States Meeting Transcript - 16/09/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 16th SEPTEMBER 2008

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

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

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding payments for protection from GST for those on Income Support. ..................................6
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the cost of the Income Support system..................................................................6
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding j' category consents to purchase. ................................................................................9
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the provision for a pay award for States employees in 2009................................11
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the availability of connections to the north of England over the winter period..............12
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the absorption of the 3.7 per cent annual uprating of Income Support to meet increased accommodation costs.......12
7. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding meeting the cost of X rays or other scans through the Income Support scheme................................13
8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the net job- growth figure over the five-year period to date..........................................14
9. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the net job-growth figure over the

five-year period to date.................................................................15

10. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the ownership of share- transfer properties......................................................................16
11. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the case for the introduction of a third supermarket retailer in the Island............................17

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................18

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the demand for respite care beds........................................................19 Senator J.L. Perchard (The Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):..19

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................19
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................19
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................19
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................20
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................20
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................20
7. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................20
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................21
9. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................21
10. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................21

2. Deputy S. Power of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding a trial of 2 electric Smart cars supplied by the JEC...............................................22 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...22

2.2.1 Deputy S. Power:.......................................................................22

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the cost of new cancer drugs. ................................................22 Senator B.E. Shenton (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.........................22

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................23
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................23
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................23
4. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................24
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................24
6. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................24
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................24

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Housing regarding the provision of a rebate of rent for residents of the Cedars. ......................................................25 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................25

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................25
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................26

5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................26

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the withholding of benefits via the powers granted under the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007. .........27 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................27

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

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding incentives to work and save within the Income Support system............................................28 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................28

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................29

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................29

7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier of the Minister for Social Security regarding entitlements to a Job Seekers Allowance................................................30 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security): ......................................30

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................30
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................30
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................31

8. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the teaching of cookery skills to young people..............................................31 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........................32

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................32
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................32
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................33
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................33
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................34

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Home Affairs..............34

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................34 Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):........................................35

1. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................35
   2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................35
   3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................35
   4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................35

3.4.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36

5. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................36
6. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................36
7. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................36
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................37
9. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................37
10. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................38
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38

3.11.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................38

12. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................38

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Chief Minister..........................39

1. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................39 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................39
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................39
3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................39

4.3.1 Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................40

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................40

4.4.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................40

5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................40
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................41

4.6.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................41 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................41

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................42

5. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008)................................................42

5.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................42

6. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): third amendment (P.113/2008) Amd. (3)..44

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................45

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................46
   2. The Deputy St. Ouen:..................................................................47 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................49 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................49 The Deputy of St. Ouen:......................................................................49

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................50 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................50 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................50
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................51
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................51
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................51
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52
6. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................52
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52

8. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................52
9. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................53
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................53
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................53
12. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................54 Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ....................................................................54 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................55

7. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): ninth amendment (P.113/2008) Amd. (9) ..57

7.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................58

1. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................58
2. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................58
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................59
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................59 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................59

8. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): fifth amendment (P.113/2008) Amd. (5)...59

8.1 Deputy S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):.......................59

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................63 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................63

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................63

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................63 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................63 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................63

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................63
2. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................63
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................64
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................64
5. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................64 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................65
6. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................65 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................66

9. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008), as amended .................................66

9.1 Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................66 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................66

10. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): Objectives of the Economic Development Department..............................................................................66

10.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................66

11. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): Second Amendment (P.113/2008) Amd. (2) ...........................................................................................66

11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................68
2. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................69
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................69
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................70
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................70
6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains : ...........................................................70

7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................71
8. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................73
9. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................73
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................74 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................76

12. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): Objectives of the Economic Development Department (continued).................................................................77

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................77
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................78
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................79
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79
5. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................79
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................80 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................81

13. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): Objectives of the Education, Sport and Culture Department.....................................................................81

13.1 Senator M.E. Vibert (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..................81 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................81

14. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): tenth amendment (P.113/2008) Amd. (10).81

14.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................82

1. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................84
2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................87
3. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................88
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................88
5. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................89
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................90
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................90
8. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : ..........................................................91
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................92
10. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..............................................................92
11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:...........................................................93 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................94

15. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008): Objectives of the Education, Sport and Culture Department (continued)........................................................95

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................95
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................95
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................96
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................96
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................96
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................97
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................97
8. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................97 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................99

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................99

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding payments for protection from GST for those on Income Support.

Question

Further to his answer on 15th July 2008 regarding payments for protection from GST for those on Income Support, in which he revealed that over 2,700 households would not be eligible for this protection will the Minister inform members what categories of households are so affected and what measures, if any, are in place to cushion these households from the impact of GST?

Answer

Of the 2,700 households identified by the Deputy , approximately 700 individuals are receiving residential care and are not subject to GST.

The remainder are receiving protected benefit payments under the Income Support scheme. Of these, households that do not pay income tax will be eligible to receive the GST bonus. Households that do pay income tax will have benefited from the increase in income tax exemptions.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the cost of the Income Support system.

Question

Will the Minister identify for members the following data on the costs of Income Support (IS) -

1. the total sum spent on the previous benefits and support systems replaced by IS, broken down into individual benefits;

Answer

The total sum spent on the previous benefits and support systems replaced by IS, broken down into individual benefits, is a matter of public record as set out in the 2007 Report and Accounts (R.59/2008) and the 2008 Business Plan ( P.93/2007)

Extract from 2007 Report and Accounts (R.59/2008)

HIE (States contribution) Non native welfare / re care Native welfare / res care Family allowance Attendance allowance

£

1,441,460 6,674,956 10,825,607 5,832,088 4,301,639

Disability allowance Childcare allowance Disability transport allowance Milk at a reduced rate

Total

Extract from 2008 Business Plan (P.93/2007)

Rent rebate and abatement Educational allowances Home study grants Additional res care costs Transitional protection GST protection

Winter fuel payment system Total

1,191,251 630,938 6,812,027 385,628 38,095,594

£

23,936,000 200,000 450,000 1,500,000 9,700,000 1,750,000 560,000 38,096,000

These figures include administration costs.

