States Meeting Transcript - 24/02/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 24th FEBRUARY 2009

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................8

1. Public Accounts Committee..............................................................8

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................8
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................8

2. Lifting of Standing Orders - removal of 90-minute limit ................................9

2.1 Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. of St. Martin : ..................................................9

QUESTIONS.....................................................................................10

3. Written Questions.......................................................................10

1. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STABILISATION FUND:..................10
   2. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE LATEST FINANCIAL REPORT ON HARCOURT:..........................................................................11
   3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON THE PURCHASE OF SHARE PURCHASE PROPERTIES:.........................................................................11
   4. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE USE OF SCHOOL BUSES TO EASE CONGESTION DURING THE MORNING RUSH HOUR:........12

6. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE SUSPENSION POLICY:..........................................13
7. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE INSTALLATION AND AMENDMENT OF SIGNS:............................................................13
8. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF THE GOVERNANCE FUNCTION WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT:.......................................................................14
9. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MEANS-TESTED TRAVEL POLICY: .........................................................................................15

10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING HARBOUR MAINTENANCE ARRANGEMENTS: 16
11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HARCOURT:..................................................17

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING INCREASING GST DURING THE RECESSION: 18
13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING ARTICLE 39A OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2002: ...................................19
14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL

SECURITY REGARDING SUPPORT FOR WORKERS MADE REDUNDANT: ....20

15. DEPUTY T.M.PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY CONSULTANTS FROM 2004 TO 2009:..............................................21
16. DEPUTY T.M.PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE POTENTIAL TO USE LA COLLETTE FOR HOUSING PURPOSES:................................................................22
17. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE ROAD WORKS AT BEL ROYAL:................................................................................23
18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF (j)' CATEGORY HOUSING APPLICATIONS:......................................................................24
19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING HOUSEHOLDS ON PROTECTED PAYMENTS: ........26
20. SENATOR P.F. ROUTIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING SERVICE PROVISION WITHIN THE SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION:.............................................................................28
21. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WASTE STREAM CRITERIA APPLIED DURING THE BABTIE-FICHTNER TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2008:....30
22. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE SCOPING OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT: .......................31
23. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND

TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE INCINERATOR AT BELLOZANNE:37

24. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT: ..............................................................38
25. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:........................................39
26. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL HOUSING: ......................40
27. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING ASSISTANCE FOR ISLAND RESIDENTS WHO LOSY MONEY WITH LANDSBANKI BANK:.......................................41
28. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PAYMENTS FOR THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT: ..............................................................44
29. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING (j)' CATEGORY CONSENTS FROM 2005 TO DATE: ..............45
30. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE COST OF CONSUNLTANTS' REPORTS FROM 2005 TO DATE:................................................................47

31. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES FROM 2005 TO DATE: ......48
32. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE DEMAND FOR 2, 3 AND 4-BEDROOM ACCOMMODATION:53

4. Oral Questions...........................................................................53

1. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the total fees paid to Hopkins Architects Limited to date by the Planning and Environment Department:..............................................................53 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................53

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................54
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................54
3. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................54
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................55

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding measures to deal with potential increases in thefts and burglaries in the Island:...................55 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................55

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................55
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................56
   3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s regarding the use of land donated to them for the use of families with limited means to use as allotments:.......................................................................56 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen (Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s): .............56

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................57
2. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................57
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................57
   4. Deputy S. Power of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding facilities at the new Energy from Waste plant for members of the public to deliver mixed loads of combustibles: ..................................................................57 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .........................................................................................58

1. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................58
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green, M.B.E. of St. Helier:............................................58
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................58
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................59

5. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Social Security regarding the cost of supplying medication to patients since the removal of prescription charges:............59 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................59

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................60
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................60

3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................61
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................61
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................61
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................62

6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the cessation ofthe reciprocal Health Agreement with the United Kingdom:...............62 Senator J.L. Perchard (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.........................62

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................63
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................63
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................64
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................64
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................64

7. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the attraction of a Chairman and Panel members to review the role of the Bailiff and the Law Officers: ..65 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................65

4.7.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................65

8. Deputy A.K.F. Green of the Minister for Economic Development regarding potato leachate discharged from Beauport:....................................................66 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................66 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development):.....66

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................66
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................66
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................67

9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the annual sum payable by Connex for the rental of Liberation Station:................67 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):.........67

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................67
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................68

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................68

10. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding the amount of former States-owned properties sold since the implementation of the Housing Property Plan:....................................................................................68 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................68

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................68
2. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................68
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................69
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................69
5. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................69
6. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................70

11. Senator S. Syvret of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the employmentof non-(j)' category staff employed in his Department:................................70 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................70

1. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................70
2. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................70

12. The Connétable of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the completion off the Milennium Town Park project by 2011:................................................71 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................71

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................71
2. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................71
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................72
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................72
5. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................72

13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the proposed deemed rental charge: ....................................................73 Senator P.F.C Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................73

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................73
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................73
3. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................74
4. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................74
5. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................74
6. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................75
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................75
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................75
9. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................75

10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................75
11. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier : .................................................76

14. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding Article 39A of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002: ......................76 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................76

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................76
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................77
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................78
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................79
5. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................80
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................80

15. The Deputy of Grouville of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the basis on which the figure of over 250 households per year from 2008 to 2035 was used within the waste arisings model to justify the size of the new incinerator:.........80 The Connétable of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services:..........80

1. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................81
2. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................81
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................81
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................82
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................82
6. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................82

16. Senator S. Syvret of H.M. Attorney General regarding the appeal mechanisms available to victims of crimes should a decision be made not to prosecute their cases:............83 W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:................................................83

1. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................83
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................83
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................84
4. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................84
   5. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................84

5. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Home Affairs..............84

1. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................85 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................85
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................85

5.2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................85

3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................85
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................86
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................86

5.5.1 Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................86

6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................86
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................87
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................87
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................88
10. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................88
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................88
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................88

5.12.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................89

6. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Chief Minister..........................89

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................89 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................89

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................89
   2. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................90

6.2.1 The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................90

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................90

6.3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................91

4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................91

6.4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................91

5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................91

6.5.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................92

6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................92

6.6.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................92

7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................93

6.7.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................93

8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................93
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................93

