States Meeting Transcript - 01/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 1st JULY 2008

QUESTIONS......................................................................................7

1. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING VISITOR NUMBERS TO ELIZABETH CASTLE. .................................................................7
2. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE LA COLLETTE RECLAMATION SITE..................................................................7
3. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BELLOZANNE CHIMNEY. ..................................................8
4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY'S CHIMNEY AT LA COLLETTE....9
5. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE HEALTH REGISTER. .........................................................................................10
6. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING PRESCRIPTION CHARGES..............................10
7. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE USE OF THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND..............................................................12
8. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR STAFF IN DEMONSTRATIONS..................................................................13
9. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE USE OF LOCAL LABOUR BY EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES........................................13
10. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF AN ATTENDANCE AND VOTING SUMMARY AHEAD OF THE 2008 ELECTIONS..14
11. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE NEW INCOME SUPPORT BENEFITS..............15
12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' INVOLVEMENT IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. .........................................................................19
13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE CIRCULATION OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT. ........................................19

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING WAGE RATES WITHIN THE ISLAND..........20
15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO JERSEY FINANCE LIMITED...................................................................20
16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE SHORTFALLS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY...............................................................................21
17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF UNDER 18'S IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS......................21
18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF UNDER 18'S IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS...........................................................................22
19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF UNDER 18'S IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS..........................................23
20. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DTZ REPORT INTO A POTENTIAL THIRD SUPERMARKET..............................................................24
21. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF THE RENT ABATEMENT SCHEME TO SOCIAL SECURITY. ..................................................................25
22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING

AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PROVISION OF AMENITY SPACES. .27

23. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING TAX INCREASES................................29
24. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING LAND VALUE TAX. ............................31

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................32

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour of the Minister for Social Security regarding people delaying visits to G.P.s following the introduction of income support...........32 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................32

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................32
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................32
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
4. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Martin : ......................................................33

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding exemption figures in the Budget 2008..............................................................33 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................33

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
   3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the introduction of freedomof information legislation. .........................................................................................34 Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....34

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................34
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................34
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................34

4. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Social Security regarding preferred suppliers under income support special payments................................................34 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................35

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................35
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................35

5. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding a case pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council................................................35 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................35
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the publicity surrounding arrests by the States of Jersey Police ......................................36 Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):..........36

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................36
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................36
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................37
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................37
7. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................37

7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the removal of G.S.T. on road fuel......................................................37 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................37

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................38
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................38
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................39

8. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding repairs to St. James Church.......................................................................39 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................39

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................39
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................40

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................40
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................40
5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................40
6. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................40
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................41
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................41
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................41
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................41
11. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................42

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour the Chief Minister regarding an update of the inheritance laws........................................................................42 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................42
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Chief Minister regarding the Chairman of the Waterfront Enterprise Board........................................................................42 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................42

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................43
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................43
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................44
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................44
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................44
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................45
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................45

8. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................46
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................46
10. Deputy J.J. Huet:..................................................................46
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................46
12. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................47
13. Senator B.E. Shenton:..............................................................47

11. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Economic Development regarding charges for debit card and cash purchases imposed by certain airlines..................47 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development -

rapporteur):.............................................................................47

1. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................48
2. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................48
3. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................48

12. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Housing regarding the Housing Department's eviction procedures.....................................................................49 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................49

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................49
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................49
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................49
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................50
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:....................................................50
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................50
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................50
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................51
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................51
10. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................51
11. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................52
12. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ..................................................................52
13. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: .........................................................52
14. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: .........................................................53

13. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the replacement of rent rebate by the income support scheme..............................................53 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................53

1. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................54
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................54
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
4. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier : ......................................................55
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................55
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................56
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................56
8. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:................................................56
9. The Connétable of St. Martin : .......................................................56

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment ...........................................................................................57

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................57 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................57

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................57
   2. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................57
   3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................58
   4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................58
   5. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................58

6. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................58
7. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................59

3.7.1 Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................59

8. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................59

3.8.1 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................59

9. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................60
10. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:....................................................60
11. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................60

3.11.1 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................61

12. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................61

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture...................................................................................61

1. Deputy S.Pitman:.......................................................................61 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................61

1. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................62
   2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................62
   3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................62
   4. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................62

4.4.1 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................62

5. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................63
6. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................63
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................64
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................64
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................64
10. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................64

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................65

5. Statement by the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding assistance towards the costs publicising candidates' election manifestos ..............65

5.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....65

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................65
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................65
4. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................66
5. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................66
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................66
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66
8. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................66
9. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................67
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................67
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................67
12. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................67
13. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier : ................................................67
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................67
15. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................68

6. Statement by the Chairman of the Corporate Service Scrutiny Panel regarding the review of the importation of bovine semen .............................................68

6.1 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......68

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................69

2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................70
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................70
4. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................70
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................71

6. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................71

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................72

7. Council of Ministers: Vote of No Confidence (P.99/2008)..............................72

7.1 Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................72

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................77 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................77

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................77

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................77 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................77

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................82
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................89
3. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................91
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................92
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................92
6. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................93
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................98
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................102
9. Deputy J.B. Fox:......................................................................102
10. Deputy S.Power:..................................................................103
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................105
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ..............................................................107 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................109

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING VISITOR NUMBERS TO ELIZABETH CASTLE.

Question

Can the Minister provide in a simple spreadsheet, the number of visitors to Elizabeth Castle between 2003 and 2007 that were carried by Puddle Ducks Limited and by Pure Adventure Limited, including late evening functions at the Castle?

Answer

Prior to 2007, the amphibious vehicle service between West Park and Elizabeth Castle was a privately operated service. Data relating to that service is, therefore, held by the operator who elected to withdraw on economic grounds in 2006. What can be said, however, is that between 2003 and 2006 general admissions to the Castle declined from 48,728 to 41,056.

In 2007 the Jersey Heritage Trust, in recognition of the failure of the market to sustain this service, provided a subsidy in part-return for ticket income from the route. Consequently, the Trust is able to give the total carried  by the amphibious vehicles in 2007 which was 18,902. Delays  in introducing the service and operating difficulties during the season contributed to this disappointing figure, and to the Jersey Heritage Trust's decision both to obtain compensation from the operator in 2007 and subsequently to take on the running of the service itself.

2. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE LA COLLETTE RECLAMATION SITE.

Question

With regard to the La Collette reclamation site, would the Minister advise:

1. approximately, at current levels of tipping, how many years are left before it is full;

Answer

Based on infill rates to the end of 2007, and taking into account the volumes predicted from the two major Waterfront schemes, Castle Quay and the Esplanade Quarter, the site would be full to design capacity of 3.4 million cubic metres by 2017.

