TO THE NEW RPI(Y) INFLATION MEASURE:....10
4. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE RATES OF TAX CHARGED TO PROFITS FOR THE FIVE SUB SECTORS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR:...................................................11
5. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING HOW OFTEN PILLOWS ARE RENEWED WITHIN HOSPITALS AND WHETHER THEY ARE CHECKED FOR THE ASPERGILLUS FUMIGATUS FUNGUS: ....................11
6. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCTION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING WHETHER THE JERSEY HERITAGE TRUST HAS A POLICY THAT FAVOURS THE EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL PERSON:...............................................12
7. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING WHETHER THE EMERGENCY SERVICES CURRENTLY ENCOUNTER ACCESS DIFFICULTIES WITHIN THE ST HELIER RING ROAD:................................................................12
8. QUESTION BY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY REGARDING WHETHER JERSEY HARBOURS HAVE PLANS TO RELOCATE THE FUEL FARM:...................13
9. QUESTION BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDNG ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO CONNEX SINCE THE START OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT:..........................................................................13
10. QUESTION BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AD PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW:..................15
11. QUESTION BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF MINISTERS:.....15
12. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING "IMAGINE JERSEY 2035":...............................16

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................17

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding proposals to replace the housing development at Ann Court with a 1,000 space car park: ................................................................................17 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...17

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................18
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................18
3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................18
4. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................19
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................19
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................19
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................19
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................19
9. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................20

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding the introduction of insurance for long-term residential care: ................................20 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................20

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................20
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................20
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................21

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................22

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the model used for the Board of Visitors for HMP La Moye:...............................................22 The Deputy of St. John (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):..................22

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................22
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................22
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................22
4. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................23
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................23
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................23

4. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the background to Mr. Bellwood's appeal to the Employment Tribunal: .......................................23 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................23

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................24
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................24
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................25
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................25
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................25
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................25
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................26

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding problems relating to the issue of benefit cheques which occurred over the recent bank holiday:..............26 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................26

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27

6. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) Law to confer new sentencing powers in respect of offenders aged 12 plus:.................................................................28

Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................28

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................28
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................28
3. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................29
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................29

7. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the promotion of the Island during the International Year of the Potato:....................29 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.............................................................................29

2.7.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................30

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the "winners and losers" under the Income Support scheme:..............................................30 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................30

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................30
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................30
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Social Security ............32

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................32

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32
   2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire St. Helier:.....................................................32

3.2.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................33

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................33
4. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................33

3.4.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................33

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34

3.5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34

6. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................34
7. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................35

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Chief Minister..........................35

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................35 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................35
2. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................35
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................36
4. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................36
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36

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

6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................37
7. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................37

4.7.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................37

8. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................38

4.8.1 Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................38

9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................38

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................39

5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................39

5.1 The Deputy of St. Martin...............................................................39

6. Draft Export Control (Jersey) Law 200- (P.21/2008)...................................40

6.1 The Deputy of St. John (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur).............40

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................40
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................41
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................41

4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................41 The Bailiff :...................................................................................41 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Panel):.42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................42

7. Draft Employment of the States of Jersey Employees (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.22/2008)............................................................43

7.1 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen (Assistant to the Chief Minister - rapporteur):.....43

1. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................44
2. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................44
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................44
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................44 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................44

8. Draft Act annulling the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Order 2007 (P.23/2008)........................................................45

8.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................45

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................47
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................48
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................49
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................49
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................49
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................50 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................50

9. Draft Political Parties (Registration) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.25/2008)..................51

9.1 Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................51

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................52
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................52
3. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................52

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................52

10. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Supervisory Bodies) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.29/2008)........52

10.1 Connétable G.W.J. Fisher of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):..........................................................................53

11. Rezoning of Sites in the Green and Countryside Zones and Island Plan Review (P.33/2008)...............................................................................53

1. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................54
2. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................57 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................59 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................59 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................59

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................59 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................59

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................59

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................59

3. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................60
4. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:.......................................................61
5. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................61 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................63 The Deputy of Trinity :........................................................................63
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................63
7. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................64
8. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................64
9. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................67
10. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ........................................67
11. Senator M.E. Vibert :...............................................................68
12. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :............................................69
13. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................69
14. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................71
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..............................................................72
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................74
17. Senator S. Syvret:..................................................................75
18. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................77
19. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.............................................................80
20. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..........................................................82 Deputy J.J Huet:..............................................................................82 The Deputy of Grouville :.....................................................................82 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................83

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................83

21. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................84
22. Senator T.A. Le Sueur .............................................................85 The Connétable of Grouville :.................................................................85 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................86
23. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:............................................................86
24. Senator F.H. Walker :..............................................................88
25. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................89 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................90 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:........................................................................90 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................90 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................91

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................92

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. QUESTION FROM DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COMPOSTING ISSUES:

Question

In view of the fact that on 11th March 2008, the Minister stated in the Assembly that the report in relation to compost issues had cost £100,000, would the Minister provide the detail of this expenditure, particularly if any private consultants were involved?

Given that the Minister also stated that after the report was completed that it revealed nothing the Department did not already know, would he advise what the value of the report was and why it cost so much when nothing new was presented?

Would the Minister consider that this work could have been better undertaken by the States Auditors?

Answer

In November 2006, following the publishing of the report on composting prepared by the Working Party into Composting, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services agreed with Deputy Paul Le Claire and the Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, acting on behalf of that panel, to review whether there were any private sites that offered better value to the States than the 11 sites in States ownership that were already under consideration.

To that end an expression of interest was issued in December 2006 and 18 private expressions were received in January 2007. In order to ensure a fair evaluation process for private and publicly owned sites, my officers and the technical consultant conducted a comprehensive evaluation of all of these sites, which was completed in September 2007. In June 2007, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services met with Deputy Le Claire and Deputy Rob Duhamel to update them on the evaluation process which received a favourable response.

On 11th December2007 the Minister took a Ministerial Decision which confirmed that the La Collette industrial area was the confirmed preferred location for the replacement enclosed composting facility and commercial green waste reception site subject to a full environmental and health impact assessment being undertaken.

This location had been presented to the Council of Ministers as the preferred location following the initial assessment of States-owned sites in February 2006, but due to the opposition received from the Environment Scrutiny Panel and Deputy Le Claire, the Minister had agreed to defer progressing the site development until the Working Party on Composting reported its findings.

Considerable work had been undertaken developing an environmental impact assessment for the proposed site at La Collette to enable the replacement enclosed facility to be progressed as rapidly as possible in February 2006 if Council of Ministers approval was forthcoming. The cost of a technical adviser consultant in 2005 and 2006 was £180,639. It is believed that most of these costs are not abortive because they relate to the same location and can still be used now the location for the enclosed compost facility has been reconfirmed as being La Collette.

