States Meeting Transcript - 03/02/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 3rd FEBRUARY 2010

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Climate Change: Copenhagen Conference - petition (P.206/2009) - resumption.......4

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

2. Draft Banking (Depositors Compensation) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.207/2009)...............................................................................6

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):....................6

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:......................................................6
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................7 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):............7

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................7

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................7
2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................7

3. Draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians (Registration) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.209/2009)...............................................................................8

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):............9

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................10
2. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................10 Senator A. Breckon (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing SecurityPanel):........10

2. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................10
3. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................11

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................11
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................12
3. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................12
   4. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................13

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................13
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................13
3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................14
4. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................14
   5. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................14
   6. The Deputy of Trinity :..................................................................14

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................15
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................15

4. Waterfront Planning Application: Zephyrus Scheme (P.1/2010)......................16

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................17

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................21
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................21
3. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................22

4. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................22
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................22
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................22
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................22
8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................22

9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................23
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................24
11. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................24
12. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................24

2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................26
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................37

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................38
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................38 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................39
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................39
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................39
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................39
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................39
8. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................40
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................40

4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................41

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................45

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ..............................................................45

4.4.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................45

5. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................46

1. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................46
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................47
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................47
4. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................47
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................47
6. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................47

6. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................48

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................51
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................52
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................55
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................55
5. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................56
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................57
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................57
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................58
9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................58
10. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................59
11. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................60
12. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................62
13. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................63
14. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................63

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY .....................69

5. The Minister for Housing - statement rescinding his Ministerial decision on the Single Qualified Property Classification.......................................................69

5.1 Senator T.J. Le Main (The Minister for Housing): ......................................69

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................69
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................70
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................71
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................71
5. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................71
6. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................71
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................71
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................72
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................72
11. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................73
12. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................73
13. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:....................................................73

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................73

6. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......73

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................74

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Climate Change: Copenhagen Conference - petition (P.206/2009) - resumption The Bailiff :

Very well then, we return to the debate on P.206. I call upon the Deputy of St. Mary to reply.

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

I thank all the Members who took part in the debate and all who listened. It was, I think, an interesting and good debate. I will just pick up a few points and turn first to the sceptics. It is good to have this range of views, because it does allow me to come back to the important points that were raised by Senator Ferguson. There were 3 things I picked out from what she said and they are extremely important and I will be very brief in dealing with them. The first thing I picked out from what she said was the notion that somehow this is costly, that there is a negative economic impact, that there is additional expenditure. In fact, renewables constitute a market, a new avenue for economic activity. That is the first point. The second point is that a low carbon society is a low cost society. It costs less to insulate your house than it does to burn more fuel than you need and watch it go out of the walls and out through the windows. So the idea that there is additional

expenditure involved here is untrue. The second issue that she raised was the matter of the numbers who signed the petition. The reason that climate change has not reached the level of awareness among our residents that perhaps it should have is that it has been off the radar. It has been left out of strategic policy debate. It has been left out, effectively, of the Island Plan. It is mentioned in the Island Plan, but as I said it is quite hard to find it. This systematically simply not mentioning it it does not get a mention in the sustainable transport policy, although it is implicit in the direction of that policy. So because it is not mentioned, people are less aware than they should be. The third point is what she questions, of course, the science. I cannot rebut every single fantastical bit of detail picked out from here and there. It does raise, however, an important question about expertise and how you evaluate expertise. We are going to be faced with that in the cycle helmets debate. I see the good Deputy nodding. How do you evaluate the different approaches of the different researchers? I just want to make the simple point at this stage that the 2 situations, climate change and cycle helmets, are completely different. There is a consensus worldwide around climate change. The National Academy of Science of the 12 leading countries have all said the science is there, it is established. When you get government after government after government going down this route and setting up whole departments, like our own Department of Energy and Climate Change in Britain or like Obama who has just launched 150 billion dollars fund over 10 years to provide 5 million green jobs. They are not taking these decisions on a whim and a prayer. They are taking them because their advisers have looked carefully at all the information and at all the science and have come to a firm view. Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, is totally on-side in this debate about climate change, although the good Senator implied that he was not. He was just saying that there were other problems too, like food security, drought and water shortage and so on. But he is not a sceptic on climate change. Lord Stern, who wrote the Stern report together with a large team, devoted many pages to the economic analysis of the effects of climate change. He and his team reviewed the science. He said it is not in dispute. The government of the U.K. (United Kingdom) have accepted that view as have the governments of all major countries. So the debate is over in terms of the science. I just want to finally say that this is about protecting our people. It is about the Council of Ministers acknowledging and taking on board the results of Copenhagen. Deputy Le Fondré said what were the results? I did allude to them in my speech. I said quite clearly that the