Question

2. approximately how many of those years use would be used up should allofthespoil excavated during the Esplanade Quarter development find its way to La Collette;

Answer

If none of the excavated material can be recycled, the volume of material equates to about 3.15 years of space in the La Collette II reclamation site. Calculations indicate that with a recycling rate of between 20 and 40 % of the excavated material, the volume of material being deposited into the site would be equivalent to between 2.5 and 1.9 years respectively. From past experience of developing on the Waterfront, it is hoped that a higher recycling rate can be achieved.

3. DEPUTY  G.C.L.  BAUDAINS  OF  ST.  CLEMENT  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BELLOZANNE CHIMNEY.

Question

With regard to the Bellozanne chimney, would the Minister advise:

1. how often it has a full internal inspection;

Answer

The department has monitored the chimney on a regular basis throughout the life of the plant, approximately  twice  a  year  the  operational  manager  has  ascended  the  chimney  for  a  visual inspection. In addition to this, formal survey's and specialist remedial works have been undertaken on the dates as listed below:

September 2001 May 2002 October 2003 November 2004 January 2005 November 2006

January 2007 November 2007 January 2008

Question

2. when it was last identified that flue repairs were necessary;

Answer

Flue repairs were identified during a scheduled inspection in January 2008, and repairs planned for April 2008 during a boiler shutdown and when the weather was better for working at the top of the chimney. This work was tendered and awarded to a firm of steeplejacks for a sum of £58,000.

Question

3. the maintenance cost during each of the last five years;

Answer

c) The maintenance cost related to the chimney during each of the last five years is as follows;

2003 £6,688 2004 £3,872 2005 £3,988 2006 £31,680

2007 £20,946

(2004 and 2005 steeplejack inspection costs only). Question

4. its present age and expected lifespan.

Answer

The chimney was constructed in 1978 and is currently 30 years old, the expected remaining lifespan cannot be given until results of detailed structural survey are completed. Defining a life' of a concrete reinforced structure is very challenging but it is likely that additional strengthening will be required to prolong the life of the chimney until the new Energy from Waste plant is commissioned. The chimney specialist has indicated that there are very few chimneys of this design still in use in the UK, due to their inherent design problems.

4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY'S CHIMNEY AT LA COLLETTE.

Question

Would the Minister advise what information, if any, the Transport and Technical Services has received during negotiations with the Jersey Electricity Company on the use of the chimney at La Collette with regard to –

1. how often it has a full internal inspection;

Answer

The Jersey Electricity Company carry out monthly visual inspections of the chimney using Jersey Electricity Company staff. In addition the Jersey Electricity Company routinely undertakes a thorough inspection of the chimney using a third party specialist. This is typically carried out on a 5 yearly basis, unless the monthly inspection identifies an issue which brings the detailed inspection forward. In 2006 TTSD, in conjunction with Jersey Electricity Company, commissioned Delta International to undertake a thorough inspection and testing of the chimney and flues. In addition,

the Jersey Electricity Company provided the report from a similar inspection carried out in 2003. Question

2. approximate annual maintenance costs;

Answer

Indicative historic annual operation and maintenance costs have been provided by the Jersey Electricity Company in the development of the proposed agreement between Jersey Electricity Company and TTSD, which will enable the proposed new Energy from Waste plant to utilise existing flues in the Jersey Electricity Company's chimney. These included the costs associated with the inspection of the chimney and cathodic protection system. These costs are the property of the Jersey Electricity Company and the Minister regrets that he is unable to release the financial details of a third party.

Question

3. its present age and expected lifespan.

Answer

The chimney was built in 1967. Copies of the original drawings for the construction of the chimney have been made available to TTSD and their technical consultants. The reports from the two inspections carried out in 2003 and 2006 identified that in general the chimney was in good condition and not in need of any particular remedial works. The reports do not estimate the future life of the chimney and serve as a record of the condition of the plant. The condition of the plant has not changed significantly in the period between the two inspections. The Jersey Electricity Company currently consider that with an appropriate maintenance and inspection regime, the chimney will continue to be operational throughout the life of the proposed Energy-from-Waste plant.

5. DEPUTY J.A. MARTIN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE HEALTH REGISTER.

Question

Can the Minister inform the Assembly how many people are now on the Health and Social Services' Health Register, when he expects it to be completed and whether this will be within the agreed timeframe?

Answer

The Health Screening Index was developed as a joint project between Health and Social Services and the Chief Minister's Information Services Department as a means of identifying Islanders eligible for health screening purposes. The aim was to set up an interim index until the Jersey substantive population database was functioning. The Health Screening Index is comprised of demographic data from GP practices, reconciled and validated against the hospital Patient Administration System.

Currently, the Health Screening Index contains 107,435 records. Whilst a great deal of work has been done to make the index as accurate as possible, it is more than reasonable to assume that it still contains some duplicate records and records of people no longer living in Jersey whom my Department are unable to confirm have left Jersey.

The Health Screening Index was completed by 31st January 2008 and it will be maintained until the definitive population database becomes available.

The Health Screening Index has identified in the region of 3000 women eligible for breast screening who were not previously known to the breast screening programme. Letters inviting these women to join the programme have been sent out. The process of screening these women is in progress.

6. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING PRESCRIPTION CHARGES.

Question

Would the Minister:

1. advise whether there has been an increase in the number of prescriptions since patient charges were discontinued and, if so, by how much;

Answer

The number of prescriptions dispensed is subject to major variations from month to month and it would be impossible to draw any inferences on the impact of a change in the system so soon after its introduction. Data has only recently been made available for April, the third month since the removal of prescription charges.

Any analysis of changes due to the removal of prescription charges will need to take account of and eliminate:

• The annual growth in prescribing – This is currently running at 4 -5 % per annum.
• The addition of 440 items to the prescribed list, as a result of setting up a single island formulary.
• Seasonal and monthly fluctuations in prescribing – the number of items prescribed from one month to the next can vary by as much as 10 -15%. For example, between January and April 2007, the number of prescriptions varied as follows

It is not advisable to compare prescribing patterns in summer with winter.

Once data for 6 months is available, the Department will undertake a full assessment.

Question

2. state how much the Health Insurance Fund is currently in surplus, and how long it is estimated to remain in surplus now prescriptions are free;

Answer

As with the Social Security Fund, the current contribution level to the Health Insurance Fund has been set at a level designed to accumulate a surplus. The current annual surplus for the Health Insurance Fund for the year ended 31st December 2007 was £10.6 million with net assets standing at  £63.4  million  in  December  2007.  As  the  number  of  contributors  falls  and  the  number  of pensioners steadily rises, the Fund is predicted to move into an annual deficit in 2017 at which point the net assets will stand at an estimated £93 million. This is not an actuarial forecast and it is subject  to  many  assumptions,  around  annual  growth  in  contribution  income,  prescription  and medical benefit costs.