The cost of the additional technical consultant work to enable the detailed evaluation of private sites required by the Working Party on Composting since the site specific work at La Collette was put on hold is £72,684. This does not include the officer time involved for which a precise estimate cannot be provided, but is considerable because it required the involvement of officers from the environmental, health and planning regulatory functions, and would take the total cost of the exercise towards the approximate figure stated in the States Chamber by the Minister.

The Minister advised the Environment Scrutiny Panel that it was unlikely that the additional site selection and evaluation work required on reviewing the private sites would result in a better solution for the island and this has indeed proved to be the case.

The sensitivity of this decision required that the opinion of the representatives of those affected by the occasional odour from the current open composting operation to be respected.

The Minister reluctantly agreed to complete the exercise as, without it, the benefits of the preferred location could not be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the public and there would be a perceived public concern (promoted by the Working Party for Composting and Environment Scrutiny Panel) that alternatives had not been tested fully.

However, in the Minister's view the review did not represent good value for the Island as it was clear at the outset that the proposals of the Working Party on Composting and Environment Scrutiny Panel were almost certain to be unviable.

The States Auditors could not have undertaken this work as it requires expertise in waste management and environmental site appraisal.

2. QUESTION FROM DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING HOUSEHOLD MEDICAL ACCOUNTS:

Question

Following his announcement that around a further 1,000 households, previously covered by the HIE scheme, were to receive additional transitional support to create a Household Medical Account (HMA) under Income Support (IS), will the Minister inform members of the following in respect of these households:

1. how many qualified for HIE and under which mechanisms other than low income?

Answer:

1. In November 2007, there were a total of 2966 households (around 4,000 individuals) who qualified for HIE prior to the implementation of Income Support. There were various eligibility criteria for HIE but all applicants had to fulfil a form of means assessment. This means assessment was completely different to the assessment now used for Income Support. The system of disregards used for HIE meant that some people could qualify for this benefit with much higher actual income than others who did not qualify, depending on the source of their income.
   2. how many now have no entitlement to receive IS ?

Answer:

2. As at 25 March 2008, there are only 158 individuals who were previously in receipt of HIE who are not receiving IncomeSupport or a Protected Payment. These individuals have chosen notto make an application for Income Support however the department is still receiving and processing a small number of late applications.
   3. how many have been assessed to receive ISat a rate below the level of their States rental, and therefore have insufficient funds to pay into an HMA?

Answer:

3. This situation does not arise as priority is given to payment into the HMA, then remaining monies are paid towards rent.
   4. whether his department has informed all GPs that all previous recipients ofHIEwill now have their GP consultations funded from an HMA, and when did this occur?

Answer:

4. On numerous occasions over the months leading up toand since the implementation of Income Support, the department has communicated with GPs, their staff and the GP representative body, through electronic, verbal and written means to keep them informed of the position of former HIE recipients and the setting up of Household Medical Accounts (HMA).

All former HIE recipients, who have applied for Income Support, have been offered the facility of an HMA to enable direct payments to their GP. Some claimants, or their agents, have requested receipt of all benefit (whether Income Support and/or a Protected Payment) on the understanding that they will pay any GP fees directly.

All GP surgeries are informed on a daily basis through means of an electronic file as to which of their patients has an HMA facility.

Will he also confirm his statement that, despite previous agreements with representatives of GPs that former HIE recipients would now be expected to pay £5 per visit directly to the GP, with the rest of the consultation fee coming from the patients' HMA, he believes that GPs were not going to charge the £5 fee?

Does his statement include most GPs, all GPs or the agreement of GP representative bodies, and is it permanent, or temporary, and if the latter, how long will the agreement be in place?

Answer:

The £5 charge at the surgery was proposed on the recommendation of GP representatives, after initial discussions. However, as the implementation of Income Support approached, and officers met with wider groups of GPs, it became evident that many had reached the conclusion that they would not make a nominal charge as initially proposed.

Most if not all surgeries, are not charging a £5 consultation fee directly and the department has agreed with the GP representative body that all aspects of charges will be monitored.

Will the Minister inform Members what sum per visit was to be paid through the Social Security department by the individual's HMA?

Answer:

It should be remembered that GPs are independent businesses and will set charges according to the different services provided; therefore the amount that will be paid from an HMA will depend on the service and level of charge made by the GP.

If the absence of the direct £5 payment is to be permanent, will he further state what new arrangements will be put in place for payments to GPs?

Answer:

As with all elements of Income Support, arrangements for GP visits will be monitored and where appropriate proposals for change brought forward.

Will the Minister make clear to members, to GPs and to recipients of HMAs what arrangements are in place to cater for funding:

1. home visits from the GP, for those who cannot get to the surgery, and

Answer:

1. For clarification, the HMA is a payment mechanism available to Income Support recipients, including those receiving Protected Payments, and not a benefit. The amount of benefit given depends upon the clinical need of the individual family members, which may include home visits.

The actual funding of GP visits is through monies included in the living allowances and the impairment component, specifically the clinical cost element. Therefore, all households on Income Support have received funding towards the cost of GP visits but most will not have an HMA as this facility has, in the initial stages of implementation, been targeted as priority to former HIE recipients.

The clinical cost element (CCE) provides additional funding for individuals who have ongoing, increased medical need. The rate of the CCE was based on the average cost of a doctor's visit and resulting prescription charges. As prescription charges have been removed, individuals have more money available to pay for GPs and other medical costs. Further funding may be available through a special payment, for those who require higher levels of medical care in the form of home visits, which, if they have one, can be paid directly into the family's HMA.

2. payments for the services of the Family Nursing and Home Care (Jersey) Inc.?

Answer:

2. Individuals previously receiving support with FNHC costs through the Parish Welfare system continue to receive the same level of support through Income Support. New FNHC clients can apply for the personal care element ofthe impairment component toassist with thecostof personal care services provided by for Family Nursing andHome Care Services. The personal care element is set at 3 separate levels providing more flexibility than previous disability benefits.

What will happen to the support delivered to these 1,000 households in October 2008? Answer

The support provided to these 1,000 households is over and above any Protected Payments that they are already receiving. Whilst, along with other Protected Payments this support will be phased out over a number of years, it still represents an additional direct investment towards the potential cost of healthcare for these families.

