States Meeting Transcript - 13/09/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

MONDAY, 13th SEPTEMBER 2010

QUESTIONS......................................................................................7

1. Written Questions........................................................................7

1. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND CURRENT NORTH OF TOWN MASTERPLAN:...................7
2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGGARDING RURAL INITIATIVE GRANTS: ..................8
3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING PROBLEMS AT THE SATELLITE WASTE PLANT AT BONNE UNIT:............................................................15
4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING SCHEDULED FERRY SAILINGS AND THE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT WITH CONDOR:..................................15
5. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING LEGAL COSTS IN RESPECT OF FAMILY X:........................................18
6. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE LEASE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIBERATION STATION: .............................................................20
   7. TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD REGARDING THE LEASE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIBERATION STATION: .............................................................................21
7. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING SUCCESSION PLANNING FOR THE HOSPITAL MANAGER'S POST:.....................................................22
8. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING MANAGEMENT CHANGES FOLLOWING THE APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES:..................................................................22
9. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF THE NAPIER REPORT:....................................22
10. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF THE DRAFT INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT NO. 35) (JERSEY) LAW 200-':...........23
11. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SHIP2ME AND ME:MO INITIATIVES AT JERSEY POST:........................................................................24
12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REMUNERATION OF THE CEO, HR AND FINANCE DIRECTORS OF JESEY POST:............................................24

14. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE ALBERT QUAY AREA: .................................................................................25
15. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PRIVATISATION OF THE POSTAL SERVICE:..............................................................................25
16. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING JERSEY POST'S REDUNDANCY POLICY:..........26
17. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADVISOR AT JERSEY POST: ..................................................................................26
18. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING BLOOD SCREENING PROGRAMMES: .................26
19. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE C.S.R. CUTS TARGET IN RESPECT OF DEPARTMENTS' NET AND GROSS EXPENDITURE:..............28
20. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING TOURISM EXPENDITURE FOR PLANNING AND RESEARCH': ..........................................................................28
21. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND

RESOURCES REGARDING THE 6 MAJOR C.S.R. REVIEWS:......................31

2. Oral Questions...........................................................................32

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Chief Minister regarding the establishment of suggestion schemes:................................................................................32 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................32

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................33
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................33

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Minister for Housing regarding access to the Rent Control Tribunal:.......................................................................33 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade (The Minister for Housing):..................................33

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................33
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................34
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35

6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................35
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:....................................................36
8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................36

3. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the 6 in-depth reviews of the biggest spending areas and departments:.......37 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................37

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................37
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................37
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................38
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................39
7. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................39

2.4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the cost of advertising with the J.E.P. and the Jersey Gazette to States departments:............................................................................39 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources -

rapporteur):.............................................................................40

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................40
2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................40
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
   5. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding Health and Safety compliance in the States property portfolio:...............41 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):.............................................................................41

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................41
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................41
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................42
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................42
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................42
6. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................42
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................43

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the introduction of the zero component of the Zero/Ten policy for non-finance companies:43 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................43

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................44
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................45
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................45
7. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................46
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................46

7. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding wild cat' industrial action by Condor staff at the Harbour:.............................46 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................46

2.7.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................46

8. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the targeting of public funding:.............................................................47 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................47

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................47
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................47
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................48
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................48
5. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................49

9. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding an extension of the U.K. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:..............49 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................49

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................49
2. The Deputy of St. Martin...............................................................50
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................50
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................50
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................50
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................51
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................51

10. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the impact of budget spending cuts on the vulnerable:..............................................51

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................51

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................52
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................52
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................52
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................53
5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................53
6. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................53

11. The Deputy of St. John of the Minister for Economic Development regarding Condor's winter sailings to St. Malo:.............................................................54 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):.........................54

1. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................54
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................55
3. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................55
4. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................55
5. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................55

12. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding a review of Article 26(1) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961: ....................................................56 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................56

2.12.1 The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................57

13. The Deputy of St. Mary of the Chief Minister regarding the provision of organisational charts of departments:..................................................................57 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................57

2.13.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................57

14. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the terms of the voluntary redundancy package offer made to workers by JerseyPost:..............58 Deputy E.J. Noel (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):..............58

1. Deputy T.MPitman:.................................................................58
2. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................58
3. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................59
4. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................59
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................59
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................60
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................60
8. Deputy T.MPitman:.................................................................60

3. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Housing ...................60

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................61 Deputy S. Power (The Minister for Housing):................................................61
2. Deputy T.MPitman:....................................................................61
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................61
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................61
5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................62
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62

3.6.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................62

7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................63
8. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................63
9. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:.....................................................63
10. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................64
11. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................64

4. Questions to Ministers Without Notice - The Minister for Planning and Environment ...........................................................................................64

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................64 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................65
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................65
3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................65
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................65
5. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................66
6. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................66

4.6.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................66

7. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................67
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................67
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................67
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................67
11. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................68
12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................68

5. Urgent Oral Question....................................................................68

5.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding discussions about reducing the number of departments and outsourcing/privatising essential areas:....................68 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):.................................................68

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................69
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................69
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................69
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................70
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................70
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................71
8. Deputy A.T. Dupre:....................................................................71
9. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................71

10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................71
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................72

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................72

6. Statement by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding town flooding..................................................................................72

6.1 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):...............................................................................72

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................73
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................73
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................73
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................73
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................74
6. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................74
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................74
8. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................74
9. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................75
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................75
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................75

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS....................................................76

7. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter (Vice-Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................76

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................76
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................76

8. Public Sector cuts and alternative taxation measures (P.113/2010) - proposal to bring forward debate before Annual Business Plan..........................................78

8.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................78

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................78
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................79
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79 The Deputy of St. Mary:......................................................................81

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................81

9. Jersey Financial Services Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.116/2010).81 [Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................82

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................82

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

[14:45]

QUESTIONS

1. Written Questions

1. DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND  ENVIRONMENT  REGARDING  THE  VARIATIONS  BETWEEN  THE ORIGINAL AND CURRENT NORTH OF TOWN MASTERPLAN:

Question

In the original Masterplan for the North of St Helier how many square metres of accommodation and vergées of open space were proposed and how many are expected now?