Using similar assumptions, the Social Security Fund is also predicted to move into annual deficit in 2017.

Question

3. advise whetherhe is intending to remove the ring-fencing of the above fund, in order to enable the inclusion of such matters as dental expenses.

Answer

The use of the Health Insurance Fund is governed by legislation - the Health Insurance (Jersey) Law 1967. The law provides for financial assistance for particular approved services given by approved professionals to people insured under the law. In the legislation four different types of benefit are allowed for:

• Medical benefit for GP services
• Pharmaceutical benefit arising from GP services
• Dental benefit
• Ophthalmic benefit

The dental and ophthalmic benefits have never been brought into practice.

The Department is currently working in partnership with the Health and Social Services Department to revise this legislation to provide a flexible modern primary care service for the Island. Such changes will reflect the principles set by the New Directions strategy which is currently being developed by Health and Social Services.

7. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE USE OF THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND.

Question

Is the Minister satisfied that the Tourism Development Fund should be used to fund research for the Economic Development Department as in NZT 148 (feasibility study into the cruise liner market) and NZT 194 (feasibility study for the creation of a tax relief scheme for tourism sector developments) as featured in the Tourism Development Fund Annual report 2007?

Answer

A strong visitor economy is essential to the Island and we should use all the means available to us to open new opportunities for growth and improvement. The Tourism Development Fund was set up in 2001 with that purpose in mind and I applaud the efforts of the Panel in supporting projects such as those mentioned, that may lead to growth and improvements.

The Jersey Destination Audit, carried out by Locumconsulting in 2006, pointed to the importance of there being a range of signature projects that make it clearer to stakeholders, from within and without the industry that a transition process is taking place and that they should be contributing to that transition.

Internationally, the cruise market has grown at an average of 9% per annum over the past 20 years making it the fastest growing area within the tourism sector. In our sister Island of Guernsey the cruise market has become an important contributor to the visitor economy with as many as 90 ships of varying sizes making a stop over each year whilst in Jersey we have consistently struggled to reach double figures despite a number of marketing initiatives.

Research into this sector was required to assess business potential and ascertain the reasons for our lack of current success against the background of growth elsewhere. As this is a specialist area of business it was necessary to engage the services of a consultant with significant cruise market expertise.

The resulting report made it clear that significant geographical difficulties existed for Jersey due to the exposed nature of offshore mooring on Jersey's south coast, but that considerable potential exists for attracting medium size cruise ships if we develop mooring facilities which enable passengers to walk ashore without tendering. We established that Jersey could be a very popular cruise call in a good location between some of Europe's most busy ports. The information gained is being factored into future harbour development plans.

The feasibility study into a possible tax relief scheme will explore the level of investment taking place in the Visitor Economy and explore barriers (real or perceived) to investment. This is being done with the full cooperation of the Jersey Hospitality Association. We welcome the important investments presently taking place in the industry but we want to explore areas where reinvestment has not taken place, examine why the investment has not been made and what could be done to encourage it.

8. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR STAFF IN DEMONSTRATIONS.

Question

Would the Chief Minister specify the conditions, if any, under which unionised members of the public service can participate in demonstrations and meetings?

Answer

Unionised members of the public service can participate in demonstrations and meetings in their own time or, if during working hours, with the agreement of their employer.

9. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE USE OF LOCAL LABOUR BY EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES.

Question

Would the Minister advise of the current procedures, if any, in place to encourage external construction firms to use local contractors and labour, as opposed to temporarily importing foreign labour and what checks, if any, exist to ensure compliance with those procedures?

Answer

It is important to sustain a cost effective and competitive local construction company, and also to maintain a range of job and training opportunities for locally qualified persons.

In practise, this means that a Regulation of Undertakings licence will only be issued to a local contractor where they have demonstrated efforts to identify and train locally qualified persons, and to non local contractors provided that evidence exists that local contractors have had opportunity to tender on a level playing field basis, or that the work is so specialist in nature that the work cannot undertaken by local firms.

Where non local firms are awarded licences, they are strongly encouraged to work with and engage local sub-contractors. To achieve this outcome, the support of the Economic Development Department's Jersey Enterprise team of business advisors is available to both the external contractors and local sub-contractors.

It is vitally important to maintain competition in the construction sector. A competitive construction market has positive implications for costs throughout the Jersey economy, and influences overall competitiveness of the Island compared to other jurisdictions. These policies are under ongoing review to ensure that we comprehend changes in the sector and the commercial environment.

Alongside this, the emphasis of policy development and decision making has been very much focused on encouraging and supporting an increasingly trained workforce in the construction sector. This is being achieved, amongst other things, through the establishment of the Skills Executive, and attaching, as appropriate, conditions to short term Regulation of Undertakings licences around the engagement and support of local apprentices – with those licences being renewable subject to satisfactory assessments of progress.

This level playing field approach to competition, with support for the training and development of locally qualified staff, is seen as the correct response to industry issues at the present time, in particular while labour market capacity is limited – with locally qualified employment in the sector in December 2007 standing at a high of 4,610, compared to 4,350 in December 2005.

10. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF AN ATTENDANCE AND VOTING SUMMARY AHEAD OF THE 2008 ELECTIONS.

Question

Will the Privileges and Procedures Committee give consideration to publishing a summary of Members attendance and voting statistics ahead of this year's elections and if not, why?

Answer

The Assembly will be aware that all States minutes are uploaded to the States Assembly website (at www.statesassembly.gov.je) and, in accordance with Standing Orders, these contain details of who is absent, who is en défaut', excused, ill, or out of the Island on States business. This information is repeated within each of the electronically recorded votes.

The preparation of statistics on voting patterns (particularly on a retrospective basis) would be complex and time consuming, and fraught with difficulty. As the Senator will be acutely aware, as he presented a report informally to members at the beginning of 2007, it is extremely important that the figures are accurate, and take account of whether a member was present at the meeting, and if he or she was not, then the reasons for absence, which may well have been legitimate. Such a report would need to include whether a member arrived late at a meeting, whether he or she was en défaut' or excused, absent on States business, whether a member declared an interest and therefore did not vote, etc. The records would only show participation in recorded votes, and would be silent on standing votes where an electronic vote is not called for. It would be extremely important that all information was 100 per cent accurate as, were a candidate to lose an election, and incorrect information had been circulated, then the Committee would be open to criticism.

The minutes similarly show where a member declares an interest under Standing Orders and withdraws. What the States minutes do not, however, show is where the Minister for Planning and Environment advises the Assembly that he does not intend to cast his vote in a matter because it relates to a planning application under consideration. Standing Orders do not call for such a declaration, and accordingly, none is recorded. He will therefore either not vote or abstain. To evidence such declarations, extensive searches of the Official Report would be required.