results were the consensus that has now been achieved around the science, the depth of the cuts that we need and the fact that we should move soon, not as and when. I want to close by referring to Deputy Duhamel's speech, the Assistant Minister for the Environment, which I thought was one of the best speeches I have heard from him. I did find it moving and I am not often moved in this House. By referring Members to what is at stake here is our global conscience. It is about us being citizens of the world. That is really the nub and the point of this debate. I am just going to close with a quotation that was sent to me this morning in an email. This is a statement by the Apollo 9 astronaut, Rusty Schweickart, which picks up the image used yesterday by the good Assistant Minister: "We are not passengers on space ship earth. We are the crew. We are not residents on this planet. We are citizens. The difference in both cases is responsibility." I commend the proposition to the House.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for then in relation to the proposition of the Deputy of St. Mary. I invite Members to return to their seats. The Greffier will open the voting.

2. Draft  Banking  (Depositors  Compensation)  (Amendment)  (Jersey)  Regulations  200- (P.207/2009)

The Bailiff :

We  come  next  to  the  Draft  Banking  (Depositors  Compensation)  (Amendment)  (Jersey) Regulations - P.207 - lodged by the Minister for Economic Development. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

The Draft  Banking (Depositors Compensation) (Amendment)  (Jersey)  Regulations 200-. The States, in pursuance of the Order in Council dated 28th March 1771, have made the following Regulations.

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):

The Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 2009 were approved by the States in November 2009 and immediately brought the D.C.S. (Depositor Compensation Scheme) into law in Jersey. Offences relating to the D.C.S. are described separately under the Banking (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 2009. This amendment will amend the Offences Regulations to inset a standard offence relating to the disclosure of restricted information. This offence was originally included in the draft principal D.C.S. Regulations, but the Law Officers advise that it would fit more appropriately in the Offences Regulations.

[9:45]

The draft  amendment will therefore  insert the contents  of the previous Regulation 14 of the Depositor Compensation Scheme Regulation into the Offences Regulations. This will make it an offence to disclose information received under the D.C.S. without the consent of the person from whom the information was received, subject to certain specified exceptions. It is clearly desirable that the Board administering the D.C.S. should be able to share information freely with other safety net participants. So as an exception to the general restriction on disclosing information the Board will be able to pass relevant information to certain specified persons, namely to the Viscount, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the administrator of the failed bank, the Minister for Economic Development,  the  Jersey  Financial Services  Commission  and  also,  where  the  purpose  of  the discussions is to assist the D.C.S. Board to discharge its functions or to investigate a suspected offence or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, to assist with any D.C.S. legal proceedings, to comply with a court order, to obtain advice on the performance of the Board and to co-operate with other  D.C.S.  schemes  in  foreign  jurisdictions. There  are  further  exceptions  to  the  general restriction where the information being disclosed is already in the public domain or  is in an anonymised or summary form from which no information specific to particular individuals could be ascertained. The penalty for the offence is imprisonment for up to 2 years and/or an unlimited fine. The Law Officers' Department has considered the proposed offence and confirmed that it is human rights compliant and that the proscribed penalty is consistent with similar existing offences. I propose the principles of the Regulations.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour :

I would just like to ask the Minister, with regards to the offence whether this is similar to other jurisdictions and their D.C.S. schemes for offences such as this for a penalty of 2 years and whether it is common practice in financial services for this type of offence for 2-year imprisonment and whether it complies with data protection laws currently in Jersey.

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Yes, I can confirm that my understanding is that the offences are similar to others in place. It is common practice to have this type of provision. Certainly it does meet best practice with regards to data protection. So, all those factors are in the affirmative. So I maintain proposition.

The Bailiff :

All those Members in favour of adopting the principles kindly show? Those against? The principles are adopted. Deputy Higgins, this falls within the purview of your Scrutiny Panel.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel): Yes, we have reviewed it and we are happy with it. Let it go forward.

The Bailiff :

Very well. There are only 2 Regulations, Minister, do you wish to propose them together?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Do you wish to say anything about them?

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

No, just that they are very straight forward. Hopefully they are explained clearly, so I will take them en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Does any Member wish to speak on any of the individual Regulations?

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

Yes, very quickly. Why under 1(b) would there be a necessity to disclose information to a Minister? I do not see how he or she ends up in the loop of the process.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Minister to reply.

2. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

That was quite simply in a position prior to the Board being put in place, the Minister would obviously take that role.