Answer

The answers are tabulated to make cross-reference easier.

Residential Accommodation (approximate m² (gross))

Site Original Masterplan Revised Masterplan Gas Place 7,600 0

Ann Court 12,300 15,000 Minden Place 2,250 2,250

Jersey Gas Site 0 24,000

Total 22,150 41,250

In addition there are numerous opportunities for additional housing development on other sites identified in the Revised North of Town Masterplan

Public Amenity Space (approximate m²/vergees)

Site Original Masterplan Revised Masterplan

m² vergees m² vergees Town Park 10,900 6 12,710 7 Belmont Gdns 550 0.3 550 0.3 Ann Court 2480 1.36 2,480 1.36 Minden Place 260 0.14 260 0.14 Old Fire Stn 400 0.22 400 0.22 Total 14,590 8.02 16,400 9.02

2. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGGARDING RURAL INITIATIVE GRANTS:

Question

Would the Minister advise to whom the grant for vodka production has been made and under what terms?

Would he state how many grants have been made under the Rural Initiative Scheme since 2006 and advise–

1. for what purpose the grants were made?
2. what were the recipients names?
3. what was the value of each grant?
4. whether recipients had benefited from other grant schemes administered by the Department or former Agriculture and Fisheries Department and, if so, how many, for what purpose and to what value since 2000?
5. whether funds must be matched pound for pound by recipients and, if so, how is this monitored and would the draw off of spend be expected to be equal?
6. have any of the recipients had funding from the former Agriculture and Fisheries Department for research into areas currently beinggranted aid undertheRural Initiative Scheme, and, if so, which?
7. whether the Minister read the 2004 reports financed by the former Agriculture and Fisheries Department and Jersey Potato Marketing Board investigating the potential for vodka production in the Island and, if so, given the negative conclusions of those reports, why did he approve this grant?

Question

1. Would the Minister advise to whom the grant for vodka production has been made and under what terms?

Answer

Not at this stage, as this is commercial in confidence until the work is actually carried out. The grant is not for vodka production, but for research into the feasibility of artisanal production, in accordance with the specified terms and conditions applicable under the Rural Initiative Scheme ref:

http://www.gov.je/BENEFITS/GRANTS/INDUSTRYGRANTS/Pages/RuralInitiativeScheme.aspx Question

2. Would he state how many grants have been made under the Rural Initiative Scheme since 2006 and advise–

1. for what purpose the grants were made?
2. what were the recipients names?
3. what was the value of each grant?

Answer

Please see the following table in response to a, b & c.

I = Research, E = Enterprise & I = Industry – wide Question

4. whether recipients had benefited fromother grant schemes administered by the Department or former Agriculture and Fisheries Department and, if so, how many, for what purpose and to what value since 2000?

Answer

Of the above, the following have also benefited from previous grant schemes

Classic Herd Ltd 7,954.90 Meat Butchery

Classic Herd Ltd 20,000.00 Soft Cheese - Fresh and Ripened Brooklands Farm 377.69 1,622.31 Studying Curing and Brining Pork Brooklands Farm 13,087.50 Brooklands Butchery Room

La Mare Vineyards 7,122.66 Black Butter and Fudge

La Mare Vineyards 16,849.50 Jersey Cream Liqueur

Jersey  Fisherman's

Association Ltd 350.00 Line Caught Jersey Wild Fish /

Modular Organic plant raising to service Grass Roots Organic 1,010.57 local growers

Question

5. whether funds must be matched pound for pound by recipients and, if so, how is this monitored and would the draw off of spend be expected to be equal?

Answer

The following table from the current RIS application form shows the maximum level of funding available. Funds will not normally be allocated if the proposed project has received funding from other government schemes.

Applicants must provide a minimum of 20% of the overall investment from their own resources, for example: cash reserves, sale of assets, or investment from members/shareholders.

The total public sector contribution is limited to 50%, except in exceptional circumstances when an Industry-Wide application is made; if other public funds are obtained to support the costs of a project these will be taken into account when considered the RIS application and may be off-set against any award made.

RIS grant awards are based on agreed business plans, which indicate the level of expected profitability over a 3 year period after receiving grant monies. Grants can only be drawn-down once the expenditure has been incurred, therefore the spend profile should be in equal proportions between the States and the business.

The projects are monitored by officers to observe the business in operation and the outcomes of the award.

Question

6. have anyof the recipients had funding from the former Agriculture and Fisheries Department for research into areas currently being granted aid under the Rural Initiative Scheme, and, if so, which?

Answer

Not to our knowledge. Question

7. whether the Minister read the 2004 reports financed by the former Agriculture and Fisheries Department and Jersey Potato Marketing Board investigating the potential for vodka production in the Island and, if so, given the negative conclusions of those reports, why did he approve this grant?

Answer

The conclusions of the Jersey Potato Marketing Board were not negative and contrary to the above appear to be positive e.g.

Executive summary, The Stage 1 feasibility study for the production of alcohol from the Jersey Royal Potato, August 2003 states;

Page 7, "There is therefore no reason why this should not become an important new industry within Jersey over the next few years"

Executive summary, Vodka Project Final Report, August 2004;

Page 4 "It is anticipated that the business will turn cash positive within 3-4 years of launch and will later be seeking to expand aggressively into other geographic markets".

Page 5 "..it is apparent that the range of branded super premium products that are enshrined within the plan, are likely to find favour in many areas of the target market place."

Page 8 "All of these opportunities seem to be viable, due to the good levels of profitability that are predicted to be in place over that timescale".

The current vodka project is on an entirely different scale to the earlier proposal and involves the offer of a £11,225 for trials and market research for the production of artisanal vodka under the Rural Initiative Scheme. Following a successful trial, production of premium vodka would start in April and continue until July each year.

3. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING PROBLEMS AT THE SATELLITE WASTE PLANT AT BONNE UNIT:

Question

Following ongoing odour problems at the satellite waste plant at Bonne Nuit and the reduction in the quality of the bathing water to below acceptable bathing quality standards on a number of days during the summer season, will the Minister acknowledge the guarantee made by his predecessor at a St. John Parish Assembly when the plant was built, that, should the satellite prove problematic, efforts would be made to connect the area to the mains system via an additional standby waste pipe line along Les Charrieres de Bonne Nuit and, if so, will he indicate when the work will be undertaken?

Answer

I would firstly like to state that the package treatment plant at Bonne Nuit is and has been producing a very high quality effluent. Even when we have had problems the system retains the effluent and we tanker back to Bellozanne to guarantee environmental protection in this sensitive area of the north coast. Before discharge into the sea to the north of the breakwater the effluent undergoes additional ultra violet treatment (similar to Bellozanne) to kill off bacteria and disinfect the effluent and so, protect the aquatic environment. This is an environmentally friendly means of disinfection. Weekly samples are taken by the regulator to monitor performance and the results are available if requested.

With regard to odour from the plant I would concur that this is an unpleasant issue which is exacerbated in the warmer summer months. This does cause odour nuisance to residents and visitors to the area and I would like to apologise to those people affected.

Odour is a difficult problem and my department have tried a variety of low cost solutions to eradicate the smells and we acknowledge that these solutions have not been fully successful to date. Therefore, we have committed to install a substantial odour control package plant to finally eradicate this nuisance.

With the current pressures on budgets and capital the replacement of Bonne Nuit Package Treatment plant with a pumping station, unfortunately, is not a high priority. Other work including the high priority Philips Street Shaft which would prevent flooding in St Helier is currently not funded. Therefore until a new source of capital funding is found we will not be changing the Package plant for a pumping station in the foreseeable future.

4. THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING SCHEDULED FERRY SAILINGS AND THE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT WITH CONDOR:

Question

Do Jersey Harbours maintain any records of late arrivals and departures of scheduled ferry sailings and, if so, on how many occasions in 2010 have any of the Condor ferries been delayed and would the Minister outline the reasons for the delays (i.e. weather, engine problem) in respect of the following –

1. longer than 30 minutes;
2. longer than 1 hour;
3. for longer than 2 hours;
4. for longer than 3 hours;
5. for longer periods?

When passengers are delayed what compensation is available to them?

When was the first Service Level Agreement put into place, how many times has it been renewed to date and what is the current date of expiry?

Will the Minister be reviewing any new Service Level Agreement and in doing so put the United Kingdom (UK) and St. Malo shipping routes out to tender?

If the shipping routes are not to go out to tender, will the Minister undertake to negotiate with Condor to increase the number of direct rotations to the UK?

Answer

Jersey Harbours maintains records of all sailing times and, in addition, Condor are also expected to provide performance data on a quarterly basis. The following breakdown has been provided by Condor covering over 1,100 ship visits during the 8 months to August. 84% of sailings were within 30 minutes of scheduled time. Only 1% (16 sailings) were delayed for over 2 hours or cancelled.

Summary Vessel Performance v Schedule: January to August 2010

Vessel Calls By Destination

Punctuality Poole Weym'th St Malo Portsm'th Total %

< 30 Minutes 34 220 359 333 945 84% 30-60 Minutes 33 24 13 29 99 9% 1-2 Hours 26 9 5 27 66 6% 2-3 Hours 1 2 1 1 4 0.3%

> 3 Hours 0 0 1 2 3 0.2% Cancelled 0 2 0 7 9 0.8% Total 93 255 378 398 1,124 100%

Delays are analysed under 6 headings as follows:

% Reason for All Delays > 30 Minutes

Delay Reason Poole Weym'th St Malo Portsm'th Total Technical 21% 39% 31% 8% 21% Catch Up* 44% 10% 21% 17% 25% Weather 5% 10% 0% 18% 10% Car Deck load 9% 15% 5% 22% 15% Port / Berth Congestion 15% 17% 38% 7% 15% Other 5% 8% 5% 29% 14% * Catch up' refers to delayed start time for the vessel from a previous route.

Question –

When passengers are delayed what compensation is available to them?

Answer:

Compensation is explained in Condor's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document, which is available on-line at www.condorferries.co.uk/Faqs . The detail is quoted as follows:

Do I get compensation if my sailing is delayed or cancelled?

In the event of delays or cancellations caused by adverse weather conditions, we do not offer any compensation. Customers should refer to their travel insurance policy for any claim entitlements. Customers can obtain a delayed travel declaration form at port on the day of travel, or apply in writing to the Condor Ferries' Customer Services at the address below.

In the event of technical problems with a service, Condor Ferries offers compensation for delays in departure in excess of 4 hours which are solely within the control of the Company and not compounded by other factors such as port tidal closures, port congestion or weather. Customers who experience a delay in excess of 4 hours are entitled to claim in writing to the Condor Ferries' Customer Service address below for the following amounts: 50% refund of the value of their ticket for the crossing affected plus £6.50 per person for provision of food and beverages.

Question

When was the first Service Level Agreement put into place, how many times has it been renewed to date and what is the current date of expiry?

Answer:

The first service level agreement with Condor was signed on 16 July 2001 and covered the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006. It covered routes to and from the UK only.

A new agreement, specifically for the St Malo route, was made on 1 August 2007 and was valid until 31 December 2008.

As a result of changes in the legislation a new permit was issued on 5 June 2008. This replaced both the existing agreement for the St Malo route and the expired agreement for the northern routes. This permit is valid until 31 December 2013.

Question

Will the Minister be reviewing any new Service Level Agreement and in doing so put the United Kingdom (UK) and St. Malo shipping routes out to tender?

