States Meeting Transcript - 02/02/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 2nd FEBRUARY 2010

QUESTIONS......................................................................................8

1. Written Questions........................................................................8

1. CONNÉTABLE S.A. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE HARCOURT SCHEME FOR THE ESPLANADE:.....................................................................8
2. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF A SITE OF SPECIAL INTEREST OR A BUILDING OF LOCAL INTEREST:................................8
3. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF JERSEY'S WEST COAST ASA NATIONAL PARK:..............................................................10
4. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE INCREASED COST OF PLANNING FEES:..12
5. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING COSTS OF TERMINATING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS:.................................17
6. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY THE STATES EMNPLOYMENT BOARD:..........17
7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE RESTRUCTURING OF JERSEY POST:..............................................18
8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF JERSEY POST ON INCOME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE:.....................................19
9. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF LAWYERS FROM 7 BEDFORD ROW IN WORK RELATING TO THE HISTORIC CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY:................20
10. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

REGARDING COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS OF ALBERT QUAY APARTMENTS IN RESPECT OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR:....................20

11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A REVIEW OF TAXATION RATES:............22
12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SUSPENDED CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:..................................................................22
13. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE TOTAL COST OF THE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL FEES:..................................................................................23
14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES SEARCHED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE IN RELATION TO THE SUSPECTED MISUSE OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS:.........................................................................24

16. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE MEDIATION PROCESS BETWEEN THE STATES EMPLOYMENT BOARD AND TEACHING UNION REPRESENTATIVES:........26
17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE WHITEHEAD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:..............27
18. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE SELECTION OF CROWN ADVOCATES:.........................................................................27
19. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING POWERS USED UNDER ARTICLE 84 OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING (JERSEY) LAW 2002: ........28
20. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING SAVINGS TARGETS FOR 2010:......................................29

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

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the demolition of unsightly derelict buildings:................................30 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................30

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................30
2. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................30
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................30
4. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................31
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................31

2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the circulation of copies ofthe Verita Report before the presentation on 1st February 2010:...................................................................................31 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):.................31

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................31
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................32

3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................32
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................32
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................32

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding plans to deal with the structural deficit expected in Jersey in 2012:..............................33 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................33

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................33
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................34
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................34
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................34
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................34
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................35
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................36
8. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................36
9. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................36
10. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................37
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................37

4. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Economic Development regarding plans to restructure Jersey Post:.................................................................38 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................38

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38

2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
4. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................39
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................39
6. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................39
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................40
8. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................40
9. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................40
10. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................40
11. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................41
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................41
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................41

5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the cost of compiling retail sales surveys:.....................................................................42 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................42

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................42
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................42
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................43

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................43

6. The Deputy of St. John of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the emergency exercise held several weeks earlier:..............................................................43 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................44

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................44
2. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................44
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45

4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................45

7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the implementation of the recommendations contained with the LECG report on the Review of regulatory powers, resources and functions of the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority as a telecommunications regulator':..........................................46 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................46

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................46
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................47

8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding data relative to archive storage across States departments:...........................................47 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................47

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................47
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................48
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................48
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................49
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................49
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................49

9. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the sustainable transport policy consultation document:................................50 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): .........................................................................................50

2.9.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................50

10. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the breakdown of mediation talks with teachers' representatives:..........................................51 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................51

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................51

2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................51
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................52
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................52

11. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the advice and training given to States employees on the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000: ...................53 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................53

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................53
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................54
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................54

12. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the use of the Retail Price Index (x) as the headline figure' instead of R.P.I: ................................54 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................54

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................55
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................55
3. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................55
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................56
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................56
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................56
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................57
8. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................57
9. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................57
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................57
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................58
12. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................59
    13. Deputy T.A. Vallois of the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the future of Jersey's social policy framework: ......................................................................60 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur): ..................................60

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................60
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................60
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................60
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier : .................................................61
5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................61
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................61
7. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................62
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................62

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................63

3. The Minister for Housing - statement concerning the Single Qualified Property Classification............................................................................63

3.1 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ......................................63

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................64
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................64
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................64
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................65
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................65
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................65
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................66
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................66

QUESTIONS..................................................................................66

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Housing....................66

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................66 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ............................................67
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67

4.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................67

3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................68

4.3.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................68

4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................68

4.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................69

5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................69
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................69
7. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................70

1. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................70
2. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................70

8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................70

4.8.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................70 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................71

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister............................71

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................71 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur) ..................................71
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................71
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................72
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................72
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................72
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................73
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................73
9. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................73
10. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................74
11. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................74

5.11.1 Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................74

12. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................75

5.12.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................75

13. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................75

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................75 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................76

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................76

6. The Minister for Health and Social Services - statement concerning the Verita report ...........................................................................................76

The Deputy of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):........................76

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................77
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................77
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................77
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................77

5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................78
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................78
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................78
8. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................79
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................79

10. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................79
11. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................80

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................80

7. Draft Planning and Building (Amendment No. 5) (Jersey) Law (P.189/2009).........80

7.1 Senator F.E. Cohen: (The Minister for Planning and Environment):....................80

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................81
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................81
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................82
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................82
5. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................82
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................83
7. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................83

8. Draft Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.198/2009)...........................................................86

8.1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister, Chief Minister's Department - rapporteur ):..............................................................86

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................86
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................86
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................86
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................87

Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................87

9. Draft Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Act 200- (P.204/2009)............87

9.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf ( Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur):............................88

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................88
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................88
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................88
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................88
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................89
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................89
7. Deputy A.T. Dupré of St. Clement:.....................................................89

8. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................89
9. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................90
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................90
11. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................91
12. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................91
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................91
14. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................91
15. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................92
16. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................92
17. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................92
18. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................92
19. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................92
20. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................93
21. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................93
22. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................93
23. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................94
24. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................94

10. Appointments made by the States: revised procedures (P.205/2009)..................97

10.1 The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......97

1. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................98
2. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................99
3. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................99
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................99
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................100
6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.....................................................100
7. The Connétable of St. Mary : .......................................................100

11. Climate Change: Copenhagen Conference - petition (P.206/2009)...................101

11.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:..............................................................102

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ................................................107
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................107
3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..............................................110
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................111
5. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................114
6. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................115
7. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................116
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ................................................................116
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................116

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................117

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

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. CONNÉTABLE S.A. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE HARCOURT SCHEME FOR THE ESPLANADE:

Question

Does the Minister consider the Harcourt scheme for the Esplanade Quarter to be no longer practicable, and would he explain what, in his view, are the next steps for the development of this site?