Question

2. the estimates for the total sum to be spent on IS broken down by components;

Answer

The total benefit budget for 2008 is £77,049,100. This is made up of the sum of the figures above plus an allowance for inflation on the Social Security 2007 benefit budget. This budget covers Income Support between February and December and legacy benefits in January. The Income Support budget is not broken down by components as each household receiving Income Support receives an individual benefit depending not just on the components but also on the income of the household.

Question

3. the overall sum delivered in the first 6 months of operation of IS;

The expenditure recorded for February – July inclusive totalled £36,488,000.

Question

4. the costs of adjustments already made to the IS scheme (to accommodate Attendance Allowance etc) and the extensions to transitional support and other proposed changes;

Answer

I repeat my statement made to the House on 3 June, 2008 :

"In September 2007, a paper describing the transition process and the calculation of protected payments was circulated to all Members. At that time, it was explained that it was impossible to provide accurate costings of the transition process until the number and make up of claimants eligible for transition was settled, shortly after the introduction of Income Support.

Accurate costings for transition have now been completed. Together with my Department, my Assistant Minister and I have considered these costings and I am announcing today that, within the existing budget provided by the Minister for Treasury and Resources Minister, we will extend the 100% protection for all claimants from this October until 27 January 2009, which will be a full year since the introduction of Income Support."

In summary, there is no additional budget needed in respect of the transitional arrangements already announced.

Additional transitional protection until October 2009 is proposed within  Amendment 4 to the Annual Business Plan (P.113/Amd 4). As stated in the amendment the additional cost is £2.17 Million in 2009.

The annual cost of other enhancements announced in my 3 June Statement is as follows: Enhancement Estimate of Annual Cost

Adjust definition of lone parent £300,000

Provide PC3 to children without reference to  £190,000

parents income

Provide minimum of PC1 for all IS claimants  No additional budget required – just a with 100% LTIA award change in the application process

Amendment 4 to the Annual Business Plan (P.113/Amd4) also includes a proposal to increase Cold Weather Payments, at an estimated annual cost of £150,000 .

5. the total costs of GST support and annual uprating;

Answer

The total costs of GST support and annual uprating are a matter of public record (P93/2007, P.89/2008) respectively.

Question

6. the source of the sums referred to in d) and e) above?

Answer

The sums in (d) and (e) come from the Income Support budget approved by the States last year and the 2009 estimates which will be considered in the debate of the Annual Business Plan for 2009.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding j' category consents to purchase.

Question

Further to his response on 15th July 2008 relating to j' category consents to purchase, will the Minister  detail  for  members  the  types  of  accommodation  purchased  by  the  287  j'  category residents in 2006 and 2007 along with the prices paid in appropriate bands? Does he consider that the 50 per cent increase in 'j' category purchases in 2006/7 over the equivalent rate in 2005 corresponds with a five-fold increase in house price inflation over the same period?

Answer

"j" category employees purchased the following properties in 2007, which illustrates the prices ranges within which activity takes place:

400,000 - 500,000 14 9 17% 500,000 - 600,000 17 9 19% 600,000 - 700,000 10 2 9%

700,000  -

1,000,000 24 3 20% 1,000,000 + 13 - 9% 103 35 100%

The following table illustrates that while "j" category purchase have increased, so has activity across the whole market:

It is evident that "j" purchases as a percentage of the total number of properties purchased in Jersey has increased, from 5% in 2005, to 7% in 2006 and 2007. However, while all activity contributes to changes in property prices, house prices in Jersey are affected by a whole host of factors including:

• The cheapness and availability of credit;
• Overall economic conditions including trends in earnings and employment;
• Natural population growth and demographic changes;
• Household formation rates
• Net migration; and
• Confidence in the housing market.

This would suggest that the total number of j category licences in the Island are one of only a wide range of factors that influence house prices in Jersey and by themselves can have only a marginal impact on house prices.

4. Deputy  G.P.   Southern  of  the  Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources  regarding  the provision for a pay award for States employees in 2009.

Question

Having announced that the provision for a pay award for States employees in 2009 will be based on RPI(Y) (inflation less impact of GST and housing costs) and that this has been set in the 2008 Business Plan at 2%, but that RPI(Y) is already 3.9% what plans, if any, does the Minister have to accommodate these changed conditions following the decision to fund the Energy from Waste plant from the Consolidated Fund?

Answer

There is only provision for a 2% pay award for public sector employees from June 2009 within the 2009 Business Plan.

The level of public expenditure, including the provision for pay awards is agreed by the States in the Business Plan debate. Any States member could have proposed an amendment to the Business Plan to increase public expenditure to finance a higher level of pay award, but none has chosen to do so.

Accordingly the only way a pay award in excess of 2% could be financed in 2009, within the cash limits set by the States, is by cutting services to the public. The decision to fund the EfW plant from the Consolidated Fund does not alter the situation in any way.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the availability of connections to the north of England over the winter period.

Question

Following the withdrawal of flights or operators from certain routes to and from Jersey over the winter period, will the Minister inform members what connections to the north of England (Leeds/Bradford, Durham/Tees Valley, Newcastle, Doncaster, Liverpool) will be available to Islanders over the period October to March?

Answer

The global airline industry is currently facing unprecedented trading circumstances as a result of the high global oil price. As recently as last week, we have seen the collapse of the airline XL, the UK's third largest tour operator, as just one more reminder of how fragile the industry is.

A reduction in air services from Jersey over the winter period is normal and that every year airlines reduce capacity to meet the typically lower demand.

Although airlines are still finalising winter 2008/2009 schedules, it is fair to say that with the vastly increased costs they are facing there may well be deeper reductions this year. An example of this is the recently announced suspension of winter services by bmibaby to Birmingham. However, the full winter schedule is expected to be known by the middle of October.

Notwithstanding this, I am pleased to advise that low-cost carrier easyJet will continue to operate a thrice-weekly service to Liverpool over the winter period and daily services to Manchester and Nottingham East Midlands will be retained.

As anticipated, services to Leeds Bradford, Durham Tees Valley, Newcastle and Doncaster will be suspended for the winter but will return to the network as planned for summer 2009.

We must continue to acknowledge that considerable work has been done to increase air services to Jersey. Had we not grown the level of business so successfully over the last two years with new services by bmibaby, bmi, easyJet, Jet2, Flybe, Aer Lingus, Blue Islands and Lufthansa, we could have been in a more precarious position than we are this coming winter season.

