States Meeting Transcript - 08/09/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

MONDAY, 8th SEPTEMBER 2008

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

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

1. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE CHAIRMAN OF COMITE DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING ALTERNATIVE COMPOSTING SITES.............7
   2. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES TO ELIZABETH CASTLE.................................................7
   3. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC EVELOPMENT REGARDING THE AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES TO ELIZABETH CASTLE ..................................................................8
   4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING ROAD RESURFACING AND THE PROVISION OF PAVEMENTS.............................................8
   5. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING FUEL USED IN THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANTS...................................................10
   6. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESPLANADE QUARTER...........11
   7. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING TAX PAID BY 1(1)(k) RESIDENTS ...................12

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................12

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the delay in implementing the Jersey Sex Offenders register:.....................................13 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................13

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................13
   2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the effectiveness of Income Support in lifting couples with children out of relative poverty: .........................................................................................13 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................13

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................13
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................14
   3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the future plans for Haut de la Garenne: ....................................................14 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur)..............................................................................14

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................14
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................15

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the progress made in preparing legislation introducing rear seat belt laws for passengers and children:.......................................................15 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...15
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding payments within the Income Support system for dental treatment:................................15 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................15

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................16
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................16
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................16
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................17
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................17

6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................17
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................17
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................18

6. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding lifting restrictions on the replacement of windows in older properties: .......18 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................18

1. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................19
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................19
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................19
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................19
5. The Connétable of Grouville :...........................................................20
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................20
7. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................20

8. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................20
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................20

7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Chief Minister regarding the victims of historical abuse committed whilst in the States' care:....................................................21 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................21

1. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................21
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................21
3. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................21
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................21
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................21

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding Income Tax revenues from 1(1)(k) residents: ........................................................22 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................22

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................22
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................22
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................22
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................22
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................23

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding increasing the penalties to anyone knowingly supplying alcohol and cigarettes to people under the age of 18:..23 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................23

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................23
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................24

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................24
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................24

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources..24

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................24 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................24
2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................25

3.2.1 Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................25

3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................25

3.3.1 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................25

4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................25
5. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................26

3.5.1 Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................26

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26

3.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27

7. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................27
8. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................27
9. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................28

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Economic Development..28

1. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................28 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................28
2. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................28
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................29
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................29
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................29
6. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................30
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................30
8. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................30
9. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................31
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
11. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................31
12. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................32
13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32

4.13.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................32

14. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................32
15. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................33

4.15.1 The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................33

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................33

5. Draft Sea Fisheries (Inshore Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.36/2008)............................................................33

5.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................33

1. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................34
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................35
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................36
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................36 The Bailiff :...................................................................................36

6. Flu Pandemic Funding (P.67/2008) .....................................................37

6.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................37

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................38
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................38
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................38
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................39

5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................39
6. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................39
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................40
8. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................40
9. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................40 The Bailiff :...................................................................................41

7. Draft European Communities Legislation (Bluetongue) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.71/2008)...............................................................................41

1. The Deputy of Trinity (Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment - rapporteur):41 The Bailiff :...................................................................................42 Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel): ............................42
2. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................43

8. Draft Supply of Goods and Services (Jersey) Law 200- (P.77/2008)...................43

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................43

1. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................44
2. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................44
3. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................45
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................45 The Bailiff :...................................................................................46 Deputy A. Breckon (Vice Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):.....................46

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46 The Bailiff :...................................................................................46
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46 The Bailiff :...................................................................................46
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................47
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................47

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................47
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................47
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................47
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................48 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..............................................48 The Bailiff :...................................................................................48

6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................48 The Bailiff :...................................................................................49
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................49 The Bailiff :...................................................................................49

8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................49

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................49
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................50
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................50 The Solicitor General:........................................................................50

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

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................50 The Bailiff :...................................................................................51
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51 The Bailiff :...................................................................................51
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51

1. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................51

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................52 The Bailiff :...................................................................................52

12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52 The Bailiff :...................................................................................52
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................53
2. Deputy A. Breckon: .................................................................53
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................53
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................53 The Solicitor General:........................................................................53 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................53 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................54

14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................54 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................54

9. Draft Mental Health (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.83/2008)..............54

9.1 Senator B.E. Shenton (The Minister for Health and Social Services):...................55

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................55
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................55 9.1.3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................55

4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................56
5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................56
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................56
7. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................56 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................57

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................58 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................58

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................58

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................58

10. Human Rights Committee and Statements of Compatibility (P.78/2008)..............58

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................59 The Bailiff :...................................................................................65
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Chairmen's Committee):............................65

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................66
2. The Deputy ofSt. Martin: ...........................................................66
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................67 The Bailiff :...................................................................................67

3. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................67

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................68
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................69
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................69
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................71
5. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................71
6. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................73
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................74
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................74
9. Senator B. E. Shenton: ..............................................................75
10. The Deputy of St. Martin:..........................................................75

The Bailiff :...................................................................................77

11. Historic Child Abuse Inquiry: Funding (P.91/2008)....................................78

11.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................79

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................80
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................80
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................80
4. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................81
5. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................81
6. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................81
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................82
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................82
9. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................82 The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..............................................83

12. Committee of Inquiry: Toxic Incinerator Ash Dumping in the St. Helier Waterfront Land Reclamation Schemes (P.96/2008)................................................83

12.1 Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................83

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................87
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................88
3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................89
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................91

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.................................................................92 The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):..............................................92

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................93

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1.1. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE CHAIRMAN OF COMITE DES CONNÉTABLES REGARDING ALTERNATIVE COMPOSTING SITES.

Question

With the possibility of the green waste facility at La Collette being closed (P.133/2008 - Composting site, La Collette, St. Helier - cessation of operation) will the Chairman outline the arrangements, if any, that have been, or will be, put in place by the 12 Parishes to cope with the disposal of green waste should the La Collette facility be closed with no alternative facility provided by the Transport and Technical Services Department?

Answer

Responsibility for the disposal of green waste rests with the Transport and Technical Services department and the parishes have no plans to deal with green waste should the La Collette facility be closed. It has never been the responsibility of the parishes to collect or to dispose of green waste. No alternative sites have been identified and the parishes generally have no facilities or resources available.

The Connétable s have discussed with the Minister for Transport and Technical Services the possible need for an alternative site, or sites, to La Collette and will continue to assist in considering the suitability of sites within their parishes identified by the Minister so that the department may be able to provide an alternative facility.

2. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING THE AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES TO ELIZABETH CASTLE

Question

1. Would the Minister provide the detailed accumulated costs incurred to date, including parts, labour, invoiced bills and any other costs todo with ongoing repairs and maintenance of the Charming Betty and Charming Nancy to the end of July 2008?
2. Would the Minister provide a list ofthe days in 2008 that oneorotherofthetwo amphibious vehicles was absent from the West-Park to Elizabeth Castle service and will he inform members whether the Harbour Office or the Marine Coastguard Agency Jersey were notified of the absence of one or other machine?
3. Can the Minister give details ofthe incident that occurred on the afternoon of 11th August 2008 involving the Charming Betty, while afloat and in transit between West Park and Elizabeth Castle, and would hestatewhether it wastheexperienceof a former driver from the previous operator of the service who went to the assistance of the above machine that averted a potential major incident?