The Bailiff :

Very well. All those in favour of adopting Regulations 1 and 2 kindly show? Those against? The Regulations are adopted. Do you propose the Regulations in the Third Reading?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Third Reading? The appel is called for in relation to the Regulations in Third Reading. Very well. I invite Members to return to their seats. The Greffier will open the voting.

3. Draft  Pharmacists  and  Pharmacy  Technicians  (Registration)  (Jersey)  Law  200- (P.209/2009)

The Bailiff :

P.208 has been withdrawn, therefore the next matter on the Order Paper is the Draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians (Registration) (Jersey) Law - projet 209 - lodged by the Minister for Health and Social Services. I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians (Registration) (Jersey) Law 200-. A Law to regulate the practice of pharmacy, to provide for the regulation of pharmacy technicians and for connected purposes. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

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

The Draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians (Registration) Law before Members today seeks to revise and update the necessary requirements, the registration of pharmacists in Jersey and also introduce the registration of pharmacy technicians. Registration of pharmacists is currently subject to the provisions of the Pharmacy and Poisons (Jersey) Law 1952. Registration in Jersey is currently gained following an application to the Royal Court, which satisfied the requirements in this 1952 Law. The basic requirement for registration is that the applicant must be registered as a pharmacist in Great Britain with the pharmacy regulator, currently the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, but soon to be the newly established General Pharmaceutical Council. The basic requirement will be maintained in the draft Law where the conditions for registration will be specified by Order. Currently under the 1952 Law there are no provisions to temporarily suspend a person's registration or impose conditions on their registration and therefore their practice as a pharmacist. Such provision, such as requiring a pharmacist to only practice under supervision of another pharmacist for a period of time may be considered necessary to protect the members of the public or thought to be necessary in the interests of the registrant. The only provision in the 1952 Law is cancellation of a person's registration by the Royal Court or on the motion of the Attorney General where the registrant's general practitioner registration has been cancelled or where the registrant has been found guilty of a criminal offence or such was his conduct, as in the opinion of the Royal Court, renders him unfit to be a pharmacist. There is no mechanism for a person to voluntarily remove themselves from the register. This limited ability to cancel a person's registration has resulted in the current register containing the names of pharmacists who first registered in the 1890s and are now deceased. The register has therefore become increasingly inaccurate and unreliable over the years. The draft Law, therefore, provides a more robust and flexible governance framework in relation to pharmacist registration and is consistent with recent changes in provision governing registration as a pharmacist in Great Britain. The specific provisions contained in the draft Law are detailed in the report accompanying the proposition. Over recent years the role of the pharmacy technician has increased and many of the functions previously undertaken by pharmacists are now safely and efficiently undertaken by appropriately trained pharmacy technicians. Examples of activities include the dispensing of

prescriptions, the accuracy-checking of dispensed prescriptions which have been approved by a pharmacist to make sure they have been dispensed with what a doctor or dentist prescribed and the counselling of patients about their medicines. The registration of pharmacy technicians was introduced in Great Britain in 2007. It is considered desirable to introduce similar provisions in Jersey in order to ensure good governance arrangements exist in relation to the activities undertaken by pharmacy technicians with the same aim of future safeguarding for the public. Once registered, pharmacy technicians will be subject to mandatory C.B.T. (computer-based testing) requirements in order to keep them up to date and maintain their fitness to practice. The provisions governing registration of pharmacy technicians contained in the draft Law are similar to those for the pharmacy registration, with the basic requirement again being registered with the Great Britain Pharmacy Regulator. Once again they are consistent with the provisions governing registration of pharmacy technicians in Great Britain. In summary, the introduction of the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians (Registration) (Jersey) Law will update and improve upon the provisions of a more than 50 year-old Pharmacy and Poisons Law. The new Law is considered to be essential to provide adequate registration and governance framework for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians working in a modern health care environment. I maintain the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Minister outline whether or not alternatives were presented  for appeals to a body intermediary between the Minister and the Royal Court or does it always have to be the Royal Court to which the appeal is made, given the enormous powers she will be taking upon herself as a result of this Law? Secondly, is there evidence, given the ominous tone that runs through the Law, that there is widespread abuse going on in certain ways with pharmacists and technicians? If so, what is the nature of this concern? Thirdly, but I will come to it under 17, the registration of technicians seems to be put in a very circular way.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? Very well. I call upon the Minister to reply.

