States Meeting Transcript - 24/03/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 24th MARCH 2009

QUESTIONS......................................................................................9

1. Written Questions........................................................................9

1. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE CONTRIBUTION LEVEL REQUIRED TO OBVIATE THE NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTATION:..................................9
2. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE SHORT-LISTING OF ARCHITECTS FOR THE ST. HELIER MASTERPLAN:.........................................................10
3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE ANNUAL ELECTRICITY COSTS AT JERSEY AIRPORT AND JERSEY HARBOURS:...............................................11
4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING TEMPORARY BOLLARDS AT LES CHARRIERES DE BONNE UNIT: ....................................................11
5. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESPLANADE QUARTER:..........12
6. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING PROPOSALS TO RAISE THE 20 PER CENT INCOME TAX RATE:.................................................................12
7. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THJE CEILING ON SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS:......................................................13
8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE SHARING OF TAX INFORMATION WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE:...........................................................14
9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE USE OF MINISTERIAL DISCRETION IN RELATION TO INCOME SUPPORT CLAIMS:......................................16
10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING PROPOSALS FOR THE FUNDING OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY UNDER THE INCOME SUPPORT SCHEME:.........17
11. DEPUTY T. M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE LACK OF VESTING CERTIFICATES SECURED IN RELATION TO THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT CONTRACT:..................................................................18
12. DEPUTY T. M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROSECUTIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR BREACHES TO THE ELECTORAL LAW:...................................................................18

13. DEPUTY T. M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER'S EDGE HOTEL:........................................................................19
14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STATES SHAREHOLDING IN THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES:................20
15. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LEGISLATION FOR A DEPOSITOR PROTECTION SCHEME: .............................................................20
16. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REMIT OF THE FISCAL POLICY PANEL:......................................................................21
17. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WORKING PATTERN OF HOSPITAL CONSULTANTS:.........................................................21
18. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CLIENTS ON LONG TERM INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE RETURNING TO WORK:............................22
19. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF CONSULTANTS:...23
20. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING LA COLLETTE PHASE 2 RECLAMATION SITE:24
21. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:....................................................29
22. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BREGARDING ADVANCE PAYMENT BONDS FOR THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:.............................................29
23. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING COMPANIES INVITED TO SUBMIT AN EXPORESSION OF INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT: ..............................................................30
24. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH BABCOCK AND ART TO PROVIDE A WASTE SOLUTION FOR JERSEY:....................30

Communications with Babcock Volund.........................................................30 Communications with Advanced Recycling Technology Limited (ART)......................31

25. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE ANNUAL FEE PAID TO THE PROVIDERS OF CORPORATE TRAVEL SERVICES TO THE STATES:...........32
26. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING ASSURANCES IN RESPECT OF THE MAIN CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTORS OF THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT SHOULD THEY GO INTO LIQUIDATION:........................32
27. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BREGARDING DISCHARGE OF "BRACKISH WATER" ARISING FROM THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT EXCAVATION:........................................................................33
28. DEPUTY A. K.F. GREEN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL COSTS IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:........34

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................35

1. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the cost to the States of implementing and administering the Goods and Services Tax:.....35 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................35

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................35
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................35
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................36
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36

7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................36

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Housing regarding the assessment of demand for over-55s housing:..........................................................37 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................37

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................37
2. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................37
3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................37
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................38
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
7. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................39
8. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................39
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................39
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................40
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................40

3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the proposed implementation of e-Border controls..........................................40 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................40

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................41
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................41

3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................41
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................41

4. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding a Percentage for Art contribution arising from the planning consent for the Energy from Waste plant.............................................................................42 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................42

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................42
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................42
3. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................43
4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................43
5. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:.....................................................43
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................43

5. Deputy G.P. Southern of H.M. Attorney General regarding Article 39A of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002............................................................44 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General (Rapporteur):................................44

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................45
3. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................45
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45

6. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the commercial valuation of beachfront land in St. Brelade 's Bay: .........................45

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

rapporteur):.............................................................................46

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................46
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................46
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................46

7. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding the New Scientist articles circulated to all Members recently about a sustainable, ecological economy:.......................................................47 Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..............47

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................47
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................47
4. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................48
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................48
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................48

8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding grants to the Cultural sector:............................................................48 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):....................48

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................49
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................49
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................50
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................50
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................50
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................50
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51

2.9. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the President of the Chairmen's Committee regarding allowing members of the public to film at scrutiny hearings:............................51 Senator B.E. Shenton (President, Chairmen's Committee):...................................51

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................51
2. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................52

3. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................52
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................52
6. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................53

10. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding road works on La Route de la Haule:.........................................53 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .........................................................................................53

1. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................53
2. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter : ......................................................54
3. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................54
4. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................54

11. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour of the Minister for Economic Development regarding staffing levels within the Economic Development Department: ........................55 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................55

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................55
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................55
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................55
5. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................56

6. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................56

12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture regarding special discounts on entry to Heritage sites for Active Card holders:....................56 The Deputy of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):....................56

2.12.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................56

13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Housing regarding the viability of constructing sheltered housing for the elderly onthe site of Ann Court:................57 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................57

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................57
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................57
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................57
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................58
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................58

14. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding boats damaged by vandals at Elizabeth Marina on 6th and 7th March 2009: ..................59 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................59

2.14.1 The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................59 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................60

3. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Minister for Social Security.............62

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................62 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):..........................62

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................62
   2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62

3.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................63

3. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................63

3.3.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................63

4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................64

3.4.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................64

5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................64

3.5.1 Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................65

6. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................65

3.6.1 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................65

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Chief Minister...........................66

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................66 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................66

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................66
   2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................66

4.2.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................67

3. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................67

4.3.1 Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................67

4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................67
   5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................68
   6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

4.6.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................69

4.7.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................69

8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................69
9. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................69
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70

4.10.1 Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................70

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................70

5. Senator J.L. Perchard will make a personal statement regarding comments made in the States Assembly on 10th March 2009...............................................70

5.1 Senator J.L. Perchard (The Minister for Health and Social Services):...................70

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins will make a personal statement regarding comments made in the States Assembly on 3rd February 2009.............................................71

6.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................71

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................72

7. Ratification of the Agreements for the Exchange of Information Relating to Tax Matters between the States of Jersey and the Nordic countries (Denmark, the Faroes, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (P.20/2009)........................72

7.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................72

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................73
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................73
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................73
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................73
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................74
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................74

8. Draft Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.21/2009)...................................................77

8.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................77 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................79

9. Waterfront Enterprise Board: appointment of States Directors (P.32/2009)..........82

9.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................82

10. Waterfront Enterprise Board: appointment of States Directors (P.32/2009) - amendment (P.32/2009 amd.) ...........................................................83

10.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................83

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................84
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................84
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................85
4. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................86
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................86

11. Waterfront Enterprise Board: appointment of States Directors (P.32/2009) as amended..................................................................................88