Answer:

The Minister will review the existing policy, the permit and the associated conditions. This will be in conjunction with Guernsey and as a direct response to the recent Pan-CI consultation on ferry regulation (Competition, Licensing and Regulation in the Car and Passenger Ferry Market' published on 10 June 2010).

This consultation ran for twelve weeks and closed on 2 September. The associated survey attracted three hundred and seventy two (372) responses which are now being collated and analysed. Additionally, there were eleven formal written corporate responses and a further eight from individuals.

Until that analysis is complete and the Minister has discussed matters with his counterparts in Guernsey, no decision can be made about whether or not a tender for routes would be appropriate.

Question

If the shipping routes are not to go out to tender, will the Minister undertake to negotiate with Condor to increase the number of direct rotations to the UK?

Answer:

Given that no decision has been taken as to whether a tender process would be desirable, this question cannot yet be answered.

However, the following background information may be of interest: Between May and the end of September there is a direct service from Poole to St Malo via Jersey, and back. Since May this year, Condor have operated a total of 91 direct high speed craft sailings from Jersey to the UK or UK to Jersey.

Additionally, the Commodore Clipper operates a direct service northbound overnight, six days a week and year round.

In winter generally, it should be noted that there is no shortage of capacity on the UK routes. It is also a geographical fact that Jersey is further south than Guernsey. So, it is not surprising to find that most winter services involve a stop in Guernsey.

5. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING LEGAL COSTS IN RESPECT OF FAMILY X:

Question

Would H.M. Attorney General advise which legal firms have been involved in representing and advising Family X and the individual members of Family X and the Crown in respect of this case and how much each legal firm have been paid from 1st January 2008 to date?

Answer

H.M. Attorney General is not responsible for the appointment or payment of legal firms in public law cases and keeps no records about the level of remuneration paid. This information is held by the Deputy Judicial Greffier who is responsible for the payment out of public funds of lawyers in public law children's cases. In order to assist members the Deputy Judicial Greffier has advised as follows:

The case concerned public law children proceedings instituted by the Minister for Health and Social Services in respect of children of Family X and subsequent judicial review and appeal proceedings.

At the commencement of the proceedings and pursuant to Article 72 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, the Royal Court appointed (1) an independent (social worker) guardian for the eldest children of the family; (2) another independent (social worker) guardian in respect of the youngest children; (3) an advocate from the firm of Hanson Renouf to represent the eldest children; and (4) an advocate from Appleby to represent the youngest children. The social worker guardians were supplied by the NSPCC.

An advocate from Bedell Cristin and an advocate from Vibert s were appointed by the Bâtonnier under the legal aid scheme to represent the father of some of the children of Family X and the mother of all the children respectively.

The total expenditure from public funds on the case amounted to £606,606.80. This figure includes all lawyers' fees, all costs of the Guardians and all costs of expert reports ordered by the Court etc.

Payments made to Hanson Renouf include costs of experts' reports and assistance from English counsel.

Each of the law firms and the NSPCC received payments in the bands set out below:-

Payment to the Court appointed lawyers acting for the children (Appleby and Hanson Renouf ) was made on a different basis to the payment made to the lawyers appointed by the Bâtonnier under the legal aid scheme to act for the parents (Bedell Cristin and Vibert s).

In the latter case payment was made on the basis that the case represented an unduly onerous legal aid obligation for the appointed legal aid lawyers. The amounts paid to Bedell Cristin and Vibert s reflect the fact that (a) the first 60 hours of work was not remunerated; (b) payment was made at the Court approved rate for legal aid appeals in criminal cases, and (c) payment was made for two- thirds of time spent on the case having discounted the first 60 hours unremunerated work.

The hourly rates specified by the Court during the years 2008 and 2010 in relation to legal aid appeals in criminal cases equate to hourly rates ranging from £132.50 to £141.00 for an advocate who is salaried and hourly rates ranging from £165 to £175 for an advocate who is a partner.

Following a decision of the Royal Court in the case of B –v- J [2008] JRC102 payment to the Court appointed lawyers for the children was to be made on the indemnity basis. On the indemnity basis all costs are recoverable except those unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount and any doubt as to reasonableness is resolved in favour of the receiving party - in this case the lawyer.

Following negotiations between the Deputy Judicial Greffier and the lawyers acting for the children payments were made at an hourly rate below the rate that would have been applicable for award of costs on an indemnity basis1. During the relevant period the hourly rate on an indemnity basis for a salaried advocate, barrister or solicitor would have been £300 or more and the hourly rate for an advocate who was a partner between £375 and £400. The agreed hourly rates were reduced to £265 for a salaried advocate, barrister or solicitor and £336 for a partner. In addition a deduction of 10% of the time claimed was made prior to payment of the fee note.

In the recent judgment of the Deputy Bailiff in the case In Re B (Separate representation of minors in public law children cases) 2010 JRC150 (17th August 2010) the Royal Court has ruled that for all

future cases the costs of the court appointed lawyers shall be assessed on the standard (rather than the indemnity) basis. On the standard basis any doubt as to reasonableness is resolved in favour of the paying party e.g. public funds. The Deputy Bailiff also recommended that until such time as appropriate hourly rates could be negotiated with the Treasury the rates should be the same as the legal aid rate for appeals in criminal cases.

1 In the related judicial review proceedings in which Hanson Renouf were involved payment was made at the lower legal aid rate.

6. SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING THE LEASE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIBERATION STATION:

Question

Will the Minister advise whether Liberation Station is leased and, if so, will he advise –

1. the length of the lease to which the Transport and Technical Services Department are committed?
2. The 2010 rental liability?
3. Whether the Department has agreed any rent increases in future years and, if so, will he provide details?

4. Whether there is the possibility of any future overage payments or miscellaneous costs payable to the lessor?

Answer

I can confirm that Liberation Station is leased from the Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) by the Public through Property Holdings, and can respond to the Senator's specific points as follows:

1. The current lease commenced on 30th September 2007 and is for a period of 9 years, terminating 29th September 2016.
2. The 2010 rental liability is £100,000.
3. The lease agreement provides for a 3 year rent review cycle, the last "Market Rent" review was 30th September 2009 and the agreed rate is set until 30th September 2012.
4. No, none other than those set out in the lease agreement which is on a fully insuring and repairing basis.