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................94

7. Draft Companies (Amendment No. 10) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.185/2008) ..............95

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................96
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................96 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................96

8. Draft Companies (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.186/2009)........96

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................97
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................97

9. Draft Summary of Fines (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.6/2009)98

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................98
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................99
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................100
4. The Deputy of St. John:...............................................................100
5. The Attorney General:................................................................100
6. The Connétable of St. Ouen:..........................................................101

10. Energy from Waste Facility: rescindment (P.8/2009).................................103

1. The Deputy ofStMary:...............................................................108

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED................................................111 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT...............................................................111 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption.............................................................112

Energy from Waste Facility: rescindment (P.8/2009) (continued).......................112

2. The Deputy of St. Mary:..............................................................112

3. Energy from Waste Facility: rescindment (P.8/2009) - Amendment (P.8/2009 Amd.) 135

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................136
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................136
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.....................................................136
4. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................137
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................137
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................139

4. Energy from Waste Facility: rescindment (P.8/2009) - as amended..................140

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ..........................................140
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..............................................................142

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................144 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................144

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

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. Public Accounts Committee

The Deputy Bailiff :

Under F, Appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels, there is a matter for the appointment of an additional unelected member of the Public Accounts Committee. Now, in this respect, there is a nomination, I think, by Senator Shenton.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Sorry, Sir, I nominate Senator Breckon for the The Deputy Bailiff :

No, this is for the unelected member.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

[Aside] Sorry, it is Alexander Fearn. My wife often comments that when I am reading I lose all sense of what is going on around me. It is Alexander Fearn to join the Public Accounts Committee and then Senator Breckon will also join in due course.

The Deputy Bailiff :

One at a time as the procedure is different.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

That will make the full complement of members of the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee).

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. Is the appointment of Mr. Fearn seconded? [Seconded] Now, Standing Orders require that any other nomination has to be made with 2 days' notice. There have been no other nominations and, therefore, I declare that Mr. Fearn is elected as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Then, the nomination of Senator Breckon; Senator Shenton, do you make that nomination?

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Yes, Sir, I would like to nominate Senator Breckon to join the Committee.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations for the position? Very well, I declare that Senator Breckon is elected a member of the Public Accounts Committee. There are no matters under G or H, so we then come to questions.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just before we move on to oral questions, I would like to raise a matter of question 24, which is a question that first came to my notice yesterday. I believe that as I was at Operation Cold Play yesterday and I have had no time to prepare an answer to this question, it should have been presented to me at the end of last week. I ask for it to be withdrawn.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, Minister, I am advised by the Greffier that this was deferred from 3 weeks ago, this question; therefore, you have had 3 weeks' notice.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

No, Sir, it was not asked of me 3 weeks ago.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, we probably will not get to question 24 anyway. [Laughter]

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I have not had 3 weeks to prepare for this question. This question was not asked of me 3 weeks ago; it was asked of another Minister.

The Deputy Bailiff :

But are you saying it was not asked within the relevant period on this occasion?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

The first notice I had of this question, formally, was yesterday.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I see. Well, what I suggest is we will carry on and when we get to question 24, then we will see what happens.

2. Lifting of Standing Orders - removal of 90-minute limit

2.1 Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. of St. Martin :

Before we start, we may have 24 questions but we are definitely going to get 23, and I am just asking whether it is more convenient to ask for Standing Orders to be left in before we start so we know that all the questions can be asked, or wait until we get maybe to number 18, which is mine, and maybe the other half a dozen are unlucky. I would like to propose a Standing Order to ensure that all the questions are given time to be answered this morning.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are you making that proposition now, Deputy ?

The Deputy of St. Martin : Yes, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Very well, I can only repeat what I said before; it is a matter, of course, entirely for Members, but either one has a 90-minute limit or one does not. It is inevitable that if you have a limit some questions on some days will fall off the perch. That is a matter for Members. The appel is called for, then, on whether to lift Standing Orders so as to remove the 90- minute limit so that all questions today can be asked. I invite the Greffier to open the voting.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

In order to be helpful, might I suggest that those questions that are not asked are in any event answered by the Ministers and those answers are shared with the other Members?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Certainly. My understanding is that is customary practice. The answers have been prepared by the Ministers and I am sure they will do that if requested.

QUESTIONS

3. Written Questions

3.1. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STABILISATION FUND:

Question

Given that a share portfolio could be subject to substantial losses, would the Minister confirm that the monies in the Stabilisation Fund are retained in the form of cash, and, if not, why not?

Would the Minister inform the Assembly by what value, if any, the Stabilisation Fund has reduced, and how much more, if any, will be lost once the portfolio is liquidated to provide cash support for local businesses?

Answer

The Stabilisation Fund does not invest in shares so has not been subject to the same volatility in the financial markets as shares have. As a consequence the value of the Fund has not reduced in 2008 and would only do so by the amount spent for any approved purpose.

2. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE LATEST FINANCIAL REPORT ON HARCOURT:

Question

Would the Minister confirm whether the Waterfront Enterprise Board received the latest financial report on Harcourt 3 months ago and, if so, would he advise when this matter will be presented to the Assembly and the reasons for the delay?

Answer

The Waterfront Enterprise Board received the latest Price waterhouseCoopers (PwC) financial report on Harcourt in October 2008 and the report from Trowers and Hamlins on the draft development agreement in November 2008. The latter was provided to the Advisory Panel of States Members and was discussed at meetings in November and December 2008. WEB and Carey Olsen have produced a revised draft development agreement which is currently being reviewed by Trowers and Hamlins prior to discussion with Harcourt. The process is entirely consistent with that agreed with the Advisory Panel in December 2008.

The intention is to lodge the development agreement in May or June, for debate prior to the summer recess.

3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON THE PURCHASE OF SHARE PURCHASE PROPERTIES:

Question

Would the Minister inform members if he has sought legal advice from the Law Officers' Department on the subject matter of imposing conditions such as flying freehold on new flats/apartments/developments in order to preclude non qualified investors purchasing shares in companies owning residential property with local occupancy conditions attached?

Answer

It is not the usual practice for Governments to disclose whether or not they have sought legal advice, or the content of such advice, and it would not be appropriate to do so in this case.