Answer

The Planning and Environment Minister is absolutely committed to the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan and to its delivery as the new financial quarter for St Helier.

Having recently received advice from the Law Officers it is hoped that the Minister will determine the application shortly.

It is for the applicant to comment on how the scheme will be progressed rather than for the Minister of Planning and Environment.

Any permission will be subject to a Planning Obligation Agreement which will provide protection to ensure the development cannot commence until the financial standing of the developer to complete the development is proven, and to ensure the development cannot commence until a formal development agreement has been entered into and approved by the States. This will ensure that the States interests are properly protected.

2. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF A SITE OF SPECIAL INTEREST OR A BUILDING OF LOCAL INTEREST:

Question

Will the Minister outline the process undertaken before a building or site is designated as a Site of Special Interest or a Building of Local Interest.

Answer

The process of adding a Site of Special Interest (SSI) to the List of Sites of Special Interest is defined by Law[1]. There is no prescribed legal process for adding a Building of Local Interest (BLI) to the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey, but the same procedure required for the designation of SSIs is adopted for BLIs to provide a consistent approach.

There is a six stage approach to this process.

Stage 1 – Assessment by Jersey Heritage with advice from Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group (MRLAG).

Stage 2 – Recommendations made to the Minister

Stage 3 – If recommendation accepted – notice of Intention to List or Register Stage 4 – Consultation with and response from interested parties

Stage 5 – Ministerial public hearing to confirm decision, decision then in writing Stage 6 – Appeal to the Royal Court if required

Further information

The assessment of the building or place's heritage value is carried out, on behalf of the Minister, by Jersey Heritage against a set of published criteria[1]. This ensures that the Minister receives professional expert advice about the historical, architectural or archaeological interest of the building or place that is independent of and separate to the planning process. The provision of this service is governed by a Service Level Agreement between Jersey Heritage and the Planning and Environment Department, the costs of which are met by the Planning and Environment Department.

As part of the process of assessment, Jersey Heritage also secures the view of a panel of local experts knowledgeable in aspects of Jersey's history, architecture and archaeology. This group – the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group – is appointed in accord with best practice as set out by the Jersey Appointments Commission. Among its membership are representatives of organisations such as the Association of Jersey Architects; La Société Jersiaise; and the National Trust for Jersey.

The process of Listing or Registration involves the service of a Notice of the Minister's Intent to List or Register a building or place. This can be served on the owner or, where the owner is not known, on site. The Notice will be accompanied by a schedule, plan and photographs setting out why the building or place is considered to be special or important.

The service of a Notice of the Minister's intent to List or Register a building or place provides the owner, and any other interested party, with an opportunity to submit written representations directly to the Minister about the proposals to include it in the List or on the Register. Any such representations should relate to the special interest of the site and the Minister has to take any such representations into account. He does this at a Public Hearing, where owners and other interested parties are provided with an opportunity to speak in support of their representation before the Minister makes his decision whether or not to add the building or place to the List or the Register. Once the Minister has made a decision, the owner is notified in writing, and the List and/or Register, is updated.

In the event of the Minister deciding to add a building or place to the List of Sites of Special Interest, an aggrieved person can appeal to the Royal Court. The Court can confirm the inclusion of the building or place on the List or it may order the Minister to remove it from the List. There is no right of appeal against a decision to add a Building of Local Interest to the Register.

Where the Minister considers it necessary or expedient to restrain unauthorised actual or apprehended works to a building or place that he believes has special interest, he may provisionally include it in the List of Sites of Special Interest straightaway[2]. Once again, this requires the service of a Notice advising that the site has been Listed. This provides the owner with a minimum of 28

days to make representations and the Minister with a maximum of three months to decide whether or not to retain the building or place on the List. The same process of expert assessment and consideration of representations is undertaken for provisional SSIs, as outlined above.

The List and the Register is open to public inspection and is available online.

The Planning and Environment Minister is proposing to introduce a new single form of heritage protection for historic buildings and places – to be known as Listed buildings – replacing the existing two tier system of Sites of Special Interest (SSI) and Buildings of Local Interest (BLI). It is also proposed to introduce protection for groups of buildings and places with a particular architectural and historic character that will be designated as Conservation Areas.

All the Minister's proposed changes to the Island's heritage protection system are set out in a White Paper which is currently open for public scrutiny and comment. The new system will simplify how the historic environment is identified, making clear what is protected and why.

It is intended that the process of designation for the new system of heritage protection will be based on the existing legal process which presently exists for Sites of Special Interest, as set out above.

3. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF JERSEY'S WEST COAST ASA NATIONAL PARK:

Question

Will the Minister explain what he considers to be the benefits and disadvantages of designating much of Jersey's west coast as a National Park?

Answer

St. Ouen's Bay has long been recognised for the unique character of its natural environment: the 1968 St. Ouen 's Bay Development Plan recognised it as the only large coastal open space left in the Island' and in 1978 it was designated by the States as a special place', the principal objective of which was to protect and enhance the natural environment, through positive land management, with a strong presumption against significant and inappropriate development: the St. Ouen's Bay Planning Framework (1999) provided the framework and proposed mechanism by which this was to be achieved.

The proposal to designate St. Ouen's Bay as part of the proposed Coastal National Park is, therefore, considered to be consistent with and complementary to the longstanding acknowledgement of the area's high environmental value and recognises that the area needs to be appropriately managed if the quality of the landscape is to be sustained.

The principal benefits of the proposal are therefore related to the protection and management of this area. The principal disadvantage would be the misconception that such a designation would lead to an unreasonable management and protection regime.

Protection

The proposed designation of a Coastal National Park for Jersey contained within the draft Island Plan embraces not only much of the Island's west coast, represented by St. Ouen's Bay, but also those other highly sensitive and vulnerable but valuable landscapes including the north coast and south-west headlands, the low-wooded edge of the north-east coast; north coast woodland valleys; and Jersey's offshore reefs and islands. The draft Island Plan proposes that these areas of the Island be given the highest level of protection from new development in order to protect and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural value.

The  benefit  of  this  for  St.  Ouen's  Bay  is  that  its  landscape  quality  will  be  protected  from inappropriate development.