1.7.  TO THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD REGARDING THE LEASE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIBERATION STATION:

Question

Will the Minister advise whether the Jersey Tourism building in Liberation Place is leased and, if so, will he advise –

1. the length of the lease the Economic Development Department is committed to?
2. The 2010 rental liability?
3. Whether the Department has agreed any rent increases in future years and if so will he provide details?
4. Whether there is the possibility of any future overage payments or miscellaneous costs payable to the lessor?

Answer

I can confirm that the Jersey Tourism Office at Liberty Wharf is leased from "Islands Developments Limited" by the Public through Property Holdings, and can respond to your specific points as follows:

1. The current lease commenced on 1st July 2007 and is for a period of 21 years, terminating 30th June 2028.
2. The 2010 rental liability is £109,300
3. The lease agreement provides for a JRPI rent reviewthis year and once again in 2013, with three yearly "Market Rent" reviews thereafter.
4. No, none other than those set out in the lease agreement which is on a fully insuring and repairing basis

8. DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING SUCCESSION PLANNING FOR THE HOSPITAL MANAGER'S POST:

Question

What procedures, if any, are in place for a successor to be appointed upon the termination of the Interim Hospital Manager's contract?

Answer

This is an important role within the Health and Social Services Department and there is a need to ensure that appropriate cover and an updated job description are in place. The replacement options for the interim Hospital Director are currently being considered and these include extending the current arrangements, appointing on a fixed term contract or recruiting permanently. It is expected that the preferred option will be agreed by the end of September, following consultation with the Appointments Commission.

9. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING MANAGEMENT CHANGES FOLLOWING THE APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES:

Question

What consequential management changes, if any, have occurred following the appointment of a Director of Community and Social Services?

Answer

The Director of Community and Social Services has been in post since 23rd August 2010. In the short period since his arrival, he has spent the majority of his time meeting key colleagues and visiting health and social care establishments and voluntary organisations.

Having undertaken this initial programme of visits he is now engaging with Senior Managers to review their roles and responsibilities with a view to recommending on new structural arrangements for the Community and Social Services area. This work will feed into the overall Health and Social Services management improvement plan which will be finalised and published in early December in accordance with the Deputy 's proposition P.13/2010 which was unanimously approved in May of this year.

10. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF THE NAPIER REPORT:

Question

Given that the Napier Report, that the Chief Minister hoped could be completed in six weeks, is now many months overdue and mindful that the Wiltshire Report was also more than a year overdue, cost the taxpayer a seven figure sum, yet did not result in any disciplinary proceedings, will the Chief Minister now clarify the following –

1. when will the Napier Report be published and be made available to Members?

2. upon publication will the Chief Minister ensure that States Members receive a copy in advance of the media?
3. will the Napier Report be published in full and not in a redacted' form?
4. how many draft versions oftheNapierReport have been written in arriving at the final version?
5. has the final version been altered in any way as a result of input from those individuals receiving so-called Scott letters'?
6. has the Deputy ofSt. Martin been kept fully informed, involved and made aware ofall material and developments at all stages of Mr. Napier's investigation, as was agreed when the process was set in place; and if not, why not

Answer

1. Mr Napier advised me last week that the final report would be with me today, but so far I have not yet seen it. Until such time as I have received and considered it I cannot give a definite date for its publication.
2. When the report is ready for publication, I will ensure Members receive a copy before the media.
3. I hopetobein a position topublishthefullreportbutuntil I amableto complete a thorough review ofthe final report I cannot give that assurance as it is only fair and reasonable that anyone named in the report having given evidence, but not directly involved in the suspension process, is given appropriate protection from any adverse publicity.
4. I do not knowhow many draft versions have been produced as I have not received any draft copies of the reportbut I understandthat a draft wasproducedandsenttoallofthose people who were involved in the suspension process where Mr Napier had comment to make on their participation.
5. I do not know if Mr Napier has made any alterations as a result ofthe feedback he has received from those to whom he circulated a draft copy.
6. The Deputy of St Martin and I have been in correspondence at various stages ofthe review and he has been kept aware of progress and developments.

11. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OF THE DRAFT INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT NO. 35) (JERSEY) LAW 200-':

Question

Given that during the meeting on 20th July 2010 when debating P.68/2010 Draft Income Tax (Amendment No 35) (Jersey) Law 200-' the Minister did not inform Members why the proposed Law was Convention compliant and what Article(s) were relevant, but the Assistant Minister promised to make that information known, will the Minister now provide the answer?

Answer

Advice is received by Ministers from the Law Officers' Department on whether draft laws are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Ministers make statements of compatibility based on this advice.

In this case, the Draft Income Tax (Amendment No 35) (Jersey) Law 200- was considered Convention compliant because it applied the existing Income Tax Law (which already applied to partnerships) to the new partnership laws. The Law Officers' Department advised that the new partnership laws were Convention compliant.

12. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SHIP2ME AND ME:MO INITIATIVES AT JERSEY POST:

Question

Will the Minister, as the representative shareholder, advise how much it cost Jersey Post to set up the Ship2Me and me:mo initiatives, outline their respective running costs and profits to September 2010 and advise whether the two initiatives are viewed as a success and whether they will be run in the future?

Answer

I require Jersey Post's Board of Directors, along with all States owned companies, to provide efficient, effective and affordable services to islanders, whilst providing an appropriate financial return to the States as shareholder.

The Board is responsible for running the company and meeting these objectives and is held to account for doing so. It is not appropriate to publish detailed analyses of the company's operations.

13. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REMUNERATION OF THE CEO, HR AND FINANCE DIRECTORS OF JESEY POST:

Question

Will the Minister advise, as representative of the Shareholder, whether the remuneration of the CEO, HR and Finance Directors of Jersey Post are in excess of their counterparts in the U.S. postal service, one of the largest postal services in the world?