2. The Deputy of Trinity :

It is provided that the responsibility of registration of pharmacists is transferred from the Royal Court. It is felt that better because on advice the Minister will be able to maintain that register. Regarding abuse, I recall there has only been one incident in previous years. But, as I have said, there is no way of getting anybody off the register, so if a pharmacist has been dead for quite a few years, we do not know that unless we are informed. So by having to register each year we have a very much up to date register, which is important. I am sorry, but I cannot remember the third point.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

That is all right, I will come to that, but if I may have, in the words of the Deputy of St. Mary, a point of clarification. What happens if somebody is struck off the list in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, how does that information ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, that is your second speech, Deputy . You had not raised that in your first one. You will have to raise that under one of the Articles. Yes, very well. All those in favour of adopting the principles, kindly show? Those against? The principles are adopted. This matters falls within the Health, Social Security and Housing Security Panel. Senator Breckon, do you wish to refer to the matter?

Senator A. Breckon (Chairman, Health, Social Security and Housing Security Panel): No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well, then we will move on to the individual Articles. Do you wish to propose them in parts, Minister, in other words, Part 1 Articles 1 to 3 and we will proceed in that way?

The Deputy of Trinity : I can do, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Very well, do you wish to now propose Articles 1 to 3?

2. The Deputy of Trinity :

Article 1 provides basic definitions used in the Law. Article 2 requires the Minister for Health and Social Services to keep a register of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. Article 3 requires the Minister to make these registers available to the public for inspection. I maintain the Articles.

The Bailiff :

Are Articles 1 to 3 seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of Articles 1 to 3? Very well. All those in favour of adopting Articles 1 to 3 kindly show? I am sorry, Deputy Jeune , did you wish to speak?

Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

I am not sure if this is the right time or place to bring it up. Under Part 3 ..

The Bailiff :

No, no, I think we are only in Articles 1 to 3 at the moment, so Part 1. But if you are coming to Part 3, that is Articles 15 onwards, you can mention that at the appropriate time. All those in favour of adopting Articles 1 to 3 kindly show? Those against? Articles 1 to 3 are adopted. Do you then wish to take Part 2, Minister, that is Articles 4 to 14?

[10:00]

3. The Deputy of Trinity :

This is just registration of pharmacists. I would like to point out that registration of pharmacy technicians is mirrored in the first part, Part 2. But I shall go ahead with Part 2, registration of pharmacists. The provisions relating to the registration of pharmacists contained in Part 2, they are a separate Law in order to provide flexibility in case the provisions differ in future. Article 4 makes it an offence for a person to hold himself out as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician unless they are registered. Article 5 sets out how a person may apply for registration as a pharmacist. Article 6 sets out the circumstances when the Minister shall register a person as a pharmacist. Article 7 empowers the Minister to impose conditions on a person's registration as a pharmacist where it is thought necessary to protect the public or the interests of the registrant. Article 8 provides the Minister to issue a certificate to a registered pharmacist. Article 9 allows a registered pharmacist to apply to be removed from the relevant register. Article 10 sets out the circumstances in which the registration of a pharmacist shall or may be cancelled by the Minister. Registration can be cancelled if a registrant ceases to fulfil the requirements for registration. If this registration was obtained by fraudulent means or when a registrant fails to submit an annual return within 60 days of being requested to do so, registration may be cancelled. If a registrant has failed to comply with any condition imposed on the registration or where the registrant is convicted of an offence or has engaged in conduct of that kind in the opinion of the Minister, it makes the registrant unfit to be a pharmacist. Article 11 sets out the circumstances in which the registrant of a pharmacist shall be or may be suspended by the Minister. Registration must be suspended whenever a person's registration is suspended by their regulatory body in the U.K. Registration may be suspended where they appear to be on grounds for cancellation of registration pending the investigation of those grounds. Suspension may be only for a period of 3 months, but this is renewable by further decision of the Minister. Article 12 provides that where a person's registration has been cancelled and the Minister has directed that the person should not be re-registered within a specific period, the person may apply to have that direction amended. Article 13 describes a person's right of appeal against the decision of the Minister in respect of a person's registration as a pharmacist, also the power of the Royal Court on that appeal. Article 14 requires a registered pharmacist to make an

annual return to the Minister in order to maintain their registration. I maintain the Articles.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on any of Articles 4 to 14? Deputy Le Hérissier?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

This could fall under several but, for example, under 6, could the Minister tell us the process by which a check is made to ensure a person has not been struck-off or there has not been an adverse report made on them from another register, for example, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Could she also identify where, if she were to use her cancellation or suspension I think it falls under this one. Could she identify a case that would lead to long-term suspension in her view?

2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :

Under Part 2, 4(1)(b) a person shall not represent himself or herself as having any qualification or authority to practice as a pharmacist. Some people would have that qualification, but may not wish to be working in Jersey. This would prevent them, would it, from stating that they are a registered pharmacist? Would that be compliant with Human Rights Article 2?