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................88

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................88 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................88

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................88 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................88

2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................88
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................89

4. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................89
5. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................90
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................91
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................91
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................92
9. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................94 11.10 Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................94 11.11 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................94 11.12 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................95 11.13 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................95 11.14Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................96 11.15 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................97 11.16Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................97

12. Health and Safety Appeal Tribunal: appointment of member (P.33/2009)............99

12.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................99

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................99
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................99

13. Payment of Statutory Notice payments: establishment of precedent (P.34/2009)....100

Deputy I.J. Gorst : ...........................................................................100 Deputy G.P. Southern :......................................................................100 13.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................102

14. Payment of Statutory Notice payments: establishment of precedent (P.34/2009) - amendment (P.34/2008 Amd.)..........................................................104

14.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst : .....................................................................105

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................106
2. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................106
3. Deputy I.J. Gorst :..................................................................107

15. Payment of Statutory Notice payments: establishment of precedent (P.34/2009) as amended................................................................................110

1. Deputy A.K.F. Green:.................................................................110
2. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:..................................................110
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: .................................................................111
4. The Connétable of St. Peter:..........................................................112
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................113
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:...................................................................114 The Connétable of St. Martin:...............................................................115 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:.............................................115
7. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................118
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:..................................................................119
9. Senator P.F. Routier: ..................................................................119 15.10Senator B.I. Le Marquand:............................................................120 15.11 Deputy M.R.Higgins:.................................................................121 15.12 Deputy S.Power:......................................................................121 15.13Senator B.E. Shenton:.................................................................122 15.14 Deputy I.J. Gorst : .....................................................................122 The Solicitor General:.......................................................................125 15.15Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................126 15.16Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................126

The Connétable of St. John:.................................................................127 The Solicitor General:.......................................................................127 15.17 Deputy A.E. Jeune :....................................................................128

ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED................................................................128 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................128

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................128

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE CONTRIBUTION LEVEL REQUIRED TO OBVIATE THE NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTATION:

Question

In P.82/2005, figures produced by the Social Security Department suggested that removal of the ceiling on employer and employee Social Security contributions would raise additional funding of £22 million. Would the Minister advise members what the current figure would be today and what percentage increase in the combined employee and employer rate would enable the elimination of supplementation?

Answer

Employees currently pay 5.2% of earnings and employers pay 5.3% up to a ceiling of £3,394 per month in Social Security contributions. Self employed individuals pay 10.5%.

Based on figures from the 2007 income tax data for employed earners, an additional £30 - 35 million would be raised by completely removing the contribution ceiling, on the assumption that the current ceiling for supplementation remains in place. This estimate includes a substantial sum that would be payable by the States as the largest employer on the Island, increasing the cost to the States. An estimate of the earnings from self-employment is not available and has not been included in this calculation.

Through the present funding of supplementation by the States, tax payers subsidise approximately 70% of all workers, as their contributions do not fully cover the costs of their benefits and pensions.

Were the Social Security Law to be amended to alter the way in which supplementation is funded, removing the ceiling will transfer some of this cost from all taxpayers (who pay tax on both earned and unearned income) to higher income workers and their employers. The advantage is that it reduces the burden on taxpayers; the disadvantage is that it increases the burden on business and concentrates the cost of Social Security provision upon earnings rather than earnings and other income.

Removing the ceiling will reduce the need for supplementation funding by £30 -35 million. To completely eliminate supplementation funding by the States, a further £33-38 million in additional contributions would need to be raised from employers and employees.

This could be achieved by increasing the total percentage rate for contributions by between 2% – 3%. Raising the rate of contributions would increase the cost borne by all workers, including those on relatively low incomes who are currently below the ceiling. Many of these workers will not be liable for income tax.

It should be noted in considering these estimates that increases to contribution rates will be needed to cover the cost of ensuring sufficient funding is available for pensions in the future and may also be needed to pay for a long-term care scheme. The sums required and rate increases needed in each of these areas will be similar in magnitude to that needed to meet the shortfall in the contributions of those earning less than the current earnings ceiling, that is currently funded through supplementation.

2. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE SHORT-LISTING OF ARCHITECTS FOR THE ST. HELIER MASTERPLAN:

Question

Would the Minister confirm that the following UK architects were short-listed to develop the inner St. Helier Masterplan on behalf of the States of Jersey at taxpayers' expense, namely Sir Richard McCormack, Sir Michael Hopkins and Robert Adam Architects and, if so, would the Minister describe in detail the selection process used in filtering down to this shortlist, the tendering process used, and details of how the contract was advertised?

Answer

The Minister recently decided that in view of the large number of potential development sites emerging in the northern area of the town an holistic masterplan of the area should be prepared. The masterplan would set a regeneration vision for the area.

Due to imperative to begin the regeneration work very soon the Minister set a three months deadline for delivery of the masterplan.

The Minister is particularly grateful to Deputy Judy Martin and Deputy Paul Le Claire for deferring their propositions relating to this area to enable the completion of the masterplan.

In order to complete the masterplan within the three month period, it was obvious that, rather than seek widespread expressions of interest which would have taken weeks, it was better to invite selected tenderers who were able to demonstrate the successful completion of similar masterplans. Furthermore the tenderers had to demonstrate the capacity to complete the work in the required period and be familiar with St Helier. Using a practice with experience of St Helier is highly beneficial as it prevents the necessity for expenditure on acclimatisation', and the time this takes.

In accordance with the requirements of the relevant Code of Financial Directions, three internationally renowned practices with recent local experience were invited to tender. The three practices, MJP Architects, Hopkins Architects and Robert Adam Architects were, importantly, required to form an association with a local architectural practice as part of their tender.

Then, as a result of an enquiry from the principal of a local practice and a subsequent conversation with the President of the Association of Jersey Architects, three local practices were also invited to tender.

The local practices were BDK Architects, Naish Waddington Architects and Axis Mason Architects.

In the event two of the local practices joined forces with UK tenderers, and the third with a multidisciplinary UK practice with masterplanning experience.

Four tenders were received, in order of receipt: BDK Architects with Savills; Hopkins Architects with Naish Waddington Architects; MJP Architects with Axis Mason; and Robert Adam Architects with MS Planning. All were interviewed by the Department last week. Officers have made a recommendation to the Minister.

The Minister has consulted with his newly formed political group before confirming the appointment. The political group formed by the Minister to assist with the masterplanning process comprises the Constable of St Helier, Deputy Martin, Deputy Duhamel, Deputy Lewis and Deputy Le Claire.

The Minister has made a decision, the tenderers are in the process of being advised of the outcome and notification of the outcome is imminent.

3. THE  DEPUTY  OF  ST.  JOHN  OF THE  MINISTER  FOR  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  REGARDING  THE  ANNUAL  ELECTRICITY  COSTS  AT JERSEY AIRPORT AND JERSEY HARBOURS:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly of the total annual cost of electricity at the Airport, including any running costs, stating whether consumption is billed through an electric meter or through a contract (and, if so, would he gives details of the contract) and would the Minister also give similar information for Jersey Harbours specifying the breakdown between different areas of the harbours.

