States Meeting Transcript - 12/02/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 12th FEBRUARY 2008

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

1. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING SHARED EQUITY HOUSING:................7
2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS CODE OF PRACTICE IN JERSEY:...............................................................................10
3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING ELECTORAL EXPENSES:.....................12
4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING DEMAND FOR 3 BED HOUSES IN THE STATES RENTAL SECTOR:..............................................................................15
5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH:..........................................16
6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SELECTION OF A BODY TO REVIEW THE JCRA:......................................................17
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSED SALE OF JERSEY TELECOM: .........................................................................................18
   8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT: .....................................19

10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING FLATS SOLD IN JERSEY BY SHARE TRANSFER: .................23
11. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING APPPICATION FOR AN ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT AT LA COLLETTE:..............................24
12. DEPUTY D.W. MEZBOURIAN OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING PUPIL CAPACITY IN ALL STATES SCHOOLS:..................................................................25

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................30

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding problems encountered during the first 2 weeks of administering the Income Support system:.................................................................................30 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................30

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................31
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................31 2.1.4.Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................31

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................31
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32

2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the possibility ofgranting Parish Committees and private Battle of Flowers entrants charity status: ..........................................................................32 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................32

2.2.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................32

3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the disposal costs of a ton of cardboard:............................32 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...32

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................33
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................33
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................33
   4. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the establishment of a Board of Visitors for Greenfields: ...............................33 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................33

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................34
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................34
3. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................34
4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................34
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................34
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................35
7. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................35

5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the allocation of free nursery places:.........................................35 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................35

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................36
2. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................36
3. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................36
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................36
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................37

6. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the proposed car park on the Ann Court site:...............................................37 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................37 2.6.1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................37 2.6.2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................37

2.6.3 The Constable of St. Helier:............................................................38 2.6.4. Deputy J.A. Martin.....................................................................38

7. Senator J.L. Perchard of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the integrity of the Annual Business Plan process:...................................................38 Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Economic Development -

rapporteur)..............................................................................38

1. Senator J.E. Perchard:..................................................................39
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................39
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................40
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................40
5. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................40

6. Senator J.E. Perchard:..................................................................41

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Housing regarding the discount rate applied in the sales of States-owned housing:...................................................41 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................41

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................42

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................42
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................43
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................43

9. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the imposition of certain conditions on the development of first-time buyer or retirement homes:..................................................................................43 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................43

1. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................44
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................44
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45
5. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................45

10. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the payment of rates on States properties:..................................................45 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................45
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Social Security regarding the cost of multiple G.P. home visits to house-bound patients under the Income Support Scheme:..........45 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................46

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................46
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................46
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................46
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................47
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................47
6. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................47
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:...............................................48
8. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................48
9. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................48
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................48
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis :................................................................49
    12. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister of Home Affairs regarding the establishment of a Lay Visitor Scheme in Jersey:........................................................49 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................49

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................49
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................50

13. The Deputy of Grouville of the Minister for Housing regarding the 65 units of self- catering accommodation proposed in the Hopkins Plan: ................................50 Senator T.A. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):...........................................50

1. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................50
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................51
3. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................51
4. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................51
5. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................51
6. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................52
7. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................52
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................52
9. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................53
10. The Deputy of Grouville :..........................................................53 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................53

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture: ..................................................................................53

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................53 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................54

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................54
   2. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................54
   3. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................55

3.3.1 Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................55

4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................55

3.4.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................56

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56
6. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................56

3.6.1 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:....................................................................57

7. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................57

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services..................................................................................58

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................58 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................58
2. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................58
3. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................58

4.3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................59

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................59
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................59

4.6.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................60

7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................60

4.7.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................61

8. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................61

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................61

5. Statement by the Chief Minister regarding succession planning and appointments in the public sector .........................................................................61

5.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................61

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................62
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................62
3. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................62
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................63

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................63

6. Draft Burials and Exhumations (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.195/2007)......63

6.1 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen (Assistant Minister, Chief Minister's Department - rapporteur:..............................................................................63

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................64
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................64
3. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................64 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................64 Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........64

7. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Substitution of Schedule 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.127/2007)..............................................................................65

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................65

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................66
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................66
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................66 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................66 The Deputy of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman, Corporate Services Panel):.........................66

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................67

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:......................................................67
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................67

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................68 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................68

8. Draft Pilotage (Jersey) Law 200- (P.197/2007)..........................................68

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):.68

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................69
2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................70
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................70
4. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................70 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................71 Deputy A. Breckon (Vice-Chairman, Economics Affairs Scrutiny Panel) ....................71

2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................71

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................71
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................71
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................72
4. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ................................................................72 Miss. S.C. Nicolle Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:.............................................72 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................73 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................73

9. Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal: appointment of members (P.20/2008) ...73

9.1 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):................................73

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................74
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................74
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................74 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................74

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................75 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................75

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................75

10. Corporate Management Board: access to meetings and minutes (P.11/2008).........75

10.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................75 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................78

1. Deputy J.J. Huet:....................................................................78
2. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................78
3. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................81
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................82
5. Deputy G. De Faye: .................................................................82
6. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................84
7. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................84

8. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan:.................................................................86
9. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................86
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:............................................................89
11. Deputy A. Breckon:................................................................90
12. Senator M.E. Vibert :...............................................................91
13. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: .........................................................93
14. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................93
15. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:..................................................94
16. The Deputy of St. Martin:..........................................................95
17. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :.........................................................96
18. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................96
19. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................97 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................97
20. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..........................................................99 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................101

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ..................104

11. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........................................................................................104 Deputy P.J.D Ryan: .........................................................................104 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................105

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................105

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions Question

1. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING SHARED EQUITY HOUSING:

Question

1. On page 2 of the White Paper "Jersey Homebuy: a new form of shared equity' housing" (R.7/2008) it states that "buyer would purchase 100% of the property for just 65% of the first- time buyer value". As the buyer can only ever realise 65% of any subsequent sale price would the Minister state whether a buyer will, in fact, only ever "own" a 65% interest in the value ofthe property?