3. QUESTION  FROM  DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF ST.  HELIER  TO  THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE LINKING OF THE 2009 STATES  EMPLOYEES  PAY  AWARDS  TO THE  NEW  RPI(Y)  INFLATION MEASURE:

Question

Given the Minister for Treasury and Resources' stated intention to link the 2009 States' employees' pay awards to his new RPI(Y) inflation measure, which does not include taxation changes and will therefore be lower than the actual rise in the cost of living given by RPI, and following the development of RPI (pensioner) and RPI (low income) measures, what measures does the Minister propose,  in  conjunction  with  the  Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources  if  necessary,  for  the indexation of a) pensions and b) other benefits in 2009, and why?

Answer

Members will be aware of the written question answered on 26th February 2008, which contains all the information requested in this further question.

For the sake of clarity, that answer is repeated:

1. "There are no plans to alter the statutory provisions setoutat Article 13 of the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974 which provides for the automatic uprating ofall contributory benefits (including pensions) by the Jersey Earnings Index annually. Since 1990, the Average Earnings Index has increased at an average annual rate about 1 percentage point greater than that of the RPI. The graph below plots the two indices since 1990.

Source, Jersey Economic Digest 2007

Members will be aware that the UK government, as part of their pension reform programme, have introduced the Pensions Act 2007 which includes a commitment to link the annual increases in state pension with earnings rather than prices, as has been the case in Jersey for many years. The UK government hope to achieve this by 2012.

From time to time, the increase in RPI is above that of average earnings – this has happened 4 times in the last 17 years. These occasional anomalies do not detract from the general principle that contributory benefits should be linked to wages, and that this automatic link has been of great benefit to pensioners since it was introduced.

2. Members will also be aware that under the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 an annual review of rates has to be carried out. In reviewing these rates statutory provision provides that regard shall be given to changes in the costof living and in the general standards of living ofthe community together with otherfactorsthat the Minister considers relevant. The component rates in IncomeSupport are set under Regulations and the Minster will provide full details to the Assembly ofthe basis for any amendments to rates when the Minister brings forward a proposition on the annual review."

4. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE RATES OF TAX CHARGED TO PROFITS FOR THE FIVE SUB SECTORS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR:

Question

In reply to a question on 11th September 2007 the Minister stated that he had instructed the Comptroller of Income Tax to undertake the necessary research to reveal to Members the amounts and effective rates of tax charged to profits for the five sub-sectors of the financial services sector, along with the 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. Is he now able to give a response to the Assembly?

Answer

The Deputy will recall that I could not answer this question in September in the time allowed as it was so complex an issue to address. I can now tell the Deputy that the Comptroller of Income Tax has met with the States Statistics Unit three times for the purposes of drawing up a true and correct answer to this question, and they have come to the conclusion that the time and cost of doing so would be prohibitive. It is estimated that the work would take at least two weeks of officer time. However, the Comptroller of Income Tax and the head of the States Statistics Unit would be very happy to meet with the Deputy to see if a reasonable compromise can be found to satisfy him.

5. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING HOW OFTEN PILLOWS ARE RENEWED WITHIN HOSPITALS AND WHETHER THEY ARE CHECKED FOR THE ASPERGILLUS FUMIGATUS FUNGUS:

Question

Would the Minister advise how frequently pillows are renewed within the hospitals under his administration, whether they are checked for the aspergillus fumigatus fungus and, if not, why not?

Answer

Aspergillus species are fungal organisms which are widely distributed within the natural environment. The fungus is frequently found is decaying materials, plants, airborne dusts and any other medium that involves disturbing potentially mouldy material. It is only very rarely that the health care environment is implicated in disease transmission from these fungi – except for those patients who are immuno-suppressed (for example, following organ transplant). Special measures are taken to ensure that patients who are immuno suppressed are protected from such bacteria and from other threats to their health and wellbeing.

As to the specific matter of hospital pillows, these are encased in a protective plastic cover and this prevents any emergent fungi causing a threat to patient care and the plastic cover, of course, allows for decontamination as the inpatient leaves the ward, to be replaced by another. (Needless to say, damaged plastic covers are replaced as necessary and contaminated pillows can be washed to the requisite temperature in the Hospital Laundry, which has special technologies and working practices which enables this threat – and other infection threats – to be controlled and managed).

Monitoring – or checking – is thus not necessary.

6. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCTION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING WHETHER THE JERSEY HERITAGE TRUST HAS A POLICY THAT FAVOURS THE EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL PERSON:

Question

Would the Minister advise whether the Jersey Heritage Trust has a policy that favours the employment of local persons and if not, why not?

Answer

The Jersey Heritage Trust employs a total of 117 staff of whom 114 are local' within the meaning of the Regulation of Undertakings and Development Law. The balance of local' personnel to those with fewer than five years residency reflects the agreement which the Trust has with the Population Office, and its commitment to the local workforce. It should also be noted, in relation to succession planning, that the Trust has a good record of training local staff for senior posts within the organisation.

7. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING WHETHER THE EMERGENCY SERVICES CURRENTLY ENCOUNTER ACCESS DIFFICULTIES WITHIN THE ST HELIER RING ROAD:

Question

Would the Minister advise whether the emergency services currently encounter access difficulties within the St Helier ring road as a consequence of road or pavement alterations/street furniture?

Answer

The States of Jersey Police are notified beforehand of any alterations to roads or pavements, and of any pending road works which may impact on their emergency services; they are given the opportunity to highlight any likely problems in advance.

As of today's date, they have recorded no adverse circumstances in relation to incident response.

The States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service are also notified and consulted on any road works, pavement alterations, future traffic calming measures etc and as a result any queries or problems are usually addressed at an early stage.

The main concerns regarding the "traffic calming" measures that are installed throughout the island stem from the road users themselves, parking inappropriately and negligently near bollards or other fixed measures; this can cause issues for large appliances trying to manoeuvre.

Also there are issues in streets such as Colomberie where the road has been narrowed and bollards placed on pavements, negating the possibility for drivers to pull out of the way of approaching emergency vehicles and making them inclined to speed up to make way.

Some difficulties have recently been highlighted in gaining access in and around housing estates. Again this is caused by the residents, visitors and others parking inappropriately, rather than by the "traffic calming".

The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement regarding whether the emergency services encounter access difficulty within the St. Helier ring road.

8. QUESTION BY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DEPUTY REGARDING WHETHER JERSEY HARBOURS HAVE PLANS TO RELOCATE THE FUEL FARM:

Question

Would the Minister advise whether Jersey Harbours have any plans to relocate the fuel farm and, if so, in what timescale?

Answer

The Economic Development Department, Jersey Harbours and the Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) are, as part of a strategic planning process, undertaking a master planning exercise for the East of Albert area that includes the site of the current fuel farm and La Collette. A key component of the process is the possibility of relocating the existing commercial port to La Collette to allow commercial and residential development in the current operational port area to satisfy future demand for quality residential and commercial space in St Helier. As part of the process to asses the viability and implications of port relocation, the future location of the fuel farm is being considered. The timescale for relocation, which would be subject to health and safety, environmental and commercial considerations has yet to be determined.

