States Meeting Transcript - 23/09/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 23rd SEPTEMBER 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):.......................................................4

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:................................................4 The Connétable of St. Helier:..................................................................4 Senator F.E. Cohen:............................................................................4 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour : ..........................................................5 Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade:..............................................................5 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.........................................................................5 The Connétable of St. Helier:..................................................................5

1. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008) - paragraph (h) ...............................6

1.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):..............................................6

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.......................................................6
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................7
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7
4. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ..........................................................8
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:................................................8
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................9
7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................10
8. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................10
9. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................11
10. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................11
11. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................11
12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................12
13. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John : ................................................13
14. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................13 The Bailiff :...................................................................................15

2. Draft Companies (Annual Returns - Additional Charge) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.129/2008)..............................................................................17

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................17

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................18
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................18
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................18

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................19 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

3. Draft Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Amendment of Schedule 1) (No. 1) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.130/2008)..................................................19

3.1 The Deputy of St. John (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):............20 The Bailiff :...................................................................................20 Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary ( Deputy Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................................................................................20 The Bailiff :...................................................................................20

4. Income Support, Food Costs Bonus, Income Tax Allowances and/or Exemptions - Increases to Offset G.S.T. on Foodstuffs and Domestic Energy (P.138/2008) .........21

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................21
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................22

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................23
2. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................23
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................24
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................25
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................25
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................25
7. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................26
8. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................26
9. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................26
10. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................27
11. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................27
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................27
13. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................28 The Bailiff :...................................................................................28

3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................29

1. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................30
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................31
3. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................31
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................32
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................32
6. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................32
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................33
8. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................33
9. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................34

10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................34
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................37
12. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................37
13. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................38
14. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................38
15. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................39
16. Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:............................................39
17. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................40
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................40
19. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................41 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................42

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................42

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................42

20. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................42

21. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................42
22. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................44
    23. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................45
23. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................46 The Bailiff :...................................................................................48

STATEMENT ON A MATTER BY THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

..............................................................................................49

5. Statement by the Minister for Economic Development regarding recent global markets..................................................................................49

5.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................49

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................50
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
3. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................50
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................50
5. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................51
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................51

6. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................51

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52
3. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................52
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................52 The Bailiff :...................................................................................53

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................53

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Just before the debate resumes on the Business Plan, Members will be aware that one of the major remaining items of business is the Energy from Waste public inquiry debate. I understand that certain legal advice has been received about that proposition. It may be helpful for the Solicitor General to address the Assembly before we proceed. Do you wish to say any introductory remarks, Connétable ?

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I will wait until after the Solicitor General, Sir.

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

I have been asked to give some advice on the legal aspects of the Planning Law as it relates to the proposition P.136. Public inquiries are dealt with under Article 12 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. Article 12 insofar as it is material provides that this Article applies in respect of an application for planning permission where the Minister is satisfied that if the proposed development were to be carried out (a) the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the population of Jersey; or (b) the development would be a departure other than an insubstantial one from the Island Plan. The Article goes on to say: "Where this Article applies, the Minister shall not determine the application until a public inquiry has been held." Article 19(4) of the same law says that the Minister may grant planning permission in detail or in outline only and, therefore, outline permission is within the definition overall of a planning permission. The Minister can reserve specified matters to be approved by him subsequently if he grants an outline planning permission. There is also reference to reserve matters in another Article of the law. That means that they are held over for the Minister's approval. Given that in this particular instance the Minister has granted an outline planning permission and reserved matters for his subsequent approval, in my opinion Article 12 no longer has any application and it would not be possible for a public inquiry under Article 12 to take place. I do not think I can assist any further at this stage.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Clearly, it would have been helpful if this matter had arisen earlier, not just for me in preparing for today's debate but for other Members. I must raise the question with the House that when I first tabled this proposition calling  for a public inquiry, outline planning permission had not been granted. The Minister took the decision to grant planning permission for various reasons which he felt justified that at the time. It does seem to me that as a Back-Bencher I have now effectively been prevented from bringing a matter to the House. The goalposts appear to have been moved as far as I can see, so clearly I am not really very satisfied with the outcome. I do not wish to take the Assembly through a long debate only for the Minister to be rendered incapable of carrying out the House's instructions were the House to approve the proposition. I wonder whether the Minister for Planning and Environment would have any comments on this, if it is possible to hear his view.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, I do not really have any further comments. The Solicitor General has made clear the legal position which we have all only just found out about. On reflection, if there was to be a public inquiry clearly my decision some time ago when I considered the application in principle may have been different, but the fact is that I made a decision based on advice that a public inquiry was not required at that stage. The decision has been made. We have now got the legal advice and there is really nothing much I can do about it and I do not really have anything else to add. Thank you.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Just before I call the other Members to speak, I think I should clarify, Constable, if you are withdrawing the proposition there is not much point in pursuing a lengthy debate and views from other Members.

The Connétable of St. Helier : I have not yet, Sir.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Briefly, Deputy Duhamel.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

Yes, Sir. Within the outline planning permission that the Minister for Planning and Environment has given, it does refer to a number of reserved matters which before final permissions can be given have to be addressed or the opportunity has to be given to the public and to any other Members of this House for consultation and input. I am wondering - whether or not, if indeed this proposition does not go ahead - when the Minister is thinking of making his final decision and when the opportunity will be afforded to those public members and, indeed, ourselves to make representations on any of the reserved matters which were quite clearly not considered when the Minister gave his outline permission which was mainly to do with the Hopkins designed building.

Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Sir, do the Planning staff who advised the Minister at the time not know what the law is under the Island Plan and should they not have advised the Minister in regard to his decision? It seems to me that this could almost be seen as a deliberate manoeuvre to get through the incinerator without a public inquiry, which in the interests of the Island, of course, the law states should have been held. I certainly think that the Constable  should investigate what documents were presented to the Minister, that should all be made available, and even perhaps Scrutiny should consider whether they would like to report as to whether procedures should be tightened and so on. I think it is despicable that we have a massive incinerator in a prime area of St. Helier and a public inquiry has not been held in accordance with the law, Sir.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: Sir, another point ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): You have already spoken, Deputy .