Answer

Under the proposed scheme, the buyer will own 100% of the property, and will have all of the obligations of a property owner. Repayment of the outstanding 35% of the purchase price will be secured through a second charge on the property, and will be realised on its eventual resale. To that extent it is similar to any other property purchases, where any outstanding charges on the property, such as a mortgage, are cleared from the receipts of the sale.

The Jersey Homebuy proposal is a simple scheme which has deliberately designed, with the advice of the Law Officers, to fit Jersey's property laws as they stand.

Question

2. On page 5 it states that short of a fundamental change of Jersey property law, shared equity as in the United Kingdom cannot happen in Jersey. Would the Minister explain why this is so and why he has not chosen to make the "fundamental change" to the law?

Answer

Shared equity in the form commonly referred to in the UK is perhaps better described as Shared Ownership'. Such schemes make available for sale only a percentage of the home and this arrangement exists in perpetuity. The initial buyer does not purchase all of the property and in most cases is required to pay a rental on the portion of the property which they do not purchase. Shared ownership is known in Jersey Law. The perceived barriers to its implementation are in respect of the borrowing required by most purchasers. Although it is not beyond argument, it appears probable that as a matter of law a loan cannot be secured on a share in a property. Even if it is possible it is inconceivable that any lender would be prepared to lend, as all that the lender would get if the security had to be realised would be that share.

The law governing property is customary law which has evolved over the centuries, with occasional modification by statute rather than statute law and is not capable of simple legislative change. Should the laws fundamentally change in due course, then it is possible that other forms of shared equity may become possible.

Question

3. Would the Minister inform members why  "Shared ownership is possible but, as a form of affordable housing provision in Jersey, is commercially unrealistic?" (Page 5).

Answer

Shared ownership is commercially unrealistic because it is inevitable that purchasers will only be able to buy if they can borrow to do so, and lenders will only lend if they can secure their loans. It is probable that as a matter of law a loan cannot be secured on a share in a property. Even if it is possible, all that the lender would have as security would be the purchaser's percentage share. It is inconceivable that lenders would wish to lend on those terms. .

Question

4. Will the Minister explain to members how the "Jersey Homebuy" scheme "helps to reduce the public requirement to provide and maintain social housing"? (Page 6)

Answer

Most recent developments of social rented homes have been acquired by the Housing Trusts with

the benefit of interest subsidies on their borrowing. If these social rented homes are not needed to meet current demand then those homes can be released into the first-time buyer sector. Adopting the Jersey Homebuy scheme proposed enables those people who cannot afford to acquire first-time buyer homes at the market rate to purchase their own home. In the absence of such a scheme, they will have to rent property in the local market which would include the social rented sector.

Question

5. Will the Minister explain what is meant by the phrase "Within the current 45% allocation for affordable housing, it would allow for a split between social rented and Jersey Homebuy housing based on available evidence of need and supply? (Page 9) and inform members whether this will mean that housing intended for rentaltothepoorestandthoseinreal social need will be diverted for those just below first-time buyer incomes?

Answer

I will liaise with the Minister for Housing and have regard to the latest housing needs survey when

determining:

• whether the current 45% affordable housing allocation is sufficient and
• what proportion of that 45% allocation should be allocated to Jersey Homebuy and what proportion should be allocated to social rented housing.

At the present time, I am advised by the Minister for Housing that the development of social rented

family housing on the developed Island Plan H2 sites has significantly reduced the waiting list for such properties. These homes can then therefore be re-categorised for Jersey Homebuy without having a deleterious effect on the availability of social rented homes.

Question

6. Will the Minister set out for members the proposed income boundaries between those who will fall into the categories he is proposing through his "gateway" of those –

1. unable to buy at all, and eligible for social rental housing;

2. who do not qualify for the above, but are unable to buy on the open first-time buyer market and qualify for "Jersey Homebuy"; and
3. who are able to enter the first-time buyer market unaided; for the following categories –

Single persons;

Married couples;

Married couples with children.

Answer

The Minister for Housing will operate the gateway. The gateway will assess applicants and will categorise applicants as being eligible or not for Jersey Homebuy. Financial limits have not yet been set and the results of this consultation and the recent Housing Needs Survey are awaited in order that these maximum income levels can be established.

Question

7. Has the Minister considered whether the proposed scheme will further exacerbate house price inflation by increasing the eligibility of those driving demand for house purchase whilst doing nothing to increase supply? If he has not yet considered this matter will he undertake to do so in his response?

Answer

There is no evidence to suggest that the scheme would be inflationary. It is my view that rather

than increasing the demand for first-time buyer homes, which clearly already exists, the effect of the proposed scheme will be to increase the supply, given that 45% of the homes on these 3 sites will not now be restricted to social rented use. The further provision for all types of homes will be met through the Island Plan Review process, and be based on the results of the Housing Needs Survey, the results of which will be available in March.

Question

8. What consideration, if any, has the Minister given to the possibility that the "Jersey Homebuy" scheme, whilst providing a short-term solution for a few potential first-time buyers, could cause a blockage in the market in the longer term, in that those who enter the scheme (as mentioned in the White Paper)areunlikelytobeableto move on for some considerable time, and may remain for life?