I am confident that, despite the current challenges of the industry, the work that Jersey Airport has undertaken to gain more business means we are likely to achieve the planned growth of around 5% this year.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the absorption of the 3.7 per cent annual uprating of Income Support to meet increased accommodation costs.

Question

Will the Minister inform members whether some recipients of the accommodation component of Income Support in States housing will  not benefit from the 3.7% annual uprating of Income Support since the increase in benefit will go directly to their rental payment which has also been raised by 3.7%, and, if so, how many households will be affected?

Answer

Since the transfer of subsidies to the Social Security Department, these statistics are no longer compiled by the Housing Department.

The Minister for Social Security has provided the following information:

As Members will be aware, the income support benefit is made up of a number of components. As agreed by the States, all components (adult, child, lone parent, household, accommodation, impairment, carer, childcare) will be increased by 3.7% from 1 October 2008. The Housing Department will increase rentals by 3.7% from 6 October 2008. Following the increase in both benefits and rent in October, claimants will see a net increase in their benefit.

The following examples show how these changes will affect typical States tenants, some or all of whose Income Support benefit is paid directly to the Housing Department.

Example 1 - Direct rental payment does not cover full rent

A pensioner couple living in a one-bedroom flat with pension income of £275 per week, are currently receiving income support of £127.29 per week. Their rent is presently £143.50. Their full Income support benefit is paid to their landlord and the couple pay the balance of rent due of £16.21 direct to the Housing Department. From 6 October, their rent will increase to £148.82 per week and their income support benefit will increase to £142.27 per week. Their income support benefit is still less than the rent due, however, the amount which they have to contribute reduces to £6.55 per week. Therefore as a consequence of the increase in both rent and income support, the couple are better off by £9.66 per week.

Example 2 - Direct payment does cover full rent

A lone parent living in a two-bedroom flat with an income of £150 per week, is currently receiving income support of £256.98 per week. The claimant is presently paying rent of £180.46. The claimant's income support is greater than the total rent due and so the entire rent is paid to the Housing Department  from income support. The claimant receives the balance of the income support benefit totalling £76.52. From 6 October, the rent will increase to £187.11 per week and the income support benefit will increase to £272.03. The income support benefit is still more than the rent due and accordingly the full rent is paid to the Housing Department. The balance of the income support benefit increases to £84.92 and is paid to the claimant in full. Therefore as a consequence of the increase in both rent and income support, the claimant is better off by £8.40 per week.

The direct payment of rent to the Housing Department has no impact on the increase in benefit received by households from 1 October.

7. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding meeting the cost of X rays or other scans through the Income Support scheme.

Question

Will the Minister state what progress, if any, has been made towards a scheme that will agree a simple mechanism to identify those on Income Support who need additional financial support for the cost of X rays or other scans requested by their GP?

Answer

It should be noted that charges are only made for x-rays and other scans if the patient is referred from their GP. In most cases, patients will be under the care of a consultant in which case there is no charge.

The Health and Social Services Department is continuing to provide subsidised rates for x-rays and other scans requested by GPs to individuals holding existing HIE cards. The Health and Social Services department is currently undertaking a review of these services before any new system is introduced.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the net job- growth figure over the five-year period to date.

Question

In the Annual Performance Review 2007 the net job-growth figure over the five-year period to date is described as being below the annual target of 1% (500 jobs), in fact 0.7%. Will the Minister explain to members how this statement correlates with the official employment figure taken from Jersey Labour Market December 2007 of net growth over the 5 years of 2,770 jobs or 1.1%?

Given that this figure is likely to rise this year as the 2003 figure of 650 job losses drops out of the calculation, what measures, if any, will the Minister take to ensure that this States-agreed target is met so as to achieve truly "sustainable and controlled" growth.

As the report also states that around one third of these new jobs in 2007 were taken by non qualified and migrant staff, thereby increasing the proportion of non qualified staff in the private sector workforce, what measures, if any, is the Minister prepared to take to curb this influx of migrant workers?

Answer

The 0.7% refers to the annual change in employment on a calendar year basis rather than just simply the differences between December each year. The methodology used to calculate the 0.7% has been recommended by the States Statistics Unit. It is the same methodology they use for calculating the size of the workforce within the framework for measuring the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the Jersey economy on a calendar year basis.

In the GVA analysis, the size of the workforce  in a given calendar  year is calculated as the weighted average of three consecutive periods:

(previous December: current June: current December) in the ratio (1 : 2 : 1).

Applying the above formula to the labour force data compiled over recent years results in the calendar year figures shown in the table. The annual percentage changes and the average per annum percentage changes on a rolling 5-year basis are shown. For 2007, this latter figure was 0.7% per annum, calculated for the period 2002-2007.

Calendar Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

2006 2007

Workforce size Rolling 5-year

Annual %

change

(total headcount) Average per annum % change

51,793

51,855 0.1%

51,910 0.1%

51,588 -0.6%

51,025 -1.1%

51,620 1.2% -0.1%

52,430 1.6% 0.2%

53,725 2.5% 0.7%

However, from an economic perspective the most appropriate period is that of an economic cycle because rolling five year averages could be influenced by a significant proportion of the period being either the growth phase or the decline phase of the cycle. This could lead to five year annual average growth figures overstating or understating the underlying growth in the workforce. Taking the previous peak of the cycle in calendar 2000 as the start point, the average per annum growth to 2007 is 0.5%. If the next peak in the economic cycle occurs in 2008, with a similar growth in workforce in 2008 as for 2007, then the annual per annum growth over the full cycle will be 0.8%, .i.e. still below the target 1% per annum.

Such an objective assessment of the performance of the labour markets shows that there is no need to take additional measures to meet the States agreed target, above those already used by the Population Office. In fact, the Fiscal Policy Panel highlighted in their first report published on 5 September that the economic environment of recent years has changed and the Island faces a new economic challenge in the face of significant economic shocks. They believe that economic growth will slow this year and next and that:

"The risks to economic growth are to the downside. Financial services profitability could be less than expected and the rest of the economy may slow more rapidly."

By suggesting that we need to take further measures to choke off economic growth because of recent strong growth in the workforce the Deputy fails to understand both trends in the workforce and the challenges the Jersey economy now faces in the light of the credit crunch and the rise in food and fuel prices. Adopting such an approach would only serve to make Islanders worse off at a time when our economic prospects are already showing signs of deterioration. That would be against the very essence of the States agreed policies of economic growth, low inflation and job opportunities for local people.

9. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Chief Minister regarding the net job-growth figure over the five-year period to date.

In his response to a question on migration asked on 15th July 2008, the Chief Minister referred to the net job-growth figure over the five-year period to date as being below the annual target of 1% (500 jobs), in fact 0.7%. Will he explain to members how this statement correlates with the official employment figure, taken from Jersey Labour Market December 2007, of net growth over the 5 years of 2,770 jobs or 1.1%?

Answer

The figure of 0.7% refers to the annual change in employment on a calendar year basis and is the statistically correct methodology adopted by the States Statistics Unit. The figure of 1.1% is simply the differences between December each year. The Statistics Unit use the same methodology for calculating the size of the workforce in relation to the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the Jersey economy on a calendar year basis.

However, from an economic perspective the most appropriate period is that of an economic cycle because rolling five year averages could be influenced by a significant proportion of the period being either the growth phase or the decline phase of the cycle. This could lead to five year annual average growth figures overstating or understating the underlying growth in the workforce. Taking the previous peak of the cycle in calendar 2000 as the start point, the average per annum growth to 2007 is 0.5%. If the next peak in the economic cycle occurs in 2008, with a similar growth in workforce in 2008 as for 2007, then the annual per annum growth over the full cycle will be 0.8%, .i.e. still below the target 1% per annum.

10. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Housing regarding the ownership of share- transfer properties.

Question

Can the Minister explain the discrepancy between the different figures for ownership of share- transfer properties between himself and Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St Brelade given in July 2008, and if not when, if at all, will he agree to investigate this issue and report to the Assembly?

Answer

Below are the results of the analysis performed by the Population Office :

This  analysis  covered  840  units  of  accommodation  owned  by  25  different  property  holding companies, including Spectrum and Century Buildings.

It is not possible to perform the above analysis without being able to check on the residential status of each owner, as per the Population Office records. This would explain some of the divergence between this broad based analysis, and that of Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St Brelade, which focused on Spectrum and Century Buildings. With respect to these share transfer properties mentioned by Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St Brelade, just over 50% of all units were owned by locally qualified individuals, and a further 17% were owned by Jersey residents waiting to qualify. Of course, all the share transfer properties sampled, including Spectrum and Century Buildings, are reserved for the occupation of qualified residents only.

11. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the case for the introduction of a third supermarket retailer in the Island.

Question

Will the Minister inform members whether he accepts that the conclusion of the DTZ report is that whilst the case for the introduction of a third supermarket retailer has not been made, a "deep- discount" supermarket operator such as Lidl or Aldi would be an appropriate addition to the retail mix in Jersey?

Can the Minister inform members why he considers that it is necessary to conduct an opinion poll over this issue? What additional information does he expect to produce from such a survey? Will he ensure that the public are clearly informed about the essential facts that emerge from the Experian and JCRA retail reports along with those from the Scrutiny and DTZ reports to ensure that any survey of opinion is properly informed?

Does the Minister accept that there has so far been little attention paid to the staffing requirement should  a  third  competitor  in  the  sector  be  accepted  and  will  he agree  to  undertake  such  an assessment  of  where  staff  would  be  sourced  under  the  Regulation  of  Undertakings  and Development Law for such a move?

Answer

I would refer Deputy Southern to my answer to the oral and subsequent questions posed in the States on the 15th July relating to the JCRA report on the impact of new entry in the retail sector by

a large supermarket. In particular, the importance of not relying on a sole source of information to guide policy and the need to take into account a wide range of information, for example, economic matters, inflation, allocation of scarce resources having regard to environmental and planning issues and the potential benefits of competition.

The DTZ Report is an interesting document that has been produced primarily for planning purposes and deals mainly with an assessment of quantitative need. DTZ recognises that its report "is not a study of retail competition on Jersey, and does not consider retail prices or the number of food store operators on the Island; since those are not material land use planning matters."[1] It would not therefore be appropriate to rely solely on DTZ's conclusion that "a case for a third supermarket operator has not been made."

I would not endorse or contradict DTZ's views on discount stores. An alternative view is that an additional general supermarket operator may exert a downward pressure on pricing across a wider range of goods than a discount operator, which carries fewer lines.

A great deal of work has been carried out on retail sector policy in recent years. The information available consists mainly of two technical capacity studies, advice from economics experts and the Competition Authority and commentary from industry bodies and retailers. It is felt that, there is still a need to understand the consumer's view on supermarket and food shopping in Jersey and what consumers think about the impact of a third supermarket. The Statistics Unit has, therefore, been asked to carry out a survey on food and supermarket shopping in Jersey to provide information about what is important to consumers.

People do not need to be aware of the reports mentioned to give their opinion as the survey has been designed in such a way as to explore people's attitudes to food shopping in general, and what is important to them, before moving on to their opinion of the current 'market' for food shopping in the Island. I.e. the survey has been designed to lead people through a thought process beginning with what is important to them and what the current situation is now, before asking them to consider whether they would have any concerns if the current situation changes. We are not asking for people's comments or opinions on specific previous studies, and therefore would not want to point directly to those studies. These studies researched and analyzed aspects of the retail 'market', and were conducted by experts in these areas. These are separate issues to the way the public think or feel about the current food 'market', and this can only be objectively and robustly summarised through a random postal survey which ensures that all Jersey residents' views will be represented.

The additional information that will be produced will be a robust, objective and representative summary of what is important to the general public in terms of their food shopping experience, and how they rate the current food shopping experience in the Island. It will ask about their concerns or otherwise of having a third supermarket operator, before finally asking whether they think Jersey should have one. The survey will also be able to draw out if there are any differences between different sub-groups of the population.

One of the potential benefits of additional competition is that it may encourage firms to use labour more efficiently. A more efficient retail sector will require fewer people (including non-locals) to meet a given level of demand. The retail and wholesale sector employing over a 1,000 non-locals is the third largest employer of non-locals in the private sector. The nature of any licence granted to a supermarket operator will depend on the timing of the application and the conditions in the labour market, retail sector and wider economy at the time and will be assessed against the individual merits of any application, in the same way as past applications to employ people in the supermarket sector have been considered.