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I have, Sir. Another point, just to advise the House that when the Environment Scrutiny Panel considered the application it was the intention of that panel to bring forward a review, but we were given advice that because the permissions had been given in outline only that it was not the correct time to do so and that is why that particular line of attack was not pursued at the time. It does strike me as somewhat unfortunate that if that is not the case, as other Members have suggested, we have not been afforded the opportunity of carrying out our duties in a proper manner.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, the Assembly at the moment is with: will the proposition go ahead today or not? Connétable ?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Sir, I would like to thank you, first of all, and the Assembly for permitting this little mini debate to happen this morning. I am sure Members will think that is time well spent. I have also taken careful note of the contributions of Members, particularly of the Planning Minister, and I can advise

the House that I met with my Procureurs du Bien Publique this morning and I have had permission from them to investigate the possibility of a judicial review of the Planning Minister's decision. Having said that, I will now withdraw the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, that is your prerogative. The matter is withdrawn.

1. Annual Business Plan 2009 (P.113/2008) - paragraph (h)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, the Assembly now reverts to the Business Plan debate. We come finally to paragraph (h) of the Business Plan and I ask the Greffier to read that paragraph.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

To approve the legislation programme for 2009 as set out in Part 3 of the report Summary Table H, pages 102 to 104 of the report.

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

Sir, approving the legislation programme for 2009 is the final element of this year's Business Plan proposition. The summary of the proposed programme for 2009 is set out at pages 102 to 104 of the draft plan, and a detailed version of the proposed programme, together with reports on drafting work in progress, programme items for which instructions have not yet been delivered and an outline of the emerging legislation programme for 2010 and 2011 is set out in the annex on pages 150 to 173. Planning ahead for the financial and manpower impact of legislation is critical and setting the legislation programme for the year ahead obviously greatly assists in that planning process. As part of the process, departments requesting drafting time were asked to indicate the financial and manpower impact of their proposed legislation and explain how that impact would be accommodated both within the overall financial framework and within their own departmental budget. Departments were also asked to explain how their proposed legislation would contribute to the implementation of the States approved Strategic Plan. As in previous years, the drafting time bid for in 2009 exceeded the drafting resources available. The information about financial and manpower impact and delivery of the Strategic Plan was, therefore, used to rank the bids. Bids were also assessed as to whether the legislation had to be prepared in 2009 or could be deferred. Using that information, the bids were prioritised. In fact, through co-operation across all departments it was possible to accommodate within the proposed 2009 programme all of the bids that were ranked as essential and on which departments are ready to start work in 2009. Sir, I move the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is paragraph (h) seconded?  [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on paragraph (h)? Deputy Breckon.

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

Sir, I heard what the Chief Minister said about the process. The difficulty I have with this is that individual Members are shut out, in effect, of the process. I say that for a number of reasons. There are 2 areas that I have done some work on over the years. One is Financial Services Ombudsman and the other one is the Regulation of Estate Agents. I did see under a confidential cover both were included and the first I knew that they were not was when I saw the actual Business Plan. They had been taken out, not fitting some criteria or other. The difficulty for an individual Member is if you want to put it in you have to take something out, and then I know from experience, having done this, the world will stop turning when something has to come out for 20 days or 30 days. Having said that, in this situation last year, the Economic Development Minister said that the Licensing Law review must be in for law drafting, and if Members have a look you will see that it is not there and not yet gone to consultation. This is not the first time that some

former Committee President or Minister has stood up and said something must stay in, it must be done. The other thing I notice in the annex it says, quite cleverly I think, when instructions were first received; but there are matters that have been in the system for a long, long time and have not been progressed. I know we used to have a law drafting decision conference, but it was open to everybody. I am really concerned that some Members get shut out of this process and it goes on. I know what the Chief Minister said; there have been bids, some things against others, but people have been excluded from that process who might have something to add to the argument. I am not convinced that the Ministers have got all the answers because when I submitted a suitcase full of papers to officers at Economic Development for them to go through, they said: "The final decision rests with the Minister." So where the waiting comes in I am not quite sure, if somebody can put something in for a particular preference or other. The other thing where I think there is a disconnect is that in 2002 the Financial Services Commission put together a working group from people in the finance industry - across all sectors of the finance industry - who made recommendations to the Finance and Economics Committee about an ombudsman and, in effect, that process has been sidelined. Now, if that had been part of that working group - and some people who were are still around - then there is a disconnect there. Why bother? Why get involved? Nobody takes any notice. The other thing is I was fortunate enough with the Consumer Council to have a lawyer in private practice as a member, Philip Syvret, who did a great deal of work pro bono on this to work it up and present it to the department. In effect, that work - and do not forget we are talking about that over a billion pounds worth of property changes hands every year - has been ignored. That is against a background where in the U.K. (United Kingdom) the ombudsman system is compulsory for estate agents: compulsory for estate agents. That is where we are. That is the real world, and I am concerned that this process shuts individual Members out and it shuts things out that serve the population, because I am not sure all of this does and I am not

sure this system does.