Management

The designation of a National Park boundary will inevitably embrace both living and working landscapes where many of the characteristics that provide its special appeal are the result of human activities and  management of the  landscape. The Minister  for  Planning and Environment  has proposed, in the draft Island Plan, that he will work with individuals, community, amenity, business and special interest groups to develop a Management Plan for the Coastal National Park which will have, as its principal objectives, the promotion of an understanding and enjoyment of the National Park by all who live and work in or visit it.

The benefit of this for St. Ouen's Bay is that the National Park designation provides a framework within which all interested parties can come together to determine how best the area can be managed to ensure that its special qualities are sustained into the future.

In the consultation* that has been carried out to date4 about the designation of a National Park for Jersey there has been clear support for such a designation and the inclusion of St. Ouen's Bay within it. It is considered that this is because there is a broad acceptance that it is important to protect and manage the landscape of St. Ouen 's Bay if it is to remain as a high quality environment.

Disadvantage

Perhaps the only disadvantage of proposed designation is that there is a misapprehension, of those who do not support the proposal and may be affected by it, that the creation of a new National Park for Jersey will impose an unduly and unreasonably restrictive planning and management regime upon those areas included within it. This is, however, a matter of perception and one that needs to continue to be addressed through discussion and engagement of those with an interest in those areas proposed to be embraced by the National Park, including St. Ouen 's Bay.

Background Information on the Public Consultation

*A public consultation on the proposal for a National Park for Jersey was publicised and conducted during March 2009. The process included a questionnaire that was sent to 800 addresses within the St Ouen's Bay area and that was accessible to all on-line and two stakeholder workshops where specific individuals or organisations were identified and targeted, one held during the day at the

Societe on the 10th March 2009 and one in the evening at St Ouen's parish hall on the 11th March 2009.

A combination of questionnaire and workshops was chosen to ensure that a) the process was as democratic as possible –i.e. open to all and b) that qualitative data relating to perceptions and specific concerns of key stakeholders could be gathered.

The key headlines from the questionnaire are that there is support for the concept with 84% either agreeing or strongly agreeing that the creation of a National Park would bring benefits. In relation to the scale of the proposed National Park, 84% either agreed or strongly agreed that the boundary should extend beyond St Ouen's Bay and of those, 83% either agreed or strongly agreed that the boundary should be extended to include the South-West coast from Noir Mont to Le Petit Port.

1 Green Paper (2008) Island Plan: strategic options and A National Park for Jersey? (March 2009)

Both workshops were well attended by 56 people in total. Ouputs showed;

· There is significant support for a National Park.

1. Most organisations andindividualswhocontributedtothe consultation saw benefits to themselves and/or to the Island.
2. There is consistency about what special qualities should be considered within a National Park - consistent with the National Park purposes set out in IP White Paper.

4. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE INCREASED COST OF PLANNING FEES: Question

Given claims by the Association of Jersey Architects that planning fees have risen by 500% since 2008, will the Minister detail exact increases in planning application fees for each year from 1st January 2008, throughout 2009 and any increases implemented or planned for 2010?

The total increases in planning application fees since he became Minister for Planning and Environment?

Answer

Fees have increased since the beginning of 2008 and those increases are detailed in the attached documents. Between 2007 and 2008 fees for planning applications increased by 2.5% - some figures were rounded up for practicability – in line with the State's Anti-Inflation Strategy.

However, it became increasingly evident that the level of service required to process applications in an effective and efficient manner was not matched by the resources of the Department. Consequently the 2009 Planning and Environment Business Plan – which was approved by the States in September 2008 – allowed for a cost-of-living uplift for most categories and also an increase in fees for commercial developments that would fund improvements in the service. In particular, developments of more than 5 dwellings attracted a premium and the fees for the provision of commercial floorspace – whether by new build or change of use – either increased in themselves or the means by which they were calculated resulted in a comparable increase. A further increase at the beginning of 2010 of between 5% and 25% - averaging out at a 15% increase overall – further consolidated this approach, but also reflected the need to make good cuts in the Department's budget in 2010.

As is evident from the attached table that the vast majority of categories have increased nowhere near the 500% figure that comprised the press headline, but it is acknowledged that there have been some significant increases. These increases reflect the fact that the granting of planning permissions operates mainly in the interest of the applicant but also reflects the significant improvement in performance of the Department over the past 12 months.

Turning to the example quoted by the President of the AJA this reflects the philosophy of shifting the burden of fee income to developments that generate significant levels of income for the developer. A commercial development of 2787 sq.m (30,000sq.ft) would attract a planning application fee of £26,197. This figure should be put into the context of the overall development costs, including land purchase, construction costs and professional fees, and the market value of the development, against both of which it represents a miniscule percentage.

Total changes in fees between 2008 and the end of 2009, and the increases since Senator Cohen became Minister are attached.

Planning and Environment Department

1,989.00 2,039.00 159.00 163.00 239.00 245.00

40.00 41.00

40.00 41.00 159.00 163.00

40.00 41.00

40.00 41.00

40.00 41.00 159.00 163.00 159.00 163.00

40.00 41.00 350.00 359.00

**Note  - Increase  Between  1/1/09  and  1/1/10  - method of calculation changed from Jan 2008

Since Senator Cohen became Minister December

2005 fee

Category  1  – New  dwellings  and  associated  £ miscellaneous works (including change of use of a building to form a dwelling)

2010 fee %

increase £

1. For each flat up to 5  210 306 46
2. For each additional flat  210 420 100
3. For each dwelling house up to 5 420 610 45
4. For each additional dwelling house  420 830 98

5. Prefabricated portable dwelling unit (per unit) 140 203 45

Category  2  – Extensions  and  alterations  to  a dwelling

1. Extension of a dwelling up to 20 sq.m in floor  70 102 46 area
2. Extension of a dwelling over 20 sq.m in floor  140 203 45 area
3. Material  alteration  of a  dwelling  where  work 70 102 46 costs £10k or less (per dwelling)

Material alteration of a dwelling where work costs  140 203 45 more than £10k (per dwelling)

Category 3 – Other new buildings, extensions and changes of use

1. Erection  of extension  of a  glasshouse  or  140 203 45 polytunnel for agricultural purposes for every500sq.mof part thereof
2. Erection of extension of any other building for  210 306 46 agricultural  purposes  for  every  500  sq.m or part thereof.
3. Erection  or extension  of a  non-residential  2.2 9.4 327 building or change of use of a building to a non- residential use (Per sq.m)
4. Change of use of land (or part) for any purpose  210 306 46 other than those listed above
5. Mineral extraction (per 1 acre, 2.25 vergees or  1,750 2,555 46