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well. I call upon the Minister to reply.

3. The Deputy of Trinity :

With regard to being struck-off the register, as Deputy Le Hérissier said, it is only if someone comes to be suspended that they would be struck-off and the appeal process is there. I think in one of the Articles it says it is only for a 3-month period and then it can be reviewed. That is under Article 11. Checks will be made with the U.K. Pharmacist Regulator before registering a pharmacist locally. So they have to be registered in the U.K. If they are registered, like in Ireland first, they still have to go through the U.K. regulatory body before they will be accepted on this register. With that in mind, I would like to answer Deputy Jeune 's question. They cannot be registered on the local list until we had made checks that they are registered on the U.K. regulatory body first. So it is like a double check. They would need to be upgraded or apply for registration update every year. That is important, so we know exactly which pharmacists there are on the Island, as I said before. The list goes back to the 1890s and there is no way of taking somebody off the list unless they let us know. I think that is very important to have a very active up to date list, so we know exactly who is practicing in Jersey.

Deputy A.E. Jeune :

If I may, my question was not quite answered, insomuch as a person could well be a qualified registered pharmacist elsewhere, not particularly wishing to work in Jersey, but they would not be allowed to identify to anybody that they were in fact a qualified pharmacist. Similarly, to equate it with something else, if you were a registered doctor in the U.K. but not practising in Jersey or registered in Jersey, you would not be able to call yourself a doctor.

The Deputy of Trinity :

They still would have to be registered in the U.K. to be registered on the local list until the I am trying to get this right. You have to be registered in the U.K. If they wish still to practice over here, they are still a pharmacist in their own right, because they have been through pharmacy training, et cetera, to enable them to be on the U.K. pharmacist list in the U.K. first of all. If they wish to be on the Jersey list then they can be on the Jersey list, providing they are on the U.K. list first. Registrants are then allowed to practice in Jersey.

The Bailiff :

Very well. All those in favour of adopting the Articles contained in Part 2 of Articles 4 to 14 kindly show? Those against? Articles 4 to 14 are adopted. Do you wish then, Minister, to propose the Articles in Part 3, that is Articles 15 to 25? If any particular Member has a problem, they can take a vote separately. But do you wish to propose all the Articles?

The Deputy of Trinity : Yes, please, Sir.

Very well, carry on.

4. The Deputy of Trinity :

Again, the provisions relating to the registration of pharmacy technicians are mirrored as in Part 2. They are separate in Law - that is important - to provide flexibility in case the provisions differ in the future. Article 15 makes it an offence for a person to hold himself or herself as a pharmacy technician unless they are registered. Article 16 sets out how a person may apply for registration as a pharmacy technician. Article 17 sets out the circumstances when the Minister should register a person as a pharmacy technician. Article 18 empowers the Minister to impose conditions on a person's registration as a pharmacy technician where it is thought necessary to protect the public or the interests of the registrant. Article 19 requires the Minister to issue a certificate to a registered pharmacy technician. Article 20 allows for a registered pharmacy technician to apply to be removed from the relevant register. Article 21 sets the circumstances of which the registration of a pharmacy technician shall or may be cancelled by the Minister. Registration should be cancelled if a registrant ceases to fulfil the requirements for registration. If the registration was obtained by fraudulent means or the registrant fails to submit an annual return within 60 days of being requested to do so, registration may be cancelled. If the registrant has failed to comply with any condition imposed on their registration or where the registrant is convicted of an offence or has engaged in the conduct of a kind that, in the opinion of the Minister, makes the registrant unfit to be a pharmacy technician. Article 22 sets the circumstances in which the registration of a pharmacy technician shall or may be suspended by the Minister. Registration must be suspended whenever a person's registration is suspended by their regulatory body. Registration may be suspended where there appear to be grounds for cancellation of registration pending the investigation of those grounds. Suspension may be only for a period of 3 months, but this is renewable by further decision of the Minister. Article 23 provides that where a person's registration has been cancelled and the Minister has directed that the person should not be re-registered within a specific period, the person may apply to have that direction amended. Article 24 describes a person's right of appeal against the decision of the Minister in respect of a person's registration as a pharmacy technician, also the power of the Royal Court on that appeal. Article 25 requires a registered pharmacist to make an annual return to the Minister in order to maintain their registration. I

maintain the Articles.