Answer

As advised in a reply to a similar question on 15 July, my Department is not responsible for operational matters within the Jersey Heritage  Trust (JHT). Education, Sport and Culture  has responsibility for funding the JHT and for maintaining proper governance arrangements but the Trust is an independent body. These questions, which relate to operational matters, should properly be put to the JHT which has undertaken that full accounts of the operation will be made available following the conclusion of the season. In respect of the other issues raised the relevant authority is Jersey Harbours. Jersey Harbours has confirmed that the JHT are operating in accordance with their safety management system. JHT has confirmed that all incident reports are lodged with Jersey Harbours.

3. DEPUTY S.S.P.A. POWER OF ST. BRELADE TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC EVELOPMENT REGARDING THE AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES TO ELIZABETH CASTLE

Question

Would the Minister confirm whether his Department has been notified at all times by the Jersey Heritage Trust on the occasions when either the Charming Betty or Charming Nancy has been absent for repairs from West-Park and can he inform members whether the safety regulations allow the service to operate afloat when only one of the 2 amphibious craft is available and, if so, whether this was permitted for the previous operator of the amphibious service?

Answer

I can confirm that Jersey Coastguard is advised of the daily commencement and completion of services by the Castle Ferries. The department would only be advised of any breakdown or other withdrawal of service in the event of a reportable' incident as defined in the Shipping (Jersey) Law 2002. This is standard procedure for all passenger ferry services.

There is nothing in the safety regulations to prohibit single vessel operations provided contingency plans are in place for breakdowns or emergency incidents as part of the vessel's Safety Management System.

Both Jersey Harbours and the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) are fully satisfied with the Safety Management System in place for both the previous and the current operator.

4. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING ROAD RESURFACING AND THE PROVISION OF PAVEMENTS

Question

Would the Minister undertake to establish a higher specification regarding main road resurfacing in order to prevent the ripple effect found at recent resurfacings in St Clement and Victoria Avenue, and would he explain why this new condition occurs when it was not present with previous road resurfacings?

Answer

The "ripple effect" that the Deputy describes was first highlighted at La Route de la Haule and again at La Route de la Cote in St Clement. La Route de la Haule was due to the specified method of laying the asphalt material and La Route de la Cote was due to poor workmanship by the contractor. La Route de La Cote has now been rectified at the contractor's expense.

With regard to Victoria Avenue, TTS has received no reports of a ripple effect and consider the ride quality to be of a high standard in the recently resurfaced section.

The Department has however investigated the ripple effect observed along La Route de la Haule and the cause has been established. TTS has now introduced a revised specification on all future resurfacing projects.

The traditional resurfacing specification for States of Jersey main roads consisted of a 25mm deep surface course and 15mm deep regulating course. In 2006 this specification was reviewed in order to provide a safe and durable surface in accordance with UK standards. This consisted of 40mm deep single  layer surface course specification and was successfully laid in several main road locations. However, a reduction in ride quality was evident in isolated areas due to the absence of a regulating layer.

TTS has now further improved the specification by the introduction of a regulating layer in isolated areas where the planed surface is irregular to the degree that its shape would be reflected on the finished surface. This improved specification has produced a safe and durable surface with a high level of ride quality on Victoria Avenue, and remains the most cost effective way to resurface or main roads.

Question

Would the Minister advise whether he maintains a list of main roads that would benefit from pavement provision (as previously maintained by the former Public Services Department) and, if so, whether it is referred to when the Department comments on planning applications?

Would the Minister further advise whether he will be producing plans to alleviate the danger caused by insufficient pavement opposite St. Clement's Parish Church for consideration by the parish authorities and, if not, why not?

Answer

Transport and Technical Services does maintain a list of main roads where, if a planning application is submitted, the department will request the Planning and Environment Department to require the developer to provide a roadside pavement if none currently exists. TTS also maintains information on areas where further road improvements are desirable, not necessarily just the provision of pavements, and the Island Plan incorporates road improvement lines for consideration should a planning application be made.

TTS has undertaken investigation into the pedestrian facilities close to St Clement's Church and much has been done recently to improve facilities in Jambart Lane. The specific area opposite St Clement's Church has no easy solution given that it is bordered by the church wall on one side and an old property on the other. The only feasible solution would be to reduce the road to a single carriageway but this would require signalisation, given the lack of visibility due to the bend of the road, and is not considered appropriate at this location. Should any property in that vicinity request planning permission  for  works,  TTS  will take  the opportunity to  request  improved pavement facilities.

5. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING FUEL USED IN THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANTS

Question

Would the Minister advise whether -

1. the present Bellozanne incinerator requires the use of supplementary fuel (such as gas or oil) and, if so, would he specify the type and quantityof fuel used annually;
2. the proposed new La Collette incinerator will require supplementary fuel and,ifso,the type and quantity estimated to be needed.

Answer

1. The present Bellozanne Energy from Waste plant does not use supplementary fuel. The incinerator is an old design, it doesnotconformtothe WID (Waste Incineration Directive) and does not have the facility to warm up on gas or oil.
2. The proposed new Energy from Waste plant will be WID compliant and will have to maintain a minimum furnace temperature at all times when waste is present. For the vast majority of the time this temperature is sustained by the inherent energycontentofthe waste being processed. It is only when the plant is starting fromcold, shutting down or when an extraordinarily low calorific value waste enters the furnace that additional fuel in the formof gas oil will be required. The amount of auxiliary fuel will be dependent on the operational regime of the boilers thus it is not possible to give a definite quantityof fuel that will be consumed. Approximations have been made based on similar plants and for design purposes a maximum fuel consumption of 370 tonnes per year has been estimated to be required when the plant is operatingat full design capacity of 105,000 tonnes of municipal waste.

Question

Would the Minister advise members of the estimated completion date for the proposed in-vessel composting facility and explain why it has taken so long to achieve?

Answer

The Solid Waste Strategy (P72/2005) committed the Department to developing an enclosed composting facility with the preferred site being La Collette. An investigation into the future of composting was undertaken by Deputy Le Claire and the Environment Scrutiny Panel. As a result of his report being issued, a comprehensive site evaluation process, considering over 30 private and public sites all over the Island, was carried out which subsequently re-confirmed that La Collette was the preferred location for the composting operation. This was approved by Ministerial Decision in December 2007 (MD-T-2007-0113).

On 28th February 2008 the Department for Health and Social Services agreed to put in abeyance the odour abatement notice issued to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services as no useful purpose could be achieved through the Department demonstrating in Court what the Department for Health and Social Services had already acknowledged, that is the site is operated in accordance with good practice.