Answer

The total cost of electricity to Jersey Airport in 2008 was £682,378.28, with £275,440.07 recovered from their customers.

The total cost of electricity to Jersey Harbours was £573,086, with £409,066 recovered from their customers.

As a high voltage consumer, the Airport has a negotiated contract with the JEC. Consumption is billed by meter at the Harbour. Tenants or users who consume electricity are then metered and billed quarterly at both the Airport and Harbours.

The figures for Jersey Harbours can be broken down as follows:

Port of Jersey: Expenditure - £317,538 Recharged - £250,822 Jersey Marinas: Expenditure - £230,015 Recharged - £158,244 Corporate (including Coastguard):  Expenditure - £ 25,533

4. THE  DEPUTY  OF  ST. JOHN  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  TRANSPORT  AND TECHNICAL  SERVICES  REGARDING  TEMPORARY  BOLLARDS  AT  LES CHARRIERES DE BONNE UNIT:

Question

Would the Minister inform the Assembly when the work on the bank below the temporary bollards that were placed on the bend of Les Charrières de Bonne Nuit some 4 years ago will be undertaken to allow the bollards to be removed, as local residents are frustrated by the lack of progress?

Answer

The embankment below the temporary barriers is in private ownership and was the subject of a landslip  in  2000.  Following  strong  intervention  by  the  department  the  landowner  eventually affected repairs to the embankment which included the removal of the roadside bank. This provided a visual and physical barrier to vehicles travelling down the hill. The removal of this bank was carried out without consultation with the department and resulted in an unsafe position for the travelling public. The department informed the land owner that he had created a dangerous situation but the land owner refused to carry out any further remedial action. The department was therefore left with no option other than to install temporary barriers to make the situation safe.

The department has been working with the Law Officers since 2000 with a view to ensuring that the landowner makes the area safe for the travelling public. These discussions have been protracted and drawn out and are still ongoing. The landowner is refusing to cooperate in resolving this dispute and the department has put the matter in the hands of the Law Officers. The Law Officers are continuing to investigate whether there is a legally acceptable way that may bring this situation to a satisfactory resolution such that the temporary barriers can be removed and the road be fully opened to two way traffic.

5. SENATOR B.E. SHENTON OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESPLANADE QUARTER:

Question

Can the Minister advise the Assembly whether the development of the Esplanade Quarter by one developer has been referred to the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority and if not, why not?

Given the development consists of 16 separate building blocks comprising offices, retail and restaurants, 388 residential apartments and 65 self-catering units, does he consider that the appointment of one developer could place them in a position of dominance and have detrimental competition ramifications as the site is developed?

Answer

The JCRA has been consulted and they consider that there is no dominant position. Dominance is defined based on a relevant market, and there appears to be no basis to limit the relevant market to the provision of office space at the Waterfront, as opposed to the provision of office space in St Helier generally. The whole notion of dominance is based on a firm's ability to increase prices by restricting the supply of a good or service within a relevant market. Here, there appears to be the opposite effect, an increase in the supply of office space available in St Helier.

6. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING PROPOSALSTO RAISE THE 20 PER CENT INCOME TAX RATE:

Question

Would the Minister agree to consider bringing forward for approval proposals to raise the 20% income tax rate to 25% for all personal income over £60, 000 and 30% for all personal income over £90,000 and set out the additional income to be raised by such measures together with an indication of any additional costs involved in changing from the current rate to the rates mentioned here?

Answer

This question appears to be based on a belief that Jersey's system of income tax is similar to the UK's with standard tax allowances available to all, regardless of income, and tax then paid on residual income, after allowances, at the relevant rate.

It is not. Jersey's income tax system is,  in fact, completely different to the UK system with generous tax exemptions provided to low to middle earners, and few tax allowances for higher earners, who pay 20% tax on nearly all their income.

If Jersey was to switch to the UK system, and abandon the carefully constructed system of margin relief in order to implement the Deputy 's proposals, both low and middle earners would be likely to pay more tax.

The economic costs of such a fundamental change to our tax system would also be significant as the foundation of Jersey's prosperity - near full employment, sound government finances, low taxes, top quality public services and one of the highest national incomes per person in the world - stem from Jersey being a low tax jurisdiction. The 20% tax rate being central to this.

I believe it would be extremely unwise - and perhaps foolish - to increase the 20% top rate at a time when the world is in economic turmoil, our economy is probably on the brink of recession, and the States has only recently agreed the most radical changes to our tax system in 60 years.

In these uncertain times, and following the major changes we have only just made, Jersey needs a period of stability in its tax system. Accordingly the I intend proposing no further fundamental changes to our personal tax system for at least the next two years (outside those which have been agreed or necessary for environmental spend).

My focus is on dealing with the economic downturn, protecting the jobs of Jersey people and improving the efficiency of States departments.

I suggest it would be useful for the Deputy to meet with the Comptroller of Income Tax to gain an understanding of how our tax system works.

7. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THJE CEILING ON SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS:

Question

Would the Minister agree to consider bringing forward for approval proposals to uncap' social security contributions and apply the current 6% rate to all wages earned and not merely the first £42,480 and would also he give an estimate of the additional income to be raised by this proposal?

Answer

I am committed to a full review of the current Social Security system starting in 2010. This will include an examination of the level of contributions and the impact of changing or removing the contribution ceiling.

The total social security contribution rate is 10.5%, made up of 5.2% from employees and 5.3% from employers. An additional 2% is levied in respect of health insurance, to subsidise the costs of GP consultations and prescribed drugs in Jersey.

Based on figures from the 2007 income tax data for employed earners, an additional £30 -35 million would be raised by requiring contributions of a total of 10.5% in respect of all earnings, on the assumption that the current ceiling for supplementation remains in place.

Through the present funding of supplementation by the States, tax payers subsidise approximately 70% of all workers, as their contributions do not fully cover the costs of their benefits and pensions.

Removing the ceiling could be used to transfer some of this cost from all taxpayers (taxed on the basis of earned and unearned income) to higher earning workers and the self-employed. The advantage is that it reduces the burden on taxpayers; the disadvantage is that it increases the burden on wage earners and business in general.

8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE SHARING OF TAX INFORMATION WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE:

Question

Will the Chief Minister inform members of the extent of the tax information that can be exchanged with the respective authorities in the UK and France under the Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) and, in particular, whether such information extends to Jersey-based -

1. Funds;
2. Trusts;
3. Income both earned and unearned; and
4. Savings and bank deposits

held by UK and French taxpayers?

Will he further outline the conditions that HM Revenue and Customs and its French equivalent have to satisfy, through Court actions or otherwise, in order to justify such exchanges and will he also state whether these 2 agreements differ in any significant ways from previous agreements such as that with the United States authorities?