Notwithstanding this, it is important to appreciate the dimensions of this issue:

• Share Transfer flats can only be occupied by persons qualified under the Housing Law;
• The purchase of Share Transfer flats by non qualified persons is relatively limited - around 11% of the Share Transfer market is owned by non residents persons and companies, and a further 12% by non qualified Jersey residents, in many cases patiently waiting to qualify. This is based on a sample analysis performed by the Population Office, using Annual Returns, and as outlined below.
• Where ownership of Share Transfer flats by non residents and non qualified persons has arisen, it has primarily been concentrated to a very small number of specific developments.
• Share Transfer properties account for around 60% of the flat market in Jersey; and not much more than 0% of all free standing houses.

It is further important to be cautious to not to remove incentives to develop flats, which are in demand from locally qualified persons seeking to lease, and in particular, at a time when the local construction industry is to be supported.

Table illustrating the ownership of share transfer properties from a sample:

4. DEPUTY  R.G. LE  HÉRISSIER  OF ST.  SAVIOUR  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICALSERVICESREGARDINGTHEUSEOFSCHOOL BUSES TO EASE CONGESTION DURING THE MORNING RUSH HOUR:

Question

Will the Minister consider using empty school buses to relieve the congestion on the regular service buses during the morning rush hour?

Answer

A number of returning school buses are already being utilised to enhance the morning commuter services as successfully negotiated as part of the contract extension agreement. The only schools services that are feasible to re-use are those operating to Le Rocquier and Les Quennevais being out of town schools. Two of each of these services are being utilised and have been included in the winter timetable. In fact, the two Les Quennevais services manage to operate three short services from Tesson Chapel and First Tower. From the east, there is one Route 1 service from Le Bourg and a Route 2C from Grouville Station.

There are a number of issues which do curtail the re-use of the school services but I am committed to maximising the integration of all services and will continue to discuss options in this regard with Connex.

5. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY  REGARDING  THE  DISPENSING  OF  OVER  THE  COUNTER' MEDICATIONS:

Question

Why are over the counter' medications such as Aspirin formally prescribed and dispensed and what is the cost to the Department each time a General Practitioner writes such a prescription?

Answer

One essential purpose of the Health Insurance (Jersey) Law 1967 is to provide financial assistance for all approved medicines prescribed by a General Practitioner or dentist. This is known as the pharmaceutical benefit and it covers the cost of the medicine as well as its supply through a community pharmacist. The cost of approved medicines varies significantly, some cost very little, and others may cost hundreds of pounds. The statutory dispensing fee provided to the pharmacist for supplying approved medicines is currently £2.96, as set by the Health Insurance (Pharmaceutical Benefit) (General Provisions) (No. 2) (Amendment No.6) (Jersey) Order made on 24 September 2008.

Approved medicines are not limited to prescription only medicines. Provided a medicine has a proven therapeutic and efficacious use in the community for treatment or prevention of disease, it may be approved by the Social Security Minister.

Aspirin is an important and effective medicine. It is used for pain relief and it is invaluable in long- term preventative treatments for heart disease and stroke. Given this therapeutic value, aspirin has been an approved medicine under the Health Insurance legislation for some time.

A doctor must ensure medicines are used safely and there are significant risks as well as benefits with aspirin usage. A doctor may, after due consideration of a patient's medical history, decide it is safer to prescribe a specific aspirin dosage, with specific patient instructions tailored to the individual rather than endorse "over the counter" purchases.

6. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE SUSPENSION POLICY:

Question

Has there been a change to the policy that regards the suspension of a public servant as a neutral act and, if so, what is the change?

Answer

No, there has been no change to the policy.

7. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE INSTALLATION AND AMENDMENT OF SIGNS:

Question

Is the installation and amendment of signs subject to the full Planning process and, if so, why? Answer

The placing of an advertisement on a part of a building or land not normally used for that purpose falls within the definition of "development", and save where it is permitted by Order (made under Article 76 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002) requires permission. The procedures for obtaining permission are identical to the normal planning process, although the requirement is included in the Planning and Building (Display of Advertisements) (Jersey) Order 2006 (R&O – 68/2006), rather than the primary Law.

The Order also specifies, at Schedule 1, the many categories of advertisements, for which permission is not required subject to certain conditions. They are too numerous to mention here, but are readily available in the above Order. However, they include:

• All signs that are statutory signs under other legislation;
• Most signs that are reasonably required to be displayed in relation to the functions of the States, Parochial authority or a Minister;
• Most signs advertising a profession, business, trade;
• Most temporary advertisements or signs, such as sales, contractors' boards on development sites, events, elections and so on; and
• signs that are in or on, but not visible, from outside enclosed land or a building.

Generally, the conditions and parameters applied to the above exemptions' are to do with size of signs, illumination, highway safety and protecting visual amenities.

I consider that poor signage and advertisements have a damaging impact on our environment, and in the absence of any form of control, would proliferate throughout the Island. The regulation of large signs is clearly important, but so is control of small signs such as the homemade' signs that often appear at junctions and roadsides, and damage our countryside.

However, I do consider there is scope for further deregulation of advertisement control, and we are already reviewing all the various Orders to increase the threshold of exemptions.

8. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF THE GOVERNANCE FUNCTION WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT:

Question

What is the annual cost of the Governance function within the Health and Social Services Department and how is its effectiveness measured?

Answer

Whilst the concept of clinical governance and the framework for its management was introduced into the English NHS in 1997 (in an important White Paper the New NHS Modern, Dependable'), its introduction here in Jersey was a little later – and it began in an ad-hoc and formative way rather than as a result of some grand plan. From such early times (the earlier years of this decade), it has developed exponentially and has touched all aspects of my Department's work from front line clinical medicine, through social services, and through to all other departments, including the corporate functions. As such, governance is no longer a thing that is done', but has become a way of doing things'. In this way, governance provides for a safe and reliable environment in which patient and client care is delivered.

The formal implementation of a governance framework took place in 2005 when my Department recruited an expert in this field. That person now holds the post of Director of Nursing and Governance – and her title bears testimony to how important such a governance framework is in Health and Social Services. However, it is important that governance is not personified and seen to be the preserve of one person – and is seen to be a set of behaviours which all members of staff understand and are committed to.