Answer

The great majority of homes purchased in the first-time buyer market on sites zoned for the

purpose tend to be occupied for the long term by their purchasers. I do accept that the capital growth of the 65% proportion of the initial value paid by the purchaser is likely to make it more difficult for the purchasers to move upwards in the housing market, however, such a situation must be preferable to a lifetime of renting.

Question

9. Will the Minister give further details to members of how the 35% equity in this scheme will be arranged and administered by "not-for-profit" bodies referred to, and what part the States of Jersey will play in such a scheme? What monies, and from what sources, are to be allocated to the scheme in order to fund the 35% funding for the initial scheme on the three H2 sites identified in the White Paper?

Answer

It is intended that the Homebuy homes be sold by the developer to a non-profit making body at 65% of the first-time buyer value, before a single first-time buyer home can be sold. The non- profit making body will allocate the homes to persons approved through the Gateway. The non- profit making body will register a second charge against the property which will be repaid at the next alienation of the property. That income will be paid to the non-profit making body and utilised for the future provision of affordable housing.

No resources public resources will need to be allocated to the scheme for these sites, other than at

the Housing Department which will manage the Gateway.

2. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS CODE OF PRACTICE IN JERSEY:

Question

1. In the debate on P.9/2008 on 29th January 2008, the Minister stated that "what we are bringing forward is common practice in a lot of jurisdictions"; in respect of Articles 36and 38 of the code of practice, and Articles 5(3) and 20 of the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007 will the Minister identify for members which jurisdictions he was referring to?

Answer

In developing the codes of practice, consideration has been given to employment relations systems in a wide range of other jurisdictions, some that we are geographically close to and others that we are similar to.

This statement was made by the Minister in regard to preventing "wildcat" action by requiring unions to ballot members prior to strike action and to give notice to an employer about when and how a strike would happen. It is common practice in other jurisdictions to regulate for balloting and/or strike notices prior to taking action, including in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, France, the United States and South Africa.

The statement was not in reference, as the Deputy implies, to paragraph 36 of Code 2 (which provides that secondary action is unreasonable), paragraph 38 of Code 2 and article 5(3) of the Law (which makes provision regarding States employees and secondary action) and article 20 of the Law (which qualifies a union's immunity in the event of unreasonable action). However, there are also limitations on secondary action in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Germany and the United States.

Question

2. The Minister also stated that "the code specifically states that action shall not be classed as secondary where a union official is acting in support of his union members despite not having the same employer"

1. would the Minister inform members whether this provision is found in the Code orthe Law and explain to members what distinction, if any, is drawn between the actions of an "official" and the actions of "members" of a union?
2. what is the position under the Code of a union member acting in supportof colleagues despite not having the same employer?

Answer

Question 2(a) requests information that is already in the public domain. Paragraph 41 of Code 2 refers to action by officials in support of union members who are picketing. "Union official" is clearly defined at paragraph 42 of Code 2.

Question 2(b) requests information that is already in the public domain, as provided at paragraph 36 of Code 2.

Question

3. Further to the Minister's statement that  "being employed in different premises does not prevent employees from taking action in support of colleagues who have the same employer" will the Minister explain the statutory basis, if any, for this statement and state whether, or to what extent, this is limited by the codes which are applicable to the "bargaining unit"?

Answer

The Minister made this statement in regard to the extent of the limitations on secondary action; specifically point 36 of Code 2. Action is defined as unreasonable by the code where it is taken against an employer who is not a party to the collective employment dispute. That definition does not result in action being deemed "secondary" and unreasonable where employees are employed by the same employer and there is only a physical division of work premises.

Employees clearly must be part of the same bargaining unit in order to take action in support of their colleagues. Where an employee is employed by the same employer but is not part of the bargaining unit that is in dispute with the employer, any action taken by that employee would not constitute a "collective employment dispute" under the Law. Therefore the question of whether the action was secondary is irrelevant

Question

4. Would theMinisterexplainwhathe meant by his statement "I believe that the limitations on secondary action reflect our local conditions"?

Answer

This information is in the public domain. The Minister explained during the debate of P.9/2008 that he believes that the limitations on secondary action reflect our local conditions and the interests of the majority of Islanders on the basis that, in a very small and geographically isolated economy, the ability for trade unions to widen industrial action to involve others who are not party to the primary dispute would be extremely disruptive to the life of the island and to the provision of necessary commodities and services to citizens.

Question

5. Would the Minister inform members of his response, if any, to the issues raised in Paragraph. 1534 ofthe ILO report on the Employment Relations Law and in particular to the request contained in the final sentence which statedthat"The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes and social and economic protest action are protected under the law"?

Answer

The Minister has followed the required protocols via the UK's Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) which is responsible for responding to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on Jersey's behalf. The Minister understands that the DWP has responded to the ILO's "request to be kept informed of developments" regarding the Employment Relations Law and that the UK's response will be published by the ILO in due course.

Question

6. Would the Minister inform members inwhatareas,regardedas essential services covered by Articles 31 to 35, minimum service agreements are already in place and in what further areas he anticipates such agreements being negotiated?

Answer

The Minister suggests that the Deputy should make enquiries of trade unions and of employers as to whether minimum services agreements are already in place for any particular services in the Island. There are likely to be many collective agreements in existence in the Island, which may or may not currently include a minimum service agreement; however there is no requirement for the details of collective agreements to be made publicly available.

The Deputy 's question goes on to seek the Minister's opinion as to what other services might negotiate minimum service agreements. The Minister anticipates that, where it is identified that any element of a service falls under the definition provided by Code 2, the employer and union will negotiate an appropriate agreement, if one does not already exist.

3. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING ELECTORAL EXPENSES:

Question

1. Following his response to my question 3673 of 29th January 2008, will the Chairman inform members what actions will be included on the list of offences on electoral expenses and advise how such matters will be reported and investigated in a timescale sufficient to prevent offences being committed in the course of an election and not simply some months or years later when it will be too late to affect the result of the election?

In particular will he address these issues in relation to:

• lobby organisations that are not registered
• expenditure by third parties without prior consent of candidate
• expenditure by third parties with consent
• total expenditure by candidates

• the use of websites based in foreign jurisdictions

Answer

1. The draft legislation soon to be considered by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on the issue ofthe regulation of election expenses will, subject to the receipt of legal advice, contain offences including the following -

1. it will be an offence for a candidate or third party to exceed the permitted amount of election expenses;
2. it will be an offence for a candidate or third party to receive donations in excess ofthe permitted amounts and it will be anoffencetokeep anonymous donations of more than £100;
3. it will be an offence for a person who incurs or pays election expenses for a candidate or third party not to provide that person with information about the expenses;
4. it will be an offence for a person notto make the necessary return after the election setting out details of expenditure and donations or failing to provide necessary invoices, receipts and other proof if required to do so.

Expenditure by a third party with the consent of the candidate is considered to be the

expenditure of the candidate himself or herself. Expenditure by third a party without the prior consent of the candidate is regulated by the rules on the maximum amount permitted to be spent by third parties.

It is important to stress that there would be no jurisdiction for the Jersey legislation to

regulate activities undertaken entirely out of the Island. Nevertheless it is likely that in the majority of cases any activity by third parties will be managed and co-ordinated from Jersey and the legislation will therefore apply to any activity in the Island.

As stated in a previous answer the offences will be normal criminal offences which will be

investigated in the usual way. Because of the relatively short period of an election campaign it is only fair to point out that it may be impossible for potential offences to be investigated and taken to Court until after the election. The legislation is nevertheless intended to act as a severe deterrent to any abuse because of the potential criminal offences and experience in other small jurisdictions such as Guernsey has shown that candidates will normally comply with the restrictions.

Question

2. Does the Committee envisage a separate Electoral Commission tosupervise elections and, if not, which other body will do this?

Answer

2. The Committee does not envisage a separate Electoral Commission as it does not believe that this could be justified on grounds of costs in a small jurisdiction such as Jersey. Elections in Jersey have for many years been supervised through the Royal Court and the legislation will require candidates and third parties to submit returns of expenditure to the Judicial Greffier.

Question

3. Will sanctions include the capacity to declare election results null and void as a result of offences committed?

Answer

3. The Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 permits the Royal Courttoorder fresh elections in certain limited circumstances under that law. The Committee's current proposals do not includetheabilityto declare election results null andvoidas a result of offences committed but the Committee is willing to give further thought to this matter in the permanent legislation being brought forward in due course. It is importantto recognise that the ability to prove that an election result had actually been affected by any breach ofthe rules on election expenditure may be extremely difficult to establish.

Question

4. Will the Chairman furtherinform members what costs (both financial and in terms ofstaff) the Committee estimates will be involved in its proposals?

Answer

4. The Judicial Greffier is satisfied that the resource implications of receiving necessary declarations of expenditure can be managed within existing resources. As stated above the offences created will be investigated as normal criminal offences and dealt with through the normal prosecution process.

Question

5. What consideration has the Committee given to limiting candidates to a fixed format organised by the States or to providing limited assistance to candidates to ensure a level playing field?

Answer

5. Candidates will be limited to a fixed level of expenditure and, in practice, the Committee believes that this is the most appropriate way to create a level playing field between candidates. The Committee doesnotbelieve it would be appropriate to limit candidatesto a fixed format of electioneering as some candidates may, for example, wish to use the expenditure allowed for advertisements in the media whereas others may prefer to simply display posters or circulate letters. The Committee's proposals nevertheless provide for a free mailing at public expense for every candidate and these mailings will need to be in a fixed format determined by the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Question

6. Will the Chairman detail for members how the Committee proposes to define what constitutes acceptable assistance from volunteers? In particular, will the Committee consider the following alternatives in relation to the delivery of leaflets door-to-door by:

1. friends of the candidate (unpaid);
2. friends of the candidate (paid nominal sum);
3. employees of the candidate (unpaid);
4. employees of the candidate (paid their normal hourly rate).

Answer

6. The Committee is determined that the proposed regulation of election expenses does not affect the long tradition of voluntary assistance given to candidates. In order to avoid any

loopholes in the legislation the Committee will nevertheless be ensuring that any voluntary assistance provided by a person who normally provides that service as part of his or her business is counted at full cost. For example a candidate who obtains a free website design from a friend who works professionally as a website designer would be required to obtain and declare the normal commercial value of the service as part of his or her overall expenditure limit. In the examples given by Deputy Southern -

1. no election expenses would be incurred from this voluntary help;
2. the nominal amount paid would be an election expense;
3. the normal salarypaidtothe employee would countasan election expense for thetime spent on election work;
4. the payment made would be an election expense.

The Committee notes that this lengthy set of questions is the third successive set of written

questions submitted by Deputy Southern . Although the Committee is happy to continue to answer questions as submitted I would urge Deputy Southern , if he has concerns, to come to PPC to discuss this issue. If appropriate the Committee may be able to take on board some of his concerns before the legislation is finalised. In addition I must stress that the draft legislation that PPC will bring forward will, of course, be subject to amendment by any member in the usual way.

4. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING DEMAND FOR 3-BED HOUSES IN THE STATES RENTAL SECTOR:

Question

Will the Minister confirm whether or not there is any demand for additional 3-bed houses to be provided in the States rental sector, and, if not, would he provide members with the evidence he has to support this view in light of the proposal to offer such housing for sale as part of the shared equity scheme?

Answer

The demand for three bedroom social rented homes has steadily reduced during 2007. The chart below shows the exact numbers, both on the Waiting List and the Department's internal Transfer List. I am confident that with the completion of sites due this year, such as Field 40, St Clement (10 x three bed homes) and Field 690a, St Martin (19 x three bed homes) there is no current need for further three bedroom social rented units.

Overall demand is greatest for one bedroom accommodation, Existing States Tenants currently under-occupying their accommodation would willingly move to smaller life-long' accommodation, if available, thus enabling their larger homes to be recycled'.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 110 110 118 112 108 104 102 105 107 102 96 91 W/L 20 20 25 18 25 17 16 16 18 18 16 18 Transfers 90 90 93 94 83 101 86 89 89 84 80 73

It is quite possible over the lifetime of the Property Plan that former States Tenants now living in Trust accommodation would wish to take advantage of the shared equity scheme thus making available their homes for recycling. With home ownership at a low level in Jersey, it is important that we encourage those that can afford it, the opportunity to purchase a property of their own.

5. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH:

Question

In view of the Chief Minister's response to a written question on 29th January 2008 (number 3669), will he inform members what productivity growth he considers possible in the economy, how this will be achieved, and thus what the figure for the number of additional heads of household should be?

Answer

The level of productivity growth that is achievable in Jersey will be a direct result of the policies the States decides to pursue. For example, if we keep the sector mix in the economy as it is today the rate of productivity growth we could attain is likely to be lower than if there was also a shift towards high value added activity in the economy. The Imagine Jersey 2035 consultation process has sought Islanders' views as to the extent and nature of productivity growth we should pursue. The decisions States Members take in response to that consultation process will determine what is possible in the economy in the future.

The recent trends in productivity growth also show how it can fluctuate with the economic cycle. In 2006 (the last year for which data is available) productivity growth in terms of real Gross Value Added per full-time employee rose by 4.2% as the economy experienced strong economic growth. Over the longer period between 1998 and 2006 the economy has been through a more volatile cycle and productivity has grown by 1.2% per year on average.

The States current Economic Growth Plan sets out how we can achieve productivity growth in the Island. The focus needs to be on improving the skills base, increasing innovation and investment, a thriving small business base and allowing competition between businesses to take place. The extent to which we want to and can achieve a shift to higher value added activity will also be a key determinant. Creating a stable macroeconomic climate in terms of economic growth and inflation is also critical to securing long-term improvements in productivity.

I do not follow the logic in the final part of the question as it seems to imply that economic growth is just a function of productivity and inward migration. This ignores an important factor in terms of the extent to which we can expand the workforce through increased participation from the existing Island population. This includes people working longer, people looking after the home returning to work and also helping the long-term sick return to work. The Imagine Jersey 2035 consultation process aims to identify Islanders' views on how, and to what extent, we should try to improve participation. Again, what is achievable will be determined to some extent by the policies the States puts in place.

6. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SELECTION OF A BODY TO REVIEW THE JCRA:

Question

Will the Minister inform members what progress, if any, he has made towards finalising the terms of reference and the selection of a body to conduct a review of the powers and resources of the JCRA, and state the timescale for this review?

Answer

As stated to the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, the review of the JCRA's powers and resources is independent of the ownership of Jersey Telecom and as such the review will be undertaken as soon as possible. The terms of reference of the review have now been agreed with the JCRA and include recommendations of both the Steering Group and Oxera. Subsequent to the suggestion of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel last year, that the terms of reference focus on the Authority's effectiveness as a telecommunications regulator; this is now the core remit of the review and it does not concern the JCRA's other roles as respectively: a competition law enforcer, postal regulator, or its provision of advice to the Minister for Economic Development.

The areas of enquiry will centre on both the current and potential powers available to the JCRA, in relation to telecommunications regulation, namely:

• examine the effective use of current powers at the disposal of the JCRA;
• examine the proposition to give the JCRA power to fine operators, explore whether this proposal goes far enough and if the extent is found to be proportionate to requirement, determine the structure for levelling penalties;
• explore what other powers, if any, are required in addition to the ones that are currently proposed in P.153/07, that should be added to make the JCRA a more effective regulator?

The review will determine whether the statutorily prescribed consultation process is appropriate in all instances and suggest streamlining if the present mandate is found to be excessive. To that end, consultation with the telecommunications operators is taking place and, subject to confirmation following the outcome of the review, law drafting instructions will be produced.

The review will also focus on the resources available to the JCRA. And assess the following areas:

• the skills, qualifications and competencies of the JCRA's current telecommunications regulatory staff, and an assessment of whether this staff is sufficient to meet the workload of regulation of telecommunications in a privatised environment, or whether additional resources likely will be required;
• sufficient flexibility in resources (both personnel and financial) to deal with different issues in. telecommunications as they arise.

Conducting body

It had been hoped that the National Audit Office would undertake the review. However, given that the terms of reference of the review now do not permit for an examination of the regulator as a whole, the NAO felt that the scope of the study did not match their usual approach of a Value for Money Study.

Although, a VFM audit is needed to reflect the resource criteria of the review, regulatory policy is now of equal importance and in light of this we have asked both the Office of Communications (Ofcom, the UK's telecommunications regulator) and the UK Competition Commission to consider the terms of reference with a view to approaching the project as a peer review.