Answer

All the TIEAs signed by Jersey, including those with the United Kingdom and France, are based on an OECD Model Tax Information Exchange Agreement. They provide for requests for any information that is foreseeably relevant to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws of the parties concerning taxes covered by the Agreement, including information that is foreseeably relevant to the determination, assessment, enforcement or collection of tax with respect to persons subject to such taxes or to the investigation of tax matters or the prosecution of criminal tax matters in relation to such persons.

Under the terms of each Agreement each party shall ensure that it has the authority, in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement, to obtain and provide, through its competent authority and upon request:

1. information held by banks, other financial institutions, and any person, including nominees and trustees, acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity;

2. information regarding the ownership of companies, partnerships, collective investment schemes, trusts, foundations and other persons, including information on all persons in an ownership chain; and

1. in the case of collective investment schemes, information on shares, units and other interests;
2. in the case of trusts, information on settlors, trustees, protectors and beneficiaries;
3. in the case of foundations, information onfounders, members of the foundation council and beneficiaries; and
4. in the case of persons that are neither collective investment schemes, trusts or foundations, equivalent information to the information in sub-paragraph (i) to (iii).

The wording of each Agreement may differ slightly but the overall coverage is the same except that earlier agreements such as that with the United States, did not refer to foundations as there was no such vehicle in place in Jersey at the time. However, all of the elements referred to by the Deputy are covered in the Agreements entered into.

In the case of Jersey the authority to provide the information requested is provided by the Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Jersey) Regulations 2008.

All of the TIEAs, including those with the United Kingdom and France, also include the following requirements to be met when a request for information is made, which requirements are based on the OECD Model Agreement –

"Any request for information shall be formulated with the greatest possible detail possible and shall specify in writing:

1. the identity of the person under examination or investigation;
2. the period for which the information is requested;
3. the nature ofthe information requested and the form in which the requested party would prefer to receive it;
4. the tax purpose for which the information is sought;
5. the reasons for believingthat the information requested is foreseeably relevant to tax administration and enforcement ofthe requesting party, with respect to a person identified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph;
6. grounds for believing that the information requested is present in the requested partyor is in the possession of or obtainable by a person within the jurisdiction of the requested party;
7. to the extent known, the name and address ofany person believed to be in possession of, or able to obtain the requested information;
8. the statement that the request is in conformity withthe law and administrative practices of the requesting party, that if the requested information was within the jurisdiction of the requesting party then the competent authority of the requesting party would be able to obtain the information under the laws of the requesting party or in the normal course of administrative practice and that it is in conformity with this Agreement;

9. a statement that the requesting party has pursued all means available in its own territory to obtain the information, except those that will give rise to disproportionate difficulty".

Some media comment has suggested that the requirements to be met for a request for information to be responded to are such that few requests are made. It is worth repeating that the requirements referred to are those set out in the OECD's Model Agreement which was adopted by the OECD Member States. Reference has been made to the fact that only five requests have been received from the United States since the Agreement was signed in 2002. However, the Agreement provided that in respect of civil tax matters the Agreement did not come into force until 1 January 2006 – as had been agreed at the time of signing and was also in the OECD Model Agreement. The five requests received have therefore been for the period since the 1 January 2006. All requests received from the United States authorities have been responded to positively and promptly. The United States authorities have always indicated that they do not expect to make many requests. One reason for this is that the fact that the information they require from a tax payer can be obtained under the terms of the TIEA will normally mean that the tax payer will make the information available voluntarily, the tax payer recognising that such cooperation would be viewed favourably by the US Tax Authorities. The US Tax Authorities have expressed their satisfaction and gratitude for the assistance given by the Jersey authorities in respect of those cases where requests have been made.

9. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE USE OF MINISTERIAL DISCRETION IN RELATION TO INCOME SUPPORT CLAIMS:

Question

Will the Minister inform members how many times, if any, Ministerial discretion has been requested and has been exercised by him and his predecessor over Income Support determinations and decisions?

Will he further detail what issues were involved and what decisions were finally arrived at through the exercise of discretion?

Will he also inform members how many cases have come to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in the period since it was reformed following the introduction of Income Support, what issues were raised and what rulings were made?

Answer

The vast majority of Income Support claimants receive their benefit as a regular weekly amount. Individual payments are also made to claimants through the Special Payment Regulations which provide for most situations in which a specific expense needs to be met.

The Income Support Law does give the Minister the power to make other payments in exceptional circumstances. This is a necessary part of the Income Support framework as it provides the flexibility to address the needs of individuals in unusual and exceptional circumstances. The Income Support Policy Guidelines lay down a number of these circumstances in which the Minister's discretion has been delegated to determining officers.

Only in the most unusual circumstances would a case be referred directly to the Minister.

Since the inception of the Income Support, a total of 10 ministerial decisions have been made in respect of discretionary payments.

These matters are handled with the highest degree of confidentiality and it would not be appropriate to provide details of the exceptional circumstances which gave rise to the need for a discretionary payment. However I can confirm that the payments that were made covered the following types of expense:

The payment of childcare fees to very young mothers (2 cases);

the payment of a rental component to an owner occupier;

the payment of a rental component to an individual moving out of residential care; the payment of a medical driving assessment fee;

the payment of a living component to a young adult, previously in foster care;

the payment of a personal-care component to a child;

the payment of expenses to attend a funeral (2 cases);

One application was refused in respect of a request for travel costs to attend a memorial service.

Since February 2008 there has been one appeal to the Social Security Tribunal in respect of the assessment of capital in an Income Support application. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

There has also been one appeal in respect of the backdating of a claim to Long Term Incapacity Allowance. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal Chairman as it was out of time.

10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING PROPOSALSFOR THE FUNDING OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY UNDER THE INCOME SUPPORT SCHEME:

Question

Will the Minister inform members when he will be bringing his proposals for the funding of residential care for the elderly under Income Support to the Assembly and will he assure members that these proposals, already postponed from the 2008 Income Support scheme, will not be further delayed awaiting the investigation and assessment of a wider  insurance-based residential care scheme?

Answer

The funding of residential care costs for income support claimants is currently covered by the Income Support Transitional Provisions Order.

Since February 2008 all new applications for assistance with residential care costs have been processed by the Social Security Department. During 2008 a standardised placement process for residential care was introduced and fee rates were agreed with local providers. These measures have already led to a much greater consistency in the funding of residential care costs.

I will shortly be issuing Income Support Policy Guidelines which will include a section covering the administration of requests for residential care funding.

It is true that if the Department were not working on a proposal for long term care funding that the residential care regulations could be brought to the States at an earlier date. However, the Department has acknowledged the recommendations of the HSSH Scrutiny Panel Report on Long Term Care which emphasised the importance and urgency of introducing a system of long term care funding. For this reason, the green paper on Long Term Care has been scheduled in advance of the residential care regulations within the 2009 Business Plan.

The 2009 Business Plan for my Department includes the following commitments:

"Introduce Residential Care regulations within Income Support Scheme" with a target date of December 2009.