The Department understands that the Minister for Health and Social Services plans to bring to the States a report and proposition to amend the law on Statutory Nuisance in the autumn session to overcome this discrepancy. This together with confirmation from the Public Health Department that Waste Management Licensing will be the primary means of regulating odour, dust, noise and other environmental impacts now allows the Department to progress consideration of an appropriate enclosed composting facility at the La Collette site.

Once the most appropriate solution is defined, full environmental and health impact assessments will be conducted to ensure that the current odour problem, together with many other improvements in management are achieved.

It is proposed that a planning application be submitted at the earliest possible opportunity with construction commencing in 2009 and an improved facility operational during 2010.

6. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESPLANADE QUARTER

Question

1. With regard to the preferred developer for the Esplanade Quarter, and specifically the undertaking given by the Chief Minister on 17th June 2008 that "there will also be a full review made of the legal cases both in Dublin and Nevada by an independent lawyer also made available to States Members and the public", would the Chief Minister advise members –

1. whether the reviews have been completed and, if so, whether they were indeed a full review'; and
2. when they willbe made publicly available.

Answer

I am able to inform Members that the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited (WEB) has commissioned a review of the cases against Harcourt. A draft report was prepared for WEB by Carey Olsen in July 2008 and WEB has been kept updated of any changes since the date of the report. Carey Olsen has been asked to produce an interim report which will be disclosed to me as Chief Minister. I will ensure that it is made available to States Members once I have received it.

I am sure that most States members will be aware that the Court in Nevada has ordered that five of the seven causes of action of the Plaintiffs' against Harcourt be dismissed. The two remaining causes of action relate to an amount of approximately $2.1 million.

Question

2. With regard to the undertaking made by the Chief Minister in a written answer on 17th June 2008 that "I will ensure that States members will be kept informed of the results of the due diligence" will the Chief Minister advise members when the results ofthe due diligence will be circulated?

Answer

WEB has commissioned PwC to undertake an updated review on the financial capacity of Harcourt Developments Limited in terms of the Company's financial ability to undertake the Esplanade Quarter development. This review is underway at the moment with a draft report due to be presented to WEB during the week commencing 8th September 2008.

This report will contain commercially sensitive and confidential information on Harcourt and WEB has had to sign a non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement. PwC has been asked by WEB to prepare a summary report with a view to this document being made available to States Members.

Question

3. On 10th June 2008 the Deputy Chief Minister undertook to provide a report on the financial standing and the nature and security of the independent financial guarantees to all States members before any legally binding agreement in respect of the development of the Esplanade Quarter was signed. Will the Chief Minister indicate when that report will be circulated and, should the Chief Minister consider it favourable, how long a period will elapse between its publication and signature?

Answer

The Minister for Treasury and Resources' review is expected to be completed in September 2008. The findings will be published immediately after completion of the report and prior to the Minister for Treasury and Resources approving the proposed deal between WEB and the preferred developer. The precise timing of the publication of the report and the date of the Minister's approval of the deal are not fixed at this time. Members are assured they will be given time to review the findings prior to the final deal being approved by the Minister.

7. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES REGARDING TAX PAID BY 1(1)(k) RESIDENTS

Question

How many 1(1)(k) residents are currently living and liable for income tax in the Island; what is the declared income of each of these residents and how much income tax do they pay individually and collectively?

Answer

• The number of 1(1)(k) residents who were liable to Jersey income tax for the year of assessment 2006, which is the most up to date information available as the 2007 tax assessments have not yet been finalised, is 135.
• The amount of Jersey income tax payable for the year of assessment 2006, both personally and through any companies, trusts or settlements in which they have a connection, is approximately £8 million
• The Royal Court oath of office taken by the Comptroller of Income Tax prevents him from providing specific details, such as income and the tax liability, of an individuals income tax affairs. That oath applies to 1(1)k's in the same manner as to any other taxpayer.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the delay in implementing the Jersey Sex Offenders register:

Can the Minister inform Members why there is a delay in implementing the Jersey Sex Offenders' Register?

Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):

The Deputy 's question crossed with an email message I sent to all States Members on 2nd September in which I explained the reasons for a delay in lodging the draft law. To repeat the advice I gave in that message; I had intended to lodge the Draft Sex Offenders' Law in time to enable a debate on 21st October. However, the Minister for Health and Social Services requested a month's delay to ensure a thorough response from his department. There are also some further human rights compliance issues upon which I am awaiting further advice. I make no apology for trying to achieve the original timetable. This is an important piece of new legislation which should be brought forward for debate at the earliest opportunity. Equally, it is important that Members of this House and other key stakeholders should have their views taken fully into account. Therefore, Sir, whereas I am still aiming to lodge the draft legislation during this session, the net effect will be that it will fall to the new States to debate it in the early part of next year.

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

Will the Minister advise the House the timetable for her to bring forward the proposed Vetting and Barring Legislation which I believe will be working in conjunction with the Sexual Offenders Law?

Senator W. Kinnard:

In fact the Vetting and Barring provisions are not going to be brought into force until, I think, 2010, but what I will be bringing to the House at the very earliest opportunity is a report that I had promised in the last session to bring forward in this session on the issue with rehabilitation of offenders, which will take into account some of those matters. So that will be before the House in very early course.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding the effectiveness of Income Support in lifting couples with children out of relative poverty: Will the Minister state how effective income support has been in lifting couples with children out of relative poverty and will he illustrate his answer by giving comparisons between the amounts received by families with one, 2 and 3 children (in £5,000 annual income bands from zero to £25,000) under the former family allowance system, and those receiving child components under I.S. (Income Support)?

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

This question refers to relative poverty and I am pleased to take this opportunity to announce that the Statistics Unit has agreed to undertake an income distribution survey in 2009. This survey will provide valuable information on income and relative poverty levels in Jersey and it is hoped that it will be repeated on a regular basis. Until we have a new income distribution survey it will not be possible to calculate relative poverty levels in Jersey. However, a detailed report analysing the impact of income support was circulated to Members on 4th June this year. This report includes a section on couples with children on pages 12 and 13. The question requests a comparison between family allowance and income support. It probably should be said that this is not a useful comparison as income support provides assistance not just with the cost of bringing up children but also with living costs for adults, with housing costs and medical costs. It is also unusual to request this level of numeric information in an oral question. My department officers and I have been working over the weekend to provide some figures but as there are 45 different numbers required to answer this question I would suggest that the Deputy submits a written question.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thank the Minister for his wholehearted co-operation in answering my question and suggest that surely it must be possible to set a relative poverty level, all we have to do is update the figures from the last income distribution survey, and is he prepared to do that?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The information we have been given is that updating the old income distribution survey is not appropriate because people's buying patterns and their styles of living has changed since the last one. It is appropriate, I believe, to wait for the Statistics Unit to give a very valid and full new income distribution survey which we can work on with certainty.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is it not the case that the report of the Scrutiny Panel into income support suggested there would be no or very little impact upon families, couples with children?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I honestly cannot recall what was in the report, Sir.

3. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the future plans for Haut de la Garenne:

Will the Minister inform Members the future plans for Haut de la Garenne?

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

Could I ask the Assistant Minister with the responsibility for property to deal with that question?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources -

rapporteur)

I will just give a quick update as to where we are with Haut de la Garenne. It was given back to Property Holdings in July and since then we have had to do quite a lot of urgent health and safety works which have been undertaken to ensure the building is not hazardous now, for both visitors and those who are still working on the site. Also there are obviously additional security measures that are in place to deter access to those who want to get in but should not be going in. In terms of the future, at the moment well, the present situation is that the Council of Ministers, and myself and a few other individuals, met with the Haut de la Garenne trustees and the chief executive of the Youth Hostel Association last Thursday, hopefully, which was 4th September, to consider how to move everything forward. The conclusion that was arrived at, at that meeting, is that in view of the extreme sensitivity of the subject and the continuing uncertainty regarding legal proceedings, the Council of Ministers considers it is not appropriate for any decision to be taken at this stage. The Council of Ministers has directed that an officer working group is set up to consider the various options and to advise on cost benefits and any other implications that might arise. But at the moment it is a wait and see approach.

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I know what the Assistant Minister is saying, but could we have some form of timetable? I do understand it is very sensitive, and certainly that goes without question, but I think one is concerned about the nature of the property itself, it is quite possible that there will be vandalism, while I know a security company is there, but I think people in the area, and certain people in the Island, would like to know what the future is and at least are you working with the Minister, working to some timetable so the public can be fully informed?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It is very difficult to put a timetable on it at the moment, Sir. Certainly, speaking personally, I agree entirely with the Deputy in terms of dealing with the fabric of the building. But obviously there are wider issues associated with it. Just to clarify, there is somebody on site, the building is not empty. Obviously, as you say, there is a security company as well. The idea effectively is one does have to make judgments according to how circumstances change or become clear, and I think in the meantime we do need to let the officer group as well get together and report back. The intention I think would be for them to report back to the Council of Ministers relatively swiftly.

2. Senator S. Syvret:

Could the Assistant Minister explain exactly what he means by a cost benefit analysis in this particular context? It does not seem to me to be at all an appropriate methodology for deciding the future of this site. Will he give the Assembly an undertaking that the primary consideration will be the views of the survivors?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I think we are veering into the grounds of legal matters, and I am not going to even go there, Sir. In terms of the remit of the working officer group, they have to start somewhere and one has to have a look at the costs of repairing the building, the potential benefit in light of the circumstances, but I think one would have to be naïve to assume that that would be the only circumstances that would be taken into account by the working group, Sir.

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the progress made in preparing legislation introducing rear seat belt laws for passengers and children:

What progress, if any, has been made in preparing legislation introducing rear seat belt laws for passengers and children please?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): Instructions for drafting the necessary amendments to the relevant orders have been forwarded to the law draftsman who is in the process of preparing the amendments for my approval. Subject to ensuring the draft orders meet the requirements of the States, that all persons travelling in cars and other relevant vehicles wear appropriate restraints, I would hope to make these orders in the next month or 2. I would expect the wearing of seatbelts in the rear of vehicles to become compulsory within a couple of weeks of the relevant orders being made. However, there is one element of delay, and that is I have asked that there is a period of grace included in the relevant draft order before it becomes compulsory for children between 3 and 12 to use a correct restraint for their age and weight. This is so that parents and suppliers have sufficient opportunity to confirm that either the current restraint system used by their children complies with modern standards or they are able to obtain a correct restraint system.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I thank the Minister for his response.

5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding payments within the Income Support system for dental treatment:

Given that the Minister recently advised in a response to a written question that special payments were available within the income support system for dental treatment to relieve pain or to deal with essential remedial work, will the Minister ensure that pensioners and families with children on income support are encouraged and the monies made available for all to attend 6 month check-ups as recommended to keep teeth in good condition?

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

Existing schemes already provide support for regular dental costs for pensioners and children. The over-65 health scheme covers the majority of the cost of the annual dental check-ups for pensioners together with the costs of further treatment. This scheme is available to households that do not pay income tax, so that would be people with income support and with savings below £20,000 for a

single person and £30,000 for a couple. Pensioners applying for income support are strongly encouraged to join this scheme which also provides assistance with optical and chiropody costs and I would urge any Member who is aware of any pensioner who does have a need for dental check- ups to ask them to apply for the over-65 scheme. For all primary school age children, the school dental service provides check-ups and treatment free of charge. This includes visits to every primary school to check children's teeth. Once children move to secondary school they can join the Jersey Dental Fitness Scheme. Those eligible are between the ages of 11 and 18, or if they are in fulltime education, up to 21.

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I asked the question; was income support going to encourage people on low incomes, pensioners and children to go to the dentist regularly, every 6 months. He has told me about all other schemes, this does not encourage people on the low income support to go. They all cost money, some are upfront and while he is answering, can he, later today, inform me how many people over 65 are taking up the dental scheme?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I have the figures for the dental scheme here because the I am very aware of how valuable people do feel that that scheme is to them. The current numbers in the scheme at March of this year are 2,796 members and with regard to the comment that there is an upfront payment, we have arranged with people who are in that scheme, and with Westfield, that income support can get over that problem that used to exist with having the upfront payment. So I believe that anybody who is in income support, they are pointed in the direction and assisted to ensure that they do have regular check-ups. The Deputy specifically asked about 6 months as being the recommended time for people to have check-ups. That does vary according to various organisations and dentists. Some say, depending on the person's clinical health, that it would be 6 months or even 3 months or even a year or 2 years. It really depends on the person's own dental health that that needs to be dealt with on those circumstances. So I do believe that the systems that we have in place do provide the appropriate amount of support to people to enable them to have their dental check-ups and good dental health, and I would encourage any Member to point any member of the public to the Westfield scheme or to the other services for the children in secondary school.

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

Could the Minister confirm that a special payment or loan would usually be given to those people who are not retired who are under the required maximum income band to help meet their dental payments, and would he look across the department to see that there is a if the answer is yes that this is happening?

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes, I can confirm that we already do help people with dental costs. In fact, that is one of the largest costs within the existing special payments which are made, and we are doing that on a fairly regular basis. I can assure Members that the department is fully aware that anybody coming with exceptional dental costs which are not cosmetic but are needed dental work the funds will be found to support them to have that work.

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

Would the Minister not accept that the root of the problem is the general high cost of dental care on this Island and to crown it all [Members: Oh!] by giving away prescription money £2, which involves a £30 visit to the doctor to get a free prescription. He has totally misapplied his sense of priority.