Similarly, all Assembly votes are shown on the States Assembly website, both on a page entitled Assembly Votes' and the voting record of each member is listed at Members and Officers' under his or  her personal details. Therefore  the public are able to  review the performance of their representatives standing for election again to assess whether they had voted in accordance with their own standpoint (pour', contre' or abstained'), or whether they had not voted, and if not, the reason for absence. Reasons for absence are listed as ill,' en défaut' (where a member is absent or, more rarely, where he or she may be on States business inside the Island), excused', out of Island' (that is, on official States' business), declared an interest' and not present for the vote' (where a member had been present at the start of the meeting, and was then absent for the vote). There is an ongoing debate as to whether a member should be listed as being on States business' where he or she is absent for unavoidable business on the island, but the position is that members' first duty is to attend the States when in session, so no change has been advocated. Of course, the performance of candidates who have not previously been elected to the States is not capable of being assessed.

If it is considered that attendance at meetings is of great interest to the public, then where does this end? Should attendance at all meetings of committees, panels and other bodies also be evaluated? How would one evaluate the diligence of members who have an official responsibility, such as Ministers, but who are not members of committees or other official bodies?

The terms of reference of the Committee do not include the maintenance of records on members' attendance or voting patterns, and if it was considered appropriate to do this, then it would form part of the Committee's annual report, rather than be presented immediately prior to elections.

The Committee recently considered the question of preparation of attendance at States meetings and voting patterns briefly on 11th June 2008, and does not consider that it is of sufficient importance to justify the resource required to undertake the task properly.

11. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the new Income Support benefits.

Question

1. Does the Minister not accept that a like-for-like comparison of benefits on 27th January 2008 with IncomeSupport (IS) at 28th January 2008 is needed if members are to properly understand the impact of the reforms?

Further, does the Minister not accept that such a comparison should not be an arduous task since much of this data would have been used to assess the new IS system before its introduction and some of the data was actually contained in the letters sent out to IS claimants?

Would such an analysis produce a different figure for those equal or better off" under the new scheme than the 56% he currently claims?

Answer

I do not accept that a like-for-like comparison of benefits on 27th January 2008 with income support on 28th January 2008 is needed for members to properly understand the impact of the income support reforms. On 28th January 2008 all claimants receiving a reduced benefit under Income Support were fully protected at the rate of their previous benefit. The impact of the reforms as at 28th January 2008 was that everyone that had applied for income support was receiving benefit at a rate equal to or above their previous benefit rate.

Whilst it would not be an "arduous task" in itself to make the like-for-like comparison requested, it must be acknowledged that a considerable amount of officer time is expended in answering the detailed questions submitted by the Deputy on a regular basis.

A comparison of benefits on 28th January 2008 would produce a different figure to the 56% quoted. However, I will not be asking my officers to undertake this analysis as their time is better spent on producing meaningful information to help us to provide a better service for claimants.

Question

2. Will the Minister inform members how many people are affected by, and thecost of, the 3 minor enhancements' to his scheme namely –

• The extension of lone parent component to parents of children aged 16 to 18 who remain in full time education;
• The high level personal care component to be available to parents of a child with a severe disability, without reference to parental income; and,
• Automatic entitlement to first level personal care component for those with a 100% Long Term Invalidity Allowance (LTIA) award

Answer

It is estimated that 167 households are affected by the change in definition of the lone parent component, at a budgeted annual cost of approximately £300,000.

There are currently 69 families that will be affected by the change to the way in which the high level personal care component for children is provided. The budgeted additional cost is estimated at £186,500 per annum.

Providing entitlement to the first level personal care component will affect approximately 535 households. The budgeted cost of these components is estimated at just over £500,000 per annum. However, this is not additional cost, as the proposal is concerned with the means by which individuals can apply for the component.

Question

3. In answer to a further question on After Housing Costs (AHC) disposable income, the Minister stated that "the introduction of Income Support did not affect rental or other housing costs" but then suggested that there would be no impact on AHC disposable income. Will the Minister explain to members exactly how the following changeswillor will not affect AHC disposable income?

• Change from Health Income Exemption (HIE) to HMA for some;
• Reduction of Disabled Transport Allowance by 50% for those not working;
• Changes to the Rent Rebate/Abatement scheme for some claimants?

Whilst addressing the changes to the Rent Rebate/Abatement scheme, will the Minister also explain to members how this has been brought about and whether the reduction in the "generosity" of the scheme affects all claimants or just those at the higher incomes, and at what income level these reductions occur along with the total savings achieved?

Answer

It is difficult to answer this question as its intention is not clear.

As a general principle, any analysis that seeks to isolate the impact of individual components of income support or predecessor benefits will be unlikely to produce any meaningful information due to the very different rules governing the different benefit schemes.

The terms "after housing costs" (AHC) and "before housing costs" (BHC) are commonly used in the analysis of disposable household income. BHC incomes are calculated without deducting the rental or other accommodation costs of the household. AHC incomes are calculated having deducted the rental and other accommodation costs of the household.

The Health Insurance Exemption scheme, Disabled Transport Allowance and rent rebate/abatement schemes have all been replaced by income support. It is impossible to distinguish between changes to benefit levels as a result of these benefits being replaced compared to changes resulting from other benefits that were replaced by income support. The total change to AHC income would be identical to the total change to BHC income.

The analysis that can be undertaken, and has been presented to the States in the detailed report circulated on 4th June, is to consider the impact of all the changes on different types of household.

In particular, the rent rebate and rent abatement schemes no longer exist and housing costs are now supported through the income support scheme. This has been brought about in exactly the same way as the replacement of all other previous benefits following a number of States decisions which clearly listed all the benefits to be replaced.

One of the main reasons for introducing income support was to provide a common assessment of income and assets, to ensure that all households were treated fairly. The calculation of income support benefit is based on

(sum of components) less ( assessed income) equals ( income support benefit).

For tenants, the accommodation component is set at the rental value of the property occupied, subject to the property being an appropriate size for the household, and the rental being no greater than the fair rental value for the size of property. These rules are applied consistently to all claimants, not just those at higher incomes.

There have been no savings by replacing the rent rebate and rent abatement scheme as the full budget from these benefits and all other benefits replaced by income support has been transferred to the income support budget.

Question

4. The Minister has assured members on several occasions that the sum allocated to IS was the sum, adjusted for inflation, that was previously spent on all the previous benefits replaced by ISand that there was only a small contingency fund set aside for the unexpected. How was the Minister able to state in his answer of 17th June 2008 that a totalof over £2.5 million has been found for additional spending to deal properly with Attendance Allowance, Adult Disability Allowance and Child Disability Allowance from within the budget?