"In conjunction with New Directions, undertake public consultation on long term care scheme and gain political approval for outline scheme" with a target date of June 2009 to publish a green paper.

As with all Business Plan commitments, the intention is to maintain the proposed timetable.

My Department has taken on a considerable amount of extra work in the first three months of 2009, as an inevitable consequence of the difficulties in the global economy. This may have an impact on a number of commitments made within the Business Plan and it is not possible, at this stage, to identify the full extent of any specific slippage.

11. DEPUTY T. M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE LACK OF VESTING CERTIFICATES SECURED IN RELATION TO THE ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT CONTRACT:

Question

Would the Minister explain why the standard practice of securing Vesting Certificates as guarantees for all equipment/materials ordered and paid for, was not adhered to in relation to the Energy from Waste Plant, and advise whether any alternative approach used by the Transport and Technical Services Department offered Jersey taxpayer's equivalent protection?

Answer

The Contract does allow for Vesting certificates to be provided by the Contractor but only when identifiable equipment has been constructed within the Contractor's (or sub-contractor's) premises until final delivery on site to ensure that the value of the equipment is available to the Department in the event of damage or loss during transfer of liquidation of the contractor/sub-contractor.

Clause 25 of the Institute of Chemical Engineers Red Book contract, clearly sets out the process by which equipment, once constructed, passes title to the client, the States.

12. DEPUTY T. M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROSECUTIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR BREACHES TO THE ELECTORAL LAW:

Question

Does the Attorney General consider that he has the power to decide that one candidate should be prosecuted while another candidate should not when each have breached the same electoral law – possibly even within the same electoral district?

Answer

If this were a question of general principle, the short answer would be yes. However, it seems too close to the circumstances surrounding the pending prosecution of two States members, including the Deputy 's wife, both of which prosecutions are sub judice, to be other than coincidental, and accordingly I do not regard this as a proper parliamentary question to put, notwithstanding that it may fall within Standing Orders. The answer given below is of general application and does not refer to the factual circumstances posed in this question.

On the point of general principle, I would say this. In 1951, Lord Shawcross, the then Attorney General for England, made a classic statement on public interest which has been supported by Attorneys General in England and Wales ever since:

"It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will – that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution."

House of Commons debates, Volume 483, column 681, 29th January, 1951.

This principle has long been applied both in Jersey and in the United Kingdom. It is, for example, the basis upon which many prosecutions of young people, which would take place if the evidential test were the only criterion, are in fact not brought, and those persons dealt with at Parish Hall enquiries and kept out of the court system.

The public interest is considered in each case where there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Prosecution lawyers must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. There are lists of some common public interest factors, both for and against prosecution, on the Law Officers' website, to be found at paragraph 5 of the Code on the Decision to Prosecute, issued in January 2000.

13. DEPUTY T. M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER'S EDGE HOTEL:

Question

Would the Minister advise whether the recent purchaser of the Water's Edge Hotel has been given consent, or any indication that this will be granted, to demolish the hotel in order to develop luxury apartments?

Answer

It is understood that the purchase' referred to in the Jersey Evening Post recently is for a lease of the premises, and not a freehold sale.

There has been no application, and thus no permission, for the redevelopment of the Water's Edge Hotel at Bouley Bay.

The owners came to see the Minister some months ago to explain that they were considering redevelopment of the hotel for residential use. There have subsequently been two preliminary meetings between the Department, the architects and the Minister, at which preliminary designs have been discussed to redevelop the premises with residential apartments. They have been advised that there will need to be an Environmental Impact Statement submitted with any application made. The site is particularly sensitive, as it is the largest single property in Bouley Bay.

There have been no indications that permission will be granted, although the powers of the Minister may not include requiring the building to remain in its current tourism use.

14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE STATES SHAREHOLDING IN THE JERSEY ELECTRICITY COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES:

Question

Could the Minister advise the Assembly of the exact holding, in percentage terms, which the Island holds within the Jersey Electricity Company Limited (JEC), including any subsidiary companies held within the JEC portfolio or which trade under the JEC name, state who the Directors of the said companies are and what, if any, share holdings within these companies are held by the people of Jersey?

Answer

The States' holds 62% of the ordinary share capital in the Jersey Electricity Company Limited (JEC) and 54% of the company's total share capital. JEC has investments in the following:

Subsidiary undertaking: Jersey Deep Freeze Limited Associate: Newtel Holdings Limited

Joint venture: Foreshore Holdings Limited

Other investments: Channel Islands Electricity Grid Limited

The States does not have any direct shareholding in any of these companies. As the States has no direct holdings in these companies it does not maintain records of their directors. Each company is required to make an annual return to the Registrar at the Financial Services Commission, including information on their directors.

15. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING LEGISLATION FOR A DEPOSITOR PROTECTION SCHEME:

Question

Will the Minister advise the Assembly when the legislation for a Depositor Protection Scheme will be brought to the States?

Answer

The States debated a proposition on 3rd December concerning Deposit Protection. It was agreed that the Minister for Economic Development would bring proposals for a Deposit Protection Scheme to the States by July 2009.

The Department has commissioned a report from Oxera and is also working closely with industry partners. Given the importance of this matter we are working hard to bring forward proposals as soon as possible and which I currently anticipate to be well in advance of our commitment.

16. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REMIT OF THE FISCAL POLICY PANEL:

Question

Has the remit of the Fiscal Policy Panel been broadened and, if so, how, and how does its revised remit overlap with the remits of the States Economic Adviser and relevant Treasury staff?

Answer

The Fiscal Policy Panel's remit has not been broadened and remains that agreed by the States as part of P133/2006 and the new Fiscal Framework. That is, they are an independent panel of leading economists who publish an annual report each year covering their views on economic conditions and the States' finances, with particular reference to the States economic objectives. Their advice covers the need for running surpluses/deficits and whether funds could be withdrawn from/paid into the Stabilisation Fund.  The Treasury and Resources Minister is entitled to ask for an update to their report at any point in the year should economic conditions change.

In keeping with that remit the Fiscal Policy Panel will publish their annual report this year in early May to fit in with the States Strategic Planning process and the Minister has asked them to update their last report from November before he brings forward a fiscal stimulus package to the States in April.

17. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE WORKING PATTERN OF HOSPITAL CONSULTANTS:

Question

Will the Minister inform members whether every consultant employed by Health and Social Services is required to work a full working week before engaging in private practice and, if so, what is the Health and Social Services' definition of a full working week'?

Answer

The Health and Social Services Department employs a range of consultants, some of whom work full time and some of whom work part time. Full time consultants are required to fulfil a minimum schedule of activities in accordance with their Job Plans. These Job Plans are managed by either the surgical directorate or the medical directorate of the General Hospital, as appropriate. These activities are measured in units of four hours duration and are termed programmed activities' (PAs). These PAs are contractually underpinned by the consultants' contract which was negotiated with the British Medical Association some years ago now. The standard working week for a full time consultant is 40 hours – and therefore it can be seen that 10 programmed activities comprise this weekly working period.