Senator P.F. Routier:

The Deputy is trying to extract an answer out of me. [Laughter] Certainly, the mechanism of helping to support people with dental costs does need to be looked at and obviously under New Directions, when that comes forward we will be looking at ways of trying to help people to deal with all their medical needs and dental costs and chiropody are areas which hopefully will come into the play with regard to coming forward with New Directions and for use of the health fund as described.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is the Minister aware of any occasions on which requests for help with dental bills have been turned down and if not, will he investigate this particular situation?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am aware of requests being turned down for dental costs when somebody has been to the dentist without prior knowledge of the department. People have just gone and had cosmetic work carried out without any recourse to the department to see if it would be possible for support, and also there has been people who have gone to the dentist without, as I say, prior knowledge, and so in those circumstances they have been refused support. I would urge any member of the public who does require dental work to contact the department and if they are within the income support system that they speak to the department first before they speak to the dentist, and the dentist will advise us, and we have a good relationship with the dentists and we can help to support people with those costs.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Minister agree to publish details and circumstances in which these cases were turned down, without breaking anonymity?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I think that would be quite difficult to do because there are very few cases and it would be very obvious that those people, it would be them that would be talked about because there are so very, very few cases. So I would decline to publish those. [Approbation]

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Surely, only those who already know about the circumstances would be those who could identify an individual. I do not believe it is impossible to produce the circumstances without identifying the individual. I do not believe it is not possible to do that without identifying the individual.

6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

Could the Minister clarify that it always has to be prior request to Social Security if payment because obviously someone does not normally know necessarily the amount of the cost of a dental bill, that he would always have to get prior the okay prior to treatment from your department and how does this compare with the old system where Connétable s would have helped out somebody with a loan or maybe helped with the cost before income support?

Senator P.F. Routier:

My understanding is under the welfare system that the Connétable s always used to require an estimate and, in certain circumstances before the work was carried out, and that is a similar procedure which we are continuing with. Because dentists do need to there is a general view that dental charges are expensive and they are. So we have to be as careful with States public money as the public are with their own about choosing which dentist to go to and what treatment they have. I would hope that you would endorse that process.

7. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, that is really why I started asking these questions. My concern is we are missing children between 11 and 16. They have to be medically dental fit to go on the scheme and the question, the Minister has already said, they do not extend special payments to costs already incurred. Now, 6 monthly check-ups which obviously now the Minister for Social Security thinks is not probably right for some people, but even as far back when I was a child I was told, and given, every dentist I have been to, 6 months but, as I say, obviously the Minister for Social Security may know better. Now, my question is, for these children to go for a check-up it is round about - to make them dentally fit - the check-up plus an x-ray or 2, you do not get much change out of about £60, £70. Now people are out there and they are not taking the children between 11 and 16 and they are not going to the scheme, and will the Minister stop fluffing about and decide to do something under the new income support scheme and not just follow what the Constables did before?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The comments about whether it was me just having a view on whether 6 months was an appropriate length of time for check-ups; I just quote from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. The question is: "When should my next dental check-up be?" It says on their website: "The time to your next check-up could be as short as 3 months or as long as 2 years, or up to a year if you are under 18. Generally speaking, the lower your risk of dental problems the longer the gap before your next check-up. This may vary at times of life depending on the conditions of your teeth and gums." So it is not something which I have just dreamt up about 6 months not being an appropriate time. The issue with regard to children moving from the free dental service to the dental scheme; when children are leaving the free dental service which is available to them in primary school, the dental service at the hospital will provide and ensure the hygiene is an appropriate level to go into the scheme. Parents can ensure that when they leave the free dental service, that their children's teeth are suitable to join the dental scheme. That is the way it works, and I will ensure that anybody who is moving from the free service into the dental scheme that they do get their children's teeth checked before they leave the free service so they are able to move into the scheme. If there is a child who has additional costs to get their teeth into a satisfactory situation with regard to getting on to the dental scheme, the income support system will accept an application for funds to cover that cost, to get them to be dentally fit. I hope that answers the question.

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

Would the Minister explain the rationale behind a free dental scheme for primary schoolchildren and a qualifying scheme for children passing from primary to secondary school, and what the cost of the free scheme is and what, if he knows or if he could inform us at a future time, would be the cost of continuing that scheme through into secondary education?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I think that question would be better answered by the Minister for Health and Social Services who provides that scheme. I really do not have the information with regard to that.

6. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding lifting restrictions on the replacement of windows in older properties:

In the interest of the conservation of energy, will the Minister consider easing the restrictions and strictures on the replacement of windows in older properties?

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

The Connétable of Grouville 's question is a timely coincidence as for many months I have been looking at ways of relaxing controls and replacing windows on older non-listed properties constructed before the 1920s, as these required planning consent. Finally, last week I signed off a significant revision to the regulations. This allows the windows on non-listed pre-1920s buildings to be replaced with new timber frame windows without making a planning application. This allows the owners of older properties to fit double-glazed window units and thus improve energy conservation.

1. The Connétable of Grouville :

I welcome the Minister's initiative here, Sir, but I am talking about basically listed buildings and additions to listed buildings which are not listed, if you follow me there. The listed buildings are, in fact, said to include recent additions which are not new. Now, I would also like him, while he is in the mood for this, to please ask his department if they would have a root and branch clearout of the petty regulations which achieve nothing except to annoy the population?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have done a great deal to remove petty regulations and, in fact, last week again I signed a new general development order that significantly revises the list of alterations to properties requiring planning consent and removes many areas that would previously have been considered red tape. The issue of listed buildings is a complex matter. You cannot simply allow the alteration of windows and replacement of windows in listed buildings without some control. Indeed, I feel it is appropriate that control of the replacement of windows in listed buildings is retained. However, the view I have taken is that if the control over windows is warranted then the building should be listed and that is why I have removed the previous restriction on controlling windows in pre-1920s buildings.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister accept that technology with, for example, U.P.V.C. (Unplasticised Poly Vinyl Chloride) windows has now moved so much that in fact the disadvantages they had in regard to wooden windows has now disappeared and therefore he is in a better position to approve them?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

No, Sir, I most certainly would not. The environmental consequences of the production and manufacture and disposal of U.P.V.C. windows puts them at a significant disadvantage from an overall environmental perspective to other solutions. Personally, I also feel that U.P.V.C. windows often do not have an appropriate aesthetic impact on certainly older properties, and I seek to encourage timber framed windows wherever possible.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does the Minister not agree that once again we are presented with a conflict between his role as Minister for Environment and his role as Minister for Planning.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

No, not at all. In this case this is quite the opposite. This is where I have taken on board the obligations with regard to the natural environment and the obligations with regard to the built environment and come out with a clear conclusion that in this case benefits both. So, no, I disagree with Deputy Southern .

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister therefore accept given the apparent and possible environmental advantages of wooden over U.P.V.C. would it now be his policy to ensure that in all new building applications wooden windows are installed?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

No, Sir, not in all. There are cases where, for example, steel crittle windows are more appropriate, particularly in the case of a 1930s inspired design and there are cases when dealing with modernist and post-modernist designs that powder coated aluminium frames are more appropriate but I cannot think of any architectural genre that benefits from U.P.V.C. windows.