2. Oral Questions The Deputy Bailiff :

We come to Oral Questions. Deputy Pitman is malade, so the second question is from Deputy Power, a question for the Minister for Health and Social Services.

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the demand for respite care beds.

Can the Minister confirm whether the department is experiencing an excess of demand over the supply of respite care beds?

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

I would like to hand over to my Assistant Minister to answer this question. Out of courtesy, I did clear this with the Deputy before the States convened.

Senator J.L. Perchard (The Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services - rapporteur):

I am assuming the focus of the Deputy 's question is upon respite care beds for older people rather than the general question concerning respite, as respite also relates to other client groups such as those with special needs and those with physical disability. At Little Grove Nursing Home there are 5 respite care beds for those older people who require nursing care as part of their respite stay. The current occupancy rate for this service is approximately 80 per cent with obvious variation depending on needs of clients at any time. At the Pinewood Residential Home there are 2 respite beds for those older people who do not require nursing care as part of their respite package. The occupancy rate for this service is currently 90 per cent, again with understandable variation. Respite care beds is not synonymous with the respite care strategy, Sir. In this respect, the service is deficient in some areas. One of the great deficiencies is the lack of provision for carers who require access to short respite. In other words, respite of such duration to enable a carer to go shopping, to enjoy some personal time or, indeed, to look after his or her own health and wellbeing. I am pleased to inform Members and the questioner that I am currently chairing a steering group involving stakeholders that will develop a carer strategy for all client groups. A report with recommendations will be submitted to the Council of Ministers before the year end and the Minister for Health and Social Services and I intend to share the report with Scrutiny in the New Year.

1. Deputy S. Power:

Could I ask the Assistant Minister to give a little more detail in the deficiency he referred to in the provision of beds for carers so that they can have a break? Can he give an indication of the extent of the problem?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I beg the pardon of the questioner if he misunderstood. The deficiency is not about beds for carers. It is support for carers, and that is where we consider the service to be deficient. So we support carers, enabling them to continue to provide support for, usually, their loved ones.

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

Does the Assistant Minister believe that there is, in fact, a highly suppressed demand for this service and would he outline, Sir, what is going to be in his department's view the role of the private sector in the provision of these services?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

There is no evidence, as I demonstrated, that there is a highly suppressed demand for this service. It is the department policy, as the questioner well knows, to engage public/private partnerships with the provision of respite care wherever possible.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Assistant Minister outline whether this care in the private sector is being offered at full cost or whether there is provision to help people who struggle in meeting the costs?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Again, the questioner well knows the answer to this question. There is support to the level of 100 per cent for those that are unable to afford respite care support.

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

It is well known that confused elderly patients are better kept in their own surroundings. What provisions will the Assistant Minister be making in this area?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I refer the questioner to my answer in that I am chairing a carers group and we will be developing a strategy to provide support to carers and the strategy will be presented to the Council of Ministers before the yearend and shared with Scrutiny at the earliest possible opportunity next year. The idea of this strategy is to do exactly what the questioner has identified is a recognised weakness of our service, is that we are able to support carers to enable them to continue caring for people that need care in their own environment.

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

The Assistant Minister said that he is chairing a carers group. Could he confirm who is sitting on this group and that they have sufficient experience?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

The steering group is a co-ordinating group. We will be inviting up to 60 stakeholders to a development day which I will be announcing shortly. It is in October. I cannot remember the exact date. These invitations have gone out and 60 people have accepted, and they represent service providers, service recipients, cared for and carers, including all the agencies that have an interest. We will be working together to identify the weaknesses of that current service provision and to develop the strategy which I will be taking forward to the Council of Ministers and, as I say, sharing with Scrutiny in the New Year.

6. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Could he then confirm that on the steering group there are both carers and cared for?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

No, on the steering group organising the strategy we have just one representative from the Jersey Federation of Carers and other than that it is a small group of me and 2 other executives from the department.

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

The Assistant Minister took on responsibility for the social services side of the Health Department. Will he tell the House how he prioritised his work and whether he will reach his targets by the end of the year?

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think, Deputy , that is a little too far removed.

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

I beg your pardon, Sir, I will change that question. Will he tell us what priority he gave to dealing with respite care?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I gave this important subject every priority. The questioner will know that the department has been very busily prioritising its agenda, the children's service and the deficiencies in the respite service not only for older people but we do have deficiencies in the provision of respite for other client groups which we have urgently prioritised. We will be seeking to provide solutions which will require resources, unfortunately, in the next year.

8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

Could he confirm if Health and Social Services provide any respite beds within their care homes, and also just another quick question regarding the steering group, if there is a representative from the Carers Federation on that group, please?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes, I did confirm to Deputy Gorst , who asked that question, there is a representative from the Carers Federation at the steering group. Yes, there is. I can confirm that Health and Social Services do not provide respite care beds for the elderly in-house.

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

Is the Assistant Minister aware of a report that was compiled by the Jersey Carers Association I think only in the last 12 to 18 months? Is he absolutely determined that he is going to push this strategy through and it is not going to turn into another talking shop?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes, I am aware and have been in dialogue and have attended the A.G.M. (annual general meeting) of the Jersey Carers Federation recently. I am in dialogue with the chair and members of that Federation and no, this is not a talking shop. I know there has been an impasse at Health and Social Services over the last decade. I think there is a momentum now to move things on. Less of the talk, more action will be what you can expect from the Minister and I.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Power, do you wish to ask a final question?

10. Deputy S. Power:

If I may, Sir, thank you. Could I ask the Assistant Minister to clarify; I may have missed the detail. In one of the answers he referred to the number of beds that are available to those elderly that allows their carers to have a break or respite. Can the Assistant Minister indicate the number of beds that are currently available, the deficiency and the location of those beds? Thank you, Sir.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I am not aware of any new question here. There are 5 nursing beds available at Little Grove and 2 at Pinewood for care beds. I do not really understand the extra question being put to me.

Deputy S. Power

I am happy with that; I do not want to go on and ask for further detail. Thank you, Sir.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Can I ask a point of clarification from the chair, Sir? When a Member is absent for oral questions, is it normal practice that any written work prepared for that answer is passed directly to the questioner? Is that the default position? If not, can I seek assurance from the Ministers for Treasury and Resources and Social Security that they will pass on any prepared answers to Deputy Pitman?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

I am perfectly prepared to send Deputy Pitman a copy of what I was going to say had I been asked the question.