9. QUESTION BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDNG ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO CONNEX SINCE THE START OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT:

Question

Would the Minister identify the annual payments made to Connex since the start of the current contract?

How much has Connex received in fuel rebate during each year of the current contract? Has the Shift Allowance Claim of £186,000 been repaid to the States and if not, why not ? Answer

1. The annual payments made to Connex since the start of the contract in September 2002 are as follows:

2. Excise duty used by Connex on licensed bus services has been refunded as follows since the start of the current contract:

3. Negotiations with Connex regarding the Shift Allowance payment have now been concluded and the outcome has been forwarded, in confidence, to the Environment Scrutiny Panel, the Public Accounts Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the law officers for their comments. When I have considered all the responses received, I will make a statement to the House.

10. QUESTION BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AD PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW:

Question

When will the Committee be deciding whether or not it is proceeding with a Freedom of Information Law?

Answer

On 11th March 2008 in answer to an oral question from Deputy Le Hérissier, I stated "PPC felt it would need to provide the States with compelling evidence that the Code [of Practice on Public Access to Official Information] is not working or could not be improved at lower cost. The Committee does not dispute that the F.O.I. law is desirable. It is currently trying to establish whether it is essential and whether any of the cost identified by the departments are in fact more properly attributable to the implementation of either the Public Records (Jersey) Law 2002 or are existing costs to the current Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information."

Administering the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information is the responsibility of individual departments and it will take some time for departments to prepare responses to the quite detailed questions asked by PPC about the practical administration of the Code. This information will be collated by the Chief Minister's Department and provided to the Privileges and Procedures Committee by 12th May 2008.

Thereafter the Committee will consider the responses and determine its recommendation to the States.

11. QUESTION BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF MINISTERS: Question

Is the Chief Minister satisfied that the concept of the political accountability of Ministers is working effectively within the States?

Answer

Yes, I am satisfied that political accountability of Ministers is working effectively.

All Ministerial Decisions are recorded and are available to States Members on the States website. The published Decision Summary also outlines the reason(s) behind the Ministerial Decision. The basis and process for making and recording Ministerial Decisions is clearly laid out in R.80/2005.

In relation to decisions made at meetings of the Council of Ministers, a Decision Summary is distributed to States Members the following day. Minutes of the A' Agenda are published and available to States Members. Agendas are also sent to States Members prior to the Council of Minister's meeting identifying issues due for discussion. A press briefing is also undertaken shortly after the meeting of the Council of Ministers helping to ensure that decisions of the Council of Ministers are effectively and swiftly communicated to the wider public.

Furthermore, Ministers have agreed on a Code of Conduct as outlined in R.14/2006. This Code offers clear guidance to Ministers on matters which relate to their responsibilities as Ministers and as members of the Council of Ministers.

Finally, the Scrutiny Panel process and the Privileges and Procedures Committee help to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for their decisions, policies and actions.

The Deputy has made a number of comments, both within Jersey and further afield, that suggest he does not believe there is sufficient accountability. If that is the case I believe he should either put forward his evidence to the Privileges and Procedures Committee or bring his own Report and Proposition to the States.

12. QUESTION BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING "IMAGINE JERSEY 2035":

Question

1. Does the Chief Minister stand by the statement on page 4 ofthereport"Imagine Jersey 2035 – preparing for the future" he issued in co-operation with the "Involve" organisation on the 13th March 2008 -

"The survey and initial conference votes indicated a strong opposition to any increase in taxes and contributions."?

If so, how does he reconcile this with the information given on page 27 of the report, covering the conference, and with the following statement from page 75 on the wider survey:

"The vast majority of submissions were in favour of encouraging the resident population to pay more"?

2. What justification can the Chief Minister offer to States members and to the public for the following statements -

"Young people and those in full-time education were most likely to oppose this option (paying more) – three fifths of those in full-time education voted against"

"100% in the 19-24 age group voted against raising taxes." "Half of the 0-18 group voted against."

Answer

1. The wording to which the Deputy refers was written by Involve, an independent not for profit organisation which specialises in public participation. The Council of Ministers has received the report fromInvolve and published it without making any changes to its content.

As part of the executive summary, the sentence identified by the Deputy clearly refers to the survey and initial conference responses. The executive summary goes on to make clear that this position was modified during the day, in particular when citizens were asked to come up with their own answers to addressing the issue of the ageing population.

The information given on page 27 demonstrates that, having had the opportunity to consider and discuss the issue, participants at the conference were in favour of some increase in taxes/contributions to address the issue.

Page 75 is part of a summary of the written responses received by the Chief Minister's Department and does not relate to the survey. This identifies that one fifth of respondents made comments about tax and the majority of these were in favour of some increase in taxes/contributions to address the issue. Indeed, this is made clear in the executive

summary, which states The submissions to the written consultation revealed a level of support for paying more'

The Deputy refers to only one part of an executive summary which attempts to bring together a broad range of information and views. When read as a whole, the executive summary makes it absolutely clear that there was a level of support for paying more. In addition, the full report provides a comprehensive analysis of the information that emerged directly from the consultation exercise.

In the press release that accompanied Involve's report, I summarised the main messages as:

• Broad support for growing the economy.
• Strong support for working longer as part of the solution to the challenges ahead.
• Whilst people do not actively support increases in taxes and contributions, many are willing to accept some level of increase in order to maintain public services.
• Inward migration was the least popular of the four options presented but there was also acceptance that controlled inward migration may be necessary.
• Strong opposition to new buildings on green fields, but acceptance of good quality and affordable development in the built up area.

This is my summary of what has been a comprehensive and complex consultation exercise.

2. These are factual statements relatingtothe voting responses of young people tothe option of paying more and have been identified by the demographic information captured at the conference where young people between 0 and 24 made up 11% of the delegates.

The voting responses of young people on this option have been highlighted by Involve as with other options in the report. This is simply part of their analysis of the preferences expressed by those who attended the event.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding proposals to replace the housing development at Ann Court with a 1,000 space car park:

Would the Minister confirm that any proposals to replace the housing development at Ann Court with a 1,000 space car park will be lodged for consideration by the Assembly and, if this is being considered, when is it likely to happen? Thank you, Sir.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): There is in fact no requirement under States Standing Order No. 168 to bring the plans for a new Ann Court car park to the States for approval. Approval of plans for new construction has been delegated to the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the new car park plans will be referred to that Minister for approval following receipt and approval of the tender by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services. However, due to the location and the nature of the new car park, it is my intention to hold a full and complete public consultation process prior to plans being submitted to the Planning Department. It is intended that this process will commence in early June and will run for 6 weeks. All comments received during the consultation period will be considered prior to the scheme being finalised and then submitted to Planning. Members, of course, will be given every opportunity to comment on the scheme during that consultation process.