0.4 hectare site area)

6. Movable Structures  (such as  burger vans,  ice  140 203 45 cream kiosks and marquees)
7. Miscellaneous  development  not  otherwise  210 306 46 specified. e.g. demolition, reservoirs, golf courses,

outdoor recreational development, earthworks (per 1

acre, 2.25 vergees or 0.4 hectare site area or part

thereof)

8. Material alteration of a building where work costs  70 102 46 £10k or less (per building)
9. Material alteration of a building where work costs  140 203 45 more than £10k (per building)

Category 4 – Miscellaneous works (not carried out as part of other work)

1. Replacement  windows  (per  application)  (No  35 51 46 charge if the windows are timber)
2. Satellite dish 35 51 46

4. Erection of sign or advertisement  35 51 46
5. Flag pole, air con units or other similar structure  35 51 46 (each)
6. Wall, fence or other similar structure (each) 35 51 46
7. Swimming pool (not enclosed) 140 203 45
8. Formation or alteration of a vehicular access 140 203 45
9. Provision or material alteration of a tank for the  35 51 46 storage of liquid or gaseous fuel

K.  An  application  for  assessment  of  impact  of  a  350 450 28 High Hedge  in accordance with the High Hedges (Jersey) Law 2008. see note 2

Notes:

1. Method of calculation changed in 2009 from fixed fee for a given floor area to a fee for each sq.m. of total floor area. Figures given for 2006 are an average of all fees charged across the categories listed in 2006.
2. Type of application came into force 2008

5. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING COSTS OF TERMINATING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS:

Question

Following his written answer to a question from Deputy R.G. Le Hérrisier of St. Saviour on 17th November 2009, in which the Chief Minister wrote that the terms on which personal contractual arrangements were terminated were personal and confidential to the parties concerned, does he agree that the tax paying public has a right to know and should be made aware of the cost of terminating the contractual arrangements with any public employee, or contractor and will he, in his capacity as the Chairman of the States Employment Board, undertake not to agree to any future financial settlements with any public employee, or contractor employed by the States that permits a confidential financial settlement?

Answer

Contracts of Employment, and issues which arise from them (for example settlements on termination), are invariably highly personal and therefore should be kept confidential. This represents good practice in the employment field, and especially in a small community such as ours.

Also there are invariably sound commercial and legal reasons why details of settlements with contractors should remain confidential.

Further, the prospect of publicity would make negotiations in these, often difficult, circumstances much more difficult.

I am therefore not able to give the Senator the undertaking he is seeking.

6. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY THE STATES EMNPLOYMENT BOARD:

Question

As the Chairman of the States Employment Board -

1. does the Chief Minister agree that it is quite reasonable for the States of Jersey as an employer totake any appropriate disciplinary action against an employee who is at the time the subject of a police investigation?
2. will the Chief Minister agree totake independent legal advice when considering disciplinary action against an employee of the States of Jersey who is the subject of a police investigation?

Answer

There are occasions when it might be reasonable for the States Employment Board to take appropriate disciplinary action against an employee who is subject to a police investigation. This should be particularly the case where an employee is alleged to be in breach of an internal rule of conduct quite separately from an alleged criminal offence. Legal advice is taken and will continue to be taken.

7. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE RESTRUCTURING OF JERSEY POST:

Question

To what extent, if any, has the Economic Department been in consultation with the management of Jersey Post, either directly or through the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority or other bodies. over the recently announced restructuring plan for Jersey Post?

Will the Minister clarify whether the redundancies at Jersey Post will lead to a reduction in jobs and advise how many employees are currently employed and how many it is envisaged will be employed the end of the process in 2013?

Does the re-alignment of pay to market rates for particular skill sets and activities mean pay cuts for any employees, and if so which grades and how many? Further, will the Minister outline for members the depth of any such pay cuts?

Can the Minister assure members that this process will not result in deterioration to the Universal Service Provision, including collection and delivery provision?

Has the Minister received any assurances that Post Offices or sub post offices will not be closed or otherwise affected by this process?

Answer

As an incorporated body Jersey Post is not required to consult with the Economic Development Department (EDD) or the JCRA on proposed staff restructuring.

Employment-related issues are a matter for Jersey Post operating as an independent incorporated entity.

However, Jersey Post does invite EDD to regular briefings regarding the challenges faced by the organisation and potential business development opportunities. At the most recent meeting with Jersey Post on 6th January 2010, attended by the Minister for Economic Development and the EDD Chief Executive, the Department was informed of the imminent announcement of a call for expressions of interest for voluntary redundancy (VR) from up to 80 staff over the next four years.

Jersey Post has announced that restructuring has the objective of reducing operational costs by replacing a number of the full time posts with part time positions. This cost reduction is necessary to sustain Jersey Post's operations in the light of a continued and significant reduction in the volume of traditional mail and associated postal revenues. Faced with this position, Jersey Post must seek to reduce costs and increase the revenue contribution from its business development activities.

The VR programme does not include "pay cuts" for existing employees. It provides the choice for employees deciding to take voluntary redundancy and then to apply, along with any external applicants, for new jobs created by Jersey Post. Pay levels for new jobs created will reflect market rates. The VR programme applies to all grades in Postal Services, up to and including the General Manager.

Any changes to the Universal Service Obligation (USO), including any impact on Post Offices and Sub Post Offices would be a matter for Jersey Post and the JCRA as the postal regulator. The interests  of the consumer are and will continue to  be fully protected  under the Law through regulation by the JCRA.

8. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF JERSEY POST ON INCOME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE:

Question

Will the Minister detail for members the extent that the Social Security Department has been involved in discussions over the impact that the restructuring plan recently announced by Jersey Post will have on redundancies and reduced wages and consequently on the Department's expenditure on Income Support and supplementation? Will he give members an estimate of these projected costs?

Answer

A representative of the Social Security Department has met with the management of Jersey Post and members of the Communications Workers Union (CWU) following announced redundancies within the organisation. As members will be aware, Jersey Post is working with its employees to identify those who may wish to take voluntary redundancy. Departmental officers are presenting talks to the staff of Jersey Post to provide information on pensions, contributions and benefits in order that staff can make informed decision about their futures. Staff from Jersey Enterprise and Careers Jersey are also providing assistance to Jersey Post employees. The Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service is also involved.