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

Three points: one builds upon Deputy Breckon's point. I do not see any provision for a whistleblower in this list. I would have thought, Sir, with the intense interest in these sorts of issues - although, as the Deputy has said, it is possible to reduce the interest by a battle of attrition - I would have thought that that would have come forward. I know it is being developed in the Chief Minister's Office and it is another one of these things that I think for our international and national reputation should have been here. Secondly, I notice there are a couple of things that rely on E.U. (European Union) legislation and they talk as if in terms: "We are going to apply that E.U. legislation" virtually, yet there is an enormous .. well, relatively speaking, there are an enormous number of days; for example, community provisions re trade in bovine semen: 15 days; Fishery Regulations: 25 days. Those seem enormous amounts of time. The third point is, Sir, if you look at the list I suppose not unsurprisingly it is very heavily finance oriented, except finance ombudsman oriented, and I notice at the very end there creeps in the H.&S.S. (Health and Social Services) Regulation of Care. There is very little social legislation and whether that is because things are honky dory in that area, but does that mean because Regulation of Care is at the bottom of the list it will be done last? Again, that is something that has been on the backburner for a long, long time. It is a common sense case about the regulation of nursing homes and the regulation of the public sector side of nursing homes. It is a common sense case that was conceded years ago. Is it at the bottom of the list or is it going to be done within, say, the middle of the year?

3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Just a couple of questions for the Chief Minister. On the immigration legislation we have again 20 days. If memory serves me right, that was in in 2007 for 2008. I would like some progress on that. I do not think anything has been done. If it has, I would like him to tell me. Bid 29, Telecommunications Law, amendments to the J.C.R.A. (Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority), under revenue impact and full-time employee impact: questions not answered. Well, being on the

sub-panel when Telecoms were going to be sold off, we know we need to strengthen legislation but to back that legislation up we also know there will be quite a significant cost. Could the Minister please let me know. There are a few others. Again, it is trusts, like how do you measure a tax strategist and what the cost benefit will be, and somebody working in the Chief Minister's Office, like under 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, no measurable cost. Does that mean it will not be a cost or the monies coming in will outweigh it? I have a serious question on 40, the Trade Marks Law, again on cost. It says 30 days. We interviewed somebody very knowledgeable in trade marks because we were considering doing this as a review and we would have needed somebody. It is very, very technical, international, and costs lots of money, but I did start off in a very well-known patent office in Lincoln's Inn Fields and I can tell you if you get any of these wrong you can be sued for millions of pounds. To say that we are anywhere .. Guernsey runs a deposit registry with 2 staff at present, was told to us by the expert is an absolute fudge way to do it. I was also told we are not doing it this way, but we have put this in here to say we can do it like that. We cannot and I would like to know the cost. As I say, other than that I think they are perfectly valid questions. Thank you.

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

I believe in other jurisdictions when it comes to law drafting of this kind the legislative programme is often done on a rolling 3-month process so that it is reviewed on a very regular basis. We seem to have a method here whereby everything gets chucked into one year and we hope to get it out the other end of the sausage machine. I would like to know from the Chief Minister what plans there are to review that process and is it reviewed on a regular basis anyway? Because we all know of the logjams that occur. I guess it is probably sometimes quite difficult to predict exactly how many days a law takes to draft. It can sometimes be a moveable feast, so I guess capacity does occur towards the end of the year. Should we be reviewing this programme on a more regular basis? I would suggest that if you look at other jurisdictions, it appears to be often on a 3-month rolling cycle. Another Member, Sir, asked a question about the Licensing Law and I think it is a very relevant time to ask it. The Green Paper which has been produced on this issue is about to be circulated; I see the Economic Development Minister nodding there. We have done a lot of work on this so far and a lot of input from a lot of people and it is a big piece of reading for Members to have a look at. I am disappointed to see that it is not on the legislation programme for 2009. My understanding from the consultation process was that it would be. If it is not, and this is what will happen with this type of process, Members will come forward with minor amendments to big laws, which makes it even more messy, Sir. So I think again this comes back to reviewing the process on a regular basis because if Licensing is not included in the 2009 programme then I can rest assure Members that certainly from a Home Affairs perspective I hope that my successor will be bringing forward amendments to protect public safety and the health of the Island. We cannot wait much longer for this, so I do hope that there is an answer to that. Sir, I would also like to know from the Chief Minister what, if any, extra resources are likely to be put into law drafting because it seems an area that is consistently stretched. I know it is slightly separate to the Attorney General's Department, which got extra funding yesterday, but clearly if you have not got a good, managed law drafting section, all the work we do in here, Sir, almost seems in vain by the time we get to

drafting the laws and amending laws and getting them through. We need to have a programme that is sustainable and is properly resourced. I see the Chief Minister pulling a face there. I understand that, of course, by the time it gets to this Chamber it is drafted, it is in draft form, but there is often then work that needs to be done after that if it does not go through. So is it currently adequately resourced to fulfil the needs of a legislative body of which we are - we are a legislative body, that is our primary function - and if it is not supported with a well-resourced Law Drafting Department then I worry. So I do hope that the Chief Minister is going to tell me that it is well resourced and it is capable of producing the laws that we require to put through this Assembly. Thank you.

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

I appreciate a lot of this legislation is linked to the forthcoming I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) visit. I just wanted to ask about the Charities Law, why there is a need for a separate Charities Law or whether it will or could have linked-in with the proposed Charities Commission?

6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am grateful for both the Council of Ministers' and the Assembly's support for Economic Development, a huge amount of legislation that has been already approved and is approved in this plan. There has been, it must be said, somewhat of a backlog in commercial legislation in the past. The new team at the Chief Minister's Department and Economic Development have done a great deal over the last 12 months to catch up. Members will know that we have had the Foundations Law now lodged, we are shortly to complete the work on the vitally important Security Interests Law - Company Law. There has been a lot done, but there is a lot more to do. Deputy Martin raised the very important question of trade marks. Trade marks is one of a number of pieces of legislation which are going to be coming before the Assembly. I think that the table does not show the law drafting that has already been approved and is currently underway. The trade mark legislation is at the end of all of the other intellectual property rights - the design right, trade mark, copyright. That legislation is going to be coming to the Assembly almost as a suite of legislation, and she is absolutely right to raise concerns about the approaches in relation to trade marks and particularly the cost associated with that. We have put an industry group .. if it gives her some comfort, we have put a local industry group to understand and inform us about how best that we can make the legislation work. We do not want to put legislation to the Assembly that is not of economic benefit to the Island, quite apart from the international legislation. We have secured the services through the Law Officers' Department of a top Q.C. (Queen's Counsel) in relation to intellectual property, including trade marks, to get advice. We have expertise from the London School of Economics together with some big industry players to ensure that our intellectual property including trade marks leaps ahead of the rest of the jurisdictions and put something which is truly world class onto our statute book. There is an increasing view among people that intellectual property could be and can be a finance industry for the future of Jersey. Scrutiny is going to be very important in this whole suite of legislation and the new Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel, I would hope that they are going to spend a great deal of time testing and reviewing that and scrutinising that legislation. But the Deputy is quite right about the concerns to get it right because it is multi-million pounds. She also raised the very important issue of telecoms. I can say to her that there are already changes now being drafted that will be before the Assembly very shortly in relation to telecoms. We want to do away with the simple sanction of taking away the licence,