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I thank the Minister for his reply. It does come as quite a surprise, Sir, because from Hansard, in the last session I asked the same question to the Minister of Housing and he assured me 3 times he was not willing to get rid of housing until this House - this Assembly - has made a decision to make a car park. So, as I understand there is no obligation under Standing Order 168, would the Minister not reconsider as it is such a large project, to bring it to the House for consideration?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Yes, I am happy to reconsider the position, Sir.

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

I understand from last night's Parish meeting in St. Helier that in fact there is a proposal the ground floor of this proposed car park will be reserved for white van parking, the 680 such vehicles parked in the side streets of St. Helier at this moment in time. Could the Minister request, when considering to putting this proposal out to public consultation, that the parishioners of St. Helier and indeed the Islanders be advised on the other proposals in the reasonably immediate area of this top end of St. Helier - with relation to other public parking spaces, either to be removed or to be added, i.e. such places as Snow Hill - so that the public can have a better understanding of what facilities will be available and those that will not be available? Especially for residents. Thank you.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

It is the intention to pursue this particular project as a normal informal planning application and I think that to throw into the pot all the additional things that the Deputy is referring to may only serve to confuse the issue.

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

I note the Minister has agreed to reconsider his earlier indication that he would not be bringing this matter to the States. Does he not agree with me that if he were to bring the long-awaited integrated transport and travel plan to the House that would be a good opportunity for us to debate the wisdom of siting the new car park in the proposed area?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I partially agree with the Constable, Sir. The fact of the matter, as I am sure the Assembly is very well aware, I am disappointed at the amount of time that it has taken to compile the integrated travel and transport strategy but, as we all know, it has been delayed time and again because of the work that the Transport and Technical Services Department has had to put in to ensuring that the Traffic Management Plans that lay behind the installation of a tunnel at the Waterfront will work. That has been the high priority. There are also considerations that Members will be aware of that have emerged from the EDAW analysis of developments around town and, yes, of course all these things will be drawn together in the integrated travel and transport strategy which I hope will be of benefit, not only to the Assembly but to the Island.

4. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

I wonder if I could ask the Minister if he could identify where the funding for this is coming from?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

As the Deputy who sits alongside me well knows, my department is seriously strapped for cash and I have very little idea where the funding is coming from at this stage. Environmental taxes is one possibility and also the well-padlocked coffers of the Minister  for Treasury and Resources  is another. But that looks to be some way down the line. As Members will very well know, funding for all sorts of projects, not just within the Transport and Technical Service Department, is a major issue.

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

Would the Minister care to explain his reference to the Minister for Treasury and Resources apart from holding the purse strings, what is his involvement in supervising this actual provision?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

Well, the Deputy has been in the States as long as I have and I am surprised he is not aware of the existence of Property Services, now Property Holdings. It is a fact that my department does not own the car parks, the car park ownership comes under the remit of the Treasury and Resources Department and most directly, I believe, Deputy Le Fondré and therefore, because it is that department acting as the effective owner of multi-storey car parks in Jersey, that it would be that department that would properly take planning application forward before the Minister for Planning and Environment.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Supplementary, Sir, if I may? In that case, in addition to his agreement to reconsider bringing this proposition to the House, will he put pressure on the Minister for Treasury and Resources if he does not do so to bring such a proposition to the House?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I have so far heard 2 Members who would like some reconsideration of this matter and I will certainly avail the Minister for Treasury and Resources of that information.

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

Just to follow up on the Constable of St. Helier's question really. Is the Minister in a position at this stage to tell us when the report of the integrated transport policy is going to be published? Thank you, Sir.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

The Minister wishes he was but he is not.

8. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I think it is maybe more than consideration because the Minister has admitted to this House he has no idea where the funding is coming from. I thought we were under a process of adopting business plans and budgets for the next 2 or 3 years and if this amount of money is not in it I do not think it is a question of considering. I think the Minister must bring this proposition to the House and tell us where the money will be coming from. Does he not agree?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

No, I do not agree. I think clearly an earlier answer was not properly understood by the Deputy and possibly other Members; when I referred to a lack of funding I was referring to the outcomes of the integrated travel and transport strategy which will face those problems. The funding of a new multi-storey car park of course will be funded out of the car park trading account which is precisely set up specifically in order to have funds to build new multi-storey car parks or repair ones that have become dilapidated or whatever. So the funding issue in respect of a new multi-storey car park is not in fact an issue.

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

As the Connétable of St. Helier rightly pointed out, these issues are better considered in the round of the transport strategic document. The Minister says he is not in a position to tell us when it will be released; perhaps he could tell us why there is such a delay on it?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I will not go over old ground, Sir. I think everybody is quite well aware about what has caused the delays. It is also worth reminding Members that the proposals for the Ann Court car park are not related to the overall car park strategy that would be contained in the travel and transport plan, they are more directly related to a desire to create a town park. In those terms the car parking that currently exists in the proposed area for the town park would have to be replaced and Ann Court holds the spaces for such replacement. That is the driving factor behind the Ann Court multi-storey car park, not the overall car parking strategy for St. Helier , although of course it will be a facet of it.

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding the introduction of insurance for long-term residential care:

Will the Minister inform Members what progress, if any, has been made regarding the introduction of insurance for long-term residential care?

Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):

The proposal to introduce an insurance scheme for care in old age, both in residential homes, but also wherever possible in the community and at home, is a cornerstone of the Health and Social Services Department's strategy for future health care in the Island, known as "New Directions". The Social Security Department is one of many key partners in the development of the strategy. Once New Directions has been debated and, hopefully, adopted by the States, the Social Security Department will further develop an insurance scheme and, in anticipation of this specific objective for the department, it will be established within our Business Plan for 2009.

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :

I thank the Minister for his reply, Sir. As the Minister is no doubt aware, many people live with the very real fear that one day one of the partners may have to go into long-term residential care through illness and having worked hard to buy their homes, it would be a disaster if they have to sell in later life to pay for the residential care. Will the Minister undertake to put this item through as a priority?