Answer

Remuneration of executive directors is a matter for the company's Remuneration Committee.

The company's Remuneration Committee sets the framework for the remuneration of the Company's Executive Directors. The Committee comprises at least three independent non- Executive. The Committee produces an annual report of the Company's remuneration policy and practices which will form part of the Company's annual report.

14. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE ALBERT QUAY AREA:

Question

Given that in his answer to a written question on 19th July 2010 he described the potential costs of making the Albert Quay area a 'restricted access' area - preventing boy racers and the playing of loud music whilst still permitting recognised port users and those who simply wish to fish from the quay to be excessive' would the Minister outline those costs and undertake to investigate how many ports around the world manage to enforce restricted access areas?

Answer

As in ports around the world, there are already four permanent restricted access areas at the port of St Helier at the Elizabeth Terminal, Albert Terminal, New North Quay and La Collette Tanker Berth. These areas are defined and managed in line with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS). The maintenance of these zones is part of the core business of running a commercial port.

As stated in the answer to the written question in July and in further discussions with residents over the summer, the decision to restrict general public access to an area of the harbour is not something that should be taken lightly and would not normally be considered unless for health and safety or security reasons. The public are generally welcome in all other areas of the harbour and legitimate users of the Albert Pier include the RNLI, ambulance service, visiting yachtsmen, small businesses, the passenger terminal, private parking and fishermen.

If it was decided to enforce the southern part of the Albert Pier as a restricted zone, it would be necessary to install gates at all access points to the Pier and in order to allow legitimate users to enter the area, the gates would have to be manned. The costs associated with this would likely be in the region of £70,000 to construct one gate and manning costs dependent on the times the area would be closed. Every hour the gates are manned would cost approximately £6,250 per annum. These costs are for one gate only and do not include barriers to the north to close the footpaths or the tunnel to the south.

Although we have great sympathy with the residents and will continue to work with them to provide cost effective measures where possible, the appropriate way to resolve the current problems would be to increase police involvement to control the noise issue and discussions will continue to this end.

15. DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PRIVATISATION OF THE POSTAL SERVICE:

Question

Is it the Minister's intention to ultimately pursue the privatisation of the postal service? Answer

There are currently no plans to privatise Jersey Post.

16. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES REGARDING JERSEY POST'S REDUNDANCY POLICY:

Question

Will the Minister, as the shareholder representative, advise what the criteria was to access Jersey Post's redundancy package and whether the package was changed from a first offer of two weeks pay per year served plus 20%, to a second offer of two weeks pay per year served and no additional 20%?

Answer

This is a commercial matter for the Board of Jersey Post and not a matter for the shareholder.

I expect all States owned companies to be responsible and fair employers. I have not reviewed the detail of any redundancy packages, nor is it appropriate that I do so. The detail of any redundancy is a matter for the company, individual employees and their representatives.

17. DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADVISOR AT JERSEY POST:

Question

Will the Minister, as the shareholder representative, clarify whether one individual was recently being paid more than £14,000 per month by Jersey Post to act as an advisor' and if so, what precisely was the individual's role; how was he appointed; what financial benefit/increased profits did his input generate; and what was the total sum the individual received over the period of his contract?

Answer

I require Jersey Post's Board of Directors, along with all States owned companies, to provide efficient, effective and affordable services to islanders, whilst providing an appropriate financial return to the States as shareholder. It is not appropriate for the shareholder to be involved in individual commercial contracts, nor is it appropriate that these are publicly reported.

Remuneration of executive directors is overseen the company's Remuneration Committee. The Committee produces an annual report of the Company's remuneration policy and practices which will form part of the Company's annual report that it is put to the shareholder for approval at the AGM.

The Board is responsible for entering into commercial contracts for services and advice as appropriate. These contracts and the advice and services provided under them are commercially confidential. It is not appropriate for the shareholder to be involved in individual contracts; this is a matter for the Board.

18. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING BLOOD SCREENING PROGRAMMES:

Question

What screening programmes, if any, are currently carried out by the department and is UAT (Unlinked Anonymous Testing) of blood samples, which allows for information to be gathered about the prevalence of HIV, one of the screening programmes?

If it is not, can the Minister explain what the benefits are of UAT and why it is not currently undertaken?

Answer

Breast and cervical cancer screening programmes are well-established in Jersey. Other screening programmes in Jersey include:

• chlamydia screening

• antenatal screening

• new born babies' screening

• diabetes screening.

Unlinked Anonymous Testing for HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus) has not been introduced in Jersey. This system has been well established in the UK since the early 1990s and has provided invaluable information about the extent of HIV infection in the population that has yet to be clinically diagnosed. The process involves unlinking' remnants of blood samples taken for other purposes from their identities, and testing anonymous batches to measure what proportion have HIV infection. Individuals cannot be identified after the unlinking'. The proportion of unlinked samples shown to be HIV infected is then compared with the known proportion of clinically diagnosed HIV in the particular community.

The UK programme has shown that for every two people with HIV infection in the UK who know their diagnosis, there is one more HIV infected person whose infection has not yet been clinically diagnosed. This data has been of tremendous importance in the UK in helping increase the uptake of voluntary, confidential named' testing for the virus. The extent of undiagnosed HIV infection in Jersey is likely to be just as high as the proportions observed in the UK.

However, over the years there has been major progress in knowledge about HIV. Rather than introduce a new UAT programme now in Jersey (which would have required a prolonged study), we have decided there will be more benefit in following the new UK approach which is to further improve the rate of HIV diagnosis through normalisation of HIV testing.

• The big change since the early years is that HIV is a treatable disease with a good outlook if diagnosed early.
• A quarter of people diagnosed annually in the UK are diagnosed too late for effective treatment.
• Late diagnoses accounts for about a third of HIV deaths.
• Many of those diagnosed late had had contact with healthcare professionals in the preceding year, so it's likely that opportunities to offer testing for HIV had been

missed.