A consultant is required to participate in the hospital's on-call arrangements by which in an emergency he / she might be required (during his / her period of on-call) to attend the hospital to minister to a very sick or injured patient. This period of on-call covers evenings, night time, weekends and Bank Holidays. Unlike any other pay group in the States of Jersey, a consultant is not additionally remunerated for participating in such on-call arrangements. A consultant is entitled to time off in lieu (this time off being determined by the frequency and intensity of the on- call rotas).

In this context, consultants can undertake private practice within the working week as it is accepted that they often work beyond their 10 programmed activities. They can also work in the time they have legitimately accrued by participating in the above mentioned on-call rotas.

The arrangements for the management of public and private medicine in the hospital are governed by the Code of Practice which clearly specifies how and under what circumstances private practice activities can be pursued. This Code of Practice was negotiated with the British Medical Association and is based on the arrangements which exist in the National Health Service in England.

18. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CLIENTS ON LONG TERM INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE RETURNING TO WORK:

Question

Given that Income Support and associated benefits were, in part, promoted as a support for those in work or seeking to return to work, would the Minister specify the number of clients on Long Term Incapacity Allowance who have returned to work (distinguishing between full and part-time) since the inception of Income Support and state what percentage this forms of clients on LTIA?

Answer

There is no direct connection between Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA) and Income Support. LTIA replaced Invalidity Benefit and Disablement Benefit in October 2004. These are contributory benefits, paid from the Social Security Fund whereas Income Support is a tax-funded benefit, only paid to households with income below a certain level. Whereas Invalidity Benefit could only be claimed by individuals who were not in work, individuals receiving LTIA are at liberty to take up paid employment and retain their benefit. The individual does not need to inform the Department if they take up or resume paid employment. Many people receiving LTIA will not be eligible for Income Support based on the level of their household income.

For those individuals who do receive LTIA and Income Support, depending on the severity of their illness or disability, they may be partially or fully exempt  from any work requirement under Income Support.

RC42/2007 (Review of the changes to the Incapacity Benefit System) included an analysis of LTIA claimants in paid work which noted that:

"4.29A separate analysis of Long-Term Incapacity Allowance claims reveals that at some point over the period May 2005 to April 2006, 30 per cent (or 210 claimants) had undertaken some form of employment and paid social insurance contributions. Under the previous benefit system none of the claimants with long-term illnesses would have been entitled to work."

At the end of February 2009, there were 3,016 LTIA claims in payment.

19. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE COST OF CONSULTANTS: Question

In the light of public concern over fees paid to consultants, would the Minister inform the Assembly of the cost of -

1. the Atkins Report into the post-Buncefield situation regarding the fuel farm and the associated risks?
2. the work by Hopkins Architects Ltd. reviewing and revising the design ofthe outside ofthe Energy from Waste plan?

giving sufficient details of the work undertaken to provide a clear indication that this was

money well spent?

Answer

1. The cost of employing Atkins Limited to conduct a quantitative risk assessment of the Jersey Fuel and Gas storage facilities atLaCollette,includingthe risk of a Vapour Cloud Explosion, such as that witnessed at Buncefield, and a specific assessment related to the proposed Energy from Waste plant, was £56,000. The reports producedenabled the La Collette Hazard Review Group, who commissioned the work, to establish the tolerable levels of risk for occupation ofthe area in land use planning terms, and therefore was critical both to confirming the acceptability of current land uses and that of proposed developments. The information has been used to inform supplementary planning guidance for the Minister of Planning and Environment and is being usedto inform revised emergency and evacuation procedures on site. Atkins are leading consultants in this field and contributedtothe production ofUK guidance on hazards and land-use planning.The investment required toproducethisreport was good value given the benefits in understanding of the risks from the fuel and gas storage facility that it has provided.
2. The cost incurred thus far in employing Hopkins Architects Limited in reviewing and revising the design of the Energy from Waste Plant has been £283,119. The work has entailed reviewing the Department's outline planning application building envelope design, revising this design to obtain outline planning consent, developing the design into a functional architectural specification for issue with the Energy from Waste facility tender, reviewing the bidders designs against this specification, revising and improving the design in cooperation withthe preferred bidder, and submitting a finalised design for the submission of ReservedMatters. Under a condition ofthe Reserved Matters Hopkins Architects Limited areto be retained to advise the Department on the acceptability ofthe delivered design against the Reserved Matters architectural criteria as set out within the Contract. The costofthis final stage of commission is estimated to be between £50,000 and £100,000. The investment in appointing Hopkins Architects Limited, who are an architect of international repute, to produce a high quality building envelope design and to ensure it is implemented, is considered good value for money, given that the building will be in a sensitive location and will be operational for 25 years.

20. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING LA COLLETTE PHASE 2 RECLAMATION SITE: Question

As the La Collette Phase 2 Reclamation Site is porous to the sea and adjoins a site of exceptional ecological importance, and is therefore extremely environmentally sensitive, can the Minister provide the Assembly with a complete list of the permissions, laws, regulations, protocols and other documents which define and regulate all the different activities on the site, including the construction and operation of the new incinerator, giving, an indication of the purpose, scope and content of each document and, if possible, a website reference for each?

Answer

The activities at La Collette, as far as they concern the Laws which are within the remit of the Minister, are described below. The principal control mechanisms in Laws are described in relation to these activities along with the purpose and scope of the controls. Links to the Jersey Law website are provided

Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002

The Planning law is in place to provide for the orderly, comprehensive and sustainable development of land that best serves the community of Jersey as a whole. The process can also impose necessary controls on development and the use of land on the Island but should not replicate or duplicate other controls that might be available. Development – which is defined amongst other things as building or engineering operations or the change of use of land – requires planning permission. Any application for permission is considered against all material considerations including the Island Plan and any other strategies or programmes that have been approved by the States.

The following Planning Permissions authorize the activities at La Collette in a land use context

Planning Permit 17742 (18 October 1991) granted planning permission for the formation of a breakwater that created the La Collette II reclamation project. The aim of the project was to form a new area for development but also to provide a solution to the disposal of non-organic waste for the Island. Planning Permit 17742/B (12 September 1995) gave permission for infilling of the area created by the breakwater and in particular allowed for superfilling over and above the height of the breakwater where the site was to be used for the disposal of ash from the incinerator at Bellozanne. This was located on the north-eastern area of the site and allowed for superfilling up to 8m above the level of the top of the breakwater.

This Permit has authorized the tipping activities at La Collette since that time.

Planning Permit 17742/C (18 October 1996) granted permission for landscape tipping along the north eastern edge of the La Collette site – again over the ash pit areas - up to a maximum height of some 10m above the level of the top of the new sea wall.

Planning Permission P/2002/2597 allowed for the establishment of a timber and green waste reception and recycling (composting) on the La Collette site until December 2007. Application RC/2007/2971 sought to extend that temporary permission until such time as a new composting facility is established.