Senator P.F. Routier:

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, there is a fair amount of work to be done prior to bringing in the insurance scheme, part of the whole strategy. We are working together with Health and Social Services, Treasury and Resources, the Jersey Care Federation as well and the Parishes and private residential care homes. What we are trying to do first is to agree a standard of care which needs to be provided and have common care contracts so that we can be sure that the appropriate care is given and appropriate charges are being asked for. We will then be able to decide on how much it is going to cost and how it should be funded. It will be done as soon as we possibly can.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does the Minister not accept that the timescale he has just suggested by 2009 is probably unrealistic given the fact that we have yet to see the finalised New Directions?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I very much hope that we will be able to meet that timescale. I know both departments are working hard to ensure that the strategy which was involved within New Directions will come forward as early as possible and I am as keen as probably anybody else is to have an insurance scheme in place. But we have to do it in a proper orderly fashion to ensure that we have a sufficient supply of residential care and it is being charged for at the right costs and we can afford to pay those costs.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Supplementary, if I may, Sir? Does the Minister not accept that in the absence of such a policy, he will have problems increasingly with the cost of paying for residential care without such a scheme to provide specifically for those costs?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I presume that the Deputy is specifically thinking about those people who would fall within income support who would need to have their costs subsidised. We have obviously forecast budgets for the increased costs of residential care over the coming years. This strategy to have an insurance scheme for everyone to contribute to would obviously support those people who would fall outside of income support and that is the mechanism that would be there to help people to pay for their long-term care. I do accept that there is an issue to be dealt with and we will be dealing with it as soon as we possibly can.

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

Would the Minister confirm that the timetable for working with the Health Department in terms of New Directions is totally on target and he has heard nothing to vary his view in that regard? Secondly, Sir, would he not accept that a lot of the preparatory work, e.g. the figures, the financial models could be done now ready to press the button when the policy is approved?

Senator P.F. Routier:

With regard to confirming whether New Directions is on target, I cannot give that confirmation. I am awaiting obviously for the Health and Social Services to produce that document as a whole. There is work going on with regards to care for the elderly; within  my department we have somebody who is collating all the information with regard to the costs of residential care. That work is going on right now because we need to have that even for income support purposes. So that is happening and we hope to have those contracts in place for those people who are going to be supported by income support by the end of this year. So that is a piece of work that is going, Sir -- we are getting the knowledge that is required to help us know what will be required  for an insurance scheme in the future.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is it not the case that the preparatory work required to prepare for the required scheme is in fact seriously undermined by the amount of work that needs to be done on solving problems brought up by income support and, longer-term, will be in doing the work to correct the income support scheme which is so far proving to be rather problematic?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I think the Deputy is living in a totally different world to what I am living in. He seems to be dreaming up problems with income support which do not exist. What the Deputy is trying to bring together are 2 issues which are unrelated. The work that is going on with regard to income support and the provision of paying for care for the elderly, that has been planned for and we know where we are heading with that and the projected funding for that. That is happening. I will only be repeating myself with regard to the long-term insurance scheme. That work is ongoing and we are getting on with it as soon as we possibly can.

6. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

Does the Minister feel that the care component in the income support is sufficient? If there is a shortfall because they are needing more care, et cetera, who picks up that difference?

Senator P.F. Routier:

There is obviously a care element within income support. What happens if someone is having to pay additional amounts for care within residential homes, that amount is picked up with extra payments from within income support. Although there is a set amount within the income support component, if someone is currently in a residential home and there are additional costs, an extra payment can be paid from within income support.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the model used for the Board of Visitors for HMP La Moye:

Will the Minister be proposing that the Board of Visitors for H.M.P. (Her Majesty's Prison) La Moye be based upon the model used at Greenfields and if not, why?

The Deputy of St. John (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):

The constitution and responsibilities of the Board of Visitors is governed by regulations approved by the States, the Prison Board of Visitors (Jersey) Regulations 1957. The Board of Visitors has consistently carried out its duties proficiently and fairly. The Minister and I meet with the Board on a quarterly basis to keep up to date with their work in the prison and to address concerns they raise from time to time about prisoner welfare. During my time with Home Affairs, I am not aware of any complaints about the current constitution and operation of the Board by any prisoner. Hitherto there has been no cause to propose any changes to either the constitution of the Board or the manner in which it operates. Members may wish to note that the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel's Forward Work Programme for 2008 includes a review of the Prison Board of Visitors. I would not, therefore, wish to pre-empt any findings or recommendations that the Panel might make. The Minister will consider these in due course.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can the rapporteur therefore confirm that he is totally satisfied with the composition of the Board and, in view of the current controversy swirling around, he believes it is totally fit for purpose and a model of how these matters should be handled?

The Deputy of St. John :

Yes, Sir, at this stage we have no reason to doubt it, Sir.

2. Deputy J.A. Martin:

From memory, could the rapporteur tell me exactly who sits on the Board and how it is made up, please?

The Deputy of St. John :

Yes, Sir. It consists of 7 Jurats. Jurat Tibbo is the Chairman, Jurat Le Brocq, Jurat Le Breton, Jurat Clapham and Jurat King, Sir.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

A supplementary, Sir? Would these not be the same people that would probably have sent the person already to La Moye? Does the rapporteur really think, in this day and age, this is a fitting Board of Visitors for our prison?

The Deputy of St. John :

This is an issue that has been raised before and I do understand why Members wish to raise it, but Board members who preside over a defendant's case in court do not adjudicate over prison disciplinary matters for the same person after that sentence. A prisoner also has the right to object to a hearing being heard by any member of the Board in favour of another.

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

Would the Assistant Minister not agree that really the boards that operate at La Moye and Greenfields are not really those that are followed outside the Island and would he not agree really that those 2 boards, along with a lay visiting scheme for the police station, should be reviewed by the Home Affairs and not really rely upon Scrutiny to do their job?

The Deputy of St. John :

Such matters are always under review and if we have just cause to review it further then we will, Sir. But we do await, with interest, for Scrutiny's intended review, Sir.

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Assistant Minister not accept that his limp answer is astounding in the light of current circumstances and it hardly shows the department is up to speed with reform?

The Deputy of St. John :

No, I do not agree, Sir. If we had had consistent complaints about this Board from prisoners in particular and their families, then I would most certainly, Sir, be reviewing this with the Minister. But at the moment we have no reason to do so. But if the Deputy feels very strongly about this, there is nothing to stop him bringing a proposition to this House to make that change, Sir, to that Regulation.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sorry, Sir, can we just press the rapporteur? He has talked about prisoners complaining; is it not a fact - and he may have a better memory than me - but the past 2 prison reports done from the U.K. (United Kingdom) have been highly critical of the Board of Visitors at La Moye Prison?

The Deputy of St. John :

Well, I do not believe they were critical in exactly as to how they operated, Sir, but there were criticisms as to how certain things were not acted upon after complaints or other observations have been made, Sir.

4. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the background to Mr. Bellwood's appeal to the Employment Tribunal:

Now that Mr. Bellwood's appeal to the Employment Tribunal has been compromised, will the Chief Minister explain - why the case was contested; who was responsible for that decision; what cost was involved; why a member of Greenfields staff has been suspended; and whether there will be an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bellwood's dismissal?

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

The case was contested because it was considered that, notwithstanding certain procedural errors in the manner in which Mr. Bellwood was dismissed, there were sound reasons for his dismissal. During the course of the tribunal, Mr. Bellwood agreed, as had previously been alleged - not I have to say by Mr. Bellwood - that he had not been dismissed for whistle-blowing. As the States had already accepted that there were procedural errors in his dismissal there was no further point in continuing with the hearing. A joint statement was therefore agreed and the application was formally withdrawn. The decision to contest the application was made by the Health and Social

Services Department in conjunction with the Chief Minister's Department. I cannot release the details of the out-of-court settlement because the agreement was confidential to both parties, but I can say that the settlement did not exceed Mr. Bellwood's contractual and statutory entitlement. A member of the Greenfields staff was subsequently suspended following the emergence of allegations made during the course of the Employment Tribunal hearing. There will now be an independent investigation into those allegations and this begins today. It was announced on the day of the out-of-court settlement, which was 12th March, that there will be a full independent inquiry into all of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bellwood's dismissal and what lessons may be learnt from it. It was announced yesterday that this inquiry will be conducted by Professor Robert Upex,

an expert in the field of employment law whose name and C.V. (curriculum vitae) along with others were provided to the States Employment Board by the Director of J.A.C.S. (Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Services).

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Will the Minister agree that there are really 3 major decisions surrounding the whole case? One was to dismiss Mr. Bellwood, the second one was obviously to defend the claim and the third was to give way halfway through the case. Will the Minister advise the House whether those decisions were made by civil servants or by Ministers?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Ultimately they were made by Ministers and I have to say I stand by them.

2. Senator S. Syvret:

When Mr. Bellwood, who I did not know at that time, came to me in the early part of last year with his case, it was immediately clear to me that the case against him by management was an absolute farrago of nonsense. I put this view to the senior officers in the department. They

The Deputy Bailiff :

Sorry, this must be a question.

Senator S. Syvret:

Yes, it is going to be a question. They told me that no, they insisted that everything was procedurally perfectly in order when it manifestly was not. Does the Chief Minister think it acceptable for senior civil servants to lie to their Ministers in this manner? After Panorama last night you bloody idiot. [Member: Oh!]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator, Senator, that was one moment. Senator Syvret, that was completely unparliamentary language. I must ask you to withdraw it.

Senator S. Syvret:

I will withdraw the word "bloody", Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Now there was a question asked of the Chief Minister.

Senator F.H. Walker :

The case against Mr. Bellwood was not a farrago of nonsense. There were and remain good reasons for his dismissal and I have no doubt that those will all be fully explained and clarified during the inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. Sir, I too deplore the fact that the Senator has chosen, yet again, to say that senior civil servants have lied to him. There is no evidence to support that and again I am confident that that too will be made clear during the inquiry.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister confirm that given the embarrassment of the agreement that was reached and therefore the information which was denied to the public, that all the information that was denied as a result of the abrupt termination of the inquiry will now be revealed publicly through the findings of the Professor's report?

Senator F.H. Walker : Yes, Sir, absolutely.

4. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I hold no brief, either Mr. Bellwood or the man suspended, I have never met Mr. Bellwood and certainly the man suspended I have only met twice about 4 years ago. But I think it is quite fair to say there have been 2 casualties as a result of the problem up there. Could I ask the Chief Minister; will Mr. Bellwood be reinstated? Secondly, I have heard this morning - we all heard this morning which I think was good news - that the matter of the suspension was going to be started, I think, either today or tomorrow - soon. Can I, Sir, have reassurance that the matter of the suspension will be dealt with prior to the full inquiry therefore the person suspended will not have to suffer further duress while waiting for the outcome of the review?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Yes, Sir, the Deputy is correct when he said the inquiry into the suspension starts today and it is intended that that will be a relatively short-running inquiry and should be complete, I hope, within the next few days, and certainly in advance of the full inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bellwood's dismissal. But, Sir, I will maintain or repeat another point; there were and remain good reasons for Mr. Bellwood's dismissal.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I did ask whether Mr. Bellwood would be reinstated.

Senator F.H. Walker :

Well, Sir, so long as good reasons remain for his dismissal he will not be reinstated. The only possible circumstances I could envisage in which that might happen is if the Committee of Inquiry came out strongly and clearly and supported his view that he was wrongfully dismissed and found indeed that to be the case. But I very much doubt that that will be the outcome. But of course it is a fully independent inquiry and we will have to await its conclusion.

5. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Could I just press the Chief Minister to come back? I feel rather strange that Mr. Bellwood has received a full compensation for being sacked yet he will not be offered his job back because he was guilty of something. I find it hard to follow.

Senator F.H. Walker :

The Deputy misunderstands the position. There were and remain good reasons for Mr. Bellwood's dismissal. Now I cannot repeat that too often. The problem from the States perspective was that there was a technical glitch in the way in which he was dismissed. It was purely technical in that he was not given the notice that he was entitled to. That is the only problem and that is why the settlement was within his statutory rights and well below - well below - the figure Mr. Bellwood originally requested to settle the issue some months before the tribunal sat.

6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if the Chief Minister could clarify; there are an awful lot of inquiries going on or being announced and I think we are all getting slightly confused. There seems to be an immediate inquiry starting today with a narrow remit and then a broader inquiry into Greenfields. Could he clarify how those 2 inquiries are going to run; whether they are concurrent and when each of them are going to report?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I thought I had answered that in the response to the Deputy of St. Martin. The inquiry into the suspension starts today, as both Deputies have correctly observed, and as I said in answer to the Deputy of St. Martin, we anticipate that being concluded within a very short timescale. The full inquiry into all the circumstances of Mr. Bellwood's dismissal will start when that has finished and that will take much longer to resolve. It will be a full public inquiry and Members already have details of the expert who has been employed to chair it.

7. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I have got to thank the Chief Minister because I really felt this morning I may well have got very few answers because everything is sub judice until we had a review. So I think it is refreshing the answers I have had this morning. But one question remains; when the full review on Greenfields with - I cannot remember the name of the gentleman who will be doing it - but will there be a full panel working with him and will the States have any say in the make up of that panel?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Are we talking here about Mr. Bellwood's dismissal or the Andrew Williamson inquiry into Greenfields?