• Improved detection will help reduce onward transmission.

Recent UK national guidance recommends different approaches to offering HIV testing, depending on the likely prevalence of undiagnosed HIV in the community. Jersey is very likely to be a low prevalence area. For a community like ours, the new guidance is that HIV testing should be on the same footing as any other investigation offered routinely to patients who either have symptoms, or possible risk factors that indicate it is appropriate.

The threshold for suggesting an HIV test to patients should be exactly the same as for any other test that assists a doctor in reaching a diagnosis. It has long been the case that there is no need for specialist pre-test counselling.

Our previous plans to introduce UAT in Jersey were mainly to pave the way to increase voluntary testing as above. The debate has now moved on. All doctors in Jersey have now been provided with advice and guidance about the new approach to normalising HIV testing from our Consultant Microbiologist / Consultant in Communicable Diseases.

19. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE C.S.R. CUTS TARGET IN RESPECT OF DEPARTMENTS' NET AND GROSS EXPENDITURE:

Question

Can the Minister explain the difference in the C.S.R. cuts targets of 2%, 3% and 5% applying to departments' net expenditure and gross expenditure?

Can the Minister confirm that the information by department in the Annex to the Annual Business Plan is a comprehensive list of all the income, however generated, which then goes towards offsetting a given department's gross expenditure?

Answer

The C.S.R. targets totalling 10% will reduce the net expenditure of the States. The £50 million target was initially based on 10% of the 2010 gross expenditure budget excluding Social Security, given that the latter department's expenditure is almost all Supplementation (which is being considered as part of the Fiscal strategy) and Income Support. However, Social Security will now contribute to achieving the overall target.

Departments were specifically requested to come forward with proposals to reduce their gross budgets by 10% so that increased income/revenue could be considered over and above savings and provide some political choice in which proposals to support.

I can confirm that the information given in the Annex to the Business Plan lists all departmental income. There are other income sources such as States Income (including taxation, impots, Stamp Duty and the Island Rate) which is not attributable to individual departments as well as special funds and bequests which have their own rules regarding income and expenditure.

20. THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING TOURISM EXPENDITURE FOR PLANNING AND RESEARCH':

Question

Given that in the budget for Tourism an expenditure line for "Planning and research" has hovered around £1 million over the last 7 years, peaking at £2 million in 2007 and £1.4 million in 2008, would the Minister explain exactly where this money was spent in those two years?

Answer

The budget (as presented in the EDD Annual Business Plan) for the Planning & Research area of Jersey Tourism may vary from year to year depending on the studies to be undertaken.

In presenting the accounts for Jersey Tourism in the Jersey Tourism annual reports the figures also include some spending from more corporate areas that do not fall into any other particular activity centre. Some of these can be one off costs such as the Island rebranding in 2007 and varying amounts for route marketing which support the development of new air routes mixed with the annual grants to the Jersey Conference Bureau and Bureau de Jersey.

Appendix to Question 5611 (Question 20)

2008 Actual 2007 Actual £000 £000

Corporate

Strategy and Policy  1,224 1,794 Research and Planning 186 253 Communication

Advertising and Media 1,845 2,247 Distribution 191 214 Marketing Services 431 551 Product Development 906 989 Market Development

Public Relations 562 549 Trade Relations 977 386 Consumer and Media Relations 675 885 Visitor Services 324 282 Net Revenue Expenditure £7,322 £8,150

Note: The above figures include direct salaries and an allocation of Economic Development Department (EDD) overheads

Key Financial Results

Total net revenue expenditure for 2008 decreased by £838,000 (-10%) when compared with 2007. Part of the decrease can be attributed to the move to UK GAAP, where the cost of 2009 Tourism brochure has been carried forward into 2009 and effectively reduced expenditure by £268,861 in addition during 2007 there was one off expenditure in relocation and Island Branding.

Corporate expenditure decreased by £637,000 (-31%)

The decrease in Corporate Strategy and Policy expenditure was mainly due to one-off costs in 2007 including the relocation to the new Tourism Building at Liberation Place (£675,000) and Island Branding (£120,000) Corporate Research and Planning expenditure decreased by £67,000 due to the Visitor Exit Survey in 2007, which is only conducted once every few years.

Communication expenditure decreased by £628,000 (-16%)

During  2007  Communications  Advertising  included  Trade  Relations  (£660,000).   However,  in  2008  due  to  its importance it as reported separately under Market Development (see below). In line with UK GAAP the cost of 2009 Tourism brochures has been carried forward to 2009, effectively reducing expenditure by £263,861. Taking these factors to one side, Communications Expenditure increased by £235,000.

The increased spend related to £210,000 for additional advertising in response to the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry (HCAE), for which it received budget. The Tourism Development Fund paid £250,000 for HCAE Advertising costs which are reported separately in the Tourism Development Fund Annual Report.

Market Development expenditure increased by £437,000 (+21%)

The increase is mainly due to the change in reporting Trade Relations under Marketing Development for 2008 (see above).

Business Unit

NTC000  –Corporate  Strategy  – General

NTC001  –Jersey  Conference Bureau

NTC005  –Corporate  Strategy  – Committees

NTC010 –Ice Rink

NTC015 –Bureau de Jersey NTC020 –Island Branding NTC030  –Tourism  Strategy

Development

NTC040  –New  Business Opportunities

NTC055 –Town Centre Manager NTC050 –Airline Marketing NTC051 –Route Development NTC100  –Relocation  –

Liberation Place

Section

Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy

Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy

Strategy and Policy

Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy Strategy and Policy

Actual 2007

136,072.88 240,045.21 43,531.37

3,984.59 50,000.00 119,989.86 6,820.58

93,492.94

250,776.83 457,653.00 325,009.74

Actual 2008

84,448.82 230,203.00 0.00

15,286.56 50,000.00 217.00 0.00

77,240.29

9,956.03 3,571.91 726,390.27 0.00

Difference

-51,624.06 -9,842.21 -43,531.37

11,301.97 0.00 -119,772.86 -6.820.58

-16,252.65

9,956.03 -247,204.92 268,737.27 -325,009.74

NTC101  –Relocation  – Jubilee  Strategy and Policy 50,334.53 10,931.78 -39,402.75 Wharf