In April 2008 an application was submitted to re-locate the reception for commercial green waste within the La Collette site (P/2008/0958). The application was approved on 12 November 2008

In September 2008 an application was received to enlarge the bus depot at La Collette to facilitate the Energy from Waste Plant construction.(P/2008/0098) The application was approved on 12 November 2008.

An application for outline planning permission for the erection of an Energy from Waste Plant was received in January 2007. (PP/2007/0050). This permission was granted after due consideration in October 2007. As the application was in outline various matters relating to the final arrangement of the Energy from Waste Plant were reserved for future consideration.

In September 2008 a submission was made that sought to discharge the reserved matters of the outline permission (RM/2008/2086). After due consideration these reserved matters were approved at the end of October 2008.

Both the outline application and the reserved matters submission were accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as the result of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA0 in connection with the proposal.

All of the above applications were publicized in accordance with the relevant procedures at the time. Waste Management Activities at La Collette

Listed below are a number of waste management activities which are currently being carried out or proposed for the La Collette site.

1. Land reclamation. The deposit of construction and demolition wastes to reclaim land from the sea.
2. Bioremediation. The bioremediation of oil contaminated soils prior to deposit in the land reclamation site.
3. Ash disposal. The deposit of ash from incineration of wastes in containment cells above mean high water.
4. Aggregates recycling. The processing of construction and demolition wastes to produce recycled aggregates.
5. Green waste composting. The reception and treatment of green waste to create compost.
6. Asbestos reception facility. The reception and secure storage of asbestos wastes.
7. In addition to the above activities the construction of new Energy from Waste facility is being undertaken at La Collette.

Enactments controlling activities

These activities are carried out under a number of Laws, either directly through a specific authorisation issued for a particular activity or landuse, or more generally with provision in Law to prohibit undesirable consequences of an activity e.g. the pollution of controlled waters.

The relevant Laws are described in more detail below.

• Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002
• Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000
• Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005

This is not however an all inclusive list as there will be other Laws which have a bearing on how activities carried out at La Collette are carried out which are outside the remit of the Minister for Planning and Environment e.g Health & Safety and Statutory Nuisance.

Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000

The Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 provides for the protection of the aquatic environment from all forms of pollution.

There are two basic concepts underlying this new Law. Firstly controlled waters' are what the Law is designed to protect and pollution' is what the Law is protecting them from.

Controlled waters' include the territorial seas of the Island up to the 12 mile limit, coastal waters, as far as the highest tide, including bays and inlets, surface water including streams, brooks, reservoirs etc. and groundwater i.e. water under the surface of the earth.

In this law, the definition of pollution is in line with modern European thinking and with the OSPAR Convention for  the Protection  of the Marine  Environment of the North-East  Atlantic. Thus,  pollution includes the introduction of substances or energy into controlled waters that cause or may cause a hazard to human health or water supplies, harm to any living resource or aquatic eco-system, damage to any amenity value or interference with any legitimate use of controlled waters. It also covers the introduction into controlled waters of a substance or energy that contributes to pollution, but which may not be the sole cause.

For example, if a contractor when constructing the incinerator caused a leak of oil to the sea that resulted in loss of marine life, then they may be guilty of an offence and subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. This is an offence of strict liability, which means that an intention to pollute is not a necessary ingredient of the offence.

If any person wishes to make an introduction into controlled waters that would otherwise be in contravention of the Law (Article 17 (1)), then the person can apply for a discharge permit. The process for approving any discharge permit is detailed within the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000. It requires the consent of the regulator (the Environment Division) who will set limits on water quality in order to ensure that the marine environment is protected.

An application for a discharge permit for the controlled discharge of treated brackish water (rainwater and tidal ingress) arising from the construction work to the incinerator has been received by the Minister for Planning and Environment and is currently being considered. The permit has been advertised in the Jersey Gazette and is currently undergoing public consultation.

The permit will only be approved when the regulator is absolutely satisfied that the treatment process and regular monitoring of discharged water is sufficient to ensure that no harm to the ecology of the marine environment and Ramsar site occurs.

It is expected that a further discharge permit for the cooling water for the EFW will be applied for prior to its commissioning. The same strict appraisal and public consultation will take place to ensure that any discharge will not harm the marine environment.

Deemed discharge permits in the La Collette area currently exists for the cooling waters of the JEC Power Station and the interceptors from the fuel farm. There are also two Transport and Technical Services pumping stations located within the La Collette area which are regulated under the Pumping Stations composite discharge permit.

Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005

The Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005 came into force in two stages in November 2006 and February 2007.

Waste management activities are defined in the Law as the deposit, keeping, treatment, disposal or recovery of controlled waste on any land, or by means of any mobile plant. "Controlled wastes" are those hazardous, healthcare, municipal or household wastes which are subject to the provisions of the Law.

The waste management activities at La Collette must be carried out in accordance with a waste management licence that is issued under the Law by the Minister. In addition, the Law prohibits unlicensed activities or activities carried out in a manner that is likely to cause pollution.

"Pollution"  is  defined  within  Article  1  of  the  Law  and  includes  the  introduction  into  the environment of any substance or energy, if its introduction results or is likely to result in a hazard to human health or food or water supplies; harm to any living resource or ecosystem; damage to any amenity; or interference with any legitimate use of land, water or air.

The Planning & Environment Department are currently pursuing and considering applications for waste management licences. Under the transitional provisions in the Law, operators of existing waste activities who have submitted applications can continue lawfully until their applications are determined and a waste management licence is in force.

The status of the existing waste management operations are indicated in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Waste Management Licence Application Status.

The construction of the new Energy from Waste facility is underway. A waste management licence will need to be issued before the reception and disposal of waste activity can commence.

When issued, licences will authorise the operator to carry out specific activities at La Collette and contain a number of conditions to control how the operation can  be carried out. The licence conditions are required to control the licenced activities taking place at the site in order to prevent pollution of the environment. The licence will require each licensed facility to be constructed, operated, maintained and monitored to provide a high standard of environmental protection.

Licence conditions will be used to set the standards to which the site must operate. The operator must manage the site operation and provide a working plan which describes how those standards will be met.

Licence conditions are legally binding. The site will have to operate in accordance with the standards and methods detailed within its licence conditions and working plan. Breach of a licence condition is an offence under the Law.

The Law allows that any conditions imposed may cover any of the following matters -

1. the design or construction of any plantthat is to be used for the purposes of the activity to which the licence relates;
2. the manner in which the activity is to be carried on;
3. the times at which the activity may be carried on;
4. the types and quantities of waste that may be received and dealt with in any specified period;
5. emission and discharge limits;
6. the keeping of records, the period or periods for which they shall be kept, the making of returns and the giving of other information in respect of the activity; and
7. time limits for complying with any conditions.