5. The Connétable of Grouville :

Firstly, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Would he not agree with me that U.P.V.C. windows are more heat efficient than wooden ones?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

No, Sir, I most certainly would not. In fact well designed timber windows, as many Members will have seen in their travels around Europe, can be exceptionally thermally efficient and combine exceptional thermal efficiency with the highest environmental credentials.

6. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Yes, Sir, it is very close again to what Deputy Le Hérissier was asking. Does the Minister think it appropriate - indeed fair - to insist on people building new properties to put wooden windows when quite clearly their preference would be plastic?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Yes, Sir, I most certainly do. It is my job to ensure that we leave a legacy of an improved built environment. That is what I have sought to do over the last 2 and a half years and my view is very firmly that other than in very exceptional cases U.P.V.C. windows are not the best aesthetic solution and in environmental terms they also most certainly are not the best solution. However, that does not mean that we are prescriptive over-requiring solely timber windows. As I said there are cases for steel frame windows and cases for aluminium powder coated windows as well.

7. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

Would the Minister agree, Sir, it is still that U.P.V.C. windows are a lot cheaper than wooden windows so if you happen to be renovating an older property and you are not rich it is going to cost you a lot more money?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

No, Sir, that information is not correct. In fact timber framed windows and aluminium windows can be significantly less expensive than U.P.V.C. windows. It depends where you source them. If the Deputy would like I can give her specific information in relation to that afterwards because I have done some work in that area.

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

Has the Minister not noticed that the new U.P.V.C. windows can very often not be distinguished from the wooden windows and is he not aware of the recycling work that is being done with U.P.V.C. windows, particularly in Germany where new windows are in fact made from the old window?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

My eyesight may not be quite what it once was but I can spot a U.P.V.C. window at 50 yards. As far as the environmental credentials of U.P.V.C. windows are concerned, even with recycling - and I am aware of a number of recycling efforts but they are not available of course in the Channel Islands - that even taking that into account there are other materials that are in the round more environmentally sound. I propose for the moment to continue on my current path.

9. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Minister accept my congratulations on mastering yet another area of expertise under his brief to add to his mastery of door handles?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

As usual the Deputy is flippant and rather rude. I prefer not to answer the question.

7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Chief Minister regarding the victims of historical abuse committed whilst in the States' care:

Will the Chief Minister apologise unreservedly to the victims of historical abuse committed while in the States care and reaffirm his commitment to support the police wholeheartedly in their pursuit of bringing the guilty to justice as soon as possible?

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

I have from the outset of the child abuse inquiry expressed my deepest sympathy and support for victims of child abuse and I do so again today. However, I understand that possible claims for compensation are being pursued and I am advised that in the public interest no further comment can be made at this stage. I can positively reaffirm my commitment and that of the Council of Ministers to support the police wholeheartedly in their pursuit of bringing those guilty to justice as soon as possible.

1. Senator S. Syvret:

The Chief Minister said he had received legal advice about this. Could he explain where that legal advice has come from?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I think that is very simple. The legal advice has come from the States legal advisers.

2. Senator S. Syvret:

To be clear that is the Law Officers' Department, is it?

Senator F.H. Walker : Indeed so, Sir.

3. Senator S. Syvret:

So the prosecution service is advising the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers on how best to avoid possible compensation claims?

Senator F.H. Walker :

No, Sir, that is not the case. I have been advised by the law officers that no further comment can be made at this stage but the Council of Ministers will shortly be engaging their own legal advisers outside the States Law Officers' Department to advise us on how best to deal with any possible compensation claims.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does the Minister not accept that there has been a conflict of interest with the dual roles of the Law Officers' Department in this matter thus far?

Senator F.H. Walker : No, Sir, I do not.

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can the Chief Minister confirm, Sir, that the offering of an apology is totally separate from the issue of compensation? The 2 issues are not linked.

Senator F.H. Walker :

No, Sir, I wish that were the case but indeed it is not necessarily the case, and I have to take the advice I have been given.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding Income Tax revenues from 1(1)(k) residents:

Will the Minister explain to Members whether income tax revenues from 1(1)(k) residents have decreased in recent years and what measures, if any, he proposes to take to improve the returns made from this source?

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

Yes, Sir, I am pleased to confirm that the total tax take from 1(1)(k) for the 2006 year of assessment was approximately £8 million which is an increase of some £1 million on the tax take from those people for the 2005 year of assessment which was £7 million. The figures for 2007 are not yet finalised but I will be considering measures to improve the tax take from new 1(1)(k)s in the next few months recognising that this is a competitive marketplace and that there are other territories offering far better deals than Jersey can do in terms of pure tax per contributor.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

A supplementary, Sir. Is it not the case that within recent years the figure was in fact £10.7 million given to me in 2004 I believe?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The Deputy is quite correct. The figure was higher in times past but this figure is now the up-to- date figure and it is still a relatively useful contribution to overall States finances. Without the benefit of the 1(1)(k) contributors our tax revenues would be considerably lower. Furthermore, those people also contribute in terms of the purchasing power that they provide in other sections of the community.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Is it not the case that the benchmark for taxation of these particular individuals is that they should pay 20 per cent on their first million declared for Jersey income tax, 1 per cent on the next million and 0.5 per cent on the subsequent million giving an average figure of around between £200,000 and £250,000 for each 1(1)(k) whereas in fact the average currently is £60,000?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

It is not a benchmark. It is a legal requirement that the new 1(1)(k) taxpayers pay according to the law but we have at the present time a mixture of existing 1(1)(k) people, many of whom have been here for many years and in the nature of averages some pay a lot more and some pay a lot less. Existing arrangements with existing longstanding 1(1)(k)s cannot be changed, Sir, and that accounts for the fact that the average, as the Deputy says, is rather lower than the current target.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Apropos what the Minister has just said, would the Minister therefore confirm what percentage of 1(1)(k)s are on sums which were frozen on the day of their arrival and which cannot now be changed?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, Sir, I would need notice of that question.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

In the light of the refusal to publish any further details about these 135 cases which were known in 2006, will the Minister agree to publishing a banded set of results from nought tax paid to £250,000 in bands of £50,000 for these 135 1(1)(k) taxpayers such that we can know the numbers paying how much in particular bands without identifying these particular cases?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I will discuss with the Comptroller of Income Tax the extent to which that information can be given without breaching the income tax law, but I do question the relevance of that information when our objective must surely be to encourage people of high net worth to reside in the Island and pay under the new law an appropriate, significant level of taxation.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Could the Minister outline for the House the particular circumstances which mean it is impossible to charge the oldest 1(1)(k)s more?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not think that is an appropriate verbal question, Sir. The arrangements for existing longstanding 1(1)(k)s were done on an individual basis with those taxpayers concerned. They are a matter of privacy between that taxpayer and the Comptroller of Income Tax and it is not appropriate to be discussed in this Chamber.