fortifying the .. and Deputy Southern is nodding at me. I think he is saying that that was one of his Scrutiny Panel's conclusions. We agree on that. Certainly, we are going to be fortifying the powers of the J.C.R.A. to ensure that telecoms regulation works well. Number portability is now going to happen on 1st December, but there is more to do on telecoms regulation. I can also say to the Assembly that that will be assisted by the review that is currently being carried out on the full suite of legislation within the J.C.R.A. and a review which Members would expect me to do of the J.C.R.A. in terms of its competition, O.F.T. (Office of Fair Trading) and the rest. There are discussions with Guernsey. There is a great deal of work which is being done to improve the effectiveness of the J.C.R.A. yet further to deliver economic benefits. I think that covered all of the questions that .. oh, very importantly, finally, the question about ombudsmen, which I know that is very important for Deputy Breckon. Another Deputy raised the issue of the huge burden of legislation and activity which we have had in relation to the I.M.F. legislation. I can say that an official within E.D. (Economic Development) is working on the issue of ombudsmen. We are extending the issue of ombudsmen not only simply to just deal with dispute resolution but to look at the whole issue of the local financial services market. We now have Oxera (Oxford Economic Research Associates) looking at the local mortgage market. I am going to be saying something later today about reviewing the depositer scheme. There is a great deal of work done. I have to say it should perhaps have started before but the pressures that we have had have meant that it could not. We are looking at the whole issue of the operation, effectiveness and regulation of the local financial services market of which an ombudsman is a key part. I support the concept of ombudsmen but the difficulty with all of these things is they cost a great deal of money. I will finally say that Economic Development does have a very large law drafting slot and it is effectively juggled around in terms of when priorities come and when legislation is ready to be drafted. If we can find a simple way to deal with financial services and that financial ombudsman, then I would encourage whoever the Council of Ministers are use of the law drafting slot that is available would allow that to happen. But it is complex and this Assembly must consider the outcome of that review of ombudsmen before that happens. I missed out, finally, the Deputy of St. John in relation to the Licensing review. The Licensing review has got its law drafting already allocated this year as far as I remember. The actual consultation of that is now no longer simply an Economic Development streamlining of Licensing administrative arrangements. Upon the intervention of Home Affairs and Health, the Licensing review is taking a much wider dimension in terms of the issues of law and order in town and the health issues at the Health and Social Services Department. So the Deputy of St. Martin is concerned about the delay. He has a copy of the draft Green Paper because he is very interested in it. The working party have it. I am hopeful that that Green Paper will come out. It is late, but it is late because we have taken account of the other representation and it has taken on a much, much wider review. I think that is the right thing to have done. I hope I have not stolen any of the Chief Minister's thunder. It is Economic Development that seems to be the principal grabber of law drafting time, so I hope that those comments are helpful.

7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Earlier this year I asked a question of the Minister for Health and Social Services with regard to human fertilisation and embryology. In the Chief Minister's summing-up of this section of the legislation programme I would refer him to page 157 of the annex and work in progress, which refers to work in progress being done by Crown Officers on the Human Fertilisation Law and subordinate legislation. It refers to awaiting fresh departmental instructions following recent enactment of legislation in the U.K. If this does refer to human fertilisation and embryology, and if it refers to what was presented to the House of Commons this past summer, I would like to know from the Chief Minister - and perhaps he may have to refer this to the Solicitor General for clarification - on the direction Jersey will be taking in this as I do have reservations about some of the provisions relating to embryology. Thank you.

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

I wish I had had the opportunity to speak before the Minister for Economic Development because this refers to his section with the changing sea route provision in the last few weeks. I know that he and his team are working on reviewing the Oxera work and the rest of the information regarding sea routes and the safeguarding of them for the future, but what I wanted to know was if there is a requirement through the J.C.R.A., et cetera, to review the law safeguarding the pricing of services on a route, would there be time within these .. sorry?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

If the Deputy gives way, I will tell him straight away. The Deputy is absolutely right to point that out. As usual, there are urgent issues that come forward. We did not at the time of the law drafting bids know that we were going to have the difficulties with the competition on sea routes. What we will plan to do with that is to add on and tack-on effectively any licensing of sea routes from the overall competition allocation we have. There is quite a commonality. Bringing in sea routes regulations would require effectively potentially some cutting and pasting of some existing legislation that we already have on telecoms, and I am hopeful that in discussions with the Chief Minister's Department, when we have made those conclusions we will get that law drafting bid and no doubt the Chief Minister will say that there is a slot available for urgent matters. I hope that that would be the case.

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

Just a plea for simplicity. Are we really sure, Sir, that all this legislation is desperately necessary or cannot be done by existing law? I do worry about the onslaught of yet further laws making life even more complicated, and more complication is more expensive. Do departments - and I look for assurance from the Chief Minister - really investigate this aspect of their work or do they just think: "Let us have a new law"?