The Bailiff :

Are Articles 15 to 25 seconded? [Seconded]  Does any Member wish to speak on any of Articles? Deputy Le Hérissier?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

First of all, could the Minister outline the qualifications required, because Article 17 does not identify those, it simply says the "prescribed requirement" and refers people to another part of the Law which does not again define them? Secondly, given what we - the Island - has just been through and the Health Ministry in particular, I wonder if the Minister could talk about the powers of the professional bodies. When she says if she were to suspend somebody is that an absolute move or are we going to see what we have seen recently, all sorts of inquiries starting up with other bodies involved and so forth, to the extent that the whole thing just becomes a total confusion. I wonder if she could make it clear that when she suspends, say a pharmacy technician, that suspension holds and we are not going to get the intervention of other bodies or referrals to other bodies so that the decision starts looking very fragile, should we say.

2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

Just quickly as well, can the Minister please clarify the difference  between a pharmacist and pharmacy technician, please?

3. Deputy A.E. Jeune :

If I may, I come back again to 15(1)(b) and raise the same issues that I raised under the pharmacist registration to try and get the answer I am looking for regarding if somebody is qualified but not practicing in Jersey.

[10:15]

I do not know what a pharmacy technician is called, but let us call it that you would have the initials P.T. that you could use after your name. If you are in Jersey and you have a business card and it says P.T., because that is a qualification you hold, registered somewhere else, but you are not looking for work in Jersey, will they be prevented from doing that?

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Minister to reply.

4. The Deputy of Trinity :

The role of a pharmacy technician has been developed in the U.K. since 2007 and they see it as an important step to help with the role of the pharmacist. Yes, they do go through training. That training has to be continued. They have a body in their own right, I think, but it is also important that they are registered. It is important that they are registered in the U.K. body who oversee their registration to make sure they are competent, et cetera. It is the professional body. Nobody can be registered over here unless they have gone through the full remit of their own professional bodies in the U.K. To pick up the point from Deputy Le Hérissier, if there was a suspension, that suspension would go to the regulatory body in the U.K. The regulatory body will make further investigation. It would not be over here, it would be referred straight to the U.K. regulatory body. Suspension can be used as an interim measure while the U.K. regulatory body considers the case as a stopgap if there is any problem to the members of the public. But that suspension is only an interim one. It is referred straight up to their own U.K. regulatory body in the U.K. Trying to pick up from Deputy Jeune 's point, they are registered in the U.K. What we are trying to do here is to put good governance in. This is a very old Law and it has not been updated since 1952. It is important especially with the introduction of pharmacy technicians, which is a new role. They go through their own training and continue professional development, which is important now for any professional body, so that they are regulated by all the regulatory bodies over here as well. I maintain those articles.

The Bailiff :

Very well. All those in favour of adopting Regulations 15 and 25 kindly show? Those against? They are adopted. Minister, finally, do your propose Part 4, that is Articles 26 to 30?

5. The Deputy of Trinity :

Article 26 makes an offence to make a false or misleading statement, provide false or misleading information, forge a document or use a forged document or forged identity in connection with registration as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. Article 27 enables notices to be served by post under the Law. Article 28 provides for the consequential amendment of other enactments. Article 29 empowers the Minister by Order to prescribe any matters for the purposes of the Law. Article 30 provides that the Law shall come into force one month after it is registered.

The Bailiff :

Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Articles 26 to 30? Very well. All those in favour of adopting Regulations 26 and 30 kindly show? Those against? They are adopted. Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading, Minister?

6. The Deputy of Trinity :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Third Reading? Deputy Le Hérissier?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just to reconfirm my concern about the while we all realise that of course the last few days have, in a sense, given us ammunition for this. While we all realise the Minister or some person has to have strong powers in case there is abuse going on, I am worried about the rights of appeal, they do not again we have a situation where a person's livelihood could be taken away and they then have to basically go straight to the Royal Court and they may not have the wherewithal to do that. I would have liked some kind of intermediate step in order that that could be dealt with. I wonder if the Minister could outline what her department does. When they, for example, are getting information about a pharmacist or technician whose performance is causing cause for concern, what steps they take where it is not necessary to go for immediate suspension? The other thing I would like to ask, does this mean we all know about the row of applications which are kept behind the counter, so to speak, does this mean that persons who advise you about these things now have to be either pharmacists or pharmacy technicians? So the people one meets in pharmacies now will, on one sense or another, all be qualified or will there be a third brain, for example, or is it all now becoming much more controlled? The last thing, is what is the situation in Jersey that is going to other parts of the United Kingdom about the ability to opt out around issues like the "morning after" pill. What is the situation in Jersey with pharmacists in that regard? Do they have the right to opt out?

The Bailiff :

Are these not all points you should have raised when discussing the principles on the second reading? This is the Third Reading.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I could have, Sir, but as the thing has become clearer and more focused ..