Notwithstanding the fact that governance is a way of doing business', in the interests of granularity the following services support governance in my Department. These are:

• Head of Risk Management – 1 FTE
• Clinical Risk Manager – 1 FTE – temporary post
• Clinical Audit – 2 part time staff
• Medical Records – 32 staff
• Health and Safety – 1 FTE
• Manual Handling – 2 part time staff
• Resuscitation/first aid trainers – 2 FTE
• Complaints Officer – 1 part time
• In-flight Co-ordinator – 1 FTE
• Therapeutic Interventions Trainer – 1 FTE
• Interpreter Co-ordinator -1 FTE
• Litigation Officer -1 part time
• Information Governance/Data Protection Officer -1 FTE

The cost of these services is approximately £500,000 per year.

The general way in which governance is measured and monitored is via the Senior Management Team's Governance Board which meets on a monthly basis under the chairmanship of the Director of Nursing and Governance. All senior directors of my Department attend and this includes clinicians, the Medical Officer of Health, the Chief Ambulance Officer, Directorate Managers, the Director of Finance and Information Services and the Chief Officer. The Governance Board receives reports on important sentinel audits, comparative studies which my Department participates in (with hospitals and other services on the mainland), risk assessments, and thematic reports drawn from the complaints procedure. Any immediate risks or other matters of concern which flow from the Governance Board are formally reported to me and to the Assistant Ministers at our regular Friday meeting with senior officers.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of our governance arrangements can only receive external affirmation when Jersey is subject to inspection and regulatory visits from a body which has yet to be formally constituted. This body is the Quality Care Commission which comes into being in April of this year. It is a body that is created from the demise and the assimilation of the Mental Health Commission, the Social Care Inspectorate, and the Healthcare Commission. The Quality Care Commission was established by an Act of Parliament which specifically enables that body to operate in the Channel Islands. My Department is proud of the fact that this clause was introduced at its behest following representations to the UK government.

9. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE MEANS-TESTED TRAVEL POLICY: Question

Would the Minister advise how much money has been saved by the Health and Social Services Department in each year since the introduction of a means tested travel policy?

What other medical charges, if any, do patients have to pay for when receiving treatment as patients in the United Kingdom or elsewhere when they have been sent by the States for treatment off- Island in a non-private capacity?

Answer

It is a fact that there has been a long term increase in the number of patients and clients who require treatment and care in specialist centres on the mainland. Generally, the increase has been approximately a 7% increase per year. This increase is largely accounted for by the expansion of effective treatments as well as the increase in actual numbers of long standing treatments.

My Department's Travel Policy has always been subject to a means test' since its introduction over ten years ago now. It was introduced to keep travel costs within my Department within a budget, rather than as a mechanism in itself to save money.

As I observed when I last replied to a similar question from the Deputy , the Travel Policy for the Department has not changed in any real substance – what has changed is that the onus is now upon the patient or client (who might be seeking to travel to the UK at the taxpayer's expense) to provide documentary evidence that their financial circumstances are such that they are eligible for this. This change has made the strict policing of this policy somewhat easier to apply. No longer do seemingly wealthy individuals park their large cars close to the Travel Office and then seek to convince very junior members of staff that their financial circumstances are so dire that they require assistance from the taxpayer to travel to the mainland.

Clearly, it is extremely difficult – some would say impossible - for my Department to identify how many patients are not eligible for States assistance with travel. The estimate is that approximately 20% of patients who previously sought States assistance in dubious circumstances have been identified explicitly as now not being eligible for travel assistance. This is another way of saying that due to the vigilance and professionalism of my staff in seeking full compliance with the Travel Policy, £160,000 per annum has been saved for the taxpayer. This sum is invested back into services for patients being treated on the mainland as a contribution towards the increased cost of such care, which I referred to in my first paragraph above.

Finally, I would like to confirm to the Deputy that those patients and clients who are eligible for States assisted travel do not have to pay any other fees or costs – beyond the cost of any refreshments or other personal purchases which any visitor to the UK may wish to make.

10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING HARBOUR MAINTENANCE ARRANGEMENTS: Question

Does the Minister consider that the standard of maintenance for engineering matters within the Harbours domain has improved since the transfer of staff to the Transport and Technical Services Department and, if so, would the Minister advise why delays are occurring on general maintenance, such as the replacement of a large chain on Bonne Nuit jetty? Could the Minister explain, if maintenance times have slipped, how call out arrangements could be improved to reduce response times?

Answer

The standard of port engineering maintenance has been sustained and improved during the move of Port Engineering from Jersey Harbours to Transport and Technical Services Department. While some disruption was inevitable during the move of workshop facilities from La Collette to Bellozanne, core maintenance work has been continued and indeed some noteworthy major projects have been completed, such as the refurbishment of the Elizabeth Marina Storm Gate's ram, important maintenance to the West Ro-Ro Ramp and significant repairs resulting from the March 2008 storm.

During the same period a detailed review has been undertaken of the Ports' historic maintenance practices and new prioritised maintenance schedules jointly developed by TTS Engineering staff and Harbour's Operational Managers, using a formalised risk management approach. These schedules reflect operational, safety and engineering priorities, balancing the limited engineering and financial resources available. This, over the longer term, will improve maintenance practice and benefit efficiency and safety.

As a result of the maintenance review, some routine work has been displaced by tasks that have been assigned higher operational or safety priority. This is the case with the work to the mooring chains at Bonne Nuit. Issues with the mooring chains at Bonne Nuit were first reported in 2006. At that time, the chains were inspected by both Jersey Harbours and Transport and Technical Services Department personnel. It was agreed at that time that some small remedial work to stones and mooring eyes was to be undertaken but it was deemed unnecessary to replace the chains until Autumn 2008.

However, whilst the maintenance work on the Bonne Nuit mooring chains was deferred, the condition of the chains has been regularly monitored and at no time were they considered to constitute a risk to the safety of vessels or mariners at Bonne Nuit. Not withstanding this, the work to the chains was completed during the week commencing 16th February 2009.

Whilst the maintenance of Jersey Harbours' core assets has been sustained, the maintenance review has resulted in many maintenance activities being reprioritised and this has meant that some long planned low priority projects have been deferred for a period.