Senator P.F. Routier:

Yes, I would be prepared to do that as well, Sir.

2. Deputy S.PoweroftheMinisterforTransport and Technical Services regarding a trial of 2 electric Smart cars supplied by the JEC.

Can the Minister advise the Assembly whether the department's trial of the 2 electric smart cars supplied by the Jersey Electricity Company was successful and whether he has any plans to specify that hybrid diesel electric buses should be incorporated into the future Connex and/or public bus transport fleet?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): Transport and Technical Services is not currently involved in a trial of electric cars and did not conduct any official trial of the aforementioned Smart cars. However, I am supportive of such initiatives and the department will keep a watching brief on the market for both electric and hybrid vehicles and assess their suitability and costs to be used within the States fleet. I did express some public support for the Smart car scheme and I am pleased to inform the Deputy that the Minister for Planning and Environment took the wheel of one of the cars and tested it personally, and I am sure he will find the Minister's views most illuminating, as I did. As far as plans to specify hybrid buses in the future, negotiations on the contract extension included an agreement that Connex will support the introduction of hybrid vehicles and I am aware that the company is now assessing vehicles of this nature. I am very keen to see such vehicles operating on the Island's bus network, and both Transport and Technical Services and myself will progress this matter and monitor it very closely.

2.2.1 Deputy S. Power:

I thank the Minister for his reply. Could I ask the Minister to clarify what happened to the 2 electric Smart cars that were featured in a handover ceremony by the Jersey Electricity Company to his department?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

I regret to inform the Deputy that no such handover ceremony took place. I wish it had done. The cars are extremely expensive and cost about £19,000 each, so having 2 presented to the department would have been a sheer delight. Regrettably, no such handover took place.

3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the cost of new cancer drugs.

I did email the Minister that this question was not exactly as I had worded it due to a last minute change and asked if he would accept the original version, but I have not heard from him.

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, you must ask the question as it is in the Order Paper, Deputy .

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Yes, Sir. I am just prefacing this question by the fact that it was not the question I had asked. Given that it is predicted that new cancer drugs will cost the National Health Service an additional £50 billion next year, would the Minister outline the implications for patients with cancer who wish to have access to these drugs in Jersey and the impact on the Health and Social Services budget?

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

The Deputy is right to draw attention to the high cost of modern cancer treatments. While modern society is right to acclaim the benefits of modern drug technologies which enhance life and extend the quality of life, these benefits cost huge sums of money. In fact, huge sums that perhaps it is difficult for the Jersey taxpayer to comprehend. The National Health Service on the mainland alerted the general public to the increasing cost of drug treatments for cancer patients. The high costs are due to the enormous research and development resources by drug companies to bring them from the laboratory to the hospital. Sorry, I have been given an answer by the department; I am just trying to cut it down a little bit because it is a bit waffly. Within the spheres of haematology and blood cancer treatment costs, expenditure has grown from under £50,000 in 1996 to a projected spend of over £400,000 in 2008. Within the context of cancer drug costs, Jersey's Retail Price Index is irrelevant. The current inflationary increases in drug treatment for cancer patients is estimated at being between 15 and 20 per cent over the next 5 years. These costs will have to be borne within the resources made available to my department, which is quite a struggle.

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

There is a whole raft of implications for the States of Jersey budget in relation to cancer care and also for treatment for patients and patients who are receiving treatment. I would like to ask many questions, but I had better try and just stick to a couple if I can. The first one would be if a patient elects to receive cancer care drugs that are not prescribed or available from the Health and Social Services Committee or the States of Jersey, will that interfere with their right to access other services in conjunction with those treatments?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

This is a very difficult question. The Health and Social Services Department obviously takes advice from its experts and consultants in any particular field, and certainly as a politician you would not overrule their expert advice. We go by the N.I.C.E. (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) guidelines, the clinical guidelines that are prevalent in the United Kingdom, and drug treatments would be within those guidelines. The care given by the department would always be within the guidelines provided by N.I.C.E.

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

I think maybe it is a bit of a tricky question I asked. Maybe just in order to get out what I was trying to seek, which is important, normally the hospital has a practice that if you elect to have an operation outside of this jurisdiction, you may face difficulties coming back to Jersey to receive, for example, after care services like rehabilitation, et cetera. They may not wish to follow up or be responsible for something that has happened outside of the Island. In that same context, I am trying to ascertain if a drug is more effective for cancer and is purchased privately by the patient that does not fall within the N.I.C.E. guidelines, will that patient purchasing that drug forfeit the right to the support services that would be available if they had have taken the other drug?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

With all due respect to the questioner, it does sound to me like he is talking about a specific case. The guidelines are there for a reason because obviously we have a budget and we have a system. If you come within the system you will be treated within the system. If you go out of the system, you will be treated outside the system. We cannot give an open chequebook to people who wish to be treated outside of the system.

3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Following the same theme, Members will be well aware from the U.K. (United Kingdom) media that a lottery seems to operate in the U.K. with regard to cancer treatment. I would just like to try and establish - he mentioned the N.I.C.E. guidelines - can the Minister assure Members that any available cancer treatment will be offered to Jersey residents, regardless of costs, best suited to their medical condition prevailing at the time?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

What I can give the assurance of is that any available cancer treatment recommended within the system by our consultants will be provided to Jersey residents. What I cannot give is a carte blanche guarantee that people can go out and select their own cancer treatments because some of these cancer treatments come in at quite literally hundreds of thousands of pounds. We quite literally have million Pound patients and to give that sort of service you would have to give me an unlimited budget.

4. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Perhaps it is me that is being confused, but I am not sure quite that I understand what the Minister's answer was to the Deputy 's initial question. He is obviously well aware of the situation in the United Kingdom where people have opted for drugs which are not on the N.I.C.E. list and then been refused treatment afterwards in an N.H.S. (National Health Service) hospital. Can he confirm that that is the case in Jersey? If it is, could he confirm that he will undertake to review that that is appropriate? Because it seems to me, Sir, that it is not. Thank you.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

The N.I.C.E. guidelines have had an enormous attack in the U.K. by various parties saying that the thresholds are too low and that they have not adjusted for changing technologies. What we cannot do is pick up the pieces if people try out untested and untried treatments off their own back, as Deputy Le Claire said, in a foreign country and then expect us to pick up the pieces. This is a very complex issue which is very difficult to answer in the States Chamber. What I will say is the N.I.C.E. guidelines are under review at the moment. They are under review in the U.K.; they are also under review in Jersey. There is a body that feels that the way the N.I.C.E. guidelines are formulated is the wrong way to go about providing cancer treatments, but I cannot give the Deputy the assurance that the department  will pay  for  any treatment  at any cost. We have to have guidelines, we have to have a policy and obviously we have to operate within budgets.