The information currently available suggests that 80 staff will be made redundant over a four year period, with opportunities for re-employment under a new organisational structure.

It is impossible, at this early stage, to quantify the possible additional Income Support expenditure, if any. Income Support is a household benefit and will vary according to, amongst other factors, the number of children in a household, the household tenure, and the income of a spouse or partner.

Supplementation acts as a benefit paid to lower paid workers. If an individual is receiving supplementation and then loses their job, the cost of supplementation will be reduced. If an individual is working and being paid above the earnings ceiling (£43,752 p.a. for 2010) and then loses their job, there is no impact on supplementation. It would also be possible for supplementation to increase if a worker agreed to a redundancy package from their current job, and was then re-employed at a lower wage, which was below the earnings ceiling.

There is a further possible financial implication in Social Security terms. Workers who are made compulsorily redundant may be entitled to claim contribution credits until they find alternative employment. Contribution credits create future benefit liability, the cost of which is borne by the Social Security Fund and, ultimately, contributors to the Fund.

Until such time as redundancy terms are finalised with individual workers, it is impossible to estimate any net increase or decrease in the departmental budget.

9. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF LAWYERS FROM 7 BEDFORD ROW IN WORK RELATING TO THE HISTORIC CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY:

Question

Will H.M. Attorney General please clarify whether any of the three former members of 7 Bedford Row Chambers subsequently employed within or by the Attorney General's office, as mentioned in an answer to a written question on 19th January 2009, were involved in any way in work relating to the Historic Abuse Inquiry; and if so, would he advise what form this involvement took?

Answer

The Attorney General does not understand why such clarification is sought or why the identity of who worked on the Historic Abuse Inquiry is relevant provided that they were competent to do so.

However, the answer to the question is that none of the three former members of 7 Bedford Row Chambers who were subsequently employed within the Law Officers' Department as stated in the answer to written question 5027 tabled on the 19th January 2009 worked on the Historic Abuse Inquiry during the time that they worked in the Law Officers' Department.

It is a matter of public record that one of those lawyers, Crown Advocate Stephen Baker, since entering private practice in Jersey, has been briefed in the Historic Abuse Inquiry: i) to advise on cases in which allegations of historic abuse have been made; and ii) to prosecute those cases which have been capable of prosecution in accordance with the usual tests applied by the Attorney General in Jersey (which correspond with the tests applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions in England.) Crown Advocate Baker has given extensive and professional advice on each of the case files he has reviewed where no prosecution has been commenced, and all such cases that he has prosecuted have resulted in convictions.

The other two members of the Law Officers' Department, who were formerly of 7 Bedford Row chambers, one now in private practice and one still with the Law Officers Department, have not worked on the historic abuse cases and do not currently do so.

10. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS OF ALBERT QUAY APARTMENTS IN RESPECT OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR:

Question

Will the Minister advise how many complaints, if any, have been received by the States of Jersey Police over the past twelve months relating to anti-social behaviour emanating from the area around the Albert Quay Apartments and surrounding land, particularly problems involving cars and motor bikes; further still, how many arrests have been made and how many charges have been brought against those involved in such anti-social behaviour?

Given the number of complaints from residents concerning anti-social behaviour involving cars and motorbikes outside the Albert Quay Apartments, will the Minister advise whether it is the responsibility of the States of Jersey Police or the Harbours Department to deal with this; and whether speed limits and Island-wide restrictions on the sounding of horns within certain hours can be enforced by the States of Jersey Police?

Answer

A total of 114 incidents have been recorded by the police in the area of Albert Quay.

This represents all incidents, and not the number of public complaints. Nearly 10% of incident logs were created by Police officers dealing with occurrences directly, and not as a result of calls from the public - in addition to responding to reports from the public, officers have been specifically tasked to patrol the area since March 2009.

In the vast majority of cases the States of Jersey Police have responded very swiftly, often within 10 minutes. The States of Jersey Police have also used CCTV to monitor the area. In most cases officers have found no problems with drivers or persons located in the area.

Over the last year 8 arrests have been made in the locality: 4 x drugs offences

1 x drink drive

1 x anti-social behaviour

1 x public order

1 x taking and driving away

The States of Jersey Police can deal with offences in the area in accordance with the relevant legislation, be this speeding, sounding of horns or any other offences.

The States of Jersey Police and the Harbours Department have been in liaison in an effort to resolve the reported problems.

I believe that it will be possible to considerably reduce the amount of anti-social behaviour being reported  in  the  area  by  introducing  barriers  which  would  restrict  public  access  to  the  area, particularly at night time. Such an approach would be preferable and would avoid the current considerable use of Police time and resources.

11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING A REVIEW OF TAXATION RATES:

Question

Given that taxation rates are in line for review, based on current figures, would the Minister advise what increase in revenue would be achieved by the introduction of a progressive tax rate of either 25% or 30% being implemented for those earning more than £100,000 per annum?

Answer

Progress and outcomes from the Comprehensive Spending Review will be fundamental in deciding whether tax increases will be needed to address the potential structural deficit.

Any consideration given to raising revenue through increased taxation will be assessed on a range of criteria including distributional (who pays how much more/less), economic and administrative impacts.

It is not clear whether the Deputy is asking about the effect of an increase in the rates of tax on all earnings for those earning more than £100,000, or an increase in the rate of tax just on earnings above £100,000.

Based on 2008 assessments, if a 25% rate of tax were introduced on taxable income over £100,000, then this would increase revenue by £12.3m. If a 30% rate of tax were introduced this would increase revenue by £25m.

12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SUSPENDED CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE:

Question

Following her response to a question on 19th January 2009, concerning the letter of complaint to the Privileges and Procedures Committee made by the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, when the Chairman stated that she had intended to mention the letter to the rest of the Committee but that it had not been done , whilst also stating that she often did not inform the Committee of such contacts, would the Chairman advise whether she feels that such comments are consistent; and whether she feels that such practice does not undermine confidence in the Committee to do its job?

Answer

I do not consider that my remarks at the last meeting were inconsistent and I am happy to clarify once again the manner in which the letter from the suspended Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police dated 30th October 2009 was dealt with.

The letter was addressed to me as Chairman and when it was received I discussed it with both the Greffier and the Deputy Greffier of the States. The professional advice given both by the Greffier and the Deputy Greffier was that the matters raised in the Chief Officer's letter did not fall within the remit of PPC as set out in Standing Orders. I concurred with the advice and as a result I saw no reason to refer the matter for a decision to the full Committee as that would merely have delayed my response to the Chief Officer.