The Bailiff :

You mean as you thought about it.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: Yes.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak in Third Reading? Deputy Fox.

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

Just a point of clarification, really, regarding the appeal to the Royal Court and the costs, et cetera.

The Bailiff :

That is another matter surely, Deputy , which should have been raised on the Second Reading. If Members are now having second thoughts and thinking of points they wished they had raised during Second Reading, that is not what Third Reading is for, so I am sorry. Sorry, Deputy ? [Aside] Not as yet. I am sorry. I appreciate that Members like to have their questions answered but we have to have proper debates and the Second Reading is the time to raise these points. Very well, all those in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading kindly show? The appel is called for in relation to the Third Reading. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

4. Waterfront Planning Application: Zephyrus Scheme (P.1/2010)

The Bailiff :

So we come next to the Waterfront Planning applications: Zephyrus Scheme - Projet 1/2010 - lodged by the Deputy of St. Mary and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Minister for Planning and Environment, before determining the application for the development known as Zephyrus' on the Waterfront, shown on the drawing attached at Appendix 1, to – (a) present to the States his formal response to the Key Findings and Recommendations of the Report of the Environment Scrutiny Panel into the Environmental Impact Assessment process and any ongoing environmental issues, especially with respect to the Ramsar site, relating to the La Collette incinerator, which is to be presented to the States in due course, in accordance with the procedure newly agreed between the Chairmen's' Committee and the Council of Ministers; (b) present to the States a formal appraisal of the Environmental Impact Statement provided with regard to the planning application for the proposed Zephyrus scheme in the light of the Panel's report; (c) present to the States a report concerning one or more alleged breaches at the La Collette incinerator site currently under investigation by the Department under the Water Pollution Law; (d) report clearly to the Assembly the lessons which have been learned from the events at La Collette and Castle Quays and the measures which he and his Department will enact in order to tackle all the issues which have come to light.

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

The Constable of St. Peter, Deputy Hill and myself are directors of W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) and we are advised that we should not take part in this debate.

The Bailiff :

If you take yourself out.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

Before the Deputy starts, could I just ask for a ruling with regard to information that was distributed to Members yesterday morning from the Deputy of St. Mary. Much of this information is, I suppose, part of an investigation which is being taken by the Water Regulator and I ask under Standing Orders, either 107 or 104(g), whether you would rule as to whether I should be responding to this information in the Chamber this morning or not, because I find it very difficult to take that independent view?

The Bailiff :

Well, I have not seen this material, I do not think, have I? But, what is quite clear is that this debate may not venture into areas which are the subject of investigation because clearly that would be possibly prejudicial to the investigation and to any proceedings which would follow. So, I think that Members must be very careful. They can refer to the fact that there is an investigation and a suspected infringement, as the Deputy has done in his report, but I do not think that Members should go into too much detail in any way that might prejudice that investigation or any court action that might follow from it.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I will therefore not be able to comment on the information that was distributed yesterday morning.

Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Could I make a point of order, Sir, under Standing Order 60, please?

The Bailiff :

Standing Order 60. Yes, you want to raise a point of order?

1. The Deputy of St. John :

It gives me no pleasure to have to request that the proposition does not go forward in its current format. There have been many errors in the Deputy 's proposition and under the original P.1/2010 there were quite a number which I drew to the proposer's attention, and he said he would amend them. Unfortunately, in the re-print there are still amendments which need to be made but have not been. I also drew this to the proposer's attention and I will refer to page 13 of the re-issued document where it is basically maligning the Chief Officer of Public Services, and I do not say that lightly. The Chief Officer of Public Services did not make these statements, it was a former Chief Officer and to have this recorded on local documents which are government documents - this one and the previous document - which have gone out worldwide page 13 of the re-issued version, to have gone out worldwide on the internet and otherwise, I think is wrong.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you are saying where it says the Chief Officer, Transport and Technical Services Department, that was not the Chief Officer of Transport and Technical Services?

The Deputy of St. John :

Correct, that is not the current Chief Officer and that is maligning the current Chief Officer. It is a former Chief Officer and I have drawn this to the Deputy 's attention.

The Bailiff :

But he was the Chief Officer at the time he gave this evidence before the Scrutiny Panel?

The Deputy of St. John : No, he was not.

The Bailiff :

He was not, okay.

The Deputy of St. John :

He had been elevated. He had been upgraded to another position across at another department and it is wrong to describe - in the first document that comes out in 2010 - where we have a Chief Officer, albeit he was acting until December, but at the time of this going to print there was an acting Chief Officer in place and I think it is wrong that this .. [Interruption] I am not giving way.