5. Deputy I.J. Gorst :

Thank you, his answer is slightly clearer if a little fuzzy around the edges. Could he confirm that he will then either issue some guidelines that the members of the Jersey public can understand or even that States Members can understand so there is a little bit of clarity about what is available or what is not available?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I certainly have no hesitation in doing that. My Assistant Minister and I are quite fortunate because there are no States sittings or very few States sittings over the next couple of months which will give us plenty of time, because we are not involved in elections either, to come back to the Deputy hopefully by the end of the year or early next year.

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

That was precisely the question I was going to ask, do we have a timescale that we could indicate to people that are clearly worried about their condition and their care as to when this information will be available as to a way forward that you see is practical and achievable? Thank you.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

We obviously have current guidelines in place, but given the amount of publicity and the amount of disquiet in the U.K. over the N.I.C.E. guidelines, what I would like to do is review that policy and then provide it to the House rather than give you the existing policy. So if I can come back to the House by, as I said, the end of the year or early next year that would give us enough time to review the situation.

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

The Minister offers States Members and Islanders themselves a very important opportunity to evaluate what is available for people in Jersey given the fact that we have a very high level of cancer rate in Jersey in some areas. Would the Minister undertake also, when he provides us with that paper, to circulate that within the Island to the media so that it is available for people to have access to? Would he also be able to, within that paper, outline how that compares with other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, where we take most of our relevancy from? Just on one last point in relation to access to cancer treatments within the European Union - I appreciate we are not within the European Union - access to cancer treatment within different countries has just been ruled or is being ruled into legislation within the E.U. (European Union) that cancer treatment abroad, basically health tourism, is something that cannot be denied by member states. Would that be something that he could also cover in that paper, please?

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I would be happy to provide the guidelines to States Members together with a .. it would be quite a meaty tome but with a summary for the general public as well. With regard to health tourism, I think that is a different issue. It is another issue that is very important and one that our department is looking at because there has been a movement with regard to health tourism not only in the E.U. but worldwide as governments come under more and more pressure within their health budgets. Health tourism is a serious issue and it is something that we have been looking at. We were looking at it before I became Minister for Health and Social Services, some work by Senator Syvret, and we are hopeful to announce a policy on health tourism in the next few months.

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Housing regarding the provision of a rebate of rent for residents of the Cedars.

This will be a lot shorter, this one. Will the Minister undertake to consider the provision of a rebate of rent or a portion thereof for residents of the Cedars who have had to endure disruption to their lives over the last few months as a result of renovation works?

Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing):

Were the existing rents being charged at the Cedars at full fare rent levels, then I have no doubt a rebate could be or would be worthy of consideration. However, the reality is that the rents being charged are significantly below the department's full fare rent which would be chargeable when the flats are complete and there are no building works going on. Therefore, Sir, the answer to the Deputy 's question is no.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I thank the Minister for accepting the principle that a lowered rate could be charged and note that the lowered rate for the inhabitants of the Cedars was based on the dilapidated condition of their property. Will he consider a further rebate to compensate for the trials and tribulations of the work required to put this shameful state to right?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

The answer is a categorical no. The Deputy does not understand. We are spending £6 million on this refurbishment and there was an article in the paper with 3 or 4 residents. I can assure the

Members of this Assembly that we work with a high-rise representative, 2 of them living in those flats there, and the majority, nearly all of the residents, are quite happy to put up with some of the inconvenience that is carrying on at the moment because they are going to have some wonderful refurbished new windows, new homes, which are going to meet the modern day standards. I do not suppose the Evening Post had too much to print when they did that story, but there are 3 or 4 that have complained to the media and only 2 complaints have been sent to the department and have been resolved on issues. Generally, all of the residents .. I get stopped continuously because I go on the No. 18 bus which passes the Cedars, and residents on the bus keep complimenting me about the courtesy and the work being carried out by the contractors and the courtesy and consideration given by the staff of the Housing Department. You have to remember that there are 74 units of accommodation there and it would have been impossible to move them out. We have done significant refurbishments over the years, last year also - Journeaux Court, Clos du Fort, Clos de Roncier are carrying on - and people have remained in their homes and people have been patient. They will have wonderful homes when this is finished. So the answer to the Deputy is no.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Minister inform Members what timescale was allocated to these repairs, what the finishing date was, and whether that finishing date is expected to be met?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

The completion date is end of April.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will that date be met and how long was the work going on?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

The completion date, Sir, is due for completion by the end of April. I am not the contractor. Working on these old properties at times uncovers extra works or otherwise at times. The Deputy well knows that you can estimate and that is about all you can do.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may, Sir, will the Minister tell Members what the time taken was estimated to be and whether that time will be met?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I will repeat again it is due for completion, Sir, at the end of April. Everybody knows .. I cannot remember exactly the date that the work commenced, but it has been going on for a couple of months at the moment and it is due for completion and it is a huge, huge refurbishment job. You only have to pass around there and have a look at it. The Deputy is unfortunately electioneering with this sort of question. Again, let me just say, Sir, to Members of this Assembly that we have considerable experience in the refurbishment and upgrading of homes at long last by the courtesy of this House allowing us to have the Property Plan, which the Deputy voted against. So these people in normal circumstances would still be living in absolutely horrendous accommodation. Thank you, Deputy , for supporting the Property Plan. My grateful thanks to all the others that did support it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy Le Claire, do you wish to ask a final question?