As I mentioned in my answers at the last meeting it is normal practice for any letters that I send on behalf of the Committee to be included for information on the next PPC agenda. Because of the Christmas recess and difficulties in arranging a meeting this had not been done by the beginning of January although the letters were on the agenda for the meeting of 26th January 2010. I have already acknowledged to PPC that I should have been more alert to the potential political sensitivity of this letter and circulated it earlier although I would reiterate that that would merely have been for information as I remain totally satisfied that the answer I had given after seeking advice was the correct one.

I believe Hansard shows that I did not state that I often do not inform Committee of such contacts as suggested in this question. What I did say was that I did not raise the matter with the Committee as the matters were clearly outside the terms of reference of PPC. I can only, in fact, recall one previous occasion when I wrote a letter in similar circumstances and on that occasion the person who had contacted me was fully satisfied with the explanation that the matters fell outside the terms of reference of PPC.

I do not feel that the practice followed undermines confidence in PPC as it would clearly be a waste of the Committee's time to ask all 7 members to consider matters that fall outside our terms of reference.

Although it is not strictly relevant to answer this particular question I would reiterate the comments I made at the last meeting that there is a procedure set out in Standing Orders to deal with matters such as those raised by the Chief Officer and this is a Committee of Inquiry. I did not believe it was my role to suggest this to the Chief Officer when responding on 13th November 2009  but I indicated in my letter that I was aware he was receiving assistance from a member of the States and that that member might be in a position to suggest a political remedy.

13. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING THE TOTAL COST OF THE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL FEES:

Question

1. WilltheMinistergivethetotalcosttodateof all legal fees incurred by the Health and Social Services Department in taking advice and representing the Department in relation to Mrs. Rourke and the exclusion of a Hospital Consultant Gynaecologist?
2. Will the Minister provide -

1. a breakdown as to whom the fees were paid and monies received?
2. the cost of all the enquiries/investigations undertaken in relation to the above two persons?
3. the details of the various review bodies appointed and monies received?

4. the total cost in salaries paid to the excluded Consultant and to the various staff employed to cover his absence from work?

3. Who was responsible for the oversight of the expenditure? Answer

1. The Health and Social Services Department hasincurred legal fees to the sum of £136,953.05 in relationtoadvicereceivedandthe representation of the Departmentinrespecttothedeathof Mrs. Rourke and the exclusion of the Consultant Gynaecologist.
2. (i) The legal fees were paid to a single law firm, Backhurst, Dorey and Crane.

2. Enquiries and investigations have been undertaken by:

• Verita at a cost to date of £558, 430.29
• HannahGoodwin, who were commissioned by the States Employment Board to look at the procedure adopted when the Consultant Gynaecologist was excluded. Their review is yet to be completed and the total cost is not expected to exceed £40,000
• Mr. K Hutchinson, an independent Human Resource professional, who was asked to review the need for a disciplinary procedure. His fees were £6,750.

3. Review bodies were consulted inaccordance with the policy for handlingconcernsand disciplinary procedures relating to the conduct and performance of doctors and dentists. This included consultation with the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) with whom HSSD have a standard contract for services in place, at an annual cost of £16,200. This contract allows HSSD to consult with NCAS on all matters arising in relation to clinical performance. The General Medical Council were also consulted and this incurred no charge.
4. To date, the total salary costs for the excluded consultant and staff employed to cover his absence are £760,372

3. Expenditure was authorised and monitored by the incumbent Chief Officer and since August 2009 by the Acting Chief Officer.

14. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES SEARCHED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE IN RELATION TO THE SUSPECTED MISUSE OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS:

Question

1. Will the Minister inform Members of the number of properties, since January 2007,thathave been searched by the States of Jersey Police in connection with the alleged misuse of personal computers and other electronic devices?
2. How many searches, if any, were conducted with the authority of a search warrant?
3. How many searches, if any, were conducted without a search warrant, and why?

4. How many people, if any, have been arrested as a result of the searches?
5. How many people, if any, have been charged with offences in relation to the searches?
6. What is the average time that personal computers and other items seized following the searches, are retained by the police?

Answer

Unfortunately, the questions are phrased in such a broad way that it is not possible to provide an answer to them without considerable research. As an example, question (c) would cover all instances of stop and search'.

Initial estimates from the States of Jersey Police are that a manual research of some 9,050 custody records would be needed. It would then be necessary to check these against paper copy warrants and PPCE authorities.

If this information were requested under the Freedom of Information Legislation in the UK, it would undoubtedly be classed as an exempt case. The obligation to comply would be discharged since it would exceed the appropriate expense limit [currently £450], and the information would only be supplied upon agreement to pay the necessary costs incurred in recovering the information.

Given the disproportionate nature of the request, along with the need to balance the use of scarce resources, I would ask the questioner to refine the question to enable me to elicit the specific information sought.

1.15DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE (J)' CATEGORY LICENCE POLICY:

Question

Will the Minister state whether the policy of granting permanent (j)' category licences has changed and state what proportions of the 348 and 533 licences granted in 2009 and 2008 respectively were granted in the public and private sectors?

Answer

The policy on granting permanent 1(1)(j) permissions has not changed and remains as follows in relation to the length of the consent (as extracted from the published policy of the Population Office):

6. The length of a (j) category consent

The following policies are adopted in relation to the length of a consent:-

• Posts which meet the (j) category consent criteria, where the employer is well established, and which require extensive knowledge and experience, will be granted an unlimited (j) category consent on commencement.
• Posts which meet the (j) category consent criteria, and are required for a specific purpose or time limited period, or where the employer is a new start up, may be granted a time limited (j) category consent.

The split of 1(1)(j) approvals between the public and private sector is as follows:

These figures exclude teachers and professions allied to medicine, the appointments of which are managed by Education Sport and Culture and Health and Social Services Departments. However, public sector manpower, including an analysis of 1(1)(j) employees for all Departments for the period 31st December, 2009, will be reported on 31st March, 2010. In the meantime, an analysis of actual private and public sector manpower, including teachers and professions allied to medicine, is as follows:

Jun  Dec  Dec  Dec  Dec 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Public sector "j" employees 641 660 832 710 n/a Private sector "j" employees 1,120 1,120 1,000 900 740

16. DEPUTY  G.P.  SOUTHERN  OF  ST.  HELIER  OF THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING  THE  MEDIATION  PROCESS  BETWEEN  THE  STATES EMPLOYMENT BOARD AND TEACHING UNION REPRESENTATIVES:

Question

Following the breakdown of the mediation process between the States Employment Board and teachers' representatives, will the Chief Minister inform members what instructions were given to the States representatives on the 2009 pay offer in order to allow meaningful mediation to take place? What further measures, if any, does the Chief Minister have under consideration to avert the prospect of industrial action in schools?