Answer

The explanation for the adjustments to income support was given in my answer tabled on 3rd June 2008. I repeat the explanation:

"The analysis of cost undertaken before the implementation of income support was, of necessity,

prudent and estimates had to be made for the distribution costs within income support. It is still very early to attempt to analyse the ongoing cost of income support but I am committed to providing the best possible support that can be provided within the budget allocation. I am confident that the cost of these minor adjustments can be met. I will continue to monitor costs very carefully and introduce further enhancements to income support whenever possible."

As explained in the report circulated to States members on 4th June, in some areas of income support, claims will build up over a period of time. The effect of this is to provide some additional funding for one-off costs. It must also be recognised that the costs involved in income support are subject to complex interactions between a wide range of factors.

The budgeted cost of providing additional protected payments in respect of recipients of Attendance Allowance, Adult Disability Allowance and Child Disability Allowance is £685,000 in 2008 and £587,000 in 2009, this is a total of £1,272,000 over the two years. These are one-off costs which will not recur.

The £2.5 million quoted in the Deputy 's question relates not just to the additional protected payments but also to the cost for 2008 and 2009 of the budgeted cost of the three changes (mentioned above) relating to lone parents, children with severe disabilities and working age adults with 100% LTIA awards. As previously explained this is not all additional spending.

Question

5. Will the Minister confirm that the figures given in an answer to my question on June 17th regarding incentives towork mean that a persononISwillbeabletoearnonlyaround£40(or between 7 and 8 hours on the minimum wage) before being subject to a 94 pence deduction inIS for every additional £1earned,and if so,howisthissupposedtoencourage claimants to return to full-time (35+ hours) working?

Answer

To qualify for income support, adults must be in full-time work or satisfy one of the exemptions for full-time work. A claimant who is capable of undertaking full-time work must take up available work in order to claim income support. A claimant who chooses not to undertake full-time work when such work is available and, has no good reason for not taking up work is not eligible for income support.

Income Support introduces a statutory requirement to support oneself, whenever that is practical. The law also includes a large number of exemptions to ensure that individuals are not required to work if they are elderly, looking after a young child, caring for someone with a severe disability, unable to work due to their own disability or illness or in full-time education. An individual who is available for work but unable to find employment is also supported, as long as s/he undertakes appropriate jobseeking activities.

The stepped disregards set out in schedule 2, Paragraph 5 of the General Provisions Order apply to earnings up to £435.50 per week. Above this level, the 6% disregard is used as it produces a greater reduction than the stepped disregard. In addition to the 6% disregard, allowances against earned income are also made for social security contributions at all income levels (a further 6%).

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' INVOLVEMENT IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

Question

Will the Chief Minister clarify for members the position regarding the ability of States employees to campaign on behalf of candidates in an election using holiday entitlement or unpaid leave?

Answer

An employee who is deemed to be "politically eligible" under the appropriate regulations is free to campaign on behalf of candidates in an election in their own time. Whether or not they would be granted normal holiday entitlement or unpaid leave for this purpose would be treated like any other request in this respect – i.e. by their line manager and depending upon the exigencies of the service.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE CIRCULATION OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT.

Question

Will the Chief Minister ensure that the Economic Impact Assessment of the Waterfront Development conducted by the States Economic Advisor is distributed to members in advance of further debate on the Esplanade Quarter?

Answer

Yes. The Economic Adviser's report has been circulated to all States Members.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING WAGE RATES WITHIN THE ISLAND.

Question

Following his written answer of 3rd June 2008, would the Minister state whether wage rates in the Island are driven by competition from the finance sector and will he explain to members the distinction he draws between productivity-based wage rises and other forms of wage increases in terms of their impact on inflation?

Answer

As Stated in the answer of 3rd June 2008 there are many factors that combine to impact on the demand and supply for labour and therefore wage rates in the Island. There is not one factor alone that determines wage rates and to suggest there is risks over simplification.

As the Council of Ministers Anti-inflation Strategy makes clear, inflationary pressure results from the overall level of demand in the economy exceeding its supply capability. Wage increases that are backed by productivity improvements have positive impacts on both demand and supply in the

economy and are therefore less likely to result in a build up of inflationary pressure. In contrast, wage increases that are not accompanied by productivity improvements have a negative impact on supply and add to demand, adding to inflationary pressure in the economy.

15. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO JERSEY FINANCE LIMITED.

Question

Will the Minister inform members what elements of the Economic Development Department's budget will be subject to reduced spending following the decision to allocate a further £505,000 to the marketing budget of Jersey Finance Limited?

Answer

No element of the Economic Development Department's 2008 budget will be reduced following the decision to allocate additional funding to Jersey Finance Limited. The additional budget allocated to Jersey Finance Limited will be drawn down from the Department's Economic Growth Plan capital funds.

Items funded by the additional budget in 2008 will have ongoing revenue funding implications that are being addressed within the Department's business planning and budget process. The Department plans its future year's budgets by undertaking an exercise involving all Directors and Heads of Departments, to identify and then prioritise costed business objectives. As with all grants and partnership agreements, Jersey Finance has been included in this process.

By taking this approach to budget setting, Economic Development operates a "zero-based" system that, in effect, builds the Department's budget from scratch. This process allows the Department to meet its objectives in a rapidly changing local and international economic climate.

Any reductions or increases in areas of funding that may occur from year to year are therefore a result of changing priorities, brought about by the need to meet the Department's objectives and the obligation to maximise the return on tax payer's investment in the economy.

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE SHORTFALLS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY.

Question

1. Given hisresponseto my questionconcerningtheHousingNeeds Survey, whentheMinister stated that he disagreed with my suggestion that the shortfall in 2, 3 and 4 bedroom accommodation had not been addressed, will he explain to members why the potential shortfall of such housing identified in the report has increased by two thirds?

Answer

Each housing needs survey is a snapshot in time, reflecting the circumstances pertaining at that time. Each Housing Needs Survey therefore covers the aspirations of people over differing time frames and under different economic circumstances.

The new 2007 housing needs survey was carried out at a time when the economy is performing strongly and not surprisingly demand is greater. This survey also sought to identify likely needs over the next 5 years to the end of 2012 – rather than just focusing on a single point in time.

Question

2. Will he inform members what number of (under 55) one-bed flats are under construction or have planning permission for 2008and2009,giventhatthiswasan area identified as over- supplied?

Answer

This is a question which would perhaps be better directed to the Planning and Environment Minister; however, through enquiries with his Department I have established that there are no robust statistics for housing units granted planning permission or under construction in 2008.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF UNDER 18'S IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS.

Question

In addition to the Scrutiny citizenship involvement, what specific initiatives are in place or under consideration in our schools and colleges to try to ensure registration of under 18's and promote their participation in voting in the forthcoming 2008 elections? In particular, what consideration, if any, has been given to enabling access by candidates on an equal basis to these newly enfranchised voters?