The Bailiff :

I just want to be clear. Was he the Chief Officer on 18th September 2009?

The Deputy of St. John :

No, he was not. He had not been the Chief Officer ..

The Bailiff :

Well, the person who said this: "No, I am sorry, you are making an assumption."

The Deputy of St. John :

He was not the Chief Officer. He had already been appointed to the Deputy Chief of ..

The Bailiff :

I see. Was he also still the Chief Officer or the Acting Chief Officer?

The Deputy of St. John :

No, and therefore that alone is maligning the current Chief Officer, because this document is out in the public domain, and if it is recorded as such, everything will be attributed to him in the future.

The Bailiff :

Just so I am clear, is the current Chief Officer, was he the Chief Officer on 18th September 2009?

The Deputy of St. John :

He was the Acting Chief Officer.

The Bailiff :

He was the Acting ..

[10:30]

The Deputy of St. John :

There had been a promotion in between and there was a 6-month period where he was acting and that is of real concern. It had been brought to the Deputy of St. Mary's attention by me and I asked him to correct this latest document because there were so many corrections and problems with the very first one. Secondly, he was asked not to mention the name of the adviser in a letter or an email, sent to him and he still mentions the name of the adviser. When you are asked not to do certain things by the chairman of a panel, it is for a Member to take note wherever possible, and I ask that before we deal with this on the floor of the Chamber, all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed in the right position because I do not believe we should be moving forward on this until everything has been put in place.

The Bailiff :

The adviser, you say, can you give me an example? What is the reference you are making there? You mentioned ..

The Deputy of St. John :

He had asked if you look on the bottom of page 6 it refers to our adviser, Mr. McGuiness, and the Deputy had been asked in writing not to use his name in any ..

The Bailiff :

By whom? By that gentleman?

The Deputy of St. John :

Yes, he was forwarded a copy of the email from the offices of my panel, not to use his name in the report that he had issued, and he still has re-issued this, and I forwarded you a copy of that email earlier. I think it is wrong that when you are requested .. these people have got no right of reply in this Chamber and I think it is wrong to put things into the public domain when it is .. but in particular the ..

The Bailiff :

This is the adviser to the Scrutiny Panel?

The Deputy of St. John : Correct.

The Bailiff :

Where he is quoting from advice that the adviser has given the Scrutiny Panel.

The Deputy of St. John :

He was, but he had agreed with me that he would remove those and he has not. It is very difficult. I know the Deputy 's heart is in the right place, but at the same time we have to be correct when we put these documents out to the public domain.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Perhaps I might be able to clarify? I think, in the interests of natural justice, I certainly should be able to respond to that. It is indeed unfortunate that these 2 errors remain in the document. Now, I was asked after the issue of P.1/2010 to .. it was pointed out to me that it was wrong to have the names of the adviser in the report and the names of people who gave evidence to the Scrutiny hearings, because names should not be used. Now, the reason they were there was because I copied them direct from the transcripts and transcripts, although they give the names and the titles at the beginning of the transcript, when they go on or certainly these transcripts, they use names throughout. Names are a lot shorter than the titles and I copied them, literally pasted them in when I used quotations from the hearings. Now I was apprised of this. I was told that these names were there and I was also told that it was inappropriate to quote and refer to a document from the adviser, his draft report in fact, in a report before he had finalised his draft report. So, I first asked the Greffe to remove all the names and with, for instance, the name of the adviser, one assumes they would do a search and replace and simply replace his name with his title, Adviser to the panel, or in fact I think I put Representative of the panel where it is a hearing. This particular instance, there is one instance on the bottom of the left-hand side somewhere, where his name appears. That, I am afraid, is not down to any lack of concern on my part that his name should not appear. It was an unfortunate error and the quotation from his report I removed in the re-issue, and indeed I also removed references to what the gist of some of the things he was saying about the environmental management plans, I removed those direct references to what the adviser said. In fact, he has not changed one jot or tittle of what he said and all those references will come back again, but the point is I did remove them. Now, the question of this unfortunate mistake about the - just trying to find my copy of the report - on page 13 where we have: "At the hearing on September 18th", this is page 13 and then the answers are attributed to the Chief Officer, Transport and Technical Services Department, this is an error. When I sent my email asking the Greffe to change the references to the named individual, I suggested what they should put, although obviously it is not for me to tell them what to put, but I suggested that it should be, I think I said: "The Former Chief Officer, Transport and Technical Services, now the Deputy Chief Officer of the States" and clearly an error was made and it appears in this form. I regret the error. I do not know, frankly .. that is the situation that we have but I think that to say that the debate should not go ahead on the basis of one