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

I would just like to respond to the Minister for Economic Development in respect of the Green Paper. I did ask the Minister some time at the beginning of August if the Green Paper was ready for circulation. I did eventually get hold of a copy towards the end of August which I noted that all the responses had to be in by the end of August. I would like to remind the Minister that when he made a statement earlier on - I think early on in the summer - I did ask to get a copy but I also thought it might be useful maybe to let other copies .. make Members aware the Green Paper was in circulation; therefore, others may well have an idea of what is going on. But can I just, in some words of favour for the Minister, say I am quite impressed with the Green Paper. I know the depth it is going into and I can quite understand why there are delays in the outcome because it will be very comprehensive indeed. That is how it ought to be because I think it has to be really a very much forward thinking Licensing law. Could I just ask Members that if they are interested in the Green Paper, maybe they could liaise with the Minister and that Green Paper could be made available to a wider circle because I think it is very useful to see. Thank you.

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

I just return to the theme started by Deputy Martin a while ago. I am very pleased to see that as a matter of some immediate response the review of the powers of the J.C.R.A. under the Telecoms Law is on the statute book. It was obvious from our report, from our investigation when we looked at it on the Scrutiny Panel, that the central issue had been missed by Treasury and Resources because their view is not that of Economic Development and that the key issue was regulation. If you wanted to get the market really working, then you had to give the J.C.R.A. some teeth. That became the issue. It was not a case of: "Well, sell it off and that will do the trick." That was a move which, while it would have brought in a chunk of money possibly - but probably not any more - would not have solved the basic problem about the market. That was about regulation. In a small market, as we know, competition pure and simple in its own right does not solve all the problems, as we have witnessed with the harbours and the link to France. That is not a question that competition there does not work on its own. It is a matter of regulation - tough regulation - service level agreements; that is the way to operate in many cases - in many cases - in small communities. Certainly, telecoms was an illustration of that. Again, I return to the Trade Marks Law, the Registered Designs and the Patents Law, this area of intellectual property. It is suggested by the Minister for E.D. that it should be the first task of any incoming Economic Affairs Scrutiny chair and his team to start here. Having taken a relatively superficial look at the content, good luck to whoever it is if they decide to start here because they could wear out their teeth on this one. It is a massively complex area, but at this time - at this moment - it is not good enough, I do not think, for the Minister for E.D. to allocate what is 90 days' worth of work, taking up a good chunk of next year's legislative Law Drafting Programme, to this area. When with the central question that he dangles in front of us, you could make millions, billions in this particular area, yes; but the central question is: how much would you have to invest and can you really compete with established jurisdictions that already, as in the U.K., have a degree of expertise and mastery there? There is a central question about is it worth the candle to go to this area. So while it sounds very exciting and there could be potentially huge rewards from it, it is an area where the ability for Jersey to do that is very much the central question. Can we do that is very much the question. It is not just a question of getting the legislation right and we can make it work and the millions will pour in. That is not the case. So to present it as such is a bit simplistic. Finally, I suppose I note the total dominance of the Minister for Economic Development in terms of his lion's share ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt you. Would you mind sitting down for one moment? We are not quite quorate. If a Member in the precincts would return to the Chamber ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am getting quite used to it, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Please continue, Deputy .

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I note the dominance of E.D. and, like others, I am concerned that social legislation .. I think we had at the beginning of this 3-year stint of Ministerial government that we were going to have a new social impact and social administration of caring, and yet here we are again with the next year's law drafting and very few .. 2 is it? Two from Home Affairs, one from Health and nothing else on there. So it is a rather limited programme from that point of view. We have to not only look after the people who are making us the money, we also have to look after the people who we need to support. So I am a bit disappointed that that should be so absent. In that area, I look to .. I notice from page 158 of the annex that the Housing Associations Law is stalled still. That is an extreme disappointment to me. Revised final draft sent to departments in October of 2005, and here we are, 3 years later, and we have departmental policy under review. A final draft is 3 years old and we have not brought it to the House. I note with pleasure that the Residential Tenancy Law: "Revised draft to the department in March; out for consultation at the moment", should be ready to come through and does not need to be put on this list because it has already been drafted and will be coming before us, I hope, at the earliest opportunity from the Minister for Housing in the coming year.

12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I just wanted to underline what the previous speaker was saying particularly in respect to the message that this legislation programme sends out as to where the heart of the community and the interests of the community really lies. If we take together the Economic Development Department and the Planning and Environment Department legislation requirements and we look at the time that is being asked for, that amounts to some 85 per cent of the total time available. We did have the Chief Minister a number of weeks ago making a presentation that was going to redefine the heart of the community and to put the emphasis back into social legislation and environmental legislation, but I think perhaps those were empty words, Sir, and certainly are not borne out by the legislation programme that is before us. I find it somewhat ironic that irrespective of the amount of time that will be spent by the Law Officers in drawing up this legislation, if we did another statistical calculation as to the time spent in this House when we consider the legislation, we would probably find that, indeed, we spend the least amount of time on the legislation for financial matters. That raises a general point as to whether or not we have our priorities right and whether or not the mechanism that is afforded to all the other departments for bringing forward their legislative programmes is being prioritised in the correct fashion. One would have expected that the amount of time in legislation and the amount of time that we discuss those particular propositions in the House or the laws in the House would bear some resemblance to each other in terms of the time taken to do so, but that would not appear to be the case. Personally, I do not think it is right that we should be sending out the message that it is money first and money second and money third and anything else comes a poor fourth, fifth or not at all, but  maybe the next election will have something to say about that.

13. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

On the Home Affairs list, item 2, it relates to children and vulnerable adults. Slightly different to that, that might encompass those sorts of people, it was reported in the Evening Post recently an attack on a telecoms engineer who went on to a property looking for his next job. He was attacked by a rather large dog, and savagely attacked at that. They went to the police on this matter and were told there was absolutely no recourse; the police can do nothing about it when it is related to trespass laws. My question to the Chief Minister would be will he look at bringing in some sort of legislation such as a Dangerous Dogs Act because I know for a fact that this particular animal, it

was the third person that this animal had attacked. The owner put the dog down that evening, but 3 people on. Had it been an Alzheimer's patient or something like that wandered on to the property, we would have been dealing with a fatality. I wonder if he would look at that.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Chief Minister to reply.