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding increasing the penalties to anyone knowingly supplying alcohol and cigarettes to people under the age of 18: What action, if any, is the Minister taking in consultation with the Minister for Economic Development to increase the penalties to anyone knowingly supplying alcohol and cigarettes to people under the age of 18?

Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):

The specific level of penalties is a matter that is considered by the Attorney General once the draft piece of legislation has been completed to ensure it is reasonable, proportionate and in line with other legislation. Both my department and the Economic Development Department have been working closely together to ensure that the issue of control of alcohol is addressed within a new licensing law. The Green Paper has been developed and it includes among other measures for discussion test purchasing to reduce underage consumption, raising the age to 21 for sales of off sales, ensuring that those selling alcohol are themselves over age and reviewing penalties for

underage drinkers and for persons obtaining alcohol for underage young people. I can assure the Deputy that his concerns are shared and will be addressed as this consultation process develops through the Green and White Papers. Meanwhile, there has been continued rigorous enforcement of current legislation and active promotion of proof of age schemes. In addition, legislation has been implemented to permit police officers to confiscate alcohol from young people. I am not currently in discussion with the Minister for Economic Development over similar issues in relation to cigarettes. Cost is known to be a prohibitive factor to underage sales. Customs and Excise have ensured that the price of tobacco continues to increase by increasing duty on an annual basis. The offence of underage sales is dealt with in Jersey by the Police Licensing Unit. In the U.K. (United Kingdom) it is the Trading Standards that have the enforcement role. I believe, Sir, that all retailers who sell tobacco could be licensed in the same manner as for alcohol. This would provide additional enforcement powers. However, Sir, I am aware of a range of measures as part of the Tobacco Strategy which comes under Health and Social Services and that this should probably form part of that strategy.

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :

I welcome the Minister's response, Sir. Is the Minister aware that it was only  last year we increased the age to 18 to buy cigarettes but children appear to have free access to alcohol and cigarettes? A walk around town on a Friday or a Saturday evening proves this. Is the Minister also aware that children are now getting their older siblings and indeed locals and E.U. (European Union) citizens who are older to buy drink and cigarettes on their behalf? Does the Minister agree this is a wholly unacceptable situation?

Senator W. Kinnard:

As I mentioned in my answer, we share the concerns that the Deputy has expressed and indeed there are a range of measures which are coming out in the Green Paper to really do the research and to find out whether indeed the impression that we have of what is going on is going on. We do know, Sir, that there have been some improvements through the  Health Related Behaviour Questionnaire showing that, for instance, smoking rates are declining overall but definitely, Sir, we know that the prevalence of smoking doubles between the children in years 8 and 10. That clearly does show that children are still getting access to tobacco which is a concern. Again with the Health Related Behaviour Questionnaire in relation to alcohol we know that young people generally are drinking less but there are still some of them engaging in very heavy drinking. There are a minority of young people who do this and this is indeed a great concern. So I would welcome very much the Deputy 's input in response to the Green Paper when it is issued we hope in the very near future.

2. Senator J.L. Perchard:

On that subject, Sir, does the Minister agree that if the Deputy really wants to make a meaningful and worthwhile contribution to this debate that he contributes to the consultation process and makes a written contribution to the consultation rather than just ask populous questions in the States?

Senator W. Kinnard:

I think that is slightly unfair if I may so; if I may defend my colleague across the Chamber. [Approbation] I would say that Deputy Kevin Lewis of St. Saviour asks very sensible questions of the Minister for Home Affairs and I am always very pleased to answer them.

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

That is rather unfortunate. Would the Minister also confirm that earlier in the last 2 years the Deputy and I have attended with the police on a number of occasions to parks and gardens in St. Helier to look at these issues? It is not only on the floor of the House that he puts effort into these matters.

Senator W. Kinnard:

I am more than happy to confirm that he does put effort into these matters on other occasions.

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister confirm that Deputy Lewis ' questions are more constructive than running populous referenda? [Laughter]

Senator W. Kinnard: May I pass on that one, Sir?

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Treasury and Resources

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

That is a convenient time to bring the oral question period to a conclusion. We come now to Questions Without Notice and the first Minister available for questioning is the Minister for Treasury and Resources and I would like questions.

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

Despite repeated assurances to this House and Members of the imminent re-tendering of the Jersey College for Girls, we now hear through the local media that the Minister might not in fact be able to honour those assurances as he is looking to keep the building within the States property portfolio. Will the Minister explain to the House the reasons for this change of mind and the extent to which this House can rely on any assurances given in the future by Ministers?

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

I gave the assurance to the House some time ago now in relation to concerns about the value of the property. Since then and with the employment of a new Chief Officer of Property Holdings we have taken a wider look at States property requirements and included within that remit the possible use of the Jersey College for Girls site. On that basis, Sir, it was not appropriate at the present time for the site to be re-tendered when that might be a totally meaningless and pointless waste of money. Matters for the site remain ongoing and when they come to fruition, Sir, I will be able to advise the Deputy and Members of the House.

2. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Could the Minister for Treasury and Resources indicate to the Assembly whether or not he was supportive of the proposed food exemption u-turn on G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) at the last Council meeting?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The short answer is, yes, I am, Sir. With these issues they are never a simple matter of black and white, and given the current situation in respect of food prices my views have been modified to the extent that I appreciate the significant increase in food costs in recent times and the need to do something about it.

3.2.1 Deputy S. Power:

Can I just seek clarification from the Minister for Treasury and Resources? Did the Minister for Treasury and Resources propose the u-turn on G.S.T. on food?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

No, Sir, it is not a matter of proposing anything. It is a matter of discussion by the Council of Ministers of a subject and the subject being that of dealing with the increased cost of food in the most appropriate way. The Council of Ministers as always has a robust round table discussion and no one proposed anything. It is a matter of discussing and reaching a consensus conclusion.

3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Can the Minister for Treasury and Resources tell us if the Council of Ministers were aware of the contents of the Fiscal Policy Panel Report before they discussed the increases in the Business Plan and the G.S.T. on food. I have a supplementary, Sir.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Neither the Council of Ministers nor the Minister for Treasury and Resources himself was aware of the content of the Fiscal Policy Panel Report prior to last Thursday when all Members received a copy.

3.3.1 Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Would the Minister for Treasury and Resources not perhaps do another u-turn considering the contents of that report and the briefing which was given to States Members - which I was sorry to see only 11 people attended - last week?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

As I said to those who were there, the report of the Fiscal Policy Panel is to me a very significant and important piece of economic advice which we should all read very carefully. As with all matters though, economic advice is one aspect of political decision-making and we have to weigh up that advice against other considerations. In those circumstances I hope that States Members in debating the Business Plan next week will take a note of the Fiscal Policy Panel advice which should certainly be one matter influencing their decision.