The Deputy of St. Martin : The Bellwood dismissal.

Senator F.H. Walker :

No, Sir, it is not planned that there will be a tribunal sitting with Professor Ubex, it is planned that he will conduct the inquiry himself.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding problems relating to the issue of benefit cheques which occurred over the recent bank holiday:

Will the Minister inform Members whether any problems occurred in the issue of benefits cheques over the recent Bank Holiday and if so to what extent were recipients of benefits affected?

Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):

All benefit cheques due on Good Friday, 21st March and Easter Monday, 24th March, were despatched by the department on the previous Wednesday, 19th March. All B.A.C.S. (Bank Automated Clearing System) payments in respect of Good Friday, 21st March and Easter Monday, 24th March were processed in sufficient time to clear claimants' bank accounts on Thursday, 20th March. Therefore no problems occurred through the issue of benefit payments by cheque or BACS in respect of the recent Bank Holiday. Sir, I could just stop there because I have answered the question, but I would just like to expand a little further. In addition to processing payments due in the days leading up to Easter and processing payments in advance in respect of Good Friday and Easter Monday, in the days leading up Thursday, 20th March, the department processed payments due on Tuesday, 25th and Wednesday, 26th March. It is obviously a weekly activity to process payments in respect of the first 2 working days of the following week in the previous working week. Of the 22,259 payments processed in the 4 days, Monday, 17th to Thursday, 20th March, 97 per cent were processed as scheduled. However one BACS payment in respect of Tuesday, 25th March, which was not the Bank Holiday, failed to complete. But the payments arrived in claimants' bank accounts the following day. These BACS payments would still have cleared bank accounts earlier than the cheque payments would have been in respect of the same day. However, the department is rightly proud of its usual 100 per cent record in transacting payments on their due dates and I have been asked to apologise on its behalf to customers who may have been affected by this delay as it knows how important it is to those clients to have those payments made at the right time. I wish to reassure customers that such a delay is a very rare occurrence but the department has nevertheless introduced further checks to minimise even further the chances that it could be repeated.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister aware that now that he is responsible, not only for the payment of Social Security cheques, but for the replacement of what was the safety net of welfare previously - and given that many of the recipients of benefits have extreme problems budgeting for a full week - any delay in the issuing of cheques may lead, in many cases, to hardship. What arrangements does he have in place to ensure that any case of hardship is immediately alleviated as it might have been previously by a visit down to the Welfare Department?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Of those people that had a delayed payment, 2 people contacted the department and we paid them cash immediately. Those were the only 2 people who asked for immediate support and we are able to do that. There were some people who phoned and accepted that a day's delay was not a problem for them and we apologised to them and they accepted that apology. As I say, the people, if they are in any desperate need, know we have a system of paying cash and they know we do that immediately.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may, Sir? I refer to the actual case; the Minister has just said one of the people was given a cash payment immediately. Can I use her words? "The officer refused me a cash payment. I refused to leave and after 2 hours the supervisor's attitude changed and she gave me the cash I was owed." The person had to sit there for 2 hours while the supervisor insisted that she was going to generate a cheque. Can the Minister explain that behaviour?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The department deals with many people coming in asking for money and we need to deal with them and make sure we are dealing with them fairly. If someone has had to wait 2 hours there were obviously some checks that needed to be made. I would support the department ensuring that they do give money to the right people and at the right amount. So if someone has had to wait 2 hours for that to happen, well that may be the case but at least they have not had to wait another day.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

May I push the Minister? In general terms, if at any time cheques are delayed from Social Security, what is his general broadcast advice that recipients who find themselves in difficulty should do in order to alleviate any hardship that may be caused by delay? Because while the Minister may have a target of 100 per cent efficiency, he must surely accept that from time to time, for reasons beyond his control, cheques will be late and at the moment there is no safety net.

Senator P.F. Routier:

I do not accept the point that there is no safety net. There is a safety net. People can come into the department as has been demonstrated by the 2 people who came into the department out of 22,000 people. The Deputy has had one person come to him and I apologise for that: the department apologises for those 2 errors. There is a system in place for people to come into the department and to receive cash when needed.

6. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) Law to confernew sentencing powers in respect of offenders aged 12 plus:

Given that 2 Ministers who were directly involved with Greenfields are apparently not in favour of proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey)  Law to confer new sentencing powers in respect of offenders aged 12 plus, will the Chief Minister explain why the amendments were included in the law drafting programme?

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

Contrary to the question's preamble, the 3 Ministers concerned have made no firm decision about the proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994. It is in the programme because there is some ambiguity in Articles 4 and 5 of the Law which may require amendment as to how younger children could be dealt with on a custodial basis. Clarification of the legal position is being sought prior to the States being asked to debate the issue. The amendments for which law drafting time was allocated last year was partly a response to representations made by the courts that a power was needed to allow children aged between 12 and 14 to be sentenced to a period of secure custody. The Ministers felt able to agree to the broad concept of custodial sentencing, subject to certain important caveats, but they do hold individual views on the precise terms under which the court could invoke new sentencing powers. These issues will be decided before precise law drafting instructions are formulated.

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Would the Chief Minister accept that last year the States approved the 2008 Business Plan which included the specific amendments which he has just referred to, therefore it is incumbent then upon the Minister for Home Affairs to advance the wishes that have been made by this House, i.e. that the instructions should be given to the Law Draftsman without delay.

Senator F.H. Walker :

The Deputy is quite correct but there are 2 fundamental issues which have to be resolved. The first is the age at which young people should be able to be sentenced to a period of youth detention, and the second is whether youth detention should be served in the Young Offenders Institution at La Moye or the secure unit at Greenfields. Sir, those are fundamental issues which do need resolution but I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of the Deputy 's question. I believe this is a matter that does need to come to the States at the earliest possible opportunity.

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Could I ask when it is intended to bring forward this legislation? I have page 201 of the Business Plan and as long ago as 15th May last year the Law Draftsmen were waiting for instructions. It would appear that there is no rush to get this legislation through the House - it is almost 12 months - can we have some idea when this will come to the House for the House to make a decision?

Senator F.H. Walker

I cannot give a specific date, and I am sure the Deputy is aware, as are I think most other people, that there have been many events surrounding Greenfields which bear on this important issue which were not envisaged at the time the plan was put into place. Of course, we have got still the running Williamson Inquiry which is due to report very shortly and I have no doubt Mr. Williamson will be making recommendations in that respect. We also have the Howard League due to carry out their own investigations in Jersey in May. We have got to make sure that we take every possible expert view on these  fundamental issues and rather than rush this through to the States, under very different circumstances to those envisaged last year, we have got, above all, to make sure we get it right.