14. Senator F.H. Walker :

I thank everyone who has spoken and, indeed, for a number of valid points that have been raised. Deputy Breckon kicked off on the subject of the ombudsman and the Licensing Law and I think - I hope he would agree - that the Minister for Economic Development adequately dealt with the questions he raised and the points he made. I would go on to say one thing. It is not the intention of anyone that any Member should be excluded - as Deputy Breckon clearly feels is possible, maybe has been in his case - from the process. I think I would suggest that in future an invitation is sent out to any Member who wishes to bring forward specific ideas for legislation to do so. I think we have all agreed that the decision conference process that was held in previous years was somewhat, to say the least, time consuming and over the top, but I do agree with Deputy Breckon that Members who have particular concerns about legislation should have the opportunity to bring them forward. I hope an invitation might be sent to Members for future programmes to do just that. Of course, we must not rule out - this maybe applies in one or 2 other cases as well - there is some reserve time built into the programme, so the programme as presented, is not necessarily the complete programme. There is always time built-in for emergencies if it is felt that they are, indeed, of sufficient priority. Deputy Le Hérissier raised a similar point, really, in principle about no whistle-blower legislation at this point. Again, that is something that could be given I think further consideration. He also raised a question about E.U. legislation on bovine semen. That, of course, is a consequential law requirement following the debate that the States held a number of weeks ago on the importation of bovine semen, where the States approved for it to happen. He and others raised the point about the programme this year being finance-orientated and yes, it is. The fact is that Jersey has fallen behind many of our competitors in terms of our financial regulation and new product development under legislation. It is very definitely a high priority for the Island to ensure that we not only recapture a leading position but, indeed, move ahead where it is possible. I would remind the Deputy and, indeed, other Members who have made similar comments, Sir, that all Ministers and all departments have agreed this programme. There is no major social legislation that any Minister has been pressing for urgently which is excluded. I said in my opening speech

that all essential legislation as put forward by Ministers is included in the programme.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just on a point of clarification, Sir, in terms of E.U. legislation my point was not whether it was needed or not, it was the fact that it appeared from the entry that we were essentially importing the legislation, which I know with U.K. legislation is a sensitive issue. We were essentially importing it and, if that were the case, why were so many days required for any essentially brought-in piece of legislation?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I think the Deputy has answered his own question. It is not just a question of rubber stamping E.U. legislation; it is making sure that we have legislation which is fit for purpose in Jersey and which meets Jersey law, otherwise the number of days allocated would not be anything like those in the current programme. The Deputy also raised the question about the Regulation of Care, the Health and Social Services inclusion in the plan, and said because it comes last on the list does it mean it is the lowest priority? No, it does not. These are not done in the order in which they are presented. There is an internal mechanism and that will, I am told, without doubt be coming forward in 2009, which of course is what we need. I think Deputy Martin's points were all answered by the Minister for Economic Development, Senator Ozouf , but if there is anything she feels he did not cover I will, of course, do my best to answer it. The Deputy of St. John asked is the process reviewed. Well, yes, it is. It is reviewed annually. In fact, it is reviewed bi-annually. He referred to logjams. I am not aware of any major problematic logjams at this time. The Law Drafting Department are doing and have done a quite sensational job in bringing forward legislation and they are to be very highly commended, I think, and indeed thanked by Members for the work they do, which is intensely pressurised work on a very small department. The Deputy also talked about the Licensing Law which I think Senator Ozouf has dealt with, although he did say he was concerned that it was not included. Well, I can again say that all departments were consulted and all departments have confirmed that their major priorities - their essential legislation - is included in the programme. Deputy Scott Warr en asked about the Charities Law which I think, again, was dealt with by Senator Ozouf . It was not? I am sorry, I thought it was. Sir, in that case I have wrong-footed on that one. The Charities Law .. this is the one to codify what is a charity for the purposes of Jersey law?

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

What I had asked is why, really, it was linked to the Charities Commission because one wonders why you need effectively possibly 2 pieces of legislation.

Senator F.H. Walker :

It is the same thing, Sir, and it will lead to a Charities Commission as planned. I am very grateful to Senator Ozouf for his very helpful intervention and also confirming that there has been previously a backlog in commercial legislation which this year's programme is unblocking, which we need. Deputy Power raised a question about the Human Fertilisation Law and referred to the fact there has been a long piece of work in progress and wants to know if we are going to be following the U.K. because I think I am right in saying he has some concerns about what is included in that legislation. Well, I cannot answer that in detail in terms of what is being worked on specifically, but of course any legislation will come forward in draft form and every Member will have every opportunity to comment on it. I think Deputy Fox's point was dealt with by Senator Ozouf . Deputy Ferguson asked is all the legislation necessary. I cannot give her an absolute undertaking that every department is only bringing forward legislation that is absolutely essential. What I think I can say is that I know that every Minister is determined to keep the legislation burden to a minimum but equally determined that Jersey's legislation should be fit for purpose in an ever-changing and modern world. I know Ministers do look very closely at the legislation coming out of their departments, so I think she can have some degree of comfort in that respect. It is growing ever more complicated. Legislation is placing greater burdens on the people of Jersey, but I am afraid that is the world we live in. It is the same everywhere else, sadly, I think in many respects. It is absolutely vital for Jersey to keep up. The Deputy of St. Martin raised a question about the Licensing Law, the circulation of a Green Paper to Members, and I can only wholeheartedly agree. I think every Member should be aware of it. I was very pleased that he was impressed with it. Deputy Southern came forward with yet another negative speech on the economy. I am absolutely astonished that the Chairman of the Economic Scrutiny Panel should have such a negative approach to any developments in the economy, but it is very clear from