Overheads 16,136.36 15,549.24 -587.12 -570,052.99

NTM610  – T  &  M  – General Research and Strategy

-66,709.71

21. THE  DEPUTY  OF  ST.  MARY  OF  THE  MINISTER  FOR  TREASURY  AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE 6 MAJOR C.S.R. REVIEWS:

Question

For each of the 6 major C.S.R. reviews can the Minister advise –

1. are there both commissioners and advisers?
2. what are their respective roles?
3. when were they appointed?
4. who are they, what was the selection process, and how much are they being paid?
5. what  is  the  timeline  to which  they  are  working,  including  draft  reports, discussions with the reviewed department, second drafts, etc, and up to final  reports?

Answer

Of the 6 major reviews identified under C.S.R., 5 are now underway. The Social Security review will be undertaken alongside the main Income Support review later this year.

(a)+(b)Independent  Reviewers  have  been  appointed  to  chair,  and  participate  in,  the  Steering

Groups of the 5 reviews underway. I advertised for people to come forward who wished to contribute to the C.S.R. and I am delighted that 7 people are now involved with 5 chairing their respective Steering Groups. Professional advisers have also been appointed for 4 of the reviews to deliver detailed terms of reference specific to each review.

(c)+(d)The  Independent  Reviewers were  appointed  in  late  May/June.  The  details  of  the

professional advisers are as follows:

Major Review Who Is Doing It Commenced Cost Education Sport and Culture Tribal July 2010 £29,850 Home  Affairs  &  Court  &  Tribal / TQMI June 2010 £79.600

Case Costs

Terms & Conditions Tribal June 2010 £48,755

In addition to these costs, there is a standard £180 day rate for expenses. Each project was tendered for separately.

(e) The advisers'  reports  have  been, or  are  being,  finalised and presented to  the relevant Steering Group. Those groups are now drafting their own reports with their findings to be discussed at political boards set up on 21st September. These outcomes will be discussed in relation to the C.S.R. Part 2 process looking at savings in 2012 and 2013.

The Council of Ministers will publish details of its conclusion at the same time as the budget is lodged on 26th October 2010.

2. Oral Questions

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Chief Minister regarding the establishment of suggestion schemes:

Given that the Annual Business Plan 2010 required all departments to set up suggestion schemes, will  the  Chief  Minister  explain  what  actions,  if  any,  have  been  taken  to  implement  this requirement?

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

A number of suggestion schemes have been set up within departments. For example, Health and Social Services have set up a suggestion scheme to encourage staff to raise suggestions about how to do things differently, as well as efficiency ideas for the Comprehensive Spending Review. About  70  suggestions  have  been  received  so  far.   Transport  and  Technical  Services  have encouraged staff to come forward with suggestions and shared them with their Savings Review Group. They have published a newsletter which includes all the ideas and a preliminary response about the way to take each one forward. The States of Jersey Police currently have an intranet- based suggestions  board and suggestion boxes. They estimate that 50 suggestions have been received in the last year. In addition, there are other subjects for discussion forums. The Fire and Rescue  Service  has  a  practitioner's  forum  which  meets  quarterly  to  consider  proposals  for improving service delivery. Planning and Environment have had "Ask Andy" sessions where the Comprehensive  Spending  Review  has  been  discussed  and  sessions  where  the  C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) was the main topic. Additionally, the Chief Officer has sent various emails and messages inviting conversations and suggestions. Social Security has set up a C.S.R. suggestions mailbox and has had a range of suggestions for service and staff savings. Finally, the C.S.R. team have set up a direct email link from the C.S.R. intranet site for staff to email suggestions and these are being evaluated.

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Is there any facility for these to be anonymous suggestions, as they would normally be, and is there any facility for awarding rewards for good suggestions that are taken on board in any of these departments? Although these are not all schemes, we seem to have missed a number of departments like Education and so forth. When will the Ministers .. I have 3 questions there, I am sorry. Monetary rewards and when the proper scheme will be operational throughout the States.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Firstly, they can be anonymised through the intranet emails links. As far as rewards are concerned, there is no reason to preclude rewards but they are not specifically put out as an incentive to provoke requests. As far as other departments are concerned in bringing it all together, there will be different ways of doing these things, some of which may suit one department more than another. We can learn from the process that we have had so far and see what is the best way of doing this on a uniform, co-ordinated basis for the future.

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

From the extensive list and use of suggestion boxes supplied by the Minister, can I ask whether he has replaced consultation - full and meaningful consultation - with employee representatives over the C.S.R. with a series of suggestion boxes and invites for suggestions?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur : No, Sir.

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley of the Minister for Housing regarding access to the Rent Control Tribunal:

Further to my raising the matter of high rents charged in the private sector during the debate on 20th July 2010 on P.77/2010, and my subsequent exchange of emails with the Minister concerning the inability of many private sector tenants to use the Rent Control Tribunal due to restrictive clauses in their leases, could he advise what action, if any, he proposes to take to remedy this situation?

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade (The Minister for Housing):

I do acknowledge an exchange of emails between myself and the Senator at the end of July. There are some issues with a small number of landlords in the private rental sector, however I would point out to the Assembly that the Dwelling Houses (Rent Control) (Jersey) Law, which practises best tenancy agreement, has the important 6 points to underwrite the agreement between the landlord and the tenant and these are: a cap on rent increases to no more than the retail price index; a cap on the level of deposit to no more than the rental payment period; that no rent be payable if the premises are unfit for purpose or unfit; that premiums cannot be levied legally including as to services, including the sell-on of utility charges and as to notice periods, giving 6 months' notice in writing to longstanding tenants. However, as the Senator will know from his current career and his previous career, we do not live in an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world and there are a number of small problems out there.