Answer

The States Employment Board's negotiators were asked to ensure that the full details of the States financial circumstances and the Island's economic circumstances (which underpin the Board's current pay policy) were explained to those attending the mediation, especially as these included a number of full-time Trade Union Officers from the UK.

The Board also gave its negotiators full remit to discuss its current pay offer at the mediation, provided that any possible agreement did not increase the overall sum of monies available for pay. The Board did not enable its negotiators to reach any settlement for 2009 which increased the pay bill in that year. This was in accordance with States policy.

My understanding is that the Unions at the mediation declined to discuss the Employer's offer for 2010 and 2011.

The Board's negotiators remain ready to meet with Teachers' Unions at any time to discuss its offer for the years 2010 and 2011.

17. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING REGARDING THE WHITEHEAD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

Question

Notwithstanding the ongoing consultation process in which the Housing Department is engaged, will the Minister inform members what options, if any, he has under consideration to eliminate the under-funding of £7.5  million on annual repairs and maintenance identified in the Whitehead report?

Answer

The Whitehead report identifies that spending on building maintenance is under funded in 2 areas:-

• Day to Day Repairs £2.5m per annum; and
• Major improvements and refurbishments £5m per annum

As the Deputy has pointed out in his question the Whitehead review is still in the consultation phase and no decisions have yet been reached about the future of social housing provision or the long term issues relating to funding. As we begin to consider what we will do, I believe that it is vital that we do so in the context of the wider budgetary issues facing the States as a whole.

Addressing the funding shortfall is not something which the Housing Department can do on its own. The available options, which include a reduced annual return to Treasury, rent increases, sales of properties or borrowing against future rental income, all have implications for either the Treasury or Social Security. Detailed analysis is being undertaken and both of those departments are being consulted with.

Professor Whitehead suggests, and I tend to agree with her, that greater levels of efficiency are possible by freeing the Department from the bureaucracy of the current system. Such steps are vital if the Department is to be able to react to the changing needs of our population and make best use of the existing social housing stock.

Notwithstanding the under funding, the Department is making significant inroads into the maintenance backlog. 105 sales to tenants and 24 open market sales have generated over £30m; all of that sale income has been ring-fenced and used for refurbishment or development works. 7 significant projects with a total value of £26.85m have already been completed, another £18m is due to be spent in 2010 including £5.8m on 34 new homes at Salisbury Crescent. The Department is trail blazing in respect of the construction element of the fiscal stimulus programme which has already seen 4 projects successfully tendered and a further 9 projects out to tender including Phase 2 of Le Squez.

18. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE SELECTION OF CROWN ADVOCATES:

Question

What procedures are followed in the selection of Crown Advocates and to what extent do they conform with the selection principles laid down by the Appointments Commission? Why was prosecution work in relation to the Historic Abuse Inquiry confined to one firm in 2009?

Answer

Crown Advocates represent the Attorney General personally, and their appointment is a matter solely for him with the approval of the Bailiff . The Appointments Commission is not involved. They are invited to act for the Attorney General in criminal matters for an initial period of up to five years.

Two Crown advocates were retained for the historic child abuse enquiry at an early stage. As it turned out, all of the prosecutions arising out of the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry were conducted by one Crown advocate. There were two reasons for this. First of all, it became apparent that the state of the police investigation files meant that there was an enormous amount of work necessary to be done in cross indexing the material in police hands both to ensure that proper disclosure was made to the defence and to enable informed decisions to be taken in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of any individual potential prosecutions. This meant that it was more cost efficient to have one firm aware of the entirety of the picture emerging from the investigation. The second reason was the practical one that the other Crown advocate became immersed in a major case in the Royal Court which continued for far longer than had first been anticipated and his availability was therefore constrained.

19. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING POWERS USED UNDER ARTICLE 84 OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING (JERSEY) LAW 2002:

Question

Would the Minister identify how many times he has exercised his powers under Article 84 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 and on what grounds and would he define what is meant by "a ruinous or dilapidated building"?

Answer

Article 84 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 is one of a number of Articles under Chapter 6 of the Law that deal with the condition of land (which in this context includes buildings on the land), and confers powers on the Minister for Planning and Environment to abate any problem through the service of a notice.

Specifically, Article 84 (1) states:

"ARTICLE 84

Minister may require repair or removal of ruinous or dilapidated buildings.

(1) If it appears to the Minister that a building is in a ruinous or dilapidated condition it may serve a notice requiring that the building or a specified part of it be demolished, repaired, decorated or otherwise improved and that any resulting rubbish be removed."

Article 91 of the Law requires the Minister to specify in sufficient detail the works to be carried out, and a reasonable time to complete them depending on what is required. Articles 93 and 94 state that it is an offence not to comply with a notice, and that in default, the Minister may undertake the works and recover his reasonably incurred costs from the person failing to undertake the work. There is no right for the owner to claim compensation under these provisions, but there is an appeal to the Royal Court on the grounds that the action taken by or on behalf of the Minister is unreasonable with regard to all the circumstances.

No notices have been served by the Minister under this Article, although the threat of serving a notice has been sufficient in two cases for action to be taken by the property owner to remedy the problem.

The Law does not define what constitutes a "ruinous or dilapidated building". They are ordinary words, and the Royal Court is likely to apply the ordinary meanings to them. In order for a building to be ruined or ruinous, would in the Minister's view require the property, effectively, to be a wreck and therefore incapable of occupation. A dilapidated building is likely to be a building in an extreme state of disrepair. Each case is be different, and will depend on the evidence of and the degree of ruination or dilapidation.

In determining whether to serve a notice, the Minister will principally consider any other likely solutions to remedy the state of the building. In most cases the building owner themselves have aspirations for redevelopment and refurbishment which if balanced correctly through the planning system will have the same result. The other principle consideration is the likely cost to the public purse if a notice under Article 84 is not implemented by the landowner with pressure then falling onto the Minister to implement the notice. In determining whether to serve a notice each case must be dealt with on its merits, and must be seen to be reasonable in the eyes of the Court.