Answer

The Citizenship Curriculum, which was developed and implemented in schools during 2007 examines the structure of government in Jersey and explains the democratic process. As part of this program, the teachers involved in its delivery have been instructed to ensure that all pupils who will be 16 or above at the time of the election, have the registration and voting process explained to them.

To support this, a leaflet is currently being drafted which will provide a step-by-step guide to registration and voting.

Consideration is also being given to the practicalities of making registration forms available on school premises.

To supplement this work, the Department for Education, Sport and Culture, together with the Chief Minister's Department, is considering the feasibility of an electoral engagement project in conjunction with the British Youth Council. This would be designed to give young people a better understanding of what democracy entails and to explain how their participation in the electoral process can impact on decisions which affect young people.

Guidelines are currently being written to assist schools during an electoral period. These will be designed to ensure that young people are treated no differently to any other section of the voting population and to prevent disruption to the school curriculum.

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF UNDER 18'S IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS.

Question

In addition to the Scrutiny citizenship involvement, what specific initiatives are in place or under consideration to try to ensure registration of under 18's and promote their participation in voting in the forthcoming 2008 elections?

Answer

As already stated on a number of occasions the Privileges and Procedures Committee is keen to encourage voter registration and turnout in this autumn's elections. The Committee was successful in obtaining permission for the carrying forward of funds from a 2007 underspend to fund a campaign to achieve this objective. The Committee's overall objective is to encourage registration for all persons who are entitled to be registered and although the Committee is keen to ensure that as many 16 and 17 year olds as possible are registered this should not be at the expense of similar measures taken to encourage the registration and participation of all other entitled persons.

At its last meeting the Committee selected a partner to run the forthcoming campaign which will begin in the very near future and continue until the date of the Deputies elections. The Committee has made it clear to tenderers for this work that encouraging the newly entitled 16 and 17 year olds to register will clearly be one important component of the campaign but the campaign must also have provision, for example, to encourage minority groups in the Island who are entitled to register to do so.

For the avoidance of doubt PPC believes it is important to address the reference by Deputy Southern to the Scrutiny citizenship programme in this question. That programme was for Year 10 pupils of the four 11-16 secondary schools and Hautlieu to inform pupils about how scrutiny and Ministers work together on issues. The meetings involved scrutiny members, scrutiny officers, Ministers and Department officers and the pupils spent time studying a Ministerial consultation paper and formulating questions, with the assistance of scrutiny, to put to the Minister and senior officers about the topic. The Scrutiny citizenship programme was not in any way directly related to trying to ensure registration of under 18's or promoting their participation in voting as could be implied by the wording of this question.

19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMITÉ DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING THE REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF UNDER 18'S IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS.

Question

In addition to the Scrutiny citizenship involvement, what specific initiatives are in place or under consideration to try to ensure registration of under 18's and promote their participation in voting in the coming 2008 elections?

Answer

The law was changed with effect from 1st April 2008 to permit those aged 16 years and over to register, provided they meet the other requirements, and all forms include the new age limit. Each year, forms and reminders are sent to every unit of dwelling accommodation to remind ALL those resident at the address that, if they are eligible, they have a duty to register.

The Comité des Connétable s seeks to ensure registration of all those who are eligible to vote under the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, and to promote their participation in voting in the coming 2008 elections, and does not discriminate in favour of, or make special provision for, any one class of voter.

However, the Comité des Connétable s did write to the head teachers of all secondary schools in Jersey with students who are aged 16 years and over to advise that the Electoral Registration forms were being sent out and to ask that they encourage their students to register as soon as possible. All schools cover electoral issues as part of the Citizenship' studies program developed by the Education, Sport and Culture Department.

In addition, the Parish of St. Helier has recently employed a full time electoral officer whose responsibilities include raising awareness of the need for those eligible to vote to register, promotion of this need in a publicity campaign in English, Portuguese and Polish, and making visits to schools. The ERO has also had a meeting with the Youth Service and visited Youth Centres. The latter exercise was considered to be particularly worthwhile and resulted in electoral registration forms being completed on site.

20. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DTZ REPORT INTO A POTENTIAL THIRD SUPERMARKET.

Question

1. The DTZ report into a potential third supermarket refers to "projections for 15 years from 2009 for each of the population growth scenarios that the States of Jersey are now considering", would the Minister state whether these scenarios are the same as those referred to during the Imagine Jersey' exercise and whether they refer to a range of up to 625 heads of household or up to 625 inward migrants?

Answer

The DTZ study is not a report on the potential for a third supermarket. DTZ were commissioned to review the adequacy of the all retail provision across all sectors in the Island as part of the Island Plan Review and aimed at answering the following questions:

• How much new retail development of each principal type will be supportable on the Island by growth in population and retail expenditure in future years;
• Where on the Island should it be located and in what commercially realistic formats.

This report is yet to be completed and is expected to be available in mid-July following the publication of the Island Plan Strategic Options - Green paper.

This research is a land use planning study based on a number of assumptions over the period of the Plan. It specifically addresses capacity issues and looks at the amount of floorspace in the Island relative to expected trends in expenditure. It does not address wider issues about the need for competition, the structure of the retail market and how the retail sector contributes to the Island's economic objectives of economic growth and low inflation.

In order to carry out this work it was necessary to forecast longer term expenditure patterns (up to 2025) on the Island. DTZ were provided with information from the statistics unit on current population levels including future growth scenarios, based on population modelling work and the 2007 Housing Needs Survey. In addition, they conducted a Household Interview Survey of existing shopping patterns on the Island.

The planning assumption made in the 2002 Island Plan was a net in-migration level of 200 heads of households per annum (the actual average since 2002 has been just below 200 h/h per annum). Taking account of population modelling for Imagine Jersey, it was considered appropriate to adopt

- purely as a planning assumption in the preparation of the Island plan review - the +250 heads of households per annum (540 people) scenario. And it is this that has been used to assess the capacity levels for the retail analysis. This is not an endorsement of any particular figure as this will be a decision of the States.

Question

2. Could theMinisterstatewhetherthereportwilladdresstheestimatedsizeoftheworkforce required for a potential third supermarket operator and, if so, is he able to advise what size would that be? Does the report also cover displacement effects in assessing the workforce implications of a third entrant?

Answer

The final report is not yet complete, however the brief for the study did not cover assessment of the workforce implications of a third supermarket entrant, nor any potential workforce displacement effects should one enter the market.

21. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF THE RENT ABATEMENT SCHEME TO SOCIAL SECURITY.

Question

Following his answer given during questions without notice on 29th April 2008 –

1. Would the Minister inform Members what difference the transfer of the rent abatement scheme from the Housing Department to Income Support through Social Security has made to his Department's revenue stream?

Answer

The transfer from Rent Abatement to Income Support has not made a significant difference to the Department's revenue stream in so much as the Department continues to charge rent at the same level as when the abatement scheme closed.