successive speeches he really has no support for the economy of Jersey at all. Sir, in particular, he talked about the Intellectual Property Law. He should be welcoming this with open arms. This is low manpower and the Deputy is constantly reminding us about growth in manpower numbers. This is low manpower and measured against the potential return very low investment. It is tailor- made for the shape and structure of the Jersey economy. The Chairman of the Economic Scrutiny Panel  should  be  welcoming  it;  having  satisfied  himself  that  it  is  fit  for  purpose  should  be welcoming it with open arms rather than talking it down at this stage. Goodness knows what shape the economy would be in if Deputy Southern had any say in its management, goodness knows. [Approbation] Sir, I have been personally involved in discussions with some very, very serious world players - and I mean serious world players - on intellectual property. Let there be no doubt, Jersey has an outstanding opportunity to move ahead of other jurisdictions in this respect. This could be the next arm, leg, call it what you will, of the economy that we have long been seeking. So, again, I really do not know where Deputy Southern comes from in matters economic. Deputy Duhamel  said  what  message  are  we  sending  out  because  the  programme  is  biased  towards Economic Development and he is right, but there are no serious outstanding social issues that Ministers have said should come into the programme ahead of this. We have done a huge amount in terms of social legislation in recent years, a huge amount, and the Deputy is quite right in pointing out that the Council of Ministers, and me in particular, have made some very strong comments  about  the  development  of  the  social  structure  of  Jersey  and  development  of  the environment  and protection of the environment  in  Jersey. By  no  means all of  that requires legislation. If there were pressing needs for legislation either socially or environmentally, they would be included in the programme. The Constable of St. John, finally, asked about a Dangerous Dogs Law. Well, having had my son attacked by an Alsatian I have every sympathy with him and so I would suggest that is something that he should take up with the Home Affairs Minister because I can absolutely see the point. So I hope that covers all the questions and all the points that were raised. In maintaining the proposition, I would like once again to reiterate my congratulations and my warm thanks to the Law Draftsman and her team for the superb work they do in supporting this

Assembly and in supporting good government. [Approbation] Sir, I maintain the proposition.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Sir, can I just make one point of clarification? The Chief Minister mentioned the issue of the Licensing Law and the Deputy of St. Martin's concern that we did not have the slot. If the Deputy would look at the annex he would see all of the existing legislation with existing slots. We are only September and so there is still a lot of work to do; we have already got the slot to deliver it.

The Bailiff :

Appel? Yes. I ask any Members in the precincts who wish to vote to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier  to  open  the  voting,  which  is  for  or  against  paragraph  (h)  of  the  Chief  Minister's proposition.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Sir, could I perhaps answer a question asked by Deputy Breckon yesterday about some figures on property sold by Housing? Would you allow me just to ..?

The Bailiff :

If it is very brief, Senator.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Very briefly to the question asked by the Deputy yesterday, since the Property Plan the open market sales from housing has been 4 sales, £1.4 million, and the sales to tenants totals 88, £19.1 million. There are 18 further sales on the go at the moment, Sir. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Minister. That completes ..

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Sir, could I make an observation? One knows throughout this debate we have had any number of occasions when we have not been quorate. I do find it rather galling that when a Member or someone  is  wrapping-up  or  closing  his  debate  that  Members  do  not  take  that  as  a  signal, particularly those outside the Chamber, that that is a time at least to make an entry to ensure they are here for the vote. What I do find disturbing is that time is given, certainly by you, Sir, as Speaker, to allow Members who are outside the Chamber to return to the Chamber to vote. I took the proposition through the States regarding the simultaneous votes and it was intended that when the vote was called for the vote would be taken. However, at that time Senator Lakeman was the President of Privileges and Procedures and he said: "Well, maybe give time, we ought to allow Members to return to their seats" because he was one of those Members who used to wander round the Chamber. All I would say, Sir, with respect, that when a vote is called for, the vote is taken

there and then, not to allow Members to drift in. We had about 8 or 10 came back after you had called for the vote. The time was lost. We are losing time and this is even adding to it, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Well, Deputy , I think that is a matter for the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I believe that the chair is fulfilling the wishes of that Committee at the moment in allowing Members some time to come back. [Approbation]

The Deputy of St. Martin :

With respect, Sir, it does not say to return to the Chamber; it says return to the chairs.

The Bailiff :

We will give that some consideration, Deputy .

2. Draft  Companies  (Annual  Returns  - Additional  Charge)  (Jersey)  Regulations  200- (P.129/2008)

The Bailiff :

That completes the debate on the Business Plan, and we come now to Projet 129, Draft Companies (Annual Returns - Additional Charge) (Jersey) Regulations, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation to the draft.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Companies (Annual Returns - Additional Charge) (Jersey) Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of Articles 201(2) and 220(1) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, have made the following Regulations.

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

Members will recall that in April 2007 the States passed the Financial Services Commission (Amendment No. 4) Law. One of the objectives of Amendment No. 4 was to give effect .. [Interruption] to the Edwards Report, also reflected in the I.M.F. Report, that regulatory bodies and government should be clearly independent of each other. In the past, the Financial Services Commission paid an annual contribution to the States determined by the Commission and the former Economic Development Committee and now Minister in consultation with each other. Approximately £4 million was paid in 2007 to the Treasury. Fees under the Company Law were set by Order of the Minister having consulted with the Commission. Fees were then collected by the Registrar and formed part of the Commission income out of which the agreed contribution, £4 million approximately, was paid to the States. This arrangement was not considered sufficiently compatible with the Commission's position as an independent body. Amendment No. 4, therefore, transferred to the Commission the power to set fees under the Company Law in respect of registrar's fees. This means that fees levied will fund the cost of administering the register in a direct and transparent manner. The States were given power under the amended Article to set an additional fee by Regulations to replace the Commission's annual financial contribution. This additional amount is to be paid by the Commission directly to the Treasurer of the States as in the past. These Regulations are those envisaged exactly in what was set out in April of 2007's amendment. Having consulted with Jersey Finance on the prospect of increasing the total fee, the Minister for Treasury and Resources has decided it would be appropriate to maintain the existing position for 2009 so that the overall filing fee for the annual return will remain at £150. The Commission have indicated it is their intention to set the annual return fee of £35 as representing the costs of running the register and processing the annual return, et cetera; therefore, the Regulations will set a fee of £115 for the States element. Sir, I propose the principles of the

The Bailiff :

The principles are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the Regulations?