20. DEPUTY  R.G. LE  HERISSIER  OF  ST.  SAVIOUR  OF  THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING SAVINGS TARGETS FOR 2010:

Question

Would the Chief Minister provide a detailed breakdown of the savings targets of £419,000 for 2010 with which the Deputy Chief Executive has been tasked and advise what specific savings targets, if any, he has beyond 2010?

Answer

The Deputy Chief Executive is responsible for the delivery of corporate savings as outlined in the 2010 Business Plan. These are:

• Energy consumption £50k
• Joint Fraud Office £230k
• HR Policies £200k Total £480k

In addition, the pro-rata savings for the Chief Minister's department for 2010 are £139k which will be delivered by the Deputy Chief Executive through the streamlining of the customer services section.

In the previous answer provided on 19th January 2010, a figure of £419k was provided which was in error, the figure should have been £480k. The error is regretted.

The 2010 Business Plan also shows corporate savings targets for 2011 and 2012 amounting to £1.07m and £1.37m respectively. Reviews of office accommodation and terms and conditions of service are expected to generate further savings which it is expected will contribute significantly in future years.

2. Oral Questions

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the demolition of unsightly derelict buildings:

Will the  Minister authorise or  instruct the demolition of unsightly derelict buildings, such as Pontins and the Fort Regent Pool, without prejudice to any planning application that may or may not be subsequently approved, and if not, why not?

Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

The technical aspects of this part of the Planning and Building Law are covered in my written answer to Deputy Le Hérissier's question this morning. In determining whether to serve notice - and any notice can range from requiring redecoration through to demolition - each case must be dealt with on its merits and must not be seen to be unreasonable in the eyes of the court. All material considerations and solutions must be taken into account before considering such notices. The court would expect the Minister to act in a proportionate manner and so is not likely to consider it unreasonable for the Minister to show that other solutions had been considered. The Plémont site is currently subject to a development application and the entire Fort Regent area will be the subject of further consideration by the new political steering group. For the above reasons I do not, at this stage, consider that I could demonstrate that all other reasonable steps had been taken, and it would not be appropriate for me to issue a notice requiring demolition on either site. Thank you.

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :

Is the Minister aware of the dilapidated state of Fort Regent, for instance, which has been let go for many many years and is the subject of much graffiti and vandalism and with very high wind I believe the roof to be unstable. I do not see a problem that without prejudice the building should be demolished immediately. Does the Minister not agree?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

While the building may be in a pretty poor state, particularly in terms of graffiti, et cetera, I do not think that all reasonable steps could be demonstrated to have been taken and therefore, I do not think it appropriate to issue a demolition notice at this stage.

2. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

Would the Minister agree that this site is in fact going to be a very expensive proposition, because I understand that it is full of asbestos and from a demolition contractor friend of mine who priced the job, he was talking about £1.5 million to £2 million to flatten it.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am afraid I am unaware of the asbestos content of the particular building.

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

Would the Minister not  agree that there are many glasshouse  sites  which,  similar to these 2 buildings, are in a very dangerous condition, broken glass into the ground and so forth? Would he not agree that he has been very reluctant to move on these very obvious sites?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

I have, in relation to 2 of these particular sites, made it clear that I intended to issue an order and in view of that the dangerous glass was removed, but I am perfectly happy to look at further sites.

4. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

I wanted the Minister to clarify this phrase that the Minister uses: "All other reasonable steps have been taken." I am not clear who is taking the steps and what they might have been, if one did not simply move and tidy-up, for instance, Plémont. What are these reasonable steps that are the alternatives to tidying-up the site and making it safe?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

A reasonable step may be, for example, to consider a current planning application as is the case with Plémont currently. Until the planning application is determined, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue a demolition order.

5. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Is it the case that at Plémont there have been continuous planning applications and then when one is turned down the next one is in absolutely immediate, or are there not quite long gaps where it simply sits there as a possible danger to the public?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

There have been quite longs gaps but there is a current planning application and I think the applicant has a right to have that application determined.

2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the circulation of copies of the VeritaReport before the presentation on 1st February 2010:

Will the Minister state which Members received copies of the Verita report ahead of the presentation on Monday 1st February 2010, and why the majority of Members were denied copies until the actual presentation?

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

I can confirm, apart from myself, that Senator Alan Breckon in his capacity as chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel is the only States Member to receive a copy of the Verita report ahead of the presentation made to States Members yesterday. Copies of the report in draft were shared with Senator Breckon and both of  my Assistant Ministers. One of my paramount concerns throughout this very difficult time has been to ensure that the interests and welfare of Mr. Rourke and the family have always been taken into account. This approach, I am pleased to say, was endorsed by Senator Breckon in his email he sent to all States Members last Thursday. Commitments previously given to Mr.  Rourke to keep him  fully  informed of the progress of the review have required that he should have had proper opportunity to read and reflect upon the report prior to its publication and general release. This commitment has now been fulfilled to the best of my ability and a series of meetings with Mr. Rourke and also with Verita, with members of the family.

1. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Will the Minister accept that it is normal practice that the documents are produced and circulated to Members, and indeed the media, the day before to allow them ample time to read the documents which would have course been embargoed? Does the Minister not agree that to ask Members to have read the report, of well over 300 pages, just an hour before the actual presentation, was unreasonable?

The Deputy of Trinity :

With all due respect, I think this is not a usual report that one would expect from any department or like a Scrutiny Report. This is, and continues to be, a very highly sensitive report. One which is about a death of a nurse and a patient, Mrs. Rourke, and that has been my concern for the family all the way along. I understand the Deputy 's concerns and I said yesterday at the States Members' presentation that 2 members of the Verita team will be coming back at the end of this week and that there will be a follow-up meeting for any States Members who wish to speak to them there or, in fact, contact Verita direct so they can begin to understand the report.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister outline whether the purpose of giving the draft to the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel was information only, or was there an expectation that if that person thought there were faults or whatever with the report they would be expected to respond?

The Deputy of Trinity :

During the debates last July - and that was confirmed in the letter that I sent to Verita - to make sure that it is truly independent and Verita did confirm that yesterday, that it is totally independent, it was agreed it went to the 4 people and one of them was Senator Breckon as his role as chair to keep an independent check over it. I am sure if Senator Breckon thought that there was anything missed or wanted to make a comment, I am sure that he would have done and he would have done it straight to Verita.