The key difference in the two schemes is the capacity for Income Support to pay the full cost of the tenant's rent including utility charges whereas under the abatement scheme tenants even those on maximum abatement always paid a minimum sum plus their utility charges. The advantage to the tenant with Income Support is that benefit level permitting the full cost of their home is paid for them direct. Where any arrears exist, it enables the tenant to focus on reducing the amount they owe to the States, without the added pressure of weekly rental charges. Fundamentally, the process supports those in greatest need.

Question

2. Could he furtherinform Members what conversation, if any, has taken place between the Housing Department and the Social Security Department over the discretion to pay rent directly to the Housing Department or through the tenants?

Answer

The Housing and Social Security Departments worked closely together in the run up to the implementation of the Income Support scheme to ensure that there was minimal impact or inconvenience to the Housing Department's tenants at the point of transition. Under the abatement scheme the rent subsidy was credited directly to the tenants' account. No payments were made by the Department to the tenant. That principle was carried forward to Income Support. In addition, significant thought was given to making the interface between the two Departments as efficient and robust as possible.

The following advantages are achieved by making payment direct:

1. Payment is made direct to the tenant's account providing them with significant assistance in managing their accounts; particularly where they are having all of their rent paid by Income Support.
2. Funds are transferred between the Departments by electronic interface and the rent is paid in to the tenant's account when due. This saves time and manpower resources in pursuing late payments from tenants who may not have had time to collect their money from their bank to make their rent payment to the Department.
3. The transfer of funds in this way gives the taxpayer certainty that benefit claimed under the scheme is directed to its intended purpose. If this was not to happen the risk exists that the payment would not reach the Department. This would conflict with the effective governance of funds for the States as a whole.
4. This electronic process, carried out internally saves expenditure in transaction fees at organisations such as the Post Office in taking rent payments over the counter from tenants. It was estimated that by making payments directly to tenants, the States of Jersey could potentially have been exposed to increased transaction charges in excess of £100,000.per annum.
5. Article 38 ( 2b ) of the Public Finances ( Jersey ) Law 2005 requires that the Accounting Officer of a Department ensures that all money owed to the Department is promptly collected. Article 38 ( 2e ) of that Law also requires that the Department is administered in a prudent and economical manner. The current mechanism supports these statutory obligations.
6. Where a claimant can demonstrate that there is a clear need for the rental component of their Income Support benefit to be paid to them and not to the Department then the Social Security Department can elect to permit exceptions to the protocol.
7. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the direct payment system has been welcomed by tenants and according to the Social Security Department there have been no more than half a dozen requests to opt out.

The overall objective was to deliver an efficient effective system which provides value for money and benefits the customer. We believe that working closely together in this way the two Departments have achieved this.

Question

3. Will the Minister undertake, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the Housing Department's website is updated, as the Publications' section still contains a guide to the Rent Rebate/Abatement scheme dated 2005, which was scrapped in January 2008?

Answer

All sections of the Housing Department's website, including publications', have been checked and where necessary updated.

22. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE PROVISION OF AMENITY SPACES.

Question

1. Does the Minister accept that the proposals for the provision of high quality housing in St. Helier require good amenity spaceand good parking provisions, which translates to relatively low density housing rather than high density, andifso, is he satisfied that the new guidelines are adequate in this regard?

Answer

It should be stated at the outset that the draft development guidelines for central St Helier are still the subject of consultation. The deadline for comments was recently extended to 31st July. Deputy Southern , or any other States Member, is invited to submit comments so that they may be taken into account at the end of the consultation period.

As far as future planning strategy in Jersey is concerned, there appears to be little public or political appetite for development on green-field sites. At the same time there appears to be support for regenerating St Helier. As part of the Island Plan Review, capacity studies have been undertaken which identify significant numbers of potential housing development sites within the built-up areas (not just St Helier), which will, if they come into development at efficient densities, for the most part meet the identified requirements for housing in the future.

It must be stressed that the emphasis in the creation of new housing units must be on high quality design and construction with well sized rooms and good usable amenity space. Good examples abound in many European cities.

If we are to minimise or avoid green-field site development, then it essential that we make better use of urban and suburban sites than we have in the past, in accordance with best practice in Britain and Europe. Implicitly, this means developing at higher densities, and that requires the application of more skilled and innovative building design techniques.

Of course,  it is accepted that good-quality housing should have the appropriate provision for internal and external space, for internal and external storage, and for the parking of vehicles, whether in St Helier or elsewhere in the Island. However, it is not accepted that this necessarily implies low density development. Excellent developments can be delivered at higher densities in the same way as poor developments can be delivered at lower densities.

As far as private amenity space is concerned, the existing policy of one size fits all' has not always delivered appropriate, useful or usable amenity space on housing developments in town. The draft development guidelines for the town, at paragraphs 30-32, while still requiring minimum levels of provision of amenity space, promote a more qualitative approach to external amenity space provision, and recognise that the space provided needs to be appropriate to the needs of the likely occupants. A development of one-bedroom flats, for example, is unlikely to have a significant child-occupancy, and thus the provision of a kick-about area or play equipment is likely to be redundant, whereas decent sized private balconies with a sunny aspect will appeal more to the potential occupants.

For off-street car parking provision then a distinction has to be made between homes in the centre of town and those further away. One of the main benefits of living in central St Helier is the easy pedestrian access afforded to all the facilities and amenities the town offers. Many households do not need, or chose not to own, a car when they live so close to the town centre. Families may need a car for shopping and travel outside the town area, but not a larger number of cars as they may need if they live well outside St Helier.

In relation to car-parking generally developers will be encouraged to provide underground parking wherever possible.

The existing residential car parking standards have actually encouraged over-provision of residents parking in some developments, which has led to occupants renting out spaces to commuters. The guidelines propose a reduction in the minimum requirements for parking in the town area, but recognise that the market will also play a part in determining the actual level of provision made. It is accepted that in providing family homes, developers are likely to provide approximately one parking space for each.

The proposed guidelines are designed to encourage developers to look more closely at the possibilities for high quality residential developments in central St Helier. Even though they are still in draft form, there are signs that property owners and developers are responding to them, and there are a number of very promising proposals emerging which will provide excellent accommodation – houses and apartments – close to town, with good amenities and sufficient off- street and underground car parking.

In order to promote exemplar residential schemes the Minister for Planning and Environment intends to appoint an architectural advisor to ensure quality of delivery.

Question

2. Will the Minister guarantee that any proposals for development in St Helier will have the provision of adequate amenity space for families with children as a top priority?