4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

Will the Minister tell Members whether he has given any further consideration to putting the collection of taxes for I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment Scheme) on a this year basis rather than most people still being paying I.T.I.S. on last year's income and some people on this year's?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Yes, Sir, that is an ongoing situation which I am in discussion with the Comptroller of Income Tax but no final decision has been reached at this stage. It is quite a complex transitional process. Admittedly if it is ever done it will become better in the future but getting from where we are now to where we might need to be is not a simple matter.

5. Senator L. Norman:

Having made the decision to remove G.S.T. from some food items, could the Minister please say why he is delaying the implementation of this until spring of next year and does he regard the U.K. V.A.T. (Value Added Tax) model of zero rating of certain foods to be an example of best practice in this area or does he agree with the comments of the Council of Ministers that the U.K. system is complex and administratively expensive and regarded as the worst implementation of V.A.T. in the world?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

We seem to be having a preliminary run through the debate on G.S.T. at this stage but so be it, Sir. The reason for a delay is quite simple, although there are a number of contributory matters. Firstly, once the extent of any changes to the current G.S.T. law have been agreed by the States that requires instruction to the law draftsmen to amend the law or amend the regulations. Those instructions will require drafting, agreement by myself as Minister with the department concerned for operationability, and then lodging for 6 weeks in this House. I suspect that the earliest I could lodge those amendments would be in the budget in the beginning of December. Assuming that that law was passed there is then a question of arranging for businesses, just as they did when G.S.T. was introduced, to have time to implement new schemes because it will mean a significant change to their accounting arrangements. This will require educational activity by the department and by businesses concerned. If we are to avoid getting into the confusion which could easily happen with an uncertainty, one has to allow a certain amount of time for that to be brought in. Furthermore, finally, Sir, the collection of G.S.T. from most businesses is done on a quarterly basis and it would make sense to bring it in at an appropriate anniversary date. So while I accept that there would be an urgency to bring in any changes agreed as soon as possible, the practical reality is that this has to be done in an orderly way and, hence, the delay.

3.5.1 Senator L. Norman:

The second part of my question was does he regard the U.K. model of zero rating of certain foods to be an example of best practice or does he agree with the Council of Ministers' comments that it is complex and administratively expensive and regarded as the worst implementation of V.A.T. in the world?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The U.K. system is not one which is particularly desirable but it does have the merit of being one which is in existence and gives a basis of legal precedent. If we are to change to a different system from that it would require far more complex law drafting and would require even further delay. As with all matters, Sir, it is a question of compromise and balance.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Given that the R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) is running at 5.6 per cent and R.P.I.Y. (Retail Price Index excluding Mortgage Interest Payments and Indirect Taxes) even is running at 3.8 per cent and given that provision for States pay increases in 2009 in the Annual Business Plan is set at 2 per cent, what measures does the Minister propose in order to ensure that he does not exceed his 2 per cent limit? In particular, should he have to exceed it, does he regret having blown all the consolidated fund on a large chimney and E.f.W. (Energy from Waste) plant all in one go?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I think it behoves all States Members to act responsibly in terms of wage negotiations. Those will be carried out by officers on behalf of the States Employment Board. The Council of Ministers put into the Business Plan what was at the time an appropriate provision for increases in pay for States employees. Should the settlement finally exceed that number it will need to come back to this House for the House's approval because the Business Plan itself has set out a certain sum of money and any increase above that would require a supplementary vote. So that matter ultimately will be a matter not for the Minister for Treasury and Resources or even for the Council of Ministers. It will be a matter for this House to decide.

3.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :

A supplementary if I may? Given that the target of 2 per cent is based on the R.P.I.Y. and the R.P.I.Y. is already 3.8 per cent, does the Minister not accept that he has a problem looming?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I do not have a problem looming. If we give wage rises which simply absorb all the additional costs then the Island itself and those employees will be the poorer in years to come. It is not a matter simply for the Minister for Treasury and Resources. It is a matter for us as States.

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

Given the strong argument put forward by the Minister for Treasury and Resources during the debate on G.S.T. for exemptions not to be granted, i.e. keeping the rate low at 3 per cent, is the Minister for Treasury and Resources able to assure Members that he intends to maintain the 3 per cent rate for G.S.T. for the next 3 years?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Again, Sir, that is a matter which is in the law. The States passed this law and unless someone amends the law, the law remains in force and the rate of G.S.T. will be 3 per cent for at least 3 years.

8. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

I would like to ask the Minister why has he shown such a lack of leadership by this u-turn pirouette? [Approbation] I would also like to ask him why has he approached the protection of the vulnerable in such a half-hearted way? We were promised that the vulnerable will be protected and while I agree that income support has been raised by 3 per cent, we have not had any definitive offers or solutions for the non taxpayers, the non income support people who in fact are caught in between 2 schools. They are vulnerable. They neither gain by the raised personal allowances for income tax and the derisory, paltry, tight-fisted offer of £75 per household is absolutely disgraceful. I would like the answer to that please.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I take issue with the suggestion that these proposals fail to protect the vulnerable. Not only are all the arrangements which were previously in place to protect those people on lower incomes from the impact of G.S.T. on food going to remain in place should G.S.T. on food be withdrawn but these proposals affect not just the vulnerable and those who might be covered by income support or by in between arrangements but they will affect and benefit all members of the community whatever their status. I believe, Sir, far from failing to protect the vulnerable we are now protecting a wider range of the community and still protecting and enhancing the support available to those vulnerable people.

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

I have been predicting since 2005 that G.S.T. would raise more than £45 million and I think I once said I would eat my hat if it did not. I have not had to do that. Maybe, Sir, the Minister for Treasury and Resources should eat his hat because with the revelation that G.S.T. is going to raise between £5 million to £10 million more I would like to ask him does he have a more accurate figure than that and does he perhaps accept that the methods of financial forecasting need to be reviewed to provide greater accuracy in the figures that we see coming forward because not just in G.S.T. have the figures been wrong but also in tax revenue as we have seen surpluses as well? Could he look to review his system to get greater accuracy in his forecasting?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Taking the last point, Sir, had the Deputy been at the presentation of the Fiscal Policy Panel last week he would have heard from those experts in the matter how difficult it is in the Jersey situation to forecast with any great degree of accuracy. Going back to the question about the amount raised from G.S.T., the figure of £40 million to £45 million which was proposed in the fiscal policy of about 3 or 4 years ago was based on data at that time. Given the rise in inflation, given the rise in the strength of the economy, it is not surprising that the level of the yield from G.S.T. has increased beyond that which was predicted. It has not risen significantly above that which was predicted but on the basis of one quarter's returns - which is perhaps not the best way of looking for a long term future prediction - the indications are that an annual yield of something between £49 million and £51 million a year could be expected. That is as accurate as I can get for the moment, Sir, and I suggest that that is quite adequate for our needs at this time.