Review timescale

Changing the focus of the terms of reference and, as a consequence, having to consider a different body to conduct the review, has inevitably led to a delay. Both Ofcom and the Competition Commission will need time to assess the terms of reference and decide if they have the capacity to undertake the review. Neither authority has yet given any indication of their decision, and it may well be that neither are able to progress a review within a reasonable timescale. If this is the case EDD will instigate a competitive tender process to identify who will undertake the review.

7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSED SALE OF JERSEY TELECOM: Question

1. Will the Minister advise members, now that he has had timeto study the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel's Report SR3/2008, which ofthekey findings and recommendations he accepts?

Answer

I will respond formally to SR3/2008, which was published on 29 January 2008, within the six week period allotted under scrutiny protocol, at which time a detailed indication of my views will be given.

Question

2. Notwithstanding his commitment to a 3-year moratorium, willthe Minister assure members that he will not bring a new proposition for thesaleofJerseyTelecom (JT) to the Assembly unless and until revised powers for the JCRA have been put in place, and the issue of separation has been resolved?

Answer

The powers of the Regulator are currently the subject of an independent review, and I do not intent to prejudge the outcomes of that process. I reiterate my previous commitment that I will only propose the sale of Jersey Telecom if it is in the Island's best interests. In taking that decision I will consider whether the structure of the company and regulatory framework are such that they will ensure the provision of high quality resilient telecommunications services at the lowest cost to the consumer.

Question

3. Will the Minister give members a breakdown ofthe £500,000 costs incurred in relation to the proposal to sell JT?

Answer

Advisory fees totalling £393,500 have been paid to a consortium of financial, legal and technical consultants appointed following a competitive tendering and commercial negotiation exercise. In addition there are unquantified costs of Treasury staff time and those of the scrutiny panel and its advisor.

Question

4. Will the Minister extend his commitment to a 3-year moratorium on the sale of JT to government holdings in other utilities?

Answer

The Treasury department has no current plans for the sale of any of the States utility companies and no plans to develop any such proposals within a period of three years.

8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING INCOME SUPPORT:

Question

1. How many applicants for Income Support visited the department to seek advice and assistance during the week commencing 28th January 2008?

Answer

During the week commencing 28th January 2008 the Department received many enquiries regarding Income Support. I cannot provide the Deputy with the exact figures as to how many enquiries were received as staff were utilised fully to meet the needs of customers rather than to keep statistics. However, I can advise that during January 2008 the Department received, on average 1039 walk in' customers per day across all service areas. For the same period last year the average daily figure was 1010.

Question

2. Can he confirm that the queue was some 20-strong for long periods of the week? Answer

At times the Department has served queues of customers with Income Support enquiries. However, queues were rarely 20 strong as staff monitored the situation and deployed resources to manage peak demand, as is normal practice in the Department.

Question

3. How many enquiries did the department receive by phone during the same period? Answer

The Deputy may not be aware that the telephone number provided on Income Support literature differs from the Social Security Call Centre number normally used by our customers. The reason for this is that Income Support enquiries, on average, take longer to resolve than other enquiries and the department would not wish for the Call Centre to be bottle necked and our other customers to experience difficulties in contacting us. When customers call the dedicated Income Support telephone number, their call goes directly to the Income Support Section to be answered by an Advisor. Whilst this deals more effectively with customer enquiries it does mean that statistical data on Income Support enquiries is not available as it would have been if dealt with by the Call Centre.

Question

4. Will he inform members how many of these enquiries concerned:

• wrong assessments;
• incorrect payments (either by the sum paid or wrong method a payment);
• missing payments;
• requests for special payments (from citizen's fund);
• new applicants.

Answer

The Department does not keep all statistics in the format requested by the Deputy , as staff have been utilising resources to meet customer needs, rather than keeping precise statistics. However, I can advise that the Department has received very few complaints about incorrect assessments. In the vast majority of cases involving people complaining about the wrong rate of benefit it is because the Department has been supplied incorrect data from which to rate the claim.

The Deputy will be aware that prior to the go live' of Income Support all customers who had returned their application form were written to and asked which method of payment they preferred. The Department has made payments in accordance with customer's instructions and where people have not informed the Department of their preference, the default has been for cheques to be issued.

During the first week of operation, of the 8,245 claims lodged, only eight people reported that they had not received payment. Where it was identified that immediate need for support was present an immediate cash payment was made.

During the first week of Income Support, six requests for special payments were made and forty new applications received.

Question

5. Can he state whether the 26-page IS application form is still in use, when he gave members repeated assurances that, following the changeover, this would be replaced by a user- friendly computer system?

Answer

There are a small number of households who have not yet made an application for Income Support, despite receiving several letters from the Department. If these claimants approach the Department before the end of February they will be asked to complete the transitional form, which collects information about the benefits that have been replaced by Income Support.

Any claimant seeking Income Support as a matter of emergency is given a printed form to take away and complete and a list of proofs that are needed. The claimant is given an interview for later that day or the next day and an adviser then interviews the claimant, works through the application with them, checks the proofs, and is able to make an emergency payment where appropriate.

Other new claimants who are not in need of emergency support are being provided with a form so that they have notice of the information required of them and so that they can collect the proofs that are needed prior to an interview. These claimants are then being interviewed within 10 working days. If the Income Support claim is successful, the benefit payment is backdated to the original date of application.

As expected and planned for, the first few weeks are proving busy and the use of the familiar form as part of the interview process, rather than completing the full application electronically, is reducing client waiting time. Clients do not, however, have to complete the application form themselves prior to the interview unless they wish to do so.