Answer

Where a development is likely to have a significant proportion of family-accommodation, there will be a requirement for adequate amenity space and facilities appropriate to the needs of all occupants. This will be a combination of private and common amenity space. It is unreasonable to expect the provision of a balcony to be sufficient amenity space for a family however the combination of a balcony and common amenity space will provide a high quality living environment.

http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/AF5C2EA8-A5C8-4C09-B26B- 9E3472D2EF71/0/StHelierRegenerationWhitePaperApr08.pdf

http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/F41EC5E3-5B9B-41F2-9B75- CC1F6D0F247D/0/StHelierRegenerationSPG17Apr08.pdf

http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/02034EC3-D94E-494A-8391- 4BB1724DAF1D/0/RegenerationStHelierMAP_17Apr08.pdf

http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/6DF32B53-4D48-4CDC-BBD0- AE183C42C5C5/0/RegenerationStHelierMAP2_17Apr08.pdf

23. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING TAX INCREASES.

Question

1. On 3rd June 2008 the Minister gave examples oftotaltax cuts, in monetary terms, over the three years 2007, 2008 and 2009, resulting from increases in exemption limits, which included the figure of £374 for a single person. Will he inform members whetherthissum was the total tax reduction over the 3 year period or the tax reduction in each of those years?

Answer

The £374 is the total reduction in tax for the 3 years. The reduction, split between years, is £76 for the 2007 increase, £200 for the 2008 increase and £98 for the 2009 increase.

Question

2. Notwithstanding the impact ofthe increases in exemption limits, the Minister requested on 13th May 2008 in response to my question on average tax bills that I supply evidence for any calculation on GST bills. Does the Minister accept that:

1. the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 2004/5, conducted in September 2005, provides the best evidence we have of spending patterns of, and hence GST bills on, Island residents?
2. The appropriate uprating for inflation from these figures is of 7.4% to March 2008?
3. Using these uprated figures provides a sound method for the assessment of the impact of GST, eliminating housing costs and other exempt items, on particular sectors of society?
4. Further, that the seven groups included in the analysis inChapter 3 of HES are useful in measuring the impact of GST?

Answer

2(a)Yes; but the primary purpose of the Household Expenditure Survey is to provide

information on household budgets as a basis for the calculation of the Retail Price s Index. It provides useful information on spending patterns for households that can be used to estimate the impact of GST on households. However any estimates prepared on this basis are subject to several caveats:

• An estimated adjustment must be made in respect of those expenditure lines that comprise a mixture of taxable supplies and exempt supplies.
• An estimated adjustment must be made to take into account those goods and services purchased from suppliers that are not GST registered.
• The HES is based on a statistical sample adjusted to represent a notional "typical" household.
• The survey was conducted in 2004/5 and spending patterns may have changed since that time.

In view of these caveats the estimation of the change in GST borne under different GST scenarios will, as a rule, be more accurate than the absolute figure for a household.

2(b)No; the States Statistics Unit maintain detailed Retail Price s Index data. It would be

preferable to use their data rather than a single figure. The change in RPI between March 2005 (121.9) and March 2008 (134.5) is 10.3%.

2(c)Yes; subject to the caveats noted above this method can be used to provide estimates. 2(d)Answer as above.

Question

3. Does he then accept my figure of around £950 as the annual tax raised by GST from the average household in Jersey, according to the updated HES data above, and if not, what figure does he have?

Answer

No I do not accept the figure. Using detailed RPI indices and adjusting for the factors above the estimated figure for an average household is £626.

Question

4. Will he also produce figures based on this HES data for the 6 groups featured in this survey, namely  single  pensioners,  pensioner  couples,  single  parents,  couples  with  and  without children and single persons?

Answer

Single

Couple with  parent at  Person  Person

Couple  at least one  least one  living  living  Two or

(both not  dependant  dependant  alone (not  alone  more

scenario 1 pensioners) child child pensioner) (pensioner) pensioners Other

Annual  Expenditure  per

household (2004/5 ADJUSTED

TO 2008 USING RPI) 44,972 60,994 31,045 22,932 16,180 31,692 50,324

- Expenditure  on  zero-rated

goods and services 10,244 13,684 7,840 6,309 3,921 4,088 7,690

-Expenditure  on  zero  rated

goods and services included

in "mixed" expenditure 1,946 2,071 740 866 707 2,253 2,625 32,782 45,239 22,465 15,757 11,552 25,351 40,008

-Expenditure  on  exempt

goods and services (including

financial services) 7,428 13,096 5,857 3,629 2,073 4,418 8,817

-Expenditure  on   goods  and

services  supplied  by

businesess below threshold 2,243 2,904 1,550 1,083 842 1,755 2,725 23,110 29,240 15,058 11,045 8,637 19,178 28,466

GST 693 877 452 331 259 575 854

Quintile  Quintile  Quintile  Quintile  Quintile  All

1 2 3 4 5 households

Annual  Expenditure  per  household  (2004/5

ADJUSTED  TO  2008  USING  RPI

COMPONENTS) 1 16,123 22,092 34,054 49,616 86,011 40,511

- Expenditure  on  zero-rated  goods  and services

-Expenditure  on  zero  rated  goods  and services included in "mixed" expenditure

-Expenditure on exempt goods and services (including financial services)

-Expenditure on goods and services supplied by businesess below threshold

GST

3,739 5,593

494 795 11,891 15,704

1,922 2,580

923 1,193 9,046 11,931 271 358

8,054 9,604

1,340 1,948 24,660 38,064

5,331 9,683

1,732 2,546 17,597 25,835 528 775

16,740 8,559

4,351 1,729 64,920 30,222

18,462 7,334

3,993 2,029 42,465 20,859 1,274 626

Question

5. Will he also produce figures for the GST imposed on the lowest quintile (20%) of earners given in Chapter 2 of HES, and state whether it  matches the £340 per annum of my calculations? Will he then examine the additional sums allocated to compensate those on Income  Support for  the  impact  of GST  and  state  whether  he  can  show  that  this compensation is adequate?

Answer

Using detailed RPI indices and adjusting for factors described above the estimated figure for the lowest quintile is £271 rather than the figure quoted.

The average sum allocated to compensate those on income support for GST is £318 per annum, which is more than the average cost of GST to households in the bottom quintile.

24. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING LAND VALUE TAX.

Question

Further to a response given by the Chief Minister on 11th September 2007 guaranteeing to bring to the Assembly the research that has been done on the potential for Land Value Tax in Jersey, would the Minister advise whether any such research  has been done, and if so will he now inform members of its results, and if not will he explain why?

Furthermore if the latter case prevails, will he undertake to carry out the said research and inform members of the results prior to the 2009 budget debate, and if not, will he explain why?

Answer

Further work has indeed been done on land/development based taxes. It was undertaken by OXERA  for  a working group  consisting of Officers  from the Chief Minister's, Planning and Environment,  Transport and Technical Services  and Treasury and Resources  departments  that reported to Council of Ministers in March 2008 on environmental taxes. The report is available online at:- http://www.gov.je/TreasuryResources/Tax/TaxProposals