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

Just to ask the Minister to confirm that there are issues in relation to providing improvements to people in housing. As I did support the Property Plan, I am trying to help the department and not trying to hinder it with these questions. Would he agree with me that the improvements are welcomed but the difficult questions we put to him from time to time are also necessary?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Absolutely, Sir. I am very grateful for Deputy Le Claire who happens to be one of the very few Members of this Assembly that often asks me pertinent questions by email or by telephone and likes to understand both sides of the story. I think the residents of the Cedars and St. Helier No. 1 district are well served by Deputy Le Claire, who .. [Laughter] That is my election speech for Deputy Le Claire, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. We will see if Deputy Southern has similar success when he asks a question of the Minister for Social Security.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding the withholding of benefits via the powers granted under the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007.

Who knows, Sir? Miracles happen. Will the Minister inform Members whether his department has yet instigated action against any individuals in receipt of Income Support which involve the powers granted under the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 to withhold benefits?

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

Article 13(5) of the Income Support Law allows the department to recover over-payments of benefits. A benefit is not withdrawn but regular amounts can be deducted from future benefit payments to recoup any overpayments. These arrangements normally run for 3 to 12 months depending on the amount. The department does take this action if the claimant has provided incorrect information about their circumstances and this has led to an overpayment. The recovery of overpayments was undertaken regularly in several previous systems including family allowance, rent rebate and rent abatement, and also Parish welfare.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may, the question in fact does not refer to reclaiming overpayments; it was intended to refer to withholding of benefits from those not actively seeking work. I apologise if there was a lack of clarity in the question, but that is the intention. Does he have information which would enable him to answer that question now? Has he instigated proceedings on those recipients of Income Support who are deemed not to be actively seeking work?

Senator P.F. Routier:

It appears that this is another of the questions from the Deputy which is misguided and not aimed at the right subject. I do not have the information that he requires and I have to say I am getting totally frustrated by questions which do not mean anything.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may come back with a supplementary on the answer that he did give about withholding benefits from an incorrectly assessed claim, is it not the case that where these circumstances occur, that Income Support is calculated at the level that the household needs in order to subsist and that any withdrawal of that benefit will damage the wellbeing of the household or family concerned, i.e. you are assessed at this level as that which you can exist on and yet we will claw back some of that so you will have to live on less? Does he not accept that that will harm some families?

Senator P.F. Routier:

The only occasions when the claw back comes into play is if somebody has given us wrong information in the past, so it is not felt that it is appropriate to allow people to give wrong information to the department to get higher benefits. So I do not think we should .. I am sure the taxpayer would not be too amused if we did not have a tight and rigorous assessment of somebody's income, and I believe that to ensure that people do give us the correct information the method that we do have to ensure that people do get the correct level of support is an appropriate method.

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I may, one further. I accept and I thank the Minister for the answer that he has given. Can he assure the House that such a claw back is never pursued when the miscalculation on the benefit is the fault of the department in miscalculating or in delaying the assessment?

Senator P.F. Routier: I can, Sir.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Social Security regarding incentives to work and save within the Income Support system.

Perhaps this question is certainly more specific. Following the Minister's statement on 11th September 2008 that there are small incentives to work and to save within the Income Support system, will he explain to Members how these work in relation to how additional earnings below £40 and over £40 per week affect Income Support payments and how savings above the newly defined limits impact upon entitlement to Income Support payments?

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

Again, Sir, I have a bit of a problem with this question because there is no significance to additional earnings above or below £40 per week in the Income Support system. If an Income Support claimant has additional earnings between reviews this will normally be ignored until the next review date. However, the claimant has a duty to inform the department about changes in earnings and the department will advise the claimant if a review needs to take place. Allowing claimants to have the benefit of occasional overtime earnings, small bonuses and extra shifts provides a real financial incentive for the individual. Income Support includes fairly generous disregards for savings of up to £19,669 for a pensioner couple from 1st October. Income from savings and other capital assets is also ignored in the Income Support calculation. Additional savings above the disregard are included in the Income Support calculation on the basis of a deemed income. This provides a simple mechanism to withdraw benefit gradually as capital assets increase. Both the capital disregards and the deemed income applied are more generous than under the previous Parish welfare system.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am surprised by the Minister's answer. Can he confirm that as far as earnings are concerned above a certain level for each additional pound that is earned 94 pence is withdrawn from the Income Support payments, thus leaving people working effectively for 6 pence in the pound as they try and get back into work, perhaps? Secondly, that the capital scheme placed upon savings deems there to be £1 a week deemed income for every £250 over the limit, and that is an effective interest rate, to use that parallel, of some 28 per cent, which as far as I know is unable to be matched anywhere in the market?

Senator P.F. Routier:

There are 3 parts to that question. With regard to the incentives, I think we all know and we all understand that Deputy Southern is not satisfied with the amount of incentives that we currently have and probably I do share that to a certain extent. But having higher incentives does require additional funds to be made available to the income support system. Of course, the only other way of achieving higher incentives, which is something the States decided to avoid, was the reduction of the safety net, the basic amount of money that people live on. I certainly was not prepared to go that way and everybody else involved with income support were not prepared to go below what was the basic welfare rate to create that incentive. So incentives at the present time are lowish but I would love to see them higher. If the States are prepared to let me have more money, well, very, very good, I would be pleased to have that. The Deputy also commented about what he described as a 28 per cent interest rate. He is totally misleading the States and the public in saying that because what he is not doing is allowing for the disregard which people have. When you look at somebody's income in total, including in the case of a pensioner couple of nearly £20,000, the money above that, if you take the whole calculation, does not create an interest rate of 28 per cent.

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Minister persists in producing words which are not related to the question. He does not answer. Will the Minister confirm that the effective rate for earnings is that for every pound extra earned when somebody returns to work or works more, 94 pence in that pound is withdrawn from Income Support, thus leaving them with effectively 6 pence in the pound? Will he also confirm that such a rate on savings, £1 for every £250 over a certain limit, cannot be matched anywhere else in the market and effectively represents a deemed income to the value of 28 per cent?

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am sorry, Sir, but I thought I had answered that question. With regard to the 94 per cent and the 6 pence which people are able to keep from their earnings, the pounds that they go out and earn, that is right but we have to recognise that the way that we have established income support is to ensure that people have the safety net of a basic standard amount of money to live on. The only way to have achieved that higher rate, as I said in my earlier response, is to have a lower safety net and then we would be able to create the incentive to have the higher amount that the Deputy is after. We cannot have it both ways, unfortunately. The same principle applies to the savings amounts.