Website references

Website references for the Laws are provided below from the Jersey Law website,

• Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 http://www.jerseylaw.je/law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f22%2f22.55

0_PlanningandBuildingLaw2002_RevisedEdition_1January2008.htm#Toc175470268

• Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f27%2f27.80 0_WaterPollutionLaw2000_RevisedEdition_1January2008.htm
• Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005 http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f22%2f22.95 0_WasteManagementLaw2005_RevisedEdition_1February2007.htm

21. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Can the Minister inform the Assembly whether his Department, before signing the contract for the new incinerator, researched which plants, if any, CNIM have built in the UK, comparable to the one contracted for in Jersey, whether pollution limits had been exceeded by those plants and, if so, the reasons that occurred?

Answer

The Department visited Energy from Waste plants built by CNIM at Sheffield and Stoke during 2007 as part of the procurement process. Both plants have features that are comparable to the Jersey plant. In addition, the Department visited several CNIM reference facilities in France and were provided with details of all CNIM reference plants of similar type to that proposed by the company for Jersey.

The Sheffield plant, which started operations in 2006, was the main reference site reviewed by TTSD when considering the CNIM bid. A thorough review of the plant, and its performance took place, together with a comprehensive visit.

Since the end of 2006, the Sheffield plant has had no reported breaches of air emissions. Emission limits for this type of plant are extremely tightly regulated under the European Waste Incineration Directive. To have no reported emission limit breaches in over two years attests to the quality of the plant and the way the plant is operated. Emissions are continuously monitored which enables the operator to take appropriate actions if required during any potential disturbances.

The Jersey plant will be very similar in design to the Sheffield one, incorporating similar gas cleaning and monitoring equipment, and will be operated to the same standards.

22. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BREGARDING ADVANCE PAYMENT BONDS FOR THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Further to statements made on 25th February 2009 on the rescindment of the incinerator project by Deputy E.J.  Noel, Assistant Minister  for Treasury and Resources,  that the "advance payment bonds" in relation to the incinerator were somehow better than vesting certificates and that "so far, we have paid £34 million in advance payment into the advanced payment bond. Under the terms of the contract these would not be recoverable if cancelled", would the Minister explain exactly how these bonds work, the exact wording concerning these bonds, and the reference in the contract?

Answer

The Contract does allow for Vesting certificates to be provided by the Contractor but only when identifiable equipment has been constructed within the Contractor's (or sub-contractor's) premises until final delivery on site to ensure that the value of the equipment is available to the Department in the event of damage or loss during transfer of liquidation of the contractor/sub-contractor.

The Advance Payment Bond provides financial security to the Department  for any difference between the outgoing payments and the value of the works on the ground for the period of the contract where this is apparent. The Advance Payment Bond and the Performance Bond would be available in the event of a Contractor breach (so would not apply in the event of termination for convenience).

23. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING COMPANIES INVITED TO SUBMIT AN EXPORESSION OF INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW ENERGY FROM WASTE PLANT:

Question

Can the Minister confirm whether the placing of a Notice in the OJEC (Official Journal of the European Community) by the Department in 2003 inviting companies to submit an "expression of interest" for dealing with Jersey's waste placed a legal obstacle to engaging with and progressing expressions of interest which did not, in the first instance, come via the OJEC Notice procedure?

Answer

The OJEC notice was employed by the previous Committee to make established and reputable waste management companies aware of the Energy from Waste procurement. As Jersey is not a formal member of the European Union, there was no legal obstacle to engaging with and progressing expressions of interest from companies who did not formally respond to the OJEC notice. Indeed, the Department maintained a watching brief on all expressions of interest that arose up to the point of recommending the preferred solution for a replacement for the Bellozanne incinerator in May 2008. However, once formal tenders had been issued to four companies in November 2007, any subsequent company expressing interest would have had to offer a solution of considerable merit to have justified halting the procurement process. No such company emerged, although the Department reviewed 78 technology solution companies as part of the Waste Technology Options review.

24. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH BABCOCK AND ART TO PROVIDE A WASTE SOLUTION FOR JERSEY:

Question

Can the Minister for TTS provide to members a complete timeline of communications both written and oral with Babcock and ART about their proposals to provide a waste solution for Jersey and a summary of the work done by the department and their consultants in connection with this company and with their proposals?

Answer

Communications with Babcock Volund

Babcock and Willcox Volund (BWV), of Denmark are a respected supplier of Energy from Waste boiler and grate technology, but did not respond to the Department's OJEC Notice issued in August 2003.

The Department's Technical Adviser Fichtner Consulting Engineers, through their work on other contracts, were aware that BWV were not bidding for full EPC turn-key projects in the UK - the OJEC notice issued by the Department required those expressing interest in the procurement to offer a complete solution for Jersey's residual waste disposal.

Two companies, including Advanced Recycling Technology (ART) Limited, indicated that BWV were a potential plant supplier within their expressions of interest in response to the OJEC Notice, but provided no evidence of the commitment of BWV, and BWV did not contact Fichtner or the Department to confirm their commitment, which might have added weight to these submissions.

BWV were included within the Technology Review Report that Fichtner produced for the Department in October 2006 which was circulated to all States Members. At this time, Fichtner confirmed that the BWV plant could have been considered as a suitable technology for Jersey, but reported that at the time the Company were not actively offering even its grate and boiler together with a main contractor to UK projects which they were aware of.

BWV were included within the updated Technology Review Report that Fichtner produced for the Department at the start of May 2008 and which was provided to States Members as P72/2008 Addendum, where Fichtner reported that no change in the BWV position with regards to full EPC turn-key projects had occurred.

Fichtner contacted BWV in September 2008 for the first time in respect of the procurement, following a challenge from ART that led to the submission of P139/2008 "Committee of Inquiry: Energy from Waste Plant Procurement Process" by Deputy Baudains. The details of the contact are contained in the Department's response to that proposition (P139/2008 Comments) which was withdrawn before it came to debate.

Communications with Advanced Recycling Technology Limited (ART)

ART Limited submitted an expression of interest in response to the Department's procurement on 13 October 2004 regarding an ART Limited Resource Recovery Plant. This was well over one year after the original advertisement had been placed in the OJEC (August 2003) and after a short-list had been drawn up and discussed. Despite this, the Department still reviewed the proposal to check that no "better" solution had been missed.

This proposal was considered in consultation with ART Limited as part of the Department's Solid Waste Strategy Technology Review which was completed in October 2006.

The proposal from ART Limited was not considered suitable because the ART company references were for only part of the waste process (namely to produce fuels for further use) and therefore the

key requirement for a total waste solution for the island to be provided had not been met. This fact was formalised within the Fichtner Technology Review Report of October 2005 which was circulated to all States Members.

This was communicated to ART Limited by the Department on 27 October 2006, indicating that a short-list of companies had been drawn up for the procurement and approved by the Waste Strategy Steering Group (a States Member and Officer steering group for the implementation of the Solid Waste Strategy).

ART Limited were not satisfied with the response given by the Department and approached the Planning and Environment Minister in September 2007 with regard to their proposal. The Planning and Environment  Minister forwarded  their  request to the Department  and the Company were informed again that the short-list had been determined and that ART Limited were not included.