Question

6. What proportion ofthe staff involved had completed their training on the new system by the 28th January 2008 and, if this was lessthan100%, would he inform members whythiswasso?

Answer

All the staff involved with Income Support have been fully trained on the new system. Staff transferring from the Parish of St Helier and the Housing Department, undertook some training before 28th January and are now receiving additional training. Staff training will obviously continue.

Question

7. What proportion of the staff involved hadtakenthe required oath in Royal Courtsothatthey could be fully involved in the process by 28th January 2008, and if this was less than 100%, can the Minister state why, and whether this situation now been resolved?

Answer

All the staff involved with the delivery of Income Support have taken the required Oath in the Royal Court. Staff who transferred from the Parish of St Helier spent their first week in training and took the Oath at the earliest opportunity, on 2nd February.

Question

8. Does the Minister consider that the timescale which required the introduction ofIS by 28th January 2008 in advance ofthe introduction ofGSTon 1st May 2008, has proved stressful for both staff and recipients?

Answer

No, the timing of the introduction of Income Support is irrelevant; any challenges resulting from the scale of change involved which would have had to be faced whether we made the changes in January 2008 or January 2010. I would remind members that the Department has been working hard towards implementation for many months and has been developing, planning and explaining the system for years.

The Department has now completed the first two full weeks of administering Income Support. This change in benefits system is of a scale that would be impractical in larger jurisdictions. With the full backing of the States, the Department has introduced a coherent, comprehensive, fair benefit system which will help the States to support households who do not have the means to provide for themselves.

Any major change inevitably brings with it a degree of stress and, it is inevitable that there is an element of disruption and confusion at the time of the change. In the first week of Income Support the Department was, as expected, very busy and it is evident that the second week has been settling down. Already, people are getting used to the new procedures and understanding the new system. Staff are becoming more experienced in their new roles and recipients are getting to know and appreciate the advantages of the new improved system. I would like to pay tribute to the staff for their exceptional commitment and professionalism during this major change.

9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING REFURBISHMENT WORK AT CLOS DUE FORT

Question

1. Is the refurbishment work at Clos du Fort causing parking problems to residents and if so, will he inform members how long this refurbishment work has been planned and how long it is expected to continue?

Answer

The refurbishment work at Clos du Fort has required the scaffolding of the four 1970's blocks. Understandably this has had some impact on the availability of parking. The refurbishment has been in the feasibility and planning phases since 2005 but owing to a shortage of funds was not able to commence until October 2007. The first of the blocks is almost complete and the scaffold on that building will be coming down within the next month. The project is programmed to be complete in June this year. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Clos du Fort myself with the Council of Ministers last week, to view the works-in-progress. This programme is delivering a much needed improvement to 48 States Tenants homes.

Question

2. Will he furtherinform members how many car parking spaces at Clos du Fort , if any, are allocated :

1. to Housing department officers
2. to other States departmental staff
3. to members of the public who pay for a space?

Answer

1. There are no spaces allocated to anyone. All spaces are on a first come first served basis. Fourteen department Officers have permission to park on the estate but only once demand for permits from tenants has been satisfied. However, all but two of these officers have been moved to alternate locations for the duration of the contract.

2. As mentioned above there are no spaces allocated to anyone. A totalof 14 permits to park have been allocated to other States departments. Ten of these are on a full fee paying basis.
3. As mentioned above there are no spaces allocated to anyone. A totalof 6 permits to park have been allocated to fee paying members of the Public.

Question

3. Will he also reveal what revenue is generated from these spaces? Answer

This year the site will yield £23,365.92 in paid parking fees.

Question

4. What steps will the Minister take, if any, to alleviate any parking problems caused by the works, and will he consider suspending any permits allocated to non-residents, and if not, why not?

Answer

The department has reduced the number of operational vehicles parked on the site and has not

sought to increase the numbers of paid parkers this year. The parking enforcement contractors have stepped up levels of policing on the site to discourage illegal parking. Contractors working on the site have been provided with a small compound for their vehicles and are not allowed to park elsewhere on the estate. I do not propose to suspend parking for fee paying non-residents the income from whom is a valuable source of revenue.

10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING FLATS SOLD IN JERSEY BY SHARE TRANSFER:

Question

1. Whilst the Minister has stated that he has no recordofthe identity of purchasers ofthe 60 per cent of flats sold in Jersey by share transfer, is he able to confirm that there are no large investors buying share transfer accommodation for investment in Jersey?

Answer

The requirements of the Housing Law do not extend to identifying and controlling

investments in share transfer flats. Accordingly, information on large' investments in share transfer accommodation cannot be provided. On the introduction of Stamp Duty on Share Transfer transactions, this information will be available. In the meantime, movements in flat prices do not suggest any specific problem exists, nor indeed does any sizeable body of anecdotal evidence exist.

Question

2. What estimate does he have for the proportion of flats being bought by locally qualified people?

Answer

The requirements of the Housing Law have been clearly explained – they do not extend to identifying or controlling share transfer ownership, nor indeed has the Law ever extended to share transactions. The Housing Law merely ensures that only locally qualified persons can occupy this accommodation. As part of the development of the new housing controls under the Migration Policy, this may be an area to which legislation could extend, and this possibility will be explored.

Question

3. Does the Minister have evidence to show whether significant numbers ofboth flats and houses are being bought by locally qualified people for investment (buy to let) purposes? Answer

The purchase of property by locally qualified persons and subsequent lease of that property to

another locally qualified person is not something the Housing Law seeks to prevent – as the Housing Law does not control or prevent this practise, neither does it record its occurrence.

11. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING PLANNING APPPICATION FOR AN ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT AT LA COLLETTE:

Question

Will the Minister agree to make public the diagrams, drawings, photos and other material presented by the Transport and Technical Services Department in relation to the planning application for an Energy from Waste plant at La Collette and advise whether these were available to the public before the application was considered and subsequently given in-principle' Planning Permission?

Would the Minister advise whether the selective and last-minute release of diagrams and photos during the application, which were different to previously consulted diagrams, is permissible under the Planning and Environment Committee Building (Jersey) Law 2002?

Answer

I can confirm that all the diagrams, drawings, photos and other material presented to the Planning and Environment Department in relation to the application for the Energy from Waste Plant at La Collette are a matter of public record and are readily available for inspection at South Hill. These plans were available for public inspection prior to the determination of the application and were indeed presented at the Ministerial Hearing of 19th October 2007 when I considered the application.

It is vital to stress that all the drawings submitted in connection with the application were, in the context of its Outline status, purely for illustrative purposes only. This enabled me to gauge the potential impacts in visual terms of the buildings in relation to the possible plant and machinery that had to be accommodated for the Energy from Waste facility. This is reinforced by a condition on the Outline Permit which requires details of the Energy from Waste Plant to be submitted for further consideration once the preferred supplier of the facility has been identified. The Permit goes on to stipulate that all of these detailed designs must be accompanied by a Design Review undertaken by a suitably qualified person.

During the course of consideration of the application Hopkins Architects became involved in an advisory capacity to the applicants, Transport and Technical Services, and suggested revisions to their scheme in order to ameliorate as far as possible the potential visual impact of the building. This resulted in an illustrative building profile smaller than that originally accompanying the application.

When originally submitted and publicized the application attracted four representations only one of which raised concerns over the appearance of the building. These representations related to the illustrative plans accompanying the application when it was first submitted.

Planning  applications  must  be  publicised  in  accordance with  Article  2  of  the  Planning  and  Building (Application Publication) (Jersey) Order 2006. Section 6 of the aforementioned Article stipulates that the Article does not apply to any change in an application where I consider that the change does not need to be publicised.

In the context of the following facts that

• firstly all the elevational drawings supplied with the application either initially or as amended were for illustrative purposes only,
• secondly, the size and therefore the potential visual impact of the elevations of as amended was smaller than those originally submitted, and
• thirdly given that only one representation had been received raising any concerns over the visual impact of the initial building,

I am satisfied that given the matter has to come back to the States, it was justifiable not to re- publicised the application alongside the amended Hopkins drawings. This accords wholly with Article 11 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law, 2002.

12. DEPUTY  D.W. MEZBOURIAN  OF ST.  LAWRENCE  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING PUPIL CAPACITY IN ALL STATES SCHOOLS:

Question

Will  the  Minister  please  provide  the  following information  on the  pupil capacity  in  all  States schools?

Question

1. For each States primary school, the intended maximum pupil capacity for the building design, this to include any building alterations.

Answer

The planned maximum pupil capacity for each school is listed on the table below.

Year Group Planned capacity Bel Royal 175 d'Auvergne 350

First Tower 350 Grands Vaux 175 Grouville 350 Janvrin 350

La Moye 350

Les Landes 175 Mont Nicolle 175 Plat Douet 350 Rouge Bouillon 525 Samares 350 Springfield 175 St.Clement 175 St.John 175 St.Lawrence 175 St.Luke 175 St.Martin 175 St.Mary 175 St.Peter 175 St.Saviour 175 Trinity 175

The capacity for Samares and Rouge Bouillon is recorded as the planned maximum for the respective buildings. Due to demographic movement and to a diminishing roll, the number of classes in Samares has been reduced from 14 classes to 10 classes and at Rouge Bouillon from 21 classes to 17. The capacity in real terms, since there is no teacher employed where there is no class, is 250 at Samares and 425 at Rouge Bouillon.

Question

2. For each States secondary school, the intended maximum pupil capacity for the building design, this to include any building alterations.

Answer

The planned maximum pupil capacity for each of the secondary schools is as follows:

Grainville 750 Le Rocquier 940 Les Quennevais 750 Hautlieu 750

Question

3. For each primary school, the current number of pupils in each year group, including the nursery class where appropriate.

Answer

The number of pupils in each year group is indicated in the following table. Some nursery classes contain a small number of children who attend for mornings only or afternoons only as well as the vast majority of children who attend on a full time basis. The full time equivalent is the figure reported.

School

Year Group Nursery R 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total*

*Total excludes nursery classes.

Question

4. For each secondary school, the current number of pupils in each year group. Answer

The number of pupils in each year group is indicated in the following table.

Question

5. For each primary school, which year group, if any, is over subscribed, and, if so, by how many, including the nursery class where appropriate.

Answer

The year groups that are over capacity are indicated in the following table, with the number displayed being the amount of overcapacity in the year groups.

In general, each primary class has a planned maximum of 25 pupils but it may be increased to 26 if circumstances demand it. A class containing 26 pupils is not considered as being oversubscribed. Similarly, a nursery has a planned maximum of 30 FTE places but is not considered overcapacity with 31 children.

Overcapacity

Question

6. For each secondary school, which year group, if any, is over subscribed, and by how many? Answer

The year groups that are over capacity are indicated in the following table, with the number displayed being the amount of overcapacity in that year groups:

The current year 8 total in Les Quennevais was agreed with the headteacher in order to accommodate a particularly large year group for one year only.

Oversubscribed