In relation to the response times for "reactive maintenance" over the winter period, Jersey Harbours' Operational Team and Transport and Technical Services Department have agreed a new "traffic light" response time which is now in place and part of Jersey Harbours' Port Marine Safety Code.

11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HARCOURT:

Question

Would the Minister please inform the Assembly as to the current position and status of the due diligence being undertaken in respect of Harcourt and the proposed Development Agreement under preparation by Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) and advise the anticipated timeline for bringing these matters to the Assembly?

Given that the project was to be at no cost to the Island, and in light of the current economic downturn and the difficulties being experienced with UK and Irish banks in obtaining funding for commercial developments, will the funding for the project still be provided in full by the proposed developer or will the States be required to provide loan guarantees or part funding for the project? Has the proposed developer funded the architectural and other consultancy services to date or has this been funded by the States or WEB and, if so, how much has been expended to date on the project including fees paid to Hopkins Architects Limited by the Planning Department and WEB?

Answer

The Waterfront Enterprise Board received the latest Price waterhouseCoopers (PwC) financial report on Harcourt in October 2008 and the report from Trowers and Hamlins on the draft development agreement in November 2008. The latter was provided to the Advisory Panel of States Members and was discussed at meetings in November and December 2008. WEB and Carey Olsen have produced a revised draft development agreement which is currently being reviewed by Trowers and Hamlins prior to discussion with Harcourt. The process is entirely consistent with that agreed with the Advisory Panel in December 2008. It is not clear how long discussion with Harcourt will take. The intention is to lodge the development agreement in May or June, for debate prior to the summer recess.

There is no intention at this stage for any States funding or guarantees to be provided for the project.

The Minister does not have any information on expenditure by Harcourt.

Expenditure on consultants by WEB relating to the Esplanade Quarter development is £449,738 to date. These costs relate to the commissioning of Design Codes, Heads of Terms, Development Agreement, Infrastructure Works Agreement, land transactions and due diligence. All of the work has been undertaken by qualified reputable firms of high standing, including legal advisers, surveyors and accountants. It is normal practice in property transactions for each side to be responsible for their own costs. The costs that have been expended by WEB have been incurred to assist WEB and to protect the position of WEB and the States of Jersey. If the transaction is acceptable to the States of Jersey, WEB will receive guaranteed payments totalling £50 million for the land together with potential sales overages. The costs therefore represent approximately 1% of the base land payment.

The Planning and Environment department since May 2006 have paid Hopkins Architects Limited a total of £267,981 in fees for their work on the masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter. In addition to those fees the Department has also paid £58,608 for the Public Inquiry into the two applications submitted for the same site. The Minister was obliged under the Planning Law to hold a Public Inquiry. Two independent Inspectors and one programme officer were involved in running the Inquiry. A further £6,347 was spent in fees to tabulate and validate results from the first draft of the masterplan in late 2007. To date therefore a total of £332,936 has been disbursed in fees in preparing the new masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter. Against that the planning fees received as a result of the two applications submitted have come to a total of £397,562. To date therefore the costs of preparation of the masterplan have been met and more by the fees demanded from the applicants in order to register and process the applications. The Minister for Planning and Environment has as a result a masterplan endorsed by the States and the property of the Minister of Planning and Environment which has been used as a development framework by Harcourt Developments Limited and may be used by other developers should it become necessary.

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING INCREASING GST DURING THE RECESSION: Question

Will the Minister inform members what his position is on increasing taxes, such as GST and "20 means 20" in times of recession, and will he give his undertaking to the Assembly not to pursue approval for any such increases whilst recession persists?

Will he further undertake to bring a report to the States on the potential of reducing taxes, such as GST, to stimulate the economy through the recession?

Answer

The FPP have already given their advice on the best approach to tax and spending policy in the case of an economic downturn and I intend to follow that advice. That is, any policy changes should be timely, targeted and temporary. It is not my intention to increase the tax burden above and beyond that already announced and incorporated in the financial forecasts during any impending recession. But at the same time it would be unwise to make changes to taxation that are general and therefore untargeted or that pose a significant risk of permanently undermining our tax base.

As was made clear at the recent workshops for States members on the Strategic Plan, the Council of Ministers has already committed to bring an economic stimulus package to the States alongside the new Strategic Plan. The FPP will be invited to publicly comment on the package before the States debate to ensure that we are setting economic policy in the most effective manner and that we get the best advice available.

As far as the general policy of 20 means 20 is concerned, I have made it clear that it is my intention to review the implementation and will do so prior to lodging the 2010 budget later this year.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING ARTICLE 39A OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2002:

Question

Will the Chairman inform members whether she maintains her position on Article 39A of the Public Elections Law that assistance rendered by a candidate in completing or delivering an application form to request a postal vote is equivalent to allowing the candidate to enter the polling booth with a voter' as she has previously stated in the Assembly, and if so, how she justifies this position?

Answer

I firmly believe that all elements of the voting system need to be given equal respect and be free from even the suspicion of interference.

Candidates and canvassers play a vital part in elections, and in encouraging Islanders to vote. With regard to postal voting, there is a need to ensure that standards of political propriety observed at polling stations are carried through to the postal voting context.

In accordance with the Code of conduct for political parties, candidates and canvassers on the handling of postal vote applications and postal ballot papers,' issued by The Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom, all candidates must adhere to the following key principles:

• candidates and supporters should assist in the efficient and secure administration of elections and uphold the secrecy of the ballot; and

• no candidate or supporter should place themselves in a situation where their honesty or integrity can be questioned.

I believe that these principles should apply just as firmly in Jersey as they do in the UK.

During the debate on the Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.65/2008), held on 10th June 2008, I made the following statement when acting as rapporteur for the Privileges and Procedures Committee, as previously constituted –

all electors, whether voting in person or by post should be assured the same degree of confidentiality and the same freedom from interference at the point of casting their vote. Would anyone really expect candidates or their canvassers to be allowed to enter the polling booth with a voter? I think not. Then why should we countenance their presence at the time of completing a postal vote?' (My emphasis.)

I made reference to  casting a vote in the polling station and completing a postal vote; not to applying for a postal vote. At no point did I state that, assistance rendered by a candidate in completing or delivering an application form to request a postal vote was equivalent to allowing the candidate to enter the polling booth with a voter'' (my emphasis). Rather, the distinction was clearly made.

Following the debate of 10th June 2008, members voted by a large majority – 31 votes to 8 – in favour of Article 39A being inserted in the Law. On 4th February 2009, Deputy G.P. Southern lodged au Greffe' the proposition entitled: Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002: rescindment of Article 39A' (P.18/2009 refers), which is due to be debated on 12th May 2009. The Privileges and Procedures Committee will consider the proposition in due course, and I feel it would be premature to make any comment with regard to the proposition at this time. A final decision on the matter will be taken by the Assembly as a whole at the time of debate.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING SUPPORT FOR WORKERS MADE REDUNDANT: Question

Will the Minister inform members on the progress of negotiations to deliver statutory notice payments to ex-Woolworth employees and advise when such payments will be delivered?

Will he further inform members how the moral precedent established by the acceptance of P8/2009 will be applied to further insolvency redundancies, such as the staff of other local retailers and what specific support, if any, Jersey workers made redundant can expect from his Department?

Does the Minister have a timescale for the introduction of an insolvency fund, and if not, when will he produce one?

Answer

A Deed of Assignment has been prepared which was approved by the legal representatives of the former Woolworths employees last Friday. One of the assignments has already been executed and the data to establish the remaining entitlements to be assigned is being verified with those former employees, via their legal representative, this week. Payments will be made via the Social Security Department and I intend that most, if not all of the payments will be delivered to the former employees by the end of this week.

Any other redundancies occurring in the Island, where employees are not given notice, or pay in lieu  of  notice,  due  to  an  insolvency  situation  will  need  to  be  assessed  on  the  particular circumstances of the case.

Officers of the Social Security Department are ensuring that assistance is available to redundant employees. The Department has been in regular contact with the employees of other businesses in the Island that are in potential redundancy situations, offering assistance with anything that the employees might need through these difficult times, including; liaising with the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service,  offering seminars at the place  of  work,  advice on  income  support, unemployment  credits  and  job  seeking; the ultimate aim  being to  help anyone  who  is  made redundant to find new employment.

A policy document is currently being prepared by the Department to determine what action will be required to set up an insolvency scheme. A bid for law drafting has been submitted. The availability of law drafting time and legal advice will be the main factor in determining the timescale and I expect to be advised of this shortly.

15. DEPUTY T.M.PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND  TECHNICAL  SERVICES  REGARDING  THE  WORK UNDERTAKEN  BY CONSULTANTS FROM 2004 TO 2009:

Question

Given that figures presented to the Assembly on 3rd February 2009, in response to my written question on consultancy fees, reveal that the Transport and Technical Services Department has, since  2004,  paid  out  a  sum  of  £4,795,919  to  consultants  relating  to  the  solid  waste strategy/incinerator (with nearly £1.7 million being paid out in both 2007 and 2008) could the Minister  provide  a  year-by-year  (2004  to  2009)  breakdown  of  exactly  what  work  has  been produced by the consultants for these sums?

Answer

The table below provides the Deputy with a breakdown of the expenditure incurred in the period 2004-9 for consultants work undertaken in respect to the Energy from Waste plant. Members should be aware that within each of the headings in the table, there are many individual elements of work. The most significant costs incurred in 2007-8 were in relation to the preparation of the performance specification for the plant, managing and evaluating the tender process and preparing the final contract documentation. Each year also includes the relevant Client Project Management Costs.

16. DEPUTY  T.M.PITMAN  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE POTENTIAL TO USE LA COLLETTE FOR HOUSING PURPOSES:

Question

Considering the quality of the sea views and the potential of this virgin site, has the land at La Collette,  which  was  zoned  for  industrial  use  in  July  2000  by  Project  P96/2000,  ever  been considered for housing, either within or outside the Island Plan; and has it been valued for housing and if not, why?

Answer

Members should be advised that the 2002 Island Plan formalised the designations made in the 2000 States decision.

The siting of both the major hazard sites, the Jersey Gas liquefied petroleum gas storage site and the fuel storage depot operated by the Fuel Consortium, has resulted in restrictions on the type of development that is considered to be appropriate at La Collette.

Specifically, the Major Hazards Assessment Unit of the UK Health and Safety Executive undertook a quantified risk assessment of the Jersey Gas  site in 1993, which was reviewed  in 1995 in anticipation of the change to mounded storage of the liquefied petroleum storage vessels and again reassessed in 1999 on the completion of the mounded storage. This 1999 assessment formed the basis for the land use planning zoning around  the major hazard sites at La Collette until the explosion and fire at the Buncefield Oil Storage Depot, Hemel Hempstead, England which occurred on 11th December 2005.

More recently, following the introduction of a much more widespread safeguarding area around the fuel and gas installations following a post-Buncefield' review of the hazard safeguard regime at La Collette, the potential for housing at La Collette has become extremely limited.

WEB Ltd undertook an evaluation of the existing La Collette sites for housing development some years ago, but following consultation with States Departments (including the Fire and Rescue Service) concluded that, with a single vehicular access to the site and the presence of the fuel farm and gas manufacturing plant (which of necessity would need to be removed), the value of any housing land created was likely to be insufficient to meet the costs of relocating those installations.

The use of this area for housing purposes would, in addition to the fuel farm and gas installations, necessitate the relocation of existing industrial buildings, ash pits, and the compost site to other locations in the Island which are less satisfactory in terms of convenience of location, and which could involve the development of green-field sites.

17. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE ROAD WORKS AT BEL ROYAL:

Question

Further to the information given to the Assembly by his predecessor on 21st October 2008, would the Minister consider releasing the key documents leading to the road works at Bel Royal, and if not, why not?

Answer

The information which the Deputy refers to was a Statement issued by my predecessor regarding the Victoria Avenue resurfacing works. The statement aimed to clarify the facts relating to the contract which led to a lack of coordination with the emergency services which ultimately cost £3k to correct as part of a £1.2m project. The statement was intended to provide Members with all the relevant information relating to the matter and to demonstrate the actions the department had taken to ensure that a similar incident would not occur on future projects.

If the Deputy is referring to the contract documentation relating to the project, I am happy to release this information to him.

18. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF (j)' CATEGORY HOUSING APPLICATIONS:

Question

Will the Minister set out for members the new criteria he is using to assess applications for J- category licences showing clearly how they differ from the old?

Will he assess for members the impact he expects from his new measures on the economy and employment?

Will he explain to members the extent to which the changes are a return to limited 3-year licences?

Will he give members a breakdown of J-category licence applications and refusals by quarter and by sector over the past 2 years alongside current data for this year to date to illustrate the impact of his actions?

Will the Minister inform members when he expects a Migration policy giving clear criteria for future licensing to be lodged in the Assembly?

Answer

The j category policy is published as part of the:

"General Statement of Policy (2008) in relation to Regulation of Undertakings and Developments (Jersey) Law and Housing Law in relation to "j" category consents".

This document is available at: www.gov.je/ChiefMInister/PopulationOffice.

This policy was published in July 2008, and sought to introduce greater transparency, including increased clarity as to how existing employees would be treated and time limits applied. This policy has NOT subsequently changed, indeed, the Housing Minister's recent comments were merely re- iterating the established policy, of which the relevant extract is as follows:

"The "j" provision is a recruitment tool, designed to assist employers with recruitment where no satisfactory local person is available. It is not a retention tool, nor an entitlement for having gained a certain professional position. As such,  existing employees will not be granted "j" consent except where some small discretion is exercised"

This policy exists to manage demand on the local housing stock, while also supporting business in its recruitment for essential positions, and indeed, as a long established and published policy, is generally quite clear to most businesses. As to the question of time limits, the policy is again clear, and remains applicable:

• All posts which meet the "j" category consent criteria, where the employer is well established, and which require extensive knowledge and experience, will be granted an unlimited "j" category consent on commencement.

• All posts which meet the "j" category consent criteria, and are required for a specific purpose or time limited period, or where the employer is a new start up, be granted a time limited "j" category consent.

This is a tough but pragmatic stance, seeking a sustainable balance between the needs of business and the need to protect the local housing stock. Furthermore, while this policy will be updated to grant employers more discretion as part of the Migration Policy - subject to States debate in 2009 – the fundamental principles will remain, in that access to property in Jersey will continue to be carefully managed, being linked to either employment or a lengthy period of residence.

The relevant "j" statistics for approvals, refusals, time limits, and a comparable sectoral breakdown, for 2007 and 2008, are as follows:

19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING HOUSEHOLDS ON PROTECTED PAYMENTS:

Question

Given that in his previous answer to my written question on 3rd February 2009, relating to Income Support, the Minister categorised households on protected payments as "Households with a high legacy benefit" and "Other" in addition to "Households receiving a disability benefit", "Households with someone 65+ or on DTA" and "Households with high income", will he inform members which types of households comprise the first two aforementioned groups and what components make up their Income Support?

Will he further indicate what weekly sums will be withdrawn from all groups over the periods indicated in his response to that question (from 1st October 2009 to 2014)?

Answer

The household groups receiving transition are set out in the Income Support (Transitional Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008 which was made by the previous Minister on 21 January 2008. An explanation of the Transition Order was circulated to all States Members in September 2007, prior to the debate on the Income Support Regulations in October 2007. An extract from that document sets out the household types and a general explanation:

"A Guide to Transitional Benefits

The Income Support (Jersey) Law provides for transitional orders to be made, to facilitate the transition from the previous benefit system to the new Income Support system. The Minister lodged P.90 and P.91 on the 12th July 2007. These two propositions set out the Regulations, the Special Payment Regulations and the General Provisions Order which will accompany the main Law. The report of P.90 also referred to the Transitional Order and gave brief details of how the transition process would be managed.

This report provides Members with additional detail on the proposed transitional arrangements. The Minister will not formally make the Order until early 2008, for reasons that are explained below.

Basis of Transitional Benefits

In order to move to a system that effectively addresses need based on a consistent treatment of income and needs, from the current system of 14 separate benefits with many different eligibility rules and levels of generosity, it is inevitable that individual households will see a change to the benefit they receive.

Many households will see an immediate increase in the level of benefit received under the Income Support system. Others with higher incomes or capital assets will be entitled to a lower rate of benefit and it is recognized that a sudden drop in benefit income is undesirable. The Treasury and Resources Minister has provided a separate fund of £22.5 million to enable additional transitional payments to be made to these households over a number of years in order to provide a phased protection of benefit.

For households receiving increased payments under Income Support, the increased benefit will be available from day one of the new system. For Households that will receive less benefit under Income Support than their existing benefit, the difference between their previous entitlement and the Income Support benefit will form the basis of the transition payment.

Example (illustration only)

Existing benefit - Rent rebate  £75

New benefit- Income Support  £25

Transition will be based on a figure of £75 – £25 = £50.

On day one this household will receive

£25 (Income Support) + £50 (transition benefit) = £75 in total.

From the first day of implementation a household entitled to less Income Support than their existing benefit will see no difference in benefit payments as Income Support and the full transitional amount will be paid.

Calculation of transitional reductions

Four different transition schemes are proposed, to take account of different Household incomes and situations.

1. Households  including  at  least  one  individual  over  65  years  old  or at  least  one individual with an existing disability benefit - 25% reductions per annum over 4 years
2. Householdsthatdonotincludeanyoneover65or with anexistingdisabilitybenefit – 33% reductions per annum over 3 years
3. Households that will lose a higher proportion (25% or above) of total income - 20% reductions per annum over 5 years
4. Households  with  a  high  calculated  income  (at least  300%  of  total  of  household components) -  no transition after October 2008

These four schemes recognise the relative abilities of different households to adapt and respond to a reducing benefit."

As anticipated in September 2007, there have been some adjustments to the transition arrangements since then. In particular, the first date for a reduction in transition for all households has been put back from October 2008 to October 2009. In addition, protected payments for families including someone with a disability benefit (Attendance Allowance, Adult Disablement Allowance, Child Disablement Allowance) have been further extended at 100% protection until October 2010 with reductions then at 20% rather than the original 25%. These changes are recorded in the Income Support (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment No.2) (Jersey) Order 2008, made on 26 September 2008.

In effect, household group (1) in the original list has been split into two groups, to give a total of five household types. These are the five types shown in the table included in the response to the previous question.

Households receiving protected payments receive the full range of Income Support components. There is no difference in the calculation of the Income Support benefit for a household receiving a protected payment compared to a household that does not receive a protected payment. The difference between the two households is that under the previous benefit system, the first household was entitled to a total benefit amount that exceeds the household's entitlement to Income Support. The balancing of benefits between different groups was always an integral aim of the introduction of Income Support to ensure that tax funded benefits were provided on a consistent and fair basis across all sectors of the population based on financial need.

The answer to the previous question has already set out the manner in which sums will be withdrawn. Depending on household group, a percentage of the difference between the Income Support amount and the previous total benefit amount will be removed in October 2009.

For example, if a working age household was previously receiving £50 per week in rental subsidy and under Income Support was awarded £20 per week, then the difference of £30 will be removed over a 3 year period (i.e. a reduction of £10 per week each year).

At present the household continues to receive £50 per week,

in October 2009 this will reduce to £40 per week,

in October 2010 to £30 per week and

in October 2011 to £20 per week.

If at any time the Income Support entitlement of the family increases above the protected amount, then the transitional reductions fall away.

The actual weekly sum to be withdrawn from each household is an individual calculation, depending on a number of factors.

20. SENATOR P.F. ROUTIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING SERVICE PROVISION WITHIN THE SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION:

Question

Will the Minister detail the financial variances between the Annual Business Plan approved revenue expenditure estimates and the actual spend for each of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 for the three areas of Social Services (namely Children's Services, Adult Social Services and Special Needs Services)?

Will the Minister detail the service provision variances which were planned and then actually delivered for the same years?

Will the Minister explain what has happened to the resources which were due to fund the psychology post to support people with autism, people with Asperger's syndrome and people with learning disabilities?

What prioritisation criteria was used to decide on the relocation of resources across the Health and Social Services Department?

Answer

The Senator asks a number of questions which I will address below. However, the first thing to make clear  is that it is an extremely onerous challenge for our professional financial staff to reconcile the accounting framework for a dynamic modern health care system (specifically that represented by the Health and Social Services Department) with the States Annual Business Plan process (which generically describes the resource allocation across all States Departments). This is because overheads' represent an enormous cost which has to be allocated across service headings. Examples of overhead costs in the Health and Social Services Department are communications, diagnostic services (such as Pathology) and Estates Management.

Further, the financial analysis which underpins my answer allocates funding to three main components. Firstly, direct costs' for example, Social Workers who deliver a service to clients. Secondly, specific overhead costs. These are costs that relate to all three areas of Social Services, but not totally to one area - an example of this would be the cost of the Directorate Manager for Social Services and the cost of her administrative support. Thirdly, the aforementioned overhead costs which are costs that are distributed over all service headings.

I have laboured this particular point because it explains some of the variance between the approved States Business Plan, the approved budget for the year and the final year end accounts. Any slight variance to the way in which specific' and general' overheads are allocated will vary the description of the resources allocated to a specific front line service.

There is a further explanation required – namely, that the States Annual Business Plan is set in advance – but dynamics in the domain of health and social care can change by the week. A good example of this is the development of new life enhancing and life extending drugs which have to be paid for if Islanders' lives are to be improved. A negative example of such an urgent challenge which must be addressed are the periodic bouts of hospital acquired infection which means that the Department must deploy its resources into this area at very short notice.

I trust the Senator will forgive the above financial discourse because the actual variances between the Annual Business Plan and the approved budget in all four years (to which the Senator alludes) are almost exclusively related to the allocation – or reallocation – of specific and general overheads'. Beyond the efficiencies' required by the States financial strategies in previous years, I can assure the Senator that there has been no reduction in funding allocated to the three Social Services areas to which he refers. Indeed, there has been significant investment – the most noteworthy being the three year investment programme in Fostering and Adoption Services (an investment of approximately £800,000 over the last three years).

As to the variance (the Senator's second question) between the approved budget and the final year end accounts, this is caused by various operational challenges which Social Services have had to respond to. The most significant of these challenges being the number of vacancies within Children's Services – and indeed, in Social Services writ large. Having said that, it has long been recognised that funding for Health and Social Services has not kept pace with demand and the increasing onerous costs which a modern health and social care system is subject to. As you will know, the Council of Ministers is supportive of my Williamson Implementation Plan – and this four year programme of investment will go quite some way to improving services and increasing the resources necessary to support them.

The Senator then enquires (the Senator's third question) as to my previous commitment to improve psychological support to the Special Needs Services which he cites. This was an honest commitment given by my Department – but it has been compromised by the extraordinary increase in costs which has occurred over the last year. My Department is the largest consumer of energy in the Island and it is the largest consumer of food (for patients and clients, that is). Islanders will know what has happened to these costs in their own homes over the last year so they will be able to appreciate how such costs multiply in health and social care services. A range of other costs – costs which far outstrip Jersey's inflation rate – have had to be accommodated, such as the aforementioned technological and pharmaceutical supplies. I can confirm that there are no cuts' in Psychology Services, it is simply that the planned increase cannot take place in the foreseeable future.

Finally, the Senator asks (the Senator's fourth question) by what process are resources allocated within the Department. Ahead of New Directions and the delivery of the Williamson Implementation Plan, decisions are made on the basis of a risk assessment in an impartial way. This process – to an extent – depoliticises decision making on priorities and places the emphasis on calculated risk and consequence.

21. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WASTE STREAM CRITERIA APPLIED DURING THE BABTIE-FICHTNER TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2008:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly how the criteria applied within the Babtie-Fichtner Technology Review 2008 to all the plants reviewed (namely A key factor in determining the sustainability of facilities has been the ability of the proposed process to deal with the whole waste stream.') arose and who approved it?

Answer:

Unfortunately the Deputy is only quoting one sentence from the paragraph in question. For completeness, the entire paragraph reads as follows:

"2008 Technology Review Report:

A key factor in determining the suitability of facilities has been the ability of the proposed process to deal with the whole waste stream. A number of technologies listed above are considered proven and commercially available, but have been rejected because they can only process part of Jersey's waste stream. Pre-treatment processes have not been rejected without careful consideration. The cost of multiple facilities, together with limited land available and a small workforce, means that these are not considered practical or affordable solutions."