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Yes, Sir. I thought the annual return fees could be an opportunity of getting something back for the offshore companies that are registered in Jersey. I think I did speak to Senator Le Sueur about this, because it raises an amount of money but there could be potential with going to Zero/Ten for raising an awful lot more in this capacity because it is not actually a tax. Thank you, Sir.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

The Deputy of Grouville is quite correct in that assumption, but in looking at the fees charged to companies for operating in Jersey, we try to take a more holistic view. In relation to the charge for G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) for financial services companies, we have imposed a charge on every company registered or operating in the Island. That will add to the costs of those companies, Sir, and before adding a further cost to those companies I wanted to ascertain the effect that that particular aspect had on their willingness to continue to operate out of Jersey. This matter, as far as I am concerned, is very much a live one and it will be reviewed each year in order that if we can extract some more money in this way we should do so, but I have no wish to kill off the geese or the eggs which are laid currently by many of these geese, Sir.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister to reply.

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Sorry, Sir, can I just ask a question before the Minister replies? The £115 is the element to be paid by the Jersey Financial Services Commission to the States. The total to be levied on a company,

which would be levied by the Financial Services Commission, is what and how is the income specifically for the Commission regulated?

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I will deal with Senator Perchard's question last. The total fee that will be charged by the Commission is going to be £150. £35 will be effectively retained in the overall calculation. £35 will be retained by the Commission to run the registry. This Assembly has given the Commission the ability to set in a number of different respects its own fees. However, there is a consultation and a very transparent process with the Commission in relation to its consultation with the industry to ensure that the Commission are simply not setting the fees outwith of the views of the industry, et cetera. Of course, the Minister for Economic Development does have reserve powers under the Financial Services Law in respect of corporate governance and other matters and also the Comptroller and Auditor General reviews and has already carried out a review and the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) has looked at the overall funding issues of the Commission. I think there is, certainly as far as my information is, I think there is a much greater level of confidence in the Commission and the way that they go about setting fees and the transparency of arrangements, and certainly there is not the political intervention, which cannot be right. It cannot be right that there is a political intervention in setting fees. The Commission must be regarded as separate. In relation to the Deputy of Grouville 's question, she is absolutely right to have the objective of wanting to raise as much money as possible out of company formation and the registry in Jersey. The key question that we are discussing is how best can we achieve that? Some jurisdictions, such as the B.V.I. (British Virgin Islands) and Cayman, operate much, much larger company registries and some of them operate as almost warehousing. I am looking forward to celebrating the 50,000th company that is going to be incorporated in Jersey. We think that the Jersey Registry, on the back of our very sound regulation and our gold standard approach in relation to financial regulation, is going to mean that we are going to become increasingly a preferred place for our registry to be

used, but we do not want a "pile it high and sell it cheap" approach. We want to maintain all of the gold standard elements of our registration. The thing that the Deputy of Grouville will be aware - I know she has some relevant industry experience - is that that price and that annual fee is very market sensitive. So the Minister for Treasury and Resources, in consultation with E.D., the Commission and Jersey Finance .. not the Commission, Jersey Finance, is very attuned to see how we can make sure that the fee is not going to be a disincentive to use Jersey. I am very confident that our registry and Jersey companies are going to be used increasingly. The Jersey Finance trip that has just returned to the Island from Hong Kong and other places in Asia/Pacific indicates that there is a huge opportunity for Jersey companies to be used as a gateway through to the financial markets in London. The Minister for Treasury and Resources and I will continue to keep this under close review to ensure that the fee maximises the overall economic benefit to Jersey. Of course, I would remind Members that in the fiscal strategy, as difficult as G.S.T. has been, of the amount of G.S.T. which is raised - £7 million - is from the financial services; and financial services is not only simply the fee, there are other intangible benefits such as the fees on the partnerships and lawyers and accountants and banks that flow from the use of the Jersey registry. But her comments are noted, taken on board, and we will keep the matter under constant review. Sir, I move the preamble.

The Bailiff :

The principles of the Regulations are proposed. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show? Those against? They are adopted. The Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel is not here. Vice- Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, Deputy Breckon? No? Well, Minister, do you wish to propose the Regulations as amended by your Ministry?

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Indeed. If I may, the proposed amendment is intended to make the Regulations fairer for companies. The original Regulations apply in relation to all annual returns filed after the Regulations came into force. This would include returns for 2008 if they were filed late. An additional fee will thus have to be paid by the company meaning that effectively it would be paying the States an element of fee twice. To avoid this perceived injustice, the amendment will disapply the Regulations in relation to annual returns for 2008 or earlier. I have made comments in relation to the rest of the Regulations. I move the Regulations as amended en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Regulations 1 and 2 as amended by the Minister are proposed and seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? I put the Regulations as amended. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show? Those against? They are adopted. Do you move the Regulations in Third Reading, Minister?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Regulations in Third Reading? I put the Regulations. Those Members in favour of adopting them kindly show? Those against? They are adopted in Third Reading.

3. Draft Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Amendment of Schedule 1) (No. 1) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.130/2008)

The Bailiff :

We come next to Projet 130 - Draft Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Amendment of Schedule 1) (No. 1) (Jersey) Regulations - and I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States: